Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
FEMA nehrp
FEMA 440
IMPROVEMENT OF NONLINEAR STATIC
SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
June, 2005
Notice
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessar-
ily reflect the views of the Applied Technology Council (ATC) or the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA). Additionally, neither ATC, DHS, FEMA, nor any of their employees makes any war-
ranty, expressed or implied, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, complete-
ness, or usefulness of any information, product, or process included in this publication. Users of
information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use.
Forward
One of the primary goals of the Department of those current products. This document is a resource
Homeland Security’s Federal Emergency Manage- guide to capture the current state of the art for im-
ment Agency (FEMA) and the National Earthquake proved understanding of NSPs and to generate fu-
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) is to encour- ture improvements to those products, and as such,
age design and building practices that address the should not take precedence over those products.
earthquake hazard and minimize the resulting dam-
age. This document, Improvement of Nonlinear Looking ahead, FEMA is already funding ATC to
Static Seismic Analysis Procedures (FEMA 440), perform additional studies of the cyclic and in-cycle
reaffirms FEMA’s ongoing efforts to improve the stiffness and strength degradation nonlinear models
seismic safety of new and existing structures in this and their impact on response and response stability.
country. Future FEMA-funded ATC studies will focus on the
differences between linear and nonlinear design for
The primary goal of this project was the evaluation short-period buildings and on soil-structure interac-
and improvement of the nonlinear static procedures tion. The results of these studies should be available
(NSPs) contained in the Prestandard and Commen- within the next four years, within the time frame for
tary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA submittal to a future update of ASCE 41.
356) and in the Applied Technology Council ATC-
40 report, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Con- FEMA is proud to have sponsored the development
crete Buildings, and the development of guidance on of this resource document through ATC. We are
when and how each methodology should be used to particularly grateful for work done by Project Direc-
avoid conflicting answers. FEMA initiated this tor Craig Comartin, the Project Management Com-
project with ATC based on reports of discrepancies mittee, the Project Review Panel, the Project Focus
between the two NSP methodologies. However, in Groups and Working Groups, and all of the other
the course of this project, several improvements to contributors who made this document possible.
both procedures were also identified and we thought FEMA also wishes to acknowledge the National
it in the best interests of the earthquake engineering Science Foundation (NSF) for their funding provid-
community to capture those improvements as part of ed through the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Re-
this state-of-the-art resource document. search Center (PEER) for the investigation of short-
period building response and soil-structure interac-
There are some potential differences between this tion. We also wish to acknowledge the NSF funding
document and other FEMA-sponsored products, of the research of Andrew Guyader on equivalent
such as the FEMA 356-based Standard for the Seis- linearization and the NATO science fellowship from
mic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings currently the Scientific Research and Technical Council of
being developed by the American Society of Civil Turkey that partially funded research by Sinan
Engineers (ASCE-41) and FEMA’s HAZUS stan- Akkar. This project is an excellent example of the
dardized loss estimation methodology, which uses interagency cooperation that is made possible
the procedures of ATC-40 in its fragility functions. through the NEHRP. All of the individuals involved
Some of this document’s recommendations con- in this project are listed at the end of this document,
cerning NSPs could bias selection of analysis proce- and FEMA gratefully appreciates their involvement.
dures to linear static procedures (LSPs) unless This product would not have been possible without
similar modifications are also made to the LSPs. their dedication and professionalism.
These differences are primarily for short-period
structures, and should not affect the ongoing use of Federal Emergency Management Agency
Knowledgeable engineers have long recognized that the improved applications of these two widely used
response of buildings to strong ground shaking caused inelastic seismic analysis procedures (ATC-55 Project).
by earthquakes results in inelastic behavior. Until
recently, most structural analysis techniques devised for The ATC-55 Project had two objectives: (1) the
practical application relied on linear procedures to development of practical recommendations for
predict the seismic behavior of buildings. With the improved prediction of inelastic structural response of
publication of the ATC-40 Report, Seismic Evaluation buildings to earthquakes (i.e., guidance for improved
and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, in 1996, the FEMA application of inelastic analysis procedures) and (2) the
273 Report, Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of identification of important issues for future research.
Buildings, in 1997, and the FEMA 356 Report, Intended outcomes of the project included:
Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings (which replaced FEMA 1. Improved understanding of the inherent assump-
273), in 2000, nonlinear static analysis procedures tions and theoretical underpinnings of existing and
became available to engineers providing efficient and proposed updated inelastic analysis procedures.
transparent tools for predicting seismic behavior of
2. Recognition of the applicability, limitations, and
structures.
reliability of various procedures.
Both the ATC-40 and FEMA 356 documents present 3. Guidelines for practicing engineers to apply the
similar performance-based engineering methods that procedures to new and existing buildings.
rely on nonlinear static analysis procedures for
4. Direction for researchers on issues for future
prediction of structural demands. While procedures in
improvements of inelastic analysis procedures.
both documents involve generation of a “pushover”
curve to predict the inelastic force-deformation The project was conducted in three phases over a 3-year
behavior of the structure, they differ in the technique time span. Phase 1 consisted of the assembly and
used to calculate the inelastic displacement demand for refinement of important issues relating to the
a given ground motion. The FEMA 356 document uses improvement of inelastic seismic analysis procedures.
the Coefficient Method, whereby displacement demand Activities included (1) the solicitation of input from
is calculated by modifying elastic predictions of researchers and practicing engineers, and (2) the
displacement demand. The ATC-40 Report details the development of study models of typical buildings to
Capacity-Spectrum Method, whereby modal stimulate discussion, facilitate analytical studies, and
displacement demand is determined from the provide example applications. Phase 2 consisted of
intersection of a capacity curve, derived from the analytical studies to explore selected key issues, the
pushover curve, with a demand curve that consists of generation of written discussions on important topics,
the smoothed response spectrum representing the and the development of examples of the application of
design ground motion, modified to account for inelastic analysis procedures. This phase also included
hysteretic damping effects. assembly of guidelines for the improved practical
implementation of the procedures. Phase 3 consisted of
The publication of the above cited documents resulted the report development process, under which this
in the widespread use of these two methods, and document was drafted, reviewed, and finalized.
engineers have since reported that the two procedures
often give different estimates for displacement demand This report (FEMA 440) is the final and principal
for the same building. Hence the Applied Technology product of the ATC-55 Project. The document has three
Council (ATC) proposed to the Federal Emergency specific purposes: (1) to provide guidance directly
Management Agency (FEMA) in 2000 that a study be applicable to the evaluation and design of actual
conducted to determine the reasons for differing results structures by engineering practitioners; (2) to facilitate a
and to develop guidance for practicing engineers on basic conceptual understanding of underlying principles
improved application of these two methods. FEMA as well as the associated capabilities and limitations of
agreed to fund the investigation, and in October 2000, the procedures; and (3) to provide additional detailed
ATC commenced a project to provide guidance for information used in the development of the document
for future reference and use by researchers and others.
A wide variety of personnel participated in the project. were members of the Focus Group on Displacement
The project was conducted under the direction of ATC Modification. The Focus Group on Equivalent
Senior Consultant Craig Comartin, who served as Linearization consisted of Terrance Paret, Graham
Project Director. Technical and management direction Powell, and Andrew S. Whittaker. Anil K. Chopra, Jon
were provided by a Project Management Committee A. Heintz, and Helmut Krawinkler served on the Focus
consisting of Craig Comartin (Chair), Christopher Group on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects, and
Rojahn (Ex-Officio member), Ronald O. Hamburger, Jacobo Bielak, Gregory L. Fenves, and James Malley
William T. Holmes, Wilfred D. Iwan, Jack P. Moehle served on the Focus Group on Soil-structure
and Jonathan Stewart. A Project Review Panel, Interaction.
identified by ATC with input from FEMA, provided
overview and guidance; this Panel consisted of Anthony Detailed work on the project was carried out by several
B. Court (ATC Board Representative), Leonard Joseph, Working Groups appointed by the Project Management
Daniel Shapiro, Steve Sweeney, Chia-Ming Uang, and Committee. The Phase 1 Project Working Group
Michael Valley. consisted of Joseph R. Maffei (Group Leader), Mark
Aschheim, Maureen Coffey, and Mason T. Walters. The
The Project Management Committee created four Focus Phase 2 Project Working Group consisted of Sinan
Groups to assist in developing findings on the following Akkar, Mark Aschheim, Andrew Guyader, Mehmet
specific subtopics: (1) displacement modification; (2) Inel, Eduardo Miranda, Junichi Sakai, Jorge Ruiz-
equivalent linearization; (3) multi-degree-of-freedom Garcia, Tjen Tjhin and Tony Yang. Peter N. Mork
effects; and (4) response of short-period buildings, with produced and formatted the electronic files from which
a specific focus on soil-structure interaction. The this report was printed.
purpose of the Focus Groups was to gather fresh
perspective from qualified sources that were not The affiliations of the project personnel identified
directly responsible for the project planning or the above are provided in the list of Project participants.
resulting recommendations. Focus Group participants
reviewed draft materials developed by the project team. The Applied Technology Council gratefully
They then attended a one-day meeting with acknowledges the cooperation, insight and patience
representative members of the Project Management provided by the FEMA Project Officer, Michael
Committee and the project team members responsible Mahoney, and the FEMA Technical Monitor, Robert D.
for the subject materials. The meetings allowed for a Hanson. ATC also gratefully acknowledges the
constructive discussion of the subject in general and National Science Foundation (NSF)for supplemental
critical feedback – positive and negative – on the draft funding provided through the Pacific Earthquake
materials. Focus Group members were also afforded an Engineering Research Center to conduct the
opportunity to comment on the final draft of materials investigation of the response of short-period buildings,
related to their area of expertise. It is important to note soil-structure-foundation interaction, and application of
that Focus Group members were not asked to endorse the proposed methods. NSF also provided funding for
the project process or the recommendations in the research of Andrew Guyader on equivalent
documents developed as part of the ATC-55 Project. linearization. A NATO science fellowship from the
These remain the responsibility of ATC and the Project Scientific Research and Technical Council of Turkey
Management Committee. provided partial support for research by Sinan Akkar.
This document records in detail an effort to assess The discussion provided in Chapter 2 includes basic
current nonlinear static procedures (NSP) for the descriptions of the two nonlinear static procedures that
seismic analysis and evaluation of structures. In currently are used in practice. FEMA 356 utilizes a
addition, the document presents suggestions that were displacement modification procedure (Coefficient
developed to improve these procedures for future Method) in which several empirically derived factors
application by practicing engineers. The elements of are used to modify the response of a single-degree-of-
work included several analytical studies to evaluate freedom model of the structure assuming that it remains
current procedures and to test potential improvements. elastic. The alternative Capacity-Spectrum Method of
An extensive review of existing pertinent technical ATC-40 is actually a form of equivalent linearization.
literature was compiled. A survey of practicing This technique uses empirically derived relationships
engineers with experience in applying nonlinear static for the effective period and damping as a function of
procedures was also conducted. Expert practitioners ductility to estimate the response of an equivalent linear
and researchers in appropriate fields worked together to SDOF oscillator.
develop the proposed improvements presented in this
document. The context for the work was provided by 2. Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static
two existing documents, the FEMA 356 Prestandard Procedures
and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, and the ATC-40 report, Seismic Evaluation In practice, the current procedures can result in
and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, each of which estimates of maximum displacement that are
contain procedures for nonlinear static analysis. These significantly different from one another. This has
procedures were both evaluated and suggestions for caused concern on the part of practicing engineers. One
improvement are made for each. Not all of the portions of the major objectives of the project was to ascertain
of the two current documents (FEMA 356 and ATC-40) the reason for these differences and to try to correct
were evaluated. Conclusions regarding the relative both procedures to produce similar results. Chapter 3
accuracy or technical soundness of these documents documents a comprehensive evaluation of both current
should not be inferred beyond the specific material and procedures. The basic technique was to develop a series
discussions contained in this document. of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom oscillators of
varying period, strength, and hysteretic behavior. These
1. Overview of Inelastic Seismic Analysis were subjected to ground motion representing different
Procedures site soil conditions. The resulting database of
approximately 180,000 predictions of maximum
Nonlinear static procedures are one type of inelastic displacement was used as a benchmark to judge the
analysis that can be used to estimate the response of accuracy of the approximate nonlinear static
structures to seismic ground shaking. The differences procedures. This was accomplished by comparing the
between the various approaches relate to the level of estimates for each oscillator from both nonlinear static
detail of the structural model and the characterization of procedures to the results of the nonlinear response
the seismic ground shaking. Detailed structural models history analyses. Differences in the two estimates were
can often be simplified into equivalent multi-degree-of- compiled and compared in a statistical study.
freedom (MDOF) models; or, in some cases, single-
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) oscillator models, as with 3. Strength Degradation
nonlinear static procedures. The most detailed
characterizations of seismic ground motion are actual The results of the evaluation of the nonlinear static
ground motion records that comprise accelerations, procedures suggest that both procedures would benefit
velocities, and displacements expected at the ground from greater clarity with respect to the different types of
surface at a specific site. A simplification can be made possible degradation in structures subject to seismic
by representing the effects ground motion has in the shaking. This is particularly critical for degradation in
frequency domain with response spectra that plot strength. Chapter 4 presents a discussion of the
maximum response of an elastic SDOF oscillator as a differences between the consequences of strength loss
function of period. This is the type of characterization within a single cycle of deformation (in-cycle) and that
normally used for nonlinear static procedures. which occurs in subsequent cycles (cyclic). In-cycle
strength degradation, including that associated with P-∆
effects, can lead to dynamic instability. To account for This study was not comprehensive enough to make
this, a limitation on the strength of a structure is broad general conclusions. However, a number of key
suggested for use with nonlinear static procedures. The observations can be made:
limit is a function of the period of the structure and the
• The improved procedures do not exhibit large
post-elastic stiffness characteristics as modified for in-
differences between displacement modification and
cycle strength degradation. If the structure has less
equivalent linearization approaches.
strength than the limit, nonlinear dynamic analysis is
recommended. • The improved procedures also produced more
accurate estimates of displacements when compared
4. Improved Procedures for to response history analysis (also known as time-
Displacement Modification history analysis) results than those produced by the
current nonlinear procedures.
Based on the evaluation of nonlinear static procedures,
Chapter 5 proposes modifications to the Coefficient • Improved procedures also seem to work well, at
Method of FEMA 356. The suggestions relate primarily least for the case that was studied, in estimating
to the coefficients themselves. Improved relationships maximum displacement response in conjunction
for coefficients C1 and C2 are proposed. It is also with a design spectrum.
suggested that the coefficient C3 be replaced with a • The results of the evaluation of the improved
limitation on minimum strength as suggested in the nonlinear procedures illustrate the dispersion of
previous section. results from nonlinear response history analysis
using design level ground motions.
5. Improved Procedures for Equivalent
Linearization 7. Soil-Structure Interaction Effects
Chapter 6 presents the results of an effort to improve the Chapter 8 presents procedures to incorporate soil-
practical application of equivalent linearization structure interaction (SSI) into nonlinear static analyses.
procedures. The resulting suggestions focus upon The objective is to replace the judgmental limits with
improved estimates of equivalent period and damping. rational technical justifications for reducing seismic
This chapter also includes an optional adjustment to demand. These SSI techniques address the following
generate a modified acceleration-displacement response issues.
spectrum (MADRS) that does intersect the capacity
spectrum at the Performance Point. Similar to the • radiation and material damping in supporting soils;
current ATC-40 procedure, the effective period and • response reduction resulting from structure
damping are both dependent on ductility and embedment in the ground (i.e., full and partial
consequently an iterative or graphical technique is basements); and
required to calculate the Performance Point. Several
options are outlined in Chapter 6. In application, the • incoherent ground-motion input to buildings with
improved procedures are similar to the current ATC-40 relatively large plan dimensions.
Capacity-Spectrum Method.
The basic principles used for the development of the
6. Evaluation and Comparison of SSI procedures for damping in Chapter 8 have been
Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures included in the FEMA 368 NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings
The improved procedures were evaluated in an and Other Structures (BSSC, 2000)1 for the linear
independent study. This study, summarized in analysis and design of new buildings for a number of
Chapter 7, utilized nine elastic-perfectly-plastic years. They have been adapted for use with inelastic
oscillators with three different periods and three procedures. Both the damping and ground motion
different strengths. These were subjected to thirteen procedures are applicable to both the displacement
ground motions for class C sites. Estimates of modification and equivalent linearization forms of
maximum displacements were calculated utilizing both nonlinear static analysis.
current procedures and the proposed improved
procedures.
1.Superseded in 2003 with the FEMA 450 Recommended
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings
and Other Structures.
• Nonlinear static procedures are not particularly 1. Nonlinear Modeling for Cyclic and In-Cycle Deg-
capable, however, of accurate prediction of radation of Strength and Stiffness
maximum story drifts, particularly within flexible
structures. 2. Soil and Foundation Structure Interaction
• Nonlinear static procedures are very poor predictors 3. Nonlinear Multi-Degree of Freedom Simplified
of story forces, including shears and overturning Modeling
moments.
10. Application Example
• The use of the first mode load vector is suggested
due to the relatively good displacement estimates Chapter 10 includes an example application of the
made with this assumption. recommended nonlinear static analysis procedures on
an example building. The application example includes
• Multi-mode pushover analysis consisting of the use a flowchart describing the implementation process,
of multiple load vectors proportional to the mode along with building plans, calculations, and
shapes of the structure and combining them commentary. The example illustrates both the
statistically shows promise in producing better displacement modification and the equivalent
estimates in inter-story drifts over the heights of the linearization procedures to estimate the maximum
buildings. displacement of a building model.
• The provisions of FEMA 356 as to when higher
modes are to be considered significant are not
particularly reliable.
Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 Project Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.3 Report Scope, Organization and Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Figure 2-1 Schematic depiction of the use of inelastic analysis procedures to estimate forces and
inelastic deformations for given seismic ground motions and a nonlinear analysis model
of the building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Figure 2-2 Schematic of a detailed 3-dimensional inelastic structural model developed from component
properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
Figure 2-3 Schematic depictions illustrating how inelastic component strength and stiffness properties
from test data are used to create idealized force-deformation relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Figure 2-4 Forms of simplified equivalent multiple-degree-of-freedom models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Figure 2-5 Schematics depicting the development of an equivalent SDOF system from a
pushover/capacity curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4
Figure 2-6 Factors affecting seismic ground motion and various ways to characterize ground motions
graphically. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Figure 2-7 Flow chart depicting the nonlinear dynamic analysis process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6
Figure 2-8 Incremental dynamic analysis study for thirty ground motion records for a 5-story steel-
braced frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Figure 2-9 Flow chart depicting simplified SDOF nonlinear analysis process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
Figure 2-10 Flow chart depicting the process followed in nonlinear static procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Figure 2-11 Matrix depicting possible inelastic seismic analysis procedures for various structural
models and ground-motion characterizations along with trends of uncertainty in the result. . . . . 2-9
Figure 2-12 Schematic illustrating the process by which the Coefficient Method of displacement
modification (per FEMA 356) is used to estimate the target displacement for a given
response spectrum and effective period, Te. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
Figure 2-13 Graphical representation of the Capacity-Spectrum Method of equivalent linearization,
as presented in ATC-40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-11
Figure 3-1 Basic hysteretic models used in the evaluation of current procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2
Figure 3-2 Comparison of experimental results (after Lehman et al., 2000) with the hysteretic
response computed with the SSD model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
Figure 3-3 Variation of period shift based on secant stiffness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Figure 3-4 Variation of κ-factor with the displacement ductility ratio, µ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Figure 3-5 Variation of equivalent (effective) damping ratios with changes in the displacement
ductility ratio, µ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
Figure 3-6 Variation of spectral reduction factors SRA for different hysteretic behaviors as a
function of the displacement ductility ratio, µ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Figure 3-7 Variation of spectral reduction factors SRV for different hysteretic behaviors as a
function of the displacement ductility ratio, µ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
Figure 3-8 Mean error associated with the Capacity-Spectrum Method of ATC-40 for hysteretic
behaviors types A, B, and C for site class C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Figure 3-9 Comparison of coefficient C1 in FEMA 356 with and without capping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
Figure 3-10 A close up view of the effect of the capping limitation of C1 coefficient. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Figure 3-11 Variation of mean C1 computed for the elastic perfectly plastic (EPP) model when
subjected to ground motions recorded on site class C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Figure 3-12 Mean coefficient C1 for site classes B, C and D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
This report documents the results of a project for the displacement demand for a given representation of
Department of Homeland Security’s Federal ground motion.
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) by the
Applied Technology Council (ATC) to evaluate and The development of this report was instigated by
improve the application of simplified inelastic analysis several factors. The use of NSPs in engineering practice
procedures for use with performance-based engineering has accelerated since the publication of ATC-40 and
methods for seismic design, evaluation, and upgrade of FEMA 356. Consequently, there is valuable information
buildings. Chapters 1 through 9 summarize the available on the practical application of these inelastic
developmental efforts and results in concise language to analysis procedures. In addition to experience with the
facilitate application of the project findings in practice. initial application of these performance-based methods
Chapter 10 contains a summary and a practical by practicing professionals, ongoing research promises
application example using the improved procedures. important modifications, improvements, and
Supporting information describing the project findings alternatives to current NSPs.
in detail are provided in the appendices.
There has also been a large national investment in
This document has been published in two formats: (1) a performance-based engineering, because of the tangible
printed version, which summarizes the developmental prospect of vastly improving seismic design practices.
efforts and project findings and includes the application The future effective use of performance-based
example (Chapters 1 through 10), and (2) a complete engineering depends on the continued development of
version of the report on CD-ROM (inside back cover), reliable and credible inelastic analysis procedures.
which includes all of the material in the printed version
plus six appendices containing project results and The intent of the ATC-55 project has been to gather the
findings. The printed version of the report is relatively results of practical experience and relevant research and
brief to facilitate use by design professionals. to develop guidance for improving the application of
nonlinear static analysis procedures to both existing and
1.1 Background new structures.
During the past decade, significant progress has been 1.2 Project Purpose and Scope
made in performance-based engineering methods that
rely on nonlinear static analysis procedures (NSPs). In The purpose of the ATC-55 project was to evaluate
1996, ATC published the ATC-40 report, Seismic current NSPs, as described in FEMA 356 and ATC-40
Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, which and to develop improvements where feasible. The
was developed with funding from the California primary objectives were:
Seismic Safety Commission. In a larger project funded
• to improve understanding of the inherent
by FEMA, ATC (under contract to the Building Seismic
assumptions and theoretical underpinnings of
Safety Council) prepared the FEMA 273 Guidelines for
existing and proposed new simplified analysis
the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, and the
procedures;
companion FEMA 274 Commentary, which were
published in 1997 by FEMA. Soon thereafter, the • to recognize the applicability, limitations, and
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) prepared reliability of various procedures;
the FEMA 356 report, Prestandard and Commentary
• to develop guidelines for practicing engineers on
for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (the
how to apply the procedures to new and existing
successor to FEMA 273/274), which was published by
buildings; and
FEMA in 2000. All of these documents present similar
approaches. FEMA 273 and FEMA 356 use a procedure • to provide direction for researchers on issues to
known as the Coefficient Method, and ATC-40 details consider for future improvements of simplified
the Capacity-Spectrum Method. The two approaches inelastic analysis procedures.
are essentially the same when it comes to generating a
“pushover” curve to represent the inelastic force- Project activities also were guided by the fact that
deformation behavior of a building. They differ, engineers and researchers have similar concerns with
however, in the technique used to calculate the inelastic
respect to inelastic analysis procedures. Some of the The initial phase of the project, during early 2001,
more prominent issues considered are listed below. focused on the identification and refinement of
important issues related to the improvement of inelastic
• In some cases, different nonlinear static procedures
seismic analysis procedures. Activities included the
produce significantly different results for the same
solicitation of input from researchers (see Appendix A.)
building model and ground motion representation.
and practicing engineers (see Appendix B.). This
• Current procedures for addressing the degradation of information was used to formulate a plan for the
stiffness and strength in structures are ambiguous subsequent phases of the project, comprising the
and unclear. evaluation of current procedures and the development
of proposed improvements.
• The predicted response of short-period structures
seems to be extreme when compared with observed
Several analytical efforts formed the basis for the
performance.
evaluation of current procedures and the development
• Since they are based on single-degree-of-freedom of improvements. The first tested the accuracy of the
(SDOF) approximations, nonlinear static procedures Coefficient Method of FEMA 356 and the Capacity-
may not reliably predict important response Spectrum Method of ATC-40 in predicting global
parameters for some multi-degree-of-freedom displacement demands, when compared to response-
(MDOF) structures. history analysis of SDOF oscillators. This effort is
described in Chapter 3, with detailed results provided in
1.3 Report Scope, Organization and Appendix C.
Contents
During evaluations of both the Coefficient Method and
The document is intended to be useful from the Capacity-Spectrum Method, it became evident that
practical, educational, and archival standpoints. Its important clarifications regarding strength degradation
fundamental purpose is to provide guidance that can be are applicable to both NSP approaches. This issue is
used directly by engineering practitioners. From an addressed in Chapter 4.
educational perspective, the report is intended to
facilitate a basic conceptual understanding of Improved procedures for use with the Coefficient
underlying principles, as well as the associated Method are described in Chapter 5. Improved
capabilities and limitations of the procedures, so that procedures for use with the Capacity-Spectrum Method,
practicing structural engineers can apply the procedures are described in Chapter 6. Supplementary information
appropriately. Finally, the archival aspect recognizes and data on the equivalent linearization approach are
that the development of inelastic procedures will provided in Appendix D.
continue, and that it is important to record detailed
information from the project for future reference and Chapter 7 describes an independent analysis that was
use. implemented to test the accuracy of the procedural
improvements described in Chapters 5 and 6.
The scope of the evaluation of inelastic analysis Comparisons with results using the original procedures
procedures and the development of recommendations are provided.
for improvement, as presented in this document, focus
on nonlinear static procedures (NSPs). In light of the For many years, researchers have observed that the
concerns identified by practicing engineers and predicted inelastic displacement response of oscillators,
researchers, the document specifically addresses the with periods in excess of about 1 second, is often very
following questions: similar to the predicted displacement response of elastic
• How well do current NSPs predict maximum global oscillators having the same period. This has led to the
displacement (elastic plus inelastic)? so-called “equal displacement approximation.”
Researchers have also recognized that the predicted
• How well do current NSPs predict effects arising inelastic response of oscillators with short periods, less
from the multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) than approximately 0.5 seconds, are often significantly
response of structures? larger than the predicted response of elastic structures
• What modifications might be incorporated into of the same period, particularly if the structures are both
NSPs to improve accuracy and to reduce uncertainty very stiff and very weak. When this principle is applied
associated with the first two questions? using nonlinear analysis techniques to the performance
evaluation of small, stiff buildings, such as those that In part, these effects can be addressed by more accurate
comprise much of the building inventory in the United analytical models that incorporate all structural and
States, very poor performance and extreme damage is nonstructural elements significant to structural response
often predicted. This has created a paradox, in that such as well as the flexibility of foundations. Soil-structure
buildings have generally been observed to experience interaction effects are of particular importance.
limited damage in past earthquakes. Several factors Chapter 8 describes analysis techniques for SSI effects
contribute to this conflict between predicted and that have been adapted for use with nonlinear static
observed performance of such structures, including: procedures and detailed supporting information on soil-
structure interaction is provided in Appendix E.
• models used to predict performance of such
structures commonly neglect many elements that
Multi-degree-of-freedom effects are addressed in
contribute to their strength;
Chapter 9, which summarizes a comprehensive analysis
• fixed base models used to predict structural response of five example buildings to illustrate the application
neglect foundation flexibility, resulting in and limitations of simplified techniques to account for
predictions of smaller periods than that of the actual MDOF effects within current NSPs. Details are
structures; provided in Appendix F.
• stiff buildings will experience small displacements
Finally, Chapter 10 comprises a complete summary of
even at large ductility demand and thus may
the results of the efforts and the suggested
experience only limited damage; and
improvements from a practical perspective. Chapter 10
• in addition to foundation flexibility, other soil- concludes with a detailed example application of the
structure interaction effects can significantly reduce suggested improved procedures to a building structure.
the response of some stiff structures to ground
shaking.
Practicing engineers use inelastic analysis procedures The generic process of inelastic analysis is similar to
for the seismic evaluation and design of upgrades of conventional linear procedures in that the engineer
existing buildings and other structures, as well as design develops a model of the building or structure, which is
of new construction. The practical objective of inelastic then subjected to a representation of the anticipated
seismic analysis procedures is to predict the expected seismic ground motion (see Figure 2-1). The results of
behavior of the structure in future earthquake shaking. analysis are predictions of engineering demand
This has become increasingly important with the parameters within the structural model that are
emergence of performance-based engineering (PBE) as subsequently used to determine performance based on
a technique for seismic evaluation and design (ATC, acceptance criteria. The engineering demand
1996; BSSC, 2000). PBE uses the prediction of parameters normally comprise global displacements
performance to inform decisions regarding safety and (e.g., roof or other reference point), story drifts, story
risk. For this purpose, PBE characterizes performance forces, component distortions, and component forces.
primarily in terms of expected damage to structural and
nonstructural components and contents. Since structural There are several basic inelastic analysis procedures
damage implies inelastic behavior, traditional design that differ primarily on the types of structural models
and analysis procedures that use linear elastic used for analysis and the alternatives for characterizing
techniques can predict performance only implicitly. By seismic ground shaking.
contrast, the objective of inelastic seismic analysis
procedures is to directly estimate the magnitude of 2.1 Structural Modeling
inelastic deformations and distortions. Detailed structural models for inelastic analysis are
similar to linear elastic finite-element (component)
models (see Figure 2-2). The primary difference is that
Figure 2-1 Schematic depiction of the use of inelastic analysis procedures to estimate forces and inelastic
deformations for given seismic ground motions and a nonlinear analysis model of the building.
deformation
force
actual hysteretic
behavior
Deformation
Backbone
curve Idealized component
behavior
Force
B C B, C, D
C, D
B
D E
A A E A E Deformation
Ductile Semi-ductile Brittle
(deformation controlled) (force contolled)
c) Idealized properties for analysis models
Figure 2-3 Schematic depictions illustrating how inelastic component strength and stiffness properties from test data
are used to create idealized force-deformation relationships.
Figure 2-5 Schematics depicting the development of an equivalent SDOF system from a pushover/capacity curve.
(acceleration, velocity, and displacement) over the spectral acceleration. The notation Sa actually
entire response-history record of a single-degree-of- represents the pseudo-acceleration.
freedom oscillator and the frequency, or more
commonly the period, of the oscillator, for a specified The response spectrum for a single ground motion
level of damping. Response spectral ordinates are record is typically highly variable (jagged), depending
commonly used to represent seismic demand for on the assumed level of damping. For this reason,
structural design. It should be noted that in this multiple records representative of a single source at a
document, as in conventional structural engineering specified distance from the site and of a specified
practice, pseudo-acceleration is used in place of actual magnitude are often combined and smoothed, as
implied in Figure 2-6. The results of this type of seismic
Figure 2-6 Factors affecting seismic ground motion and various ways to characterize ground motions graphically.
hazard analysis that provide an estimate of ground 2.3 Options for Inelastic Analysis
motion for a specified set of source and path parameters Various combinations of structural model types and
is a deterministic spectrum. characterizations of seismic ground motion define a
number of options for inelastic analysis. The selection
The level of uncertainty in source, path, and site effects of one option over another depends on the purpose of
associated with deterministic spectra is relatively poorly the analysis, the anticipated performance objectives, the
defined. These uncertainties are accounted for directly acceptable level of uncertainty, the availability of
in probabilistic seismic hazard analyses that provide resources, and the sufficiency of data. In some cases,
estimates of ground motion parameters (such as applicable codes and standards may dictate the analysis
response spectral ordinates) with a specified probability procedure.
of being exceeded within a specified time period. The
analysis includes all earthquakes (magnitudes and The primary decision is whether to choose inelastic
faults) that potentially could cause significant seismic procedures over more conventional linear elastic
shaking at a given site. When response spectral analysis. In general, linear procedures are applicable
ordinates for a range of periods are evaluated for a when the structure is expected to remain nearly elastic
specified probability of being exceeded, the result is an for the level of ground motion of interest or when the
equal-hazard spectrum. design results in nearly uniform distribution of
nonlinear response throughout the structure. In these
Modern standards and guidelines (FEMA 356, ATC-40, cases, the level of uncertainty associated with linear
and the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New procedures is relatively low. As the performance
Buildings), allow the use of approximate design spectra objective of the structure implies greater inelastic
that represent a simplification of equal-hazard spectra demands, the uncertainty with linear procedures
on a location-specific basis. Design spectra have increases to a point that requires a high level of
standardized shapes, and can be evaluated based on conservatism in demand assumptions and/or
nationally mapped values of spectral accelerations for acceptability criteria to avoid unintended performance.
short and long periods. Inelastic procedures facilitate a better understanding of
actual performance. This can lead to a design that
Deterministic spectra, equal-hazard spectra, and design focuses upon the critical aspects of the building, leading
spectra commonly exhibit smooth shapes with respect to more reliable and efficient solutions.
to period in contrast with the highly variable (jagged)
shape of actual ground motion spectral records Nonlinear dynamic analysis using the combination of
(particularly for low levels of damping). Structural ground motion records with a detailed structural model
response to an actual ground motion record is likely to theoretically is capable of producing results with
be sensitive to the complex nature of the resulting relatively low uncertainty (see Figure 2-7). In nonlinear
spectrum. This uncertainty is not eliminated by the use dynamic analyses, the detailed structural model
of smooth spectra. subjected to a ground-motion record produces estimates
of component deformations for each degree of freedom
in the model. Higher-level demands (element
Global displacement
Ground motion records ∆
Time (sec.)
Story drifts and forces
δij
Detailed model
Component actions for
each degree of freedom
δj
θj
θi
δi
Figure 2-7 Flow chart depicting the nonlinear dynamic analysis process. Note that component actions are used to
determine higher-level effects, such as story drifts and roof displacement, ∆.
distortions, story drifts, roof displacement) derive Simplified nonlinear dynamic analysis with equivalent
directly from the basic component actions, as illustrated single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) models are a further
in Figure 2-7. There is still uncertainty with the detailed simplification using ground motion records to
models, associated primarily with the lack of data on characterize seismic shaking (see Figure 2-9). The
actual component behavior, particularly at high result of the analysis is an estimate of global
ductilities. In addition, the variability of ground motion displacement demand. It is important to recognize that
results in significant dispersion in engineering demand the resulting lower-level engineering demands (e.g.,
parameters. This is illustrated in Figure 2-8, which story drifts, component actions) are calculated from the
depicts results from a series of nonlinear dynamic global displacement using the force-deformation
analyses for increasingly larger intensities of ground relationship for the oscillator. In contrast to the use of
shaking (Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002). At each level the more detailed model (see Figure 2-7), they are
of intensity, the multiple time histories produce a directly related to the assumptions, and associated
distribution of results in terms of a selected engineering uncertainties, made to convert the detailed structural
demand parameter. Note that the dispersion increases model to an equivalent SDOF model in the first place.
with higher shaking intensity and with greater elasticity. This adds further to the overall uncertainty associated
with the simplified nonlinear dynamic analysis. Note
Simplified nonlinear dynamic analysis with equivalent that if the SDOF model is subjected to multiple time
multi-degree-of-freedom models also use ground motion histories a statistical representation of response can be
records to characterize seismic demand. However, these generated.
techniques produce engineering demand parameters
above the basic component level only. For example, a Nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) convert MDOF
“stick” model produces story displacements or drifts. models to equivalent SDOF structural models and
The engineer can estimate corresponding component represent seismic ground motion with response spectra
actions using the assumptions that were originally the as opposed to ground-motion records (see Figure 2-10).
basis of the simplified model. Thus the uncertainty They produce estimates of the maximum global
associated with the component actions in the simplified displacement demand. Story drifts and component
model is greater than those associated with the detailed actions are related subsequently to the global demand
model. parameter by the pushover or capacity curve that was
Figure 2-8 Incremental dynamic analysis study for thirty ground motion records for a 5-story steel braced frame
(Vamvatsikos and Cornell, 2002)
Component actions
δj
θj
Ground motion records θi
δi
V V
∆ ∆
Figure 2-9 Flow chart depicting simplified SDOF nonlinear analysis process. Note that component actions are
estimated from global displacement demand using the pushover curve.
Component actions
Elastic spectrum
δj
θj
θi
δi
V V
∆ ∆
Figure 2-10 Flow chart depicting the process followed in nonlinear static procedures. Note that component actions
are based on global displacement demand and a pushover/capacity curve.
used to generate the equivalent SDOF model. This is maximum global displacement from a nonlinear static
similar to simplified nonlinear dynamic analyses using procedure, a multi-mode pushover analysis might
SDOF models. In contrast to the use of simplified provide improved estimates of inter-story drift that
dynamic analyses using multiple ground motion would not necessarily be available from the simplified
records, the use of nonlinear static procedures implies SDOF dynamic analyses.
greater uncertainty due to the empirical procedures used
to estimate the maximum displacement. This is true 2.4 Current Nonlinear Static Procedures
even if spectra representative of the multiple ground Nonlinear static procedures are popular with practicing
motion records are used in the nonlinear static analysis. engineers, as demonstrated by the voluntary state-of-
practice internet query results in Appendix B. Two
Figure 2-11 summarizes the relationship among the options are used predominantly. Equivalent
normal options for inelastic seismic analysis procedures linearization techniques are based on the assumption
with respect to the type of structural model and that the maximum total displacement (elastic plus
characterization of ground motion. Also noted in the inelastic) of a SDOF oscillator can be estimated by the
figure is the relative uncertainty associated with each elastic response of an oscillator with a larger period and
option. The actual uncertainty inherent in any specific damping than the original. These procedures use
analysis depends on a number of considerations. estimates of ductility to estimate effective period and
Nonlinear dynamic analyses can be less uncertain than damping. The Coefficient Method is fundamentally a
other techniques if the nonlinear inelastic properties of displacement modification procedure that is presented
the components in the detailed structural model are in FEMA 356. Alternatively, displacement modification
accurate and reliable. If the component properties are procedures estimate the total maximum displacement of
poorly characterized, however, the results might not be the oscillator by multiplying the elastic response,
an improvement over other alternatives. Some analysis assuming initial linear properties and damping, by one
options are better than others, depending on the or more coefficients. The coefficients are typically
parameter of interest. For example, with simplified derived empirically from series of nonlinear response-
dynamic analyses, a SDOF oscillator can be subjected history analyses of oscillators with varying periods and
to a relatively large number of ground motion records to strengths.
provide a good representation of the uncertainty
associated with global displacement demand due to the A form of equivalent linearization known as the
variability of the ground motion. On the other hand, if Capacity-Spectrum Method is documented in ATC-40.
the engineer is comfortable with the estimate of Other variations and versions of these two procedures
GROUND MOTION
S
T Dynamic
R analysis
U
Detailed
C
T
U Multi-mode pushover
R Simplified MDOF
analysis dynamic analysis
A (MPA)
L Equivalent MDOF
M
O Nonlinear static
procedures Simplified SDOF
D dynamic analysis
E (NSP’s)
L Equivalent SDOF
have been suggested (see Appendices A and B), but all SDOF system by multiplying it by a series of
are related fundamentally to either displacement coefficients C0 through C3 to generate an estimate of
modification or equivalent linearization. Both the maximum global displacement (elastic and
approaches use nonlinear static analysis (pushover inelastic), which is termed the target displacement. The
analysis) to estimate the lateral force-deformation process begins with an idealized force-deformation
characteristics of the structure. In both procedures the curve (i.e., pushover curve) relating base shear to roof
global deformation (elastic and inelastic) demand on the displacement (see Figure 2-12). An effective period, Te,
structure is computed from the response of an is generated from the initial period, Ti, by a graphical
equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system having the procedure that accounts for some loss of stiffness in the
load-deformation properties determined from the transition from elastic to inelastic behavior. The
pushover analysis. They differ, however, in the effective period represents the linear stiffness of the
technique used to estimate the maximum deformation equivalent SDOF system. When plotted on an elastic
demand (elastic and inelastic). response spectrum representing the seismic ground
motion as peak acceleration, Sa , versus period, T, the
2.4.1 The Coefficient Method of Displacement effective period identifies a maximum acceleration
Modification from FEMA 356 response for the oscillator. The assumed damping, often
The Coefficient Method is the primary nonlinear static five percent, represents a level that might be expected
procedure presented in FEMA 356. This approach for a typical structure responding in the elastic range.
modifies the linear elastic response of the equivalent
base shear, V
Ki
Ke
Ki
Te = Ti
Ke
roof
Pushover curve displacement, δ
Te2
δ t = C0C1C2C3Sa 2 g = Target displacement
4π
Co = converts SDOF spectral
displacement to MDOF roof
displacement (elastic)
Sa C1 = expected maximum inelastic
displacement divided by elastic
displacement
C2 = effects of pinched hysteretic
shape, stiffness degradation and
strength deterioration
Te period, T C3 = increased displacements due to
dynamic P-∆ ∆ effects
Response spectrum
Figure 2-12 Schematic illustrating the process by which the Coefficient Method of displacement modification (per
FEMA 356) is used to estimate the target displacement for a given response spectrum and effective period,
Te.
The peak elastic spectral displacement is directly coefficient C3 adjusts for second-order geometric
related to the spectral acceleration by the relationship nonlinearity (P-∆) effects. The coefficients are
empirical and derived primarily from statistical studies
of the nonlinear response-history analyses of SDOF
Teff2 oscillators and adjusted using engineering judgment.
Sd = Sa . (2-1)
4π 2 The coefficients are described in greater detail in
Chapter 3.
The coefficient C0 is a shape factor (often taken as the
first mode participation factor) that simply converts the 2.4.2 Capacity-Spectrum Method of Equivalent
spectral displacement to the displacement at the roof. Linearization in ATC-40
The other coefficients each account for a separate The basic assumption in equivalent linearization
inelastic effect. techniques is that the maximum inelastic deformation of
a nonlinear SDOF system can be approximated from the
The coefficient C1 is the ratio of expected displacement maximum deformation of a linear elastic SDOF system
(elastic plus inelastic) for a bilinear inelastic oscillator that has a period and a damping ratio that are larger than
to the displacement for a linear oscillator. This ratio the initial values of those for the nonlinear system. In
depends on the strength of the oscillator relative to the the Capacity-Spectrum Method of ATC-40, the process
response spectrum and the period of the SDOF system, begins with the generation of a force-deformation
Te. The coefficient C2 accounts for the effect of relationship for the structure. This process is virtually
pinching in load-deformation relationships due to identical to that for the Coefficient Method of FEMA
degradation in stiffness and strength. Finally, the 356, except that the results are plotted in acceleration-
Sa
dy dpi
Sd
ED
Figure 2-13 Graphical representation of the Capacity-Spectrum Method of equivalent linearization, as presented in
ATC-40.
displacement response spectrum (ADRS) format (see capacity curve. The equivalent period, Teq , is assumed
Figure 2-13). This format is a simple conversion of the to be the secant period at which the seismic ground
base-shear-versus-roof-displacement relationship using motion demand, reduced for the equivalent damping,
the dynamic properties of the system, and the result is intersects the capacity curve. Since the equivalent
termed a capacity curve for the structure. The seismic period and damping are both a function of the
ground motion is also converted to ADRS format. This displacement, the solution to determine the maximum
enables the capacity curve to be plotted on the same inelastic displacement (i.e., performance point) is
axes as the seismic demand. In this format, period can iterative. ATC-40 imposes limits on the equivalent
be represented as radial lines emanating from the origin. damping to account for strength and stiffness
degradation. These limits are reviewed in greater detail
The Capacity-Spectrum Method of equivalent in Chapter 3.
linearization assumes that the equivalent damping of the
system is proportional to the area enclosed by the
400 400
200 200
Force
Force
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
EPP SD
-600 -600
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Displacement Displacement
400 400
200 200
Force
Force
0 0
-200 -200
-400 -400
SSD NE
-600 -600
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400 -400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Displacement Displacement
Figure 3-1 Basic hysteretic models used in the evaluation of current procedures: elastic perfectly plastic (EPP);
stiffness-degrading (SD); strength and stiffness degrading (SSD), and nonlinear elastic (NE).
In this study the lateral strength is normalized by the Structures, Part 2: Commentary (BSSC, 2003). Nine
strength ratio R, which is defined as levels of normalized lateral strength were considered,
corresponding to R = 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.
mSa
R= (3-1) Four different hysteretic behaviors were used in this
Fy study (see Figure 3-1):
• The elastic perfectly plastic (EPP) model is used as
where m is the mass of the SDOF oscillator, Sa is the
a reference model. This model has been used widely
spectral acceleration ordinate corresponding to the
in previous investigations and therefore it represents
initial period of the system, and Fy is the lateral yield
a benchmark to study the effect of hysteretic
strength of the system. The numerator in Equation 3-1
behavior. Furthermore, recent studies have shown
represents the lateral strength required to maintain the
that this is a reasonable hysteretic model for steel
system elasticity, which sometimes is also referred to as
beams that do not experience lateral or local
the elastic strength demand. Note that this R-factor is
buckling or connection failure (Foutch and Shi,
not the same as the response-modification coefficient
1998).
conventionally used for design purposes. This R-factor
is the design R-factor divided by the overstrength factor, • The stiffness-degrading (SD) model corresponds to
omega sub-zero. This is discussed on page 105 of the modified-Clough model, as originally proposed
FEMA 450-2, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for by Clough (1966) and as modified by Mahin and Lin
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other (1983). This model was originally proposed as
Force [kips]
80
Experimental
60
Analytical
40
20
-20
-40
Specimen 1
-60 Lehman and Stanton
-80
-6.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0
Drift [in]
Figure 3-2 Comparison of experimental results (after Lehman et al., 2000) with the hysteretic response computed
with the SSD model.
representative of well detailed and flexurally deformation. The degradation of strength occurs in
controlled reinforced concrete structures in which subsequent cycles (or half-cycles) of deformation.
the lateral stiffness decreases as the level of lateral Oscillators that have in-cycle negative post-elastic
displacement increases. stiffnesses and in-cycle degradation of strength can
be prone to dynamic instability. They are covered in
• The strength and stiffness-degrading (SSD) model is
Section 3.4.4 and in Chapter 4.
aimed at approximately reproducing the hysteretic
behavior of structures in which lateral stiffness and • The nonlinear elastic (NE) model unloads on the
lateral strength decrease when subjected to cyclic same branch as the loading curve and therefore
reversals. In this model, the amount of strength and exhibits no hysteretic energy dissipation. This model
stiffness degradation is a function of the maximum approximately reproduces the behavior of pure
displacement in previous cycles as well as a function rocking structures. Most instances of rocking in real
of the hysteretic energy dissipated. This model is structures are a combination of this type of behavior
similar to the three-parameter model implemented in with one of the other hysteretic types that include
IDARC (Kunnath et al., 1992). When properly hysteretic energy losses.
calibrated, this model can reproduce the response of
poorly detailed reinforced concrete structures In summary, the combinations of period of vibration,
relatively well. An example is shown in Figure 3-2, lateral strength, and hysteretic behavior represent a total
in which the load-deformation relationship of a of 1,800 different SDOF systems.
poorly detailed beam-column joint tested at the
University of Washington (Lehman et al., 2000) is 3.2.2 Earthquake Ground Motions
compared with the response computed with the SSD
A total of 100 earthquake ground motions recorded on
model. A single set of parameters representing
different site conditions were used in this study. Ground
severe strength and stiffness degradation was used
motions were divided into five groups with 20
for this model. The type of degradation that is
accelerograms in each group. The first group consisted
captured by this model only includes cyclic
of earthquake ground motions recorded on stations
degradation. Note that the post-elastic stiffness in
located on rock with average shear wave velocities
any cycle is always equal to zero or greater. Thus,
between 760 m/s (2,500 ft/s) and 1,525 m/s (5,000 ft/s).
the strength never diminishes in the current cycle of
⎡ ( ∆i ) ⎤
These are representative of site class B, as defined by
the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic app
ET , R = ⎢ ⎥ (3-2)
Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, ⎢⎣ ( ∆i )ex ⎥⎦
Part I, Provisions (BSSC, 2000)1. The second group T ,R
consisted of records obtained on stations on very dense
soil or soft rock with average shear wave velocities This error measure was computed for each period of
between 360 m/s (1,200 ft/s) and 760 m/s, while the vibration T and each level of normalized lateral strength
third group consisted of ground motions recorded on R. Values of ET,R larger than one indicate that the
stations on stiff soil with average shear wave velocities approximate method overestimates the maximum
between 180 m/s (600 ft/s) and 360 m/s. These are displacement of the SDOF system and values smaller
consistent with site class C and D respectively. The than one indicate underestimation. A total of 320,000
fourth group corresponds to ground motions recorded individual errors were computed in this study.
on very soft soil conditions with shear wave velocities
smaller than 180 m/s, which can be classified as site In order to identify whether the approximate methods,
class E. Finally, the fifth group corresponds to 20 on average, tend to overestimate or underestimate
ground motions influenced by near-field forward- maximum displacements of inelastic systems, mean
directivity effects. Detailed listings of the ground errors were computed as follows:
motions are presented in Appendix C.
1 n
3.2.3 Error Measures and Statistical Study ET , R =
n i =1
(
∑ ET , R )i (3-3)
The maximum displacement of each inelastic SDOF
system was estimated with the simplified inelastic
where n is the number of records in each group of
procedures in ATC-40 and FEMA 356 when subjected
ground motions. Mean errors were computed for each
to each of the ground motions. The maximum
hysteretic behavior type, each period of vibration (or for
displacement of each inelastic SDOF system was then
each normalized period of vibration as will be explained
computed using nonlinear response-history analyses.
later) and each level of normalized lateral strength.
The maximum displacement is defined as the maximum
Therefore, mean errors computed with Equation 3-3 do
of the absolute value of the displacement response. A
not allow for underestimations in a spectral region to be
total of 180,000 nonlinear response-history analyses
compensated by overestimations in another spectral
were run as part of this investigation. In this study, the
region. Information on the bias for each period, for each
results computed with nonlinear response-history
type of hysteretic behavior, for each level of normalized
analyses are the benchmark maximum displacements,
lateral strength, and for each site class is retained.
(∆i)ex. The maximum displacements estimated with
simplified inelastic procedures of ATC-40 and FEMA
The sample mean error computed with Equation 3-3 is
356 are the approximate maximum displacements,
an unbiased estimator of the mean error of the
(∆i)app of the inelastic system. It should be noted that
population. Therefore, it provides an estimate of the
the nonlinear response-history analyses are “exact” only
average error produced by the approximate methods.
for the SDOF oscillator with the assumed properties and
However, it provides no information on the dispersion
for the particular ground motion. The uncertainty of the
of the error. In order to obtain a measure of the
modeling assumptions with respect to the actual
dispersion of the errors produced by the approximate
building is not included in either the nonlinear
methods, the standard deviation of the error was
response-history analyses or the approximate analyses.
computed as
The nonlinear response-history results are a convenient
benchmark.
1 n ⎡
( )
2
In order to evaluate the accuracy of these approximate σ T ,R = ∑
n − 1 i =1 ⎣
ET , R − ET , R ⎤
i ⎦
(3-4)
procedures, an error measure was defined as the ratio of
approximate, (∆i)app, to benchmark, (∆i)ex, maximum
displacement as follows: The square of the sample standard deviation of the error
computed with Equation 3-4 is an unbiased estimator of
1.Superseded in 2003 with the FEMA 450 Recommended the variance of the error in the population. The standard
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings deviation of the error was computed for each period, for
and Other Structures.
each type of hysteretic behavior, for each level of nonlinear system and the displacement ductility ratio.
normalized lateral strength, and for each site class. The main differences among the many equivalent linear
methods that are available in the literature stem
3.3 Evaluation of Capacity-Spectrum primarily from the functions used to compute the
Method of ATC-40 equivalent period and equivalent damping ratio.
3.3.1 Summary of the Approximate Method As discussed in Section 2.4.2, the Capacity-Spectrum
The simplified inelastic analysis procedure in ATC-40, Method according to ATC-40 uses the secant stiffness at
a version of the Capacity-Spectrum Method (CSM), is maximum displacement to compute the effective period
based on equivalent linearization. The basic assumption and relates effective damping to the area under the
in equivalent linear methods is that the maximum hysteresis curve (see Figure 2-13).These assumptions
displacement of a nonlinear SDOF system can be result in an equivalent period, Teq, and equivalent
estimated from the maximum displacement of a linear damping ratio (referred to as effective viscous damping,
elastic SDOF system that has a period and a damping βeq, in ATC-40) given by
ratio that are larger than those of the initial values for
the nonlinear system. The elastic SDOF system that is µ
used to estimate the maximum inelastic displacement of Teq = T0 (3-5)
the nonlinear system is usually referred to as the 1 + αµ − α
equivalent or substitute system. Similarly, the period of
vibration and damping ratio of the elastic system are 2 ( µ − 1) (1 − α )
commonly referred to as equivalent period and βeq = βeff = 0.05 + κ (3-6)
equivalent damping ratio, respectively. π µ (1 + αµ − α )
The concept of equivalent viscous damping was first where T0 is the initial period of vibration of the
proposed by Jacobsen (1930) to obtain approximate nonlinear system, α is the post-yield stiffness ratio and
solutions for the steady forced vibration of damped κ is an adjustment factor to approximately account for
SDOF systems with linear force-displacement changes in hysteretic behavior in reinforced concrete
relationships but with damping forces proportional to structures. ATC-40 proposes three equivalent damping
the nth power of the velocity of motion when subjected levels that change according to the hysteretic behavior
to sinusoidal forces. In this pioneering study, the of the system. Type A hysteretic behavior denotes
stiffness of the equivalent system was set equal to the structures with reasonably full hysteretic loops, similar
stiffness of the real system and the equivalent viscous to the EPP oscillator in Figure 3-1. The corresponding
damping ratio was based on equating the dissipated equivalent damping ratios take the maximum values.
energy per cycle of the real damping force to that of the Type C hysteretic behavior represents severely
equivalent damping force. Years later, the same author degraded hysteretic loops (e.g., SSD), resulting in the
extended the concept of equivalent viscous damping to smallest equivalent damping ratios. Type B hysteretic
yielding SDOF systems (Jacobsen, 1960). Since then, behavior is an intermediate hysteretic behavior between
there have been many methods proposed in the types A and C (e.g., SD). The value of κ decreases for
literature. Review of the earlier equivalent linear degrading systems (hysteretic behavior types B and C).
methods can be found in Jennings (1968), Iwan and ATC-40 suggests an initial elastic viscous damping ratio
Gates (1979), Hadjian (1982), Fardis and Panagiatakos (first term on the right hand side of Equation 3-6) of
(1996), while a review of some recent methods can be 0.05 (5%) for reinforced concrete buildings. The terms
found in Miranda and Ruiz-García (2003). The to the right of κ in Equation 3-6 represent the equivalent
Capacity Spectrum Method as documented in ATC-40 hysteretic viscous damping for an idealized bilinear
is based primarily on the work of Freeman et al. (1975). system designated as β0 in ATC-40 documentation.
Table 3-1 shows the variation of κ with respect to β0 for
In equivalent linear methods, the equivalent period is different hysteretic behaviors types.
computed from the initial period of vibration of the
nonlinear system and from the maximum displacement The equivalent period in Equation 3-5 is based on a
ductility ratio, µ. Similarly, the equivalent damping lateral stiffness of the equivalent system that is equal to
ratio is computed as a function of damping ratio in the the secant stiffness at the maximum displacement. It
only depends on the displacement ductility ratio and the
3.0
β eff
0.5
1.0 α = 0.00
α = 0.03 Type A
0.4
α = 0.05
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0.3 Type B
Displacement Ductility, µ
Type C
0.2
Figure 3-3 Variation of period shift based on secant
stiffness. 0.1
1.0
0.8
SRV min for Type C
0.8
0.6 SRV min for Type B
SRVmin for Type A
0.6 SRA min for Type C
0.4
SRA min for Type B
0.4 SRA min for Type A
0.2
0.2
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
0.0 Displacement Ductility, µ
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement Ductility, µ
Figure 3-7 Variation of spectral reduction factors
Figure 3-6 Variation of spectral reduction factors SRV for different hysteretic behaviors as a
SRA for different hysteretic behaviors as a function of the displacement ductility
function of the displacement ductility ratio, µ.
ratio, µ.
Table 3-2 Minimum Allowable Spectral Reduction
Factors for Displacement Ductility
reduced hysteretic energy dissipation capacity produced Ratios Larger than 3.4
by narrower hysteretic loops.
Behavior Type SRA SRV
When applied to design spectra, ATC-40 provides
reduction factors to reduce spectral ordinates in the Type A 0.33 0.50
constant-acceleration region and constant-velocity Type B 0.44 0.56
region as a function of the effective damping ratio.
Type C 0.56 0.67
These spectral reduction factors are given by
3.3.2 Iteration Procedures
3.21 − 0.68 ln (100 βeff )
SRA = (3-7) Equivalent linearization equations, in general, require
2.12 prior knowledge of the displacement ductility ratio in
order to compute the equivalent period of vibration and
2.31 − 0.41 ln (100 βeff ) equivalent damping ratio, µ, which are then needed to
SRV = (3-8) estimate the maximum inelastic displacement demand
1.65
on a SDOF system when subjected to a particular
ground motion. Specifically, in Equations 3-5 and 3-6,
where βeff, is the effective or equivalent damping ratio
computed with Equation 3-6. SRA is the spectral-
µ must be known in order to compute βeff and Teq.
However, when evaluating a structure, the maximum
reduction factor to be applied to the constant-
displacement ductility ratio is not known.
acceleration region in the linear elastic design spectrum,
Consequently, iteration is required in order to estimate
and SRV is the spectral reduction factor to be applied to
the maximum displacement.
the constant-velocity region (descending branch) in the
linear elastic design spectrum. These spectral-reduction
ATC-40 describes three iterative procedures to reach a
factors are shown in Figures 3-6 and 3-7. It can be seen
solution for the approximation. Procedures A and B are
that for displacement ductility demands larger than 3.4,
described as the most transparent and most convenient
the spectral ordinates no longer decrease. Consequently,
for programming, as they are based on an analytical
the ATC-40 procedures impose limits on the amount of
method. Procedure C is a graphical method that is not
hysteretic damping-related reduction in spectral
convenient for spreadsheet programming. ATC-40
response that can be achieved. Table 3-2 shows these
presents Procedure A as the most straightforward and
limiting values.
easy in application among the three procedures. In a E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C
recent study, Chopra and Goel (1999a,b, 2000) 3.0
investigated the iteration methods implemented in ATC- APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE A R= 8.0
EXACT: ELASTO PLASTIC R= 6.0
40. By using various SDOF examples, they showed that 2.5
R= 4.0
Procedure A did not always converge when using actual R= 3.0
2.0 R= 2.0
earthquake spectra, as opposed to smooth design R= 1.5
spectra. They also concluded that the displacement 1.5
computed with Procedure B was unique and the same as R = 8.0
that determined with Procedure A, provided that the 1.0
latter converged. In a more recent study, Miranda and
Akkar (2002) provide further discussion of the 0.5
R = 1.5
convergence issues in equivalent linearization
0.0
procedures. They also note that equivalent linearization 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
procedures can lead to multiple results for some specific PERIOD [s]
earthquake ground motions.
