University of Wollongong

Research Online
Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences Papers

Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences

2013

Evaluation of damping modification factors for

seismic response spectra
M. Neaz Sheikh
University of Wollongong, msheikh@uow.edu.au

Hing-Ho Tsang
The University of Hong Kong, tsanghh@hkucc.hku.hk

Saman Yaghmaei-Sabegh
University of Tabriz, s_yaghmaei@tabrizu.ac.ir

P. Anbazhagan
Indian Institute of Science

Publication Details
Sheikh, M. Neaz., Tsang, H., Yaghmaei-Sabegh, S. & Anbazhagan, P. (2013). Evaluation of damping modification factors for seismic
response spectra. In S. Anderson (Eds.), Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Conference 2013 (pp. 1-13). Tasmania:
Australian Earthquake Engineering Society.

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the

University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW
Library: research-pubs@uow.edu.au

Evaluation of damping modification factors for seismic response spectra

Abstract

Seismic response spectra with structural damping ratio other than nominal 5% (of critical damping) are
essential for the design and evaluation of structures in performance-based seismic engineering. Such response
spectra are also essential for the design and evaluation of structures with seismic isolation and energy
dissipation systems. A number of formulations for damping modification factors (DMF) have been proposed
in the literature for scaling the 5% damped response spectra. Dependence of the DMF on several ground
motion parameters has also been identified. Few seismic design codes have already incorporated simplified
DMF based on these studies. This paper critically reviews the available formulations for DMF for seismic
response spectra. Analytical investigations on the ground motion response spectra at soil sites, based on a
wide range of simulated ground motion records, have been carried out. It has been observed that the DMF for
ground motion response spectra at soil sites is significantly dependent on site period, which has not been
identified in previous studies. The influences of earthquake shaking level, earthquake source-site distance
(nearfield and far-field events), soil plasticity index, and the rigidity of bedrock have also been investigated.
Keywords

modification, seismic, factors, evaluation, response, damping, spectra

Disciplines

Engineering | Science and Technology Studies

Publication Details

Sheikh, M. Neaz., Tsang, H., Yaghmaei-Sabegh, S. & Anbazhagan, P. (2013). Evaluation of damping
modification factors for seismic response spectra. In S. Anderson (Eds.), Australian Earthquake Engineering
Society Conference 2013 (pp. 1-13). Tasmania: Australian Earthquake Engineering Society.

This conference paper is available at Research Online: http://ro.uow.edu.au/eispapers/1985

Evaluation of Damping Modification Factors for Seismic

Response Spectra
M. Neaz Sheikh1,*, Hing-Ho Tsang2, Saman Yaghmaei-Sabegh3, P. Anbazhagan4
1

School of Civil, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Wollongong,

Wollongong, Australia
2
Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology,
Hawthorn, Victoria, Australia
3
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
*

Corresponding Author: M. Neaz Sheikh (Email: msheikh@uow.edu.au )

ABSTRACT
Seismic response spectra with structural damping ratio other than nominal 5% (of critical
damping) are essential for the design and evaluation of structures in performance-based
seismic engineering. Such response spectra are also essential for the design and evaluation of
structures with seismic isolation and energy dissipation systems. A number of formulations
for damping modification factors (DMF) have been proposed in the literature for scaling the
5% damped response spectra. Dependence of the DMF on several ground motion parameters
has also been identified. Few seismic design codes have already incorporated simplified
DMF based on these studies. This paper critically reviews the available formulations for
DMF for seismic response spectra. Analytical investigations on the ground motion response
spectra at soil sites, based on a wide range of simulated ground motion records, have been
carried out. It has been observed that the DMF for ground motion response spectra at soil
sites is significantly dependent on site period, which has not been identified in previous
studies. The influences of earthquake shaking level, earthquake source-site distance (nearfield and far-field events), soil plasticity index, and the rigidity of bedrock have also been
investigated.

