WAVE-PROPAGATION FORMULATION OF SEISMIC RESPONSE OF

MULTISTORY BUILDINGS
By Erdal Şafak,1 Member, ASCE

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a discrete-time wave-propagation method to calculate the seismic response of
multistory buildings, founded on layered soil media and subjected to vertically propagating shear waves. Build-
ings are modeled as an extension of the layered soil media by considering each story as another layer in the
wave-propagation path. The seismic response is expressed in terms of wave travel times between the layers and
wave reflection and transmission coefficients at layer interfaces. The method accounts for the filtering effects of
the concentrated foundation and floor masses. Compared with commonly used vibration formulation, the wave-
propagation formulation provides several advantages, including simplicity, improved accuracy, better represen-
tation of damping, the ability to incorporate the soil layers under the foundation, and providing better tools for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

identification and damage detection from seismic records. Examples are presented to show the versatility and
the superiority of the method.

INTRODUCTION
During an earthquake, fault rupture initiates seismic waves
that are transmitted outward in all directions by the Earth’s
layers. The waves that reach to the surface are reflected back
into the Earth when the surface is free. If there is a structure
on the surface, however, the waves continue to propagate into
the structure causing the structure to vibrate. In other words,
the vibrations of a structure during an earthquake are caused
by the propagation of seismic waves into the structure.
In general, seismologists use the wave-propagation ap-
proach to calculate ground motions generated by earthquakes,
whereas engineers prefer the vibration approach to calculate
the response of structures induced by earthquakes. In theory,
the vibration and wave-propagation approaches represent two
alternative solution schemes of the same problem. In structural
engineering, vibration methods, such as the modal analysis,
have been the standard approach to calculate the seismic re-
sponse of buildings. Wave-propagation methods are used
mainly for structures that can be modeled as a continuous me-
dium [e.g., Clough and Penzien (1975), Todorovska and Lee
(1989), Todorovska and Trifunac (1989), Hall et al. (1995),
and Iwan (1997)]. There is a small number of references avail-
able on applications of wave-propagation methods to discrete
structures. In a series of papers, Uzgider and Aydog̃an (1986)
and Aydog̃an and Uzgider (1988) presented a simplified wave-
propagation methodology to calculate the undamped response
of frame and masonry structures. The theory of wave propa-
gation and scattering for slender and truss-type structural net-
works is given in Cai and Lin (1991a,b) and Yong and Lin
(1992). The text by Doyle (1989) presents a rigorous analysis
of wave propagation in structures by using fast Fourier trans-
form-based spectral techniques.
This paper presents a discrete-time domain formulation of
the propagation of seismic waves in multistory buildings that
are founded on layered soil media. We model the building as
an extension of the layered soil medium by considering each
story in the building as another layer and derive the equations
for vertically propagating plane shear waves. The equations
incorporate the damping in the soil and the building, as well
as the filtering effects of the concentrated foundation and floor
1
Res. Struct. Engr., U.S. Geological Survey, Box 25046, MS 966, Den-
ver, CO 80225.
Note. Associate Editor: Chia-Ming Uang. Discussion open until Sep-
tember 1, 1999. To extend the closing date one month, a written request
must be filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for
this paper was submitted for review and possible publication on Novem-
ber 17, 1997. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, Vol. 125, No. 4, April, 1999. 䉷ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/99/0004-
0426 – 0437/$8.00 ⫹ $.50 per page. Paper No. 17011.
426 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999
masses. For simplicity, we assume that the buildings are sym-
metric, deform only in shear, and do not slide or rock. There-
fore, there are no torsional motions, and the floors are rigid
and do not rotate. With respect to soil-structure interaction, the
model incorporates the effect of finite rigidity in the soil (i.e.,
the effect of energy radiated back into the soil) but not the
effects of rocking and the 2D scattering.
The simplifying assumptions made above limit the appli-
cability of the method to only certain types of buildings and
responses. However, the assumptions do not necessarily rep-
resent a limitation of the methodology and are made primarily
to simplify the equations. The main objective of this paper is
to introduce the basic methodology for a simple case, so that
it can be expanded to more complicated and realistic cases.
WAVE PROPAGATION IN MULTISTORY BUILDINGS
Fig. 1(a) shows a multistory building resting on a multilay-
ered soil medium and subjected to vertically propagating shear
waves. The seismic waves propagating through the soil and
the building can be separated into the upgoing and the down-
going components, as shown in the figure. Whenever the up-
going and downgoing waves cross a layer interface they are
partly reflected and partly transmitted into the next layer. The
reflections and transmissions are characterized by the reflec-
tion and transmission coefficients. This is schematically shown
in Fig. 1(b), where u denotes the upgoing wave, and Ru and
Tu denote the reflection and transmission coefficients for the
upgoing wave, respectively. Similarly, d denotes the down-
going wave, and Rd and Td denote the corresponding reflection
and transmission coefficients for the downgoing wave, respec-
tively.
We derive the wave-propagation equations by using the dis-
crete-time formulation that is commonly used by researchers
in oil exploration [e.g., Claerbout (1976) and Robinson and
Treitel (1980)]. Consider the three consecutive layers, layers j
⫺ 1, j, and j ⫹ 1, as schematically shown in Fig. 1(c). Let
uj (t) and dj (t) represent the amplitudes at discrete time t of the
upgoing wave at the top and the downgoing wave at the bot-
tom, respectively, of layer j. We can show from Fig. 1(c) that
the upgoing wave uj (t) in layer j is composed of the reflected
portion of the downgoing wave from the bottom, plus the
transmitted portion of the upgoing wave from the layer below.
This relationship can be expressed by the following equation:
uj (t) = R d, j⫺1 ⭈ dj (t ⫺ ␶j ) ⫹ Tu, j⫺1 ⭈ uj⫺1(t ⫺ ␶j ) (1a)
where R d, j⫺1 and Tu, j⫺1 denote the reflection coefficient for the
downgoing waves and the transmission coefficient for the up-
going waves, respectively, at interface j ⫺ 1. ␶j is the one-way