E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C
An iteration procedure based on secant iteration that is 3.0
guaranteed to converge was used for the evaluation APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE B R= 8.0
EXACT: STIFFNESS DEGRADING R= 6.0
study. As noted in the previous section, multiple 2.5
R= 4.0
equivalent linearization solutions may exist for actual R= 3.0
2.0 R= 2.0
ground motion records that were used for the study, as R= 1.5
opposed to smoothed spectra normally used by 1.5
R = 8.0
engineers. For the purposes of this investigation, the
first computed displacement encountered within 1% of 1.0
the assumed displacement was taken as the approximate R = 1.5
inelastic displacement without verifying whether this 0.5
In order to evaluate the Capacity-Spectrum Method E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C
when applied to structures with hysteretic behavior type 3.0
A, approximate results were compared with response- APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE C R=
R=
8.0
6.0
EXACT: STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADING
history analysis (RHA) benchmark results computed 2.5 R= 4.0
with the EPP hysteretic model. Similarly, the R= 3.0
2.0 R= 2.0
approximate results computed for behavior type B were R = 8.0 R= 1.5
compared with RHA benchmark results of the stiffness 1.5
degrading (SD) model, and the approximate results
computed for behavior type C were compared with 1.0
R = 1.5
RHA benchmark results of the strength-and-stiffness-
0.5
degrading (SSD) model. Mean errors corresponding to
ground motions recorded in site class C and for 0.0
hysteretic behaviors type A, B, and C are shown in 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 3-8. Based on the complete results presented in PERIOD [s]
Appendix C, it was found that the Capacity-Spectrum
Method implemented in ATC-40 leads to very large
overestimations of the maximum displacement for Figure 3-8 Mean error associated with the Capacity-
relatively short-period systems (periods smaller than Spectrum Method of ATC-40 for hysteretic
about 0.5 s). Approximate maximum displacements in behaviors types A, B, and C for site class C.
this period range can be, on average, larger than twice
the RHA benchmark displacements. These large
overestimations of displacement in the short-period equivalent linearization methods that are based on
range have also been reported previously for other secant stiffness (Miranda and Ruiz-García, 2003; Akkar
and Miranda, 2005).
The complete results indicate that, for periods longer 3.3.3.3.2). According to this document, the target
than about 0.6 s, ATC-40 behavior type A tends to displacement, δt, which corresponds to the
underestimate the maximum displacements. Maximum displacement at roof level, can be estimated as
displacements computed with the ATC-40 procedure
are, on average, about 25% to 35% smaller than those
Te2
computed with RHA using elasto-plastic systems. δ t = C0 C1C2 C3 Sa g (3-9)
Underestimations are slightly smaller for site class B 4π 2
and slightly larger for site class D. Mean errors for
ATC-40 behavior type A are not significantly where:
influenced by changes in the normalized lateral strength
R. C0 = Modification factor to relate spectral dis-
placement of an equivalent SDOF system to
For systems with ATC-40 hysteretic behavior type B the roof displacement of the building MDOF
and periods longer than about 0.8 s, the Capacity- system. It can be calculated from
Spectrum Method tends to underestimate displacements
compared with those of inelastic systems with stiffness- • the first modal participation factor,
degrading (SD) models for site class B.
Underestimations are small and tend to decrease as R • the procedure described in Section
increases. Average underestimations range from 5% to 3.3.3.2.3 in FEMA 356, or
25%. For site classes C and D, ATC-40 may
underestimate or overestimate lateral deformation of • the appropriate value from Table 3.2 in
systems with type B hysteretic behavior depending on FEMA 356.
the normalized lateral strength, R.
C1 = Modification factor to relate the expected
In the case of systems with hysteretic behavior type C, maximum displacements of an inelastic
the approximate ATC-40 procedure tends to SDOF oscillator with EPP hysteretic proper-
overestimate inelastic displacements for practically all ties to displacements calculated for the linear
periods when compared to those computed for inelastic elastic response.
systems with strength-and-stiffness-degrading (SSD)
hysteretic models. Overestimations increase as R ⎧1.0 for Te ≥ Ts
increases. The level of overestimation varies from one ⎪⎪
R − 1) Ts
site class to another. Detailed information on the actual C1 = ⎨ 1.0+ (
errors are contained in Appendix C. ⎪ Te
for Te < Ts
⎪⎩ R
Dispersion of the error is very large for periods smaller
than about 0.5 s and is moderate and approximately but not greater than the values given in Sec-
constant for periods longer than 0.5 s. In general, tion 3.3.1.3.1 (Linear Static Procedure, LSP
dispersion increases as R increases. Mean errors section) nor less than 1. Values of C1 in Sec-
computed with ground motions recorded on very soft tion 3.3.1.3.1 are
soil sites or with near-fault ground motions are strongly
influenced by the predominant period of the ground
motion. Detailed results of dispersion for site classes B, ⎧1.5 for Te < 0.1 s
C1 = ⎨
C, and D and behavior types A, B, and C are also ⎩1.0 for Te ≥ Ts
presented in Appendix C.
with linear interpolation used to calculate C1
3.4 Evaluation of Coefficient Method for the intermediate values of Te.
(FEMA 356)
3.4.1 Summary of the Approximate Method The limit imposed on C1 by Section 3.3.1.3.1
is often referred to as “C1 capping.”
The determination of the target displacement in the
simplified nonlinear static procedure (NSP) known as C2 = Modification factor to represent the effect of
the displacement Coefficient Method is primarily pinched hysteretic shape, stiffness degrada-
described in the FEMA 356 document (Section tion, and strength deterioration on the maxi-
1.5
1.2
NSP LSP
1.0
R = 1.5
0.5
1.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
0.8
• C1 IS ON AVERAGE • C1 IS APPROXIMATELY CONSTANT
LARGER THAN ONE WITH CHANGES IN T
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 • C1 INCREASES WITH • C1 DOES NOT CHANGE MUCH WITH
PERIOD [s] DECREASING T CHANGES IN R
• C1 INCREASES WITH • C1 IS ON AVERAGE APPROXIMATELY
INCREASING R EQUAL TO ONE
C1 FEMA 356
1.6
SITE CLASS B (Ts = 0.4 s) R=2.0
Figure 3-11 Variation of mean C1 computed for the
LSP (Section 3.3.1.3.1) elastic perfectly plastic (EPP) model when
NSP (Section 3.3.3.3.2) subjected to ground motions recorded on
1.4
site class C.
LSP NSP
values of R approximately larger than 2.5, the capping
1.2 equation will always control the value of C1.
1.5
• In the short-period region, the value of C1 is
sensitive to changes in the period of vibration. In 1.0
R = 1.5
general, for a given R, a decrease in period produces 0.5
an increase in C1.
0.0
• The transition period dividing the region in which 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
the equal-displacement approximation
underestimates displacement, from the region in C1,EPP
which this approximation applies (short- versus 4.0
R= 8.0
long-period region), increases as the lateral strength 3.5
SITE CLASS C
(mean of 20 ground motions) R= 6.0
decreases (as R increases). R= 4.0
3.0 R= 3.0
Figure 3-12 presents a comparison of mean values of 2.5
R= 2.0
R= 1.5
coefficient C1 generated from the nonlinear response-
2.0 R = 8.0
history analyses for site classes B, C, and D. The
transition period dividing the region in which the equal- 1.5
1.0
The FEMA 356 transition period, dividing the region in R = 1.5
0.5
which the equal-displacement approximation
underestimates displacements, from the region in which 0.0
this approximation is valid, is shorter than that observed 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
for the ground motions used in this study. For example,
for site class B, the transition period in FEMA 356 is Figure 3-12 Mean coefficient C1 for site classes B, C
0.4 s while results from nonlinear response-history and D.
analyses suggest that this period should be about twice
as long. The transition periods that can be observed While results from nonlinear response-history analyses
from these nonlinear response-history analyses in indicate a strong sensitivity of the computed C1 ratio
Figure 3-12 (approximately 1.0 s, 1.1 s and 1.4 s for site with changes in R for short periods, the capping in
classes B, C and D, respectively) are all significantly FEMA 356 practically eliminates this sensitivity to
longer than those specified in FEMA 356 (0.4 s, 0.55 s, lateral strength. For example, mean inelastic
0.6 s, for site classes B, C, and D, respectively). displacement ratios computed from response-history
analyses for a period of 0.3 s suggest that a change in R
C1
from 2 to 8 almost triples the value of C1, while the
4.0 capped coefficient in FEMA 356 leads to the conclusion
R= 6.0 that the displacement of these systems is the same
3.5 SITE CLASSES B R= 5.0 regardless of the lateral strength of the structure.
(mean of 20 ground motions) R= 4.0
3.0 R= 3.0
R= 2.0
In the absence of the cap on C1, the equation currently
2.5
R= 1.5 used in FEMA 356 to estimate this coefficient in section
R = 6.0
2.0 3.3.3.3.2 does not capture the effect of changes in
lateral strength on displacement demands. For example,
1.5
for SDOF systems with periods of 0.3 s, one with R = 2
1.0 and the other with R = 8, the expression in FEMA 356
R = 1.5
would indicate that the displacement demand in the
0.5
weaker system would be only about 15% larger than the
0.0 displacement demand in the stronger system, while
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 response-history analyses indicate a much larger
PERIOD sensitivity to lateral strength.
C1 SITE CLASS B Ts = 0.4s Figure 3-14 shows inelastic displacement ratios
4.0
R=8.0
computed for two ground motions recorded in very soft
3.5
R=6.0
soil sites in the San Francisco Bay Area during the 1989
3.0 R=4.0
Loma Prieta earthquake. It can be seen that despite
R=3.0
being in the same site class, the inelastic displacement
2.5
R=2.0
ratios can be very different. For example, for a structure
2.0
R = 8.0
R=1.5
with a 1 s period and R = 6 at the Larkspur site C1 can
reach 2.8 (displacement for the inelastic oscillator 2.8
1.5 times larger than the maximum elastic), while at the
1.0 Emeryville site it is 0.65 (displacement for the inelastic
R = 1.5
oscillator smaller than the maximum elastic). In order to
0.5
WITHOUT CAPPING obtain a better characterization of maximum
0.0 displacement ratios, periods of vibration were
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 normalized by the predominant period of the ground
PERIOD motion, as first proposed by Miranda (1991, 1993). The
predominant period, Tg, of the ground motion is com-
C1 SITE CLASS B Ts = 0.4s puted as the period of vibration corresponding to the
4.0
R=8.0
maximum 5% damped relative-velocity spectral
3.5
R=6.0
ordinate. Examples of the computation of Tg for these
3.0 R=4.0 two recording stations are shown in Figure 3-15. The
R=3.0 resulting inelastic displacement ratios are shown in
2.5 R=2.0 Figure 3-16, where it can be seen that when the periods
2.0
R=1.5 of vibration are normalized, a better characterization of
displacement demands is obtained. As shown, inelastic
1.5 displacement ratios at soft soil sites are characterized by
R=2.0/3.0
1.0
values larger than one for normalized periods smaller
R = 1.5
than about 0.7, values smaller than one for normalized
0.5 WITH CAPPING periods between 0.7 and 1.5 s, and values
0.0
approximately equal to one for longer normalized
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 periods.
PERIOD
Mean inelastic ratios computed for 20 ground motions
for site class E are shown in Figure 3-17. The same
Figure 3-13 Comparison between the mean C1 trend observed in individual records is preserved for the
computed from nonlinear response- mean. Additional information on inelastic displacement
history analyses to C1 in FEMA 356 (non- demands of structures on very soft soil can be found in
capped and capped). Ruiz-García and Miranda (2004).
60
1.0
R = 1.5 40
20
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0
PERIOD
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
PERIOD
C1 EMERYVILLE
4.0
R = 6.0 Sv [cm/s] EMERYVILLE
R = 6.0
R = 5.0 160
R = 4.0
3.0 R = 3.0 140
R = 2.0 Tg = 1.50 s
R = 1.5 120
2.0
100
80
1.0
R = 1.5 60
40
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 20
PERIOD
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
PERIOD
Figure 3-14 Variation of C1 for two individual ground
motions recorded on soft soil E.
Figure 3-15 Predominant ground motion periods for
Inelastic displacement ratios for near-fault ground
the soft soil records obtained at Larkspur
motions influenced by forward directivity effects can be
Ferry Terminal and Emeryville during the
computed in an analogous manner by normalizing the
1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
periods of vibration by the pulse period, which was
computed using the same procedure as for soft soils provides acceptable results with only small
(refer to Figure 3-15). overestimations.
The procedure described in Section 3.2 was used to In Figure 3-18, it is evident that for site class B and
calculate mean errors associated with the FEMA 356 periods between 0.4 s and 1.0 s, the underestimation of
specifications for the coefficient C1 when compared the transition period leads to underestimation of
with the nonlinear response-history benchmark. maximum displacement. Underestimation increases as
Figure 3-18 shows mean errors corresponding to R increases. For example, for a period of 0.4 s,
maximum displacement demands computed using benchmark displacements are on average 1.8 times
FEMA 356 with and without capping when subjected to larger than approximate displacements for R = 8.
ground motions recorded on site classes B and C. These Similar underestimations are produced for site class C.
mean errors correspond to displacements computed
with C2 = C3 = 1, normalized by the benchmark For periods smaller than 0.4 s in the case of site class B,
displacement demands computed with an EPP and for periods smaller than 0.55 s in the case of site
hysteretic model. It can be seen that, in general, the class C, the use of capping on C1 leads to large
results are very good for periods of vibration larger than underestimation of displacements when R is larger than
1.0, where the equal-displacement approximation 2. When the capping is removed, in some cases large
1.0
The coefficient C2 is a modification factor to represent
R = 1.5 the effect of pinched hysteretic shape, stiffness
degradation, and strength deterioration on the
0.0 maximum displacement response according to FEMA
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tg
356. Values of C2 for implementation in FEMA 356
depend on the type of structural framing system and
C1 EMERYVILLE structural performance levels being considered (i.e.,
4.0
R = 6.0
immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse
R = 6.0
R = 5.0 prevention). Values of coefficient C2, computed
3.0
R = 4.0 according to Table 3-3 in FEMA 356, are shown in
R = 3.0
R = 2.0
Figure 3-19.
R = 1.5
2.0 Benchmark ratios of the maximum displacement
demand were calculated by dividing the maximum
1.0
displacement for the stiffness-degrading oscillator (SD)
R = 1.5
model by that for the EPP model when both were
subject to actual ground motions. This ratio thus
0.0 corresponds with the coefficient C2. Mean ratios were
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 calculated for the different site classes. An example for
T / Tg
ground motions recorded on site class D is shown in
Figure 3-20. With the exception of periods of vibration
Figure 3-16 C1 values of Larkspur Ferry Terminal and smaller than about 0.6 s, the maximum displacements of
Emeryville soft soil records for normalized SD models are on average slightly smaller (3% to 12%)
periods of vibration with respect to than that of the EPP systems. Although this may seem
dominant ground motion periods of each surprising considering the smaller hysteresis loops of
record. the SD model, the results shown in this figure are
consistent with previous investigations (Clough, 1966;
Clough and Johnston, 1966; Chopra and Kan, 1973;
C1,EPP Powell and Row, 1976; Riddel and Newmark, 1979;
4.0
SITE CLASS E
R= 8.0 Mahin and Bertero, 1981; Gupta and Kunnath, 1998;
3.5 R= 6.0 Foutch and Shi, 1998; and Gupta and Krawinkler,
(mean of 20 ground motions)
R= 4.0
3.0 R= 3.0 1998). The coefficient C2 specified in FEMA 356, in
2.5
R= 2.0 contrast, increases lateral displacements in this period
R= 1.5 range.
2.0
R = 8.0
1.5 For periods of vibration smaller than about 0.6 s, lateral
displacement of SD systems are generally larger than
1.0
R = 1.5 those of non-degrading EPP systems. Differences
0.5 increase with increasing R. This observation is similar
0.0 to observations of several of the studies mentioned
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 previously. Values of C2 in the period range specified in
T/Tg
FEMA 356 are generally higher than those computed
for relatively strong SD systems (R < 3) but smaller
Figure 3-17 The variation of mean C1 values for site
than those computed for relatively weak SD systems.
class E.
E[(∆ i)app/(∆ i)ex] SITE CLASS B E[(∆ i)app/(∆ i)ex] SITE CLASS B
3.0 3.0
Ts = 0.4 s R=8.0 Ts = 0.4 s R=8.0
(C2 = 1.0) R=6.0 R=6.0
(C2 = 1.0)
R=4.0 R=4.0
2.5 2.5
R=3.0 R=3.0
R=1.5
R=2.0 R=2.0
R=1.5 R=1.5
2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5
R = 8.0 R = 8.0
R = 1.5 R = 1.5
1.0 1.0
R = 1.5 R = 1.5
0.5 0.5
R = 8.0 WITH CAPPING R = 8.0 WITHOUT CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
R = 1.5
1.5 1.5
R = 1.5 R = 8.0
R = 8.0
1.0 1.0
R = 1.5 R = 1.5
R = 8.0
0.5 0.5 R = 8.0
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 3-18 Mean error statistics of capped and not capped C1 values for the ground motions recorded in site classes
B and C, respectively.
Mean ratios of maximum displacements of strength- only correspond to mean (average) values and that a
and-stiffness degrading (SSD) systems to those of EPP very large uncertainty exists, particularly for periods
systems are shown in Figure 3-21, which shows very smaller than 0.6 s.
similar trends. However, in the case of periods shorter
than 0.8 s, the increase in lateral displacement produced Figure 3-22 presents mean errors calculated from the
by SSD behavior is larger than that produced by ratio of the displacements computed with FEMA 356
stiffness degradation only. For periods longer than 0.8 s, (with and without capping of C1) for C2 computed
the maximum displacement of SSD systems is on assuming a life safety structural performance level to
average equal to that of EPP systems. It should be noted the maximum displacements computed with nonlinear
that displacement ratios shown in Figures 3-20 and 3-21 response-history analyses using the SD model. Results
∆i,SSD / ∆i,EPP
C2 SITE CLASS B 4.0
FRAMING TYPE 1
3.0 SITE CLASSES B,C,D R= 6.0
3.5 (mean of 240 ground motions) R= 5.0
R= 4.0
3.0 R= 3.0
R= 2.0
2.5
2.0 R= 1.5
R = 6.0
2.0
1.0 1.0
Immediate Occupancy R = 1.5
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD [s]
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
PERIOD [s]
Figure 3-19 A sample variation of C2 values in Figure 3-21 Mean displacement ratio of SSD to EPP
accordance with FEMA-356 models computed with ground motions
recorded on site classes B, C, and D.
R = 8.0
R = 1.5 R = 8.0 R = 1.5
1.5 1.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 3-22 The mean error statistics associated with C1 and C2 assuming a Life Safety performance level in
accordance with FEMA 356 for stiffness degrading (SD) systems.
R = 1.5 R = 1.5
1.0 1.0
R = 8.0
R = 8.0
0.5 0.5
WITH CAPPING WITHOUT CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 3-23 The mean error statistics associated with C1 and C2 assuming a Collapse Prevention performance level in
accordance with FEMA 356 for stiffness and strength (SSD) degrading systems.
can be increased to approximately 4 without any smaller than a maximum critical value) in order to avoid
significant increase in lateral displacement. Note that α collapse. Comparison of Figures 3-24 and 3-26
is a ratio of the post-elastic stiffness to the elastic illustrates that this phenomenon is not adequately
stiffness. Thus, a negative value of α indicates an captured by coefficient C3 in FEMA 356.
effective decrease of strength with increasing
displacement. If the lateral strength is further decreased It should be noted that P-∆ effects are equivalent to a
(R is further increased), a large, abrupt increase in type of strength degradation that occurs in a single cycle
lateral displacements is produced, and soon after (in-cycle) of vibratory motion. This differs from cyclic
dynamic instability occurs. For the system with more strength degradation that occurs in subsequent cycles
severe negative stiffness (α = –0.21), R can only be modeled with the SSD type oscillator. These two types
increased to about 1.8. From this and other similar data, of strength degradation have different implications with
it is clear that systems that may exhibit negative respect to dynamic behavior. Further discussion of this
stiffness need to have a minimum lateral strength (an R subject is contained in Chapter 4.
C3
1984 Morgan Hill, California Earthquake
8 ∆ i/∆ e
Gilroy #3, Sewage Treatment Plant, Comp. 0°
T = 1.0s α = − 0.21 8
7 α = − 0.06 T = 1.0s
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2 2
α = − 0.21
1 1
α = − 0.06
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
R R
CR,NLE
5.0
SITE CLASS B R= 6.0
(mean of 20 ground motions) R= 5.0
4.0
R= 4.0
R = 6.0 R= 3.0
R= 2.0
3.0
R= 1.5
2.0
1.0
R = 1.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
CR,NLE
5.0
R= 6.0
SITE CLASSES C
R= 5.0
4.0 (mean of 20 ground motions)
R= 4.0
R= 3.0
R= 2.0
3.0
R= 1.5
R = 6.0
2.0
1.0
R = 1.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
CR,NLE
5.0
SITE CLASSES D
4.0 (mean of 20 ground motions) R= 6.0
R= 5.0
R = 6.0
R= 4.0
3.0 R= 3.0
R= 2.0
R= 1.5
2.0
1.0
R = 1.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
Loss of lateral strength in structures during an of the curve during any single cycle of deformation is
earthquake is an issue of concern for engineers. In not negative. Figure 4-1b (in-cycle strength
general, the nonlinear hysteretic characteristics of most degradation) illustrates a different type of strength
buildings include both stiffness degradation and degradation. Note that the degradation occurs during
strength degradation to some extent. Strength the same cycle of deformation in which yielding occurs,
degradation, including P-∆ effects, can lead to an resulting in a negative post-elastic stiffness. This can be
apparent negative post-elastic stiffness in a force- due to actual degradation in the properties of the
deformation relationship for a structural model using component due to damage. It is also the consequence of
nonlinear static procedures. The performance P-∆ effects that increase demand on components and
implications depend on the type of strength effectively reduce strength available to resist inertial
degradation. For structures that are affected by loads.
component strength losses, including P-∆ effects,
occurring in the same cycle as yielding, the negative 4.2 Strength Degradation and SDOF
post-elastic slope can lead to dynamic instability of the Performance
structural model. For this reason, a suggestion for a
minimum strength for such structures is presented in The strength and stiffness degrading (SSD) oscillators
Section 4.4 used to evaluate current nonlinear static procedures (see
Section 3.2) were similar to those in Figure 4-1a. The
4.1 Types of Strength Degradation results of the evaluation demonstrate that these cyclic
strength-degrading oscillators often exhibit maximum
Two types of strength degradation during hysteretic displacements that are comparable with those that do
response are shown in Figure 4-1. Both oscillators not exhibit strength degradation. More importantly,
exhibit inelastic stiffness and strength degradation. The responses are dynamically stable in general, even for
oscillator in Figure 4-1a (cyclic strength degradation) relatively weak systems and large ductility.
maintains its strength during a given cycle of
deformation, but loses strength in the subsequent The in-cycle strength-degrading counterpart discussed
cycles. The effective stiffness also decreases in the in Section 3.4.4, in contrast, can be prone to dynamic
subsequent cycles. The slope of the post-elastic portion instability. Velocity pulses often associated with near-
600
Strength and stiffness degrading model
400
200
Force
-200
-400
-600
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Displacement
Base shear
Degradation of strength
including both cyclic and in-
cycle losses
Displacement
Figure 4-2 Example capacity curve for a medium rise concrete structure
field ground motion records can exacerbate the stiffness (Ke), effective yield strength (Vy), and effective
problem. These pulses can drive the oscillator far into positive (α1) and/or negative (α2) stiffnesses of the
the post-elastic, strength-degrading branch in a single building model, as shown in Figure 4-3. The initial
cycle of motion. linear portion of the idealized force-displacement curve
begins at the origin. A second linear portion ends at a
4.3 Global Force-Deformation Behavior point on the calculated force-displacement curve at the
with Strength Degradation calculated target displacement, or the point of
maximum base shear (Vd), whichever is least. The
In many structures, strength degradation is complex. A intersection of the two idealized segments defines
pushover curve for an example medium-rise reinforced effective lateral stiffness (Ke), the effective yield
concrete building is shown in Figure 4-2. There is an strength (Vy), and effective positive post-yield stiffness
apparent negative post-elastic stiffness. This might be (α1 Ke). The intersection point is determined by
due to three effects. First, there could be cyclic (that is, satisfying two constraints. First, the effective stiffness,
from cycle to cycle) strength degradation associated Ke, must be such that the first segment passes through
with low-cycle fatigue damage of various components the calculated curve at a point where the base shear is
in the lateral-force-resisting system. Interspersed might 60% of the effective yield strength. Second, the areas
be in-cycle strength losses due to component damage as above and below the calculated curve should be
deformations increase monotonically. Superimposed on approximately equal. For models that exhibit negative
this is the negative slope associated with P-∆ effects, post-elastic stiffness, a third idealized segment can be
which may or may not be significant. Unfortunately, it determined by the point of maximum base shear on the
is not possible to distinguish between cyclic and in- calculated force-displacement curve and the point at
cycle strength losses solely from information normally which the base shear degrades to 60% of the effective
available from a nonlinear static analysis. The P-∆ yield strength [the same strength that was used to
effects are always present and contribute to real establish Ke]. This segment defines the maximum
negative post-elastic stiffness. The P-∆ effects are negative post-elastic stiffness (α2 Ke). This negative
simple to separate from the others. Precise separation slope approximates the effects of cyclic and in-cycle
of the remaining constituents of strength degradation degradation of strength. Note that the selection of 60%
cannot be inferred directly, since the distribution of the yield strength to define this slope is based purely
depends on the nature of individual ground motions and on judgement.
the sequence of inelastic behavior among the various
components as a lateral mechanism develops. As noted, nonlinear static procedures are not capable of
distinguishing completely between cyclic and in-cycle
For purposes of nonlinear static analysis, the calculated strength losses. However, insight can be gained by
relationship between base shear and displacement of a separating the in-cycle P-∆ effects from α2 (see
control node (e.g. roof) may be replaced with an Figure 4-3). An effective post-elastic stiffness can then
idealized relationship to calculate the effective lateral be determined as
Base shear
Vd α1K e
Vy α P −∆ K e
0.6 Vy
α eK e
Actual force-displacement α 2K e
curve
Ke
∆y ∆d Displacement
nonlinear dynamic analysis is worthwhile. In particular, locus intersects the capacity curve, instability is not
solution procedure C produces a locus of potential indicated; nonlinear dynamic analysis may be fruitful in
performance points. If this locus tends to be parallel to demonstrating this stability.
and above the capacity curve, then dynamic instability
is indicated according to that procedure. However, if the
C1
Figure 5-1 Expression for coefficient C1 (Eqn.5-1 with a = 90 for site class C) and current FEMA 356 expression.
opposed to the “pure” rocking of the NE oscillator) that there is a belief in the practicing engineering
would likely reduce this tendency. Specific community that short, stiff buildings do not respond to
recommendations cannot be made at this point and seismic shaking as adversely as might be predicted
further study is warranted. using simplified analytical models. Indeed, there may
be logical explanations for this phenomenon, including
Recently, various studies have proposed simplified various aspects of soil-structure interaction. These
expressions for C1. Figure 5-2 compares the C1 factors are often cited qualitatively, along with the
computed with Equation 5-1 assuming site class C to observed good performance of such buildings in past
that proposed by other investigators (Aydinoglu and earthquakes, as justification for less onerous demand
Kacmaz, 2002; Ramirez et al., 2002; Ruiz-Garcia and parameters in codes and analytical procedures.
Miranda, 2003; Chopra and Chintanapakdee, 2003). Traditional design procedures have evolved
With exception of the study by Ramirez et al., all accordingly, giving rise to a second reason. The authors
deformation ratios plotted in Figure 5-2 are for EPP of FEMA 356 felt that the required use of the empirical
hysteretic behavior. Deformation ratios by Ramirez et equation without relief in the short-period range would
al. shown in Figure 5-2 were computed using constants motivate practitioners to revert to the more traditional,
recommended for systems with post-elastic stiffnesses and apparently less conservative, linear procedures.
of 5% of the elastic. The simplified equation proposed FEMA 357, Global Topics Report on the Prestandard
here leads to results that are similar to those of previous and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
investigations. Buildings (ASCE, 2000b), has a discussion of the issue
and addresses the concern about the limitations
5.2.2 Limits on Maximum Displacements for (capping) on C1 and the potential for underestimating
Short Periods the displacement response of weak structures.
FEMA 356 currently contains a limitation (cap) on the
maximum value of the coefficient C1 as described in In an effort to deal more logically with the
Section 3.4.1. As noted in Appendix B, the limitation is characteristics of short-period structures that may
used by many engineers. The evaluation of the reduce their response to strong ground motions from
Coefficient Method in Chapter 3 demonstrates that the that predicted by current analysis procedures, this
limitation contributes to inaccuracy in the prediction of document includes the development of rational
maximum displacements. The authors of FEMA 356 procedures in Chapter 8. It is suggested that these be
included the limitations for two related reasons. First, used in lieu of the limitation in FEMA 356 to estimate
the response of short-period structures.
C1
3.0
C2
R =4 2.0
Equation 5-2, R=6
2.5 Equation 5-1 for site class C Equation 5-2, R=4
Aydinoglu and Kacmaz R=6
Chopra and Chintanapakdee FEMA 356 Collapse Prevention (CP)
2.0 Ramirez et al. FEMA 356 Life Safety LS)
Ruiz-Garcia and Miranda
FEMA 356, CP
1.5
1.5
R=4
1.0 FEMA 356, CP
FEMA 356, LS
0.5 1.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0.0 Period, T (sec)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
PERIOD [s]
Figure 5-3 Coefficient C2 from Eq. 4-2 and FEMA
C1
356 for site classes B, C, and D.
3.0
R =6
2.5
1 ⎛ R −1 ⎞
Equation 5-1 for site class C 2
Aydinoglu and Kacmaz
C2 = 1 + ⎜ ⎟ (5-2)
2.0
Chopra and Chintanapakdee
800 ⎝ T ⎠
Ramirez et al.
Ruiz-Garcia and Miranda
1.5 For periods less than 0.2 s, the value of the coefficient
C2 for 0.2 s may be used. For periods greater than 0.7
1.0 sec, C2 may be assumed equal to 1.0. The expression is
plotted in Figure 5-3. The coefficient C2 need only be
0.5 applied to structures that exhibit significant stiffness
and/or strength degradation.
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
The degree by which deformation demands are
PERIOD [s]
increased by cyclic degradation depends on the
characteristics of the hysteretic behavior, which are
very sensitive to the structural material, detailing, and
Figure 5-2 Comparison of alternative expressions for
ground motion characteristics. Because of the many
the coefficient C1 for R = 4 and R = 6 for
parameters involved, it is difficult to capture the effects
site class C.
of all possible types of cyclic degradation with a single
modifying factor. Equation 5-2 represents a
5.3 Adjustment for Cyclic Degradation simplification and interpretation of many statistical
(Coefficient C2) results with various kinds of cyclically degrading
systems. The dispersion of results of SDOF oscillator
As discussed in Chapter 4, two types of degradation of studies used to formulate the C2 factor is larger than that
stiffness and/or strength can affect response. Also, the of the C1 factor. It is important to consider this large
effects of each type differ from one another. For the dispersion when interpreting the results obtained from
purposes of displacement modification procedures in simplified procedures recommended in this document,
accordance with FEMA 356, it is suggested that the C2 particularly for structures with periods of vibration
coefficient represent the effects of stiffness degradation smaller than 0.5s.
only. The effects of strength degradation are addressed
by the suggested limitation presented in Chapter 4. It is
recommended that the C2 coefficient be as follows:
6.1 Introduction in ATC-40, and much of the process remains the same.
This chapter focuses on the parts that change. The
This chapter presents an improved equivalent following section presents new expressions to
linearization procedure as a modification to the determine effective period and effective damping. It
Capacity-Spectrum Method (CSM) of ATC-40. The also includes a technique to modify the resulting
CSM is a form of equivalent linearization briefly demand spectrum to coincide with the familiar CSM
summarized in Sections 2.4 and 3.3.1. Detailed technique of using the intersection of the modified
information on equivalent linearization in general and demand with the capacity curve to generate a
the derivation of the improved procedures are included performance point for the structural model. The
in Appendix D. reduction in the initial demand spectrum resulting from
the effective damping may be determined using
When equivalent linearization is used as a part of a conventional techniques outlined in Section 6.3. The
nonlinear static procedure that models the nonlinear previous limits on effective damping of ATC-40 should
response of a building with a SDOF oscillator, the not be applied to these new procedures. However, the
objective is to estimate the maximum displacement user must recognize that the results are an estimate of
response of the nonlinear system with an “equivalent” median response and imply no factor of safety for
linear system using an effective period, Teff, and structures that may exhibit poor performance and/or
effective damping, βeff (see Figure 6-1). The global large uncertainty in behavior. The effective parameters
force-deformation relationship shown in Figure 6-1 for for equivalent linearization are functions of ductility.
a SDOF oscillator in acceleration-displacement Since ductility (the ratio of maximum displacement to
response spectrum (ADRS) format is termed a capacity yield displacement) is the object of the analysis, the
curve. The capacity curve shown in Figure 6-1 is solution must be found using iterative or graphical
developed using the conventional procedures of FEMA techniques. Three of these are presented in Section 6.4.
356 or ATC-40. The effective linear parameters are They have been developed to be similar to those of
functions of the characteristics of the capacity curve, ATC-40.
the corresponding initial period and damping, and the
ductility demand, µ, as specified in the following Finally, it should be noted that these procedures may
sections. not be reliable for extremely high ductilities (e.g.,
greater than 10 to 12).
Recommendations for the improved equivalent
linearization procedures rely on the previous procedures
Sa T0
Teff (CS,T0,µ )
Spectral Acceleration
βeff (CS,β0,µ )
ductility µ = dmax/dy
Sd
dy dmax
Spectral Displacement
Figure 6-1 Acceleration-displacement response spectrum (ADRS) showing effective period and damping parameters
of equivalent linear system, along with a capacity curve.
Figure 6-3 Types of inelastic behavior considered. BLH=Bilinear Hysteretic STDG=Stiffness Degrading, and
STRDG=Strength Degrading.
a. Negative values of post-elastic stiffness should be limited to αe, as discussed in Section 4.3
a.Negative values of post-elastic stiffness may be limited to αe, as discussed in Section 4.3
For µ > 6.5: oscillator in terms of basic hysteretic type and post-
elastic stiffness, α.
⎡ 0.64 ( µ − 1 − 1 ⎤ ⎛ T ⎞ 2
βeff = 19 ⎢
) ⎥ eff + β (6-6)
The use of these coefficients in Table 6-2 for actual
⎢ ⎡ 0.64 ( µ − 1)⎤ 2 ⎥ ⎜⎝ T0 ⎟⎠
0 buildings is subject to the same limitations as for
⎣ ⎣ ⎦ ⎦ effective damping, as discussed in Section 6.2.1. When
in doubt, the practitioner should use the following
6.2.2 Effective Period equations for the effective period value that have been
Effective period values for all hysteretic model types optimized for application to any capacity spectrum,
and alpha values have the following form: independent of the hysteretic model type or alpha value:
For 1.0 < µ < 4.0: For 1.0 < µ < 4.0:
[
Teff = G( µ − 1) + H ( µ − 1) + 1 T0
2 3
] (6-7)
{ }
Teff = 0.20 ( µ − 1) − 0.038 ( µ − 1) + 1 T0 (6-10)
2 3
Sa
results in the modified ADRS demand curve (MADRS)
Teff that may now intersect the capacity curve at the
performance point. Since the acceleration values are
Tsec directly related to the corresponding periods, the
Spectral Acceleration
aeff
ADRS (β0) modification factor can be calculated as:
amax
capacity curve 2 2 2
⎛T ⎞ ⎛T ⎞ ⎛ T ⎞
ADRS (β eff) M = ⎜ eff ⎟ = ⎜ eff ⎟ ⎜ 0 ⎟ , (6-14)
MADRS (β eff ,M)
⎝ Tsec ⎠ ⎝ T0 ⎠ ⎝ Tsec ⎠
6.2.3 MADRS for Use with Secant Period where α is the post-elastic stiffness from Equation 6-18.
The conventional Capacity-Spectrum Method (ATC-40) 6.3 Spectral Reduction for Effective
uses the secant period as the effective linear period in Damping
determining the maximum displacement (performance
point). This assumption results in the maximum Equivalent linearization procedures applied in practice
displacement occurring at the intersection of the normally require the use of spectral reduction factors to
capacity curve for the structure and a demand curve for adjust an initial response spectrum to the appropriate
the effective damping in ADRS format. This feature is level of effective damping, βeff. They are also a
useful for two reasons. First, it provides the engineer practical way to adjust for foundation damping as
with a visualization tool by facilitating a direct presented in Chapter 8. In the case of foundation
graphical comparison of capacity and demand. Second, damping, the initial damping value, β0, for a flexible-
there are very effective solution strategies for base structural model is modified from the fixed-base
equivalent linearization that rely on a modified ADRS linear value, βi (e.g., 5%). These factors are a function
demand curve (MADRS) that intersects the capacity of the effective damping and are termed damping
curve at the maximum displacement. coefficients, B(βeff). They are used to adjust spectral
acceleration ordinates as follows:
The use of the effective period and damping equations
in Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 generate a maximum (S )
displacement that coincides with the intersection of the ( Sa )β = B aβ 0 (6-16)
radial effective period line and the ADRS demand for ( eff )
the effective damping (see Figure 6-4). The effective
period of the improved procedure, Teff, is generally There are a number of options in current procedures for
shorter than the secant period, Tsec, defined by the point determining B(βeff). Some of these are plotted in
on the capacity curve corresponding to the maximum Figure 6-5. Also shown in the figure is the following
displacement, dmax. The effective acceleration, aeff, is expression:
not meaningful since the actual maximum acceleration,
amax, must lie on the capacity curve and coincide with 4
the maximum displacement, dmax. Multiplying the B= (6-17)
ordinates of the ADRS demand corresponding to the 5.6 − ln βeff ( in %)
effective damping, βeff, by the modification factor
This simple expression is very close to equations
specified in both the NEHRP Recommended Provisions
a (6-13) for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
M = amax
eff Structures and the ATC-40 document. It is suggested
that Equation 6-17 replace the current specifications.
B(β eff )
2.4
2.2
D amping coeffic ient
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
β eff
Damping in percent
Figure 6-5 Damping coefficients, B, as a function of damping, βeff, from various resource documents.
Note that if the ATC-40 equations are used, then the 2. Modify the selected spectrum, as appropriate, for
limits on the reduction should not be applied. soil-structure interaction (SSI) in accordance with
the procedures in Chapter 9. This involves both
6.4 Solution Procedures potential reduction in spectral ordinates for kine-
matic interaction and a modification in the system
Since the effective period, Teff, and effective damping, damping from the initial value, βi to β0, to account
βeff, are both functions of ductility demand, the for foundation damping. If foundation damping is
calculation of a maximum displacement using ignored, β0 is equal to βi.
equivalent linearization is not direct and requires an
iterative or graphical solution procedure. This is the 3. Convert the selected spectrum, modified for SSI
same as the previous situation with the Capacity- when appropriate, to an acceleration-displacement
Spectrum Method of ATC-40. This section presents response spectrum format in accordance with the
three alternate procedures. Other procedures are guidance in ATC-40. This spectrum is the initial
possible. ADRS demand (see Figure 6-6).
4. Generate a capacity curve for the structure to be
All of the solution procedures presented here require analyzed. This is a fundamental relationship for a
initial steps listed below. SDOF model of the structure between spectral
1. Select a spectral representation of the ground acceleration and spectral displacement (see
motion of interest with an initial damping, βi (nor- Figure 6-6). Detailed guidance is available in
mally 5%). This may be a design spectrum from ATC-40 and FEMA 356. Note that the FEMA 356
ATC-40 or FEMA 356, a site-specific deterministic procedures result in a relationship between base
spectrum, or an equal hazard probabilistic spec- shear and roof displacement. This requires conver-
trum. sion to ADRS format for equivalent linearization
procedures (see ATC-40).
Sa ⎛ a pi − ay ⎞
⎜d −d ⎟
equal displacement approximation
⎝ pi y⎠
(arbitrary initial assumption) α= (6-18)
⎛ ay ⎞
Spectral Acceleration
⎜d ⎟
capacity curve for ⎝ y⎠
api structure
T0
T0
Sa
Sa
Teff (µ, CS)
Spectral Acceleration
Spectral Acceleration
capacity curve(CS)
ai for structure
capacity curve (CS)
api ai for structure
initial ADRS, β0 api
ADRS, βeff (µ, CS)
initial ADRS, β0
dpi di Sd
Spectral Displacement dpi di Sd
Figure 6-8 Determination of estimated maximum Spectral Displacement
displacement using direct iteration
(Procedure A) Figure 6-9 Determination of estimated maximum
displacement using intersection of
B9. Using the effective damping determined from capacity spectrum with MADRS
Step 8, adjust the initial ADRS to βeff (see (Procedure B)
Section 6.3).
B10. Multiply the acceleration ordinates only (i.e., not C9. Using the effective damping determined from
the displacement ordinates) of the ADRS for βeff Step 8, adjust the initial ADRS to βeff (see
by the modification factor, M, determined using
Section 6.3).
the calculated effective period, Teff, in accor-
dance with Section 6.2.3 to generate the modi- C10. Multiply the acceleration ordinates of the ADRS
fied acceleration-displacement response for βeff by the modification factor, M, determined
spectrum (MADRS). using the calculated effective period, Teff, in
accordance with Section 6.2.3 to generate the
B11. Determine the estimate of the maximum acceler-
modified acceleration-displacement response
ation, ai, and displacement, di, as the intersection
spectrum (MADRS).
of the MADRS with the capacity curve (see
Figure 6-9). C11. A possible performance point is generated by the
intersection of the radial secant period, Tsec, with
B12. Compare the estimated maximum displacement,
the MADRS (see Figure 6-10).
di, with the initial (or previous) assumption, dpi.
If it is within acceptable tolerance, the perfor- C12. Increase or decrease the assumed performance
mance point corresponds to ai and di. If it is not point and repeat the process to generate a series
within acceptable tolerance, then repeat the pro- of possible performance points.
cess from Step 5 using ai and di, or some other
C13. The actual performance point is defined by the
selected assumption (see Section 6.6), as a start-
intersection of the locus of points from Step 12
ing point.
and the capacity spectrum.
Procedure C (MADRS Locus of Possible Note that Procedure C is conducive to an automated
Performance Points). This approach uses the modified process wherein the initial solution is assumed to
acceleration-response spectrum for multiple assumed correspond to a ductility of 1.0 and subsequent trials are
solutions (api, dpi) and the corresponding ductilities to set as incrementally greater ductilities (e.g., 2, 3, 4,
generate a locus of possible performance points. The 5,….).
actual performance point is located at the intersection of
this locus and the capacity spectrum.
Tsec (μ=1)
D8. Using the calculated values for ductility, µ, from
Locus of possible
Tsec (μ=2) Performance Points Step 7, calculate the corresponding spectral
Sa
Tsec (μ=3) response-reduction factors as
Tsec (μ=4)
Tsec (μ=5)
⎡ 6 ⎤
⎢ µ + 5⎥ for 1 ≤ µ ≤ 4 (6-20)
Spectral Acceleration
Tsec (μ=6)
Capacity curve
⎣ ⎦
Tsec (μ=7)
a
Initial ADRS, β0 (µ=1)
MADRS (µ=2) ⎡ 75 ⎤
(µ=3)
(µ=4)
⎢ µ + 110 ⎥ for µ > 4 (6-21)
(µ=5) ⎣ ⎦
(µ=6)
(µ=7)
D9. Using the spectral response-reduction factors
dmax Sd from Step 8, multiply both the spectral accelera-
Spectral Displacement tions and corresponding spectral displacements
by the response-reduction factor to generate a
Figure 6-10 Locus of possible performance points
reduced ADRS corresponding to the assumed
using MADRS.
ductility, µ.
D10. Multiply the spectral acceleration ordinates (not
6.5 Approximate Solution Procedure the spectral displacement ordinates) of the
reduced ADRS by a simplified modification fac-
The following procedure is a simplified MADRS tor
approach based on approximations to the equations in
Section 6.2. It uses a MADRS solution procedure 1
similar to that of Section 6.4. The approximations are M= ≥ 0.64 (6-22)
based upon an EPP single-degree-of freedom system. µ
The results of the approximate procedure are compared
to the more rigorous procedures for various types of to generate the approximate modified
hysteretic behavior in Figure 6-11. The first seven steps acceleration-displacement response spectrum
in the procedure are the same as Steps 1 through 7 in the (MADRS). It should be noted that for ductilities
beginning of Section 6.4. The next steps in the greater than 1.6 the bounding limit of 0.64
approximate procedure are given below. controls this step.
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
SD (in)
Figure 6-11 Comparison of approximate solution results with results from more detailed procedures.
Calculated di
6
D13. The actual performance point is defined by the Trial 2
5
intersection of the locus of points from Step 12 Trial 1
and the capacity curve. For this approximate pro- 4
3 Trial 3
cedure, the calculated target displacement must
be equal to or greater than the elastic target dis- 2
placement. 1
0
6.6 Iterative Strategy 0 2 4 6 8 10
database (http://peer.berkeley.edu), and were scaled to vibration mode. Rather, for the present study, it is more
be representative of design-level motions at the site. important that the average approximate the design
spectrum in the period range just below Ti to values
The NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New higher than Ti, such that as the oscillator yields, it will,
Buildings prescribe a scaling procedure to be used when on average, experience ground motion intensities close
ground motion records are used directly for time- to that represented by the design spectrum. Also,
domain dynamic analysis. According to this procedure, because this is a study of the procedures, rather than a
ground motions should be selected that are from similar building design, it is preferable to scale the motions so
site conditions, rupture mechanism and magnitude, and that the average of the spectral ordinates follows the
epicentral distance. For the present study, the selected design spectrum closely, rather than conservatively
records were for sites classified as NEHRP Site Class scaling the motions to be above the design spectrum as
C, having strike-slip mechanism, magnitude Ms ranging might be done for design purposes.
from 6.3 to 7.5, and closest distance to fault rupture
ranging from 5 to 25 km. Sixteen ground motion records were selected for
consideration. Each was examined to be certain it did
The SDOF oscillators were to be analyzed as planar not contain obvious near-fault directivity effects. Each
structures subjected to a single horizontal component of motion was scaled so that the five-percent-damped
ground motion. Therefore, records were scaled spectral ordinate at the period of the oscillator matched
individually rather than scaling them as pairs as is that of the NEHRP response spectrum at the same
recommended by the NEHRP Recommended Provisions period. Ground motions were eliminated selectively to
for New Buildings for three-dimensional structures. The avoid motions with unacceptably large scaling factors
Provisions stipulate that the ground motions be scaled and motions whose response spectra did not appear
such that the average of the ordinates of the five- consistent with the NEHRP response spectrum. The
percent-damped linear response spectra does not fall process of elimination continued until there were ten
below the design spectrum for the period range 0.2Ti to records available for each oscillator. Note that the
1.5Ti, where Ti is the fundamental period of vibration of oscillators had three different vibration periods (0.2,
the structure modeled as a linear system. The period 0.5, and 1.0 s). Within the criteria stated above, it was
0.2Ti is selected as the lower bound to ensure that not feasible to use the same ten motions for each
important higher modes of vibration are adequately oscillator. In total, 13 ground motions were used for the
excited. This lower bound is not relevant for the present study. The ground motion records are identified in
study because the structure is an oscillator with a single Table 7-1. The response spectra of the scaled ground
For T = 0.2 sec ( range 0.04 ~ 0.30 sec) For T = 0.5 sec ( range 0.10 ~ 0.75 sec)
16
18
14
16
12 14
12
10
Sa ( m/sec 2)
Sa ( m/sec 2)
10
6
DBE DBE
average average
4 H-PTS315 , (SF = 2.06) H-PTS225 , (SF = 3.82)
H-CPE147 , (SF = 2.58) H-PTS315 , (SF = 2.96)
H-CPE237 , (SF = 1.97) 4
H-CPE147 , (SF = 2.14)
CLW -LN , (SF = 1.03) CLW -LN , (SF = 1.34)
MVH000 , (SF = 2.84) CLW -TR , (SF = 0.90)
2 MVH090 , (SF = 2.64) MVH000 , (SF = 2.33)
DSP000 , (SF = 1.86) 2 MVH090 , (SF = 2.21)
JOS090 , (SF = 2.02) DSP000 , (SF = 3.24)
NPS000 , (SF = 2.94) DSP090 , (SF = 3.37)
NPS090 , (SF = 2.91) JOS000 , (SF = 1.46)
0 0
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Period (sec) Period (sec)
Figure 7-2 NEHRP response spectrum and 5%- Figure 7-3 NEHRP response spectrum and 5%-
damped response spectra of scaled damped response spectra of scaled
motions, used for oscillators having motions, used for oscillators having
T = 0.2 s. T = 0.5 s.
motions used for oscillators having periods 0.2, 0.5, and 7.2.4 Nonlinear Static Procedure Estimates
1.0 s are shown in Figures 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4, Using Smoothed or Average Spectra
respectively. The improved nonlinear static procedures of Chapters 5
and 6 were applied to the NEHRP response spectra, as
7.2.3 Characteristics of Oscillators well as to the average of the 5%-damped response
Nine SDOF oscillators were used for this study. The spectra. The former represents more closely how the
oscillators had bilinear load-displacement relationships procedures would be used with the NEHRP response
with post-elastic stiffness equal to five percent of the spectra, whereas the latter represents more closely how
initial elastic stiffness. Loading and unloading the procedures might be used when a site-specific
characteristics are shown in Figure 7-5 without strength response spectrum is defined by the average of the
or stiffness degradation. Initial damping was five response spectra for a series of design ground motions
percent of critical damping. The oscillators had three selected for a site.
different yield strengths and three different periods. For
each period, the spectral acceleration was read from the For application of the displacement modification
NEHRP response spectrum. The yield strengths were method of Chapter 5, the displacement amplitude was
then defined as the elastic base shear demand (product defined as
of the mass and spectral acceleration) divided by a
strength reduction factor R. R values of 2, 4, and 8 were ⎛ Ti ⎞ 2
considered. Figure 7-6 summarizes the elastic vibration C1C2 Sd = C1C2 Sa ,
⎝ 2π ⎠
periods and R values selected.
DBE 8
10
Initial Period, sec
Figure 7-6 Linear vibration periods and strength
8
reduction factors for oscillators.
6
in which Sa = pseudo-spectral acceleration ordinate at
the period of the oscillator Ti. The coefficient C1 was
4 defined as
R −1
2 C1 = 1 + .
90Ti2
0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 Coefficient C2 was taken equal to 1.0, as it was assumed
Period (sec)
that there was no stiffness or strength degradation.
Figure 7-4 NEHRP response spectrum and 5%-
damped response spectra of scaled For application of the equivalent linearization
motions, used for oscillators having procedure of Chapter 6, response spectra were
T = 1.0 s. converted to the spectral acceleration-spectral
displacement format. In studies using the average
response spectra, the spectral ordinates were calculated
for each ground motion for each of several different
0.05 K0
damping ratios. The results for a given damping ratio
were averaged for the different ground motions to
obtain the average response spectrum for that damping
K0
ratio. In studies using the NEHRP smooth design
response spectra, spectral ordinates for damping
Shear
Ag (m/sec 2)
0
-1
-2
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
time (sec)
T = 1 sec, R = 4, ζ = 5%, Umax = 1.239e-001 m
0.15
0.1
Urelative (m)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
time (sec)
Ke = 3.95e+004 N/m, Dy = 3.23e-002 m, α = 0.050
1500
1000
500
Pk (N)
-500
-1000
-1500
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Urelative (m)
Figure 7-7 Representative nonlinear response-history analysis result (this example is for oscillator period T = 1 s,
ground motion DSP090 scaled by factor 1.53, and strength-reduction factor R = 4).
calculated displacement was not more than 5% different 7.2.5 Response-History Analyses
from the assumed displacement. Also, solutions were
Inelastic responses of the single-degree-of-freedom
generated using the approximate MADRS approach of
oscillators, with different periods and strength-
Section 6.5.
reduction factors, were calculated for each of the
ground motion histories. Figure 7-7 presents a
Results also are presented using the Coefficient Method
representative result.
of FEMA 356 and the Capacity-Spectrum Method of
ATC-40. For the Coefficient Method, the coefficients
for the nonlinear static procedure were used with a cap 7.3 Results of the Study
on C1 equal to 1.5, as permitted, and all other Figure 7-8 presents results of the study using ground
coefficients set equal to 1.0. For the Capacity-Spectrum motions scaled to match the NEHRP design response
Method, the procedures of ATC-40 were followed spectrum, with the nonlinear static results calculated for
explicitly, using the response spectra in the same the NEHRP design response spectrum. Data are
manner as for the improved procedure. presented in three sequential graphs, one each for
oscillator of the initial periods: 0.2 s 0.5 s, and 1.0 s.
T = 0.2s
NEHRP Response Spectrum
0.07
Indicates mean of NDA plus and
minus one standard deviation
0.06
NDA
Maximum Displacement (m)
0.01
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strength Reduction Factor, R
Figure 7-8 Comparison of responses for an oscillator with T = 0.2 s calculated using various procedures, response
spectra scaled to the NEHRP spectrum, and values calculated for the NEHRP spectrum
Each graph plots maximum relative displacement 7. µ = 10 plots the displacement corresponding to dis-
amplitude as a function of the strength-reduction factor placement ductility of 10.
R. The legend to the right of each graph identifies the
data in the graph, as follows: In Figures 7-8, 7-9, and 7-10, the results of primary
interest are those for which the actual displacement is
1. NDA mean is the mean of the maximum displace-
less than approximately10 times the yield displacement.
ment response amplitudes calculated using nonlin-
Displacements near or beyond this level are unrealistic
ear dynamic analysis (time-domain) for the ten
for most actual structures, because their vertical- and
ground motions. Each graph also includes a repre-
lateral-force-resisting systems are unlikely to be able to
sentation of the NDA results for each strength
sustain such large deformations without failure. The
value, consisting of the mean plus and minus one
coefficients of the FEMA 440 EL method were
standard deviation.
optimized for solutions with displacement ductility less
2. FEMA 440 EL is the result obtained by the than this limit.
improved equivalent linearization method
(Section 6.4) The results obtained using nonlinear dynamic analysis
(NDA) indicate that for short-period oscillators, the
3. FEMA 440 DM is the result obtained by the
maximum displacement response amplitude increases
improved displacement modification method of
with decreasing strength (increasing R), while for
Chapter 5.
longer-period oscillators the peak displacement
4. Approximate EL is the result obtained by the response is less sensitive to strength. NDA results
approach given in Section 6.5. reflect wider dispersion for shorter-period oscillators
and for lower strength values. This observation is partly
5. ATC-40 is the result obtained by the Capacity-
because the response spectra (Figures 7-2, 7-3, and 7-4)
Spectrum Method of ATC-40.
show increasing dispersion as the period elongates (as
6. FEMA 356 is the result obtained by the displace- occurs for structures with lower strengths). Previous
ment modification method of FEMA 356. studies, including those summarized in Chapter 3, also
have shown that dispersion of response generally
T = 0.5s
NEHRP Response Spectrum
0.14
0.12
NDA
Maximum Displacement (m)
0.02
Indicates mean of NDA plus and
minus one standard deviation
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strength Reduction Factor, R
Figure 7-9 Comparison of responses for an oscillator with T = 0.5 s calculated using various procedures, response
spectra scaled to the NEHRP spectrum, and values calculated for the NEHRP spectrum.
T = 1.0s
NEHRP Response Spectrum
0.25
Maximum Displacement (m)
0.20 NDA
FEMA 440 EL
FEMA 440 DM
0.15 Approx. EL
ATC 40
FEMA 356
µ=10
0.10 std R=2
std R=4
std R=8
0.05
Indicates mean of NDA plus and
minus one standard deviation
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strength Reduction Factor, R
Figure 7-10 Comparison of responses for an oscillator with T = 1.0 s calculated using various procedures, response
spectra scaled to the NEHRP spectrum, and values calculated for the NEHRP spectrum.
increases for shorter periods and higher R values, response spectra for the scaled ground motions. For the
regardless of the tendency of the response spectra. displacement modification methods, the ordinate of the
5% damped response spectrum at period T of the
The proposed improved procedures generally follow the oscillator is unchanged from the previous analyses, so
observed mean trends for the NDA results, provided the results shown in Figures 7-11, 7-12, and 7-13 for
that the displacement ductilities remain within those methods are the same as those shown in
reasonable bounds. Unreasonable ductility values are Figures 7-8, 7-9, and 7-10. For the equivalent
the cause of overestimates of displacement in some linearization methods, the analysis required the
instances, using the FEMA 440 EL and the approximate calculation of the average of the linear response spectra
EL procedures (e.g., Figure 7-8 with T = 0.2 s and for each scaled ground motion record for each of
R = 8, Figure 7-10 with T = 1.0 s and R = 8). This several different damping values. Results for these
tendency is not apparent when the average spectrum is methods therefore differ from those presented in
used, as noted below. Figures 7-8, 7-9, and 7-10. Data are presented in three
sequential graphs, separated by the oscillator initial
As expected, the FEMA 356 procedure does not predict periods of 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0 s. Each graph plots
the increase in displacement response with increasing R maximum relative displacement amplitude as a function
for short-period oscillators. The ATC-40 procedure of strength-reduction factor, R. The legend to the right
tends to underestimate the displacement response for of each graph identifies the data in the graph, defined as
small R and overestimate the response for large R. described above.
These results are again consistent with the previous
studies (Chapter 3). Results for the improved equivalent linearization
methods using the average spectrum (Figure 7-8) are
Figures 7-11, 7-12, and 7-13 present data similar to somewhat improved over those using the NEHRP
those of Figures 7-8, 7-9, and 7-10. The ground motions spectrum (Figures 7-8, 7-9, and 7-10), especially for
are identical, having been scaled to match the NEHRP larger ductilities. This improvement might be expected
smooth design response spectrum, and oscillator for two reasons. First, the equivalent linearization
strengths also are identical. However, the nonlinear methods were derived using response spectra calculated
static procedures all are applied using the average of the for individual motions for various specific values of
T = 0.2s
Average Response Spectrum
0.070
0.060
Indicates mean of NDA plus and
Maximum Displacement (m)
0.020
0.010
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strength Reduction Factor, R
Figure 7-11 Comparison of responses of an oscillator with T = 0.2 s calculated using various procedures, response
spectra scaled to NEHRP spectrum, and values calculated for the average spectrum.