Keywords: Seismic design, design code, response spectra, damping, modification factor

1. Introduction
Seismic design and assessment of structures are generally based on response spectrum
analyses in which response spectra representing earthquake ground motions for a specified
return period with nominal 5% of critical damping are used. Also, in most seismic design
codes, response spectra represent design earthquake ground motions with 5% of critical
damping. However, in reality, structural and non-structural systems may have damping ratios
other than 5% of the critical damping. Damping ratio () as a percentage of critical damping
represents energy dissipation by the structure. In the seismic design and assessment of
structures, two types of damping are usually considered: viscous damping and hysteretic
damping. Energy dissipation in a structure in the elastic range (viscous damping) occurs due
to various mechanisms, including cracking, interactions with non-structural elements, and
soil-structure interactions. For mathematical convenience, these damping mechanisms
altogether are represented as viscous damping. The concept of equivalent viscous damping
for the seismic design and analysis of the structure has been used to incorporate both viscous
and hysteretic damping (Blandon and Priestley 2005).
In recent years, research on the seismic design and assessment of structures is directed
towards the development of direct displacement based procedures. In the direct displacement
based procedures, a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) structure is replaced by an equivalent
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structure (substitute structure) characterised by the secant
stiness to maximum displacement response and equivalent viscous damping (elastic and
hysteretic damping) (Priestley et al. 2007). The equivalent viscous damping of the substitute
structure is significantly higher than 5% of critical damping.
Energy dissipation devices have been increasingly used to enhance the seismic performance
of important structures. Energy dissipation through frictional sliding, yielding of metal, phase
transformation in metals, deformation of viscoelastic solids or fluids, and fluid orificing
provides the capability of as much as 40% of critical damping in the first mode response of
the structural system. Although energy dissipation characteristics of various supplemental
damping devices may not be ideally viscous; they can, however, be related to an equivalent
damping ratio (Lee et al. 2004).
Response spectra for damping higher than the notional 5% of critical damping can be
obtained by developing response spectrum prediction equations that can directly estimate
spectral ordinate at various levels of damping. They can also be obtained by developing
response spectrum damping modification factors to translate existing prediction equations or
code-based response spectra with 5% of critical damping to response spectra for other
damping ratios. Significant research effort is required to develop ground motion prediction
equations for various levels of damping which may possess similar shortcomings as the
second approach (Stafford et al. 2008). However, the second approach has distinctive
advantage as it is applicable for modifying both the ground motion prediction equations (5%
of critical damping) and the code-based response spectra. This paper adopts the second
approach to develop damping modification factor (DMF) for scaling the response spectra of
5% critical damping to higher damping levels (up to 40% of critical).

2. Damping Modification Factor (DMF) in Design Codes

The adoption of damping modification factor (DMF) in design codes was mainly inspired by
the pioneer work of Newmark and Hall (1973 and 1982). Newmark and Hall (1973) proposed
DMFs (Equation 1) for constant velocity, constant acceleration and constant displacement
regions. The DMF were derived from median estimate of maximum displacement response of
SDOF system with <20%. The relationship proposed by Newmark and Hall (1973) has been
adopted in ATC-40 (1996) and FEMA 273 (1997). UBC (1997) and ASCE7-05 (2006) also
incorporated the relationship adopted in FEMA 273 for constant velocity region.

1.514 0.321. ln

DMF 1.400 0.248. ln

1.309 0.194. ln

(constant velocity region)

(constant acceleration region)

(1)

(constant displacement region)

The DMF in EC8 (2004) (Equation 2) adopted the equation derived by Bommer et al. (2000),
which replaced the earlier formulation (Equation 3) of the pre-norm version of the code
(EC8, 1994).
10
(2)
DMF
5
DMF

7
2

(3)

Priestley et al. (2007) suggested for revising the DMF in EC8 to Equation (4), especially for
sites where forward directivity velocity pulse characteristics might be expected.
7

DMF
2

0.25

(4)

The study of Kawashima and Aizawa (1986) was adopted in Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria
(2010) (Equation 5). However, Equation (5) is applicable for damping ratio 5% 10%.
1.5
0.5
DMF
(5)
40 ( / 100) 1