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FIG. 1. Bedrock-Soil-Building System: (a) Layers, Interfaces, and Upgoing and Downgoing Waves; (b) Reflection and Transmission
of Upgoing and Downgoing Waves; (c) Three Consecutive Layers with Upgoing and Downgoing Waves
travel time of the waves in layer j. Similarly, we note that the
downgoing wave dj (t) in layer j is composed of the reflected
portion of the upgoing wave from the top, plus the transmitted
portion of the downgoing wave from the layer above. This can
be expressed by
dj (t) = R u, j ⭈ uj (t ⫺ ␶j ) ⫹ Td, j ⭈ dj⫹1(t ⫺ ␶j )
where R u, j and Td, j denote the reflection coefficient for the up-
going waves and the transmission coefficient for the down-
going waves, respectively, at interface j. Eqs. (1a) and (1b)
are valid for all intermediate soil and building layers. For the
first and the last layers, we modify the equations to incorporate
the boundary conditions. For the first layer, which is the bot-
tom soil layer next to the bedrock [Fig. 1(a)], we can show
that
u1(t) = R d,0 ⭈ d1(t ⫺ ␶1) ⫹ Tu,0 ⭈ x0(t ⫺ ␶1)
d1(t) = R u,1 ⭈ u1(t ⫺ ␶1) ⫹ Td,1 ⭈ d2(t ⫺ ␶1)
where x0(t) = input seismic wave at the bedrock-soil interface.
It is assumed that there are no reflections from the bottom of
bedrock. For the last layer [layer m ⫹ N in Fig. 1(a)], which
is the top story of the building, we note that there are no
downgoing waves transmitted from the layer above. Thus
um⫹N(t) = R d,m⫹N⫺1 ⭈ dm⫹N (t ⫺ ␶m⫹N ) ⫹ Tu,m⫹N⫺1 ⭈ um⫹N⫺1(t ⫺ ␶m⫹N )
dm⫹N (t) = R u,m⫹N ⭈ um⫹N (t ⫺ ␶m⫹N)
Eqs. (1) – (3) provide a complete description of the wave prop-
agation in a soil-building system.
The actual response of any floor in the building, or any
interface in the soil medium, can be calculated by combining
the upgoing and downgoing waves. For interface j in the build-
ing, for example, the response at the top and the bottom of
the floor slab is
y j,top(t) = uj⫹1(t ⫺ ␶j⫹1) ⫹ dj⫹1(t)
y j,bot(t) = uj (t) ⫹ dj (t ⫺ ␶j )
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437
The continuity of displacements at the floor slab requires that
y j,top(t) = y j,bot(t); therefore, either (4a) or (4b) can be used to
represent the motions of the floors.
If the sampling interval of the incident bedrock motion x0(t)
is small enough such that the travel times ␶j in the layers are
integer multiples of the sampling interval, the wave-propaga-
(1b) tion equations all become finite-difference (i.e., discrete-time
filtering) equations. The soil-building system is defined in the
equations by the wave travel times in the layers, and the wave
reflection and transmission coefficients at the layer interfaces,
which can all be determined uniquely from the physical char-
acteristics of the building and the soil (we will add the damp-
ing in the equations later). For a given soil-building system
and the bedrock motion, the equations can be solved recur-
sively starting from the bedrock [i.e., with (2a)] and continu-
ing upward. Note that the initial values of uj (t) and dj (t) are
zero until the first arrival of the waves in layer j. That is
(2a)
冘
j
(2b) uj (t) = 0 for t < ␶k (5a)
k=1
冘
j
dj (t) = 0 for t < ␶j ⫹ ␶k (5b)
k=1
We should mention that in the wave-propagation formulation
either accelerations, velocities, or displacements can be used
as input. Calculated response is of the same type as the input,
(3a) and the response in the building represents the absolute re-
sponse, not the relative response with respect to ground.
(3b)
WAVE TRAVEL TIMES
Wave travel times in the layers are calculated by simply
dividing the layer thickness with the wave velocity in each
layer. The shear-wave velocities for soil are generally deter-
mined by field tests and are available in the literature for a
large number of different soil types. Theoretically, the 1D
shear-wave velocity v s in an elastic soil medium is v s =
兹G/␳, where G and ␳ are the shear modulus and the mass
(4a) density, respectively, of the soil. In buildings, if we assume
that the vertical segment between the two floor slabs is fairly
(4b) uniform (in terms of its mass and stiffness), we can approxi-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999 / 427
 mate the shear-wave velocity v b in that story as v b = 兹Sh/␥