T = 0.5s
Average Response Spectrum
0.14
0.12
NDA mean
Maximum Displacement (m)
0.02
Indicates mean of NDA plus and
minus one standard deviation
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strength Reduction Factor, R
Figure 7-12 Comparison of responses of an oscillator with T = 0.5 s calculated using various procedures, response
spectra scaled to the NEHRP spectrum, and values calculated for the average spectrum.
T = 1.0s
Average Response Spectrum
0.25
Indicates mean of NDA plus and
minus one standard deviation
FEMA 440 EL
FEMA 440 DM
0.15 Approx. EL
ATC 40
FEMA 356
µ=10
0.10 std R=2
std R=4
std R=8
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
damping. When used with the NEHRP design spectrum, accuracy of the methods relative to results for
it was necessary to estimate the effect of damping on maximum global displacements obtained using
spectral ordinates using approximate spectral reduction nonlinear dynamic analysis. For this particular sample
factors. Additionally, the effective period relationships of ground motions and oscillators, the improved
were optimized from actual spectra as opposed to an nonlinear static procedures provide generally better
assumed shape (e.g., NEHRP spectrum). estimates of the mean maximum displacement response
than do the current procedures. For displacement
7.4 Summary of Implications of the Results ductility less than about 10, which is deemed an
of the Study excessive value for most structures to which these
procedures would be applied, the improved nonlinear
As noted elsewhere in this document, the dispersion of static procedures produced results within about one
maximum displacement responses for nonlinear standard deviation of mean responses obtained by
oscillators subjected to earthquake ground motions is nonlinear dynamic analysis.
relatively large, such that a relatively large number of
analyses with different oscillators and ground motions Another objective was to investigate whether the
may be required to reach statistically meaningful improved simplified static procedures could be applied
conclusions regarding response statistics. The results to design spectra commonly used in practice, with
reported in this chapter based on a relatively small sufficient accuracy. As shown in Figures 7-8, 7-9, and
number of ground motions and oscillators are 7-10, for the ground motions, scaling procedure, and
insufficient to serve as the basis for broad conclusions oscillators considered, the improved simplified static
for all cases. Nonetheless, some general observations procedures effectively estimated the mean of maximum
can be made from the results. displacement response in conjunction with smooth
design spectra. Again, the procedures probably should
Engineers using the Capacity-Spectrum Method of not be used for excessive displacement ductility values.
ATC-40 and the Coefficient Method of FEMA 356 have
observed that sometimes the two methods give widely Finally, the results reported in this chapter illustrate the
different displacement estimates. This observation is dispersion typical of nonlinear dynamic analysis using
evident from the results reported in Section 7.3. In some design-level ground motions. Actual response for a real
cases, the results of the methods differ by as much as a design-level event may differ significantly from the
factor of two (Figures 7-8 through 7-13). One of the estimate given by the simplified procedures using a
objectives of the effort to develop improved nonlinear NEHRP-like design spectrum. The same is true even if
static procedures, reported here, was to reduce the the spectrum is derived from specific ground motions
discrepancy in the results obtained by the two methods. records and even if the simplified procedures are
As shown in Figures 7-8 through 7-13, this objective capable of reasonably matching the median response.
has been met for the ground motions and oscillators that When interpreting results and assessing structural
were studied. performance, engineers must consider the implications
of these uncertainties.
Another objective in developing the improved
procedures in the frequency domain was to improve the
ug= free field motion (FFM) with ug= free field motion (FFM) with
conventional damping conventional damping
ug= foundation input motion (FIM) ug= foundation input motion (FIM)
with conventional damping with system damping including
Kinematic interaction Adjust for foundation foundation damping
(high T-pass filter) damping
free field motion (FFM) with foundation input motion (FIM) with
conventional damping conventional damping
Kinematic interaction
(high T-pass filter)
free field motion (FFM) with
conventional damping
applied to the high-frequency (short-period) components Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
of the free-field ground motion. The impact of those Structures (BSSC, 2000),1 as well as the ASCE-7
effects on superstructure response will tend to be Standard for Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
greatest for short-period buildings. A simplified Other Structures (ASCE, 2002) include procedures to
procedure to apply these principles for reduction of the account for this effect when using linear analysis
spectral amplitudes of the free-field motion to generate procedures. Section 8.3 incorporates similar, although
the FIM spectrum is presented in Section 8.2. The updated, procedures for use with NSPs. In the
foundation input motion can be applied to a fixed-base procedure, the foundation damping is linked to the ratio
model or, as depicted in Figure 8-1c, can be combined of the fundamental period of the system on the flexible-
with a flexible-base model. foundation to that of a fixed-base model. Other factors
affecting foundation damping are the foundation size
Figure 8-1d illustrates foundation damping effects that and embedment. The foundation damping is combined
are another result of inertial soil-structure interaction in with the conventional initial structural damping to
addition to foundation flexibility. Foundation damping generate a revised damping ratio for the entire system,
results from the relative movements of the foundation including the structure, foundation, and soil. This
and the supporting soil. It is associated with radiation of system damping ratio then modifies the foundation
energy away from the foundation and hysteretic
damping within the soil. The result is an effective
decrease in the spectral ordinates of ground motion 1.Superseded in 2003 with the FEMA 450 Recommended
experienced by the structure. Although seldom used in Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings
practice the NEHRP Recommended Provisions for and Other Structures.
• The base-slab averaging model: A number of factors influence the foundation damping
a. underestimates reductions in ground motions factor βf (see Appendix E). Subject to the limitations
for foundation materials that consist of firm noted below, the following simplified procedure can be
rock (Site Classes A and B). used to estimate βf and the subsequent spectral ordinate
change due to the modified damping ratio of the
b. has not been rigorously studied for structures complete structural system, β0.
without large in-plane stiffness (continuous mat
1. Evaluate the linear periods for the structural model structures, and as the vertical distance from the
assuming a fixed base, T, and a flexible base, T̃ foundation to the centroid of the first mode shape
using appropriate foundation modeling assump- for multi-story structures. In the latter case, h* can
tions. Guidelines for the evaluation of soil spring often be well-approximated as 70% of the total
stiffnesses are provided in FEMA 356 and ATC-40. structure height. The quantity Kx is often much
In those calculations, the strain-degraded shear larger than K*fixed, in which case an accurate
modulus should be used to represent the soil stiff- evaluation of Kx is unnecessary and the ratio,
ness. K*fixed/Kx, can be approximated as zero.
2. Calculate the effective structural stiffness of the
The equivalent foundation radius for rotation is
SDOF oscillator for fixed base conditions as
then calculated as
2
⎛ 2π ⎞ 1
*
K fixed = M* ⎜ ⎟ (8-3)
⎝ T ⎠ ⎛ 3 (1 − υ ) Kθ ⎞ 3
rθ = ⎜ ⎟⎠ (8-7)
⎝ 8G
where M* is the effective mass for the first mode
calculated as the total mass times the effective mass The soil shear modulus, G, and soil Poisson’s ratio,
coefficient (see ATC-40 Eqn. 8-21). υ, should be consistent with those used in the
evaluation of foundation spring stiffness.
3. Determine the equivalent foundation radius for
translation as 6. Determine the basement embedment, e, if applica-
ble.
Af
rx = (8-4) 7. Estimate the effective period-lengthening ratio,
π T˜eff / Teff , using the site-specific structural model
developed for nonlinear pushover analyses. This
where Af is the area of the foundation footprint if period-lengthening ratio is calculated for the struc-
the foundation components are inter-connected ture in its degraded state (i.e., accounting for struc-
laterally. tural ductility and soil ductility). An expression for
the ratio is
4. Calculate the translational stiffness of the founda-
tion, Kx. This can be evaluated using the procedures 0.5
Teff ⎧⎪ 1 ⎡ ⎛ T ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪
2
in FEMA 356 (Chapter 4) or ATC-40 (Chapter 10).
= ⎨1 + ⎢ ⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ ⎬ (8-8)
For many applications, the translational stiffness Teff ⎪ µ ⎢ ⎝ T ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪
can be estimated as ⎩ ⎣ ⎭
30 e / rx = 0.5
e / rx = 0 (radiation damping only)
Foundation D amp ing, βf (%)
20 1.0
1.0
10
2.0 10 2.0
0
1 1.5 ~ 2
Period Lengthening, Teff/Teff
0
1 1.5 2
Figure 8-4 Example of foundation damping, βf, as a ~
Period Lengthening, Teff/Teff
function of effective period lengthening
ratio, T˜eff / Teff , for constant
embedment, e/rx = 0, and various values Figure 8-5 Example of foundation damping, βf, as a
of foundation stiffness rotational stiffness, function of effective period lengthening
h/rθ. ratio, T˜eff / Teff , for constant
embedment, e/rx = 0.5, and various
a1 = ce exp ( 4.7 − 1.6h / rθ ) (8-9a) values of foundation stiffness rotational
stiffness, h/rθ.
components spaced at a distance less than the larger • The analysis is unconservative (overpredicting the
dimension of either component in the corresponding damping) if vsT/rx > 2π (where vs = average shear
direction. Further discussion is presented in wave velocity to a depth of about rx) and the
Appendix E, Section E.3.1.5. foundation soils have significant increases of shear
stiffness with depth. Further discussion is presented
• The analysis can be conservative (underpredicting
in Appendix E, Section E.3.1.2.
the damping) when foundation aspect ratios exceed
about 2:1. Further discussion is presented in • The analysis is unconservative if the foundation soil
Appendix E, Section E.3.1.4. profile consists of a soil layer overlying a very stiff
material (i.e., there is a pronounced impedance
• The analysis is conservative when foundations are
contrast within the soil profile), and if the system
deeply embedded, e/rx > 0.5. Further discussion is
period is greater than the first-mode period of the
presented in Appendix E, Section E.3.1.3.
layer. Further discussion is presented in Appendix E,
Section E.3.1.2.
2. the conversion of a MDOF pushover curve to an First Mode. The first-mode technique applies
equivalent SDOF system. accelerations proportional to the shape of the first mode
of the elastic MDOF model.
The results of a comprehensive study of five example
buildings that examines the differences in response Adaptive. The adaptive procedure uses the first mode
predicted using various options compared to a common and recognizes that softening of the capacity curve
reflects a reduction in stiffness, which, in turn, causes a One load vector is selected from the following list.
change in the mode shape. Thus, lateral forces are
• Code distribution—Restricted to the cases in which
applied in proportion to the amplitude of an evolving
more than 75% of mass participates in first mode,
first-mode shape and the mass at each level within the
and the second vector must be the uniform
MDOF model.
distribution.
SRSS. The square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares • First mode—Restricted to the cases in which more
(SRSS) technique is based on elastic modal responses. than 75% of mass participates in first mode.
The response in each mode has a lateral force pattern, • SRSS of modal story loads – This option must be
which can be summed to obtain story shears associated used if Te > 1 s.
with each mode. An SRSS combination of the modal
story shears results in a particular shear profile, referred A second load vector is selected from the following
to as the SRSS story shears. The lateral forces required options.
to generate the SRSS story shear profile are applied to
the MDOF model in this pushover technique. The • Uniform distribution or
elastic spectral amplitudes and modal properties are • Adaptive load distribution.
used even when nonlinear response is anticipated. A
sufficient number of modes to represent at least 90% of In FEMA 356 (Section 2.4.2.1), the use of NSPs must
the mass is generally included. be supplemented with a linear dynamic analysis if any
SRSS story shear from a response-spectrum analysis
9.2.2 Multi-Mode Pushover Procedures
including modes representing 90% of the mass exceeds
Multi-mode pushover analysis procedures consider 130% of the corresponding story shear from a first-
response in several modes. Approaches have been mode response-spectrum analysis.
described by various investigators such as Sasaki et al.
(1998), Reinhorn (1997), Chopra and Goel (2002), and The yield displacement, ∆y, of the equivalent SDOF
Jan et al. (2004). Chopra and Goel (2001b) describe an system is effectively determined as
approach in which pushover analyses are conducted
independently in each mode, using lateral-force profiles ∆y,roof
that represent the response in each of the first several ∆y = (9-1)
Γ1
modes. Response values are determined at the target
displacement associated with each modal pushover
analysis. Response quantities obtained from each modal where ∆y,roof = the roof displacement at yield, and
pushover normally are combined using the SRSS Γ1 = the first-mode participation factor.
method. Although response in each mode may
potentially be nonlinear, the mode shapes and lateral- In the FEMA 356 approximation, it can be shown that
force profiles are assumed to be invariant in this the yield strength coefficient of the equivalent SDOF
analysis procedure. Target displacement values may be system is approximated as
computed by applying displacement modification or
equivalent linearization procedures to an elastic Sa Vmdof
spectrum for an equivalent SDOF system representative Cy = = Γ1 (9-2)
g W
of each mode to be considered. Chopra and Goel
(2001d) and Yu et al. (2001) illustrate the method using where Sa = the pseudo-acceleration associated with
SRSS combinations of floor displacement, interstory yield of the ESDOF (Equivalent SDOF) system, g = the
drift, and component deformation (plastic hinge acceleration of gravity, Vmdof = the yield strength of the
rotations). MDOF system, W = the weight of the MDOF system.
This simplification relies on the approximation Γ1 ≈ 1/
9.2.3 Summary of Current Provisions α1, where α1 is the modal mass coefficient.
FEMA 356. FEMA 356 (Section 3.3.3.2.3) requires
ATC-40. The primary recommendation in ATC-40
that two separate nonlinear static analyses be done, each
(Section 8.2.1) for load vectors is to use the first mode.
using different load vectors. For each response quantity
However, the guidelines recognize a hierarchy of other
of interest, the larger value of the two analyses is
options, arranged here in order of preference.
compared to the applicable acceptability criteria.
The guidelines also note that pushover analyses using Global Drift Levels
the first-mode shape are generally valid for structures Ordinary motions (scaled to result in specified global
with fundamental periods up to about one second. They drift)
suggest that the engineer might want to consider multi-
mode pushover for structures with longer periods. • 0.5, 2, 4% drift, as a percentage of building height,
for frames
In the ATC-40 method, the yield displacement of the • 0.2, 1, 2% drift, as a percentage of building height,
equivalent SDOF is the same as that of FEMA 356; for wall
however the yield strength coefficient of the equivalent
SDOF system is given by Near-field (unscaled)
nonlinear response-history analysis of the MDOF load vectors (see Figure 9-4). The results using the
models. The resulting response parameters served as the modified MPA procedure were consistently better
basis for comparison with nonlinear static analyses than those obtained with the single load vectors,
using the various options for load vectors. Observations although the interstory drift values were still
from the comparisons are summarized as follows: underestimated at some locations in the nine-story
frames. Similar results are reported by Goel and
• Anomalous capacity curves resulted because the
Chopra (2004).
roof displacements reversed in two of the higher-
mode pushover analyses. Consequently, the Modal • The maximum interstory drift over the height of
Pushover Analysis procedure described by Chopra each building model, determined using the single-
and Goel (2001b) could not be applied without mode load vectors (excluding the uniform load
modification to the examples. In order to represent vector), was a reasonable estimate of the maximum
higher-mode contributions, a multiple mode interstory drift occurring at that particular location in
calculation procedure was introduced in the ATC-55 the nonlinear dynamic analyses. This drift was also a
project. In this procedure, response quantities for the reasonable estimate of the maximum interstory drift
2nd and 3rd mode were determined under the that developed over the height of each building
assumption that the response in these modes is model in the nonlinear dynamic analyses
elastic. A conventional inelastic pushover analysis (Figures 9-3 and 9-4), although these estimates
was used for response in the first mode. Floor depended to some extent on the load vector selected.
displacement, interstory drift, story shear, and Also, drifts at other locations predicted with the load
overturning moments were determined as an SRSS vectors often did not correspond to those from the
combination of the modal responses in the first three nonlinear dynamic analyses.
modes. Motivated by review of early results of these
• Estimates of story shear and overturning moment for
analyses, Chopra et al. (2004) have investigated this
the three-story frames (Figure 9-5) were not as
approach, described as a “modified MPA,” in
accurate as the displacement and interstory drift
comparison with the original MPA procedure.
estimates (Figure 9-3a). These quantities typically
• All the simplified procedures evaluated resulted in were underestimated using the single load vectors
good estimates of peak displacements over the and overestimated using the modified MPA
height of the five example buildings (Figure 9-1) procedure. The tendency for the modified MPA
when compared with nonlinear dynamic response- procedure to overestimate forces and moments is not
history analysis results. Estimates made using the surprising, as SRSS combinations of these quantities
first-mode, triangular, and adaptive load vectors can exceed limits associated with the development
were best. A multiple mode procedure may be of an inelastic mechanism and depend on the
warranted for structures in which displacement number of modes included in the combination.
response is suspected to be predominantly in a
• Estimates were inconsistent and often poor for story
higher mode.
shears and overturning moment for the eight-story
• The dispersion in the displaced shapes of the weak- wall and nine-story frames (Figure 9-6). Although
story buildings was pronounced at the moderate drift the overall pattern of overturning moments was
levels. This is likely due to the fact that weak-story often correct, errors in the estimates of overturning
mechanisms did not always develop at these levels moment were often substantial, particularly for the
of roof drift. This is illustrated by comparing the upper floors. Similar results are reported by
dispersion in floor displacements of the nine-story, Krawinkler and Seneviratna (1998) and Gupta and
weak story frame building at 2% roof drift Krawinkler (2003).
(Figure 9-2a) that is actually greater than that for the
• The accuracy of the simplified procedures was
same building at 4% drift (Figure 9-2b).
similar for the set of Site Class C motions and for the
• Good estimates of interstory drift were obtained set of near-field motions that was considered.
over the height of the three-story frames and eight-
story wall using the first-mode, triangular, code, 9.3.2 Equivalent SDOF Estimates of Global
adaptive, and SRSS load vectors, as well as with the Displacement
modified MPA procedure (Figure 9-3). For each example building, the force-displacement
• Interstory drifts estimates over the height of the relationship generated with the first-mode vector was
nine-story buildings were poor for the single-mode converted to an equivalent SDOF system using the
Figure 9-1 Example results for displacements predicted by nonlinear static procedures (NSP) compared to nonlinear
dynamic response-history analyses (NDA).
(a) Nine-story weak story frame at 2% drift (b) Nine-story weak story frame at 4% drift
Figure 9-2 Dispersion in results for displacement for two levels of global drift.
procedures of both FEMA 356 and ATC-40. These dispersions were larger for this formulation.
models were then subjected to scaled ground-motion Accuracy was similar for the near-field motions.
records. A displacement ratio was defined as the ratio of
• In cases in which the post-yield stiffness of the
the estimated roof displacement and the peak roof
capacity curve is negative (due to P-∆ effects),
displacement obtained in the nonlinear response-history
equivalent SDOF systems can have excessive
analysis. Results are reported in detail in Appendix F
displacement response, leading to overestimates of
and summarized below.
the peak roof displacement. For such cases,
• In cases in which the post-yield stiffness of the nonlinear dynamic analysis of the MDOF structure
capacity curve is positive (with or without P-∆ may be more accurate.
effects present), mean displacement ratios obtained
using the ATC-40 formulation were between 9.4 Practical Implications
approximately 0.95 and 1.25 for the five buildings.
Within this range, mean displacement ratios tended NSPs can provide reliable estimates of maximum
to increase with increasing roof drift. displacement. They are also capable of providing
reasonable estimates of the largest interstory drift that
• Similar mean displacement ratios were obtained may occur at any location over the height, but are
with the FEMA 356 formulation, although
(a) Interstory drifts for three-story story weak (b) Interstory drifts for eight-story wall
frame building at 4% drift building at 2% drift
Mean First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Min Max Median Multimode
SD SD Inverted Triangular Code SRSS
limited in the capability to predict drift accurately over Second, when should results of NSPs not be relied upon
the full height of relatively tall, flexible MDOF for MDOF effects? Finally, what should be done now
structures. In contrast, interstory drift over the height of and in the future?
the three-story frames and eight-story shear wall
example buildings were estimated well. Nonlinear static 9.4.1 Single Load Vectors
procedures that combine contributions from
The first-mode load vector is recommended because of
independent modal analyses appear to be poor
the low error obtained for displacement estimates made
predictors of story shear and overturning moment.
with this assumption and to maintain consistency with
These observations are consistent with the results of a
the derivations of equivalent SDOF systems. The code
number of other research efforts (Seneviratna and
distribution and the triangular vectors may be used as
Krawinkler, 1994; Krawinkler and Seneviratna, 1998;
alternatives, typically with little increase in error.
Kunnath and Gupta, 2000; Lew and Kunnath, 2000; Yu
et al., 2001; Chopra and Goel, 2001b; Gupta and
Mean and maximum errors were sometimes smaller and
Krawinkler, 2003; Goel and Chopra, 2004; and Jan et
sometimes larger using the adaptive load vector. The
al., 2004). This situation raises a number of questions
adaptive method requires more computational effort
with regard to the practical application of NSPs in cases
and fails for systems exhibiting a negative tangent
in which MDOF effects are important. First, is there any
stiffness.
preference for any one load vector over the others?
9 th 9th
8th 8th
7 th 7th
6 th 6th
5 th 5th
4th
4 th
3rd
3 rd
2 nd
2 nd
1st
1 st
0 1 2 3 4 5
0 0 .2 0 .4 0.6 0 .8 1
Intersto ry D rift (% )
In ters tory D rift (% )
(a) N in e story regular b uild in g at 0.5% roof d rift (b ) N ine sto ry reg ula r b uild in g at 2 % ro of d rift
S to ry 4% D rift
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
0 5 10 15 20
Intersto ry D rift (% )
Figure 9-4 Relatively poor results for interstory drift predicted using nonlinear static procedures (NSP) compared to
nonlinear dynamic response-history analyses (NDA).
(a) Story shears for three-story frame building (b) Overturning moments for three-story frame
at 4% drift building at 4% drift
Mean First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Min Max Median Multimode
SD SD Inverted Triangular Code SRSS
Figure 9-5 Story forces and overturning moments in the example three-story frame building when different load
vectors are used.
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
(a) Story shears for the eight-story wall (b) Overturning moments for the nine-story
building at 1% drift frame at 4% drift
Mean First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Min Max Median Multimode
SD SD Inverted Triangular Code SRSS
The SRSS load vector led to small improvements in rotations with acceptable accuracy for a nine-story
story shear and overturning moment for the example steel moment-frame building.
frames, had minor and mixed effects for interstory drift,
• Chintanapakdee and Chopra (2003) applied the
and sometimes was worse for estimates of
MPA procedure to estimate interstory drift for so-
displacement, when compared to the first-mode load
called “generic” frames having 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and
vector. It requires greater computational effort for
18 stories. They found that the accuracy of interstory
inconsistent improvements.
drift estimates depend on the story level and degree
of inelasticity. Accuracy was best for shorter
The uniform load vector led to notably worse errors for
buildings and for the lower and middle stories of
all four response quantities in the example buildings,
taller buildings. For the upper stories of tall frames,
relative to the first-mode load vector. Thus, it is not
the MPA procedure was not able to provide a
recommended as a stand-alone option. Although the use
reasonable estimate of interstory drift for many
of the uniform load vector in conjunction with another
ground motions. The procedure was not used to
vector as a bounding function (e.g., in the case of a
determine shear, bending moment, axial force, or
shear wall building to ensure flexurally controlled
component deformation.
behavior) is appealing, peak response quantities often
exceeded the estimates made with the uniform vector. • Yu et al. (2002) applied the original MPA and two
modified versions of MPA to estimate the interstory
The use of multiple load vectors in FEMA 356 implies drift and plastic hinge rotation for an instrumented
unwarranted accuracy and does not provide reliable 13-story steel frame building. When target
results. A single first-mode vector is sufficient for displacements were estimated by applying the
displacement estimates and for the estimate of response displacement Coefficient Method to the median
quantities that are not significantly affected by higher elastic response spectrum, the MPA method tended
modes. to underestimate story drifts in the upper stories and
to overestimate drifts in the lower stories; beam and
9.4.2 Multi-Mode Pushover Analysis column plastic hinge rotations were often
overestimated, while panel zone deformations were
It is apparent and logical that the use of multiple mode
estimated reasonably well.
pushover techniques (MPA) should produce generally
better estimates of interstory drift than single load • Chopra et al. (2004) compared interstory drift
vectors. Although higher modes typically contribute estimates obtained using the original and modified
little to displacement, multiple mode pushover analyses MPA methods for a set of “generic” frames and SAC
may be useful for identifying cases in which frames and found the modified MPA method is an
displacement responses are dominated by a higher attractive alternative to the original MPA, because it
mode. leads to a larger estimate of seismic demand, thereby
improving the accuracy of the MPA results in some
The application of the multi-mode pushover analysis cases and increasing their conservatism in others.
(MPA) procedure in the ATC-55 project was
• Goel and Chopra (2004) describe an “improved”
encumbered by the reversals observed in two of the
version of the MPA, which considers P-∆ effects in
higher-mode pushover curves. Seeking a single
all modes considered and which adds a specialized
approach capable of representing higher-mode
step for estimating plastic hinge rotation on the basis
contributions, a modified MPA procedure was
of the estimated interstory drift and an assumed
introduced in these studies. Although often improved
inelastic mechanism. The “improved” MPA
over the single-mode vectors, estimates of interstory
procedure, although better than single-mode
drift over the full height of buildings made with the
estimates, is found to lack accuracy for estimating
modified MPA procedure may not be consistently
plastic hinge rotation, overestimating the rotation in
reliable. However, it is important to note that
the lower stories and underestimating it in the upper
researchers are devoting significant effort to the further
stories of the 9- and 20-story moment-resisting
development of MPA procedures. Some of these are
frames that were studied.
briefly described below.
• Jan et al. (2004) propose an alternative technique in
• Chopra and Goel (2001b) found the original MPA
which potentially inelastic contributions from the
provided good estimates of floor displacement and
first two modal pushover analyses are added
story drift, but did not estimate plastic hinge
together. Estimates of displacement, interstory drift,
and plastic hinge rotation were compared with those smaller dispersions, accurately reflected the frequency
made using a triangular load profile and the original content of the excitation for elastic response, and
MPA procedure for a set of 2-, 5-, 10-, 20-, and 30- maintains consistency with derivations of “equivalent”
story moment-resisting frames. The triangular load SDOF systems. Where the hazard is described by
profile and the original MPA produced very good smoothed elastic design spectra, displacement estimates
estimates of interstory drift for the 2- and 5-story should make use of the improved procedures that are
frames. The proposed technique provided better described in Chapters 5 and 6.
estimates of interstory drift for the 20- and 30-story
frames, and it was the only technique of those 9.4.4 Limitation of Simplified Procedures
considered it that could provide reasonable estimates
Nonlinear static pushover procedures appear to be
of the location and severity of plastic hinge rotations
reliable for the design and evaluation of low-rise
in these frames.
buildings. However, MDOF effects associated with the
• Hernández-Montes et al. (2004) developed an presence of significant higher-mode response in
energy-based pushover technique that overcomes the relatively tall frame buildings, can cause interstory drift,
problems observed with reversals of the higher- story shear, overturning moment, and other response
mode pushover curves that were observed in the quantities to deviate significantly from estimates made
application of the original MPA procedure in the on the basis of single-mode pushover analyses. Multi-
ATC-55 studies. mode pushover procedures appear capable of more
reliable estimates than do single-mode procedures;
The MPA procedures seem to produce results that are however, they cannot be deemed completely reliable
somewhat more reliable than those obtained from single based on currently available data. The dividing line
load vectors. However, it is readily apparent from the between buildings for which reliable results can be
literature that the adequacy of these results depends obtained using NSPs and those for which the results
upon the parameter of interest (e.g., drift, plastic hinge cannot be relied upon is nebulous. The sufficiency of
rotation, force), the characteristics of the structure, and nonlinear static procedures and the need for nonlinear
the details of the specific procedure. It is also possible dynamic analysis depend on a number of related
that future development of the basic MPA procedure considerations.
may improve predictions further. If these improvements
• Response quantity of interest. As illustrated in the
can be realized with transparent and computationally
examples, current simplified procedures are often
efficient procedures, then they may very well be
adequate for estimating displacements. They seem to
worthwhile. On the other hand, MPA procedures are
produce reasonable estimates of interstory drift for
fundamentally limited, as are NSPs more generally.
low-rise frame buildings and wall buildings.
From a broader perspective, it is important to develop
However, for virtually all cases, the simplified
practical versions of nonlinear dynamic response-
procedures produce unreliable estimates of story
history analyses of detailed and, perhaps, simplified
shear and overturning moments. If required for
MDOF models.
evaluation or design, accurate estimates of these
parameters require more detailed analyses.
Until other practical nonlinear alternatives are
available, the recommendation is that experienced • Degree of inelasticity. The example buildings
practitioners, who interpret results with an appropriate indicate that the importance of MDOF effects
degree of caution, can utilize MPA procedures for increases with the amount of inelasticity in the
comparison with, and possible improvement over, the structure. NSPs may be adequate for situations in
static load vector procedures. which the performance goals for a structure are such
that only slight or moderate levels of inelasticity are
9.4.3 Roof Displacement Estimation expected.
The results for the estimate of maximum global • Periods of vibration of the fundamental and higher
displacement of the example building models are modes relative to the spectral demands at these
consistent with the results of other studies (e.g., periods. Higher-mode contributions become more
Miranda, 1991; Collins et al., 1995; Seneviratna and significant for structures with fundamental periods
Krawinkler, 1997; Cuesta and Aschheim, 2001; Chopra that fall in the constant-velocity portion of the
et al., 2003). The ATC-40 formulation for the yield response spectrum. It appears that accurate estimates
strength coefficient of an equivalent SDOF of the distribution of interstory drift over the height
(Equation 9-3) is recommended, because it resulted in of moment-resisting frames cannot be obtained with
NSPs alone when the fundamental period of the that all the example buildings, with the minor
structure exceeds approximately twice the exception of the upper floor of the 9-story frame,
characteristic site period, Ts. A significantly lower would have qualified for the nonlinear static
limit applies to the determination of story forces in procedure alone without the linear dynamic
both wall and frame structures, however. procedure (LDP) for a NEHRP design spectrum in
an area of high seismicity and Site Class C site
• Structural system type. Shear walls and frames have
conditions. The potential for the NSP to significantly
different higher-mode periods relative to their
underestimate response quantities for structures that
fundamental modal periods. These systems have
satisfy this limitation indicates that the current
characteristically different percentages of mass
limitation is not adequate.
participating in the first and higher modes and
develop characteristically different types of
mechanisms. As noted previously, NSPs do not 9.5 Potential Future Improvements
predict story forces reliably, and more sophisticated Based on the studies conducted in conjunction with this
analytical techniques may be required for systems document and results from current research, it is
sensitive to these parameters. apparent that there is a need for improved inelastic
• Post-elastic strength. Both the studies on the analysis techniques that can be used to reliably address
response of SDOF oscillators (Chapter 3) and the MDOF effects. As noted previously, research on multi-
SDOF examples (Appendix F) demonstrate that mode pushover analysis procedures is ongoing. There
systems with a critical level of negative post-elastic are two examples of potential improvements that have
strength degradation are prone to dynamic not been discussed earlier and that warrant mention
instability. This has been documented in other recent here.
research as well. As discussed in Chapter 4, the
critical post-elastic stiffness should be based on P-∆ 9.5.1 Incremental Response-Spectrum Analysis
effects and other types of in-cycle degradation. Aydinoglu (2003) describes a multi-modal incremental
Systems with strength values less than those response-spectrum analysis method, in which
specified in Chapter 4 require nonlinear response- contributions of multiple modes are considered in an
history analysis. incremental pushover analysis. The incremental nature
• Inelastic mechanism. Forces associated with of the analysis allows the effects of softening due to
response in other modes may influence the inelasticity in one mode to be reflected in the properties
development of an inelastic mechanism, and thus, of the other modes. An example was used to illustrate
pushover analyses may not always identify the application of the method to a generic frame model of
governing mechanism (Krawinkler and Seneviratna, the nine-story SAC building (neglecting gravity loads
1998). and P-∆ effects), comparing estimates based on four
modes with those determined by nonlinear dynamic
• Multi-mode pushover analysis procedures. SRSS analysis. Very good agreement is shown for floor
combinations of force quantities can exaggerate the displacement, interstory drift, story shear, floor
effects of gravity loads and can exceed the limits overturning moment, and beam plastic hinge rotation.
associated with the development of an inelastic Further study is required to establish the generality of
mechanism. Typically, algebraic signs of the modes the findings and potential limitations of the approach.
can be expected to influence the intensity of
component demands. The use of uniform hazard 9.5.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure Using
spectra presents inconsistencies, because different Scaled Response Histories
portions of the spectrum may be driven by vastly
different events, rather than representing a single The MDOF example studies summarized in Section 9.3
event. revealed that the estimates of response quantities
obtained by nonlinear static pushover analyses often
• FEMA 356 provisions. This document requires were less accurate than the results obtained by any
supplementary linear dynamic analysis if higher- single nonlinear dynamic analysis when comparing
mode effects are significant. Higher modes are both to the mean results for all ground motions. This
considered significant if the SRSS of story shears observation suggests the possibility of an analytical
from modes that incorporate at least 90% of the procedure in which response quantities are determined
mass exceeds 130% of story shear from a first-mode by nonlinear dynamic analysis using ground motion
response-spectrum analysis. It is important to note records that are scaled so that the peak roof
This document records in detail an effort to assess The discussion in Chapter 2 includes basic descriptions
current nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) given in of the two nonlinear static procedures that are currently
FEMA 356 and ATC-40 for the seismic analysis and used in practice. FEMA 356 uses a displacement
evaluation of structures. In addition, the document modification procedure (Coefficient Method) in which
presents approaches that were developed to improve several empirically derived factors are used to modify
these procedures for future application by practicing the response of a single-degree-of-freedom model of the
engineers. Not all of the portions of the two documents structure, assuming that it remains elastic. The
were evaluated. Conclusions regarding the relative alternative Capacity-Spectrum Method of ATC-40 is
accuracy or technical soundness of these documents actually a form of equivalent linearization. This
should not be inferred beyond the specific material and technique uses empirically derived relationships for the
discussions contained in this document. effective period and damping as a function of ductility
to estimate the response of an equivalent linear SDOF
The purpose of this summary is to present a practical oscillator.
overview of the results and to illustrate the application
of NSPs, that include the proposed improvements for an 10.2 Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static
example building. Sections 10.1 through 10.8 contain Procedures
key results of analytical studies conducted as part of this
project and resulting suggestions for specific changes to In practice, the current procedures can result in
existing procedures for nonlinear static analysis estimates of maximum displacement that are
procedures. Section 10.9 discusses some important significantly different from one another. This has
aspects of uncertainty and reliability of nonlinear static caused concern on the part of practicing engineers. One
procedures and the suggestions for improvement. of the major objectives of the project was to ascertain
Section 10.10 summarizes some key observations with the reasons for these differences and to try to correct
respect to shortcomings of inelastic seismic analysis both procedures to produce similar results. Chapter 3
procedures that were not fully resolved in this project. documents a comprehensive evaluation of both
These are areas in which significant improvement might procedures. The basic technique was to develop a
be made in the future. Section 10.11 is the application series of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom oscillators
example. of varying period, strength, and hysteretic behavior.
These were subjected to ground motion representing
10.1 Overview of Inelastic Seismic Analysis different site soil conditions. The resulting database of
Procedures approximately 180,000 predictions of maximum
displacement was used as a benchmark to judge the
Nonlinear static procedures are one type of inelastic accuracy of the approximate NSPs. This was
analysis that can be used to estimate the response of accomplished by comparing the estimates for each
structures to seismic ground shaking. The differences oscillator from both NSPs to the results of the nonlinear
among the various approaches to inelastic analysis in response-history analyses. Differences in the two
general relate to the level of detail of the structural estimates were compiled and compared in a statistical
model and the characterization of the seismic ground study.
shaking. Detailed structural models can often be
simplified into equivalent multi-degree-of-freedom 10.2.1 Key Observations: ATC-40 Version of
models; or, in some cases, single-degree-of-freedom Capacity-Spectrum Method
oscillator models, as with nonlinear static procedures. Longer-period response. The ATC-40 procedures for
The most detailed characterizations of seismic ground structures with hysteretic behavior type A tended to
motion are actual ground motion records that comprise underestimate the maximum displacement response for
accelerations, velocities, and displacements expected at inelastic systems. The underestimation averages 25%
the ground surface at a specific site. A simplification to 35% for systems with periods longer than about 0.7 s.
can be made by representing the effects ground motion
has in the frequency domain with response spectra that For structures with hysteretic behavior type B, the
plot maximum response of an elastic SDOF oscillator as ATC-40 procedures led to small underestimations or
a function of period. This is the type of characterization small overestimations of lateral displacement of
normally used for nonlinear static procedures. systems with periods longer than about 0.6 s. Whether
ATC-40 underestimates or overestimates depends on period structures do not behave in this manner. FEMA-
the level of lateral strength and on the site class. 356 defines a characteristic site period to differentiate
between these two types of behavior. Characteristic site
For structures with hysteretic behavior type C, the periods of FEMA 356 are based on the period at the
ATC-40 procedures led to overestimations of the intersection of the constant-acceleration spectral region
maximum displacement for all periods. The and the constant-velocity spectral region. These
overestimation increases as R increases. Average characteristic periods are shorter than the transition
overestimations for periods greater than 0.5 s range periods observed from nonlinear response-history
from approximately 5% for systems with R = 1.5 to analyses. This can result in underestimation of inelastic
about 35% for systems with R = 8. deformations for periods between the characteristic site
period and periods that are approximately 1.5 times the
Shorter-period response. The ATC-40 procedures can characteristic site period.
lead to significant overestimations of the maximum
displacements of inelastic oscillators for periods shorter Ratio of inelastic to elastic deformation, coefficient
than those noted above. The overestimations increase C1. The use of the equal displacement approximation to
with decreasing strength. Estimated displacements in compute the coefficient C1 for systems with periods
the short-period range can be, on average, up to two longer than the characteristic periods leads to relatively
times larger than the benchmark displacements from good approximations of maximum inelastic
response-history analyses. deformations for systems with EPP behavior for periods
longer than about 1 s. Only small overestimations in the
Degrading stiffness and strength. ATC-40 assumes order of 5% or 10% are produced with this
that the inelastic deformation demands in structures approximation. Note that for very soft soil sites and
with behavior type B will be larger than those in near-fault records, this is only true for systems with
structures with behavior type A, while results of periods of vibration that are approximately 1.5 times
nonlinear response-history analyses show that the longer than the predominant period and the pulse
deformations are actually approximately the same or periods, respectively.
slightly larger for the elastic-perfectly-plastic (EPP)
model as compared to the stiffness-degrading (SD) For systems with R larger than about 2.5, the limiting
model. The current provisions of ATC-40 do not values (capping) of C1 imposed by Section 3.3.1.3.1. of
address the potential dynamic instability that can arise the LSP of FEMA 356 will control the estimate of
in systems with in-cycle strength degradation and/or P- maximum inelastic deformation. This can lead to
delta effects. theoretically large underestimates of displacements in
short-period structures, particularly on soft sites.
Limitations on damping and spectral reduction fac-
tors. ATC-40 specifies limits on effective damping that If capping is not used, and if the transition period is
result in the imposition of minimum spectral-reduction lengthened, the FEMA 356 equation to calculate C1
factors based on the anticipated performance of does not adequately capture the changes in inelastic
building types. These limitations were based on deformation demands that are produced with changes in
engineering judgment that has not been borne out in the R for short-period structures. The magnification of
analytical studies reported here. While the intention of inelastic displacement demands with decreasing lateral
these limitations may have been to provide some strength for short-period structures was found to be
conservatism for degrading structures, the resulting larger than that implied by FEMA 356.
estimates of displacement exceed expected mean values
when compared with actual behavior for many cases. Degradation of stiffness and strength (Coefficients
C2 and C3). There is not a clear division of the intent of
10.2.2 Key Observations: FEMA 356 and the coefficients C2 and C3. This problem was documented
Coefficient Method in FEMA 357. In particular, C2 is supposed to account
Transition period for the equal-displacement for changes in lateral displacement produced by
approximation. Nonlinear dynamic analyses departures of the hysteretic behavior from an EPP
demonstrate that the total displacement experienced by hysteretic model (such as pinching, stiffness
long-period structures that undergo inelastic response degradation and strength degradation.). P-∆ effects are
tends to be about the same as structures of the same accounted for by C3 in the current provisions of FEMA
period, responding in an elastic manner, leading to the 356. FEMA 356 does not distinguish between cyclic
so-called equal displacement approximation. Short- strength degradation and in-cycle strength degradation.
400
200
Force
0
-200
-400
-600
-400 -300 -200 -100Displacement
0 100 200 300 400
Displacement
In-cycle degradation produces effects similar to P-∆, deformation (in-cycle) and that which occurs in
which can lead to dynamic instability in weak subsequent cycles (cyclic). This important distinction
structures. illustrated in Figure 10-1. In-cycle strength degradation,
including that associated with P-∆ effects, can lead to
The C2 coefficient of FEMA 356 implies that inelastic dynamic instability. To account for this, a lower limit
displacement should increase for stiffness degrading on the strength of structures that exhibit strength-
systems as compared with EPP systems. With the degrading behavior is suggested for use with nonlinear
exception of periods of vibration smaller than about 0.7 static procedures. The limit is a function of the period
s, the maximum displacement of stiffness-degrading of the structure and the post-elastic stiffness
systems is actually very similar to or slightly smaller characteristics, as modified for in-cycle strength
(5% to 10%) than the maximum displacement of EPP degradation. If the structure has less strength than the
systems. limit, nonlinear dynamic analysis is recommended.
C2 1.0 1.0
(non-degrading
systems)
C3 3/2 Eliminate in favor of P-∆
α ( R − 1)
1.0 + strength limit In-cycle degradation
Te
displacements tend to increase abruptly, leading to the Performance Point. Similar to the current ATC-40
dynamic instability and implied collapse for relatively procedure, the effective period and damping are both
weak structures. The point at which this transition dependent on ductility and consequently, an iterative or
occurs is related to the strength, period, and post-elastic graphical technique is required to calculate the
stiffness of the structure. Although the current Performance Point. Several options are outlined in
expression includes these variables, it does not predict Chapter 6.
the instability. The recommendation is for a limit on
minimum strength (maximum R) for structural models 10.6 Evaluation and Comparison of
that exhibit strength degradation. This limit eliminates Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures
the need for the C3 coefficient.
The improved procedures were evaluated in an
10.5 Improved Procedures for Equivalent independent study. This study utilized nine EPP
Linearization oscillators with three different periods and three
different strength values. These were subjected to
Many engineers favor working with the Capacity- thirteen ground motions for class C sites. The motions
Spectrum Method, a form of equivalent linearization. were scaled in accordance with the NEHRP
This is likely due, at least in part, to the intuitive nature Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
of the procedure that graphically relates “capacity” to New Buildings and Other Structures to match a NEHRP
“demand.” Chapter 6 presents the results of an effort to design-response spectrum. Estimates of maximum
improve the practical application of equivalent displacements were calculated utilizing both current
linearization procedures. The resulting suggestions procedures and the proposed improved procedures.
focus on improved estimates of equivalent period and This was done using both the NEHRP design spectrum
damping. These differ from the assumptions in ATC- and the average spectrum for the scaled ground
40. Generally, the optimal effective period is less than motions. This study was not comprehensive enough to
the secant period (see Figure 10-2). The optimal make broad general conclusions. However, a number
of key observations were made:
• The improved procedures do not exhibit large
Sa differences between displacement modification and
Teff
equivalent linearization approaches. This differs
Tsec from previous experience with the ATC-40
Spectral Acceleration
ug= free field motion (FFM) with ug= free field motion (FFM) with
conventional damping conventional damping
ug= foundation input motion (FIM) ug= foundation input motion (FIM)
with conventional damping with system damping including
Kinematic interaction Adjust for foundation foundation damping
(high T-pass filter) damping
free field motion (FFM) with foundation input motion (FIM) with
conventional damping conventional damping
Kinematic interaction
(high T-pass filter)
free field motion (FFM) with
conventional damping
forces are directly related to a global displacement • NSPs generally provide reliable estimates of
parameter (i.e., roof displacement or first-mode spectral maximum floor and roof displacements. They also
displacement) in NSPs. The approximate relative are capable of providing reasonable estimates of the
distribution of elastic and inelastic forces and largest inter-story drifts that may occur at any
deformations for the multiple-degree-of-freedom location over the height.
(MDOF) structure are controlled by the characteristics • NSPs are not particularly capable, however, of
of the single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model accurately predicting maximum drifts at each story,
pushover curve assumed in the analysis. The variations particularly within tall flexible structures.
of these parameters in a true multi-degree-of-freedom
system from those of the SDOF approximation are • NSPs are very poor predictors of story forces,
known as MDOF effects. The adequacy of simplified including shear forces and overturning moments in
procedures to address MDOF effects has been taller structures.
questioned by a number of researchers. • The use of the first-mode load vector is suggested
due to the relatively good displacement estimates
Chapter 9 summarizes the options for different load made with this assumption. Other single-load
vectors used to generate SDOF pushover curves for vectors were less consistent in producing reliable
structures. In order to investigate and illustrate these results. The use of two single-load vectors to try to
various options for evaluating MDOF effects, a envelope response parameters is not particularly
comprehensive study of five buildings compared useful.
approximate estimates from NSPs for several
parameters to those obtained from nonlinear MDOF • Multi-mode pushover analysis consisting of the use
response-history analyses. The results are consistent of multiple load vectors proportional to the mode
with previous research. Practical implications for shapes of the structure that are statistically combined
structures with significant MDOF effects are: shows promise in producing better estimates in inter-
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st
Weak—2 % 1st
Weak—4 %
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000
Figure 10-4 Overturning moments in example 9-story building using various load vectors.
story drifts over the heights of the buildings. multi-degree-of-freedom model gave better
Current results documented in the literature indications of drifts and story forces than any of the
conclude that the adequacy of results from multi- approximate single-degree-of-freedom estimates
mode pushover analyses depends on the parameter (see Figure 10-4). This suggests that a future
of interest. It seems that future developments may procedure might be developed that utilizes a small
further improve multi-mode pushover analysis. number of response histories to estimate variation
• The provisions of FEMA 356 as to when higher and MDOF response parameters.
modes are to be considered significant are not
particularly reliable. All of the example buildings in 10.9 Uncertainty and Reliability
Chapter 9 would have satisfied the criteria (i.e., NSPs are an important part of performance-based
higher modes would not have been significant). engineering. Performance-based engineering departs
This is in spite of the fact that all of the buildings, in from traditional practices in a number of ways. One of
one way or another, showed sensitivity to higher- the more important departures relates to the treatment of
mode effects. uncertainty and reliability. Uncertainty arises from the
• Specific limitations as to when NSPs produce seismic ground motion, the structural model, and the
reliable results for MDOF structures are elusive. analysis technique utilized. Traditional prescriptive
Chapter 9 provides a discussion of important analysis and design procedures (e.g., working stress
considerations, but at this time considerable design, load and resistance factor methods) incorporate
judgment on the part of the practicing engineer is margins of safety in the calculation of demand and
required. capacity. These procedures treat uncertainty implicitly
and they are appropriately conservative with respect to
• As a result of the study, it was observed that, in the actual potential consequences. In contrast,
many cases, a single time history response of a performance-based procedures can be used to predict
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Figure 10-5 Error associated with the Coefficient C1 as formulated in FEMA 356 (left) and the potential improved
formulation (right).
the expected consequences of future ground motions. Figure 10-6 for several different strengths. Note the
When used in this manner, the results of the analysis are dispersion of the results on either side of the mean
central (i.e., mean or median) values. This means that (expected) value. Note also that the dispersion
they represent the most likely, or “expected,” response. increases with lower strength (higher R), as is typical in
However, this also means that the actual response has most cases.
roughly a 50% chance of being greater and a 50%
chance of being less than the predicted response. In general, it is important to recognize the empirical
nature of the improved expressions for the proposed
The improvements to existing procedures proposed in modifications in this document. They are formulated
the document have been developed to optimize by attempting to match actual analysis data. They may
predictions of expected values. An example is appear complex, but they do not imply accuracy beyond
illustrated in Figure 10-5 showing the error associated that associated with the statistical variation in the
with the current FEMA 356 value for coefficient C1 and underlying data. Scrutiny of the detailed characteristics
a potential improved formulation. The error is of the data indicates significant uncertainties in
determined by dividing the approximate prediction of expected values. The degree of uncertainty increases
displacement by the expected value from the response for:
history analyses. The expected value in this case is the
a. shorter period;
mean of results for twenty different ground motion
records for each period (T) and for each strength (R). b. lower strength (higher R);
The closer the error is to 1.0, the better the approximate
c. degrading hysteretic behavior; and
result. Thus the potential improvement clearly provides
more accurate results than the current procedure. d. near-source ground motion.
However, the dispersion of the results for the twenty
ground motions is not apparent in this illustration. When applying these procedures, it is important to
estimate basic parameters as carefully as possible. For
The independent evaluation of the proposed example, using a conservative (low) estimate of the
improvements is summarized in Chapter 7. In this strength of a structure may lead to a conservative (high)
study, a series of bilinear EPP oscillators with post- estimate of displacement. It is suggested that realistic
elastic stiffness equal to 5% of the initial stiffness were estimates for all parameters be used to generate
subject to thirteen ground motion records. The results expected values as a result of the analysis. Then
of the nonlinear dynamic (response-history) analyses engineering judgment may be applied to inject the
for an oscillator with a period of 0.5 s are shown in appropriate degree of conservatism, considering the
T = 0.5s
Average Response Spectrum
0.14
NDA mean
0.12 std R=2
std R=4
Maximum Displacement (m)
std R=8
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
Indicates mean of NDA plus and
minus one standard deviation
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strength Reduction Factor, R
Figure 10-6 Dispersion of results for the nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA) of a SDOF oscillator subject to thirteen
NEHRP Site Class C ground motions
particular circumstances. With this in mind, it should 10.10.1 Nonlinear Modeling for Cyclic and In-
be noted that traditional design equations, including Cycle Degradation of Strength and
some of those in FEMA 356 and ATC-40, are Stiffness
conservative and may underestimate strength capacities FEMA 440 makes a distinction between two types of
and deformation acceptability for some structures and degradation of stiffness and strength of inelastic single
components. More accurate supplemental information degree-of-freedom oscillators (see Figure 10-1). This
is available from other sources (FEMA 306/307/308, distinction had not previously been addressed explicitly
FEMA 355C). by guidelines for nonlinear static procedures.
Independent studies demonstrate that if strength
10.10 Important Future Developments degradation occurs cyclically, then dynamic response of
SDOF systems is stable. In contrast, in-cycle loss of
The proposed improvements to nonlinear static analysis
strength can lead to dynamic instability. It is vitally
procedures in this document will lead to better results in
important to be able to differentiate between these two
practice. Nonetheless, not all of the shortcomings of
types of structural degradation. Current nonlinear static
NSPs have been addressed. In developing the
pushover procedures cannot fully distinguish between
improvements, a number of important observations
cyclic and in-cycle strength degradation. FEMA 440
about the need for future improvement of inelastic
includes interim recommendations based solely on
seismic analysis procedures have emerged. These are
judgment for this purpose.
summarized in the following sections.
Important questions include:
• What current data exist on force-deformation
behavior and strength degradation of components
subjected to large ductility demands in a single cycle
of loading?
• How does in-cycle strength loss in components • What are the effects of foundation sliding on
affect the global dynamic stability of structural inelastic seismic response and how can these effects
models? be incorporated into practical analysis procedures?
• Can this effect be adequately incorporated into 10.10.3 Nonlinear Multi-Degree of Freedom
NSPs? Simplified Modeling
• What practical guidance can be provided for the Current nonlinear static procedures are based on single-
incorporation of in-cycle degradation into nonlinear degree-of-freedom models, which, while simple to
response-history analysis procedures? understand, are very limited in their ability to address
• How can these effects be incorporated into complex structures and multiple-degree-of-freedom
simplified models? effects from input seismic ground motions. As noted,
FEMA 440 recognizes that current NSPs are limited in
10.10.2 Soil and Foundation Structure Interaction the ability to reliably predict the effects of inelastic
behavior of MDOF systems. Specifically, predictions
While some advances are made in FEMA 440, there is of maximum story drifts, story forces, and inelastic
not completely adequate guidance for addressing the component demands (i.e., plastic hinge rotations) are
effects of the interaction between structures and not reliable using a single-load vector. FEMA 440 also
supporting foundations and soils. This is particularly notes that current procedures for using multiple-load
important for short-period or large-footprint structures, vectors representative of the fundamental mode and one
where current models may over-predict the input or more higher modes (multi-mode pushover analysis)
ground motion. Furthermore, additional guidance on can improve results somewhat, particularly for
force-deformation relationships and damping prediction of maximum story drifts. Ongoing research
characteristics of foundations is needed. Finally, there suggests that multi-mode pushover procedures might
is an important need for adequate guidance on the effect be modified to provide better estimates of other demand
of foundation rocking on structural response. parameters as well. These improvements come at the
expense of greater computational effort and less
FEMA 440 supplements existing NSPs with transparency, however. These barriers have been cited
preliminary recommendations for the inclusion of soil- as obstacles to the practical application of nonlinear
structure-interaction effects (see Figure 10-3). These analysis techniques (i.e., using response-history
recommendations augment the existing guidelines in analysis). This raises the question: why not devote the
FEMA 356 and ATC-40 for soil-foundation stiffness effort to simplified nonlinear response-history analysis?
and strength with approximate procedures to account
for kinematic SSI and soil damping. The provisions for One of the interesting observations about MDOF effects
soil load-deformation behavior provide a framework during the preparation of the FEMA 440 report was
primarily with some default values for typical materials. that, in spite of significant dispersion among records,
The documents recommend site-specific studies if any single nonlinear response-history analysis result
performance is significantly affected by soil properties. often produced better estimates of maximum
engineering demand parameters than any of the
Important issues include: approximate analyses (see Figure 10-4). This
• Is the adaptation of linear SSI procedures for observation suggests that there may be an analysis
nonlinear analysis presented in FEMA 440 adequate procedure that characterizes global engineering demand
as is, or are further adjustments warranted? as the maximum displacement response of a structural
model subject to shaking hazard represented by
• What information is available on soil load- currently available regional maps (i.e., by the maps
deformation characteristics that might be adopted currently prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey for
for general practical application? the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program).
• What analytical procedures are available to Maximum displacements might be estimated using
geotechnical engineers to estimate critical soil nonlinear static procedures. Story-level and
properties for inelastic seismic analysis? component-level engineering demand could then be
estimated using a simplified MDOF response-history
• What are the effects of foundation rocking on analysis for a small number of ground motion records,
inelastic seismic response and how can these effects scaled to result in the previously estimated global
be incorporated into practical analysis procedures?
displacement demand. This approach could greatly identify pertinent sections of FEMA 440 (this
simplify nonlinear response-history analysis. document), and also FEMA 356 and ATC-40. The
calculations also include similar tags for ease of
Nonlinear response-history analysis might be facilitated reference to these three documents. The example
further by the use of simplified structural models. illustrates use of both the displacement modification
Detailed structural models often can require hundreds and the equivalent linearization procedures to estimate
of degrees of freedom, making the process prone to the maximum displacement of a building model.
error and complicating the interpretation of results. As
noted in FEMA 440, many practitioners have used 10.11.1 Example Building Description
innovative sub-structuring techniques to generate
“stick” or “fishbone” models that greatly simplify data In order to illustrate the application of NSPs, including
management, computational effort, and visualization of the suggested improvements in this document, an
results. example building has been developed. It is depicted
and described on calculation Sheet 1. This type of
In summary, this issue presents the following critical construction is typical for relatively small commercial
questions: office and/or retail uses. It is assumed to be located in
an area of relatively high seismicity. This example is
• What are the limits (e.g. periods, separation of very simple from an analysis perspective since all of the
modes, mass participation) for building models walls are assumed to be identical and the floor and roof
when MDOF effects must be considered significant? diaphragms are assumed to be rigid. The building is
• Can multi-mode pushover procedures provide also completely regular and symmetrical. Although
adequate results for systems with significant MDOF some actual buildings might be this simple, it is not
effects? always the case and the user should not infer that all
structures may be reduced to this level of simplicity.
• Can maximum engineering demand below the
global level (i.e., story and component levels) be 10.11.2 Basic Ground Motion
predicted using a limited number of nonlinear
response-history analyses? The basic ground motion spectrum for the example is
illustrated on calculation Sheet 2. The selection of the
• How should ground motion records be scaled to basic ground motion does not differ from current
produce global maximum displacement demands procedures of FEMA 356, ATC-40 and the 2000
that are representative of a specific shaking hazard? NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New Buildings.
• How can MDOF structural models be simplified The same assumptions used for the evaluation study
while still providing reliable results for practical summarized in Chapter 7 are used for the example.
application? Values for short- and 1-second period spectral
accelerations at the Maximum Considered Earthquake
• How can strength and stiffness degradation (see (MCE) level were assumed for 5% damping and site
Section 10.10.1) be adequately represented in class C, resulting in values SS = 1.5g and S1 = 0.6g.
MDOF structural models? Following the procedures in the 2000 NEHRP
• How can improved methods for modeling Recommended Provisions for New Buildings, the short-
foundations and soil structure interaction (see and long-period values were modified for site class C to
Section 10.10.2) be incorporated into MDOF SXS = FaSS and SX1 = FvS1, where Fa = 1.0 and Fv = 1.3.
structural models? Design-basis ordinates then were obtained as
SDS = 2/3SXS and SD1 = 2/3SX1. These values were
• What is the effect of concentrating masses at story used with the spectral shape defined in the NEHRP
levels on inelastic response, particularly for relative Recommended Provisions for New Buildings.
short structures?
10.11.3 Kinematic Soil-structure Interaction
10.11 Application Example
The next step, also illustrated on Sheet 2, is to modify
This section contains structural analysis calculations, the initial spectrum to account for kinematic soil-
and related commentary, utilizing nonlinear static structure interaction in accordance with Chapter 8.
procedures for the analysis of an example building. The Note that the kinematic effect associated with the base-
steps in this process are presented in the flowchart in slab averaging is considered, but not the effect related to
Figure 10-7. On the flowchart, tags have been used to embedment. This is due to the fact that the building,
FEMA 440
Model foundation stiffness and Modify spectrum for kinematic Sect. 8.2
FEMA 356
strength and modify structural soil-structure interaction
Chap. 4
ATC 40 model for flexible base
Chap. 10
FEMA 356
Sect. 3.3.3 Generate global force-
ATC 40 deformation curve for
Sect. 8.2.1
equivalent SDOF model
FEMA 440
Sect. 4.5 Check for minimum strength
to avoid dynamic instability
FEMA 440
Convert from spectral to roof Determine equation for Sect. 6.2.1
ATC 40
FEMA 356 displacement, Coeff. C0 effective damping
Sect. 3.3.3.3.2 Sect. 8.2.2.1
Calculate maximum
FEMA 356
Eqn. 3-15
displacement
FEMA 440
Check ductility, µ,
Sect. 8.3 with assumed value
although supported three feet below grade, does not period may be calculated as shown at the end of the
have a basement. The result of this step is a reduced calculations on Sheet 3.
spectrum representing the foundation input motion.