The study of Ramirez et al. (2002) has been adopted in NEHRP (2003) which is similar to the
DMF adopted in UBC (1997) for up to =20%, beyond which the DMF is lower in NEHRP
(2003) (Figure 1).
In the Chinese code for seismic design of buildings (GB50011 2010), the seismic design
response spectrum is adjusted for different damping ratios according to Equation (6).
0.05 ( / 100)
DMF 1
(6)
0.06 1.4
In the Japanese Seismic Design Code (Otani and Kanai 2002), the effect of damping ratios is
taken into account in the form of response reduction factor according to Equation (7).
1.5
DMF
(7)
1 10 ( / 100)
3

Figure 1 shows significant differences amongst the code-based period independent DMF. The
lowest values of DMFs have been suggested in the Japanese seismic design code. The most
conservative DMF have been suggested by Priestley (2007). It is noted that Priestley et al.
(2007) suggested the revision of EC8 (1994) DMF for near field earthquake ground motion.
The great difference in the specified DMF in the design codes signifies the need for in-depth
study on DMF.

Figure 1: Damping modification factor (DMF) in seismic design codes

3. Description of the Model and Input Seismic Ground Motion

3.1 Definition of Damping Modification Factor (DMF)
For a linear SDOF system with viscous damping subjected to earthquake ground acceleration,
the equation of motion can be written as
mu(t ) cu (t ) ku mug (t )
(8)

where m, c, and k are mass, damping and stiffness of the system; u(t), u (t ) , u(t ) ,are relative
displacement, relative velocity, relative acceleration of the system; and ug (t ) is the ground
acceleration. Displacement response spectra of the system can be defined as Sd u(t ) max .
DMF with respect to displacement response of the system can be defined as
u (t ) max,
RSD (T , )
DMF=

u (t ) max, 5% RSD (T , 5%)

(9)

where is the damping ratio, T is the vibration period, RSD is the response spectral
displacement.
The DMFs derived from displacement response of the system are identical to the factors
derived from either pseudo acceleration or pseudo relative velocity response of the system, as
they are related by the natural vibration frequency or period of the SDOF system (Chopra
2007) according to Equations (10) and (11).
DMF

RSD(T , )
2 .RSD(T , )
PRSA(T , )
2

RSD(T , 5%) .RSD(T , 5%) PRSA(T , 5%)

(10)

DMF

RSD(T , )
PRSV (T , )
.RSD(T , )

RSD(T , 5%) .RSD(T , 5%) PRSV (T , 5%)

(11)

where PRSA is the pseudo acceleration response, PRSV is the pseudo relative velocity
response and =2/T) is the natural vibration frequency of the SDOF system. The DMF
derived in this paper is based on PRSV. It is noted that in the seismic analyses of structures
relative velocity and absolute acceleration are approximated by the corresponding pseudo
relative velocity and pseudo absolute acceleration, respectively. This approximation is
suitable for small damping ratios but may show considerable differences especially for highly
damped absolute acceleration and absolute velocity response spectra (Song et al. 2007).
However, the proposed DMF model is primarily developed for displacement based seismic
design and assessment of structure where damping modification is mainly applied to the
displacement response spectra.
3.2 Earthquake Ground Motion and Site Soil conditions
In order to cover a wide spectrum of ground shaking levels, synthetic earthquake
accelerograms, with maximum response spectral velocity (RSVmax) of around 20, 100 and
300 mm/s at soil-bedrock interface were generated by stochastic simulations of the
seismological model using computer program GENQKE (Lam et al. 2000). For each level of
ground shaking, two sets of time histories were generated: one represents near-field (NF)
(source-site distance, R=50 km) ground motions, which are rich in high frequency seismic
waves, and the other represent far-field (FF) (source-site distance, R= 100 km) ground
motions, which are comparatively rich in low frequency seismic waves. Each set contains six
simulated acceleration time histories.