(Clough and Penzien 1975), where S, h, and ␥ are the shear
stiffness, height, and the mass per unit length of the story,
respectively. ␥ represents the mass per unit length of the ver-
tical segment between the floors but does not include any of
the concentrated floor masses at the top or the bottom of the
story. If a vertical segment between the floors is not uniform
(e.g., a large window opening, a sharp stiffness change at
midstory, etc.), we can always divide it into smaller vertical
segments until each segment is approximately uniform. In
other words, we represent such stories with more than one
layer. More precise methods of estimating shear-wave veloc-
ities in reinforced concrete frame buildings can be found in
Todorovska et al. (1988).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
REFLECTION AND TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENTS
When the upgoing and downgoing waves cross from one
layer to another, their amplitudes and phases are altered be-
cause of the reflections at the layer interface. These alterations
are characterized by the reflection and transmission coeffi-
cients and are different for upgoing and downgoing waves. If
the interface has no concentrated mass, such as the bedrock-
soil or soil-soil interfaces, the coefficients are constants. When
the interface has a concentrated mass, such as the foundation
or the building floors, the coefficients become functions of
frequency.
To derive the equations for the reflection and transmission
coefficients, we subject the layer interface to an incident plane
wave of a specified frequency and calculate its reflected and
FIG. 2. Amplitudes and Phases of Reflection Coefficients for Upgoing and Downgoing Waves at Foundation-Soil Interface for Typical
Bounds of a ⴝ Imⴙ1 /Im and b ⴝ mf /Im
428 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437
transmitted components by using the conditions that the dis-
placements above and below the interface are equal and the
shear forces are in equilibrium. The inertia forces acting on
the concentrated masses of the foundation and the building
floors should be included in the shear equilibrium equations
for those interfaces. More detail of these calculations can be
found in Şafak (1997) and in textbooks on wave propagation
[e.g., Ewing et al. (1957) and Doyle (1989)]. The coefficients
for all interfaces can be summarized by the following equa-
tions:
Ij ⫺ Ij⫹1 ⫺ i ⭈ 2␲ f ⭈ mj
R u, j = , Tu, j = 1 ⫹ R u, j (6a)
Ij ⫹ Ij⫹1 ⫹ i ⭈ 2␲ f ⭈ mj
Ij⫹1 ⫺ Ij ⫺ i ⭈ 2␲ f ⭈ mj
Td, j = 1 ⫹ R d, j
R d, j = , (6b)
Ij ⫹ Ij⫹1 ⫹ i ⭈ 2␲ f ⭈ mj
where Ij = impedance of layer j; and mj denotes the concen-
trated mass at interface j. For soil layers, Ij = ␳j v j , where ␳j
and v j are the mass density and the shear-wave velocity in the
layer, respectively; and mj ⬅ 0. For building layers, Ij = ␥ j v j ,
with ␥ j and v j denoting the mass per unit length and the wave
velocity, respectively, in layer j. At the soil-foundation inter-
face [interface m in Fig. 1(a)], we take Im = ␳ m v m Afn, where
Afn is the contact area of the foundation. Note for the bedrock-
soil and soil-soil interfaces that since mj ⬅ 0 the reflection and
transmission coefficients are constants. For the foundation and
the building floors the coefficients are frequency dependent
because mj ≠ 0.
Fig. 2 shows the amplitude and the phase of the reflection
 coefficients for upgoing and downgoing waves at the soil-
foundation interface for typical bounds of a = Im⫹1 /Im and b =
mf /Im. For small a and b values (i.e., small first-story stiffness,
small foundation mass, large contact area, or hard soil) the
amplitude and the phase of the reflection coefficient for the
upgoing waves approach one and zero, respectively, which are
the values for a free surface reflection. In other words, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
presence of the building does not influence the motions at the
top of the soil layer, and they are practically equal to those at
a free field. For large a values, the reflection coefficient be-
comes much less than one at low frequencies and, depending
on the value of b, gradually approaches one as the frequency
increases. In other words, the low frequency components are
transmitted to the building, while most of the high-frequency