10.11.5 Flexible-Base Model
10.11.4 Fixed-Base Model
The process continues by repeating the calculations
The basic procedures to develop a structural model and with the assumption of a flexible base, as shown on
determine a lateral force and deformation relationship calculation Sheet 4. The stiffness of the foundation in
(pushover curve) for a structure remain essentially the this case is assumed to be controlled by the soil
same as in ATC-40 and FEMA 356. For the example properties (i.e., foundation structure assumed to be rigid
building, a fixed-based model is relatively simple, as compared to the supporting soil). The initial shear
shown on Sheet 3. The fixed-based model is necessary, modulus of the soil material is calculated based on the
even if the intention is to include a flexible foundation, shear wave velocity for the material. For a Class C site,
due to the fact that foundation damping procedures rely this ranges from 1200 to 2500 feet per second. The
on an estimate of the change in period from a fixed base effective shear modulus is calculated by reducing the
to a flexible model. The total masses for the building initial value, depending on the severity of shaking at the
are calculated assuming that the roof weight is site. In this case a ratio was determined in accordance
approximately 140 psf and that the floors are with the recommendations of FEMA 356.
approximately 160 psf. These estimates are intended to
include not only the weight of the structural Both FEMA 356 and ATC-40 contain equations for
components of the buildings, but also other dead loads calculating rotational and translational stiffness of
and actual live loads. In an actual application, the foundations assuming a rigid plate acting on a
weights would be determined in a more detailed take- homogeneous elastic half space representing the soil.
off. The effective rigidities of the walls are calculated The equations in FEMA 356 differ from those in ATC-
in accordance with the requirements of FEMA 356 and 40 in their formulation. The equations shown Sheet 4
ATC-40 for walls that are cracked. The requirements in are from FEMA 356. Essentially the same values can
this case are identical in both documents. be determined by using the equations in ATC-40. Note
that both the rotational stiffness and the translational
The linear dynamic properties for the model shown on stiffness are increased due to the embedment of the
Sheet 3 are calculated utilizing the basic equations in foundation. It should be noted that the translational
ATC-40, Section 8.5. In many practical applications, stiffness in this case is calculated only for the six shear
these calculations are done using computer software. walls acting in each direction. In reality, the stiffness is
The determination of the linear dynamic properties can probably higher, due to the effect of the foundations
be simplified by using Rayleigh’s method to reduce the beneath the walls acting in the orthogonal direction, as
number of degrees of freedom in the model to the lateral well as the slab on grade that ties all the footings
displacement at the roof and that at the floor level. The together.
process is initiated by estimating a mode shape
assuming a uniform acceleration acting on the story Once the foundation stiffness values are calculated,
masses. Then the deflections at the roof and the floor Rayleigh’s method can be used once again to reduce the
are calculated. In this case, moment-area calculations degrees of translational freedom to two. The
were used for this purpose. These displacements are calculations to determine dynamic properties for the
then normalized to a unit displacement at the roof to flexible based model as shown on Sheet 4 are then
determine an initial estimate of the fundamental mode analogous to those for a fixed base.
shape. Then a first-mode participation factor is
calculated. Utilizing the participation factor, modal 10.11.6 Foundation Damping
story forces for unit spectral acceleration can be
calculated. This essentially revises the loads that were The next step is to modify the ground motion spectrum
initially assumed using uniform acceleration. further for the effects of foundation damping. The
Application of these revised forces to the model results calculations to determine foundation damping are
in a change in the displacement at the roof and the floor. illustrated on calculation Sheet 5. This process begins
These are once again normalized to the roof with an estimate of the effective stiffness of the fixed-
displacement to generate a revised mode shape. The base model. Note that the mass must be modified by
process continues until the calculated mode shape is the effective mass coefficient. The equation for this
essentially equal to that which was assumed. Then the may be found in ATC-40. The equivalent foundation
radius for translation is calculated for the entire considered. The first case involves an arbitrary
footprint of the building. Using this radius, the assumption that the strength is approximately 0.4 W,
translational stiffness of the foundation can be resulting in an R-factor of 1.52. If the governing
estimated using FEMA 440. Note that this estimate inelastic mechanism were foundation rocking or some
corresponds well with that calculated using the actual other ductile mechanism, the pushover curve might be
soil properties on Sheet 4. as shown on Sheet 7 for the positive post-elastic
stiffness model. Note that a positive post-elastic
The effective height of the building is required to stiffness of 5% reflects some strain hardening and
estimate the rotational stiffness of the foundation. This participation of the slab and columns. If the mechanism
parameter is essentially the centroid of the first-mode included modes of behavior that imply the loss of
shape measured from the base. As noted in Chapter 8, strength, the post-elastic portion of the curve would
70% of the total height of the building is often a good have a negative slope for such a degrading system. For
approximation. In this example the dynamic properties the second model, this is assumed to be -25% of the
are used to calculate the actual value. Rotational initial oscillator stiffness for the strength-degrading
stiffness of the foundation can then be estimated. Note model, as also illustrated in the pushover diagrams on
again that the estimate on Sheet 5 compares reasonably Sheet 7. Each of these cases is examined further.
well with that calculated for the flexible-base model
using the soil properties of the foundation directly. This 10.11.8 Check on Minimum Strength for Strength
leads to an equivalent foundation radius for rotation, Degrading Model
which can be visualized as a radius of gyration The model with degrading strength must be checked to
representing the effective moment of inertia of the determine if there is a potential for dynamic instability,
foundation. as shown on calculation Sheet 8. The maximum
negative post elastic stiffness evident from the pushover
The actual amount of foundation damping depends on curve could be due to cyclic and/or in-cycle loss of
the relative amount of inelasticity in the foundation strength (including P-∆ effects). As noted in Chapter 4,
compared with that in the structure. The procedures in there is currently no practical means of separating these
Chapter 8 essentially assume that the inelasticity is effects. The suggestion in this document is to assume
concentrated in the structure, which leads to a that the effective post-elastic stiffness, for sites located
conservative estimate of foundation damping. The in the near field, is equal to that attributable to P-∆
calculation requires an estimate of the system ductility effects plus 80% of the balance evident from the
demand. An initial assumption of 3.0 is made for the pushover curve. For non-near-field sites the percentage
example. Combining this with an initial damping of 5% drops to 20%. This is strictly a subjective provision and
leads to an effective damping for the flexible-base further research is needed on this issue. For the
model. Combining the foundation damping with the strength-degrading model in the example, dynamic
initial assumed damping value (5%) leads to an estimate analysis would not be required for the building in either
of the total flexible-base system damping. The case. However, as noted on Sheet 8, the assumed
foundation input motion calculated, including the design level ground motions equal 2/3 of MCE ground
effects of kinematic interaction, is based on the initial motions. Larger motions would imply lower relative
assumption of 5% damping. The foundation input strength (higher R) for the model. In fact, the MCE
motion is then modified to reflect the flexible based motion likely would result in an R greater than the
damping as shown on calculation Sheet 6. maximum allowable and the potential for dynamic
instability. This is discussed further below in
10.11.7 Force-Displacement Relationships
(Pushover Curves) conjunction with equivalent linearization procedures.
The next step in the process is the selection of a lateral 10.11.9 Target Displacement for Displacement
load vector. FEMA 356 and ATC-40 both require and/ Modification
or suggest a number of options for this selection. Based The target displacement for the positive post-elastic
on the recommendation in Chapter 8, a vector stiffness model is calculated using the displacement
proportional to the first-mode shape is sufficient and modification as shown on calculation Sheet 9. The
preferable to the others; thus the first-mode shape for procedure is the Coefficient Method of FEMA 356
the flexible-base model is used to generate the basic modified with the suggested changes for the
load-deformation characterizations for the model (see coefficients C1 and C2. The coefficient C2 is included
calculation Sheet 7). Two different possibilities are in the calculation since a concrete structure is likely to
have stiffness degradation and pinching hysteretic of the locus of performance points, as shown on Sheet
behavior. Note that the solution for maximum 11. A check using the general equations for effective
displacement for the strength-degrading model (near- damping (Equations 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6) and effective
and non-near field) would be the same as the case on period (Equations 6-10, 6-11, and 6-12) produced
Sheet 9, since the displacement-modification procedure essentially the same performance point.
does not directly consider negative post-elastic stiffness
in the calculation of the coefficients. 10.11.11 Check on Assumed Ductility
10.11.10 Calculation of the Performance Point The solutions for the positive post elastic-stiffness
Using Equivalent Linearization model are essentially equivalent for displacement
modification and equivalent linearization. The
The solution for the maximum displacement of the resulting ductility demand is approximately 1.8, as
positive post-elastic stiffness model using equivalent opposed to the assumed value of 3.0. This would result
linearization procedures is shown on calculation Sheets in an increase from 6.9% to 7.9% in initial flexible-base
10 and 11. The effective damping and period damping for the model. This reduces the maximum
calculations for a stiffness-degrading oscillator with displacement slightly, but not significantly, in this case.
positive post-elastic stiffness of 5% are shown on Sheet
10. The selected solution procedure is the construction
This section contains references, additional bibliogra- Aschheim, M.A., Maffei, J., and Black, E.F., 1998,
phy, and acronyms. Following the references and bibli- “Nonlinear static procedures and earthquake dis-
ography section is a list of FEMA reports cited in this placement demands,” 6th U.S. National Conference
document. on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
References and Additional Bibliography
land, California.
Akkar S.D. and Miranda, E., 2005, “Statistical evalua- Aschheim, M., and Black, E.F., 2000, “Yield point
tion of approximate methods for estimating maxi- spectra for seismic design and rehabilitation,”
mum deformation demands on existing structures,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No. 2, Earthquake
Journal of Structural Engineering, American Soci- Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Califor-
ety of Civil Engineers, Vol. 131, No. 1. nia, pp. 317-335.
Akkar, S., and Gulkan, P., 2000, “Comparative perfor- Aschheim, M.A., Maffei, J., and Black, E.F., 1998,
mance evaluation of displacement based design “Nonlinear static procedures and earthquake dis-
procedures for near field earthquakes,” Proceedings placement demands,” Proceedings, 6th U.S.
of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engi- National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
neering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engi- Seattle, Washington, CD-ROM, Paper 167, Earth-
neering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand. quake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
Albanesi, T., Nuti, C. and Vanzi, I., 2000, “A simplified California.
procedure to assess the seismic response of nonlin- Aydinoğlu, N.M., 2003, “An incremental response
ear structures,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No. 4, spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak- spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic per-
land, California, pp. 715-734. formance evaluation,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engi-
ASCE, 2000a, Prestandard and Commentary for the neering, Vol. 1, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356 pp.3-36.
Report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Aydinoglu, N.M., and Kacmaz, U., 2002, Strength
Engineers, published by the Federal Emergency Based Displacement Amplification Spectra For
Management Agency, Washington, D.C. Inelastic Seismic Performance Evaluation, Depart-
ASCE, 2000b, Global Topics Report on the Prestandard ment of Earthquake Engineering Report, No. 2002/
and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of 2, Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research
Buildings, FEMA 357 Report, prepared by the Institute, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey, 32
American Society of Civil Engineers, published by pages.
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Baez, J.I., and Miranda, E., 2000, “Amplification fac-
Washington, D.C. tors to estimate inelastic displacement demands for
ASCE, 2002, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and the design of structures in the near field,” Proceed-
Other Structures, ASCE 7-02 Report, American ings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. Engineering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand.
ATC, 1996, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
Buildings, ATC-40 Report, Volumes 1 and 2, Benjamin, J.R. and Cornell, C.A., 1970, Probability,
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, Cali- Statistics, and Decision for Civil Engineers,
fornia. McGraw Hill, New York, 684 pp.
ATC/BSSC, 1997, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Bernal, D., 1987, “Amplification factors for inelastic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273 Report dynamic P-delta effects in earthquake analysis,”
(Guidelines) and FEMA 274 Report (Commentary), Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
prepared by the Applied Technology Council for Vol. 15, pp. 635-651.
the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by Bernal, D., 1992, “Instability of buildings subjected to
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, earthquakes,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
Washington, D.C. Vol. 118, No. 8, American Society of Civil Engi-
neers, pp. 2239-2260.
Black, E.F., and Aschheim, M., 2000, Seismic Design Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 1999a, Capacity-
and Evaluation of Multistory Buildings using Yield Demand Diagram Methods for Estimating Seismic
Point Spectra, CD Release 00-04, Mid-America Deformation of Inelastic Structure: SDF Systems,
Earthquake Center, University of Illinois, Urbana. Report No. PEER-1999/02, Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Center, University of California, Ber-
Blume, J.A., Newmark, N.M., and Corning, L.H., 1961, keley, California.
Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings
for Earthquake Motions, Portland Cement Associa- Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 1999b, “Capacity-
tion, Skokie, Illinois. demand diagram methods based on inelastic design
spectrum,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 4,
Bracci, J.B., Kunnath, S.K., and Reinhorn, A.M., 1997,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
“Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of
land, California, pp. 637-656.
reinforced concrete structures,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, Vol. 123, American Society of Chopra, A.K. and Goel, R.K., 2000, “Evaluation of
Civil Engineers, pp. 3-10. NSP to estimate seismic deformation: SDF sys-
tems,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126,
Browning, J., 2000, “Implications of a proportioning No. 4, American Society of Civil Engineers,
method for earthquake-resistant RC frames sub-
pp. 482-490.
jected to strong ground motion,” Proceedings of the
12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineer- Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 2001a, “Direct displace-
ing, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineer- ment based design: Use of inelastic vs. elastic
ing, Upper Hutt, New Zealand. design spectra,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 17,
No. 1, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Browning, J., Li, R., Lynn, A., and Moehle, J.P., 2000,
Oakland, California, pp. 47-64.
“Performance assessment for a reinforced concrete
frame building,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No. Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 2001b, A Modal Push-
3, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak- over Analysis Procedure to Estimate Seismic
land, California, pp. 541-555. Demands for Buildings: Theory and Preliminary
Evaluation, Report No. PEER 2001/03, Pacific
BSSC, 2000, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univer-
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
sity of California, Berkeley.
Structures, Part 1, Provisions, and Part 2, Commen-
tary, FEMA 368 and 369, prepared by the Building Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 2001c, “Modal pushover
Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal analysis of SAC buildings,” Third U.S.-Japan
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake
D.C. Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete
Building Structures, August 16-18, Seattle, Wash-
BSSC, 2003, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
ington.
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures, Part 1, Provisions, and Part 2, Commen- Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 2001d, A Modal Push-
tary, FEMA 450-1 and 450-2, prepared by the over Analysis Procedure to Estimate Seismic
Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Demands for Buildings: Theory and Preliminary
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Wash- Evaluation, PEER-2001/03, Berkeley: Pacific
ington, D.C. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univer-
sity of California, 87 pages.
Chintanapakdee, C., and Chopra, A.K., 2003, “Evalua-
tion of modal pushover analysis using generic Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 2002, “A modal push-
frames,” Earthquake Engineering and Strucural over analysis procedure for estimating seismic
Dynamics, Vol. 32, Wiley Publishers, Hoboken, demands for buildings,” Earthquake Engineering
New Jersey, pp. 417–442. and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, pp. 561-582.
Chopra, A.K., and Chintanapakdee, C., 2004, “Inelastic Chopra, A.K. and Kan, C., 1973, “Effect of stiffness
deformation ratios for design and evaluation of degradation on ductility requirements for multistory
structures: single-degree-of-freedom bilinear sys- buildings,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
tems,” Journal of Structural Engineering., Vol. 130, Dynamics, Vol. 2, pp. 35-45.
No. 9, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia, pp. 1309-1319. Chopra, A.K., Goel, R.K., and Chintanapakdee, C.,
2003, “Statistics of single-degree-of-freedom esti-
mate of displacement for pushover analysis of
buildings,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
129, No. 4, pp. 459-469. Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 31-46.
Chopra A.K., Goel, R.K., and Chintanapakdee, C., Fardis, M.N. and Panagiotakos, T.B., 1996, “Hysteretic
2004, “Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure damping and reinforced concrete elements,” Pro-
assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seis- ceedings, 11th World Conference on Earthquake
mic demands,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 3, Engineering, CD-ROM, Paper 464, Acapulco,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak- Mexico.
land, California, pp. 757-778.
Filiatrault, A., and Folz, B., 2001, “Performance-based
Clough, R.W., 1966, Effect of Stiffness Degradation on seismic design of wood framed buildings,”
Earthquake Ductility Requirements, University of accepted for publication in Journal of Structural
California, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Berkeley, Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers.
California.
Foutch, D.A., and Shi, S., 1998, “Effects of hysteresis
Clough, R.W. and Johnston, S.B., 1966, “Effects of type on the seismic response of buildings,” Pro-
stiffness-degradation on earthquake ductility ceedings, 6th U.S. National Conference on Earth-
requirements,” Proceedings Japan Earthquake quake Engineering, CD-ROM, Paper 409,
Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
pp. 227-232. land, California.
Collins, K.R., Wen, Y.K., and Foutch, D.A., 1995, Freeman, S.A., Nicoletti, J.P. and Tyrell, J.V., 1975,
Investigation of Alternative Seismic Design Proce- “Evaluations of existing buildings for seismic risk -
dures for Standard Buildings, UILU-ENG-95-2003 a case study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,
Report, Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Bremerton, Washington,” Proceedings of U.S.
Research Series No. 600, Dept. of Civil Engineer- National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
ing, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Berkeley, California, pp. 113-122.
187 pages.
Goel, R.K., and Chopra, A.K., 2004, “Evaluation of
Cornell, C.A., Vamvatsikos, D., Jalayer, F., and Luco, modal and FEMA pushover analysis: SAC build-
N., 2000, “Seismic reliability of steel frames,” Pro- ings,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 20, No. 1, Earth-
ceedings of the 9th IFIP WG 7.5 Working Confer- quake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
ence on Reliability and Optimization of Structural California, pp. 225-254.
Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Gulkan P., and Sozen, M.A., 1974, “Inelastic responses
Cuesta, I., and Aschheim, M., 2001, Using Pulse R- of reinforced concrete structures to earthquake
Factors to Estimate Structural Response to Earth- motions,” Proceedings of the American Concrete
quake Ground Motions, CD Release 01-03, Mid- Institute, Vol. 71, No. 12, pp. 605-610.
America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois,
Urbana, Illinois. Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H., 1998, “Effect of stiff-
ness degradation on deformation demands for
Cuesta, I., Aschheim, M., and Fajfar, P., 2003, “Simpli- SDOF and MDOF structures,” Proceedings, 6th
fied R-factor relationships for strong ground U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
motions,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 1, ing, CD-ROM, Paper 225, Earthquake Engineering
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak- Research Institute, Oakland, California.
land, California, pp. 25-45.
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, K., 2000a, “Estimation of
Elnashai, A.S., 2000, “Advanced inelastic static (push- seismic drift demands for frame structures,” Earth-
over) analysis for seismic design and assessment,” quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
G. Penelis International Symposium on Concrete Vol. 29, pp. 1287-1305.
and Masonry Structures, Aristotle University of
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, K., 2000b, “Dynamic P-
Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp 23-34.
delta effects for flexible inelastic structures,” Jour-
Fajfar, P., 1999, “Capacity-spectrum method based on nal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 1,
inelastic demand spectra,” Earthquake Engineering American Society of Civil Engineers.
and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 28, pp. 979-993.
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H., 2003, “Feasibility of
Fajfar, P., and Gaspersic, P., 1996, “The N2 method for pushover analysis for estimation of strength
the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings,” demands,” in STESSA 2003: Proceedings of the
Conference on Behavior of Steel Structures in Seis- Husid, R., 1969, “The effect of gravity on the collapse
mic Areas, June 9-12, 2003, Naples, Italy. of yielding structures with earthquake excitation,”
Proceedings, 4th World Conference on Earthquake
Gupta, B. and Kunnath, S.K., 1998, “Effect of hyster-
Engineering, Vol. 2, Chilean Association of Seis-
etic model parameters on inelastic seismic
mology and Earthquake Engineering, Santiago,
demands,” Proceedings, 6th U.S. National Confer- Chile, pp. A4-31 to A4-43.
ence on Earthquake Engineering, CD-ROM, Paper
358, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Islam, M.S., Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S., 1998, “A criti-
Oakland, California. cal review of state-of-the-art analytical tools and
acceptance criterion in light of observed response
Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S.K., 2000, “Adaptive spectra-
of an instrumented nonductile concrete frame build-
based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of
ing,” Proceedings, 6th U.S. National Conference on
structures,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No. 2, Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
Research Institute, Oakland, California.
land, California, pp. 367-391.
Iwan, W.D., 1980, “Estimating inelastic response spec-
Hadjian, A.H., 1982, “A re-evaluation of equivalent lin- tra from elastic spectra,” Earthquake Engineering
ear models for simple yielding systems,” Earth-
and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 8, pp. 375-388.
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Vol. 10, pp. 759-767. Iwan, W.D., and Chen, X.D., 1995, “Important near-
field ground motion data from the Landers earth-
Han, S.W., and Wen, Y.K., 1997, “Method of reliability-
quake,” Proceedings, 10th European Conference on
based seismic design. I: Equivalent nonlinear sys-
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, A. A. Balkema,
tem,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 123,
Rotterdam, pp. 229-234.
American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 256-265.
Iwan, W.D. and N.C. Gates, 1978, “The effective period
Hanson, R.D., Aiken, I., Nims, D.K., Richter, P.J., and
and damping of a class of hysteretic structures,”
Bachman, R.E., 1993, “State-of-the-art and state-
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
of-the-practice in seismic energy dissipation,” Pro- Vol. 7, pp. 199-211.
ceedings of Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive
Energy Dissipation, and Active Control, ATC 17-1 Iwan, W.D., and Gates, N.C., 1979, “Estimating earth-
Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood quake response of simple hysteretic structures,”
City, California, pp. 449-471. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
Vol. 105, EM3, American Society of Civil Engi-
Hanson, R.D., and Soong, T.T., 2001, Seismic Design
neers, pp. 391-405.
with Supplemental Energy Dissipation Devices,
Publication No. MNO-8, Earthquake Engineering Iwan, W.D. and Guyader, A.C., 2001, “A study of the
Research Institute, Oakland, California. accuracy of the capacity-spectrum method in engi-
neering analysis,” Proceedings of the Workshop on
Heintz, J.A., Poland, C.D., and Low, W.A., 1999, Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Meth-
“Improvements to the FEMA 273 linear static pro-
odology, Seattle, Washington.
cedure,” U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-
Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Iwan, W.D., Huang, C-T., and Guyader, A.C., 1999,
Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, PEER- Evaluation of the Effects of Near-Source Ground
1999/10 Report, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Motions, Earthquake Engineering Research Labora-
Research Center, University of California, tory Report 99-01, California Institute of Technol-
pp. 267-276. ogy, Pasadena.
Hernández-Montes, E., Kwon, O-S, and Aschheim, M., Iwan, W.D., Huang, C-T., and Guyader, A.C., 2000,
2004, “An energy-based formulation for first- and “Important features of the response of inelastic
multiple-mode nonlinear static (pushover) analy- structures to near-field ground motion,” Proceed-
ses,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 8, ings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake
No. 1, pp. 69-88. Engineering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand.
Hudson, D.E., 1965, “Equivalent viscous friction for
hysteretic systems with earthquake-like excita- Jacobsen, L.S., 1930, “Steady forced vibrations as influ-
tions,” Proceedings, 3rd World Conference on enced by damping,” Transactions ASME, Vol. 52
Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, (APM), pp. 169-181.
pp. II:185-201.
Jacobsen, L.S., 1960, “Damping in composite struc- Kunnath, S.K., Nghiem, Q., John Jr., A., and El-Tawil,
tures,” Proceedings 2nd World Conference on S., 2000, “Validation of evaluation methods and
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan, acceptance criteria in evolving performance-based
Vol. 2, pp. 1029-1044. seismic codes,” Proceedings, SMIP2000 Seminar
on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, California
Jan, T.S., Liu, M.W., and Kao, Y.C., 2004, “An upper Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento,
bound pushover analysis procedure for estimating
pp. 39-63.
the seismic demands of high rise buildings,” Engi-
neering Structures, Vol. 26, pp. 117-128. Lehman, D.E., Mosier, W.G. and Stanton, J.F., 2000,
“Seismic performance of reinforced concrete beam-
Jennings, P., 1968, “Equivalent damping for yielding
column joints,” Proceedings, the Second U.S.-
structures,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earth-
Vol. 94, American Society of Civil Engineers, quake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced
pp. 103-116.
Concrete Building Structures, September 11-13,
Jennings, P.C. and Husid, R., 1968, “Collapse of yield- Sapporo, Japan, Report PEER-2000/10, Pacific
ing structures during earthquakes,” Journal of Engi- Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univer-
neering Mechanics, Vol. 94, No. 5, American sity of California, pp. 365-376.
Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1045-1065.
Lepage, A., 1998, “Nonlinear drift of multistory RC
Judi, H.J., Davidson, B.J., and Fenwick, R.C., 2000, structures during earthquakes,” Proceedings, 6th
“The direct displacement based design method: a U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
damping perspective,” Proceedings of the 12th ing, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Oakland, California.
Auckland, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Lew, H.S. and Kunnath, S.K., 2000, “Evaluation of
Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand.
analysis procedures for performance-based seismic
Kim, S. and Stewart, J.P., 2003, “Kinematic soil-struc- design of buildings,” Proceedings, 12th World Con-
ture interaction from strong motion recordings,” J. ference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, CD-
Geotech. & Geoenv. Engrg., Vol. 129, No. 4, ROM, Paper 1005, New Zealand Society for Earth-
American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 323-335. quake Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand.
Kowalsky, M.J., 1994, Displacement-Based Design−a Lin, Y.Y. and Chang, K.C., 2002, “A study on damping
Methodology for Seismic Design Applied to RC reduction factor for buildings under earthquake
Bridge Columns, Master’s Thesis, University of ground motions,” accepted for publication in Jour-
California San Diego, La Jolla, California. nal of Structural Engineering, American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Krawinkler, H., and Alavi, B., 1998, “Development of
improved design procedures for near fault ground MacRae, G.A., 1994, “P-delta effects on single-degree-
motions,” Proceedings, SMIP98 Seminar on Utili- of-freedom structures in earthquakes,” Earthquake
zation of Strong-Motion Data, Oakland, California. Spectra, Vol. 10, No. 3, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, California,
Krawinkler, H., and Seneviratna, G.D.P.K., 1998, “Pros pp. 539-568.
and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic perfor-
mance evaluation,” Engineering Structures, Vol. 20, MacRae, G.A., Morrow, D.V., and Roeder, C.V., 2001,
No. 4-6, pp. 452-464. “Near-fault ground motion effects on simple struc-
tures,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 127,
Kunnath, S.K., Reinhorn, A.M., and Lobo, R.F., 1992, No. 9, American Society of Civil Engineers,
IDARC: Inelastic Damage Analysis of RC Struc- pp. 996-1004.
tures - Version 3.0, Report NCEER-92-0022, State
University of New York at Buffalo, New York. MacRae, G., and Tagawa, H., 2001, Methods to Esti-
mate Displacements of PG&E Structures, draft
Kunnath, S.K. and Gupta, B., 2000, “Validity of defor- report on research conducted under PGE/PEER
mation demand estimates using nonlinear static Task No. 505, University of Washington, Seattle,
procedures,” Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan Work- Washington.
shop on Performance-Based Engineering of Rein-
forced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo, MacRae, G. and Tagawa, H., 2002, Methods to Estimate
Hokkaido, Japan. Displacements of PG&E Structures, Report PGE/
PEER Task No. 505, University of Washington, Naeim, F., Skliros, K, and Reinhorn, A.M., 2000,
Seattle, Washington. “Influence of hysteretic deteriorations in seismic
response of multistory steel frame buildings,” Pro-
Mahin, S.A. and Bertero, V.V., 1981, “An evaluation of
ceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earth-
seismic design spectra,” Journal of Structural Engi-
quake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand
neering, Vol. 107 (ST9), American Society of Civil Society for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt,
Engineers, pp. 1777-1795.
New Zealand.
Mahin, S.A. and Lin, J., 1983, Construction of Inelastic
Nakaki, S., 2000, Developing Design Guidelines for
Response Spectra for Single Degree of Freedom Precast Concrete Diaphragms, Earthquake Engi-
Systems, Report No. UCB/EERC-83/17, Earth-
neering Research Institute, Oakland, California.
quake Engineering Research Center, University of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California. Nakashima, M., Ogawa, K., and Inoue, K., 2002,
“Generic frame model for simulation of earthquake
Miranda, E., 1991, Seismic Evaluation and Upgrading
responses of steel moment frames,” Earthquake
of Existing Buildings, PhD Thesis, University of
Engineering and Structural Dynamics.
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, California.
Newmark, N.M., and Hall, W.J., 1982, Earthquake
Miranda, E., 1993, “Evaluation of site-dependent
Spectra and Design, Earthquake Engineering
inelastic seismic design spectra,” Journal of Struc-
Research Institute, Berkeley, California.
tural Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 5, American Soci-
ety of Civil Engineers, pp. 1319-1338. Otani, S., 2000, “New seismic design provisions in
Japan,” Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan Workshop
Miranda, E., 2000, “Inelastic displacement ratios for
on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering for
structures on firm sites,” Journal of Structural
Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo,
Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 10, American Society of Japan.
Civil Engineers, pp. 1150-1159.
Paparizos, L.G., and W.D., Iwan, 1988, “Some observa-
Miranda, E., 2001, “Estimation of inelastic deformation
tions on the random response of an elasto-plastic
demands of SDOF systems,” Journal of Structural system,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Paper No.
Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 9, American Society of
88-WA/APM-64, American Society of Civil Engi-
Civil Engineers, pp. 1005-1012.
neers.
Miranda, E. and Akkar, S.D., 2002, “Evaluation of iter- Paret, T.F., Freeman, S.A., and Dameron, R.A, 2002,
ative schemes in equivalent linear methods,” sub-
“Rethinking the earthquake engineering paradigm:
mitted for review and possible publication to
from response reduction to response suppression,”
Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Proceedings, Seventh U.S. National Conference on
Research Institute, Oakland, California.
Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering
Miranda, E. and Akkar, S.D., 2003, “Dynamic instabil- Research Institute, Oakland, California.
ity of simple structural systems,” Journal of Struc- Porter, K.A., Beck, J.L., and Shaidhutdinov, R.V., 2002,
tural Engineering, American Society of Civil
“Sensitivity of building loss estimates to major
Engineers, Vol. 129, No. 12, pp. 1722-1726.
uncertain variables,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 18
Miranda, E., and Bertero, V., 1994, “Evaluation of No. 4, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant Oakland, California.
design”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, No. 2, Earth-
Powell, G.H., 1993, Drain-2DX Element Description
quake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, and User Guide for Element Type01, Type02,
California, pp. 357-379.
Type04, Type06, Type09, and Type15 Version 1.10,
Miranda, E., and Ruiz-García, J., 2002, “Evaluation of Report No. UCB/SEMM-93/18, Structural Engi-
approximate methods to estimate maximum inelas- neering Mechanics and Materials, University of
tic displacement demands,” Earthquake Engineer- California, Berkeley, California.
ing and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 31, pp. 539-560.
Powell, G.H., and Row, D.G., 1976, “Influence of analy-
Mwafy, A.M., and Elnashai, A.S., 2001, “Static push- sis and design assumptions on computed inelastic
over versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC build- response of moderately tall frames,” Report No.
ings,” Engineering Structures, Vol. 23, UCB/EERC-76/11, Earthquake Engineering
pp. 407-424. Research Center, University of California at Berke-
ley, Berkeley, California.
Prakash, V., Powell, G.H., and Campbell, S., 1993, Sasaki, K.K., Freeman, S.A., and Paret, T.F., 1998,
Drain-2DX Base Program Description and User “Multi-mode pushover procedure (MMP) -- a
Guide Version 1.10, Report No. UCB/SEMM-93/ method to identify the effects of higher modes in a
17, Structural Engineering Mechanics and Materi- pushover analysis,” Proceedings, Sixth U.S.
als, University of California, Berkeley, California. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Seattle, Washington, Earthquake Engineering
Qi, X., and Moehle, J.P., 1991, Displacement Design
Research Institute, Oakland, California.
Approach for Reinforced Concrete Structures Sub-
jected to Earthquakes, Report No. UCB/EERC-91/ Seneviratna, G.D.P.K. and Krawinkler, H., 1994,
02, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Uni- “Strength and displacement demands for seismic
versity of California, Berkeley. design of structural walls,” Proceedings of the 5th
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineer-
Ramirez, O. M., Constantinou, M. C., Whittaker, A. S., ing, Chicago, Vol. II, pp. 181-190.
Kircher, C. A., Johnson, M. W., and Chrysostomou,
C. Z., 2003, “Validation of the 2000 NEHRP Provi- Seneviratna, G.D.P.K., and Krawinkler, H., 1997, Eval-
sions' equivalent lateral force and modal analysis uation of Inelastic MDOF Effects for Seismic
procedures for buildings with damping systems, Design, BLUME-120 Report, John A. Blume
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 4, Earthquake Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford, Califor-
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Califor- nia, 177 pages.
nia, pp. 981-999.
Song, J.K., and Pincheira, J.A., 2000, “Spectral dis-
Reinhorn, A., 1997, “Inelastic techniques in seismic placement demands of stiffness and strength
evaluations,” in Seismic Design Methodologies for degrading systems,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16
the Next Generation of Codes, Fajfar, P., and No. 4, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Krawinkler, H., eds., Bled, Slovenia. Oakland, California, pp. 817-851.
Riddell, R. and Newmark, N.M., 1979, Statistical Anal- Tagawa, H., and MacRae, G., 2000, “Capacity spectra
ysis of the Response of Nonlinear Systems Sub- method for estimating SDOF oscillator demands,”
jected to Earthquakes, Structural Research Series, Proceedings of the 2001 Structures Congress &
Report No. UILI-ENG79-2016, Dept. of Civil Exposition, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. Washington, D.C., May 21-23.
Rothe, D., and Sozen, M.A., 1983, A SDOF Model to Tsopelas, P., Constantinou, M.C., Kircher, C.A., and
Study Nonlinear Dynamic Response of Large- and Whittaker, A. S., 1997, Evaluation of Simplified
Small-Scale R/C Test Structures, Structural methods of Analysis of Yielding Structures, Techni-
Research Series, No. 512, Department of Civil cal Report NCEER-97-0012, National Center for
Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana- Earthquake Engineering Research, State University
Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. of New York, Buffalo.
Ruiz-Garcia, J., and Miranda, E., 2003, “Inelastic dis- Uetani, K., and Tagawa, H., 1998, “Criteria for suppres-
placement ratios for evaluation of existing struc- sion of deformation concentration of building
tures,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural frames under severe earthquakes,” Engineering
Dynamics, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1237-1258. Structures, Vol. 20, No. 4-6, pp. 372-383.
Ruiz-Garcia, J., and Miranda, E., 2004, “Inelastic dis- Valley, M.T., and Harris, J.R., 1998, “Application of
placement ratios for design of structures on soft modal techniques in a pushover analyses,” Proceed-
soils sites,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. ings, Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earth-
130, No. 12, American Society of Civil Engineers, quake Engineering, Seattle, Washington,
Reston, Virginia, pp. 2051-2061. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
land, California.
SAC, 2000, State of the Art Report on Systems Perfor-
mance of Steel Moment Frames Subject to Earth- Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C.A., 2002, “Incremental
quake Ground Shaking, FEMA 355C Report, dynamic analysis,” submitted to Earthquake Engi-
prepared by the SAC Joint Venture (a partnership of neering and Structural Dynamics, John Wiley &
the Structural Engineers Association of California, Sons, Ltd.
the Applied Technology Council, and California
Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineer- Villaverde, R., 1996, “Simplified response spectrum
analysis of nonlinear structures,” Journal of Engi-
ing) for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Washington, D.C.
neering Mechanics, Vol. 122, American Society of eral Emergency Management Agency, Washington
Civil Engineers, pp. 282-285. D.C.
Wen, Y.K., and Wu, C.L., 2001, “Uniform hazard FEMA 355C, 2000, State of the Art Report on Systems
ground motions for mid-America cities,” Earth- Performance of Steel Moment Frames Subject to
quake Spectra, Vol. 17, No. 2, Earthquake Engi- Earthquake Ground Shaking, prepared by the SAC
neering Research Institute, Oakland, California, Joint Venture (a partnership of the Structural Engi-
pp. 359-384. neers Association of California, the Applied Tech-
nology Council, and California Universities for
Wu, J., and Hanson, R.D., 1989, “Study of inelastic Research in Earthquake Engineering) for the Fed-
spectra with high damping,” Journal of Structural
eral Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers,
D.C.
Vol. 115, No. 6, pp. 1412-1431.
FEMA 356, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the
Yu, K., Heintz, J., and Poland, C., 2001, “Assessment of
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared by the
nonlinear static analysis procedures for seismic
American Society of Civil Engineers for the Fed-
evaluation of building structures,” Proceedings eral Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
U.S.-Japan Joint Workshop and Third Grantees
D.C.
Meeting, U.S.-Japan Cooperative Research on
Urban Earthquake Disaster Mitigation, 15-16 FEMA 357, 2000, Global Topics Report on the Prestan-
August 2001, University of Washington, Seattle, dard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilita-
Washington, pp. 431-450. tion of Buildings, prepared by the American Society
of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Man-
Zamfirescu, D. and Fajfar, P., 2001, “Comparison of
agement Agency, Washington, D.C.
simplified procedures for nonlinear seismic analy-
sis of structures,” Proceedings, 3rd U.S. Japan FEMA 368, 2000, NEHRP Recommended Provisions
Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and
Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Other Structures, Part 1 - Provisions, prepared by
Buildings, Seattle, Washington. the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
D.C.
FEMA Reports FEMA 369, 2000, NEHRP Recommended Provisions
FEMA reports are listed by report number. for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and
Other Structures, Part 2 - Commentary, prepared by
FEMA 306, 1998, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Basic Pro- Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
cedures Manual, prepared by the Applied Technol- D.C.
ogy Council for the Partnership for Response and
Recovery, published by the Federal Emergency FEMA 450-1, 2003, NEHRP Recommended Provisions
Management Agency, Washington D.C. for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and
Other Structures, Part 1 - Provisions, prepared by
FEMA 307, 1998, Evaluation of Earthquake Damaged the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, Technical Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
Resources, prepared by the Applied Technology D.C.
Council for the Partnership for Response and
Recovery, published by the Federal Emergency FEMA 450-2, 2003, NEHRP Recommended Provisions
Management Agency, Washington D.C. for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and
Other Structures, Part 2 - Commentary, prepared by
FEMA 308, 1998, Repair of Earthquake Damaged the Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings, prepared by Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
the Applied Technology Council for the Partnership D.C.
for Response and Recovery, published by the Fed-
Project Management
Christopher Rojahn (Principal Investigator) Bernadette Mosby (Project Coordinator)
Applied Technology Council Applied Technology Council
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240
Redwood City, California 94065-1175 Redwood City, California 94065-1175
FEMA Oversight
Michael Mahoney (Project Officer) Robert D. Hanson (Technical Monitor)
Federal Emergency Management Agency 2926 Saklan Indian Drive
500 “C” Street, SW, Room 416 Walnut Creek, California 94595
Washington, DC 20472
Jon A. Heintz
Degenkolb Engineers
225 Bush Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, California 94104
A.1 Introduction directed interested persons to the ATC web site. There
they found a description of the project and a form for
Inelastic analysis of structures is a field with a number initial researcher input. Project team members met with
of active researchers. In order to gauge the current investigators in face-to-face meetings from March
situation with respect to information and data that might through June 2001. This effort was supplemented by
be used to evaluate and improve procedures, ATC interviews and e-mail discussions. In total, the project
solicited information from investigators on relevant team members contacted over fifty researchers in the
published research as well as on research in progress United States, Europe, and Japan. Over thirty in
and unpublished insights and perspectives. The structural engineering, risk and reliability; geotechnical
purpose was to obtain insight for the direction of the engineering, and engineering seismology provided
project. This section summarizes the information input, for which ATC, FEMA and PEER are most
obtained from these investigators including limited thankful. Table A-1 contains a partial list of the
review of literature relevant to the objectives of the researchers contacted, along with an indication of the
project. Announcements in professional newsletters format in which information was collected.
informed the engineering community of the project and
Meeting Telephone
Notes Notes E-mail Other
Meeting Telephone
Notes Notes E-mail Other
Ron Hamburger 9
Bill Iwan 9
Mervyn Kowalsky 9
Helmut Krawinkler 9
Sashi Kunnath 9
Andres Lepage 9
Greg MacRae 9
Joe Maffei 9
Eduardo Miranda 9
Jose Pincheira 9
Graham Powell 9 9
Nigel Priestley 9
Andrei Reinhorn 9
Mete Sozen
John Stanton 9
Masaomi Teshigawara 9
Mike Valley 9
Ed Wilson 9
Geotechnical Engineering and Site Effects
Youssef Hashash 9
Engineering Seismology and Ground Motions
Bruce Bolt 9
Mehmet Celebi 9
The summary that follows is a composite of information A.2 Classification of Analysis Methods
submitted by or obtained from interviews of
researchers, and the results of literature review by The research summary addresses various methods of
project team members. Last name references are used inelastic analysis, but focuses upon the nonlinear static
to attribute thoughts and opinions of individual procedures known as the Capacity-Spectrum Method,
researchers contacted. In a few instances, the work of as described in ATC-40 (ATC, 1996), and the
other researchers not contacted is mentioned without a Displacement Coefficient Method, as described in
formal citation. Information from published and FEMA 273 (ATC/BSSC, 1997) and FEMA 356 (ASCE,
pending articles and reports is cited by lead author and 2000). Inelastic analysis methods differ based in the
date as listed in the References section. approximations used to model the structural system
(e.g. “equivalent” single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
considering one or more modes, stick models, “equivalent linear” system, wherein a linear system
“fishbone” models, 2D planar models, 3D models) and having reduced stiffness (Keff = Ksecant), and increased
the form of the representation of demand (e.g. elastic damping proportional to hysteretic energy, is used to
spectra, approximate inelastic spectra, one or more estimate the response of the nonlinear system. The
elastic or nonlinear time histories, or energy-based CSM is documented thoroughly in ATC-40. It is also
methods). Both the Capacity-Spectrum Method and described in further detail in Section 7 of this document.
Displacement Coefficient Method use “equivalent”
SDOF systems to estimate the response of an inelastic Advantages
system from the response of an elastic system to an
elastic response spectrum. 1. The intersection of “capacity” and “demand”
curves implies a sense of dynamic equilibrium.
MacRae and Maffei observe that methods for
estimating the response of inelastic systems based on 2. The influence of strength and stiffness on peak dis-
elastic response spectra may be classified further based placement is represented by the graphic nature of
on the assumption used for the elastic period in the the procedure.
estimate of peak inelastic displacement response. 3. As currently presented in ATC-40, the procedure
Lateral force reduction factors, R-µ-T relations, and the equates viscous damping to hysteretic damping pro-
Displacement Coefficient Method are similar in their viding an appealing link to the actual characteristics
adoption of the initial elastic period in this regard. In of the structure.
contrast, one of the fundamental features of equivalent
linearization techniques is the use of a period longer 4. The interpretation of the graphic solution can pro-
than the initial to reflect inelastic effects. The Capacity- vide insight for an effective retrofit strategy.
Spectrum Method, for example, uses the secant period Drawbacks
corresponding to the maximum inelastic displacement.
Notably, there is a simple algebraic relationship relating 1. There is a controversy over the accuracy of dis-
the initial and periods if they are both known. placement estimates.
Consequently, the graphic representation of a method
can be de-coupled from the underlying relationships 2. The iterative procedure is time-consuming and may
that are used to estimate displacements. For example sometimes lead to no solution or multiple solutions
the use of inelastic spectra in a Capacity-Spectrum (Chopra).
Method format allows secant stiffnesses to be used with 3. The equating of hysteretic energy dissipation to vis-
R-µ-T relations based on the initial, elastic stiffness for cous damping energy dissipation provides a some-
estimating displacements. A variant of the Capacity- what specious sense that the procedure is
Spectrum Method known as Yield Point Spectra “theoretically” based on fundamental physical
(Aschheim) allows initial stiffnesses to be used with the properties.
same R-µ-T relations. In both cases, the underlying
displacement estimate is based on the initial stiffness, Accuracy. Some investigators find the CSM
because the initial stiffness is used in the definition of overestimates displacement response while others find
the R-µ-T relationships. The original Capacity- the CSM underestimates displacement response.
Spectrum Method bases the displacement estimate on Albanesi et al. (2000) find significant disparities
the elastic response of an oscillator having the secant between estimates of response made with the CSM,
stiffness of the nonlinear system. equal energy, and equal displacement assumptions
when compared to the results from nonlinear response
A.3 Nonlinear Static Procedures history analyses. Chopra and Goel (1999a, 1999b)
report that the CSM procedure significantly
A.3.1 Overview of Current Procedures underestimates displacement response for a wide range
A.3.1.1 Capacity-Spectrum Method of periods and ductility values, relative to the Newmark
Hall and other R-µ-T relations. Tsopelas et al. (1997)
Description. The peak displacement of a nonlinear finds that the CSM either accurately estimates or
system is estimated as the intersection of the capacity overestimates the mean displacements obtained from
curve and an elastic response spectrum that is reduced nonlinear reponse history analysis. MacRae observes
to account for energy dissipated by the yielding that the CSM both overestimates the effective damping
structure. The underlying basis of the Capacity- for a given ductility and reduces the 5% damped
Spectrum Method (CSM) is the concept of an
spectrum too much for a given level of damping. Iwan 1. The so-called Direct Capacity Spectra Method
reports that the CSM is accurate in a mean sense for (MacRae and Tagawa, 2001).
some cases, but the scatter in displacement estimates is
2. The use of inelastic spectra based on R-µ-T rela-
large because the combination of effective stiffness and
tionships.
damping used in the CSM is not optimal. Iwan et al.
(2000) report that the use of equivalent viscous 3. Using a graphic representation in which an intersec-
damping to account for inelastic behavior in the CSM tion of a “demand curve” and a “capacity curve”
yields satisfactory results for the limited period ranges defines the maximum displacement similar to the
where a resonance type of response occurs; but the Capacity-Spectrum Method (Chopra and Fajfar).
CSM is not generally valid for near-field ground
4. The use of inelastic spectra based on R-µ-T rela-
motions. Akkar and Gulkan (2000) also report that the
tionships, plotted with yield displacement on the
CSM underestimates response to near field earthquakes.
abscissa, in a format known as Yield Point Spectra
Freeman notes the intersection point is least ambiguous
(Aschheim).
when the capacity and demand curve form a sharp
intersection; whereas when the curves approach each
Further discussion may be found in Sections A.3.2.1
other gradually, the expected displacement may be less
and A.3.2.2. Finally, Direct Displacement Based Design
certain.
is a design version of the CSM (Kowalsky) and is
discussed in Section A.3.1.4
The range of findings on the accuracy of the CSM
reflect the various strategies and assumptions used in A.3.1.2 Displacement Coefficient Method
the evaluation studies. The assessment of the accuracy
of the method is likely to vary with the ground motions Description. The peak displacement of a nonlinear
used to evaluate it, with clear differences emerging, for system is estimated as the peak displacement of an
example, for near-field motions relative to far-field elastic system (Keff = Kinitial) multiplied by a series of
motions. As a part of the current work the Capacity- coefficients. Of primary interest here are the
Spectrum Method as presented in ATC-40 was coefficients C1, the ratio of the peak displacement of the
evaluated for a wide range of parametric values (see inelastic system and the peak displacement of the elastic
Chapter 3) system having the same period of vibration; C2, which
accounts for the effect of pinching in the load-
Theory . The apparent theoretical basis of the
deformation relation; and C3, which accounts for
Capacity-Spectrum Method of ATC-40 is a strength and
a weakness. In reality the underpinnings of the current second-order (P-Delta) effects. FEMA 356 is the
procedure are obscure. As discussed in Section A.3.2.1, primary source of documentation for the Displacement
the CSM is a form of the empirically based equivalent Coefficient Method (DCM). It is described further in
linearization. Also the need for empirically-determined Chapter 5 of this document. The coefficients are
coefficients (e.g. to account for structure framing type empirical and derived primarily from statistical studies
[Valley]) adds an element of empiricism to the method. of the nonlinear response history analyses of SDOF
The use of spectral reduction factors to be applied to a oscillators. In particular, C1 is conventionally
designated spectral shape makes it unclear if the method characterized in terms of strength, ductility, and period
is even applicable to site specific spectra that depart (R-µ-T relationships). The coefficient C1 usually is
from the designated spectral shape (Iwan). greater than 1.0 for relatively short periods and
converges to approximately 1.0 as period increases
Enhancements. Improvements and modifications to (equal displacement approximation). In the DCM,
the basic CSM have been suggested by some initial stiffness has a predominant effect on peak
investigators. For example, Albanesi et al. (2000) displacement response, while strength has little effect.
suggest the use of a variable damping response
spectrum, in which the damping level increases as the Advantages. The principal advantages of the method
ductility of the system increases. Potential are that it is direct and simple to apply. It is also based
enhancements to the method involve using re-calibrated on empirical parameters (R-µ-T relationships) that have
ductility/damping spectral reduction factor relationships been studied and generally accepted in the technical
or, more directly, ductility-related spectral reduction community for some time, leading to relatively little
factor relationships in: controversy.
Drawbacks. The Displacement Coefficient Method has As a part of the current work for the ATC-55 project,
received little scrutiny in recent literature, at least the Displacement Coefficient Method as presented in
relative to the Capacity-Spectrum Method. Thus, FEMA 356 was evaluated for a wide range of
potential drawbacks of the method may not be as parametric values (see Appendix B).
apparent. The product formulation for representing the
effects of strength, pinching, and P-Delta effects may be Enhancements. The Displacement Coefficient Method
questioned. Krawinkler stated that P-Delta effects in could be improved by deriving C1 factors directly from
multistory structures can not be accounted for nonlinear response data. The expression for C1 could
accurately using simplified procedures, and realistic be made a function of the degree of degradation of the
spectra should be used for soft soil sites, rather than oscillator load-deformation response and the degree of
using a coefficient approach. P-∆ effects present. MacRae and Tagawa (2001)
suggest improved C1 factors to account for near-field
Accuracy. Many compromises were required to
effects. See the discussion in Section A.3.3 below.
transform research results into the FEMA 273/356
nonlinear static procedure (Krawinkler). The C1 factor A.3.1.3 Drift-Based Approaches
as defined in FEMA 356 is smaller than research
indicates, as noted in FEMA 274. Miranda (2001) Simple methods to consider drift in the design of
points out that the C1 term should be derived from multistory buildings have been put forward by Sozen
oscillator response values and not from the R-µ-T and his coworkers. Lepage (1998) describes a method
relations that are based on these responses, to avoid for estimating peak drift, in which an effective period
statistical bias in the results. MacRae and Tagawa and an elastic displacement spectrum determined for
(2001) note that the coefficient C2 should approach 2% damping are used with a linear model of the
structure. Browning (2000) uses the technique to
unity as the strength of the pinched system approaches
determine a target period to limit the expected roof drift
the strength required for elastic response.
and interstory drifts during a design level event.
Song and Pincheira (2000) find that the FEMA 273 A.3.1.4 Direct Displacement-Based Design
recommendations provide conservative estimates of the
displacement amplification factors for degrading Kowalksy considers Direct Displacement Based Design
oscillators with periods greater than 0.3 sec on firm to be a design-oriented implementation of CSM. Rather
soils, and are unconservative at shorter periods. than estimating peak displacements, a limit on
displacement is used to determine the required
Lew and Kunnath (2000) compare demands computed properties of the system. Lepage noted that this method
using the LSP, LDP, NSP, and NDP of FEMA 273 with has been criticized for overestimating the effective
the acceptance criteria of the document for an damping present, but at the same time, Fenwick finds
instrumented 7-story reinforced concrete frame building that uncracked properties make individual components
(the Holiday Inn, Van Nuys, California) subjected to stiffer than is considered in the method. As a result, the
ground motions having a 10% probability of higher damping tends to compensate for the use of a
exceedance in 50 years, as developed for the FEMA- more flexible building, resulting in the apparently
funded SAC1 project. A triangular load pattern was reasonable displacement estimates. Chopra and Goel
used in the pushover analysis, and member plastic (2001,a,b,c) report that the use of linear elastic spectra
rotations were calculated from chord rotations as with increased damping, as recommended by Priestley,
suggested in FEMA 273. The beam plastic rotation does not work well in comparison with an inelastic
demands determined in this way were similar to the design spectrum derived using the Newmark-Hall
mean beam plastic rotations determined by nonlinear relations.
dynamic analysis, with pushover analysis
underestimating the plastic rotation demands in the Filiatrault and Folz (2001) have adapted this procedure
columns relative to those determined by nonlinear to wood frame construction. Because wood softens
dynamic analysis, particularly in the upper stories. gradually, a sharp yield point does not exist. This makes
the use of R-µ-T relationships very difficult, while
1. SAC: a joint venture partnership of the Structural
approaches that use the CSM format can handle
Engineers Association of California, the Applied Technol- softening more easily.
ogy Council, and California Universities for Research in
Earthquake Engineering
A.3.2 Fundamental Bases and Relationships estimate of the peak response and minimizes the
dispersion in the estimates.
The Capacity-Spectrum Method and Displacement
Coefficient Method rely on different underlying
Tagawa and MacRae (2001) identify effective damping
relationships to estimate the response of nonlinear
values by adjusting the damping of an elastic system,
systems based on an elastic response spectrum. The
having a period based on the secant stiffness, to obtain
Capacity-Spectrum Method relies on the concept of
peak displacements equal to the peak displacement of
equivalent linearization while the Displacement
the inelastic system. MacRae reports that negative
Coefficient Method uses R-µ-T relationships (where R
values of substitute damping are required for some
= the strength required for elastic response divided by
combinations of oscillator characteristics and ground
the effective yield strength of the system and µ= the
motion records to match the peak displacement of an
displacement ductility response of the system). These
inelastic oscillator, although the mean values tend to be
fundamental relations are reviewed in the following
somewhere between the ATC-40 and Japanese Building
sections. As presented and utilized currently, the
Standard Law versions of CSM.
graphical characteristics of the two procedures are also
different. However, these differences are not
The Building Research Institute of Japan studied the
fundamental and results from either approach may be
CSM for adoption into the Japanese building code. The
readily transformed into various graphical
Japanese implementation (Otani, 2000) uses a lower
representations.
amount of damping, heq, than the ATC-40
A.3.2.1 Equivalent Linearization implementation. The effective damping is a function of
ductility, µ. For reinforced concrete and steel members
The basis of the Capacity-Spectrum Method is the in flexure,
premise that the peak response of an inelastic system
can be estimated as the peak response of a linear elastic
system having reduced stiffness and increased damping. 1⎛ 1 ⎞
heq = ⎜1 − ⎟ + 0.05 (A-1)
Different approaches have been used to determine the 4 ⎜⎝ µ ⎟⎠
properties of the “equivalent” linear system. In some
cases, relationships between the energy dissipated by
material nonlinearity and the energy dissipated by and for reinforced concrete members with pinching
viscous damping are used, while in others, empirical or slip related to shear cracking or bar slip,
calibrations are used to identify the viscous damping
(and, in some cases, stiffness) that result in the best 1⎛ 1 ⎞
heq = ⎜1 − ⎟ + 0.05 (A-2)
estimates of peak displacement response. This section 5 ⎜⎝ µ ⎟⎠
reviews various conceptual approaches that have been
taken and discusses empirical observations that bear on
the hypothesis that viscous damping is a suitable Energy Methods. Judi et al. (2000) summarize the
surrogate for the energy dissipated by hysteretic concepts of equivalent damping and substitute
behavior in nonlinear systems. More discussion of damping. Equivalent damping comes from Jacobsen
equivalent linearization is included in Chapter 6. (1930) and is applicable to nonlinear systems subjected
to sinusoidal displacement histories. Substitute
Empirical Methods. Equivalent linearization requires damping was defined by Gulkan and Sozen (1974) as
that the stiffness and viscous damping of the equivalent the viscous damping needed in an elastic structure to
linear system be established. A nonlinear system having dissipate the same amount of energy input to a structure
µ=4, for example, can be represented by a linear system responding inelastically to an earthquake ground
having stiffness equal to the secant stiffness and motion, where the elastic system has a fundamental
sufficient damping to cause the peak displacement period based on the secant stiffness of the inelastic
response to equal the peak displacement of the structure at its peak displacement. Gulkan and Sozen
nonlinear system. Iwan observes that the secant worked with stiffness-degrading systems. Hudson,
stiffness is a lower bound to the stiffnesses that could working with bilinear systems responding to earthquake
potentially be selected, and that for each admissible ground motions reportedly found (in 1965) that
stiffness, there is an associated damping level that substitute damping values were approximately a third of
results in the desired peak displacement. Thus, the the counterpart equivalent damping values. This
challenge is to identify the optimal combination of observation may reflect the smaller amount of energy
stiffness and damping that results in a least biased dissipation associated with the relatively few cycles of
earthquake shaking oscillations at or near the peak Accuracy of Effective Damping Relationships. Iwan
displacements compared to a uniform sinusoidal notes there may be some sensitivity of the optimal
displacement history. effective stiffness and damping values to the suite of
ground motions used. Miranda reports that he is finding
The Capacity-Spectrum Method assumes that the that Iwan and Gates (1979) relationships are very good,
energy dissipated by nonlinear behavior can be equated and the Gulkan and Sozen damping is not very accurate.
to the energy dissipated by a linear elastic system Fenves, however, reports that the Gulkan and Sozen
undergoing simple harmonic oscillations at the peak damping is good for reinforced concrete structures.
displacement response. The stiffness of the linear elastic Kowalsky indicates that effective damping may differ
system is set equal to the secant stiffness of the for near-field motions containing significant velocity
nonlinear system at the peak displacement. pulses. R. Goel reports that the Japanese Building
Standard Law underestimates damping and leads to
Following the same concept employed for evaluating overestimates of displacements. Stanton expressed
nonlinear site response in the SHAKE program, Powell concern that the baseline value of damping, to which
suggests that the secant stiffness be evaluated at 70- the equivalent or substitute damping is added, is not
80% of the maximum displacement, since there may be necessarily 5% and might be lower. MacRae has
only one or two cycles at or near the peak displacement, recalibrated the Capacity-Spectrum Method and finds
with most cycles having peak displacements that are the scatter is similar to a recalibrated version of the
substantially less than the peak displacement. Powell Displacement Coefficient Method, except for periods
suggests this would result in a smaller period and above 1.5 sec, where the recalibrated CSM has greater
smaller effective damping relative to the ATC-40 scatter.
Capacity-Spectrum Method, and therefore would result
in larger displacement estimates. The Perform-2D Spectral Reduction Factors. Reduction factors to be
computer program allows the equivalent linear stiffness applied to smoothed elastic design spectra to establish
to be set to a proportion of the peak displacement. spectral amplitudes for larger amounts of effective
damping are tabulated for the Capacity-Spectrum
Several observations diminish the hypothesis that Method. Tagawa and MacRae (2001) find the actual
equivalent damping should be obtained by equating reduction associated with elastic response for a given
hysteretic energy dissipation to viscous energy damping level is not as large as is determined in ATC-
dissipation: 40. While the Capacity-Spectrum Method specifies (a)
a ductility-effective damping relationship and (b) an
1. Oscillators with different hysteretic properties can
effective damping-spectral reduction factor
have the same peak displacement (Kowalsky).
relationship, it is possible to establish a direct
2. As the post-yield stiffness changes from positive to relationship between ductility and the spectral reduction
negative, there is a disproportionate increase in dis- factor (MacRae and Tagawa, 2001). MacRae reports
placement response amplitudes (Aschheim). that less scatter results when this single relationship is
used, in the so-called Direct Capacity Spectra Method.
3. Nonlinear elastic systems (e.g. rocking walls) have
no hysteretic energy dissipation, yet peak displace- A.3.2.2 Displacement Modification
ments are not much greater than systems with full
energy dissipation (Miranda). The coefficient C1 of the Displacement Coefficient
4. Initially undamaged and initially damaged oscilla- Method as currently is derived from R-µ-T
tors were found to have nearly identical peak dis- relationships. Such relationships are usually determined
placements, indicating that differences in the by statistical analysis of the computed response of a
energy dissipated through hysteretic losses has little large number of SDOF oscillators having prescribed
effect on peak displacement response (Aschheim load-deformation relationships to actual ground motion
and Black, 2000). records. There is general agreement on the form of the
R-µ-T relationship (e.g. Miranda and Bertero, 1994),
5. Changes in stiffness associated with nonlinear although there are some differences in the relationships
response interrupts the build up of resonance that determined by various investigators. There is
drives the elastic spectral ordinates to their peaks significant variability in the R-factors determined for
(Paret, 2002). individual records. Larger R-factors generally can be
expected for long-duration motions that allow
resonance to build up the elastic response, and smaller
R-factors can generally be expected for systems periods greater than Tg. Fajfar (1999) and Chopra and
subjected to predominantly pulse-type motions. Goel (1999a, 1999b) have recommended R-µ-T
relationships be used for reducing the elastic response
Most investigators have determined R-µ-T relationships spectra in the CSM. Aschheim and Black (2000) have
based on statistics computed on R, and have further also recommended the use of these relationships with
determined displacement ratios such as C1 by algebraic smoothed elastic design spectra or the display of the
manipulation of R-µ-T relationships. Miranda observes actual, jagged, constant ductility spectra of a suite a
that when required strengths are determined by ground motions, in the Yield Point Spectra format.
applying R factors to elastic spectral amplitudes, the
parameter of interest is R-1. Furthermore if one The choice between the two procedures is largely a
assumes a given ductility for an oscillator, then the matter of personal preference as opposed to relative
“required” R can be determined statistically from the accuracy. The comparisons of relative accuracy prior to
analysis of the oscillator response to a suite of ground the ATC 55 project are very limited. There have been
motions. If one then assumes the “required” R and no comprehensive studies that simultaneously
calculates the ductility demand, it is not necessarily incorporate the relevant scope (strength, period,
equivalent to that assumed in the first instance. Since hysteretic characteristics, site conditions, etc.) and
the expected R factor for a given ductility level is not range of parameters required to make conclusive
precisely correlated to the expected ductility that results judgements or recommendations for improvement.
from a given R factor, coefficients such as C1 should be This fact is the motivation for the comparisons made in
determined from the oscillator response data and not by ATC 55 as summarized in Section 5.
algebraic manipulation of the R-µ-T relationship. This
A.3.3 Near-Field Effects on SDOF Systems
is further complicated by the non-monotonic nature of
the strength-ductility relationship, in which different Near field motions are those that contain one or more
strengths may result in the same ductility response. large velocity pulses, usually originating from the
Recommended R factors are usually based on the superposition of waves emanating from the fault as the
largest strength associated with a desired ductility level. rupture progresses towards a site (i.e. directivity effect).
Cuesta et al. (2001) minimize the error in estimated Short-period systems experience the near-field effects
strengths, and find that R-factors should be expressed in as impulses. The large velocity pulses can cause the
relation to a characteristic period of the ground motion elastic spectra to be larger. The R factors associated
(i.e. R-µ-T/Tg relationships). This is an observation also with such pulses are smaller, in general, than those
made by Vidic et al. (1994). Even so, there is some associated with motions in which resonance contributes
ambiguity in the identification of the characteristic to the elastic spectral amplitudes. It is now appreciated
period of a site, because ground motions recorded in that structures with periods less than the characteristic
different horizontal directions or in different period of the pulse may be severely affected
earthquakes may display different characteristic (Krawinkler). Long-period structures may experience
periods. large interstory drifts associated with the large
amplitude ground motion reversals
A.3.2.3 Choosing Between Equivalent
Linearization and Displacement Iwan et al. (2000) observe that larger displacement
Modification amplification factors and smaller strength reduction
While some investigators find the computation of R- factors are indicated for structures having fundamental
factors to be more direct than the use of equivalent periods less than the predominant period of the near
linearization, Fenves observed that the averaging of R- field ground motion, relative to far-field cases. Baez
factors over many ground motions to obtain R-µ-T and Miranda (2000) find that displacement
relationships separates the relationships from the actual amplification factors (the peak displacement of an
dynamics, and effective damping relationships may be inelastic system having a specified ductility divided by
as good. Fajfar noted that both approaches involve the peak displacement of an elastic system having the
approximations, but R-µ-T relationships are easier to same initial stiffness) are up to about 20% larger for
use, in part because no iteration is required, and most near field sites, with fault normal amplifications being
people accept the equal displacement approximation larger than fault parallel amplifications. MacRae and
that is expressed in many R-µ-T relationships for Tagawa (2001) recommend an R-µ-T relation for near
field motions that changes with directivity.
mechanism in a pushover analysis. Analytical studies were considered for the beam plastic hinges: bilinear
have focused on only a limited number of case study (with and without strength degradation), stiffness
buildings. Sufficient research to address these degrading (with and without strength degradation),
mechanism issues conclusively is not presently pinched stiffness degrading (with and without strength
available. degradation), fracturing, and bilinear elastic. The
plastic hinge model did affect response histories at the
Gupta and Krawinkler (2000a) relate the peak inelastic connections. The effect on the maximum story ductility
drifts observed in steel frame buildings to the elastic demand relative to the maximum story ductility demand
response of a SDOF oscillator through a series of for the non-degrading bilinear model is as follows: a
factors that account separately for roof drift relative to maximum increase of 10-20% for the non-pinching
SDOF response, the development of inelasticity, the hysteretic models, a maximum increase of 20-30% for
presence of P-delta effects, the ratio of interstory to the pinching hysteretic models, and a maximum
average roof drift, and the relation between element increase of 30-50% for the bilinear elastic model (which
deformations and interstory drift. Three-, nine-, and has no hysteretic energy dissipation). The Foutch and
twenty story steel moment frame buildings were Shi results may be applicable to buildings that develop
subjected to the components of the SAC ground desirable mechanisms. Aschheim expects that a weak-
motions having a 2% probability of exceedance (PE) in story system having degrading column hinges would
50 years, a 10% PE in 50 years and a 50% PE in 50 have much worse performance than the buildings
years, oriented at 45 degrees to the fault-normal and described above.
fault-parallel directions. They report that a good
estimate of the ratio of elastic roof drift to the first mode Naeim et al (2000) also investigated the response of
spectral displacement is given by the first mode steel moment frame buildings for the SAC steel project.
participation factor, but for structures with periods Three-, nine-, and twenty-story steel moment frame
greater than 2 sec they advise use of 1.1 times the first structures were investigated using a variety of hysteretic
mode participation factor. The effects of inelasticity on models. Stiffness degradation with slip or pinching was
roof drift for the MDOF structures are consistent with modeled in addition to bilinear response. Strength
and similar to the effects observed for SDOF systems. deterioration was modeled but results were not
For the period range considered, inelasticity tended to described. Severe stiffness deterioration increased
cause peak drifts to be about 70 to 80% of the elastic interstory drifts and residual interstory drifts, with
values, at the median level. The MDOF inelasticity interstory drifts often increasing in the upper stories,
factor tended to become smaller with an increase in roof and sometimes reducing in the lower stories. The
drift. This was explained as possibly being the result of authors suggest this may be attributed to higher modes
a concentration of interstory drift demand in a few causing the upper stories to go through many more
stories leading to a reduction in roof drift. Gupta and cycles of sufficient amplitude to be affected by
Krawinkler (2000b) find that P-Delta is a relatively deterioration of the load-deformation response. The
benign phenomenon except in the instance when the observed increases tended to be larger than those
ground motion drives the structure into the range of observed by Foutch and Shi. Stiffness degradation
global negative post-yield stiffness, at which point large generally reduced force demands. Slip often reduced
increases in displacement may occur. The ratio of peak lower- and upper-story interstory drift demands,
story drift to peak roof drift is strongly dependent on the although increases were observed for some
ground motion and structure characteristics. Median combinations of building height, city, and ground
values of this ratio increase from about 1.2 for low-rise motion intensity level. Slip tended to decrease story
structures to 2.0 for mid-rise structures to about 2.5 to shears and overturning moments.
3.0 for tall structures, for the structures and motions
considered. The drift patterns observed for these Iwan et al. (2000) used a shear beam building model to
structures suggest that a common drift distribution that compare the Capacity-Spectrum Method with nonlinear
can be generalized does not exist. dynamic analysis for near-field motions. They find that
for structural periods shorter than the ground pulse
Foutch and Shi (1998) report the results of nonlinear duration, the MDOF model exhibits a fundamental
dynamic analyses of steel frame buildings for the SAC mode type of response, and higher mode contributions
steel program in which the beam plastic hinges were to drift and shear demands are negligible. For long
modeled with different load-deformation models. Steel period structures, the large displacement and velocity
moment frame buildings were analyzed that ranged pulses of near field records cause greater participation
from 3 to 9 stories in height. Eight hysteretic models of the higher modes, resulting in the potential for very
misleading results if a single mode analysis is used. more tortuous and therefore having a greater
Large interstory drifts were observed at the base, during contribution to interstory drift. Consequently, estimates
the forward movement of the ground motion, and were of interstory drift based on a first mode pushover
again observed at the upper stories during a large analysis is prone to be inaccurate as the number of
reversal of the ground motion, associated with wave stories and period increases. Pushing to a target
propagation through the structure. This latter case is displacement will not necessarily develop the maximum
not associated with the development of the maximum interstory drifts in each story because the maximum
roof drift and does not correspond to a first mode shape. values in each story do not occur simultaneously, and
Thus, a fundamental mode analysis would not detect the sum of the individual maximum interstory drifts
these effects. The investigators conclude that the use of may be twice the peak roof displacement, depending on
a single-mode “equivalent” system provided a the mechanism that develops (Krawinkler). Some
reasonable estimate of the maximum roof displacement evidence suggests that pushovers tend to overestimate
regardless of building period, degree of nonlinearity, or weak story drifts.
distribution of stiffness, even for pulse type motions;
but estimates of interstory drift for tall buildings The application of lateral forces in a pushover analysis
(fundamental period significantly greater than the is preferred to applying a prescribed displacement
ground pulse duration) were poor, particularly in the pattern because the former allows softening of the
upper stories. structure to develop and allows story collapse
mechanisms to develop. Many techniques involving
A.3.7 Pushover Analysis application of lateral forces have been used. The
simplest technique uses a fixed lateral force profile,
Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis is used to quantify
with lateral forces being proportional to the mass and
the resistance of the structure to lateral deformation and
mode shape amplitude at each floor. An updated load
to gauge the mode of deformation and intensity of local
vector would be more likely to identify concentrations
demands. Various techniques have been recommended,
of damage, although this presumes that first mode
including the use of constant lateral force profiles and
response is dominant. These techniques update the
the use of adaptive and multimodal approaches.
lateral force profile to adapt to the softening structure
Pushover techniques provide useful information on the
by using a step-wise lateral force profile that is
overall characteristics of the structural system and can
modified from the first mode pattern to account for
be used to identify some (but not necessarily all) of the
higher modes or by combining the results obtained from
likely mechanisms. Because the prescribed loading
independent pushover analyses in each of several
used in pushover analyses can not represent the
modes. Adaptive techniques that update the lateral load
potential range of loading experienced in dynamic
vector can make the updated load vector be proportional
response, the results obtained by pushover analyses at
to the current displaced shape or to the current first
best represent an approximation of the nonlinear
mode (based on the current stiffness properties of the
behavior expected to develop in the response to
structure) or may make the increment in lateral loads
earthquake ground motions. The applicability of
proportional to the current displaced shape or mode
pushover analyses is less clear for systems having
shape. The displaced shape changes more quickly than
discontinuities in strength and stiffness. Results may be
does the mode shape (Valley). Inconsistencies can be
misleading where multiple collapse mechanisms
introduced if the load vector is updated without
potentially may develop because mechanism strengths
updating the mode participation and mass participation
are not well separated, or where different modes of
factors used for determining the properties of the
behavior potentially may develop (higher modes cause
“equivalent” SDOF system. Methods that consider
demands to approach or exceed the capacities of
higher modes must contend with uncertainty in the
strength-controlled components).
amplitudes and algebraic signs of the higher modes,
along with their timing relative to the first mode peaks.
Pushover techniques are useful to estimate peak
The question of how simple or complex a pushover
displacement response in conjunction with the use of
technique to use depends on one’s analysis objectives.
“equivalent” SDOF systems. While higher modes
Simple techniques can provide very valuable but
typically have a small or negligible contribution to
incomplete information, while techniques that are more
displacements, higher modes can significantly affect
complex are still unable to represent the full range of
interstory drifts, plastic hinge rotations, story shears,
response that potentially may develop.
and overturning forces. The contribution to interstory
drifts stems directly from the higher mode shapes being
Valley and Harris (1998) describe the development of a differed. Chopra and Goel (2001b) also put forward an
static pushover curve by repeated elastic analyses, with Uncoupled Modal Response History Analysis
members removed sequentially as deformations exceed (UMRHA), in which dynamic response histories
the member yield or ultimate capacities, and with loads determined for each “equivalent” SDOF system are
reapplied in accordance with updated Ritz vectors. summed algebraically in time, and maximum values are
Reinhorn describes multimodal procedures (1997) that determined from the summed response history. If
rely on updated modal properties. Bracci et al. (1997) nonlinearities are absent, the MPA and UMRHA
also determined demand estimates based on the approaches are equivalent to the traditional response
instantaneous dynamic properties of the structure. spectrum and linear dynamic analysis methods,
Gupta and Kunnath (2000) coupled the use of the respectively.
instantaneous dynamic properties and the elastic
spectral ordinates of the ground motion to determine Iwan is working on load profiles to better predict spatial
incremental lateral forces to be applied in the pushover distribution of damage. Carr also is reported to be
analysis. More recently, Kunnath has looked at sums working on improved pushover techniques. Bracci
and differences of modes. Elnashai (2000) also has recently has been doing pushovers on frames one story
applied adaptive techniques that make use of the at a time. Deierlein suggested that one could apply a
instantaneous modal properties, and is able to follow perturbation to a first mode load pattern, consisting of
the Sa vs Sd plot obtained in Incremental Dynamic an additional force that is allowed to change its location
Analysis reasonably well. Reinhorn suggests that the over the height of the structure, to identify sensitivity in
multi-mode pushover force distribution can be the development of the mechanism.
simplified to a linear distribution that is unique for each
structure. Kunnath reports that even adaptive pushover A.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Procedures
techniques fail to capture the response of some stories
in some buildings. A.4.1 Simplified Models
Nakashima has described the use of simplified models
Sasaki et al. (1998) perform pushover analyses for nonlinear dynamic analysis. Much like the “notional
independently in each of several modes using invariant frames” used by Sozen and Lepage, the generic frame
lateral force distributions, to identify the potential for or “fishbone” model consists of a single column with
higher modes to cause mechanisms to develop. Black beams at every floor level extending halfway towards
and Aschheim (2000) combined the peak displacements an adjacent column, with a roller supporting each beam
and interstory drifts determined independently for the at midspan. The model allows beam plastic hinges and
first two modes using square-root-of-the-sum-of-the story mechanisms to develop, much as they can in
squares (SRSS) combinations, and observed significant complete frames. The generic frame model, however,
disparities between the peak interstory drifts and the does not determine actions on individual members of
SRSS estimates. This procedure is termed a Modal the frame (Otani).
Pushover Analysis (MPA) by Chopra and Goel (2001b),
who consider up to three or five modes. Chopra A.4.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis
suggests that SRSS combination rules may be used for
all computed quantities (e.g. member forces and Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) determines peak
moments), not just displacements and interstory drifts. response quantities (e.g. roof drift) by a series of
Chopra and Goel (2001c) demonstrate that median independent nonlinear dynamic analyses of a structure
estimates of interstory drift of the SAC buildings are subjected to one or more scaled ground motions. The
improved by the use of three modes for the 9-story scale factor is increased successively from a small
buildings and five modes for the 20-story buildings, initial value, and peak response quantities are plotted
with baseline values established by nonlinear dynamic against a measure of the ground motion intensity. Data
analysis. Errors in the interstory drift estimates were from such analyses has been represented in two ways.
larger, in general, than the errors associated with Cornell and Krawinkler plot peak interstory drift as a
response spectrum analysis of linear elastic buildings function of the scaled Sa at the fundamental period of
and were largest for the “Los Angeles” buildings, which the building (Sa(T1)). Elnashai plots the peak roof
generally had larger interstory drift responses than the displacement versus Sa(T1). Both investigators plot Sa
“Seattle” and “Boston” buildings. Patterns of the on the vertical axis and the response measure on the
distribution of median interstory drifts of the “Los horizontal axis, to be consistent with the conventional
Angeles” and “Seattle” 9- and 20- story buildings plotting of deformations and displacements on the
abscissa and forces on the ordinate. Cornell has modeling. The usefulness of IDA for design verification
developed relationships between the nonlinear static has not been investigated as yet.
pushover capacity curve and the IDA curve that are
implemented in a spreadsheet, allowing an engineer to A.5 Modeling Limitations
observe the influence of changes in the capacity curve
on response parameters, based on relationships Accuracy in the estimate of response of a given
embedded in the spreadsheet. Because these structural model is of little value if the structural model
relationships reflect the behavior of the structure, it itself is inaccurate. Issues relating to the accuracy of
seems they must change as the relative distributions of mathematical models used for estimating response
strength, stiffness, and mass of the structure vary. include:
1. Evaluation of initial stiffness and strength.
The strength of the IDA is that it captures aspects of the
dynamic behavior of the system, and when done for a 2. Uncertainty and variation in the actual material
sufficient number of ground motions, reflects a range of properties and dimensions of the as-built structure.
response that may result. Although investigators 3. Variation of the actual component strengths from
apparently have not used the technique to characterize calculated estimates.
the range of mechanisms that may potentially occur
under different excitations, the ability to recover this 4. The complexity of behaviors to be represented.
information seems to be another benefit of this form of 5. Limitations in the understanding and modeling of
analysis. Interstory drifts are observed to increase response to complex, inelastic loading histories.
dramatically when the intensity measure is large
enough. Such an increase suggests the structure has Uncertainty in the initial stiffness and strength of a
reached its “capacity”. This capacity might be viewed structure leads to further dispersion in the accuracy of
as the collapse limit as defined essentially by loss of the displacements estimated using the Capacity
dynamic stability as the intensity measure reaches Spectrum and Displacement Coefficient Methods
higher levels. This is analogous to the capacity of a (Miranda). For reinforced concrete structures, there is
steel bar being measured by its ultimate strength, except ambiguity in how the period of vibration of the structure
that the capacity is expressed in terms of the spectral should be computed (Otani). An additional difficulty
acceleration of a specific excitation waveform. relates to actual compressive strengths exceeding the
Typically, there is substantial scatter in the capacities specified strength, leading to likely increases in the
determined in this way, reflecting variability in the modulus of elasticity (Otani). Valley noted that of three
response of the structure to different excitations. tuned-mass-damper buildings that his firm designed,
the estimate of period for one was sufficiently off that
Concern has been expressed regarding (1) the validity they had to redesign the tuned mass damper after
of scaling the ground motion amplitude uniformly construction. The Mexico City Building Code of 1976
(because high frequencies attenuate more rapidly as reportedly considered a range of possible periods, in
distance from the fault increases), (2) the uncertainty in response to concerns raised by Rosenblueth (Chopra).
establishing an accurate structural model, (3) ambiguity
in the definition of “capacity,” with Cornell focusing on Choices made by structural engineers in modeling of a
the interstory drifts and Krawinkler now focusing on the structure can affect computed response. Krawinkler
value of the intensity measure (Sa(T1)) at which the recalled that in the SAC project, a centerline model of a
response parameter seems to increase without limit, and 20-story building was found to collapse in the presence
(4) whether interstory drift is an appropriate parameter of P-Delta, but had drifts of no more than about 5%
to monitor collapse, when collapse may be due to when panel zones and gravity columns were modeled.
gravity loads acting, for example, after columns have Krawinkler noted that different investigators using
failed in shear. different computer codes obtained very different results
when first modeling buildings for the SAC project.
The IDA curves are interesting because of the peculiar Only when assumptions were made consistent were the
dynamic response characteristics that are apparent in results more or less identical. Diaphragm flexibility
this representation, and may be useful for identifying generally has not been incorporated into simplified
variability in demands, the “capacity” of the structure, inelastic procedures; an approximate method is
as well as the onset of collapse, subject to limitations on described by Nakaki (2000).
There are relatively few instances in which models have disproportionately higher than those to weaker ground
been developed of instrumented buildings that were motions (Wen).
heavily damaged by ground shaking. Kunnath et al.
(2000) considered four instrumented buildings, of Cornell notes that demand is not a design spectrum but
which two were moderately damaged. He finds that a set of earthquake events that cannot be collapsed into
calibrating structural models to observed response is a single spectrum. Particularly for uniform hazard
sensitive to mass and stiffness modeling assumptions. spectra, there does not seem to be a clear answer on
Kunnath reports that linear and nonlinear static how to choose records (Cornell). However, to represent
procedures did not adequately predict interstory drift record-to-record variability, it appears to be necessary
estimates, and no one procedure consistently gave good to use recorded ground motions rather than synthetic
results. Islam et al. (1998) modeled the 7-story motions. For design applications, Wen and Wu (2001)
instrumented reinforced concrete building in Van Nuys, suggests using records based on regional seismicity—
and found that extensive flexural cracking in the beams perhaps a Magnitude (M) 8 earthquake at 40 km, a few
observed in the pushover analysis at the measured roof M7.5 earthquakes at 20 km, a few M6 earthquakes at
drift did not occur; the actual building had only minor closer distances, etc.
flexural cracking at the lower level beams. Browning et
al. (2000) report on the ability of various analysis A.7 Applicability for Performance-Based
procedures to estimate peak drifts and interstory drifts Earthquake Engineering and Design
of this building, and the difficulty in matching locations
of column shear failure. A.7.1 Role for Inelastic Procedures
Many researchers have focused on improving
Multiple actions (e.g. axial, shear, and flexural) result in
simplified analysis procedures with the goal of
inelastic behaviors that are not well-understood and
accurately representing response quantities determined
represented poorly in analysis software. Modeling of
in nonlinear dynamic analyses, with some operating
collapse requires careful attention to component
under the notion that analysis and design are so
degradation and may require that the assumptions of
intertwined that they cannot be separated. Other
small displacement theory be supplanted by large
researchers view the role of analysis is to enable good
displacement theory. The accuracy of computed
design, acknowledging that even the best analyses are
predictions of collapse has not been established; even
approximate and that approximate analyses are
the definition of a collapse limit state is ambiguous.
sufficient. Given uncertainty in the accuracy of the
mathematical model of a structure and uncertainties in
A.6 Demand Characterization future ground motions, engineers often must rely on
The lack of an accepted and clearly-defined relationship their judgment to interpret analytical results. There is a
between smoothed design spectra and the actual fundamental uncertainty in response amplitudes that
motions they ostensibly represent creates difficulties in applies to all analysis techniques because of variability
(1) evaluating the accuracy of inelastic procedures, (2) in the R-µ-T relationship from one motion to another,
assessing variability in response estimates, and (3) and variability in the elastic spectral ordinates, timing,
establishing design ground motions for use in and algebraic signs of the higher modes. Because even
performance-based earthquake engineering. the best analysis techniques are prone to uncertainty
Traditionally, smoothed design spectra were fit by with regard to performance under future earthquakes,
judgment to the jagged elastic response spectra there may be a role to be played by simplified analysis
computed for real ground motions. Current approaches techniques.
fit a smoothed design spectrum at T = 1 sec and at
“short” periods, using values determined from a seismic Simplified inelastic procedures can be used for
hazard curve. The degree to which actual spectra may, preliminary proportioning and may also be useful for
and should, depart from a smoothed spectrum is not characterizing performance. Simple inelastic
defined, yet the degree of variability surely affects the procedures can give good estimates of peak roof
statistical distribution of peak displacements relative to displacement, at least for regular structures in which
estimates based on smoothed elastic response spectra. response is dominated by the first mode under
Scaling ground motions to precisely match a target conditions where P-Delta effects are negligible.
design spectrum has been found to result in a systematic Estimates of interstory drift indices, story shears, and
underestimate of inelastic response, because response plastic rotations in relatively flexible buildings are
amplitudes to the stronger ground motions are often prone to be inaccurate, due to higher mode
contributions. Therefore, inelastic analysis procedures ductility capacity to absorb uncertainties in plastic
may be useful as a first approximation and to indicate rotation demands arising from the presence of higher
when analyses of higher precision are needed. Elastic modes, (2) undesirable mechanisms (e.g. weak story
analysis procedures also can serve this purpose, mechanisms) will not form, even under the influence of
although one would expect inelastic procedures to higher modes, and (3) force-controlled components or
provide higher fidelity. Inelastic analysis procedures modes of behavior have sufficient strength that forces
could be used to encourage capacity design approaches associated with higher modes do not cause brittle
in new design. failures to result. Variability due to higher modes can
be expected to be a function of the number of stories as
The profession is in the midst of a transition from force- well as the spectral amplitudes at the higher mode
based design approaches to displacement-based design periods. The separation of strengths required to prevent
approaches. A complete implementation of a brittle modes of failure and undesirable mechanisms
displacement-based approach involves (1) determining depends in part on the variability of material strengths
displacement demand, (2) breaking down overall in the as-built structure and the variability of actual
demand into local components, and (3) comparing local strengths relative to calculated estimates.
capacity to demand (Bonacci). Simplified inelastic
procedures can be used to move from force-based Otani expressed concern about safety in view of the
approaches (which are very imprecise but were useful scatter in displacement estimates. The Japanese are
for proportioning structures) to displacement-based using a modified form of the Capacity-Spectrum
approaches. Bonacci urges caution in rushing too Method for checking the performance of designs that
rapidly to compare local demands and capacities, and satisfy other criteria. Wilson expressed concern that
cites as an example the difficulty in evaluating whether nonlinear response spectra are 1not applicable to multi-
a stiffener will buckle when we may be 50% off on Tg degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems; response of 2D
and PGA (peak ground acceleration). The desire for and 3D structures can and should be determined by
accurate analytical results must be balanced against the nonlinear dynamic analysis, in part because only
significant uncertainties in deformation capacities nonlinear dynamic analysis can really inform the
(Krawinkler). Furthermore, complicated techniques engineer about the behavior of the systems being
may be misused by engineers that are unfamiliar with designed.
them (Krawinkler).
Lepage suggested that an iterative procedure could be
Foutch suggested that if inelastic analysis techniques used, wherein a variety of load patterns are used to
are used, they should be simple enough to be useful for determine a variety of deflected shapes and possibly a
conceptual design. Reinhorn suggested that one might number of different mechanisms. If similar deflected
use a simple technique to proportion the structure, then shapes result, then the deflected shape would be used to
iteratively adjust the relative distributions of strength to determine the “equivalent” SDOF system for each of a
ensure undesirable mechanisms will not form, and then suite of ground motions, recognizing that iteration will
follow with a more complex procedure to develop be required to identify the right shape to be used for
statistics on response. Miranda suggested that a different drift levels. Lepage also suggested an
simplified static procedure would be useful with alternate approach in which linear estimates of roof
estimates of dispersion, followed by nonlinear dynamic displacement are coupled with a collapse mechanism
analyses to assess simulated response statistics. analysis—if drifts concentrate in just a few stories, then
Aschheim suggests a simple inelastic analysis technique all of the estimated drift would be assigned to those
could be used for preliminary design, with nonlinear stories.
dynamic analysis being used to develop response
statistics only for those structures where this Otani notes that one could use a nonlinear static
comparison is deemed necessary (e.g. substantial procedure to get design moments for beam hinge
irregularities, high importance, or to satisfy client regions, and then apply a factor of safety to design the
requirements). columns to prevent or limit the development of plastic
hinges in the columns.
Because of uncertainties in the effects of higher modes,
any simple procedure will require that prescriptive A.7.2 Design Formats
provisions are used to ensure that (1) desirable Design procedures have been formulated for use with
mechanisms form, with plastic hinges having sufficient three different types of spectral representations. Direct
Displacement Based Design uses the concept of capacity in the predominant mode. Dynamic shears,
effective damping to establish response spectra that are therefore, may be significantly higher than estimated by
plotted on the same axes (ADRS) used in the Capacity- pushover analysis. Rodriguez, Restrepo, and Carr
Spectrum Method. The period of vibration (or stiffness) (2002) reportedly found the second and higher modes
required to satisfy a performance objective is respond essentially elastically, contributing to the
determined, along with a required strength. The use of shears associated with inelastic first mode response.
effective damping is supplanted in design procedures Forces in reinforced concrete collectors may be poorly
recommended by Fajfar and by Chopra and Goel, who estimated by typical procedures because their larger
use inelastic spectra (based on R-µ-T relations) plotted stiffness in compression causes greater force to be
on the same axes used in the Capacity-Spectrum carried in compression than in tension.
Method to estimate peak displacements and to
determine required strengths. Black and Aschheim Kunnath notes that plastic hinge rotation demands are
(2000) used Yield Point Spectra (based on R-µ-T calculated differently in different software programs.
relations or the actual jagged spectra associated with The post-yield stiffness, hinge lengths, and use of
design ground motions) to determine the strength distributed or concentrated plasticity affects the values,
required to satisfy multiple performance objectives as do the different solution strategies used by the
using admissible design regions. An iterative approach programs. Estimates of yield and plastic rotation are
was suggested in which nonlinear static analyses are often based on assuming points of inflection occur at
avoided entirely by relying only on design strengths and midspan, leading to errors of 50 to 100%. The
elastic properties. approximate nature of the demands estimated by any
procedure makes comparison with estimated capacities
A.7.3 Quantities to be Determined and less certain; significant improvements are needed to
Measures of Performance improve the reliability of estimates of local demands
There is uncertainty in estimates of both demands and and capacities, to make their comparison more
capacities. Rather than compare very approximate meaningful.
values of local demands and capacities, some suggest
that it may be preferable to focus on quantities that are A.7.4 Statistical Measures and Treatment of
Uncertainty
of a more global nature, such as interstory drift (Goel).
Estimates of deformation capacity are fairly crude. Performance may be evaluated in different ways and
Krawinkler observed that the best measure of inelastic may include or exclude various types of uncertainties.
deformation capacity (e.g., total or plastic rotation, For example, Wen determines the annual probability of
curvature ductility) has not even been identified yet. exceeding drifts of various levels. Cornell’s work for
SAC focuses on the level of confidence in the
One approach is to estimate peak interstory drifts as a hypothesis that the structure will satisfy a given
factor times the average global roof drift. For regular performance objective, for ground motions that have a
buildings, the factor varies with the number of stories stated probability of exceedance. Uncertainty in the
and may not follow a consistent pattern over the height hazard is neglected in the SAC work, although Cornell
of the building (Gupta and Krawinkler, 2000a), and et al. (2000) presents a theoretical formulation that
may depend on the ground motion (MacRae). Uetani accounts for uncertainty in the hazard. While it stands
and Tagawa (1998) reportedly find that interstory drifts to reason that variations in capacities (strengths,
concentrate less in structures in which the eigenvalues deformation capacities) should have an influence on
obtained during the nonlinear response are more demands, current formulations neglect such interaction.
positive. Fenwick reportedly has introduced into the
New Zealand Code an estimate of interstory drift equal A.8 References and Bibliography
to twice the drifts determined by elastic analysis.
Interstory drifts for near-field motions appear to be Akkar, S., and Gulkan, P., 2000, “Comparative perfor-
related to ground motion reversals (Iwan), and might be mance evaluation of displacement based design
better estimated using concepts of wave propagation procedures for near field earthquakes,” Proceedings
theory rather than conventional modal response of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
approaches. neering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engi-
neering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand.
The actual shears in a building can be significantly
higher that those associated with development of
Albanesi, T., Nuti, C., and Vanzi, I., 2000, “A simplified tural Engineering, Vol. 123, American Society of
procedure to assess the seismic response of nonlin- Civil Engineers, pp. 3-10.
ear structures,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No. 4,
Browning, J., 2000, “Implications of a proportioning
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
method for earthquake-resistant RC frames sub-
land, California, pp. 715-734.
jected to strong ground motion,” Proceedings of the
ASCE, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering,
Report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Upper Hutt, New Zealand.
Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Browning, J., Li, R., Lynn, A., and Moehle, J.P., 2000,
Agency, Washington, D.C. “Performance assessment for a reinforced concrete
Aschheim, M., and Black, E.F., 2000, “Yield Point frame building,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16,
Spectra for seismic design and rehabilitation,” No. 3, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No. 2, Earthquake Oakland, California, pp. 541-555.
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Califor- Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 1999a, Capacity-
nia, pp. 317-335. Demand Diagram Methods for Estimating Seismic
Aschheim, M.A., Maffei, J., and Black, E.F., 1998, Deformation of Inelastic Structure: SDF Systems,
“Nonlinear static procedures and earthquake dis- Report No. PEER-1999/02, Pacific Earthquake
placement demands,” 6th US National Conference Engineering Center, University of California, Ber-
on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington, keley.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 1999b, “Capacity-
ATC, 1996, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete demand diagram methods based on inelastic design
Buildings, ATC-40 Report, Volumes 1 and 2, spectrum,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 4,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, Cali-
land, California, pp. 637-656.
fornia.
Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 2001a, “Direct displace-
ATC/BSSC, 1997, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic ment based design: use of inelastic vs. elastic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273 Report design spectra,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 17,
(Guidelines) and FEMA 274 Report (Commentary), No. 1, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
prepared by the Applied Technology Council for Oakland, California, pp. 47-64.
the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by
Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 2001b, A Modal Push-
the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
over Analysis Procedure to Estimate Seismic
Washington, D.C. Demands for Buildings: Theory and Preliminary
Baez, J.I., and Miranda, E., 2000, “Amplification fac- Evaluation, Report No. PEER 2001/03, Pacific
tors to estimate inelastic displacement demands for Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univer-
the design of structures in the near field,” Proceed- sity of California, Berkeley.
ings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K., 2001c, “Modal pushover
Engineering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake analysis of SAC buildings,” Third U.S.-Japan
Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand. Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake
Black, E.F., and Aschheim, M., 2000, Seismic Design Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete
and Evaluation of Multistory Buildings using Yield Building Structures, August 16-18, Seattle, Wash-
Point Spectra, CD Release 00-04, Mid-America ington.
Earthquake Center, University of Illinois, Urbana. Cornell, C.A., Vamvatsikos, D., Jalayer, F., and Luco,
Blume, J.A., Newmark, N.M., and Corning, L.H., 1961, N., 2000, “Seismic reliability of steel frames,” Pro-
Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings ceedings of the 9th IFIP WG 7.5 Working Confer-
for Earthquake Motions, Portland Cement Associa- ence on Reliability and Optimization of Structural
tion, Skokie, Illinois. Systems, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Bracci, J.B., Kunnath, S.K., and Reinhorn, A.M., 1997, Cuesta, I., and Aschheim, M., 2001, Using Pulse R-
“Seismic performance and retrofit evaluation of Factors to Estimate Structural Response to Earth-
reinforced concrete structures,” Journal of Struc- quake Ground Motions, CD Release 01-03, Mid-
America Earthquake Center, University of Illinois, demands,” 6th US National Conference on Earth-
Urbana. quake Engineering, Seattle, Washington, Earth-
quake Engineering Research Institute.
Cuesta, I., Aschheim, M., and Fajfar, P., 2003, “Simpli-
fied R-factor relationships for strong ground Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S.K., 2000, “Adaptive spectra-
motions,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 1, based pushover procedure for seismic evaluation of
Earthquake Engineering Research, pp. 22-45 structures,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16, No. 2,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
Elnashai, A.S., 2000, “Advanced inelastic static (push-
land, California, pp. 367-391.
over) analysis for seismic design and assessment,”
G. Penelis International Symposium on Concrete Han, S.W., and Wen, Y.K., 1997, “Method of reliability-
and Masonry Structures, Aristotle University of based seismic design. I: Equivalent nonlinear sys-
Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 23-34. tem,” Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 123,
American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 256-265.
Fajfar, P., 1999, “Capacity-Spectrum Method based on
inelastic demand spectra,” Earthquake Engineering Hudson, D.E., 1965, “Equivalent viscous friction for
and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 28, pp. 979-993. hysteretic systems with earthquake-like excita-
tions,” 3rd World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
Fajfar, P., and Gaspersic, P., 1996, “The N2 method for
neering, New Zealand, pp. II:185-201.
the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings,”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Islam, M.S., Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S., 1998, “A criti-
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 31-46. cal review of state-of-the-art analytical tools and
acceptance criterion in light of observed response
Filiatrault, A., and Folz, B., 2001, “Performance-based
of an instrumented nonductile concrete frame build-
seismic design of wood framed buildings,”
ing,” Proceedings of 6th U.S. National Conference
accepted for publication in Journal of Structural
on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington,
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
Foutch, D.A, and Shi, S., 1998, “Effects of hysteresis land, California.
type on the seismic response of buildings,” Pro-
Iwan, W.D., and Gates, N.C., 1979, “Estimating earth-
ceedings of 6th U.S. National Conference on Earth-
quake response of simple hysteretic structures,”
quake Engineering, Seattle, Washington,
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
Vol. 105, EM3, American Society of Civil Engi-
land, California.
neers, pp. 391-405.
Gulkan P., and Sozen, M.A., 1974, “In-elastic responses
Iwan, W.D., Huang, C.T., and Guyader, A.C., 2000,
of reinforced concrete structures to earthquake
“Important features of the response of inelastic
motions,” Proceedings of the American Concrete
structures to near-field ground motion,” Proceed-
Institute, Vol. 71, No. 12, pp. 605-610.
ings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, K., 1998, “Effect of stiff- Engineering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake
ness degradation on deformation demands for Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand.
SDOF and MDOF structures,” 6th US National
Jacobsen, L.S., 1930, “Steady forced vibrations as influ-
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle,
Washington, Earthquake Engineering Research enced by damping,” Transactions ASME, Vol. 52
Institute, Oakland, California. (APM), pp. 169-181.
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, K., 2000a, “Estimation of Judi, H.J., Davidson, B.J., and Fenwick, R.C., 2000,
seismic drift demands for frame structures,” Earth- “The direct displacement based design method: a
quake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, damping perspective,” Proceedings of the 12th
Vol 29, pp. 1287-1305. World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, K., 2000b, “Dynamic p- Engineering, Upper Hutt, New Zealand.
delta effects for flexible inelastic structures,” Jour-
nal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 1, Krawinkler, H., and Alavi, B, 1998, “Development of
American Society of Civil Engineers. improved design procedures for near fault ground
motions,” Proceedings, SMIP98 Seminar on Utili-
Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S.K., 1998, “Effect of hyster- zation of Strong-Motion Data, Oakland, California.
etic model parameters on inelastic seismic
Kunnath, S. K., and Gupta, B., 2000, “Validity of defor- Society for Earthquake Engineering, Upper Hutt,
mation demand estimates using nonlinear static New Zealand.
procedures,” Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan Work-
Nakaki, S., 2000, Developing Design Guidelines for
shop on Performance-Based Engineering of Rein-
Precast Concrete Diaphragms, Earthquake Engi-
forced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo,
neering Research Institute, Oakland, California.
Hokkaido, Japan.
Nakashima, M., Ogawa, K., and Inoue, K., 2002,
Kunnath, S.K., Nghiem, Q., John Jr., A., and El-Tawil,
“Generic frame model for simulation of earthquake
S., 2000, “Validation of evaluation methods and
responses of steel moment frames,” Earthquake
acceptance criteria in evolving performance-based
Engineering and Structural Dynamics.
seismic codes,” Proceedings, SMIP2000 Seminar
on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data: Sacramento, Otani, S., 2000, “New seismic design provisions in
California, September 14, 2000, California Division Japan,” Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan Workshop
of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, pp. 39-63. on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering for
Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Sapporo,
Lepage, A., 1998, “Nonlinear drift of multistory RC
Japan.
structures during earthquakes,” Proceedings, 6th
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineer- Paret, T.F., Freeman, S.A., and Dameron, R.A, 2002,
ing, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, “Rethinking the earthquake engineering paradigm:
Oakland, California. from response reduction to response suppression,”
Proceedings, Seventh U.S. National Conference on
Lew, H.S., and Kunnath, S.K., 2000, “Evaluation of
Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering
analysis procedures for performance-based seismic
Research Institute, Oakland, California.
design of buildings,” Proceedings of the 12th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, Qi, X., and Moehle, J.P., 1991, Displacement Design
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Approach for Reinforced Concrete Structures Sub-
Upper Hutt, New Zealand. jected to Earthquakes, Report No. UCB/EERC-91/
02, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Uni-
MacRae, G., and Tagawa, H., 2001, Methods to Esti-
versity of California, Berkeley.
mate Displacements of PG&E Structures, draft
report on research conducted under PGE/PEER Reinhorn, A., 1997, “Inelastic techniques in seismic
Task No. 505, University of Washington. evaluations,” in Seismic Design Methodologies for
the Next Generation of Codes, Fajfar, P., and
Miranda, E., 2000, “Inelastic displacement ratios for
Krawinkler, H., eds., Bled, Slovenia.
structures on firm sites,” Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 10, American Society of Rodriguez, M.E., Restrepo, J.I., and Carr, A.J., 2002,
Civil Engineers, pp. 1150-1159. “Earthquake-induced acceleration in buildings,”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
Miranda, E., 2001, “Estimation of Inelastic Deforma-
Vol. 31, pp. 693-718.
tion Demands of SDOF Systems,” Journal of Struc-
tural Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 9, American Rothe, D., and Sozen, M.A., 1983, A SDOF Model to
Society of Civil Engineers, pp, 1005-1012. Study Nonlinear Dynamic Response of Large- and
Small-Scale R/C Test Structures, Structural
Miranda, E., and Bertero, V., 1994, “Evaluation of
Research Series No. 512, Department of Civil Engi-
strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant
neering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham-
design”, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, No. 2, Earth-
paign, Urbana, Illinois.
quake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland,
California, pp. 357-379. Sasaki, K.K. Freeman, S.A., and Paret, T.F., 1998,
“Multi-Mode pushover procedure (MMP) -- a
Mwafy, A.M., and Elnashai, A.S., 2001, “Static push-
method to identify the effects of higher modes in a
over versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC build-
pushover analysis,” Proceedings, Sixth U.S.
ings,” Engineering Structures, Vol 23, pp. 407-424.
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Naeim, F., Skliros, K., and Reinhorn, A.M., 2000, Seattle, Washington, Earthquake Engineering
“Influence of hysteretic deteriorations in seismic Research Institute, Oakland, California.
response of multistory steel frame buildings,” Pro-
Song, J.K., and Pincheira, J.A., 2000, “Spectral dis-
ceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earth-
placement demands of stiffness and strength
quake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand
degrading systems,” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 16,
No. 4, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Villaverde, R., 1996, “Simplified response spectrum
Oakland, California, pp. 817-851. analysis of nonlinear structures,” Journal of Engi-
neering Mechanics, Vol. 122, American Society of
Tagawa, H., and MacRae, G., 2001, “Capacity spectra
Civil Engineers, pp. 282-285.
method for estimating SDOF oscillator demands,”
Proceedings of the 2001 Structures Congress & Valley, M.T., and Harris, J.R., 1998, “Application of
Exposition, American Society of Civil Engineers, modal techniques in a pushover analyses,” Proceed-
Washington, D.C. ings, Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earth-
quake Engineering, Seattle, Washington,
Tsopelas, P., Constantinou, M.C., Kircher, C.A., and
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oak-
Whittaker, A.S., 1997, Evaluation of Simplified
land, California.
Methods of Analysis of Yielding Structures, Techni-
cal Report NCEER-97-0012, National Center for Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C.A., 2001, “Incremental
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University dynamic analysis,” submitted to Earthquake Engi-
of New York, Buffalo, New York. neering and Structural Dynamics.
Uetani, K., Tagawa, H., 1998, “Criteria for suppression Wen, Y. K., and Wu, C.L., 2001, “Uniform Hazard
of deformation concentration of building frames Ground Motions for Mid-America Cities,” Earth-
under severe earthquakes,” Engineering Structures, quake Spectra, Vol. 17, No. 2, Earthquake Engi-
Vol. 20, No. 4-6, pp. 372-383. neering Research Institute, Oakland, California,
pp. 359-384.
Vidic, T., Fajfar, P., and Fischinger, M., 1994, “Consis-
tent inelastic design spectra: strength and displace-
ment,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 23, pp. 507-521.
Table B-1 Seismic Systems of Example Buildings Table B-3 Foundation Systems of Example
Submitted by Respondees Buildings Submitted by Respondees
Seismic System(s) Number Percentage of Total Foundation System(s) Number Percentage of Total
Table B-5 Computer Program Usage It is evident that some respondents question the appro-
priateness of procedures to determine the target dis-
Number of Percentage of placement. One respondent wrote “FEMA 273 shear
Program Name Listings Listings strain ratios [were] exceeded in local areas – deemed
not to be hazardous.” Another wrote “Immediate Occu-
ABAQUS 1 1%
pancy provisions [of FEMA 273] are too conservative.”
ANSYS 3 5% A third wrote “Analysis was straightforward. Determi-
CASHEW / nation of target displacement was problematic.”
RUAUMOKO 3 5%
(Custom software) 6 9% There were several comments regarding the complexity
DRAIN 2D 9 14% of the procedures. For example, one respondent wrote
“The most troublesome problem in implementing the
DRAIN 2DX 8 12%
FEMA [273] procedures was developing nonlinear
ETABS 3 5% hinge properties (strength and ductility).” Another
FEM-I 2 3% wrote: “The shear capacity of the concrete columns
FEM-II 1 1% was difficult to evaluate by the FEMA 273 methods
(Eq. 6-4) due to constantly changing parameters.” A
SAP 90 6 9%
third wrote: “Convergence was difficult to achieve even
SAP 2000 24 35% for a relatively simple model and depended greatly on
Other 1 1% the method of solution used.”
Total Listings 66
Several respondents commented during verbal discus-
sions that the established analysis procedures did not
B.5 Implementation Issues
allow the evaluation of behavior in the range of severe
A total of 65 comments were submitted relating to the damage prior to collapse, such as damage to many
implementation of the inelastic procedures. A synopsis structures observed in postearthquake reconnaissance.
of the respondents’ comments on major issues follows:
Several respondents indicated that the results of inelas-
The majority of the comments submitted were related to tic procedures are very sensitive to assumptions regard-
the relative accuracy of procedures. Engineers’ preoc- ing such parameters as initial stiffness, and pushover
cupation with the topic of relative accuracy was indi- loading profile. There is also recognition among
cated by the techniques used, such as variation of respondents that the dynamic and multi-degree-of-free-
parameters (or “bounding”), by comments about the dom (MDOF) effects that would be captured in a non-
sensitivity of procedures to various assumptions, and by linear response history analysis procedure could be
the implementation of comparative analyses using mul- quite different from the results of a nonlinear static pro-
tiple procedures for the same building. Significantly, cedure. Several respondents attempted to account for
the large variation in ground motion parameters was not dynamic behavior, yielding, and MDOF effects by such
mentioned in any of the practitioners’ comments, techniques as adapting pushover loading profiles and
although one respondent expressed doubt in the validity use of simplified dynamic analysis.
of using a static procedure to represent the effect of
ground motion at a near-field location. Three of the One respondent discussed the inability of static proce-
example buildings were full-scale test specimens of dures to represent the response of structures to near-
wood buildings that were shaken on a simulator and field earthquake pulse-type motions.
evaluated using a nonlinear response history analysis
procedure, for the purpose of research and comparison. Two other respondents collaborated in a comparison of
Several of the respondents commented on the difficulty the Capacity Spectrum approach for a single-degree-of-
of reasonably accounting for cyclic degradation and P- freedom system with nonlinear response history analy-
delta effects with existing procedures and/or software. sis. They identified that the differences in results
Also, difficulty in establishing a suitable target dis- between the two methods could be largely explained by
placement or ultimate drift was mentioned in two exam- the dynamic response of the structure to the predomi-
ples. nant velocity pulses in the time-history records. They
developed a simplified technique to calculate the single-
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) dynamic displacement Very few were aware of the discussion on this issue in
response for a single velocity pulse, and applied this FEMA 273/274/356/357. These were the same few
technique to several structures, evaluating the response who tended not to use the cap.
of each structure to various pulses for site-specific
ground motion records. B.7 Practical Guidance and Education
One respondent questioned the validity of static proce- Respondents provided feedback (either in writing, ver-
dures for high-rise buildings that would experience sig- bally, or implicitly) about the following topics or ques-
nificant higher mode components in their response. tions related to the issue of practical guidance and
education:
There seems to be a lack of understanding among prac-
titioners about how to represent MDOF effects for static • The various methods lead to different results. Why?
procedures. Only one respondent commented about the It is evident that practicing engineers do not necessarily
sensitivity of the static solution to such parameters as know why the various NSP methods result in different
initial period and pushover profile. Another used an answers, or why the answers may differ significantly
adaptive load pattern based on modal response at each from those resulting from the use of nonlinear response
significant step in the analysis process. A third simply history analysis. Consequently, engineers may lack a
assumed that all stories experienced equal drift. way to answer the next item:
B.6 Use of Limitations on Coefficient C1 • Which method is the most effective for a given
in FEMA 356 project?
FEMA 356 currently contains arbitrary limitations Respondents indicated that there is a general lack of
(caps) on the maximum value of the coefficient C1. This understanding about how to select a method. In numer-
cap tends to reduce the predicted inelastic displacement ous cases, the methods had been dictated by the owner/
of relatively short period structures. At an early stage client. For instance, FEMA 273 is quickly being
of the second phase of the ATC-55 project, it became adopted as the governing guideline by government
apparent that the cap might influence the accuracy of agencies and is therefore required for evaluations and
the Coefficient Method. While there may be valid rea- design of government-funded retrofits.
sons that the response of short-period structures varies
from that predicted by current analysis procedures, it • Certain guidelines or evaluation techniques require
seemed that the arbitrary nature of the cap conflicted an impractical amount of effort.
with the goals of the project. In an effort to gauge qual- Some engineers indicated that they chose to adopt an
itatively how this issue affected current practice, the approach using sequential elastic analyses to develop-
project team contacted twelve practicing engineers from ing a “backbone” resistance curve for their pushover
seven different firms from the respondents to the Phase analysis. In some cases a cumbersome amount of
I Practice Study. These individuals and firms are repre- “bookkeeping” was required to keep track of individual
sentative of a relatively high level of seismic expertise member stresses, and to compare these stresses with
among practitioners. Three basic questions were posed: estimated stress or strain capacities as they changed the
model to simulate yielding or degradation.
a. Do you use the cap?
b. Why, or why not? • What is the most efficient way to compute results for
a given method?
c. What are your thoughts and understanding on this
choice? Based on responses received, it is evident that practic-
ing engineers have searched for efficient ways to handle
All but a few engineers follow the same procedure. the large amount of computational effort required for
First they calculate C1 using the empirical equation. If nonlinear analysis.
this value is less than 1.5, they use it. If it is higher,
they use 1.5. Thus the practice is to neglect the interpo- • More effective software tools are needed.
lation allowed between 0.10 sec and Ts. The pervasive Some respondents indicated that the software programs
attitude was that they use the cap because it is allowed. they currently use for inelastic analysis are sometimes
difficult to use, or do not allow the user to model impor- not be able to accurately estimate the required effort.
tant aspects of the structure, such as degradation. This relates to the next issue:
• Some practicing engineers have embraced these
Other issues identified related to practical guidance and
methods as an improvement. Others have avoided
education, including the following:
them as requiring a steep learning curve and more
effort, with an uncertain outcome. The methods are
• Clients who require these evaluations need to be
therefore more risky for the owner as well as the
educated about effort and fees required. Normally,
engineer.
this information comes from the engineer. However,
without sufficient experience, the engineer would
This appendix supplements Chapter 3 on the evaluation the oscillators; Section C.3 presents data on the results
of current nonlinear static procedures. The contents are of the evaluation of the ATC-40 version of the Capacity
summarized as follows: Section C.1 tabulates the Spectrum Method; and Section C.4 presents data on the
ground-motion data used for the evaluation; Section C.2 results of the evaluation of the Coefficient Method of
presents the results of the response history analyses of FEMA 356.