FIG. 3. Amplitudes and Phases of Reflection Coefficients for Upgoing and Downgoing Waves at Building Floor for Typical Bounds of
a ⴝ Ijⴙ1 /Ij and b ⴝ mj /Ij

TABLE 1. Characteristics of 10-Story Building and Soil Layers Used in Examples

Story mass
(10⫺4 ⭈ kg) Floor (or foundation) Story height or
Building story or Shear stiffness or soil density mass above Wave velocity layer thickness
soil layer (10⫺7 ⭈ N/m) (kg/m3) (10⫺4 ⭈ kg) (m/s) (m)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Story 10 4.0 1.000 2.000 181 3.5
Story 9 4.5 1.875 1.750 177 3.5
Story 8 4.5 1.750 1.750 177 3.5
Story 7 5.5 1.750 1.750 196 3.5
Story 6 5.5 1.750 1.750 196 3.5
Story 5 6.5 1.750 1.750 213 3.5
Story 4 6.5 1.750 1.750 213 3.5
Story 3 7.5 1.750 1.750 229 3.5
Story 2 7.5 1.750 1.750 229 3.5
Story 1 5.0 1.625 2.250 225 4.5
Soil layer 1 — 2,200 8.634a 200 20.0
Soil layer 2 — 2,500 — 500 30.0
Bedrock — 2,800 — 2,000 —
a
Foundation.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999 / 429

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437

 components are blocked. Fig. 3 gives the amplitude and the
phase of the reflection coefficients in a building floor for typ-
ical bounds of a = Ij⫹1 /Ij and b = mj /Ij . Again, the figure shows
that the concentrated floor masses have the effect of a low-
pass filter on the upgoing and downgoing waves crossing the
interface.
The reflection and transmission coefficients derived above
are for shear waves, because we assumed that the building
deforms mainly in shear. If the bending deformations are sig-
nificant, we have to use the reflection and transmission coef-
ficients calculated for flexural waves. Flexural waves include
four terms, two complex-valued propagating terms (same as
the shear waves) plus two real-valued ringing terms. Four co-
efficients require four equations to determine the reflection and
transmission coefficients. The equations are obtained by writ-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
DAMPING
Damping gives a measure of energy loss per cycle and is
present in all oscillatory systems. For soils the energy loss due
to damping can be represented by the following simple atten-
uation equation [see Aki and Richards (1980, Chapter 5.5)]:
As( f ) = e⫺␲␶ f /Q (7)
where As ( f ) represents the reduction in the amplitude of a
sinusoidal wave of frequency f when it travels a distance of
travel time ␶. The damping is defined by Q, known as the
quality factor (Knopoff 1964). 1/Q gives the measure of en-
ergy loss per cycle and can be assumed to be independent of
frequency for many cases (Kjartansson 1979). The logarithmic
decrement (i.e., the natural logarithm of the ratio of amplitudes

ing the equality of the displacements and rotations and the of two successive maxima) for the solid friction model is ␲/
equilibrium of the shear forces and the bending moments at Q. By comparing this with the logarithmic decrement of free
the interface. vibrations under viscous damping, we can show that ␰ = 1/
2Q, where ␰ is the viscous damping ratio. The exponent of the
TABLE 2. Modal Frequencies and Damping Ratios of Fixed- attenuation function for viscous damping is proportional to f 2,
Based Building whereas for solid friction it is proportional to f, as seen in (7).
In this paper, the damping in each soil layer will be defined
Modal frequency
by its Q value.
Mode number (Hz) Modal damping ratio
For buildings, the damping has generally been assumed to
(1) (2) (3)
be of viscous type and proportional to the mass or the stiffness
1 0.97 0.05 of the building. The assumption of proportionality is mainly
2 2.66 0.05
3 4.37 0.07
for mathematical convenience so that we can have real-valued
4 6.00 0.09 frequencies and mode shapes when using modal analysis. In
5 7.42 0.11 the wave-propagation formulation, these assumptions are not
6 8.82 0.13 needed because we can specify the damping independently for
7 9.84 0.14 each story. Experiments show that for cyclically stressed ma-
8 10.81 0.15 terials, the energy loss per cycle is independent of frequency
9 11.89 0.17
10 13.18 0.18
and proportional to the square of vibration amplitude (Thom-
son 1972). This type of damping is called the structural damp-