10/15/79 Imperial Valley 6.8 El Centro, Parachute Test Facility 5051 315 200.2
02/09/71 San Fernando 6.5 Pasadena, CIT Athenaeum 80053 90 107.9
02/09/71 San Fernando 6.5 Pearblossom Pump 269 21 133.4
06/28/92 Landers 7.5 Yermo, Fire Station 12149 0 167.8
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 APEEL 7, Pulgas 58378 0 153.0
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Gilroy #6, San Ysidro 57383 90 166.9
Microwave site
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Saratoga, Aloha Ave. 58065 0 494.5
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Gilroy, Gavilon College Phys Sch 47006 67 349.1
Bldg
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Santa Cruz, University of 58135 360 433.1
California
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 San Francisco, Diamond Heights 58130 90 110.8
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Fremont, Mission San Jose 57064 0 121.6
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Monterey, City Hall 47377 0 71.60
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Yerba Buena Island 58163 90 66.70
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Anderson Dam, Downstream 1652 270 239.40
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Gilroy, Gavilon College Phys Sci 47006 67 95.0
Bldg
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Gilroy #6, San Ysidro 57383 90 280.4
Microwave Site
07/08/86 Palmsprings 6.0 Fun Valley 5069 45 129.0
01/17/94 Northridge 6.8? Littlerock, Brainard Canyon 23595 90 70.60
01/17/94 Northridge 6.8 Castaic, Old Ridge Route 24278 360 504.2
01/17/94 Northridge 6.8 Lake Hughes #1, Fire station 24271 0 84.9
#78
Table C-4 Ground Motions Recorded on Very Soft Soil Sites Used in This Study
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Foster City (APEEL 1; Redwood 58375 90 277.6
Shores)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Foster City (APEEL 1; Redwood 58375 360 63.0
Shores)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Larkspur Ferry Terminal 1590 270 134.7
(USGS)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Larkspur Ferry Terminal 1590 360 94.6
(USGS)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Redwood City (APEEL Array 1002 43 270.0
Stn. 2) (USGS)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Redwood City (APEEL Array 1002 133 222.0
Stn. 2) (USGS)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Treasure Island (Naval Base Fire 58117 0 112.0
Station)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Treasure Island (Naval Base Fire 58117 90 97.9
Station)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Emeryville, 6363 Christie Ave. 1662 260 254.7
(USGS)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Emeryville, 6363 Christie Ave. 1662 350 210.3
(USGS)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 San Francisco, International 58223 0 231.5
Airport
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 San Francisco, International 58223 90 322.7
Airport
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Oakland, Outer Harbor Wharf 58472 35 281.4
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Oakland, Outer Harbor Wharf 58472 305 265.5
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Oakland, Title & Trust Bldg. 58224 180 191.3
(2-story)
10/17/89 Loma Prieta 7.1 Oakland, Title & Trust Bldg. 58224 270 239.4
(2-story)
10/15/79 Imperial Valley 6.8 El Centro Array 3, Pine Union 5057 140 260.9
School
10/15/79 Imperial Valley 6.8 El Centro Array 3, Pine Union 5057 230 216.8
School
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Foster City (APEEL 1; Redwood 58375 40 45.1
Shores)
04/24/84 Morgan Hill 6.1 Foster City (APEEL 1; Redwood 58375 310 66.7
Shores)
Table C-5 Near-Fault Records with Forward Directivity Used in this Study
C R ,E P P C R ,E P P
5 .0 5 .0
R = 6 .0
S IT E C L A S S E S B S IT E C L A S S E S C
R = 5 .0 R = 6 .0
4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
R = 4 .0 4 .0 R = 5 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 3 .0
3 .0 3 .0 R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
R = 1 .5
2 .0 2 .0
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D P E R IO D
C R ,E P P C R ,E P P
5 .0 5 .0
S IT E C L A S S E S D S IT E C L A S S E S E
(m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
4 .0 R = 6 .0 4 .0
R = 5 .0 R = 6 .0
R = 4 .0 R = 5 .0
3 .0 R = 3 .0 3 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 1 .5 R = 2 .0
2 .0 2 .0 R = 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0
P E R IO D T1 .5
/ Tg 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
C R ,E P P C R ,E P P
5 .0 5 .0
R = 6 .0 R = 6 .0
NE AR F AULT S E T R = 5 .0 S IT E C L A S S E S B R = 5 .0
R = 4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 4 .0
4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) 4 .0
R = 3 .0
R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0
R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
3 .0 R = 1 .5 3 .0
2 .0 2 .0
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D T / Tp
C.2.2 Effect of Site Class on C1 of SDOF Systems with Stiffness Degrading (SD) Hysteretic Behavior
C R ,S D C R ,S D
5 .0 5 .0
R = 6 .0 R = 6 .0
S IT E C L A S S B S IT E C L A S S C
R = 5 .0 R = 5 .0
4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) 4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
R = 4 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 2 .0
3 .0 3 .0
R = 1 .5 R = 1 .5
2 .0 2 .0
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D P E R IO D
C R ,S D C R ,S D
5 .0 5 .0
R = 6 .0 S IT E C L A S S E
S IT E C L A S S D
(m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 5 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
4 .0 4 .0 R = 6 .0
R = 4 .0
R = 5 .0
R = 3 .0
R = 4 .0
R = 2 .0
3 .0 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 1 .5
R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
2 .0 2 .0
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D T / Tg
C R ,S D C R ,S D
5 .0 5 .0
R = 6 .0
R = 6 .0 NE AR F AULT S E T
NE AR F AULT S E T R = 5 .0
R = 5 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
(m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) 4 .0 R = 4 .0
4 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0
R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0
R = 2 .0
3 .0 3 .0 R = 1 .5
R = 1 .5
2 .0 2 .0
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D T / Tp
C.2.3 Effect of Site Class on C1 of SDOF Systems with Strength and Stiffness Degrading (SSD)
Hysteretic Behavior
C R ,S S D C R ,S S D
5 .0 5 .0
R = 6 .0 R = 6 .0
S IT E C L A S S B S IT E C L A S S C
R = 5 .0 R = 5 .0
4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) 4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
R = 4 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 2 .0
3 .0 3 .0
R = 1 .5 R = 1 .5
2 .0 2 .0
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D P E R IO D
C R ,S S D C R ,S S D
5 .0 5 .0
R = 6 .0 R = 6 .0
S IT E C L A S S D S IT E C L A S S E
R = 5 .0 R = 5 .0
4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) 4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
R = 4 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 2 .0
3 .0 3 .0
R = 1 .5 R = 1 .5
2 .0 2 .0
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D T / Tg
C R ,S S D C R ,S S D
5 .0 5 .0
R = 6 .0 R = 6 .0
NE AR F AULT S E T NE AR F AU LT S E T
(m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 5 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 5 .0
4 .0 R = 4 .0 4 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 2 .0
3 .0 3 .0
R = 1 .5 R = 1 .5
2 .0 2 .0
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D T / Tp
C.2.4 Effect of Site Class on C1 of SDOF Systems with Nonlinear Elastic Hysteretic Behavior
C R ,N L E C R ,N L E
5 .0 5 .0
S IT E C L A S S B R = 6 .0 R = 6 .0
S IT E C L A S S C
(m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 5 .0 R = 5 .0
4 .0 4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
R = 4 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 2 .0
3 .0 3 .0
R = 1 .5 R = 1 .5
2 .0 2 .0
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D P E R IO D
C R ,N L E C R ,N L E
5 .0 5 .0
S IT E C L A S S D S IT E C L A S S E
4 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 6 .0 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
4 .0 R = 6 .0
R = 5 .0 R = 5 .0
R = 4 .0 R = 4 .0
3 .0 R = 3 .0 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5 R = 1 .5
2 .0 2 .0
1 .0 1 .0
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D T / Tg
C R ,N L E
5 .0
NE AR F AULT S E T R = 6 .0
R = 5 .0
(m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 4 .0
4 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
3 .0
2 .0
1 .0
0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
T / Tp
C R,SD/CR,EPP
2.6
R = 6.0
SITE CLASS B
2.2 R = 5.0
(mean of 20 ground motions)
R = 4.0
R = 3.0
1.8
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
CR,SSD/C R,EPP
2.6
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
CR,NLE/CR,EPP
2.6
SITE CLASS B
2.2 (mean of 20 ground motions)
1.8
1.4
1.0 R = 6.0
R = 5.0
R = 4.0
0.6 R = 3.0
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
CR,SD/C R,EPP
2.6
R = 6.0
SITE CLASS C
2.2 R = 5.0
(mean of 20 ground motions)
R = 4.0
R = 3.0
1.8
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
CR,SSD/C R,EPP
2.6
R = 6.0
SITE CLASS C
2.2 R = 5.0
(mean of 20 ground motions)
R = 4.0
R = 3.0
1.8
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
CR,NLE/C R,EPP
2.6
R = 6.0
SITE CLASS C
2.2 R = 5.0
(mean of 20 ground motions)
R = 4.0
R = 3.0
1.8
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
C R,MC/C R,EPP
2.6
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
C R,SSD/C R,EPP
2.6
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
C R,NLE/C R,EPP
2.6
R = 6.0
SITE CLASS D R = 5.0
2.2 (mean of 20 ground motions) R = 4.0
R = 3.0
1.8 R = 2.0
R = 1.5
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD
C R,SD/C R,EPP
2.6
SITE CLASS E
2.2 (mean of 20 ground motions) R = 6.0
R = 5.0
1.8 R = 4.0
R = 3.0
1.4 R = 2.0
R = 1.5
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tg
C R,SSD/CR,EPP
2.6
SITE CLASS E
2.2 (mean of 20 ground motions) R = 6.0
R = 5.0
1.8 R = 4.0
R = 3.0
1.4 R = 2.0
R = 1.5
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tg
C R,NLE/C R,EPP
2.6
SITE CLASS E R = 6.0
2.2 (mean of 20 ground motions) R = 5.0
R = 4.0
1.8 R = 3.0
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tg
C R,SD/C R,EPP
2.6
R = 6.0
NEAR FAULT SET
2.2 R = 5.0
(mean of 20 ground motions)
R = 4.0
R = 3.0
1.8
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tp
C R,SSD/C R,EPP
2.6
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tp
CR,NLE/CR,EPP
2.6
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tp
C R ,S D /C R ,EPP C R ,S D /C R ,EPP
2 .2 2 .2
R = 6 .0 R = 6 .0
S IT E C L A S S B S IT E C L A S S C
R = 5 .0 R = 5 .0
1 .8 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) 1 .8 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
R = 4 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 2 .0
1 .4 1 .4
R = 1 .5 R = 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .6 0 .6
0 .2 0 .2
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D P E R IO D
C R ,S D /C R ,EPP C R ,S D /C R ,EPP
2 .2 2 .2
S IT E C L A S S D R = 6 .0 S IT E C L A S S E
1 .8 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 5 .0 1 .8 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 6 .0
R = 4 .0 R = 5 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 4 .0
1 .4 R = 2 .0 1 .4 R = 3 .0
R = 1 .5 R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .6 0 .6
0 .2 0 .2
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D T / Tg
C R ,S D /C R ,EPP
2 .2
R = 6 .0
NE AR F AULT S E T
R = 5 .0
1 .8 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0
1 .4
R = 1 .5
1 .0
0 .6
0 .2
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
T / Tp
C R ,S S D /C R ,EPP C R ,S S D /C R ,EPP
2 .2 2 .2
R = 6 .0 R = 6 .0
S IT E C L A S S B S IT E C L A S S C
R = 5 .0 R = 5 .0
1 .8 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) 1 .8 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
R = 4 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 2 .0
1 .4 1 .4
R = 1 .5 R = 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .6 0 .6
0 .2 0 .2
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D P E R IO D
C R ,S S D /C R ,EPP C R ,S S D /C R ,EPP
2 .2 2 .2
S IT E C L A S S D R = 6 .0 S IT E C L A S S E
1 .8 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 5 .0 1 .8 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 6 .0
R = 4 .0 R = 5 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 4 .0
1 .4 R = 2 .0 1 .4 R = 3 .0
R = 1 .5 R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .6 0 .6
0 .2 0 .2
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D T / Tg
C R ,S S D /C R ,EPP
2 .2
NE AR F AULT S E T
R = 6 .0
1 .8 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
R = 5 .0
R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0
1 .4 R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
1 .0
0 .6
0 .2
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
T / Tp
C R ,N L E /C R ,EPP C R ,N L E /C R ,EPP
2 .6 2 .6
S IT E C L A S S B R = 6 .0
S IT E C L A S S C
2 .2 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) 2 .2 R = 5 .0
(m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s )
R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0
1 .8 1 .8
R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
1 .4 1 .4
1 .0 R = 6 .0 1 .0
R = 5 .0
R = 4 .0
0 .6 R = 3 .0 0 .6
R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
0 .2 0 .2
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D P E R IO D
C R ,N L E /C R ,EPP C R ,N L E /C R ,EPP
2 .6 2 .6
R = 6 .0
S IT E C L A S S D R = 5 .0 S IT E C L A S S E R = 6 .0
2 .2 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 4 .0 2 .2 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 5 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 4 .0
1 .8 R = 2 .0 1 .8 R = 3 .0
R = 1 .5 R = 2 .0
1 .4 1 .4 R = 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .6 0 .6
0 .2 0 .2
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D T / Tg
C R ,N L E /C R ,EPP
2 .6
NE AR F AULT S E T R = 6 .0
2 .2 (m e a n o f 2 0 g ro u n d m o tio n s ) R = 5 .0
R = 4 .0
1 .8 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
1 .4
1 .0
0 .6
0 .2
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
T / Tp
CR,EPP CR,SD
5.0 5.0
R = 6.0 R = 6.0
SITE CLASS B SITE CLASS B
(mean of 20 ground motions) R = 5.0 R = 5.0
4.0 4.0 (mean of 20 ground motions)
R = 4.0 R = 4.0
R = 3.0 R = 3.0
R = 2.0 R = 2.0
3.0 3.0
R = 1.5 R = 1.5
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD PERIOD
CR,SSD CR,NLE
5.0 5.0
R = 6.0 SITE CLASS B R = 6.0
SITE CLASS B
(mean of 20 ground motions) R = 5.0 (mean of 20 ground motions) R = 5.0
4.0 4.0
R = 4.0 R = 4.0
R = 3.0 R = 3.0
R = 2.0 R = 2.0
3.0 3.0
R = 1.5 R = 1.5
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD PERIOD
CR,EPP CR,SD
5.0 5.0
R = 6.0
SITE CLASS C SITE CLASS C
R = 6.0 R = 5.0
(mean of 20 ground motions) 4.0 (mean of 20 ground motions)
4.0 R = 5.0 R = 4.0
R = 4.0 R = 3.0
R = 3.0 R = 2.0
3.0 3.0
R = 2.0 R = 1.5
R = 1.5
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD PERIOD
CR,SSD CR,NLE
5.0 5.0
R = 6.0 R = 6.0
SITE CLASS C SITE CLASS C
R = 5.0 R = 5.0
4.0 (mean of 20 ground motions) 4.0 (mean of 20 ground motions)
R = 4.0 R = 4.0
R = 3.0 R = 3.0
R = 2.0 R = 2.0
3.0 3.0
R = 1.5 R = 1.5
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD PERIOD
CR,EPP CR,SD
5.0 5.0
R = 6.0
SITE CLASS D SITE CLASS D
R = 5.0
(mean of 20 ground motions) (mean of 20 ground motions)
4.0 R = 6.0 4.0 R = 4.0
R = 5.0 R = 3.0
R = 4.0 R = 2.0
3.0 R = 3.0 3.0
R = 1.5
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD PERIOD
CR,SSD CR,NLE
5.0 5.0
R = 6.0
SITE CLASS D SITE CLASS D
R = 5.0
4.0 (mean of 20 ground motions) 4.0 (mean of 20 ground motions) R = 6.0
R = 4.0
R = 3.0 R = 5.0
R = 2.0 R = 4.0
3.0 3.0 R = 3.0
R = 1.5
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD PERIOD
CR,EPP CR,SD
5.0 5.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tg T / Tg
CR,SSD CR,NLE
5.0 5.0
R = 6.0
SITE CLASS E SITE CLASS E
(mean of 20 ground motions) R = 5.0 (mean of 20 ground motions)
4.0 4.0 R = 6.0
R = 4.0
R = 5.0
R = 3.0
R = 4.0
3.0 R = 2.0 3.0 R = 3.0
R = 1.5 R = 2.0
R = 1.5
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tg T / Tg
CR,EPP CR,SD
5.0 6.0
R = 6.0 R = 6.0
R = 5.0 NEAR FAULT SET R = 5.0
NEAR FAULT SET
R = 4.0 5.0 (mean of 20 ground motions) R = 4.0
4.0 (mean of 20 ground motions)
R = 3.0 R = 3.0
R = 2.0 R = 2.0
R = 1.5 4.0
R = 1.5
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tp T / Tp
CR,SSD CR,NLE
5.0 5.0
R = 6.0 NEAR FAULT SET R = 6.0
NEAR FAULT SET R = 5.0
R = 5.0 (mean of 20 ground motions)
(mean of 20 ground motions) R = 4.0
4.0 R = 4.0 4.0
R = 3.0
R = 3.0
R = 2.0
R = 2.0 R = 1.5
3.0 R = 1.5 3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T / Tp T / Tp
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS B σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS B
3.0 3.0
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE B R = 8.0 APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE B R= 8.0
EXACT: STIFFNESS DEGRADING R = 6.0 EXACT: STIFFNESS DEGRADING R= 6.0
2.5 R = 4.0 2.5
R= 4.0
R = 3.0 R= 3.0
R = 2.0 R= 2.0
2.0 R = 1.5 2.0
R= 1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS B σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS B
3.0 3.0
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE C R = 8.0 APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE C R= 8.0
EXACT: STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADING R = 6.0 EXACT: STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADING R= 6.0
2.5 R = 4.0 2.5 R= 4.0
R = 3.0 R= 3.0
R = 2.0 R= 2.0
2.0 R = 1.5 2.0 R= 1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
E[(∆ i)app /(∆ i)ex] SITE CLASS C σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C
3.0 3.0
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE B APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE B
R= 8.0 R= 8.0
EXACT: STIFFNESS DEGRADING EXACT: STIFFNESS DEGRADING
2.5 R= 6.0 2.5 R= 6.0
R= 4.0 R= 4.0
R= 3.0 R= 3.0
2.0 R= 2.0 2.0 R= 2.0
R= 1.5 R= 1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C
3.0 3.0
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE C APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE C
R= 8.0 R= 8.0
EXACT: STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADING EXACT: STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADING
R= 6.0 R= 5.0
2.5 R= 4.0 2.5 R= 4.0
R= 3.0 R= 3.0
R= 2.0 R= 2.0
2.0 R= 1.5 2.0 R= 1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS D σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS D
3.0 3.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS D σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS D
3.0 3.0
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE C
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE C R= 8.0 R= 8.0
EXACT: STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADING
EXACT: STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADING R= 6.0 R= 6.0
2.5 2.5
R= 4.0 R= 4.0
R= 3.0 R= 3.0
R= 2.0 R= 2.0
2.0 2.0
R= 1.5 R= 1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS E (T s = 1.0 s) σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS E (T s=1.0 s)
4.0 4.0
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE B
R= 8.0 R= 8.0
EXACT: STIFFNESS DEGRADING
R= 6.0 R= 6.0
R= 4.0 R= 4.0
3.0 R= 3.0 3.0 R= 3.0
R= 2.0 R= 2.0
R= 1.5 R= 1.5
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS E (T s=1.0 s) σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS E (T s=1.0 s)
4.0 4.0
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE C
R= 8.0 EXACT: STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADING
R= 6.0
R= 4.0 R= 8.0
3.0 R= 3.0 3.0 R= 6.0
R= 2.0 R= 4.0
R= 1.5 R= 3.0
R= 2.0
R= 1.5
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
T/Ts T/Ts
3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Tp T/Tp
E[(∆ i)app /(∆ i)ex] NEAR-FAULT (T p = 1.0 s) σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] NEAR-FAULT (T p = 1.0 s)
6.0 6.0
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE B R= 8.0 APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE B
EXACT: STIFFNESS DEGRADING R= 6.0 EXACT: STIFFNESS DEGRADING
5.0 5.0
R= 4.0
R= 3.0 R= 8.0
R= 2.0 R= 6.0
4.0 4.0
R= 1.5 R= 4.0
R= 3.0
R= 2.0
3.0 3.0
R= 1.5
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Tp T/Tp
E[(∆ i)app /(∆ i)ex] NEAR-FAULT (T p = 1.0 s) σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] NEAR-FAULT (T p = 1.0 s)
6.0 6.0
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE C
R= 8.0
EXACT: STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADING
R= 6.0
5.0 5.0 R= 8.0
R= 4.0
R= 3.0 R= 6.0
R= 2.0 R= 4.0
4.0 4.0 R= 3.0
R= 1.5
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0
1.0 1.0
APPROXIMATE: ATC40 - TYPE C
EXACT: STRENGTH AND STIFFNESS DEGRADING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Tp T/Tp
1 .0 1 .0
0 .5 0 .5
W IT H O U T C A P P IN G W IT H C A P P IN G
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2.0 2.5 3.0
P E R I O D [s] P E R I O D [s]
C 1 C 1
S IT E C L A S S C S IT E C L A S S C
3 .0 3 .0
R = 8 .0 R = 8 .0
T s = 0 .5 5 s T s = 0 .5 5 s
R = 6 .0 2 .5 R = 6 .0
2 .5
R = 4 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0
2 .0 R = 3 .0 2 .0
R = 2 .0
R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
R = 1 .5 1 .5
1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .5 0 .5
W IT H O U T C A P P IN G W IT H C A P P IN G
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R I O D [ s] P E R IO D [s ]
C 1 S IT E C L A S S D C 1 S IT E C L A S S D
3 .0 3 .0
R = 8 .0 R = 8 .0
T s = 0 .6 0 s T s = 0 .6 0 s R = 6 .0
2 .5 R = 6 .0 2 .5
R = 4 .0 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0
R = 3 .0
2 .0 2 .0 R = 2 .0
R = 2 .0
R = 1 .5
R = 1 .5
1 .5 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .5 0 .5
W IT H O U T C A P P IN G W IT H C A P P IN G
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R I O D [s ] P E R IO D [s ]
C 1
C 1 S IT E C L A S S E
S IT E C L A S S E
3 .0 3 .0
R = 8 .0
R = 8 .0 T s = 1 .0 0 s
T s = 1 .0 0 s R = 6 .0
2 .5 R = 6 .0 2 .5 R = 4 .0
R = 4 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 3 .0 2 .0 R = 2 .0
2 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 1 .5
R = 1 .5
1 .5 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .5 0 .5
W IT H C A P P IN G
W IT H O U T C A P P IN G
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R I O D [s ] P E R IO D [s ]
C 2
1 .6
1 .4
1 .2
1 .0 T s = 0 .4 0 s (S IT E C L A S S B )
0 .8 T s = 0 .5 5 s (S IT E C L A S S C )
T s = 0 .6 0 s (S IT E C L A S S D )
0 .6
F r a m in g T y p e I T s = 1 .0 0 s (S IT E C L A S S E )
0 .4 L if e S a f e t y p e r f o r m a n c e le v e l
C 2= 1 .3 fo r T < 0 .1 s
0 .2 C 2= 1 .1 fo r T > T s
0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D [s ]
C 2
1 .6
1 .4
1 .2
T s = 0 .4 0 s (S IT E C L A S S B )
1 .0
T s = 0 .5 5 s (S IT E C L A S S C )
0 .8 T s = 0 .6 0 s (S IT E C L A S S D )
T s = 1 .0 0 s (S IT E C L A S S E )
0 .6
F r a m in g T y p e I
0 .4 C o lla p s e P r e v e n t io n P e r f o r m a n c e le v e l
C 2 = 1 .5 fo r T < 0 .1 s
0 .2
C 2 = 1 .2 fo r T > T s
0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D [s ]
C.4.3 Mean Error of FEMA 356 NSP (Mean of Approximate to Exact Maximum Inelastic
Displacements):
C.4.3.1 Comparison with Elastic Perfectly Plastic Hysteretic Behavior:
E [(∆ i) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ] E [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ]
S IT E C L AS S B S IT E C L AS S B
3 .0 3 .0
R = 8 .0 R = 8 .0
T s = 0 .4 s T s = 0 .4 s R = 6 .0
R = 6 .0
2 .5 ( C 2 = 1 .0 ) R = 4 .0 2 .5 (C 2 = 1 .0 ) R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 1 .5
2 .0 R = 1 .5 2 .0 R = 1 .5
1 .5 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .5 0 .5
W IT H O U T C A P P IN G W ITH C A P P IN G
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1.5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0.5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3.0
P E R I O D [s] P E R I O D [s ]
E [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ] E [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ]
S IT E C L AS S C S IT E C L A S S C
3 .0 3 .0
T s = 0 .5 5 s R = 8 .0 T s = 0 .5 5 s R = 8.0
R = 6 .0 R = 6.0
(C 2 = 1 .0 ) 2 .5 (C 2 = 1 .0 )
2 .5 R = 4 .0 R = 4.0
R = 3 .0 R = 3.0
R = 2 .0 R = 1.5
2 .0 R = 1 .5 2 .0 R = 1.5
1 .5 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .5 0 .5
W ITH C A P P IN G
W IT H O U T C A P P IN G
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2.5 3.0
P E R I O D [s] P E R I O D [s]
E [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ] E [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ]
S IT E C L AS S D S IT E C L AS S D
3 .0 3 .0
T s = 0 .6 0 s R = 8 .0 T s = 0 .6 0 s R = 8 .0
R = 6 .0 R = 6 .0
(C 2 = 1 .0 ) ( C 2 = 1 .0 ) R = 4 .0
2 .5 R = 4 .0 2 .5
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
R = 2 .0 R = 1 .5
2 .0 R = 1 .5 2 .0 R = 1 .5
1 .5 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .5 0 .5
W ITH O U T C A P P IN G W ITH C A P P IN G
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1.5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R I O D [s] P E R I O D [s]
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
T/Ts T/Ts
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
T/Ts T/Ts
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
Ts = 1.0 s T s = 1.0 s
0.5 C2 as Life Safety performance level 0.5 C2 as Life Safety performance level
C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s WITHOUT CAPPING C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s WITH CAPPING
C2=1.1 for T > Ts C2=1.1 for T > T s
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
1.5
Ts = 1.0 s Ts = 1.0 s
1.0 1.0
C2 as collapse Prevention performance level C2 as collapse Prevention performance level
C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s
0.5 C2=1.2 for T > Ts C2=1.2 for T > Ts
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
C.4.4 Dispersion of the Error in FEMA 356 NSP (Standard Deviation of Approximate to Exact
Maximum Inelastic Displacements):
C.4.4.1 Comparison with Elastic Perfectly Plastic Hysteretic Behavior:
σ [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i e)e x] σ [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ]
S IT E C L A S S B S IT E C L A S S B
3 .0 3 .0
T s = 0 .4 s R = 8 .0 T s = 0 .4 s R = 8 .0
R = 6 .0 (C 2 = 1 .0 ) R = 6 .0
(C 2 = 1 .0 )
2 .5 R = 4 .0 2 .5 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
W IT H O U T C A P P IN G W IT H C A P P IN G
R = 2 .0 R = 2 .0
2 .0 R = 1 .5 2 .0 R = 1 .5
1 .5 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .5 0 .5
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0
P E R IO D [ s ] P E R IO D [ s ]
σ [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ] σ [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ]
S IT E C L A S S C S IT E C L AS S C
3 .0 3 .0
R = 8 .0 T s = 0 .5 5 s R = 8 .0
T s = 0 .5 5 s
R = 6 .0 (C 2 = 1 .0 ) R = 6 .0
2 .5 (C 2 = 1 .0 ) R = 4 .0 2 .5 R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3 .0
W IT H O U T C A P P IN G W IT H C A P P IN G
R = 2 .0 R = 2 .0
2 .0 R = 1 .5 2 .0 R = 1 .5
1 .5 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .5 0 .5
0 .0 0 .0
0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2.5 3.0 0 .0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2.5 3.0
P E R I O D [s ] P E R I O D [s ]
σ [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ] S IT E C L A S S D σ [(∆ i ) a p p / (∆ i ) e x ] S IT E C L AS S D
3 .0 3 .0
T s = 0 .6 0 s R = 8 .0 R = 8.0
T s = 0 .6 0 s
R = 6 .0 R = 6.0
2 .5 (C 2 = 1 .0 ) 2 .5 ( C 2 = 1 .0 ) R = 4.0
R = 4 .0
R = 3 .0 R = 3.0
W IT H O U T C A P P IN G W IT H C A P P IN G R = 2.0
R = 2 .0
2 .0 R = 1 .5 2 .0 R = 1.5
1 .5 1 .5
1 .0 1 .0
0 .5 0 .5
0 .0 0 .0
0.0 0 .5 1 .0 1 .5 2 .0 2 .5 3 .0 0 .0 0 .5 1.0 1 .5 2 .0 2.5 3 .0
P E R I O D [s] P E R I O D [s]
σ [(∆ i )app/(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS E σ [(∆ i )ap p/(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS E
3.0 3.0
R=8.0 R=8.0
Ts = 1.00 s Ts = 1.00 s
R=6.0 R=6.0
2.5 (C 2 = 1.0) 2.5 (C 2 = 1.0) R=4.0
R=4.0
R=3.0 R=3.0
WITHOUT CAPPING R=2.0 WITH CAPPING R=2.0
2.0 R=1.5 2.0 R=1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
σ[(∆ i )ap p/(∆ i )ex] NEAR-FAULT σ[(∆ i )ap p/(∆ i )ex] NEAR-FAULT
3.0 3.0
R=8.0 T s = 1.00 s R=8.0
Ts = 1.00 s
R=6.0 R=6.0
2.5 (C 2 = 1.0) 2.5 (C2 = 1.0)
R=4.0 R=4.0
R=3.0 R=3.0
WITHOUT CAPPING R=2.0 WITH CAPPING R=2.0
2.0 R=1.5 2.0 R=1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS B
SITE CLASS B
3.0 3.0
Ts = 0.40 s R=8.0 Ts = 0.40 s R=8.0
C2 as for Life Safety performance R=6.0 C2 as for Life Safety performance R=6.0
2.5 level R=4.0 2.5 level R=4.0
R=3.0 R=3.0
C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s
R=2.0 R=2.0
2.0 WITHOUT CAPPING R=1.5 2.0 WITH CAPPING R=1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C
3.0 3.0
Ts = 0.55 s R=8.0 R=8.0
Ts = 0.55 s
C2 as for Life Safety performance level R=6.0 R=6.0
R=4.0 C2 as for Life Safety performance
2.5 C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s 2.5 R=4.0
R=3.0 level
R=3.0
C2=1.1 for T > Ts R=2.0 C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s R=2.0
2.0 WITHOUT CAPPING R=1.5 2.0 R=1.5
WITH CAPPING
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS D
SITE CLASS D
3.0 3.0
T s = 0.60 s R=8.0 T s = 0.60 s R=8.0
C2 as for Life Safety performance level R=6.0 C2 as for Life Safety performance level R=6.0
2.5 R=4.0 2.5 R=4.0
C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s
R=3.0 R=3.0
C2=1.1 for T > Ts R=2.0 C2=1.1 for T > Ts
R=2.0
2.0 WITHOUT CAPPING R=1.5 2.0 WITH CAPPING R=1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
σ[(∆ i )app/(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS E σ[(∆ i )app/(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS E
3.0 3.0
To = 1.0 s R=8.0 T s = 1.0 s R=8.0
C2 as Life Safety performance level R=6.0 C2 as Life Safety performance level R=6.0
2.5 R=4.0 2.5 R=4.0
C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s
R=3.0 R=3.0
C2=1.1 for T > To R=2.0 C2=1.1 for T > Ts
R=2.0
2.0 WITHOUT CAPPING R=1.5 2.0 R=1.5
WITH CAPPING
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
σ[(∆ i )app/(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS B σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS B
3.0 3.0
Ts = 0.40 s R=8.0 Ts = 0.40 s R=8.0
R=6.0 C2 as Collapse Prevention performance level R=6.0
C2 as Collapse Prevention performance level
2.5 R=4.0 2.5 R=4.0
C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s
R=3.0 R=3.0
C2=1.2 for T > Ts R=2.0 C2=1.2 for T > Ts R=2.0
2.0 R=1.5 2.0 R=1.5
WITHOUT CAPPING WITH CAPPING
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C
3.0 3.0
Ts = 0.55 s R=8.0 R=8.0
Ts = 0.55 s
C2 as Collapse Prevention performance level R=6.0 R=6.0
C2 as Collapse Prevention performance level
2.5 C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s R=4.0 2.5 R=4.0
R=3.0 C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s
C2=1.2 for T > Ts R=3.0
R=2.0 C2=1.2 for T > Ts R=2.0
2.0 WITHOUT CAPPING R=1.5 2.0 R=1.5
WITH CAPPING
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS D σ[(∆ i )app/(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS D
3.0 3.0
Ts = 0.60 s R=8.0
Ts = 0.60 s R=8.0
C2 as Collapse Prevention performance level R=6.0
R=6.0
2.5 C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s R=4.0 C2 as Collapse Prevention performance level
2.5 R=4.0
R=3.0 C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s
C2=1.2 for T > Ts R=3.0
R=2.0 C2=1.2 for T > Ts R=2.0
WITHOUT CAPPING R=1.5
2.0 2.0 R=1.5
WITH CAPPING
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
PERIOD [s] PERIOD [s]
σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS E σ[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS E
3.0 3.0
Ts = 1.0 s R=8.0 Ts = 1.0 s R=8.0
C2 as collapse Prevention performance level R=6.0 C2 as collapse Prevention performance level R=6.0
2.5 C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s R=4.0 C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s R=4.0
R=3.0 R=3.0
C2=1.2 for T > Ts C2=1.2 for T > Ts
R=2.0 R=2.0
2.0 WITHOUT CAPPING R=1.5 2.0 WITH CAPPING R=1.5
1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
T/Ts T/Ts
The CSM approach was initially conceived using the The structural response behavior may also be
secant stiffness as the effective linear stiffness along categorized by hysteresis loop category. The backbone
with various formulas or rules for effective viscous curve of response (from the push-over curve) does not
damping. However, from nonlinear vibration theory it is fully specify how the building will respond to
know that the secant stiffness is not an optimal earthquake excitation. The hysteresis loop shape may
equivalent linear stiffness parameter for defining the be roughly bilinear and stable for subsequent cycles of
response of inelastic systems subjected to random-like response, or there may exhibit stiffness only or stiffness
Figure D-2 Components of the ADRS format for representing Seismic Demand - PSA versus SD; left plot shows SD as
a function of period, T; middle plot shows PSA as a function of period, T; right plot (ADRS format) is a
compilation of the left and middle plots showing PSA versus SD, with period T defined by radial lines
stemming from the origin.
where
∂ε 2
ceff x& (t ) . Hysteretic systems, possess history dependent =0 (D-10)
restoring forces that are non-separable functions of both ∂K
displacement and velocity.
∂ε 2
=0 (D-11)
Equivalent linearization is an approximate technique for ∂γ
solving nonlinear differential equations. Equation D-7
may be rewritten as where the over bar represents an averaging operation.
2π
1
∫ ( f (x
2
ε = ,θ ) − ceff ω xmax sin θ − keff xmax cos θ ) 2 dθ
2π
max
0
(D-13)
2π
1
ceff = −
xmax ωπ ∫
0
f ( xmax , θ ) sin θ d θ (D-14)
and
2π
1
keff =
xmaxπ ∫ f (x
0
max
,θ ) cos θ dθ (D-15)
mx&&lin + ceff x&lin + keff xlin = − mu&&(t ) (D-25) The effective linear parameters obtained based on a
comparison of displacement values would not be
appropriate to be used in a velocity or force-based
0.8
The maximum displacement amplitude of the nonlinear
time history xinel (t) will be designated as Dinel and the
2
maximum displacement amplitude of the linear time
0.
Teff
history xlin(t) will be designated as Dlin. The effective 6 0
0.
linear parameters developed in this study will be used
0.4
for estimating the response of structures subjected to 2
earthquake excitations. Therefore, using real earthquake −0.
time histories as the model inputs is most logical.
2
The methodology developed in this study employs a
0.
search over a two-dimensional parameter space related 0
−0.
2 −0.4
to the linear system coefficients ceff and keff in
ζeff
Equation D-25. One can expect to find a combination or
combinations of ceff and keff that give the best “match”
with an inelastic system, in some sense. The terms ceff Figure D-8 Contour values of εD over the two-
and keff will be replaced by the fraction of critical dimensional parameter space of Teff and
damping, βeff, and the natural period of oscillation, Τeff. βeff for a single combination of inelastic
Equation D-25 can be expressed as system and ground excitation.
Dlin − Dinel
εD =
2
4πβ eff ⎛ 2π ⎞ (D-27)
x+
&& x& + ⎜ ⎟ x = −u&&(t ) (D-26) Dinel
Teff ⎝ Teff ⎠
Using this definition, a negative value of εD reflects an
The system parameters βeff and Τeff completely describe unconservative displacement prediction while a positive
the linear single-degree-of-freedom system. value reflects a conservative displacement prediction.
εD might be considered to have a positive bias as it
D.5.1 Error Measure ranges from -1 to ∞. However, for the range of systems
In order to compare the maximum displacements, Dinel and excitations considered in this study, the slight
and Dlin, an error measure must be defined. In positive bias in the statistical distribution of εD is
engineering design, unconservative displacement inconsequential.
predictions are generally less desirable than
conservative predictions. Therefore, a fundamental For a given inelastic system and ground excitation,
requirement of any error measure is that it distinguish there will be a certain topology associated with the
between a conservative displacement prediction and a error, εD, as a function of linear system parameters Τeff
non-conservative displacement prediction. An error and βeff as shown in Figure D-8. Note that there exists a
measure that uses an absolute value of the difference nearly diagonal contour of zero error. For any
between Dinel and Dlin would not satisfy this combination of Τeff and βeff lying along this contour
requirement. there will be a perfect match between Dlin and Dinel.
A simple error measure satisfying the above For any specified ensemble of inelastic systems and
requirement is the ratio of the difference between the ground excitations, distributions of εD can be obtained
linear system maximum displacement, Dlin, and the for every combination of Τeff and βeff. This is illustrated
inelastic system maximum displacement, Dinel, to the in Figure D-9.
inelastic system maximum displacement.
Distributions of εD
0.2
0.1
0.05
0
−30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30
Error (%)
Teff ζeff
Figure D-10 Illustration of probability density
functions of displacement error for a
Normal distribution.
− ( x − m )2
Illustration of assembling εD error
b
Figure D-9 1
distributions at every combination of Teff ℜ = 1− ∫ e 2σ 2
dx (D-29)
and βeff over an ensemble. a σ 2π
The importance of using the standard deviation as well where m is the mean value and σ is the standard
as the mean of the error distribution is illustrated in the deviation of the distributions of εD values. It will be
following example. Two hypothetical probability assumed that the desirable range of error values, εD,
density functions are shown in Figure D-10. For the from an engineering design point of view is between -
more widely spread error distribution, the mean error 10% and +20%. This assumption has been adopted after
value is zero, while for the tighter distribution, the mean consultation with several members of the practicing
error value is -5%. Solely in terms of the mean value, structural engineering community. This range of error
the widely spread distribution is more accurate than the values will be referred to as the Engineering
tighter distribution. However, a more insightful way to Acceptability Range (EAR). This range takes into
analyze the distributions would be in terms of an account the general desire for a more conservative
acceptable range of error values. In this example, an design rather than an unconservative design. That is, a
acceptable range of error values might be chosen to be 20% error is more acceptable than a -20% error.
from -20% to 20%. In this case, the distribution with the
mean value of -5% would be both more “acceptable” D.5.2 Optimization Criterion
compared to the distribution with a mean value of 0%.
The optimum point in the Teff, βeff parameter space is
Let ℜ be the probability that the error εD lies outside the chosen to be the point that minimizes the probability
range from a to b. Then, ℜ may be expressed as that the error, εD, will be outside the Engineering
Acceptability Range. The Engineering Acceptability
Criterion may therefore be defined as σ.
ℜ = 1 − Pr( a < ε D < b ) (D-28)
ℜ EAR ≡ 1 − Pr(−0.1 < ε D < 0.2) = min (D-30)
If the distribution of εD is assumed to be Normal, ℜ can
be expressed as
Figure D-11 shows contours of ℜEAR as a function of
Teff and βeff. Also shown is the optimal point over the
40
The full explicit functional dependence of εD may be
1.6
35
70
35 indicated as follows
60
80
1.4
45 50
50
60 Teff
40
εD( , β eff − β o , α , µ , HYST )
40
1.2
To
35
80 (D-31)
45
50
70 90 Dlin (Teff , β eff ) − Dinel (To , β o , α , µ , HYST )
1 60 =
0 5 10 15 20 25
Dinel (To , β o , α , µ , HYST )
ζeff−ζo
The maximum displacement of the nonlinear system,
Figure D-11 Contours of ℜEAR over the Teff, βeff Dinel, is a function of initial period, Τ0, linear viscous
parameter space. The optimum point is damping, β0, second slope ratio, α, response ductility,
marked by a square.
µ, and hysteretic model, denoted ``HYST''. The linear
system response, Dlin, is a function of the two linear
two-dimensional parameter space which is denoted by a system parameters: period, Teff, and damping, βeff. It is
square. desired to find effective linear parameters that are
applicable over a range of Τ0 and β0 values. Therefore,
The diagonal trend to the contours in Figure D-11 can multiple values of Τ0 and β0 will be included in the
be explained by the following physical reasoning. same ensemble. The two-dimensional Teff, βeff
Consider the displacement response of a linear parameter space is transformed into the Τeff - Τ0, βeff -
oscillator subjected to an earthquake excitation. β0 parameter space.
Decreasing the system damping will always increase
the displacement response. Generally speaking, The Engineering Acceptability Criterion is applied to
decreasing the natural period will also decrease the the error distributions over the entire Teff / T0, βeff – β0
displacement response. Although this is not true in all parameter space and the optimum combination of Teff /
cases, especially for near-field ground motions, it is a T0 and βeff – β0, is determined. Next, the ductility
general trend that by increasing period and damping in value is changed, and the entire process is repeated. The
the correct proportion, a nearly constant maximum ductility values used in this study range from 1.25 to 6.5
displacement can be achieved. in increments of 0.25. Additionally, ductilities of 8 and
10 are included.
The size and shape of the contours in Figure D-11 give
insight into the ramifications of using effective linear The optimum values of Teff / T0 and βeff – β0 may be
parameters that are different from the values at the graphed as functions of ductility. Then, these results can
optimal point. In Figure D-11, the contour closest to the be fitted with an analytical expression. Figure D-12
optimum point has a value of 0.35 while the minimum shows a typical example of the discrete optimum values
value of ℜEAR ( ℜ EARmin ) is 0.31. The gradient of the of Teff / T0 and βeff – β0 graphed as a function of
contours is more gradual along a line roughly from ductility along with a curve fit of the data. Information
lower left to upper right. Therefore, if the effective pertaining to the details of the curve fitting process may
period is under predicted, it is best to also have an be found in Guyader, 2004.
under-predicted damping. If the effective period is over
Figure D-12 Example of optimal effective linear parameters - discrete points and the curve fitted to the data
Figure D-13 Types of inelastic behavior considered. BLH=Bilinear hysteretic, STDG=Stiffness Degrading, and
STRDG=Strength Degrading.
The new optimization criterion has been applied to the presented and discussed in Chapter 6. The elastoplastic
basic hysteretic models shown in Figure D-13. In each system represents the greatest challenge in application
case, the basic model has been augmented by the of equivalent linearization due to the existence of long-
addition of a linear spring element to create a non-zero period drifting displacement response in addition to the
second slope. α is the ratio of the post-yield stiffness to more quasi-harmonic motion (Paparizos and Iwan,
the elastic stiffness as seen in Figure D-6. The BLH and 1988). It is noted that in general the results for the
STDG models have been analyzed for alpha values of systems with alpha greater than zero are more favorable
0,2,5 and 10% while the STRDG model has been than for the systems with alpha equal to or less than
computed for alpha values of -3 and -5%. Results for all zero.
models and certain combinations of models are
D.7 Performance Point Errors possible earthquake sources is generally smooth and
conservative. However, the spectrum of any actual
The Capacity-Spectrum Method incorporates both earthquake ground motion is generally quite irregular.
structural capacity and seismic demand to determine a The potential errors associated with using a design
point where the demand and capacity are equal, referred spectrum instead of an actual earthquake response
to as the Performance Point. This point gives the spectrum are eliminated in what follows by using actual
expected displacement in the structure. The accuracy of earthquake response spectra. Demand spectra are
the Capacity-Spectrum Method will be evaluated using calculated using the appropriate effective linear
a new error measure. For a given ground motion, the parameters. The only remaining source of error in the
Performance Point Error, ε D pp , is defined as the Capacity-Spectrum Method are errors associated with
difference between the displacement at the Performance the effective linear parameters.
Point, as determined using equivalent linear parameters,
and the actual maximum inelastic displacement Performance Point Error results are presented for the
response divided by the maximum inelastic bilinear hysteretic (BLH) and strength degrading
displacement. This can be expressed as (STDG) models with second slope ratios of 0% and 5%
in Figures D-14 and D-15. The results clearly show an
ε D (α , µ , HYST )
PP
improvement using the new effective parameters as
compared to the effective parameters used in ATC-40.
Dlin (Teff (To , α , µ PP ), β eff (To , α , µ PP )) For all cases, the probability of the Performance Point
= Error lying within the range of Engineering
Dinel (To , β o , α , µ , HYST ) (D-32)
Acceptability is much higher for the new approach than
Dinel (To , β o , α , µ , HYST ) for the current Capacity-Spectrum Method, especially
−
Dinel (To , β o , α , µ , HYST ) for lower ductilities. This would appear to validate the
use of higher order curve fitting for lower ductilities to
help capture important local variations in the effective
Error statistics are created by combining all Τ0 and β0 parameters.
values for a given hysteretic model, second slope ratio
and ductility. At low values of ductility, the conventional Capacity-
Spectrum Method approach is noticeably
Several sources of error are introduced by the Capacity- unconservative. Therefore, a building needing
Spectrum Method. Errors may arise in both the rehabilitated could be judged to not need an upgrade
determination of structural capacity and seismic using the conventional Capacity-Spectrum Method
demand. To evaluate the error from the equivalent approach. Within the framework of performance-based
linear parameters alone, all other sources of error must engineering, where Performance Objectives are very
either be eliminated or shown to be negligible. precise, accurate prediction at the lower ductility values
can be quite important in terms of Immediate
In determining structural capacity, two sources of error Occupancy and Operational building performance
exist: the capacity spectrum calculation and the levels.
hysteretic classification. A large source of error may
come from representing a multi-degree-of-freedom
building model by a single-degree-of-freedom system. D.8 References
This source of error is eliminated herein by considering Iwan, W.D., 1980, “Estimating inelastic response spec-
only single-degree-of-freedom structures. tra from elastic spectra,” Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 8, pp. 375-388.
The second source of error in determining the structural
capacity is the hysteretic classification. In what follows, Guyader, A, 2004, A Statistical Approach to Equivalent
errors associated with determination of the hysteretic Linearization with Application to Performance-
model are eliminated since the actual hysteretic model Based Engineering, EERL 2004-04 Report, Pasa-
is assumed apriori. In this way, both sources of error dena, California.
associated with the structural capacity have been Paparizos, L.G., and W.D., Iwan, 1988, “Some observa-
removed. tions on the random response of an elasto-plastic
system,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, Paper No.
In determining seismic demand, errors may be
introduced through smoothing of the demand spectrum. 88-WA/APM-64, American Society of Civil Engi-
A design spectrum that represents the effects of many neers.
100 100
ATC−55 BLH 0%
ATC−55 BLH 5%
80 ATC−40 BLH 0% 80
ATC−40 BLH 5%
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
µ µ
100 100
Prob[−10% < PP Error < 20%]
80 80
Prob[PP Error < −10%]
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
µ µ
Figure D-14 Summary of Performance Point errors for bilinear hysteretic (BLH) model
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
ATC−55 STDG 0%
20 ATC−55 STDG 5% 20
ATC−40 STDG 0%
ATC−40 STDG 5%
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
µ µ
100 100
Prob[−10% < PP Error < 20%]
80 80
Prob[PP Error < −10%]
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
µ µ
Figure D-15 Summary of Performance Point Errors for Strength Degrading (STDG) model
foundation-soil contact. The models evaluate the where a0 = ωr/Vs,r, Vs,r denotes a strain-reduced shear
response of rigid, massless circular and rectangular wave velocity, r = radius of circular foundation, a × b =
foundations on the surface of an elastic halfspace to full footprint dimensions of rectangular foundation (b
incoherent SH waves propagating either vertically or at being measured perpendicular to the direction of SH
an angle αv to the vertical. A result of the model is a wave polarization), be = ab , and κ = a ground
transfer function between free-field motions and motion incoherence parameter (information on the
translational foundation motions (denoted with selection of κ values are presented below).
subscript ‘u’).
Figure E-1 indicates that the transfer functions for
The transfer function amplitudes computed by Veletsos circular and various rectangular geometries are similar
and his co-workers are presented in Figure E-1 for to each other for small ã o . As noted by Veletsos et al.
circular and rectangular foundations subject to (1997), the near equivalence of the results for different
vertically incident incoherent SH waves. Similar curves aspect ratios (a/b=1/4 - 4) of rectangular foundations
are available for nonvertically incident coherent waves suggests that translational transfer functions primarily
in the references. The transfer functions in Figure E-1 depend on foundation area. Given this near
are plotted against the dimensionless frequency equivalence, the transfer function is principally a
parameter ã o , defined as follows for circular and function of dimensionless frequency ã o . As shown in
rectangular foundations, respectively, Equation E-1, ã o is essentially the foundation
dimension normalized by the wavelength (since
wavelength is wave velocity divided by frequency), and
%a0 = a0 κ 2 + sin 2 α v Circular then scaled by an incoherence/wave inclination term.
When the foundation dimension is large relative to the
2 wave length, ã o is large and the transfer function
ωbe ⎛b⎞ ordinate is low. Conversely, small foundation
%ao = κ + sin α v ⎜ ⎟ Rectangular
2 2 (E-1)
2vs ,r ⎝ be ⎠ dimensions relative to the wavelength produce transfer
function ordinates near unity.
0.60
σ = 0.55
Surface foundations
0.40
Shallowly emb.
κa
90% confidence intervals
0.20
κ = -0.037 + 7.4E-04 Vs (m/s)
0.00
0 200 400 600
νs (m/s)
Figure E-2 Relationship between effective incoherence parameter ka and small-strain shear wave velocity νs from
case histories (from Kim and Stewart, 2003).
Af = foundation area) and the effective vs for the site is vertically propagating, coherent SH waves. Base-slab
defined as r / (travel time for shear wave to travel from averaging does not occur within this wave field, but
depth r to ground surface). Depth is measured down foundation translations are reduced relative to the free-
from the base of the foundation. field due to ground motion reductions with depth and
wave scattering effects. Day (1978) used finite element
The model has not been validated for foundations with analyses to evaluate the base motions of a rigid
low in-plane stiffness, buildings with large footprint cylindrical foundation embedded in a uniform elastic
dimensions (> 200 ft), and pile-supported foundations half space (β = 0, ν = 0.25) and subjected to vertically
in which the cap and soil are not in contact. However, incident, coherent SH waves. Elsabee and Morray
the judgment of the project technical team that (1977) performed similar studies but for the case of a
developed this report is that the model can provide a visco-elastic soil layer of finite depth over a rigid base
reasonable first order estimate of the kinematic (β = 0.05 and ν = 0.33). The amplitude of the halfspace
interaction effect for those conditions. and finite soil layer transfer functions are shown
together in Figure E-3 for foundation embedment /
E.2.2 Embedded Shallow Foundations radius ratio e/r = 1.0. The primary difference between
the two solutions is oscillations in the finite soil layer
Foundation “embedment” refers to a foundation base
case at high frequencies. Also shown in Figure E-3a is
slab that is positioned at a lower elevation than the
the following approximate transfer function amplitude
surrounding ground, which will usually occur when
model developed by Elsabee and Morray (1977):
buildings have a basement. When subjected to
vertically propagating coherent SH waves, embedded
foundations experience a reduction in base-slab ⎛e ⎞ ⎛ eω ⎞
translational motions relative to the free-field, and H u (ω ) = cos ⎜ a0 ⎟ = cos ⎜ ⎟
⎝r ⎠ ⎝ vs ⎠
rotations in the vertical plane are introduced. The
rotations are caused by incompatible shear strains along [Hu must be ≥ 0.454] (E-2)
the sides of the excavation and the free-field.
where a0 = ωr/vs and e = foundation embedment.
Elsabee and Morray (1977) and Day (1978) have Figure E-3b shows the transfer function amplitude
developed analytical transfer functions relating base- model is a somewhat more convenient form in which it
slab translational and rotational motions to free-field is plotted as a unique function of ωe/vs.
translations for an incident wave field consisting of
1.2 1.2
Translation
(a)
1.0 1
Approximation (b)
Halfspace
0.8
Finite soil layer 0.8
u FIM/u g
uFIM /ug
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
e/r = 1
0.0
0 2 4 6
0
a0=ωr/V s 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
eω/Vs
Figure E-3 (a) Transfer function amplitudes for embedded cylinders from Day (1978) and Elsabee and Morray (1977)
along with approximate solution by Elsabee and Morray; (b) Transfer function amplitude model by Elsabee
and Morray (1977).
The results in Figure E-3 can be contrasted with the < 0.5 Kim (2001) found that the embedment and base
behavior of a surface foundation, which would have no slab averaging models should be coupled by
reduction of translational motions and no rotational multiplying the respective transfer function ordinates
motions when subjected to vertically incident coherent from the two models to accurately simulate observed
shear waves. Transfer function amplitudes in the transfer functions.
presence of more realistic incident wave fields can be
estimated at each frequency by the product of the E.2.3 Application of Transfer Functions to
transfer function ordinates from the previous section Calculation of Foundation Motions
(for base slab averaging) and those from this section at The analysis of free-field motions generally results in
the corresponding frequency. the specification of a design-basis acceleration response
spectrum. Sometimes suites of time histories are
Elsabee and Morray (1977) found these transfer specified that are compatible with this spectrum. The
functions to also be applicable to nonhomogeneous soil question addressed in this section is how this spectrum
profiles, provided vs,r is averaged across the or time history suite should be modified once the
embedment depth. Mita and Luco (1989) found that transfer function amplitude for the site has been
solutions for circular foundations can be extended to evaluated using the analysis procedures described
square foundations, provided the radius of the above.
equivalent cylinder is the average of the radii necessary
to match the area and moment of inertia of the square When free-field motions are specified only as response
base. spectral ordinates, the evaluation of a modified
response spectrum consistent with the FIM is needed.
The analysis procedure described herein has been Veletsos and Prasad (1989) evaluated ratios of
verified against recorded motions from two relatively foundation / free-field response spectral ordinates (at
deeply embedded structures with circular foundations 2% damping) for conditions where the corresponding
having e/r = 0.9 and 2.9 (Kim, 2001). Embedment transfer function ordinates could be readily determined.
effects dominated the kinematic interaction for these The transfer function ordinates and ratios of response
deeply embedded foundations; for foundations with e/r spectra (RRS) were compared for an input motion with
specified power spectral densities and random phase. The analytical results of Veletsos and Prasad were
The results indicated that transfer function ordinates checked by (1) calculating the transfer function for a
provide a reasonable estimate of response spectral ratios fixed set of conditions (surface foundation, r = 50 m, Vs
for low frequencies (e.g., < 5 Hz), but that at high = 250 m/s), (2) using this transfer function to modify a
frequencies (≥ 10 Hz) transfer function ordinates are set of recorded free-field time histories to
significantly smaller than response spectrum ratios. The corresponding foundation-level time histories, and (3)
inconsistency at high frequencies is attributed to the low evaluating the RRS using the two time histories.
energy content of free-field excitation at high Representative results of these analyses are presented in
frequencies and the saturation of spectral ordinates at Figure E-4. The left frame shows results for a time
these frequencies.
Recorded Recorded
0.8
Filtered Filtered
0.4
Acceleration (g)
0.4
Acceleration (g)
0.2
0
0
-0.4
-0.2
-0.8
-0.4 2 4 6 8 10 12
2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (s)
Time (s)
1.2
1.2
Tranfer Function Am plitude, RRS
Tranfer Function Amplitude, RRS
1 1
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
CAP_fn (T m = 0.51 s) NWH_ fn (Tm = 0 .7 0s)
Transfer Function Transfer Function
0.4 0.4
RRS, 2% damping RRS, 2% damping
RRS, 5% RRS, 5%
0.2 RRS, 10% 0.2 RRS, 10%
RRS, 20% RRS, 20%
0 0
0.01 0.1 1 10 0.01 0.1 1 10
Period (s) Period (s)
Figure E-4 Comparison of transfer function amplitude to ratios of response spectra (RRS) at different damping ratios.
Left figure applies for time histories in which the spectral response is dominated by high-frequency spikes
in the accelerogram, whereas in the right figure the response is dictated by lower frequency spikes.
history in which the spectral response is largely 4. If needed, a revised response spectrum that
controlled by relatively high-frequency components of accounts for kinematic interaction effects could be
the waveform. The right frame shows results for a time calculated from the FIM time histories.
history in which the peak response is associated with
relatively low-frequency pulses. These types of low- It should be noted that maintaining the free-field phase
frequency pulses are common for sites located on soft angles in Step 3 is not strictly correct, especially for
soils, but are also found in some sites subjected to embedded foundations. If desired, phase shifts of ωe/Vs
significant near-fault, forward rupture directivity (in radians) could be introduced for motions of
effects. The results suggest that for ordinary ground embedded foundations relative to ground surface
motions, RRS over a wide range of damping ratios can motions. Models for phase adjustment are not available
be reasonably estimated by transfer function ordinates for kinematic interaction effects involving surface
for T > 0.2 s, but that some caution should be exercised foundations, but the assumption of consistent phase
for soft soil sites and perhaps for near-fault ground should not significantly bias response spectral ordinates
motions. It should be noted that only a few ground for estimated FIMs.
motion time histories were used in these analyses, and
additional research is needed to evaluate the E.2.4 Simplified Procedure for Design
relationship between RRS and transfer function
ordinates as a function of ground motion characteristics The Kim and Stewart (2003) model for incoherence
and damping ratio. parameter κa (presented in Section E.2.1), along with
the procedure for converting transfer function ordinates
Based on the above, the following procedure is to RRS (presented in Section E.2.3), enables the
recommended for estimation of RRS from transfer development of simplified design charts for kinematic
function ordinates: interaction effects for non-embedded base slabs
founded on alluvial soils. A significant simplification
1. For periods > 0.2 s, estimate foundation response results from the fact that κa is nearly proportional to vs
spectral ordinates as the product of free-field (as seen in Figure E-2), which per Equation E-1 causes
response spectral ordinates and the transfer function dimensionless frequency term ã o to effectively reduce
amplitude at the corresponding frequency. to a function of frequency and foundation size (be). This
2. For periods < 0.2 s, estimate foundation response is shown below, written for vertically propagating
spectral ordinates as the product of free-field waves (αv = 0):
response spectral ordinates and the transfer function
amplitude at 0.2 s. 2
ω be ⎛b⎞
a% 0 = κ + sin α v ⎜ ⎟
2 2
For structures on very soft soils (i.e., NEHRP Site 2Vs , r ⎝ be ⎠ (E-3)
Category E), no reductions of response spectra for
ω beκ ω be n1Vs ω be n1
kinematic interaction should be taken. ≈ ≈ =
2Vs , r 2 n2Vs 2 n2
When free-field motions are specified as time histories
for use in nonlinear time history analyses of structures, where n1 ≈ 6.5 × 10-4 s/m and n2 is the square root of
modified time histories representing the FIM can be
the soil modulus reduction factor, which can be
evaluated as follows:
estimated as shown in Table E-1.
1. Calculate the Fourier transforms of the free-field
time histories. Figure E-5 shows the degree of approximation
2. Multiply the amplitude of the free-field motions by associated with taking κa as proportional to vs (using
the transfer function amplitude.
Table E-1 Approximate values of n
3. Use the amplitudes from (2) along with the phase
angles of the free-field motions, and perform Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
reverse Fourier transforms to estimate FIM time
histories. 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30
n 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.65
1 1
from base slab averaging (RRSbsa)
Foundation/free-field RRS
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
b e = 330 ft Simplified Model
C be = 65 ft
0.6 D 0.6 be = 130 ft
Simplified Model
be = 200 ft
0.5 0.5 be = 330 ft
0.4 0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Period (s) Period (s)
Figure E-5 RRS for foundation with be = 330 ft. Figure E-6 RRS from simplified model as function of
Simplified model (κa /νs = n1) vs. exact foundation size, be
solution for κa
proportionality term n1). In this and subsequent figures, Based on the above, the following simplified procedure
parameter n2 = 0.65, which is the appropriate value for is recommended for analysis of kinematic interaction
regions of high seismicity. The results for site classes effects:
C-D are shown for typical shear wave velocities within
the categories based on borehole compilations. The 1. Evaluate effective foundation size be = ab ,
difference between the simplified model and the result where a and b are the foundation dimensions in
for individual site classes is small. Figure E-6 shows the plan view.
resulting curves of RRS per Equation E-3 for 2. Evaluate period-dependant RRS from base slab
foundations of various sizes. As expected, the kinematic averaging (RRSbsa) using Figure E-6. An approxi-
interaction effect increases as the foundation size
mate equation to the curves in Figure E-6 is pre-
increases and as period decreases.
sented below:
As with the base slab averaging model for surface
1.2
foundations, simplified design charts for the RRS of 1 ⎛ be ⎞
embedded foundations can also be developed. These RRSbsa =1− ⎜ ⎟ (E-4)
charts are based on the simplified model of Elsabee and 14100 ⎜⎝ T%eq ⎟
⎠
Morray (1977) shown in Figure E-3b, but with the RRS
interpreted from the transfer function amplitude as
described in Section E.2.3. Figure E-7a presents RRS as where be = effective foundation size (from Step 1)
a function of period in site categories A-D for a in feet, and T = period in sec.
relatively large embedment depth of 30 ft. As can be
seen in the figure, embedment effects are negligible at 3. If the foundation is embedded a depth e from the
practical levels of embedment for firm rock site ground surface, evaluate an additional RRS from
conditions (Site Categories A and B). Accordingly, embedment (RRSe) as a function of period due to
Figure E-7b presents RRS values at three levels of embedment effects using Figure E-7. The equation
embedment (e = 10, 20, and 30 ft) only for Site Classes of the curves in Figure E-7 is,
C and D.
1.2 1.2
C
1 1
Foundation/Free-Field RRS
Foundation/Free-Field RRS
(a) (b)
0.8 0.8
D
0.6 e = 30 ft 0.6
Site Class A Site Classes C and D
B e = 10 ft
0.4 C 0.4 e = 20 ft
D e = 30 ft
0.2 0.2
(a) (b)
0 0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period, T (s) Period, T (s)
Figure E-7 (a) RRS for foundation embedded to depth e = 30 ft in different site categories; (b) RRS for foundations
with variable depths in Site Classes C and D.