FIG. 4. Impulsive and Recorded Ground Motions Used as Inputs in Examples

430 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437

 ing and is represented by the structural damping factor ␭. The
attenuation function for structural damping is identical to that
for solid friction; except for notation, we use ␭ instead of 1/
Q in the exponent of (7). It can be shown by comparing the
resonance amplitudes of an oscillator under harmonic loads
that at the resonance frequency the structural damping factor
is equal to twice the viscous damping factor. It should be re-
membered, however, that for viscous damping the energy loss
per cycle depends on the frequency, whereas for structural
damping it is independent of frequency.
The simplest way to incorporate damping in the equations
is to make shear stiffnesses of the layers complex quantities.
For soil layers, we can approximate the damping by multiply-
ing the wave velocities with (1 ⫺ 0.5i/Q) (Şafak 1995). For
building layers, we make the stiffness complex by multiplying
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the original stiffness with (1 ⫹ i ⭈ ␭) in each layer (Thomson
1972). Complex stiffnesses result in complex wave velocities.
SOLUTION OF WAVE-PROPAGATION EQUATIONS
As stated earlier, for a given building and bedrock motion,
the wave propagation equations [(1) – (3)] can be solved re-
cursively starting from the bedrock [i.e., with (2a)] and con-
tinuing upward. The initial values of u(t) and d(t) to start the
recursion are given by (5). If we choose to incorporate the
damping in the equations by making the shear stiffnesses com-
plex, the wave velocities and the travel times all become com-
plex resulting in finite-difference equations with complex time
FIG. 5. Calculated Upgoing and Downgoing Waves in Building and Soil Layers
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437
shifts. A frequency-domain technique might be more appro-
priate to solve such equations. The frequency-domain solution
methods will be the subject of another paper. In this paper, we
will solve the equations by using recursive, discrete-time do-
main methods, which are simpler and easier to program than
the frequency-domain methods.
First, we need to write the damped version of the wave-
propagation equations given by (1) – (3). To incorporate damp-
ing, we multiply the upgoing and downgoing waves in each
layer with the corresponding attenuation function for damping
in the layer. When this is done, the equations for layer j be-
come
uj (t) = Aj ( f ) ⭈ [R d, j⫺1 ⭈ dj (t ⫺ ␶j ) ⫹Tu, j⫺1 ⭈ uj⫺1(t ⫺ ␶j )] (8a)
dj (t) = Aj ( f ) ⭈ [R u, j ⭈ uj (t ⫺ ␶j ) ⫹ Td, j ⭈ dj⫹1(t ⫺ ␶j )]
(8b)
where Aj ( f ) denotes the attenuation function for layer j. Al-
though these equations are in the discrete-time domain, the
reflection and transmission coefficients for the foundation and
the building, as well as the attenuation function due to damp-
ing, are all frequency dependent. Therefore, to solve the equa-
tions recursively in the time domain, we should first convert
the frequency-dependent parameters into discrete-time filters.
Because the reflection and transmission coefficients, given
by (6), include the term i(2␲ f ) explicitly, they can easily be
converted into discrete-time filters by using the bilinear trans-
formation (Cadzow 1973). To do this we simply replace i(2␲f)
with
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999 / 431
 2 1 ⫺ q⫺1 Similar conversions can be made for R d ( f ), Tu( f ), and Td ( f ).
i(2␲ f ) = ⭈ (9) The attenuation function for damping [(7)] does not have
⌬ 1 ⫹ q⫺1
the term i(2␲ f ) explicitly. However, it has the form of a low
where ⌬ = sampling interval in seconds; and q⫺1 = backward- pass filter and can be matched by a simple discrete-time filter
shift operator, defined as q⫺j x(t) = x(t ⫺ j). With the trans- of the following form (Şafak 1995):
formation, we can write each reflection and transmission co-
efficient as a first-order discrete-time filter. For example, R u, j 1 ⫺ ␣ 1 ⫹ q⫺1
A(q) = ⭈ (11a)
(q), the discrete-time equivalent of R u, j ( f ), is 2 1 ⫺ ␣q⫺1

␤0j ⫹ ␤1 j q⫺1 where

R u, j (q) = ⫺1 (10a)
1 ⫹ ␣1 j q
1 ⫺ 兹1 ⫺ cos2␪ Q⌬
␣= with ␪ = ln(2) (11b)
cos ␪ ␶
where the filter coefficients ␤0 j , ␤1 j , and ␣1 j are found to be
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The parameter Q in (11b) should be replaced with 1/␭ if the

⌬(Ij ⫹ Ij⫹1) ⫺ 2mj
␣1 j = ; ␤0 j =
⌬(Ij ⫹ Ij⫹1) ⫹ 2mj
⌬(Ij ⫺ Ij⫹1) ⫹ 2mj
␤1 j =
⌬(Ij ⫹ Ij⫹1) ⫹ 2mj
⌬(Ij ⫺ Ij⫹1) ⫺ 2mj layer belongs to the building. The derivation of (11) can be
;
⌬(Ij ⫹ Ij⫹1) ⫹ 2mj found in Appendix I in Şafak (1995).
By incorporating (10) and (11) in (8), we obtain the dis-
crete-time forms of the wave-propagation equations as fol-
(10b) lows:

FIG. 6. Comparison of Foundation and Top-Floor Accelerations Calculated by Using Wave-Propagation and Modal Analyses for Stiff-
Soil, Light Foundation and Soft-Soil, Heavy Foundation Systems Subjected to Velocity Impulse

432 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437

 冘 冘
2 2
EXAMPLES
uj (t) = A1k uj (t ⫺ k) ⫹ A2l dj (t ⫺ ␶j ⫺ l)
k=1 l=0 To illustrate an application of the methodology introduced

冘
2
above, we will calculate the seismic response of a 10-story
building founded on a two-layered soil medium over the bed-
⫹ A3s uj⫺1(t ⫺ ␶j ⫺ s) rock. The characteristics of the building and the soil layers
s=0 (12a)
used in the calculations are given in Tables 1 and 2. The soil

冘 冘 layers selected represent a firm site. The mass of the building

2 2

dj (t) = B1k dj (t ⫺ k) ⫹ B2l uj (t ⫺ ␶j ⫺ l) is assumed to be divided equally between the floors and the
k=1 l=0 walls. The contact area of the foundation is Af = 400 m2, and