Limitations associated with application of this approach Inertia developed in a vibrating structure gives rise to
include the following: base shear, moment, and torsion at the foundation soil
interface, and these loads in turn cause displacements
• Kinematic interaction effects should be neglected for and rotations of the structure relative to the free field.
soft clay sites, such as Site Class E. These relative displacements and rotations are only
• Embedment effects can be neglected for foundations possible because of compliance in the soil, which can
embedded in firm rock (Site Classes A and B). significantly contribute to the overall structural
flexibility in some cases. Moreover, the difference
• The base slab averaging model has the following between the foundation input motion and free-field
limitations: motion gives rise to energy dissipation via radiation
a) Underestimates ground motion reduction for damping and hysteretic soil damping, and this energy
sites on rock (i.e., use of the above formulation is dissipation affects the overall system damping. Since
conservative). these effects are rooted in the structural inertia, they are
referred to as inertial interaction effects, in contrast to where j denotes either deformation mode x (for
the kinematic interaction effects discussed in the prior translation) or θ (for rotation in the vertical plane), ω is
section. angular frequency (radians/sec.), a0 is a dimensionless
frequency defined by a0 = ωr/vs, r = foundation radius,
The ATC-40 and FEMA 356 documents contain vs = soil shear wave velocity, and υ = soil Poisson ratio.
provisions for evaluating the properties of foundation Foundation radii can be computed separately for
springs (e.g., Sections 10.3 and 10.4 of ATC-40), and translational and rotational deformation modes to match
hence this aspect of inertial interaction is not the area (Af) and moment of inertia (If) of the actual
emphasized here. Rather, the focus of this section is on foundation (i.e. rx = A f π , rθ = 4 4 I f π ). There
the damping component of inertial interaction and the are corresponding (a0)x and (a0)θ values as well.
contribution of this damping to the overall system
damping. The real stiffness and damping of the translational and
rotational springs and dashpots are expressed,
In the SSI literature, foundation stiffness and damping respectively, by
effects are often described in terms of an impedance
function. The impedance function should account for
the soil stratigraphy and foundation stiffness and K x rx
kx = α x K x cx = β x (a)
geometry, and is typically computed using equivalent- vS
linear soil properties appropriate for the in situ dynamic
Kθ rθ
shear strains. Impedance functions can be evaluated for kθ = αθ Kθ cθ = βθ (b) (E-7)
multiple independent foundation elements, or (more vS
commonly) a single 6×6 matrix of impedance functions
is used to represent the complete foundation (which where αx, βx, αθ, and βθ express the frequency
assumes foundation rigidity). dependence of the impedance terms, and K x and Kθ
are the static stiffness of a disk on a halfspace,
In the following sub-sections, factors affecting
foundation impedance functions are described, with an 8
8
emphasis on those factors significantly affecting the Kx = Grx Kθ = Grθ3 (E-8)
damping component. The section is concluded with a 2 −υ 3 (1 − υ )
discussion of how system damping ratios can be
evaluated once factors affecting impedance functions where G = soil dynamic shear modulus. Additional
and the fixed-based structural damping ratio are known. solutions for Kx and Kθ that take into account the
foundation geometry in plan are presented in Table 10-2
E.3.1 Analysis of Impedance Functions of ATC (1996). Presented in Figure E-8 are the
E.3.1.1 Basic Case
frequency-dependent values of αx, βx, αθ, and βθ for a
rigid circular foundation on the surface of a visco-
Simplified impedance function solutions are available elastic halfspace with soil hysteretic damping ratio βs
for rigid circular or rectangular foundations located on (Veletsos and Wei, 1971; Veletsos and Verbic, 1973).
the ground surface and underlain by a uniform, visco-
elastic halfspace. A thorough listing of impedance Validation studies for the above and similar impedance
functions for these and other foundation shapes is function formulations have been conducted by Lin and
provided in Gazetas (1991a, 1991b). A circular Jennings (1984) and Crouse et al. (1990) for small
foundation shape with the above assumptions of foundations (< 10 ft plan dimension), and by Luco et al.
foundation rigidity and soil uniformity comprise the (1988), Wong et al. (1988), and DeBarros and Luco
“basic case” for foundation impedance considered here. (1995) for larger scale building foundations (up to 80 ft
plan dimension). These studies have generally found
Terms in the complex valued impedance function are reasonably good agreement between experimental
expressed in the form observations and analytical predictions, although the fit
is usually markedly better for rotation vibration modes
k j = k j (a0 ,υ ) + iω c j (a0 ,υ ) (E-6) than for translation. The improved fit for rotation likely
results from the relative ease of identifying impedance
functions from rotation data as compared to relative
TRANSLATION ROCKING
1 1
0 0
βs=0
αx
αθ
-1 βs=0.1 -1
-2 -2
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
a0 a0
2 2
βθ
1 1
βx
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
a0= ωr/vs a0= ωr/vs
Figure E-8 Foundation stiffness and damping factors for elastic and viscoelastic halfspaces (υ = 0.4). After Veletsos
and Verbic, 1973.
foundation/free-field translations, which have weaker purposes are the solutions for a halfspace presented
signals. previously in Figure E-8. Note that the damping values
for non-uniform profiles are plotted for a zero hysteretic
The above solutions for rigid, circular foundations on a damping condition (radiation damping only) and that
halfspace can provide reasonable estimates of the normalizing shear modulus and shear wave velocity
foundation impedance in many cases. However, the are the values at the ground surface (G0 and νs0,
potentially significant effects of non-uniform soil respectively).
profiles, embedded foundations, non-circular
foundation shapes, and flexible foundations should be From Figure E-9, radiation damping in translation for a
accounted for in some cases. The following sections nonuniform profile is seen to be less than that for a
discuss the effects of these factors on the damping halfspace at low frequencies. For rotation, a small
component of impedance functions. reduction can occur at low frequencies, but the effect is
less significant than for translation. At large
E.3.1.2 Nonuniform Soil Profiles frequencies, the radiation damping for nonuniform
Gazetas (1991b) provides solutions for the impedance profiles exceeds that for the halfspace.
of rigid foundations overlying soil for which the shear
stiffness increases with depth according to prescribed The low-frequency reduction in damping is due to
functions. The damping components of these solutions reflections of body waves emanating from the
are plotted in Figure E-9 in terms of the frequency- foundation; the frequency dependence of the reduction
dependent and dimensionless βx and βθ terms; actual is related to the depth over which the shear modulus
dashpot coefficients can be computed using these terms increases relative to wavelength. For short-period (and
in Equations E-7a and b. Also plotted for comparative short-wavelength) body waves, the nonuniform soil
medium is “seen” as being effectively uniform, whereas
G(z)/G0 G(z)/G0
0 2 4 6 8 2r 0 2 4 6 8
0 0
G(z)
2 υ, ρ 2
z/r
z/r
α=0.025
4 z 4
α=
n=1
0. 2/3
6 2 3 6 1/2
TRANSLATION ROCKING
1.0 0.30
Hal
Hal
f., β=0
.1
f.
, β=
Half., β=0
0. 1
25
.0 .5
βθ
0.5 0.15 0
βx
0
α= n=0 β=
.,
5
alf
02
3
H
1
0.
0 .2
n=
α=
α=
3
0 .2
α=
0.0 0.00
0 1 2 0 1 2
a0= ωr/vs0 a0= ωr/vs0
Figure E-9 Foundation damping factors for halfspace with and without hysteretic damping (Veletsos and Verbic,
1973) and for soil profiles with indicated shear modulus profiles and no hysteretic damping (Gazetas,
1991b).
long-period waves (with long wavelengths) “see” a have suggested that effective foundation stiffnesses can
much more nonuniform medium and wave transmission be computed from an average vs value over a specified
into the medium is impeded. The increase of radiation depth range. For the common case in which soil
damping at high frequencies is due to the higher νs of stiffness increases with depth, this averaging will result
the nonuniform profiles at depth as compared to the in an effective vs value that is larger than vs0. The use of
velocity of the halfspace model (for which νs was taken this averaged vs would be unconservative in the case of
as νs0). damping, as the low-frequency damping is
overpredicted by a halfspace model even when the
The above effects on low-frequency damping can be halfspace velocity is taken as vs0. Thus, different
contrasted with the effect of soil nonuniformity on effective velocities of nonuniform soil profiles should
foundation stiffness. A number of researchers (e.g., be used for calculations of foundation stiffness and
Roesset, 1980; Gazetas, 1991b; Stewart et al., 2003) damping.
For the case of a finite soil layer overlying a much coefficients for such cases can be developed using
stiffer material, the key issue is a lack of radiation Equation E-10.
damping at periods greater than the fundamental period
of the finite soil layer, Ts = 4H/vs. Halfspace damping E.3.1.3 Embedded Foundations
ratios can be used for periods less than the soil layer Foundation “embedment” refers to a foundation base
period. Above this period in materials with hysteretic slab that is positioned at a lower elevation than the
damping, Elsabee and Morray (1977) developed the surrounding ground, which will usually occur when
following damping recommendations: buildings have a basement. The impedance of
embedded foundations differs from that of shallow
a0 a01 foundations in several important ways. First, the static
β x ≈ 0.65β for a0/a01 ≤ 1 (E-9) stiffness of embedded foundations is increased, which is
1 − (1 − 2 β )( a0 a01 )
2
accounted for with the embedment factors given in
Table 10.3 of ATC-40 (ATC, 1996). For circular
foundations, these embedment terms are as follows:
a0 a01 0.35a0
βθ ≈ 0.50 β ≤ ⎛ 2 e⎞
1 − (1 − 2 β )( a0 a01 )
2
1 + a02 ( K x )E = K x ⎜ 1 + ⎟
⎝ 3 ru ⎠
for a0/a01 ≤ vp/vs (E-10) (E-11)
⎛ e⎞
( Kθ )E = Kθ ⎜ 1 + 2 ⎟
where a01 = 0.5πr/H, r = foundation radius, and ⎝ rθ ⎠
H = finite soil layer thickness.
where e = embedment depth. The second important
In terms of practical application of the above results, the difference between embedded and surface foundations
following observations are noted: is that embedded foundations can produce much larger
• For translational damping, profile non-uniformity is damping due to the greater foundation-soil contact area.
not significant for a0=ωr/vs > 1. Case history studies
suggest that inertial soil-structure interaction is An approximate and generally conservative approach
generally not important for h/(vsT) < 0.1 (Stewart et for estimating the damping of embedded foundations
al., 1999). Hence, for sites where SSI is important, consists of using the modified static stiffness terms
profile non-uniformity need not be considered if h/r from Equation E-11 coupled with the dynamic
< 2πh/(vsT). The value on the right hand side of the modifiers for a surface foundation in Figure E-8. This
inequality will generally be more than 2/3 for cases approach has been found to provide reasonable
where inertial SSI is important, which is larger than estimates of observed foundation damping in actual
the aspect ratios for many short-period buildings. structures for embedment ratios e/ru < 0.5 (Stewart et
Accordingly, it is often justified to treat the al., 1999). As short-period structures are seldom deeply
nonuniform soil as a halfspace, taking the halfspace embedded, this approximate approach will often suffice
velocity as the in situ value immediately below the for practical applications. For more deeply embedded
foundation. Note that the above inequality to allow foundations, alternative formulations can be used such
profile non-uniformity effects to be neglected can be as Bielak (1975) or Apsel and Luco (1987). However,
re-written as vsT/r < 2π. caution should also be exercised in the application of
these approaches for embedded foundations with poor
• Rotational damping for a non-uniform profile can quality backfill against basement walls. For such
generally be reasonably well estimated by a foundations, gapping is likely and impedance functions
halfspace model, with the halfspace velocity taken should probably be formulated using the shallow
as the in situ value immediately below the foundation approach noted previously.
foundation.
E.3.1.4 Foundation Shape
• The use of halfspace models is unconservative for
sites with a finite soil layer overlying a very stiff Impedance functions for foundations of arbitrary shape
layer, if the structural system period is greater than are commonly analyzed as equivalent circular mats
the soil layer period. Alternative dashpot (BSSC, 2001). As described previously, an equivalent
radius for translational stiffness is derived by equating Impedance functions for flexible circular foundation
the areas of the mats, while an equivalent radius for slabs supporting shear walls have been evaluated for a
rotational stiffness is derived by equating the moments number of wall configurations, including: (1) rigid core
of inertia of the mats. The issue addressed in this walls (Iguchi and Luco, 1982), (2) thin perimeter walls
section is the adequacy of this assumption for oblong (Liou and Huang, 1994), and (3) rigid concentric
foundations. interior and perimeter walls (Riggs and Waas, 1985).
These studies focused on the effects of foundation
Combining a number of analytical impedance function flexibility on rotation impedance; the horizontal
solutions from the literature for foundations of arbitrary impedance of flexible and rigid foundations are similar
shape, Dobry and Gazetas (1986) found that the use of (Liou and Huang, 1994). Foundation flexibility effects
equivalent circular mats is acceptable for aspect ratios on rotation impedance were found to be most
less than 4:1, with the notable exception of dashpot significant for a rigid central core with no perimeter
coefficients in the rotation mode. As shown in walls. For this case, the flexible foundation has
Figure E-10, dimensionless radiation damping significantly less stiffness and damping than the rigid
coefficients crx and cry (for longitudinal and transverse foundation. The reductions are most significant for
rotations, respectively) are seen to be underestimated by narrow central cores and large deviations between soil
the equivalent disk assumption at low frequencies. This and foundation slab rigidity.
is a consequence of the tendency for rotational
vibrations to be dissipated into the soil primarily via the Significant additional work remains to be done on
ends of the foundation. Hence, as aspect ratio increases, foundation flexibility effects on impedance functions
the two ends act increasingly as independent wave because the existing research generally has investigated
sources with reduced destructive interference between wall/slab configurations that are seldom encountered in
waves emanating from the foundation. For the case of practice for building structures. Nonetheless, based on
longitudinal rotations, damping can be underpredicted the available studies and engineering judgment, the
by a factor of two or more for aspect ratios of L/B ≈ 4. following preliminary recommendations are provided:
For higher frequencies (a0 > 3-4, not shown in figure),
1. The rigid foundation assumption is probably gener-
the results for the various aspect ratios converge to crx,
ally acceptable for the analysis of damping associ-
cry = ~1. This occurs because these high frequency
ated with horizontal vibrations of reasonably stiff,
waves have short wavelengths relative to the foundation
inter-connected foundation systems.
dimension regardless of L/B, so destructive interference
between the waves is small in all cases. 2. For buildings with continuous shear walls or braced
frames around the building perimeter, and continu-
The use of dashpot coefficients for disk-shaped ous footing or mat foundations beneath these walls,
foundations can be used to provide conservative (lower- the rigid foundation approximation can likely be
bound) estimates of the damping of oblong foundations. used to provide a reasonable estimate of damping
This approximation may be sufficient for many from rotation vibrations. In this case, the effective
practical applications, especially given the relatively foundation radius (rθ) would be calculated using the
small influence of damping from rotations on system full building dimensions. This recommendation
damping (damping from horizontal vibrations often also applies if continuous basement walls are
contribute more significantly, see Section E.3.2). If present around the building perimeter. This case is
more refined analysis of rotational damping is needed, referred to as stiff rotational coupling.
rotational radiation dashpot coefficients for oblong,
3. For buildings with a core of shear walls within the
non-circular foundations can be calculated using
building, but no shear walls outside of this core, a
procedures given in Gazetas (1991a, b).
conservative estimate of foundation damping can
E.3.1.5 Foundation Flexibility
be obtained by calculating the effective foundation
radius (rθ) using the dimensions of the wall founda-
This section addresses flexibility in the foundation tions (which, in this case, would be smaller than the
structural system (i.e., the base mat, or assemblage of a overall building plan dimensions). This is an exam-
base mat and grade beams/footings). The foundation ple of soft rotational coupling between the shear
flexibility referred to here is not associated with the walls and other load bearing elements.
soil.
2L
Footing
2B x
y
1.0
3.4v s
va =
0.8 π(1- ν)
cr x = cθ,x(β = 0)/(ρvLaIx )
L/B > 10
L/B = 5
0.6
0.4
range for L/B = 1 - 2
and circles
0.2
(a) rocking around x-axis
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
1.0
L/B = 4-5
0.8 L/B→ ∞
cr y = cθ,y(β = 0)/(ρvLaIy )
L/B = 3
L/B = 2
0.6
0.4
range for L/B = 1
and circles
0.2
Figure E-10 Dashpot coefficients for radiation damping vs. normalized frequency for different foundation shapes (after
Dobry and Gazetas, 1986).
4. For buildings with distributed shear walls at various individual vertical components such as shear walls
locations around the building plan, the key issues rotate independently of each other?), and (2) the
are (1) the rotational stiffness of the building system degree to which destructive interference occurs
as a whole (i.e., does the building tend to rotate as a between waves emanating from rotation of distinct
single rigid block due to significant rotational stiff- foundation components.
ness coupling between adjacent elements, or do
In practice, it may sometimes be difficult to decide on structures. In the latter case, h can often be well
the degree of rotational coupling between foundation approximated as 70% of the total structure height.
elements. However, pushover analyses of the building
Equation E-12 can then be re-arranged to estimate Kθ as
with foundation springs utilized below foundation
elements incorporate rotational coupling between follows:
foundation elements in a natural way. Hence, the results
of such analyses can be used to infer the effective K *fixed h 2
foundation size associated with the building’s rotational Kθ = 2
impedance. This process is described in the following. ⎛ T% ⎞ K *fixed (E-14)
⎜ ⎟ − 1 −
⎝T ⎠ Kx
The derivation begins with the relationship between
period lengthening and foundation spring stiffness
values by Veletsos and Meek (1974): In the above, it has been assumed that ku ≈ Ku and kθ ≈
Kθ, which is generally a reasonable approximation. The
evaluation of an effective foundation radius from Kθ
T% K *fixed K *fixed h 2 can be accomplished using Equation E-8, with the
= 1+ + (E-12) following result:
T kx kθ
1
In Equation E-12, the following quantities are known or ⎛ 3 (1 − υ ) Kθ ⎞ 3 (E-15)
can be estimated reliably: rθ = ⎜ ⎟
⎝ 8G ⎠
• T is the fixed base first mode period, and can be
evaluated from the model of the structure utilized in The value rθ will decrease as the degree of rotational
pushover analyses, but with foundation spring coupling decreases. For very stiff rotational coupling rθ
stiffnesses set to infinity. will approach the value that would be calculated from
• T% is the flexible base first mode period, and can be the moment of inertia derived from the full foundation
evaluated from the model of the structure utilized in dimension ( rθ = 4 4 I f π ).
pushover analyses including foundation springs. The
foundation spring stiffness should reflect strain- A potential complication to the above may occur when
degraded soil properties. foundations are closely spaced, and destructive
interference occurs between waves emanating from
• Stiffness parameter K*fixed is the stiffness of the adjacent foundation elements. If this occurred, the
fixed-base structure, and can be evaluated as above formulation would be unconservative.
Unfortunately, this topic has not been researched, and
2
⎛ 2π ⎞ thus what footing separation distances constitute
K *fixed = M * ⎜ ⎟ (E-13) “close” and “widely spaced” is unknown, which in turn
⎝ T ⎠ precludes the development of recommendations for the
analysis of rotation damping for distributed walls.
where M* is the effective mass for the first mode
calculated as the total mass times the effective mass Finally, it should be noted that for buildings with only
coefficient (see ATC-40, Equation 8-21). moment resisting frames (no walls or braced frames),
foundation rotation is not likely to be significant, and
• Foundation stiffness parameter kx represents the hence foundation flexibility effects on rotation damping
horizontal stiffness of the foundation system, and are also likely insignificant.
can be evaluated as described previously (Sections
Sections E.3.1.1 – E.3.1.3). For the present E.3.2 Analysis of System Damping Ratios
application, a good approximation of kx is Kx.
The effect of foundation flexibility on the response of a
• Height h is the effective structure height taken as the structure can be visualized using the single-degree-of-
full height of the building for one-story structures, freedom oscillator depicted in Figure E-11. In the
and as the vertical distance from the foundation to figure, displacement ug denotes the free-field ground
the centroid of the first mode shape for multi-story motion, uf denotes foundation translation relative to the
ug uf hθ u
m
θ
h
K*fixed, c
kx
kθ
Figure E-11 Oscillator model for analysis of inertial interaction under lateral excitation.
free-field, θ denotes foundation rotation, and u denotes response spectra should be evaluated, is a function of
displacement resulting from deformation within the fixed-base damping (βi), the period lengthening ratio
structure with stiffness K*fixed and dashpot coefficient c. ( T%eq / Teq ), and βf. Parameter βi is generally assumed
SSI effects are manifested by a lengthening of the to be 5%. The period lengthening can be evaluated
building period from the fixed-base case (T) to the using the structural model used in pushover analyses as
flexible-base case ( T% ), and by a change in the damping follows:
ratio (from βi to βo). These effects have been evaluated
as closed-form expressions for the simple oscillator 1. Evaluate the first-mode vibration period of the
configuration shown in Figure E-11. In this case, the model, including foundation springs. This period is
impedance function is represented by complex-valued T% . The period can be calculated using initial stiff-
terms for the translation ( k x ) and vertical plane rotation ness values for the structure and strain-degraded
( kθ ) foundation vibration modes. A vertical foundation soil stiffness values.
degree-of-freedom also exists (impedance term kv ), 2. Evaluate the first-mode vibration period of the
but does not affect T% or βo. model with the foundation springs removed (or
their stiffness and capacity set to infinity). This
The flexible-base damping ratio of the oscillator has period is T. As before, this period should corre-
contributions from the viscous damping in the structure spond to pre-yield conditions.
as well as radiation and hysteretic damping in the
foundation. Jennings and Bielak (1973), Bielak (1975, 3. Calculate the ratio T% / T , which is the period
1976) and Veletsos and Nair (1975) expressed the lengthening under small-deformation (elastic) con-
flexible-base damping βo as ditions.
4. Calculate T%eq / Teq using the following equation:
βi
β0 = β f + (E-16)
(T%eq )
3 0.5
⎧ ⎤⎫
T%eq 1 ⎡⎛ T% ⎞
Teq 2
⎪ ⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥ ⎪⎬
= ⎨1 + (E-17)
Teq µsys ⎢⎝ T ⎠ ⎥⎪
where βf is referred to as the foundation damping and ⎩⎪ ⎣ ⎦⎭
represents the damping contributions from foundation-
soil interaction (with hysteretic and radiation where µsys is the peak system ductility (including
components), and T%eq and Teq represent the flexible- structure and soil effects).
and fixed-base period of the structure accounting for the
effects of yielding in the superstructure. From With βi and T%eq / Teq known, the estimation of βo
Equation E-16, it can be readily seen that the flexible- reduces to an analysis of foundation damping βf.
base damping, which is the damping ratio for which Graphical solutions and closed-form expressions for βf
are available for the simple case of a circular foundation and for the analysis of rθ when shear walls or braced
with radius r on a uniform halfspace with velocity vs frames are distributed across the foundation plan.
and hysteretic damping ratio βs (Veletsos and Nair,
1975). The expression for βf given by Veletsos and Figure E-12 presents a customization of the Veletsos
Nair is reproduced below, and Nair (1975) solution for βf in which different ratios
of rθ/rx are used (the original solution applied for true
3 circular foundations in which rθ/rx = 1.0) for three fixed
π 4 γ ⎛ Teq ⎞ values of h/rθ. Note that terms vs,r and Teq are used in
βf = ⎜ ⎟ ×
2 σ 3 ⎜⎝ T%eq ⎟
⎠
the labeling of the horizontal axis to emphasize that
(E-18) strain-reduced shear wave velocities (evaluated from
⎡ (2 −υ ) βx r2 3 (1 − υ ) ββθ ⎤ small-strain shear wave velocities using Table E-1) and
⎢ + ⎥
⎣⎢ α (α x + ia0 β x ) h αθ (αθ + ia0 βθ ) ⎦⎥
2 ductility-reduced periods should be used in the analysis
of βf. Figure E-13 presents an identical set of plot to
Figure E-12, but for a shallowly embedded foundation
(
where σ = vS T h , γ = m ρπ r 2 h , ) using the simplified approach for estimating
embedment effects discussed in Section E.3.1.3.
α = α x − (1 (Tf
% ) ) 2 , f0 = K x m f
0
( 2π ) , and In Figure E-12, βf is seen to increase with h/(vs,rTeq)
and to decrease with h/rθ. The decrease of βf with h/rθ
(1 (T%eq f0 ))
2 indicates that lateral movements of the foundation
β =1− (which dominate at low h/rθ) dissipate energy into soil
α x − iao β x more efficiently than foundation rotation (which
dominates at high h/rθ). For a given h/rθ, the suites of
The first term within the brackets in Equation E-18 is curves within each frame indicate that βf increases with
related to damping from foundation vibration in decreasing rθ /rx for h/(vs,rTeq) < ~ 0.2. This occurs
translation whereas the second term is related to because decreasing rθ/rx implies increasing foundation
foundation rotation. To develop approximate solutions area (rx), which provides additional damping from
for βf for non-circular foundations, Equation E-18 can translational vibration. Note also the significantly
be implemented with the radius and a0 values in the higher damping when hysteretic damping is included
first term taken as rx and (a0)x, respectively, and in the (βs=0.1) as opposed to radiation damping only (βs =0).
second term as rθ and (a0)θ. Finally, a comparison of βf in Figures E-12 and E-13
indicates that additional foundation damping occurs for
Parameters σ and γ in Equation E-18 represent the ratio embedded foundations, as expected.
of the soil-to-structure stiffness and structure-to-soil
mass, respectively. Most conventional short-period The above analysis procedure for βf has been found to
building structures have σ <10 and γ ≈ 0.1 to 0.2 [a reproduce reasonably accurately SSI effects on first-
representative value of γ = 0.15 is recommended by mode vibration properties of actual structures, as
Veletsos and Meek (1974)]. inferred from system identification analyses of recorded
motions (Stewart et al., 1999). These case history
Due to the availability of these βf formulations for rigid studies revealed that the single most important
circular foundations on a halfspace, it is convenient to parameter controlling the significance of inertial
idealize actual foundation and site conditions in terms interaction is h/(vs,rTeq), and that inertial SSI effects are
of representative values of velocity and foundation generally small for h/(vs,rTeq) < 0.1. This condition
radius. As described in Section E.3.1, this can generally occurs for flexible structures such as moment frame
buildings located on competent soil or rock.
be accomplished by taking the representative site shear
Conversely, SSI effects tend to be significant for stiff
wave velocity as the soil velocity immediately beneath structures such as shear wall or braced frame buildings,
the foundation (vs0), and by calculating effective particularly when located on soft soil.
foundation radii for translational and vertical plane
rotation vibration modes (i.e. rx = A f π , To simplify the evaluation of foundation damping ratios
rθ = 4 4 I f π ). As noted in Section E.3.1.5, special in engineering practice, the fact that both βf and
consideration may be required for oblong foundations T%eq / Teq are strongly dependent on h/(vs,rTeq) is
25
10
rθ/rx=0.5
1
5 2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
h/(vs,rTeq)
25
20 h/rθ = 1, e/rx = 0
βs=0
15 βs=0.1
βf (%)
10
5 rθ/rx=0.5
1
2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
h/(vs,rTeq)
25
20 h/rθ = 2, e/rx = 0
βs=0
15 βs=0.1
βf (%)
10
5 rθ/rx=0.5, 1, 2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
h/(vs,rTeq)
Figure E-12 Foundation damping for single degree-of-freedom structures on elastic halfspace with various aspect ratios
(h/rθ) and foundation shapes (rθ/rx), non-embedded foundation case (e/rx = 0).
25
10
rθ/rx=0.5
1
5 2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
h/(vs,rTeq)
25
10
5 rθ/rx=0.5
1 2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
h/(vs,rTeq)
25
10
5 rθ/rx=0.5, 1, 2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3
h/(vs,rTeq)
Figure E-13 Foundation damping for single degree-of-freedom structures on elastic halfspace with various aspect ratios
(h/rθ) and foundation shapes (rθ/rx), small foundation embedment case (e/rx = 0.5).
e/rx = 0.5
βs = 0.1
βs = 0
30 30
e/rx = 0
βs = 0.1
h/rθ = 0.5
βs = 0
20 20 1.0
h/rθ = 0.5
1.0
10 10 2.0
2.0
0 0
1 1.5 ∼ 2 1 1.5 ∼ 2
Period Lengthening, Teq/Teq Period Lengthening, Teq/Teq
Figure E-14 Foundation damping factor βf expressed as a function of period lengthening T%eq / Teq for different
building aspect ratios (h/rθ) and embedment ratios (e/rx).
leveraged to generate curves relating βf to which is conservative and thus acceptable for a
T%eq / Teq without the use of h/(vs,rTeq). The relationship simplified design procedure.
was developed by also assuming equi-dimensional
foundations (rθ/rx = 1.0). Although results are shown Flexible base damping βo can actually increase or
for significant hysteretic soil damping (βs=0.1) and zero decrease relative to βi depending on T%eq / Teq and
hysteretic damping (βs=0), use of the βs=0 results is foundation damping βf. The effect of the change in
recommended because ductility in soil springs is damping from βi to βo on spectral acceleration can be
already included as part of structural pushover analysis. estimated using the procedures in Section 6.3.
The result is shown in Figure E-14, and requires the
user only to know T%eq / Teq (easily obtained from a E.3.3 Simplified Procedure for Design
structural model, as described above) as well as h/rθ,
1. Evaluate the linear periods for the structural model
and e/rx. The damping ratios in Figure E-14 are
assuming a fixed base, T, and a flexible-base using
conservative for rθ/rx < 1.0, which is generally the case
appropriate foundation modeling assumptions, T% .
for buildings.
Guidelines for the evaluation of soil spring stiff-
nesses are provided in FEMA 356 and ATC-40.
Another point that should be made in connection with
the use of Figure E-14 is that the foundation spring 2. Calculate the effective structural stiffness for fixed
stiffnesses used in the analysis of T%eq / Teq are based on base conditions, K*max using Equation E-13.
average shear wave velocities to a depth of
3. Determine the equivalent foundation radius for
approximately rx, whereas the velocity that should be
translation, rx = A f π , where Af is the area of
used for the analysis of foundation damping at a non-
uniform site is vs0 (the velocity immediately below the the foundation footprint if the foundation compo-
foundation, which is typically smaller than the average nents are inter-connected laterally.
vs over a depth range). The fact that βf is evaluated in 4. Calculate the translational stiffness of the founda-
terms of T%eq / Teq therefore introduces a bias, although tion, Kx. This can be evaluated using the proce-
the bias will generally result in underprediction of βf,
dures in FEMA 356 (Chap. 4) or ATC-40 (Chap. Limitations on the damping analysis described above
10). For many applications, Kx can be estimated include the following:
using Equations E-8 and E-11.
• The analysis approach should not be used when
5. Calculate the equivalent foundation radius for rota- shear walls or braced frames are spaced sufficiently
tion, rθ, using Equations E-14 and E-15. closely that waves emanating from distinct
6. Determine the foundation embedment, e, if applica- foundation elements will destructively interfere with
ble. each other across the period range of interest.
Further discussion is presented in Section E.3.1.5.
7. Estimate the effective period lengthening ratio,
T%eff / Teff , for the nonlinear structure using • The analysis can be conservative (under-predicting
Equation E-17. the damping) when foundation aspect ratios exceed
about 2:1. Further discussion is presented in
8. Evaluate the initial fixed base damping ratio for the Section E.3.1.4.
structure (βi), which is often taken as 5%.
• The analysis is conservative when foundations are
9. Using Figure E-14, determine foundation damping deeply embedded, e/rx > 0.5. Further discussion is
(βf) based on T%eq / Teq , e/rx, and h/rθ. Intermediate presented in Section E.3.1.3.
values may be interpolated from these figures. An • The analysis is unconservative (over-predicting the
approximation to those curves is given by the fol- damping) if vsT/rx > 2π (where vs = average shear
lowing for the case without hysteretic soil damping wave velocity to a depth of about rx) and the
(denoted βs = 0): foundation soils have significant increases of shear
2 stiffness with depth. Further discussion is presented
⎛ T%eq ⎞ ⎛ T%eq ⎞ in Section E.3.1.2.
β f = a1 ⎜ − 1 ⎟ + a2 ⎜ − 1⎟ (E-19)
⎜ Teq ⎟ ⎜ Teq ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ • The analysis is unconservative if the foundation soil
profile consists of a soil layer overlying a very stiff
where βf is in percent and material (i.e., there is a pronounced impedance
contrast within the soil profile), and if the system
period is greater than the first-mode period of the
a1 = ce exp ( 4.7 − 1.6h / rθ ) (E-20) layer. Further discussion is presented in
Section E.3.1.2.
Bielak, J., 1976, “Modal analysis for building-soil inter- mance Data, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
action,” J. Engrg. Mech., Vol. 102, American Soci- California, Los Angeles.
ety of Civil Engineers, pp. 771-786.
Kim, S. and Stewart, J.P., 2003, “Kinematic soil-struc-
BSSC, 2001, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for ture interaction from strong motion recordings,” J.
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Geotech. & Geoenv. Engrg., Vol. 129, No. 4,
Structures, FEMA 368 Report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 323-335.
Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Lin, A.N. and Jennings, P.C., 1984, “Effect of embed-
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, ment on foundation-soil impedances,” J. Engrg.
D.C. Mech., Vol. 110, No. 7, American Society of Civil
Crouse, C.B., Hushmand, B., Luco, J.E., and Wong, Engineers, pp. 1060-1075.
H.L., 1990, “Foundation impedance functions: The- Liou, G.-S. and Huang, P.-H., 1994, “Effect of flexibil-
ory versus Experiment,” J. Geotech. Engrg., ity on impedance functions for circular founda-
Vol. 116, No. 3, American Society of Civil Engi- tions,” J. Engrg. Mech., Vol. 120, No. 7, American
neers, pp. 432-449. Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 1429-1446.
Day, S.M.,1978, “Seismic response of embedded foun- Luco, J.E., Trifunac, M.D., and Wong, H.L., 1988, “Iso-
dations,” Proc. ASCE Convention, Chicago, Illi- lation of soil-structure interaction effects by full-
nois, October, Preprint No. 3450. scale forced vibration tests,” J. Earthquake Engrg.
de Barros, F.C.P. and Luco, J.E., 1995, “Identification Struct. Dynamics, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 1-21.
of foundation impedance functions and soil proper- Mita, A. and Luco, J.E., 1989, “Dynamic response of a
ties from vibration tests of the Hualien containment square foundation embedded in an elastic halfs-
model,” J. Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., Vol. 14, pace,” J. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engrg.,
pp. 229-248. Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 54-67.
Dobry, R. and Gazetas, G., 1986, “Dynamic response of Riggs, H.R. and Waas, G., 1985, “Influence of founda-
arbitrarily shaped foundations,” J. Geotech. Engrg., tion flexibility on soil-structure interaction,” J.
Vol. 112, No. 2, American Society of Civil Engi- Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, Vol. 13, No.
neers, pp. 109-135. 5, pp. 597-615.
Elsabee, F. and Morray, J.P., 1977, Dynamic Behavior Roesset, J.M., 1980, “A review of soil-structure inter-
of Embedded Foundations, Rpt. No. R77-33, Dept. action,” in Soil-Structure Interaction: The Status of
of Civil Engrg., MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Current Analysis Methods and Research, J.J.
Gazetas, G., 1991a, “Formulas and charts for imped- Johnson, ed., NUREG/CR-1780 Report and UCRL-
ances of surface and embedded foundations,” J. 53011 Report, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com.,
Geotech. Engrg., Vol. 117, No. 9, pp. 1363-1381. Washington D.C., and Lawrence Livermore Lab.,
Livermore, California.
Gazetas, G., 1991b, Foundation Vibrations, Foundation
Engineering Handbook, Chapter 15, H.-Y. Fang, Stewart, J.P., Seed, R.B., and Fenves, G.L., 1999, “Seis-
ed., 2nd Edition, Chapman and Hall, New York, mic soil-structure interaction in buildings. II:
New York. Empirical findings,” J. Geotech. & Geoenv. Engrg.,
Vol. 125, No. 1, American Society of Civil Engi-
Iguchi, M. and Luco, J.E., 1982, “Vibration of flexible neers, pp. 38-48.
plate on viscoelastic medium,” J. Engrg. Mech.,
Vol. 108, No. 6, American Society of Civil Engi- Stewart, J.P., Kim, S., Bielak, J., Dobry, R., and Power,
neers, pp. 1103-1120. M., 2003, “Revisions to soil structure interaction
procedures in NEHRP design provisions,” Earth-
Jennings, P.C. and Bielak, J., 1973, “Dynamics of build- quake Spectra, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 677-696.
ing-soil interaction,” Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., Vol. 63,
pp. 9-48. Veletsos, A.S. and Meek, J.W., 1974, “Dynamic behav-
ior of building-foundation systems,” J. Earthquake
Kim, S., 2001, Calibration of Simple Models for Seis- Engrg. Struct. Dynamics, Vol. 3, No. 2,
mic Soil Structure Interaction from Field Perfor- pp. 121-138.
Veletsos, A.S. and Nair V.V., 1975, “Seismic interac- dations Div., Vol. 97, No. 9, American Society of
tion of structures on hysteretic foundations,” J. Civil Engineers, pp. 1227-1248.
Struct. Engrg., Vol. 101, No. 1, American Society
Veletsos, A.S., Prasad, A.M., and Wu, W.H., 1997,
of Civil Engineers, pp. 109-129.
“Transfer functions for rigid rectangular founda-
Veletsos, A.S. and Prasad, A.M., 1989, “Seismic inter- tions,” J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. Dynamics,
action of structures and soils: stochastic approach,” Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 5-17.
J. Struct. Engrg., Vol. 115, No. 4, American Society
Wong, H.L., Trifunac, M.D., and Luco, J.E., 1988, “A
of Civil Engineers, pp. 935-956.
comparison of soil-structure interaction calcula-
Veletsos, A.S. and Verbic, B., 1973, “Vibration of vis- tions with results of full-scale forced vibration
coelastic foundations,” J. Earthquake Engrg. Struct. tests,” Soil Dyn. & Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 7,
Dynamics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 87-102. pp. 22-31.
Veletsos, A.S. and Wei, Y.T., 1971, “Lateral and rock-
ing vibrations of footings,” J. Soil Mech. and Foun-
The evaluation of MDOF effects is divided into two The near-fault ground motions were applied at their
portions. The first compares the response quantities natural (unscaled) intensities because of a concern that
determined in dynamic analyses with those estimated scaled near-fault records may be unrealistic. Thus, the
using various pushover procedures, for five building target displacement used for each simplified inelastic
models subjected to both ordinary and near-fault ground procedure was set equal to the peak roof displacement
motions. These comparisons are made assuming that observed for each near-fault ground motion. These
the peak roof drift (or target displacement) is results allow for comparisons of estimated and actual
determined accurately by the pushover procedures. The response quantities for individual records, as well as the
second portion assesses the accuracy of the estimates of determination of normalized errors. The small number
peak roof drift determined using “equivalent” single- of near-fault ground motions used and the lack of
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems. consistency in target displacements make the data less
statistically meaningful than in the case of the ordinary
Section F.2 describes the example buildings, analytical ground motions. Consequently, the evaluation of the
models and properties, and ground motions. Section F.3 inelastic procedures for the near-fault motions is more
describes the simplified inelastic analysis procedures. qualitative, while the evaluation for the ordinary
Section F.4 addresses the accuracy of the estimates of motions has a stronger quantitative basis.
response quantities made using the simplified
procedures for both regular and near-field ground F.2 Example Buildings and Demand
motions. Section F.5 addresses the accuracy of Parameters
“equivalent” SDOF estimates of peak roof displacement
using relationships provided in ATC-40 and FEMA Five example buildings were selected for study. These
356. Section F.6 provides information relating to a new consist of two steel moment-resistant frame buildings
approach for using scaled ground motion records in designed as part of the FEMA-funded SAC joint
13’-0”
(Gravity Columns)
3rd Floor W30x116 W30x116 W30x116 W18x35
W14x311
W14x311
W14x257
W14x257
W14x68
13’-0”
2nd Floor W33x118 W33x118 W33x118 W18x35
13’-0”
1st Floor
A B C D E
Figure F-1 Elevation view of the 3-story (regular and weak-story) steel frames used in the study.
venture project, modifications to each of these frames to benchmark building for the SAC project. The building
induce weak story behavior, and a reinforced concrete is 120 ft by 180 ft in plan and 39 ft in elevation, with a
shear wall building described in ATC-40. 2-ft extension from the perimeter column lines to the
building edge. Typical floor-to-floor height is 13 ft. The
The 3- and 9-story steel frames were designed and building consists of four bays in the north-south
modeled in Drain-2DX as part of the SAC joint venture direction and six bays in the east-west direction. As
effort. The frames adopted in this study had been shown in Figure F-1, all connections are moment-
designed for Los Angeles using the 1994 Uniform resistant for the three left-most bays of the frame under
Building Code, and employed “pre-Northridge” special consideration. The “gravity columns” on the right,
moment-resistant frame connections along the building labeled as such in the figure, are used to model P-delta
perimeter. The weak stories were introduced into the effects, as described in Section F.2.2. The assumed
lowest story of the 3- and 9-story frames by reducing gravity loading for the building is shown in Table F-1.
the flexural strengths of the columns, without changing
their stiffnesses. This was done in order to affect the
mechanism while keeping the elastic properties (e.g. Table F-1 Assumed Loading for the 3- and 9-Story
periods of vibration) the same as for the regular frames. Buildings
The lowest story column strengths were determined by
trial and error to ensure that a weak story mechanism Type Intensity (psf)
developed in dynamic analyses using records scaled to Floor dead load for weight calculations 96
cause peak roof drifts equal to 4% of the building
height. Floor dead load for mass calculations 86
Roof dead load excluding penthouse 83
The 8-story reinforced concrete wall building was based Penthouse dead load 116
on the Escondido Village building that is described in
ATC-40. Reduced live load per floor and for roof 20
(Weak Axis)
W14x233
W14x257
W14x257
W14x257
W14x257
W14x233
13’-0”
9th Floor W27x84 W27x84 W27x84 W27x84 W27x84
13’-0”
8th Floor W30x99 W30x99 W30x99 W30x99 W30x99
(Weak Axis)
W14x257
W14x283
W14x283
W14x283
W14x283
W14x257
13’-0”
7th Floor W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135
13’-0”
6th Floor W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135
(Weak Axis)
W14x370
W14x370
W14x370
W14x370
W14x283
W14x283
13’-0”
5th Floor W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135
13’-0”
4th Floor W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135
(Weak Axis)
W14x370
W14x455
W14x455
W14x455
W14x455
W14x370
13’-0”
3rd Floor W36x160 W36x160 W36x160 W36x160 W36x160
13’-0”
2nd Floor W36x160 W36x160 W36x160 W36x160 W36x160
(Weak Axis)
W14x370
W14x500
W14x500
W14x500
W14x500
W14x370
18’-0”
12’-0”
Basement
A B C D E F
Figure F-2 Elevation view of the 9-story (regular and weak-story) steel frames used in the study.
Figure F-2, the frame considered in this study consists F.2.1.4 9-Story Weak Story Frame
of five 30-ft long bays. The typical floor-to-floor height
The strengths of the lowest story columns of the regular
is 13 ft. The 1st story and basement floor-to-floor
9-story frame (Section F.2.1.2) were reduced to create
heights are 18 ft and 12 ft, respectively. The assumed
the 9-story weak story frame. Based on dynamic
gravity loading for this building is the same as that for
response, the lowest story column strengths were
the 3-story building.
reduced to 60% of their original values in order to
F.2.1.3 3-Story Weak Story Frame develop weak-story behavior at a roof drift of 4% of the
building height. No other changes were made.
The strengths of the lowest story columns of the regular
3-story frame (Section F.2.1.1) were reduced to create F.2.1.5 8-Story Shear Wall
the 3-story weak story frame. Based on the response
The 8-story shear wall represented in this study is one
observed in dynamic analyses, the lowest story column
of the two longitudinal walls of the midrise building at
strength were reduced to 50% of their original values in
Escondido Village, located at line A and between lines
order to develop weak-story behavior at a roof drift of
4 and 6 of the as-built drawings of June 10, 1964. The
4% of the building height. No other changes were made.
wall is 8 stories in height, with a basement below. This
structural wall was selected because it plays a
substantial role in the lateral force resisting system for
Typical floor height 9 ' − 1" (Source: ATC and DWG) 9 ' − 1"
Basement height 12' − 7" (Source: ATC and DWG) 12' − 7"
Confinement reinforcement #3 @ 12" with 135° hook (Source: ATC) #3 @ 12" with 135°
at boundary hook
the building and its location suggests that the degree of loads in combination with 40% of the design live loads.
coupling is negligible. The information for this wall For the frame models, these loads were applied to a
was gathered from ATC-40 Vol. 2 and the as-built separate gravity column that was connected to the
drawings. Table F-2 summarizes the properties of the lateral force resisting system. The gravity column was
wall used in this study. Figure F-3 shows the elevation pinned at each story, providing a “truss-bar”
and cross sections of the wall. The assumed gravity approximation of the effect of P-Delta on the global
loading is shown inTable F-3. stiffness matrix. For the wall model, gravity loads
attributary to the walls were applied. This induced
F.2.2 Modeling compression in the concrete and steel fibers of the
model, causing the wall to have an initial stiffness
Two-dimensional models of the frame and wall
approximately equal to the gross section stiffness.
buildings were prepared using standard elements that
are available in Drain-2DX version 1.10. The models.. Fixed and variable time step solution schemes were
were subjected to horizontal excitation or lateral forces employed, in all cases with events monitored. The
after the application of gravity loads. Inertial mass default overshoot tolerances were used for members
resisted horizontal excitations only. P-Delta effects modeled with a plastic hinge beam-column element
were considered for all building models, using dead (Type 02). The overshoot tolerances for the members
25’-0”
Roof End Reinforcement Horizontal Reinforcement
3 #11 Bars 2 Curtains of #4 @ 18" o.c.
with Single Hoops
C
L
Distributed Reinforcement
8th Floor #3 @ 12" o.c. 2 Curtains of #4 @ 18" o.c.
10"
7th Floor
6"
6th Floor 3" 6"
8 @ 9’-1” = 72’-8”
150"
5th Floor
(e) Plan view of wall cross section: 5th floor to 7th floor
4th Floor
End Reinforcement Horizontal Reinforcement
3 #6 Bars 2 Curtains of #4 @ 18" o.c.
3rd Floor C
with Single Hoops Distributed Reinforcement L
#3 @ 12" o.c. 2 Curtains of #4 @ 18" o.c.
2nd Floor
10"
1st Floor
3’
3" 6"
150"
Basement
End Reinforcement Horizontal Reinforcement Figure F-3 Elevation and plan views of the 8-story
9 #11 Bars 2 Curtains of #4 @ 12" o.c.
C reinforced concrete shear wall used in the
L
with Single Hoops
#3 @ 12" o.c.
Distributed Reinforcement
2 Curtains of #5 @ 18" o.c.
study (continued)
12"
(b) Plan view of wall cross section: basement to 1st floor Type Intensity (psf)
End Reinforcement Horizontal Reinforcement Floor dead load for weight calculations 165
9 #11 Bars 2 Curtains of #4 @ 18" o.c.
C
with Single Hoops Distributed Reinforcement L Floor dead load for mass calculations 165
#3 @ 12" o.c. 2 Curtains of #4 @ 18" o.c.
Roof dead load 145
10"
9 10 11 12
Roof 401 402 403 404 405 406 Y = 468”
W14x68
13
14
15
16
17
18
156”
5 6 7 8
3rd 301 302 303 304 305 306 Y = 312”
W30x116 W30x116 W30x116 W18x35
W14x68
11
10
12
156”
7
9
1 2 3 4
2nd 201 202 203 204 205 206 Y = 156”
W33x118 W33x118 W33x118 W18x35
W14x68
1
156”
2
6
5
1st 101 102 103 104 105 106 Y = 0”
A B C D E
X = 0” X = 360” X = 720” X = 1080” X = 1440”
Figure F-4 Drain model of the 3-story (regular and weak story) steel frames.
beams and columns intersect. To avoid the possibility calculated in such a way that the resulting fundamental
that overturning effects might influence the formation period, based on effective stiffness, matches the elastic
of column hinges, an effect that would be highly period reported in ATC-40, resulting in a mass
specific to the geometry and specific details of these contribution of 19.2% of the total floor mass. The
particular frames, the flexural strengths of both beam resulting base shear coefficient at yield, obtained from a
and column elements were modeled to be independent pushover analysis, is 0.129.
of axial force. The strength and stiffness of the gravity
column framing is neglected in the M1 model. For the frame models, a Rayleigh damping ratio of 2%
was applied to the first mode period and a period of
The reinforced concrete shear wall was modeled using a 0.2 s, as assumed in the SAC models. For the wall
fiber element (Type 15), as illustrated in Figure F-6. model, 5% Rayleigh damping was set for the first and
The wall consists of nine elements, one element per fourth mode periods corresponding to gross-section
story. Each element is divided into four segments along stiffness. In all models, the modal periods used to
the element axis. The cross section of each segment is determine the damping ratios were those computed
divided into 12 fibers. The base of the wall is assumed before gravity loading was applied.
to be fixed, and a horizontal restraint is provided at the
1st floor. Inelasticity in flexure was modeled; it was F.2.2.1 Dynamic Characteristics of Models
assumed that the wall would have sufficient shear The first three periods and mode shapes for the frame
strength and that only elastic shear deformations needed and wall buildings are provided in Table F-4. Because
to be represented. While the fibers had zero tensile flexural cracking of the reinforced concrete wall was
strength, preloading by gravity ensured that all fibers modeled, modal properties reported for the 8-story
contributed to the initial stiffness of the wall. reinforced concrete shear wall (part b of Table F-4) are
the properties determined based on the tangent stiffness
Because the degree of confinement at the wall
of the cracked wall, determined in a first mode
boundaries is considered low, an unconfined concrete
pushover analysis at a base shear equal to 60% of the
stress-strain relationship shown in Figure F-7(a) was
base shear corresponding to yield of a bilinear curve
used. For the longitudinal steel, a bilinear stress-strain
that was fitted to the capacity curve.
relationship was employed [Figure F-7(b)].
To illustrate basic characteristics of each building
The mass is lumped at the ends of the element. The
model, capacity curves are presented for the five
mass contribution (assumed uniform) for the wall is
Figure F-5
Roof 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 Y = 1464”
FEMA 440
W24x68 W24x68 W24x68 W24x68 W24x68
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
156”
41 42 43 44 45
(Weak Axis)
9th 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 Y = 1308”
W27x84 W27x84 W27x84 W27x84 W27x84
85 W14x233
86 W14x257
87 W14x257
88 W14x257
89 W14x257
90 W14x233
91
8901 8902 8903 8904 8905 8906 8907 156” Y = 1224”
36 37 38 39 40 84
8th 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 Y = 1152”
W30x99 W30x99 W30x99 W30x99 W30x99
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
156”
31 32 33 34 35
(Weak Axis)
7th 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 Y = 996”
W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135
64 W14x257 78
65 W14x283 79
66 W14x283 80
67 W14x283 81
68 W14x283 82
69 W14x257 83
70
26 27 28 29 30
6th 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 Y = 840”
W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
156”
21 22 23 24 25
(Weak Axis)
43 W14x283 57
44 W14x370 58
45 W14x370 59
46 W14x370 60
47 W14x370 61
48 W14x283 62
49
16 17 18 19 20
4th 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 Y = 528”
W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135 W36x135
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
156”
11 12 13 14 15
(Weak Axis)
22 W14x370 36
23 W14x455 37
24 W14x455 38
25 W14x455 39
26 W14x455 40
27 W14x370 41
28
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
6 7 8 9 10
2nd 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 Y = 216”
W36x160 W36x160 W36x160 W36x160 W36x160
8
9
11
11
10
12
13
12
14
216”
1 2 3 4 5
1st 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 Y = 0”
W36x160 W36x160 W36x160 W36x160 W36x160
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
144”
W14x370
W14x500
W14x500
W14x500
W14x500
W14x370 W14x370
A B C D E F
X = 0” X = 360” X = 720” X = 1080” X = 1440” X = 1800”
F-7
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
(Typical)
8th 8 Y = 763” determined with P-Delta effects considered. Based on a
bilinear fit to the capacity curves, the base shear
7
7th 7 Y = 654” coefficient at yield and the drift at yield are as given in
Table F-5.
6
6th 6 Y = 545”
F.2.2.2 Model Verification
5
5th 5 Y = 436”
Because the SAC frames have been the subject of prior
4
1st 1 Y = 0” (2002).
9
Node Number Node It was desired to assess the accuracy of the pushover
Element Number Element procedures with respect to the results obtained from
2.5 40
2
30
1.5
20
1
10
0.5 Note: Tension and compression
properties are the same.
0 0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Strain
Strain
(a) Concrete (b) Reinforcing Steel
Figure F-7 Idealized material stress-strain relationships used in drain model of the 8-story reinforced concrete shear
wall
Table F-4 Periods and Mode Shapes for the Frame and Wall Buildings
Mode
Modal Properties 1 2 3
without P-∆ with P-∆ without P-∆ with P-∆ without P-∆ with P-∆
Table F-5 Base Shear Coefficient and Drift At Yield for Each Building Model
Building
Idealized Capacity Curve Properties 3-Story 3-Story Weak-Story 8-Story 9-Story 9-Story Weak-Story
PGV Char.
PGA (cm/ Period
# Identifier Earthquake Date Magnitude Station Location (Number Component (g) sec) (sec) Source
Ordinary
1 ICC000 Superstitn 11-24-87 Ms = 6.6 El Centro Imp. Co. Cent (01335) 000 0.358 46.4 0.60 CDMG
Canyon Country − W Lost Cany
2 LOS000 Northridge 1-17-94 Ms = 6.7 (90057) 000 0.41 43 0.59 USC
3 G02090 Loma Prieta 10-18-89 Ms = 7.1 Gilroy Array #2 (47380) 090 0.322 39.1 0.69 CDMG
4 TCU122N Chi-Chi, Taiwan 9-20-99 Ms = 7.6 (TCU122) N 0.261 34 0.85 CWB
5 G03090 Loma Prieta 10-18-89 Ms = 7.1 Gilroy Array #3 (47381) 090 0.367 44.7 0.40 CDMG
6 CNP196 Northridge 1-17-94 Ms = 6.7 Canoga Park − Topanga Can (90053) 196 0.42 60.8 0.61 USC
7 CHY101W Chi-Chi, Taiwan 9-20-99 Ms = 7.6 (CHY101) W 0.353 70.6 1.27 CWB
8 ICC090 Superstitn 11-24-87 Ms = 6.6 El Centro Imp. Co. Cent (01335) 090 0.258 40.9 1.03 CDMG
9 CNP106 Northridge 1-17-94 Ms = 6.7 Canoga Park − Topanga Can (90053) 106 0.356 32.1 0.45 USC
10 E02140 Imperial Valley 10-15-79 Ms = 6.9 El Centro Array #2 (5115) 140 0.315 31.5 0.29 USGS
11 E11230 Imperial Valley 10-15-79 Ms = 6.9 El Centro Array #11 (5058) 230 0.38 42.1 0.27 USGS
Near-Field (Maximum Velocity Direction)
1 ERZMV1 Erzincan 3-13-92 Ms = 6.9 Erzincan Station NA 0.442 126 1.13 EERL Caltech
2 RRSMV1 Northridge 1-17-94 Ms = 6.7 Rinaldi Receiving Station 213 0.891 186 0.92 EERL Caltech
3 LUCMV1 Landers 6-28-92 Ms = 7.3 Lucerne Valley Station 280 0.732 147 0.52 EERL Caltech
4 SCHMV1 Northridge 1-17-94 Ms = 6.7 Sylmar County Hospital Parking Lot 190 0.865 138 0.51 EERL Caltech
CDMG: California Division of Mines and Geology
CWB: Central Weather Bureau, Taiwan
EERL Caltech: Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology
USC: University of Southern California
USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
nonlinear dynamic analyses and whether these report. The second set of motions consists of motions
procedures are suitable for the special case of near-fault recorded close to the epicenter that contain very strong
ground motions. Accordingly, two sets of ground velocity pulses. The four motions in this set are referred
motions were used. The first set of motions was to as “near-fault” motions in this report. The records are
selected to represent the range of motion that may be summarized in Table F-6; their acceleration, velocity,
expected at a specific building site. This range was and displacement time histories are plotted in
established by selecting strong-motion records having a Section F.8.1. The characteristic periods identified in
limited range of source distance for a specified site soil Table F-6 correspond approximately to the corner
type. Site Class B motions had been proposed period at the intersection of the “constant acceleration”
originally, but Site Class C motions were used because and “constant velocity” portions of the spectrum for the
these soil conditions are more typical. The 11 motions ordinary motions, and were computed as
in this set are referred to as “ordinary” motions in this
0.25 0.2
Yield Drift = 1.11%
0.05 0.05
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Roof Displacement/Height (%) Roof Displacement/Height (%)
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Roof Displacement/Height (%)
0.1
0.1
0.08
0.08
0.06 0.06
0.04 0.04
0.02 0.02
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Roof Displacement/Height (%) Roof Displacement/Height (%)
(d) 9-Story Regular Steel Frame (e) 9-Story Weak-Story Steel Frame
Figure F-8 Capacity curves for the five model building examples.