冘
2 the structural damping factor for all stories of the building is
⫹ B3s dj⫹1(t ⫺ ␶j ⫺ s) ␭ = 0.10, which is equivalent to 5% viscous damping at res-
s=0 (12b) onant frequencies. The damping in the soil layers is defined
by Q = 30 and Q = 50 for the upper and the lower layers,
The coefficients A1k, . . . , B3s can all be calculated in terms of respectively.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the coefficients of the filters given by (10) and (11). Similar
discrete forms can be written for the first and the top layers.
There are several software packages with routines to convert
frequency domain filters into discrete-time filters [e.g., the m-
file invfreqz.m in MATLAB’s Signal Processing Toolbox (Sig-
nal 1997a)]. The utilization of such routines greatly simplifies
the calculations.
The building is first subjected to a seismic impulse at the
bedrock-soil interface. The selected impulse is a one cycle,
two-s long, sinusoidal velocity pulse with a peak amplitude of
1.0 m/s. The velocity impulse, along with the corresponding
acceleration and displacement impulses are plotted in Fig. 4(a).
As stated earlier, the calculations can be performed by taking
either accelerations, velocities, or displacements as the input.

FIG. 7. Comparison of Foundation and Top-Floor Accelerations Calculated by Using Wave-Propagation and Modal Analyses for Stiff-
Soil, Light Foundation and Soft-Soil, Heavy Foundation Systems Subjected to Recorded Earthquake

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999 / 433

J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437

 In the examples, we used the accelerations. The calculated
response represents the absolute accelerations. Fig. 5 shows
the calculated upgoing and downgoing acceleration waves in
the building and soil layers.
To compare the results with that of the standard vibration
approach, we also calculated the response by using modal
analysis. For this, we first calculated the free-field ground mo-
tions at the surface of the two-layer soil medium for the same
bedrock motion. We then used the free-field motion as the
input to determine the fixed-based response of the same build-
ing by using modal analysis. This is an approach that is com-
monly used in practice. The comparisons of the foundation
and top-floor accelerations calculated from the wave-propa-
gation analysis with those from the modal analysis are given
in Fig. 6(a). Since the soil-structure system chosen for the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
example represents a stiff-soil, light-foundation system, there
is not much difference between the results of the wave-prop-
agation and the modal analyses. The accelerations at the foun-
dation are basically identical to those at a free field. Recall
that in modal analysis, the foundation accelerations are the
free-field accelerations at the top of the two-layer soil medium.
We made a similar comparison for a soft-soil, heavy-founda-
tion system, where we reduced the shear-wave velocity of the
top soil layer to 20 m/s and increased the mass of the foun-
FIG. 8. Comparisons of Foundation-to-Roof Transfer Functions Calculated from Wave-Propagation and Modal Analyses for Four Dif-
ferent Systems
434 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437
dation by a factor of 10. This comparison is also given in Fig.
6(b). The figure shows that for soft soils and heavy founda-
tions the wave-propagation and modal analyses results differ
significantly. The primary reason for the differences is that the
modal analysis does not account for the energy loss due to
wave transmission from the building back into the soil.
We made similar comparisons by changing the input to a
recorded ground motion. Fig. 4(b) shows the input acceleration
time histories applied at the bedrock-soil interface. The com-
parisons of the foundation and top-floor accelerations calcu-
lated from the wave-propagation analysis with those calculated
from the modal analysis are given in Fig. 7 for both the stiff-
soil, light-foundation and the soft-soil, heavy-foundation cases.
Similar conclusions can be drawn from Fig. 7. The differences
between the wave-propagation and modal analyses are more
significant for the impulsive input.
We also compared the foundation to top-floor transfer func-
tions, calculated by simply taking the top-floor-to-foundation
ratio of the Fourier amplitude spectra of the response for all
four cases. Theoretically, the changes in the foundation and
soil properties and the bedrock motions should not affect the
foundation-to-top-floor transfer function. Therefore, the trans-
fer functions for all four cases should be identical. The transfer
functions calculated from the modal analysis are plotted in Fig.
 8(a), and those from the wave-propagation analysis are plotted
in Fig. 8(b). When calculating the transfer functions for the
modal analysis, we had to use a smoothing window to obtain
realistic amplitudes, because the high-frequency errors in the
response resulted in spurious large peaks. The transfer func-
tions for the wave-propagation analysis did not need any
smoothing. Fig. 8 shows that the transfer functions obtained
from the wave-propagation analysis are much more accurate
than those obtained from the modal analysis, particularly at
higher modes. This confirms the superiority of the wave-prop-
agation analysis in higher modes.
Another advantage of the wave-propagation analysis over
the modal analysis is that it can account for the distribution
of the building’s mass between the walls and the floors. In the
examples above we assumed that the story masses in the build-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ing are equally divided between the walls and the floors. To
see the influence of the mass distribution, we calculated the
response assuming the floor masses are 20% (light floor, heavy
walls) and 80% (heavy floor, light walls) of the total story
mass used in modal analysis. We considered the stiff-soil,
light-foundation system and used the velocity impulse as the
input. The comparisons of the time histories and the Fourier
amplitude spectra of the calculated top-story accelerations,
along with those from the modal analysis, are given in Fig. 9.
The figure shows that the results change significantly depend-
ing on how the story masses are distributed between the floors
and walls. As expected, the results for the heavy-floor, light-
FIG. 9. Comparisons of Time Histories and Fourier Amplitudes of Top-Floor Accelerations Calculated by Assuming Different Mass
Distributions between Walls and Floors
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437
wall case match better with those from the modal analysis,
because in modal analysis the wall and floor masses are as-
sumed to be concentrated at the floor levels. As the walls be-
come heavier relative to the floors, more energy is put into the
higher modes.
OTHER APPLICATIONS OF WAVE-PROPAGATION
FORMULATION
One of the important applications of the wave-propagation
formulation presented above is the identification and damage
detection in multistory buildings from vibration recordings.
Most of the methods suggested for identification and damage
detection are based on the identification and detection of
changes in modal characteristics, such as the modal frequen-
cies, damping ratios, mode shapes, and modal participation
factors. An extensive literature review of such methods can be
found in Doebling et al. (1996). It is well known that the
modal parameters of multistory buildings are not good indi-
cators for damage, because they are not sensitive to small and
local changes in the building’s characteristics. The wave-prop-
agation approach can overcome some of the deficiencies of the
modal approach. Although the wave-propagation methods
have been used to detect damages in small specimens (e.g.,
plates and beams) in the laboratory, they have not been applied
to large, civil-engineering-type structures. The discrete-time
formulation presented above provides convenient tools for
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999 / 435
 identification and damage detection. In the formulation, we use
the wave travel times, reflection and transmission coefficients,
and the structural damping factors to characterize the building.
These parameters can be identified from the recorded vibra-
tions of the building if they are available from each floor. The
damage is detected by investigating the changes in the param-
eters. When compared to modal analysis, the main advantages
of this new methodology are that it is more accurate and much
simpler, the parameters used are more sensitive to damage, the
identification and damage detection are most robust, and the
method can account for the effects of soil layers underlying
the foundation. More detail on the methodology can be found
in Şafak (1998a).
In recent years, several powerful digital simulation soft-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
ware packages have become available commercially [e.g.,
SIMULINK (1997b)]. These programs allow real-time simu-
lation of linear and nonlinear systems under dynamic loads.
The systems are modeled in the form of block diagrams, simi-
lar to those for electrical circuits, and simulated in the discrete-
time domain. The presented wave-propagation formulation