( Sv )max
F.2.3.3 Drift Levels
Tg = 2π (F-1)
( Sa )max The drift levels used for the ordinary ground motions
were set to 0.5%, 2.0%, and 4.0% of the height of the
building for the steel frames, and 0.2%, 1.0%, and 2.0%
where Sv and Sa are the elastic pseudo-velocity and of the height of the building for the reinforced concrete
pseudo-acceleration spectra, respectively, for linear structural wall building. These drift levels are referred
elastic systems having β = 5%, as described by Cuesta to as “low,” “moderate,” and “high” in subsequent
and Aschheim (2001). sections of this report. The low drift level results in
elastic response. Because the regular 3- and 9-story
F.2.3.1 Ordinary (Site Class C) Motions steel frames have an effective yield drift of 0.83% and
The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER) 1.1% of the height of the frame, the high drift levels
Center strong-motion database1 produced a set of over cause system ductility demands of about 4.8 and 3.6,
50 strong ground motions in response to multiple respectively, if response is predominantly in the first
queries in which magnitudes were restricted to the mode. The reinforced concrete wall building has a yield
range 5.5 < Ms < 8.0, the closest distance to fault drift of approximately 0.25% and thus has system
rupture was restricted to 8 to 20 km, and site ductility demands of about 4 and 8 at the moderate and
classification was restricted to Site Class C. Of these high drift levels, respectively.
records, those with the largest elastic spectral
displacements at a period of 1 second were retained, These drift levels were used to illustrate the influence of
producing a set of 17 motions. Six of these were yielding on the accuracy of the estimates obtained from
excluded based on (a) the presence of an identifiable the inelastic procedures for a range of response that is
strong velocity pulse early in the record, (b) the relevant for many buildings. For example, roof drifts of
identification of the record as being “near-fault” or 2.5% and 5% of the height of the frame buildings and
“near-field” in some research reports, and (c) a 1% and 2% of the height of the wall building
preliminary elimination of those records that would correspond to the nominal Life Safety and Collapse
require the largest amplitude scale factors in order to Prevention performance limits, respectively, given in
achieve the drift levels described in Section 9.3. The 11 FEMA 356.
records that remain, listed in Table F-6, were generated
F.2.3.4 Ground Motion Scaling
from a number of events, with no event contributing
more than 3 records. The scale factors required to cause the peak roof drifts
to be equal to the predetermined target values are
F.2.3.2 Near-Field Motions reported for each building, drift level, and ground
A variety of near-field motions was considered motion in Table F-7. These scale factors were used to
important for the example analyses. Recognizing that determine mean elastic spectra for each building and
special processing is often necessary to accurately drift level in order to determine relative contributions
recover the record (Iwan and Chen, 1994), records were for the 2nd and 3rd modes as required for the square-
obtained from the Earthquake Engineering Research root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS) load vector and
Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology (A. multimode pushover analysis (MPA) methods. This
Guyader, personal communication). The component of implementation detail is described more fully in
near field motion used is oriented in the horizontal Section F.3.1.6 and Section F.3.2.
plane in the direction in which the maximum ground
F.2.4 Extensions to Address P-Delta
velocity occurs. These records are identified in
Table F-6, and are not always aligned in the fault Nearly all the pushover procedures have been presented
normal direction. The ground motion velocity histories in the literature without explicit treatment of P-Delta
(Section F.8.1) do show large velocity pulses. The near- effects. Only in the Displacement Coefficient Method
field records were used without any further processing, are P-Detla effects addressed, by modification of the
and were applied at their natural intensities, that is, SDOF displacement response using the term C3.
without scaling.
P-Delta affects elastic and inelastic response. Elastic
response is affected because the geometric stiffness
causes an increase in the period of vibration and a
1. Available at http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat/. change in the elastic mode shape. For inelastic systems,
Table F-7 Scale Factors Applied to Each of the Ordinary Ground Motions for the Dynamic Analyses
Ground Motion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Building Drift ICC000 LOS000 G02090 TCU122n G03090 CNP196 CHY101w ICC090 CNP106 E02140 E11230
3-story 0.5% 0.5281 0.4499 0.3675 0.4416 0.3934 0.2739 0.2827 0.6529 0.5243 0.5551 0.6335
2% 1.8493 1.6607 1.2930 1.5955 1.4885 1.4912 1.4255 2.9310 2.6645 2.8917 2.3071
4% 2.4626 2.6943 2.3852 2.2346 2.4672 2.0994 2.9252 3.6492 4.9953 6.2765 3.0257
3-story 0.5% 0.5281 0.4499 0.3690 0.4416 0.3934 0.2739 0.2827 0.6529 0.5243 0.5551 0.6335
weak-story
2% 1.6962 1.4968 1.5223 1.4177 1.3330 1.3269 1.4034 2.3378 2.7180 2.7006 2.0535
4% 4.0050 2.4302 2.2434 2.1137 2.6378 2.6051 2.1937 3.4655 4.6072 5.3996 4.4179
8-story 0.5% 0.476 0.323 0.690 0.811 0.750 0.267 0.542 0.936 0.421 0.606 0.581
1% 1.957 1.858 2.246 2.480 2.396 2.162 2.530 3.889 2.084 3.069 3.412
2% 3.213 3.947 3.329 3.349 3.401 3.318 4.172 4.641 3.586 6.220 6.540
9-story 0.5% 0.4871 0.3133 0.5683 0.4237 0.3736 0.2348 0.2372 0.3243 0.4369 0.4844 0.8223
2% 3.0281 2.5204 4.0783 3.0244 3.2888 1.5376 1.4722 2.7696 3.9072 4.4352 2.9019
4% 5.4384 4.6774 6.3237 4.2556 5.6177 3.2536 3.2282 5.3885 9.4438 6.8838 7.6710
9-story 0.5% 0.4871 0.3133 0.5683 0.4237 0.3736 0.2348 0.2372 0.3243 0.4369 0.4844 0.8223
weak-story
2% 2.8924 2.5527 4.0639 2.2949 3.2723 1.4242 1.8111 1.7457 2.7755 2.9933 4.5670
4% 3.6906 4.4874 6.3830 2.7551 4.9506 1.9801 1.9313 4.2350 3.4149 5.8639 5.0538
the geometric stiffness reduces the post-yield stiffness effect is subdued for the dynamic analyses using the
and may result in large increases in peak displacement ordinary ground motions.
or collapse. The predominant mechanism may change
as well. F.3 Simplified Techniques
Chopra and Goel (2001) show for elastic response that Seven pushover methods were applied. In all methods,
independent pushovers in each mode are equivalent to lateral forces are applied incrementally in a nonlinear
conventional modal analysis, and that superposition in static analysis to determine a capacity curve. The
time, or by combination of individual peaks, is capacity curve represents the relationship between the
equivalent to modal superposition and response spectral applied lateral force and the displacement at the roof.
analysis, respectively. A structure responding elastically The applied lateral force at any floor is proportional to
in the presence of P-Delta responds with altered periods the mass and displacement associated with a shape
of vibration and mode shapes relative to those vector at the floor under consideration. The pushover
determined without P-Delta. Thus, theory indicates that methods differ in whether the shape vector remains
the elastic portions of response should be determined proportional to an initial shape (which may be the first
using the modal properties considering P-Delta. Thus, mode or another displacement pattern) or evolves as the
for the pushover techniques that use elastic mode onset of material nonlinearity causes softening of the
shapes (first mode, SRSS, and MPA), the mode shapes structure, and in whether one or multiple modes are
employed were those determined with P-Delta effects considered. These methods used in this study are
present. summarized in the following sections. In addition,
where specific assumptions or adaptations were
The slope of the post-yield portion of the capacity curve required to implement these methods in this study, these
determined by pushover analysis is reduced in the implementation-specific details are also described.
presence of P-Delta. This reduced slope, particularly
when negative, can be expected to cause an increase in F.3.1 Single Load Vectors
peak displacement response. Because ground-motion
F.3.1.1 First Mode
scale factors were adjusted to achieve predetermined
target roof drifts, as described in Section F.2.3, this The first mode technique applies forces in proportion to
the amplitude of the elastic first mode and mass at each
Roof 1.00
9th 0.93
8th 0.83
7th 0.73
Figure F-9 Shape vectors of the 1st mode shape load pattern.
floor. The mode shapes of the five building models F.3.1.4 Code Force Distribution
(Table F-4) are illustrated in Figure F-9, and the
The “code” load pattern appears in many documents,
corresponding capacity curves, determined using this
including FEMA 368. The pattern varies from an
pushover technique, are illustrated in Figure F-8.
inverted triangular shape for periods less than 0.5 s to a
The capacity curve for the 8-story shear wall model parabolic shape for periods greater than 2.5 s as a means
(Figure F-8(c)) shows softening as cracks develop at the to account for higher mode effects. The lateral force
base of the wall. The shape vector used for this model coefficient for floor x, Cvx, is given by
was the elastic mode shape determined using the initial
properties of the structure, after loading by gravity wx hxk
loads. Cvx = n (F-2)
F.3.1.2 Inverted Triangular
∑ wi hik
i =1
Roof 1.00
9th 0.89
8th 0.79
7th 0.68
(a) 3-Story (Regular and Weak- (b) 8-Story Reinforced (c) 9-Story (Regular and Weak-
(a) 3-story
Story)(Regular and Weak-
Steel Frames (b) 8-StoryWall
Concrete Reinforced (c) 9-Story (Regular
Story) and Weak-
Steel Frames
Story) Steel Frames Concrete Wall Story) Steel Frames
Roof 1.00
9th 1.00
8th 1.00
7th 1.00
Roof 1.00
9th 0.81
8th 0.63
7th 0.48
F.3.1.5 Adaptive First Mode provide solutions to determine the free-vibration mode
shapes when this occurs. Thus, the last computed mode
The adaptive first mode procedure recognizes that
shape was used for the subsequent steps
softening of the capacity curve reflects a reduction in
stiffness, which, in turn, causes a change in the mode F.3.1.6 SRSS
shape. Thus, lateral forces are applied proportional to
the amplitude of an evolving first-mode-shape The SRSS technique is based on a consideration of
amplitude and mass at each floor. elastic modal responses. Associated with the response
in each mode is a lateral force pattern, which can be
The procedure was implemented as follows: the lateral summed to obtain story shears associated with each
load vector was adjusted at drift increments of 0.5% of mode. An SRSS combination of the modal story shears
the height of the building. The increment in lateral load results in a particular shear profile. The lateral forces
for each interval (0% to 0.5%, 0.5% to 1.0%, 1.0% to required to generate the SRSS story-shear profile are
1.5% and so on) was based on the mode shape applied in this pushover technique. The elastic spectral
computed at the end of the preceding interval. The amplitudes are used to determine the modal story
initial mode shape was used for the first interval. shears, even when nonlinear response is anticipated. A
sufficient number of modes to represent at least 90% of
The capacity curve of the 9-story weak story building the mass is included.
develops a negative tangent stiffness as the roof
displacement increases. Drain-2DX is not able to The first three modes were used for each building
model. Because a single spectrum typically would be
used for design, the SRSS procedure was applied to the
1. Because the weak story frames have the same elastic mean of the scaled spectra used to achieve each
properties as their SAC counterparts, the load vectors that are predetermined drift level for each building. The mean
based on elastic properties are identical for the 3-story and 9- elastic spectrum differed for each building and each
story frames. drift level, because the scale factors used with each
record were specific to each building and drift level. record. For the 8-story wall building, the periods used
Thus, a different SRSS load vector was determined for for the SRSS combinations were based on the initial
each structure and drift level. Because the load vectors stiffness, after gravity loading was applied.
are proportional to the product of the amplitude of a
shape vector and mass at each floor level, the shape F.3.2 Multiple Mode Pushover Analysis
vectors corresponding to the SRSS distribution can be
One approach to represent the influence of higher
derived. These shape vectors are shown in Figure F-13
modes on response quantities combines peak response
for the three building configurations and three drift
quantities determined in separate pushover analyses for
levels.
the first several modes using an SRSS combination. The
For the near-fault motions, spectral amplitudes and procedure proposed by Chopra and Goel (2001)
SRSS combinations were determined for each near fault considers the potential for nonlinear response in each
independent modal analysis. According to their for each building model. In some cases the higher mode
procedure, known as Multimode Pushover Analysis capacity curves displayed softening behavior similar to
(MPA), capacity curves are developed for each “modal” that observed in first mode pushover analyses.
response by applying lateral forces proportional to the However, in other cases, the higher mode force patterns
mode shape amplitude and mass at each floor. caused the roof displacement to reverse as inelasticity
developed in the structure. Such reversals were
In the MDOF studies, capacity curves were determined observed for the 3rd mode pushover of the regular 3-
by pushover analysis for each of the first three modes story building (Figure F-14) and for the 2nd mode
Base Shear/Weight
0.5 Mode 2
Mode 3
0.4 Mode 1
0.3
0.2
0.1 SAP2000
DRAIN-2X
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4
Roof Displacement/Height (%)
Figure F-14 First, second, and third mode pushover results for the 3-story regular steel frame.
pushover of the 3-story weak story building. Such damping ratios of 2% and 5% for the frame and wall
reversals have also been observed by M. Aschheim and buildings, respectively.
A. Chopra in previous analyses.
For the 8-story shear wall building, the first mode
It is difficult to rationalize the use of a capacity- capacity curve was determined by applying lateral
spectrum type procedure to identify a target forces proportional to the initial mode shape; a bilinear
displacement for capacity curves that do not display the approximation to the capacity curve was then
usual softening behavior. Rather than making an ad hoc determined, having an intersection at 0.6Vy, where Vy is
adjustment to the MPA method for just the 3-story the yield strength of the fitted bilinear curve. The
buildings, a modified version of the MPA procedure structure was pushed to the displacement corresponding
capable of representing higher mode contributions was to this point of intersection to determine the effective
used for all five buildings. In the “modified MPA” modal properties. The periods and modal participation
procedure, elastic contributions associated with the 2nd factors associated with the tangent stiffness of the
and 3rd modes are combined with contributions from cracked wall at a base shear equal to 0.6Vy were used in
the 1st mode, which may be inelastic, using an SRSS the modified MPA procedure described above.
combination.
F.4 Accuracy of Estimates Made Using
For both the ordinary motions and the near-field Simplified Procedures
motions, the target displacement used to determine the
first mode contribution was the predetermined peak This section compares the estimates of response
roof displacement, just as for the first mode pushover. quantities obtained using the simplified inelastic
In order to determine the higher mode contributions for procedures with the values obtained by nonlinear
the ordinary ground motions, mean spectra were dynamic analysis. Comparisons for the ordinary
computed for each building and drift level, using the motions are presented in Section F.4.2 and those for
ground motions as scaled to achieve the predetermined near-field motions are presented in Section F.4.3, after a
drifts. This allowed the contributions of the 2nd and 3rd discussion of error evaluation in Section F.4.1.
modes to be determined directly from the mean spectra
for the ordinary motions. For the near-field records, the F.4.1 Error Measurement
elastic higher mode contributions were determined from
Two measures of error are used. For the ordinary
the jagged elastic spectra associated with each unscaled
motions, which were scaled to achieve predetermined
near-field record. The higher-mode contributions were
target drifts, the error measure E1 is defined as
determined using spectra computed for viscous
Complete results for the five example buildings are The peak interstory drifts of the 8-story shear wall
provided in Sections F.8.2 and F.8.3. building displayed little variance, in contrast to the
larger variance evident in the interstory drifts of the
The minimum, maximum, mean, median, and mean frame buildings. All pushover techniques provided
plus and minus one standard deviation values of the good estimates of the interstory drifts of the shear wall
dynamic response quantities to the ordinary ground building at all drift levels, with slightly larger
motions are plotted for each floor or story in discrepancies occurring for the code and rectangular
Section F.8.2 (Figure F-32 through F-46). These plots load patterns. This indicates that even the interstory
include the deterministic results obtained using the drifts were dominated by response in a quasi-first mode
various pushover techniques, plotted using various line for the shear-wall building.
styles. Errors in the pushover estimates relative to mean
dynamic response quantities, calculated using the error The largest mean interstory drift ratios for the regular 3-
measure E1, are plotted as a function of drift level and story frame were about 20% greater than the average
pushover technique for each of the buildings in roof drift ratio at 0.5% drift, and decreased to about
Section F.8.3 (Figures F-47 through F-51). The mean 10% greater than the average roof drift ratio at 4% drift.
error is the mean of the errors calculated over the height For the regular 9-story frame, the largest mean
of the building, and the maximum error is the maximum interstory drift ratios were about 35% greater than the
of the errors over the height of the building. average roof drift ratio at 0.5% drift, and increased to
about 65% greater at roof drifts of 2% and 4%. Thus,
A summary of the results relating to peak responses, while it appears that higher modes make larger relative
their estimates, and the errors of these estimates, is contributions to the interstory drifts of frame structures,
presented in the following subsections. particularly longer period frame structures, the relative
contribution may increase or decrease as drift levels
F.4.2.1 Floor Displacements increase and inelasticity develops.
The peak displacement response showed the smallest
variance relative to that observed for the other response Of the seven pushover methods considered, only the
modified MPA procedure explicitly accounts for higher
modes. For the frame structures, this procedure often the base. For the regular frames, peak dynamic story
provided more accurate estimates of peak interstory shears often exceeded pushover estimates, at all stories.
drifts relative to the other pushover procedures. For the regular 3-story frame, the modified MPA
However, even the multiple mode estimates of frame procedure underestimated story shears at 0.5% drift and
interstory drifts were less than the mean dynamic values significantly overestimated story shears at 4% drift. For
for the upper stories of the regular 9-story frame at the the regular 9-story frame, the modified MPA procedure
low and moderate drift levels and for several stories underestimated story shears over most of the building
above the weak story of the 9-story weak-story frame at height at 0.5% drift, and overestimated story shears and
drifts of 2% and 4%. 2% and 4% drift. The other pushover techniques
generally had larger error.
The original MPA procedure and the modified MPA
procedure used in the MDOF studies both use SRSS For the weak story frames, all pushover techniques
combinations and assume that there is no interaction of except for the modified MPA procedure provided good
the modes, as is the case for elastic response. The SRSS estimates of the lowest story shear at 2% and 4% drift.
combinations of response peaks, using the first three The dynamic shears in the remaining stories greatly
modes, nearly always underestimated the peak exceeded the single-mode estimates at these drift levels.
interstory drifts of the 3- and 9-story frames at 0.5% Estimates for these stories using the modified MPA
drift, suggesting that the SRSS estimates are not procedure could be substantially more or less than the
necessarily an upper bound to the mean dynamic dynamic values, with the tendency to overestimate story
peaks,1 and that, in the case of the 9-story frames, shears becoming more pronounced with increasing drift
consideration of additional modes may be required for levels. A possible improvement may be to include more
improved estimates of interstory drift. Randomness in modes, with each modal contribution reduced in some
the timing of “modal” peaks generates variability in way as drift levels increase.
interstory drifts, limiting the potential accuracy of
prospective estimates of interstory drift for individual For the shear-wall building, the pattern of peak story
events. shears changed with increasing drift. Response at 0.2%
drift was marked by a quasi-first mode pattern, with a
Interestingly, for each of the single mode load vectors disproportionately large shear at the uppermost story.
except the rectangular load vector, the maximum of the With increasing drift, the shears at the uppermost two
interstory drifts determined over the height of the five stories and lowest three stories increased
buildings was a good estimate of the interstory drift that disproportionately, particularly for the lowest two
occurred in the nonlinear dynamic analyses at that story stories. At 0.2% drift, the pattern of the story shears was
in the building. Furthermore, this maximum interstory offset from the code pattern by a more or less constant
drift provided a reasonable estimate of the largest amount that resembles the Ft force used in the
interstory drifts that developed over the height of each Equivalent Lateral Force procedure of earlier codes2. At
structure. The weak story frames provide one 1% drift, the modified MPA procedure typically
illustration of this finding—each of these pushover underestimated the story shears for the lowest stories,
methods provided good estimates of the interstory drifts although the estimates improved at 2% drift. Estimates
that occurred at the weak stories of the 3- and 9-story with the other procedures were not as good at the 1%
weak story frames at drift levels of 2% and 4%. Of and 2% drift levels. The rectangular load pattern, often
interest, this observation held even though the story at used to bound wall shears for design, underestimated
which the maximum interstory drift is calculated may the shears over the entire height of the wall at the 1%
vary with the choice of pushover load vectors. and 2% drift levels, and underestimated the shears over
the upper four stories at the 0.2% drift level.
F.4.2.3 Story Shears
F.4.2.4 Overturning Moments
The peak dynamic story shears begin with
disproportionately large values at the uppermost story The peak dynamic overturning moments displayed less
of all five buildings and increase monotonically towards variance than the story shears. The overall pattern of
overturning moments was captured with the single-load
1. This may be because the modal peaks were esti-
mated with a 2% damped spectrum, but the damping 2.Perhaps a better correlation would have been
present in the nonlinear dynamic analyses may have observed if the exponent k had been determined
been lower for some modes, thus leading to underes- based on the effective period of the structure rather
timates of higher mode contributions to drift. than the initial period.
Table F-8 Peak Roof Drift Ratios for the Five Errors in the estimates of the response quantities for
Building Models (%) both the ordinary and near fault ground motions are
presented in Figures F-72 through F-76 for all buildings
Building and pushover load vectors. The mean of the values of
Model Near-Fault Record the error measure E2 over the height of the buildings is
ERZMV1 RRSMV1 LUCMV1 SCHMV1 plotted according to the drift level for the ordinary
motions and is also plotted for the near-fault motions.1
3-story frame 4.07 4.96 1.79 2.62 Maximum values of this error measure over the height
(regular) of each building are also plotted. Note that the error
3-story frame 2.95 3.62 2.13 2.12 measure E2, when applied to the ordinary motions, is
(weak story) equivalent to the error measure E1, because the mean of
the pushover estimates is simply the single estimate
8-story wall 1.24 2.06 0.64 0.73 obtained at a predetermined drift level.
9-story frame 1.91 1.84 1.69 1.82
(regular) A review of Figures F-72 through F-76 shows that the
quality of the estimates is, in general, as good or better
9-story frame 1.88 1.85 1.71 2.13
than the estimates made for the ordinary ground
(weak story) motions, with the exception of displacement estimates
of the 9-story weak-story building. In some cases the
weak-story frame showed a clear weak story response
vector techniques except for the 9-story weak story (RRSMV1 and LUCMV1 ground motions), while in
building, and the single-load vector techniques gave other cases, peak interstory drifts in the weak story were
similar estimates, with the exception of the rectangular only moderately elevated over those occurring in the
and code load vectors. Although the overall pattern was regular frames for the same motion (ERZMV1 and
captured, the dynamic values were substantially SCHMV1 ground motions). These differences occurred
underestimated in some cases, particularly at the upper even though the peak roof drifts of the 9-story weak-
stories and for the higher drift levels. The modified story frame (1.71% to 2.13%) were similar to those of
MPA procedure was inconsistent, sometimes providing the regular 9-story frame (1.69% to 1.91%). For those
accurate estimates and sometimes severely cases in which weak story responses occurred, the
overestimating or underestimating the peak overturning pushover methods provided good estimates of
moments. displacement response. Only for the two near-fault
motions that did not generate a weak-story response
F.4.3 Results for Near Field Motions
were the estimates poor.
Sections F.8.4 and F.8.5 (Figures F-52 through F-71,
and Figures F-72 through F-76) provide complete F.5 Equivalent SDOF Estimates of Peak
results of the analyses of the response of the examples Roof Displacement Response
to the near-field ground motions. Peak roof drift ratios
obtained with the unscaled near-field motions were The preceding analyses of the example buildings for
generally within or close to the ranges of predetermined MDOF effects focused on the accuracy of estimates
drifts used with the ordinary ground motions made using various load vectors for building models
(Table F-8), ranging between 1.79% and 4.96% for the subjected to prescribed peak drift levels. Underlying
3-story frames, 1.69% and 1.88% for the 9-story this approach was the assumption that accurate
frames, and 0.64% and 2.06% for the 8-story wall estimates of the peak roof displacement can be obtained
building. using the simplified inelastic procedures. Work by
many researchers, including Chopra et al. (2003),
For the near field motions, peak interstory drifts for the Miranda (1991), Collins et al. (1995), Seneviratna and
regular frames were at most about 25% higher than the Krawinkler (1997), and Cuesta and Aschheim (2001),
average roof drift for the 3-story frame and were at most indicates a tendency for the equivalent SDOF models to
about 110% higher than the average roof drift for the 9- overestimate peak roof displacements of inelastic
story frame. While these values are larger than the mean structures, by up to 20% or more, depending on the
values reported in Section F.3.1 for the ordinary level of nonlinearity in the system. To illustrate this
motions, they are not inconsistent with the peak values
of interstory drift observed for the ordinary motions. 1. The E2 error measure is defined in Section F.4.1.
tendency, estimates were made for the five example where ∆y, roof = the roof displacement at yield, and Γ1=
buildings based on their first mode capacity curves. The the first mode participation factor (given by φTM1/
estimates were made using the ATC-40 and FEMA 356 φTMφ)1.
relationships for establishing the yield-strength
coefficient of the equivalent SDOF system. In the ATC-40 method, the yield strength coefficient of
the ESDOF system is given by
F.5.1 Analysis Details
Peak roof displacement estimates were made for the Sa V y ,mdof / W
Cy = = (F-6)
five example buildings subjected to the 11 ordinary g α1
ground motion records scaled to achieve the
predetermined drift levels and for the unscaled near- where Sa = the pseudo-acceleration associated with
field ground motions. Estimates were made for cases in yield of the ESDOF system, g = the acceleration of
which P-Delta effects were included as well as for cases gravity, Vy, mdof = the yield strength of the MDOF
in which P-Delta effects were excluded. Results are system, W = the weight of the MDOF system, and α1 =
reported in detail for cases in which the bilinear curve, the modal mass coefficient (given by Γ1(φTM1/1TM1)).
fitted to the capacity curve obtained from a first mode
pushover analysis, displayed a positive post-yield In the FEMA 356 method, the yield strength coefficient
stiffness. P-Delta effects were included for the 3-story of the ESDOF system is approximated as
frames and the 8-story wall (Figure F-8). However, to
avoid a negative post-yield stiffness for the 9-story
frames, P-Delta effects had to be excluded for the Sa V y ,mdof
Cy = = Γ1 (F-7)
analyses of these frames. g W
In cases in which P-Delta effects were considered, the which relies on the approximation Γ1 ≈ 1/α1.
mode shape and the nonlinear static analysis were
determined with P-Delta effects included, and the If φ is set equal to an elastic mode shape, the ATC-40
applied lateral force is plotted rather than the base shear method produces an ESDOF system that has a period of
(which is amplified due to P-Delta). In cases in which vibration equal to the period associated with the mode
P-Delta effects were not considered, the mode shape shape. However, the approximation in Equation F-7
and nonlinear static analysis were determined without causes the period of vibration and the yield strength
considering P-Delta effects. For each case considered, coefficient of the FEMA 356 ESDOF system to deviate
ground motions were scaled to obtain the predetermined slightly from the corresponding period of the MDOF
target drift levels for the MDOF models. If P-Delta system.2
effects were included, they were included in the
nonlinear MDOF dynamic analyses and were The ESDOF systems resulting from the ATC-40 and
represented using bilinear hysteretic models for the FEMA 356 methods were subjected to the scaled
steel frame buildings and a stiffness degrading model ground motion records, determined for each building
for the concrete shear-wall building, with initial- and model and drift level. A bilinear hysteretic model was
post-yield stiffnesses adjusted to reflect the effects of P- used for the frames, and a simple stiffness degrading
Delta on the MDOF capacity curves. Similarly, if P- model was used for the ESDOF system representing the
Delta effects were not considered, they were excluded 8-story wall building. The resulting peak displacement
from both the MDOF and SDOF analyses. was scaled by Γ1 to obtain the estimated peak roof
displacement.
“Equivalent” SDOF (ESDOF) systems were determined
according to the methods of ATC-40 and FEMA 356.
For both methods, the yield displacement ∆y of the
ESDOF system is determined as 1. For simplicity in presentation, this document presumes that
φ has been normalized to unit amplitude at the roof.
F.5.2 Analysis Results peak dynamic values of interstory drifts, story shears,
and overturning moments was relatively small, and the
The ratio of the roof displacement estimated with the values of these quantities could differ significantly from
ESDOF system and the peak roof displacement that the estimates obtained using the various pushover
developed in the nonlinear dynamic analysis of the methods.
MDOF system was determined for each building model
and each ground motion record. Statistics of this ratio, The Scaled NDP is based on the idea that a relatively
termed the “displacement ratio,” were determined for small number of nonlinear dynamic analyses can be
each building model at each drift level and for the set of used to estimate the response quantities of interest. In
near fault motions. The minimum, maximum, mean, the Scaled NDP (described in Section 9.5.2), the ground
median, and standard deviation of this ratio were motion records are scaled so that the peak roof
computed. Detailed results for the ordinary motions are displacement matches the target displacement
summarized for the ATC-40 formulation (Equation F-6) determined from nonlinear static analysis. Each
in Figure F-15. dynamic analysis contributes positively to the estimate
of the central tendency and range of dynamic response
Mean displacement ratios for the ordinary motions were values. In contrast, none of the pushover methods was
between approximately 0.95 and 1.25 for the five able to consistently provide reliable estimates of the
buildings (Figure F-15), with a tendency to increase peak interstory drifts, story shears, and overturning
with increasing roof drift. Similar means were obtained moments, for the example buildings considered.
with the FEMA 356 formulation (Equation F-7),
although dispersions were larger for this formulation. F.6.2 Elaboration of Step 3 and Examples
Accuracy was similar for the near-field motions. The
ATC-40 formulation is preferred because it resulted in Step 3 of the basic procedure described in Section 9.5.2
smaller dispersions, accurately reflects the frequency suggests that estimates of a response quantity at the
content of the excitation for elastic response, and is mean plus κ standard deviation level can be determined
consistent with common derivations of “equivalent” by multiplying the mean of the response quantity
SDOF systems. observed in the n dynamic analyses by a coefficient. Let
the sample mean of the response quantity of interest be
Accuracy was compromised in cases in which the post- designated by xn . As shown in Section F.6.3, if the
yield stiffness of the ESDOF system was negative. In response quantities are normally distributed, the
such cases, there was a tendency for the displacements quantity c (1 + κ COV ) x n exceeds the true mean plus κ
of the equivalent SDOF systems to be exaggerated, with standard deviations with confidence level α. In the
some SDOF systems collapsing, although the MDOF preceding, c is given by
systems simply reached their predetermined drifts. For
such cases, nonlinear dynamic analyses may be 1
preferred, given the potential for ESDOF systems to c= (F-8)
significantly overestimate the roof displacement. (
1 − Φ (α )
−1
) COV
n
F.6 Scaled NDP Analysis Method
where Φ t−,1n −1 (α ) represents the value of the variate of
F.6.1 Background the Student’s t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom
at a confidence level of α, and COV represents the
The ATC-55 MDOF studies were conducted to illustrate coefficient of variation determined for the sample of n
the accuracy of several available pushover methods for observations of the response quantity x.
estimating peak response quantities, by comparison
with results obtained from nonlinear dynamic analyses. Equation F-8 simplifies to c = 1 for a confidence level,
The pushover techniques were not consistently able to α, of 50%. For a confidence level of 90%, Equation
provide accurate estimates of response quantities Equation F-8 can be solved to obtain the values of c
(interstory drifts, story shears, and overturning given in Table F-9.
moments) for many of the example buildings. The
difference between the pushover estimates and the Thus, the quantity c (1 + κ COV ) x n is said to exceed the
results from nonlinear dynamic analyses is attributed true mean plus κ standard deviation value with
primarily to the presence of higher modes or MDOF confidence level α. The quantity κ assumes a value of
effects. Although scatter is to be expected in the results zero where estimates of the true mean are sought.
from nonlinear dynamic analyses, the dispersion in the
0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
3 1.886 1.06 1.12 1.20 1.28 1.37 1.48 1.62 1.77 1.96 2.19
5 1.533 1.04 1.07 1.11 1.16 1.21 1.26 1.32 1.38 1.45 1.52
7 1.440 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.16 1.20 1.24 1.28 1.32 1.37
10 1.372 1.02 1.05 1.07 1.10 1.12 1.15 1.18 1.21 1.24 1.28
20 1.328 1.02 1.03 1.05 1.06 1.08 1.10 1.12 1.13 1.15 1.17
50 1.299 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10
100 1.290 1.01 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.05 1.06 1.07
Table F-9 also can be used to indicate the number of exact values. The estimates are considered to be more
analyses to run—that is, the point at which additional reliable, in general, than those determined using only
analytical data are of negligible benefit. The derivation static analysis techniques.
of Equation F-8 is provided in Section F.6.3 below.
F.6.3 Statistical Basis
F.6.2.1 Example Illustrations
Equation F-8 was derived assuming that the response
Interstory Drift Estimate: The sample mean of the peak quantities are normally distributed, an assumption that
values of interstory drift at the lowest story of the 9- is approximately applicable even for log-normally
story frame at a predetermined roof drift of 4% is distributed data if the dispersion in the data is not large.
xn = 6.5% . The true COV is estimated from the 11
peak dynamic responses to be 0.16. For this COV, Problem Statement: A response quantity X has peak
Equation F-8 results in c = 1.05. The true mean value of values x1, x2, …xn in n dynamic analyses of a structure.
peak interstory drift is estimated to not exceed cxn = The mean of the n responses is xn . The responses are
1.05(6.5%) = 6.8% at the 90% confidence level. That is, assumed to be normally distributed, with mean µ and
there is a 90% probability that the true mean peak standard deviation σ. What is the scale factor c’ such
interstory drift at the lowest story is less than 6.8% at that c′xn exceeds µ + κσ with a specified level of
the hazard level that produces a roof drift of 4%. confidence α?
⎛ s ⎞ 1 + κσ / µ
xn ~ tn −1 ⎜ µ , ⎟ (F-10) c' =
s/µ (F-16)
⎝ n⎠ 1 + Φ t−, n1−1 (1 − α )
n
This can be expressed as
or equivalently as
xn − µ
~ tn −1 ( 0,1) (F-11)
s/ n 1 + κ COV
c' = (F-17)
COV
1 − Φ t−, n1−1 (α )
4. We seek to establish c’ such that n
P (c ' xn > µ + κσ ) = α (F-12)
where σ/µ is approximated by the sample coefficient
of variation, COV. For convenience, we may express
which can be restated as
c ' = c(1 + κ COV ) where
⎛ µ + κσ ⎞
P ⎜ xn < =1−α (F-13) 1
⎝ c ' ⎟⎠ c=
COV
1 − Φ t−, n1−1 (α )
n (F-18)
5. Given Equation F-10, this probability can be re-
expressed as
where Φ t−,1n −1 (α ) is the value of the variate of the
⎛ µ + κσ ⎞ Student’s t-distribution with n-1 degrees of freedom
⎜ c' − µ ⎟ at a confidence level of α.
Φ t ,n −1 ⎜ ⎟ =1−α (F-14)
⎜⎜ s / n ⎟⎟ F.6.4 Observed Coefficients of Variation
⎝ ⎠
The coefficients of variation (COV) of the response
where Φ t ,n −1 is the cumulative distribution function quantities determined in the MDOF studies are plotted
for the Student’s t-distribution with n-1 degrees of in Section F.8.6 (Figures F-77 through F-81). The
freedom. Thus, COVs are plotted for each response quantity at each
floor or story for each of the five building models, at
each of the three drift levels. In general, the COVs are
⎛ µ + κσ ⎞
⎜ c' − µ
highest at the upper stories and near the base of each
⎟
Φ t−, n1−1 (1 − α ) =⎜ ⎟ (F-15) model, and differ for each response quantity. The COVs
⎜⎜ s ⎟⎟ for floor displacements diminish to zero at the top, due
⎝ n ⎠ to the methodology employed in the study.
6. Algebraic manipulation allows c’ to be expressed as Approximate upper bounds to the COVs are tabulated
in Table F-10, where “approximate” indicates that the
limit was exceeded by a small amount at a limited
number of locations. The COVs appear to increase with
the number of stories (or period) and appear to be larger
Table F-10 Approximate Upper Bounds to the COVs over the Height of each Building Model
Building Model Interstory Drift Story Shear Overturning Moment
for buildings with weak story behavior. It is suggested Table F-11 Means of the Ratio of Roof Displace-
that a COV of 0.25 to 0.30 may be appropriate for all ments: SDOF Estimate / Actual MDOF
quantities in cases where a sufficient number of
analyses are not available for establishing an accurate Energy-
estimate of the COV. Roof Drift Conventional Based First
Building Level First Mode Mode
F.7 Energy-based Approaches for
Pushover Analysis 3-story frame 0.5% 1.00 1.00
(with P-Delta) 2% 1.05 1.03
Motivated by the difficulties associated with reversals 4% 1.04 1.02
of the higher mode capacity curves (see Figure F-14),
Hernández Montes et al. (2003) formulated an energy-
based pushover analysis approach, in which a 3-story weak 0.5% 1.00 1.00
displacement is derived that represents the work done story frame 2% 1.07 0.94
by the lateral forces acting through the floor
displacements during the pushover analysis. The (with P-Delta) 4% 1.13 0.98
energy-based displacement is derived to coincide with
the spectral displacement of conventional pushover
8-story wall 0.2% 1.13 1.16
approaches in the elastic portion of the response.
However, the resulting capacity curves do not display (with P-Delta) 1% 1.23 1.20
the reversals observed in some conventional higher 2% 1.25 NA1
mode pushover analyses. The energy-based pushover
approach was applied to the five example buildings to
estimate (1) roof displacements based on response in 9-story frame 0.5% 0.94 0.95
the first mode and (2) other response quantities using a (without 2% 1.14 1.03
multiple mode procedure. Results are reported in the P-Delta) 4% 1.14 1.02
following.
MPA procedure, used in the first portion of the MDOF level. The R-C1-T relationship that was applied is given
studies, are compared in this section with the results by Equation 5-1. Response quantities were determined
obtained using a modified MPA procedure in which for each of these modal pushover analyses at the
potentially inelastic responses are considered using the corresponding target displacements. SRSS
energy-based pushover curves. combinations of these quantities were then taken.
In the energy-based modification to the multimode Figure F-16 compares results obtained with the
pushover analysis procedure, independent pushover modified MPA and energy-based multiple mode
analyses are done in each of the first three modes. For procedures against the backdrop of results obtained in
consistency, the target displacement for the first mode the dynamic responses. A sampling of results are
was set equal to the predetermined roof drift. The target plotted that correspond to those presented in
displacements of the second and third modes were Section F.8.2. In some cases the results obtained with
determined by application of an R-C1-T relationship to the energy-based multiple mode procedure are
the mean spectrum, which was determined for the improvements, but the estimates still are not
scaled ground motions used for each building and drift consistently reliable.
(a) Story shears for 8-story wall at 1% drift (b) Overturning moments for 8-story wall at
1% drift
Modified MPA
Figure F-16 Example comparisons of energy-based and conventional multiple mode calculations.
(c) Interstory drifts for 9-story frame (d) Story shears for 9-story frame at
at 4% drift 4% drift
(e) Overturning moments for 9-story frame (f) Overturning moments for 9-story weak
at 4% drift story frame at 4% drift
Modified MPA
Figure F-16 Example comparisons of energy-based and conventional multiple mode calculations (continued).
F.8 Detailed Figure Sets for the MDOF of each building model are plotted, for each static
Examples analysis method, for each response quantity, and for
each building model at each of three predetermined drift
This section contains detailed figure sets resulting from levels. See Section F.4.1 for further information.
the analyses described earlier in this Appendix.
Section F.8.1 provides details of the ground motions, Section F.8.4 presents plots that compare the
and includes plots of spectral acceleration and spectral deterministic response quantities obtained in the static
displacement in addition to acceleration, velocity, and pushover analyses with the peak values obtained in the
displacement time histories for the unscaled ground dynamic analyses, for each building model subjected to
motions. each near-field ground motion. The peak roof drift
obtained in the dynamic analysis and used in the static
Section F.8.2 presents plots that compare the pushover analysis is shown.
deterministic response quantities obtained in the static
pushover analyses with the statistical distributions Section F.8.5 presents an evaluation of mean and
obtained in the dynamic analyses for the 11 ground maximum errors in the static analysis estimates of the
motions. Results are presented for the peak values of near-field response values, as described in Section F.4.1
each response quantity over the height of each building These errors are plotted together with those obtained for
model, for the five building models, each at three the ordinary ground motions for comparison purposes.
predetermined values of roof drift.
Section F.8.6 presents observed coefficients of variation
Section F.8.3 presents an evaluation of mean and of the response quantities determined for the ordinary
maximum errors in the static analysis estimates of the (Site Class C) motions.
mean dynamic results presented in Section F.8.2. Mean
and maximum errors in these estimates over the height
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
400
200
0
-200
-400
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
50
25
-25
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
20
10
0
-10
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g ) Spectral Displacement (cm)
1.4 60
2% Damping 2% Damping
1.2 50
5% Damping 5% Damping
1 10% Damping 10% Damping
40
0.8
30
0.6
20
0.4
0.2 10
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
Acceleration (cm/sec2)
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
50
25
0
-25
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
10
-10
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g ) Spectral Displacement (cm)
2.5 50
2% Damping
2 5% Damping 40
10% Damping
1.5 30
1 20
2% Damping
0.5 10 5% Damping
10% Damping
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
400
200
0
-200
-400
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
50
25
0
-25
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
20
10
0
-10
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
Acceleration (cm/sec2)
300
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
50
25
0
-25
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
40
20
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec)
Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g ) Spectral Displacement (cm)
1 50
2% Damping
0.8 5% Damping 40
10% Damping
0.6 30
0.4 20
2% Damping
0.2 10 5% Damping
10% Damping
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
400
200
0
-200
-400
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
50
25
0
-25
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
40
20
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
(sec)
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
75
50
25
0
-25
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
20
10
0
-10
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
(sec)
Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g ) Spectral Displacement (cm)
3 70
2% Damping
2.5 60
5% Damping
10% Damping 50
2
40
1.5
30
1
20 2% Damping
0.5 5% Damping
10
10% Damping
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
Acceleration (cm/sec2)
400
200
0
-200
-400
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
100
50
0
-50
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
50
30
10
-10
-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec)
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
200
100
0
-100
-200
-300
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
50
25
0
-25
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
40
20
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
(sec)
Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g ) Spectral Displacement (cm)
1 50
2% Damping
0.8 5% Damping 40
10% Damping
0.6 30
0.4 20
2% Damping
0.2 10 5% Damping
10% Damping
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
400
200
0
-200
-400
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
50
25
0
-25
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
10
5
0
-5
-10
0 10 20 30 40 50
(sec)
Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g ) Spectral Displacement (cm)
2.4 40
2% Damping
2 5% Damping
30
1.6 10% Damping
1.2 20
0.8 2% Damping
10
0.4 5% Damping
10% Damping
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
400
200
0
-200
-400
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
50
25
0
-25
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
20
10
0
-10
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
(sec)
1.5 20
1 2% Damping
10
0.5 5% Damping
10% Damping
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
50
25
0
-25
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
20
10
0
-10
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g ) Spectral Displacement (cm)
2.5 30
2% Damping
5% Damping 25
2
10% Damping 20
1.5
15
1
10
2% Damping
0.5 5 5% Damping
10% Damping
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
Acceleration (cm/sec2)
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
60
40
20
0
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
(sec)
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
900
600
300
0
-300
-600
-900
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
80
60
40
20
0
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Pseudo Spectral Acceleration (g ) Spectral Displacement (cm)
3 100
2% Damping
2.5 5% Damping 80
2 10% Damping
60
1.5
40
1 2% Damping
20 5% Damping
0.5
10% Damping
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
800
400
0
-400
-800
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
160
120
80
40
0
-40
-80
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
1.5 60
1 40
0.5 20
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Period (sec) Period (sec)
2
Acceleration (cm/sec )
600
400
200
0
-200
-400
-600
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Velocity (cm/sec)
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Displacement (cm)
60
40
20
0
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Figure F-32
FEMA 440
Floor 0.5% Drift Story 0.5% Drift
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
F-47
F-48
Figure F-33
Floor 2% Drift Story 2% Drift
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
3rd 3rd
1st 1st
FEMA 440
Figure F-34
FEMA 440
Floor 4% Drift Story 4% Drift
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 5 10 15 20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3rd 3rd
1st 1st
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
SD SD
F-49
F-50
Figure F-35
Floor 0.5% Drift Story 0.5% Drift
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building for 0.5% drift level
0 200 400 600 800 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
FEMA 440
Figure F-36
FEMA 440
Floor 2% Drift Story 2% Drift
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
SD SD
F-51
F-52
Figure F-37
Floor 4% Drift Story 4% Drift
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
FEMA 440
Figure F-38
FEMA 440
Floor 0.2% Drift Story 0.2% Drift
Roof 8th
8th 7th
7th 6th
6th 5th
5th 4th
4th 3rd
3rd 2nd
F-53
F-54
Figure F-38
Story 0.2% Drift Floor 0.2% Drift
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 8-story building for 0.2% drift level (continued)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
Interstory Drift (%)
1.5
1% Drift
Adaptive
SRSS
0.5
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
1st
2nd
Inverted Triangular
10
First Mode
8
6
Median
4
2
Max
SD SD
Mean
0
Floor
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
Roof
2nd
Min
Figure F-39 Response quantities of the 8-story building for 1% drift level
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
Interstory Drift (%)
4
2% Drift
Adaptive
SRSS
2
Rectangular
1
Code
0
Story
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
1st
2nd
Inverted Triangular
20
First Mode
15
10
Median
5
Max
SD SD
Mean
0
Floor
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
Roof
2nd
Min
Figure F-40 Response quantities of the 8-story building for 2% drift level
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
FEMA 440
Figure F-41
FEMA 440
Floor 0.5% Drift Story 0.5% Drift
Roof 9th
9th 8th
8th 7th
7th 6th
6th 5th
5th 4th
4th 3rd
2nd 1st
SD SD Code SRSS
F-59
F-60
Figure F-41
Story 0.5% Drift Floor 0.5% Drift
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 9-story building for 0.5% drift level (continued)
0 400 800 1200 1600 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
FEMA 440
Figure F-42
FEMA 440
Floor 2% Drift Story 2% Drift
Roof 9th
9th 8th
8th 7th
7th 6th
6th 5th
5th 4th
4th 3rd
2nd 1st
0 10 20 30 40 0 1 2 3 4 5
F-61
F-62
Story 2% Drift Floor 2% Drift
Figure F-42
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
SD SD
FEMA 440
Figure F-43
Floor 4% Drift 4% Drift
FEMA 440
Story
Roof 9th
9th 8th
8th 7th
7th 6th
6th 5th
5th 4th
4th 3rd
2nd 1st
F-63
F-64
Figure F-43
Story 4% Drift Floor 4% Drift
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
Interstory Drift (%)
0.5% Drift
1
0.8
Adaptive
0.6
SRSS
0.4
Rectangular
0.2
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
1st
2nd
Inverted Triangular
8
First Mode
6
4
Median
2
Max
SD SD
Mean
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
Roof
3rd
2nd
Min
Figure F-44 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building for 0.5% drift level
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building for 0.5% drift level (continued)
Mean First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Min Max Median Multimode
Inverted Triangular
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
SD SD Code SRSS
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
20
15
Adaptive
SRSS
10
5
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
6th
4th
2nd
7th
5th
1st
3rd
Inverted Triangular
First Mode
30
20
Median
10
Max
SD SD
Mean
0
Floor
9th
7th
5th
3rd
Roof
8th
6th
4th
2nd
Min
Figure F-45 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building for 2% drift level
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
40
30
Adaptive
SRSS
20
10
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
6th
4th
2nd
7th
5th
1st
3rd
Inverted Triangular
First Mode
60
40
Median
20
Max
SD SD
Mean
0
Floor
9th
7th
5th
3rd
8th
6th
4th
2nd
Roof
Min
Figure F-46 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building for 4% drift level
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
FEMA 440
F.8.3
Figure F-47
FEMA 440
Mean Error in Floor Displacement (%)
25 Maximum Error in Floor Displacement (%) 3-Story
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode 0
Triangular Pushover Load Vector First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector
25 30
20 25
15 20
10 15
5 10
0 5
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode 0
F-71
F-72
Figure F-47
Mean Error in Story Shear (%) Maximum Error in Story Shear (%) 3-Story
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Overturning Moment (%) Maximum Error in Overturning Moment (%)
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
FEMA 440
Figure F-48
FEMA 440
Mean Error in Floor Displacement (%) Maximum Error in Floor Displacement (%) 3-Story Weak-Story
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Interstory Drift (%) Maximum Error in Interstory Drift (%)
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
F-73
F-74
Figure F-48
Mean Error in Story Shear (%) Maximum Error in Story Shear (%) 3-Story Weak-Story
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Overturning Moment (%) Maximum Error in Overturning Moment (%)
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Mean and maximum errors for the 3-story weak-story building (continued)
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
FEMA 440
Figure F-49
FEMA 440
Mean Error in Floor Displacement (%) Maximum Error in Floor Displacement (%) 8-Story
20 20
18 18
16 16
14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Interstory Drift (%) Maximum Error in Interstory Drift (%)
20 20
18 18
16 16
F-75
F-76
Figure F-49
Mean Error in Story Shear (%) Maximum Error in Story Shear (%) 8-Story
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Overturning Moment (%) Maximum Error in Overturning Moment (%)
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
FEMA 440
Figure F-50
FEMA 440
Mean Error in Floor Displacement (%) Maximum Error in Floor Displacement (%) 9-Story
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Interstory Drift (%) Maximum Error in Interstory Drift (%)
90 90
80 80
F-77
F-78
Figure F-50
Mean Error in Story Shear (%) Maximum Error in Story Shear (%) 9-Story
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Overturning Moment (%) Maximum Error in Overturning Moment (%)
180 180
160 160
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
FEMA 440
Figure F-51
FEMA 440
Mean Error in Floor Displacement (%) Maximum Error in Floor Displacement (%) 9-Story Weak-Story
35 35
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Interstory Drift (%) Maximum Error in Interstory Drift (%)
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
F-79
F-80
Figure F-51
Mean Error in Story Shear (%) Maximum Error in Story Shear (%) 9-Story Weak-Story
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Overturning Moment (%) Maximum Error in Overturning Moment (%)
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Mean and maximum errors for the 9-story weak-story building (continued)
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
FEMA 440
F.8.4
Figure F-52
FEMA 440
Floor 4.07% Drift Story 4.07% Drift
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5
Responses to Near Fault Motions
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
F-81
F-82
Floor 4.96% Drift Story 4.96% Drift
Figure F-53
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
FEMA 440
Floor 1.79% Drift Story 1.79% Drift
Figure F-54
FEMA 440
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
F-83
F-84
Floor 2.62% Drift Story 2.62% Drift
Figure F-55
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 5 10 15 0 1 2 3 4
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
FEMA 440
Floor 2.95% Drift Story 2.95% Drift
Figure F-56
FEMA 440
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 5 10 15 0 2 4 6 8
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building under ERZMV1 ground motion
First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Dynamic Analysis
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
Inverted Triangular Code SRSS
F-85
F-86
Floor 3.62% Drift Story 3.62% Drift
Figure F-57
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 5 10 15 20 0 2 4 6 8 10
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building under RRSMV1 ground motion
First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
FEMA 440
Floor 2.13% Drift Story 2.13% Drift
Figure F-58
FEMA 440
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion
First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
F-87
F-88
Figure F-59
Floor 2.12% Drift Story 2.12% Drift
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion
First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Dynamic Analysis Multimode
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
1.5
Adaptive
SRSS
1
0.5
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
3rd
2nd
1st
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
Inverted Triangular
10
First Mode
8
6
Dynamic Analysis
4
2
0
Floor
3rd
Roof
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
2nd
Figure F-60 Response quantities of the 8-story building under ERZMV1 ground motion
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
0 200 400 600 800 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Response quantities of the 8-story building under ERZMV1 ground motion (continued)
First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Dynamic Analysis Multimode
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
2.5
2
Adaptive
1.5
SRSS
1
0.5
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Inverted Triangular
First Mode
15
10
Dynamic Analysis
5
0
Floor
3rd
Roof
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
2nd
Figure F-61 Response quantities of the 8-story building under RRSMV1 ground motion
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
0.64% Drift
1
0.8
0.6
Adaptive
SRSS
0.4
0.2
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Inverted Triangular
5
First Mode
4
3
Dynamic Analysis
2
1
0
Floor
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
Roof
Figure F-62 Response quantities of the 8-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion
Figure F-62
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
0 200 400 600 800 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
0.8
0.6
Adaptive
SRSS
0.4
0.2
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Inverted Triangular
First Mode
6
4
Dynamic Analysis
2
0
Floor
3rd
Roof
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
2nd
Figure F-63 Response quantities of the 8-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion
Figure F-63
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
0 200 400 600 800 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
4
3
Adaptive
SRSS
2
1
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Inverted Triangular
25
First Mode
20
15
10
Dynamic Analysis
5
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
Roof
Figure F-64 Response quantities of the 9-story building under ERZMV1 ground motion
Figure F-64
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 9-story building under ERZMV1 ground motion (continued)
Story Shear (kips) Overturning Moment (kips-ft)
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
4
3
Adaptive
SRSS
2
1
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
1st
2nd
Inverted Triangular
30
First Mode
20
Dynamic Analysis
10
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
Roof
Figure F-65 Response quantities of the 9-story building under RRSMV1 ground motion
Figure F-65
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 9-story building under RRSMV1 ground motion (continued)
Story Shear (kips) Overturning Moment (kips-ft)
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
3
Adaptive
SRSS
2
1
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Inverted Triangular
25
First Mode
20
15
Dynamic Analysis
10
5
0
Floor
3rd
Roof
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
2nd
Figure F-66 Response quantities of the 9-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion
Figure F-66
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 9-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion (continued)
First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
3
Adaptive
2
SRSS
1
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Inverted Triangular
25
First Mode
20
15
10
Dynamic Analysis
5
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
Roof
Figure F-67 Response quantities of the 9-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion
Figure F-67
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 9-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion (continued)
First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Dynamic Analysis Multimode
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
8
6
Adaptive
SRSS
4
2
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Inverted Triangular
25
First Mode
20
15
Dynamic Analysis
10
5
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
Roof
Figure F-68 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under ERZMV1 ground motion
Figure F-68
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under ERZMV1 ground motion (continued)
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
Multimode
8
6
Adaptive
SRSS
4
2
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
1st
2nd
Inverted Triangular
30
First Mode
20
Dynamic Analysis
10
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
Roof
2nd
Figure F-69 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under RRSMV1 ground motion
Multimode
150000
100000
Adaptive
SRSS
50000
Rectangular
Code
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
1st
2nd
Inverted Triangular
3000
First Mode
2000
Dynamic Analysis
1000
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Figure F-69 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under RRSMV1 ground motion (Continued)
Multimode
8
6
Adaptive
SRSS
4
2
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Inverted Triangular
25
First Mode
20
15
10
Dynamic Analysis
5
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
Roof
Figure F-70 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion
Multimode
150000
100000
Adaptive
SRSS
50000
Rectangular
Code
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
2500
1.71% Drift
Inverted Triangular
2000
First Mode
1500
1000
Dynamic Analysis
500
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Figure F-70 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion (continued)
Multimode
10
8
Adaptive
6
SRSS
4
2
Rectangular
Code
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Inverted Triangular
30
First Mode
20
Dynamic Analysis
10
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
Roof
Figure F-71 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion
Figure F-71
9th 9th
8th 8th
7th 7th
6th 6th
5th 5th
4th 4th
3rd 3rd
2nd 2nd
1st 1st
Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion (continued)
FEMA 440
F.8.5
Figure F-72
FEMA 440
Mean Error in Floor Displacement (%) Maximum Error in Floor Displacement (%) 3-Story
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Errors Associated with Near Fault Motions
Mean Error in Interstory Drift (%) Maximum Error in Interstory Drift (%) 3-Story
40 40
F-113
F-114
Figure F-72
Mean Error in Story Shear (%) Maximum Error in Story Shear (%) 3-Story
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Overturning Moment (%) Maximum Error in Overturning Moment (%)
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
FEMA 440
Figure F-73
FEMA 440
Mean Error in Floor Displacement (%) Maximum Error in Floor Displacement (%) 3-Story Weak-Story
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Interstory Drift (%) Maximum Error in Interstory Drift (%)
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
F-115
F-116
Figure F-73
Mean Error in Story Shear (%) Maximum Error in Story Shear (%) 3-Story Weak-Story
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Overturning Moment (%) Maximum Error in Overturning Moment (%)
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Mean and maximum errors for the 3-story weak-story building (continued)
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
FEMA 440
Figure F-74
FEMA 440
Mean Error in Floor Displacement (%) Maximum Error in Floor Displacement (%) 8-Story
24 24
20 20
16 16
12 12
8 8
4 4
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Interstory Drift (%) Maximum Error in Interstory Drift (%)
24 24
16 16
12 12
8 8
4 4
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
F-117
F-118
Figure F-74
Mean Error in Story Shear (%) Maximum Error in Story Shear (%) 8-Story
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Overturning Moment (%) Maximum Error in Overturning Moment (%)
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
FEMA 440
Figure F-75
FEMA 440
Mean Error in Floor Displacement (%) Maximum Error in Floor Displacement (%) 9-Story
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Interstory Drift (%) Maximum Error in Interstory Drift (%)
90 90
80 80
F-119
F-120
Figure F-75
Mean Error in Story Shear (%) Maximum Error in Story Shear (%) 9-Story
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Overturning Moment (%) Maximum Error in Overturning Moment (%)
180 180
160 160
140 140
120 120
100 100
80 80
FEMA 440
Figure F-76
FEMA 440
Mean Error in Floor Displacement (%) Maximum Error in Floor Displacement (%) 9-Story Weak-Story
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Interstory Drift (%) Maximum Error in Interstory Drift (%)
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
F-121
F-122
Figure F-76
Mean Error in Story Shear (%) Maximum Error in Story Shear (%) 9-Story Weak-Story
80 100
70 90
80
60
70
50 60
40 50
30 40
30
20
20
10 10
0 0
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
Mean Error in Overturning Moment (%) Maximum Error in Overturning Moment (%)
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Mean and maximum errors for the 9-story weak-story building (continued)
First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode First Mode Inverted Rectangular Code Adaptive SRSS Multimode
Triangular Pushover Load Vector Triangular Pushover Load Vector
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
F.8.6 Observed Coefficients of Variation of the Response Quantities Determined for the Ordinary (Site
Class C) Motions
COV (%)
COV (%)
20
20
Interstory Drift
Overturning Moment
15
15
10
10
4% Drift Level
5
2% Drift Level
3-Story
3-Story
0
0
Story
Floor
3rd
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
1st
COV (%)
20
COV (%)
20
Floor Displacement
Story Shear
15
10
10
5
5
3-Story
3-Story
0
0
Floor
Story
Roof
3rd
2nd
3rd
2nd
1st
Figure F-78
Roof 3rd
3rd 2nd
2nd 1st
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
3rd 3rd
1st 1st
0 10 20 30 40 0 10 20 30 40
FEMA 440
Appendix F: Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
COV (%)
40
Interstory Drift
30
2% Drift Level
20
10
1% Drift Level
8-Story
0
Story
3rd
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
2nd
1st
COV (%)
40
Floor Displacement
8-Story
0
Floor
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
Roof
COV (%)
40
Overturning Moment
30
20
2% Drift Level
10
1% Drift Level
8-Story
0
Floor
3rd
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
2nd
1st
COV (%)
40
Story Shear
8-Story
0
Story
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Figure F-79 Observed COVs for the 8-story wall building (continued)
COV (%)
40
Interstory Drift
30
20
4% Drift Level
10
2% Drift Level
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
COV (%)
40
Floor Displacement
Roof
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
COV (%)
40
Overturning Moment
30
20
4% Drift Level
10
2% Drift Level
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
COV (%)
40
Story Shear
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Figure F-80 Observed COVs for the 9-story frame building (continued)
COV (%)
40
Interstory Drift
30
20
4% Drift Level
10
9-Story Weak
2% Drift Level
0
Story
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
COV (%)
40
Floor Displacement
Roof
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
Figure F-81 Observed COVs for the 9-story weak story frame building
COV (%)
40
Overturning Moment
30
20
4% Drift Level
10
9-Story Weak
2% Drift Level
0
Floor
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
COV (%)
40
Story Shear
9th
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Figure F-81 Observed COVs for the 9-story weak story frame building (continued)