provides a convenient form to use these programs to study
seismic response of structures. We can observe the changes in
response instantaneously (i.e., in real time) for any changes in
structural characteristics or loads. Complex problems, such as
finding the optimum design for the building, testing what-if
scenarios, or determining collapse mechanisms can all be in-
vestigated easily using such software.
The formulation presented above can also be used for non-
linear structures. Any nonlinear structure can be modeled as a
linear structure whose parameters change with time. If any of
the soil or building layers is nonlinear, the shear stiffness (and
consequently the wave travel time) would change with fre-
quency, amplitude, or time depending on the type of nonlin-
earity. The frequency-dependent nonlinearities can be con-
verted into discrete-time filters, as we did for (7). Because the
equations are solved recursively in the time domain, we can
check the deformations and stresses in the layers at each time
step to see if there is any nonlinearity, and if there is we can
update the travel times and the reflection and transmission co-
efficients accordingly.
Finally, the methodology can also be used to investigate the
flow of seismic energy in multistory buildings (Şafak 1998b).
We define the energy flow in terms of energy flux, which is
the amount of energy transmitted per unit time through the
cross section of a layer. We select the state variables uj (t) and
dj (t) in (1) – (3) to represent the upgoing and the downgoing
energy fluxes in the layers. Energy flux gives a dynamic mea-
sure of energy demand by the earthquake at each story and
provides important new guidelines for design.
CONCLUSIONS
The wave-propagation formulation has the potential, when
fully developed, to become a simpler and more powerful al-
ternative to modal analysis to calculate the seismic response
of multistory buildings. This paper introduces the general con-
cept by considering very simple buildings and response modes.
For buildings founded on layered soil media and subjected to
vertically propagating seismic shear waves, the buildings are
modeled as an extension of the soil medium, considering each
story as another layer. The response is calculated in terms of
the wave travel times at each layer and the wave reflection
and transmission coefficients at layer interfaces. The wave-
propagation equations are obtained in the form of two simple
finite-difference equations at each layer, one for the upgoing
436 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437
waves and the other for the downgoing waves. They are solved
recursively, starting with the first soil layer next to the bedrock.
When compared to the commonly used vibration formulation,
the wave-propagation formulation (1) is simpler to implement;
(2) is more accurate at high frequencies; (3) incorporates the
damping and mass distribution more accurately; (4) can ac-
count for the energy absorptions by the soil layers under the
foundation; (5) provides better tools for identification and
damage detection; (6) allows utilization of digital simulation
software; and (7) can be extended to nonlinear systems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer would like to thank Dr. W. B. Joyner of the U.S. Geological
Survey, Menlo Park, Calif., Prof. R. Zhang of the Colorado School of
Mines, Golden, Colo., and the anonymous reviewers of ASCE for their
reviews and comments.
APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Aki, K., and Richards, P. G. (1980). Quantitative seismology: Theory and
methods, Vol. I, W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco.
˜
Aydogan, M., and Uzgider, E. (1988). ‘‘A numerical method for the earth-
quake response of brick masonry structures.’’ Bull., Technical Univer-
sity of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey, 41(3), 415 – 431.
Cadzow, A. J. (1973). Discrete-time systems. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.
Cai, G. Q., and Lin, Y. K. (1991a). ‘‘Localization of wave propagation
in disordered periodic structures.’’ AIAA J., 29(3), 450 – 456.
Cai, G. Q., and Lin, Y. K. (1991b). ‘‘Wave propagation and scattering in
structural networks.’’ J. Engrg., Mech., ASCE, 117(7), 1555 – 1574.
Claerbout, J. F. (1976). Fundamentals of geophysical data processing:
With applications to petroleum prospecting. McGraw-Hills, New York.
Clough, R. W., and Penzien, J. (1975). Dynamics of structures. McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Doebling, S. W., Farrar, C. R., Prime, M. B., and Shevitz, D. W. (1996).
‘‘Damage identification and health monitoring of structural and me-
chanical systems from changes in their vibration characteristics: A lit-
erature review.’’ Rep. No. LA-13070-MS, Los Alamos National Labo-
ratory, Los Alamos, N.M.
Doyle, J. F. (1989). Wave propagation in structures: An FFT-based spec-
tral analysis methodology. Springer, New York.
Ewing, W. M., Jardetzky, W. S., and Press, F. (1957). Elastic waves in
layered media. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hall, J., Heaton, T. H., Haling, M. W., and Wald, D. J. (1995). ‘‘Near-
source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings.’’ Earth-
quake Spectra, 11(4), 569.
Iwan, W. D. (1997). ‘‘Drift spectrum: Measure of demand for earthquake
ground motions.’’ J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 123(4), 397 – 404.
Kjartansson, E. (1979). ‘‘Constant Q-wave propagation and attenuation.’’
J. Geophys. Res., 84(B9), 4737 – 4748.
Knopoff, L. (1964). ‘‘Q.’’ Rev. of Geophysics, 2, 625 – 660.
Robinson, E. A., and Treitel, S. (1980). Geophysical signal analysis,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Şafak, E. (1995). ‘‘Discrete-time analysis of seismic site amplification.’’
J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 121(7), 801 – 809.
Şafak, E. (1997). ‘‘Propagation of seismic waves in tall buildings.’’ Proc.,
4th Conf. on Tall Build. in Seismic Regions, Los Angeles Tall Buildings
and Structural Design Council, Los Angeles, Calif., 139 – 153.
Şafak, E. (1998a). ‘‘New approach to identification and damage detection
in multi-story buildings subjected to seismic loads.’’ Proc., Struct.
Engrs. World Congr., ASCE, Reston, Va. (in CD Rom).
Şafak, E. (1998b). ‘‘Seismic energy flux in multi-story buildings.’’ Proc.,
Struct. Engrs. World Congr., Reston, Va. (in CD Rom).
Signal processing toolbox for MATLAB, version 4.0.1. (1997a). Math-
works Inc., Natick, Mass.
SIMULINK, version 2.1 (1997b). Mathworks Inc., Natick, Mass.
Thomson, W. T. (1972). Theory of vibration with applications. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Todorovska, M. I., and Lee, V. W. (1989). ‘‘Seismic waves in buildings
with shear walls or central core.’’ J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 115(12),
2669 – 2686.
 Todorovska, M. I., Lee, V. W., and Trifunac, M. D. (1988). ‘‘Investigation
of earthquake response of long buildings.’’ Rep. No. 88-02, Dept. of
Civ. Engrg., University of Southern California, Calif.
Todorovska, M. I., and Trifunac, M. D. (1989). ‘‘Antiplane earthquake
waves in long structures.’’ J. Engrg. Mech., ASCE, 115(12), 2687 – 2708.
˜
Uzgider, E., and Aydogan, M. (1986). ‘‘Simple and efficient method for
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Ryerson University on 01/05/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J. Struct. Eng., 1999, 125(4): 426-437
the dynamic response of 2D frames subject to ground motions.’’ Proc.,
8th Eur. Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Vol. 3, Laboratorio Nacional de
Engenharia Civil, Lisboa, Portugal, 6.2/17.
Yong, Y., and Lin, Y. K. (1992). ‘‘Dynamic response analysis of truss-
type structural networks: A wave propagation approach.’’ J. Sound and
Vibration, 156(1), 27 – 35.
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / APRIL 1999 / 437