Five soil columns with weighted average shear wave velocities (VS) =100, 150, 200, 300, and
500 m/s and four soil plasticity indices (PI=0%, 15%, 30% and 50%) have been included in
the study. There are altogether 20 soil columns of different thicknesses (H) and with a wide
range of initial site period, Ti, from 0.12 to 2.4 s. This range of site period covered sandy soil
sites (0.140.95 s) and soft soil sites (1.972.3 s) as considered in the study by Henderson et
al. (1990) and Heidebrecht et al. (1990). The nonlinear characteristics of the soil layers were
captured by two strain-compatible material parameters, namely, secant shear modulus G and
damping ratio . The dynamic properties of soil adopted in this study were obtained by Lam
and Wilson (1999). Responses of the soil sites have been calculated using computer program
SHAKE (Schnabel et al. 1972). The responses of the soil sites have been calculated
considering bedrock shear wave velocities (shear rigidity of bedrock) of 1000 m/s, 2000 m/s
and 3000 m/sec and also for rigid (non-transmitting) bedrock conditions. Response spectra
are generated for 0.01-8.0 second (50 data points) with =5-40%.

4. Results and Discussions

4.1 The influence of vibration period
The influence of vibration period (T) on the DMF was investigated in several previous
studies (Ashour 1987; Wu and Hanson 1989; Ramirez et al. 2002; Naeim and Kircher 2001;
Lin and Chang 2003 and 2004; Atkinson and Pierre 2004; Lin et al. 2005; Boomer and
Mendis 2005; Cameron and Green 2007; Lin 2007, Stafford et al. 2008; Cardone et al. 2009;
Hatzigeorgiou 2010; and Hao et al. 2011). Significant discrepancies can be observed in the
5

proposed period dependent DMFs (Hubbard and Mavroeidis 2011). According to the
fundamental concepts of structural dynamics (Chopra 2007), ground motion at very short
period and very long period are not significantly affected by damping. This essentially means
that the DMF at very short period and very long period will converge to unity.
Figure 2 presents the DMF for five soil sites (PI=0%) (with different site natural period)
analysed in this study. It can be observed that DMF reaches unity at T=0.01 s. The tendency
of DMF towards unity can also be observed at long periods, although in this study response
spectra have been calculated for up to T= 8.0 s. It is evident from Figure 2 that the lowest
values of DMF for different soil sites do not occur at the same vibration period. Further indepth analyses reveal that the lowest values of DMF occur at shifted site period, Ts. It is
noted that shifted site period Ts is associated with large shear strains that the soil sites
experience during earthquake ground shaking and is different from the initial site natural
period Ti (Tsang et al. 2006 and Tsang et al. 2012). Hence, it would be meaningful to
investigate the DMF functions by normalising the period values by the shifted site natural
period Ts.

Figure 2: Influence of vibration period (T) on DMF

Figure 3 reproduces the DMF in terms of period ratio, PR (T/Ts). The influence of PR on
DMF is more pronounced for 40%. This is a significant finding which has not been
investigated in earlier studies. It is noted that earlier studies are based on statistical analyses
of recorded earthquake ground motion records on wide range of sites (typically categorised
into site classes based on weighted average shear wave velocities in the top 30 m of soil
layers) in high seismic regions. The effect of Ts has been masked by the averaging in the
statistical processing of recorded ground motion records.
It can be observed from Figure 3 that five distinct PR (PR=0.01, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0 and 2.0 )
control the general behaviour of DMF for the five soil sites considered in this study. For
small PR=0.01, the DMF factor is 1.0. For PR<1.0, the DMF increases from PR=1.0 to
PR=0.5 and then decreases from PR=0.5 to PR=0.25. Afterward, the DMF increases to unity
from RP=0.25 to PR=0.01. It is noted that such a trend may not be evident for soil column
H=15 m where site period (Ts) is typically less than 0.2 s. However, the vibration period T<
0.1 s (PR= 0.5 for H=15 m) is considered not important for the seismic design and analyses
of structures. For PR>1.0, the DMF generally increases with the increase in the PR, which is
consistent with the fundamental concept of structural dynamics.

Figure 3: Dependence of DMF on Period Ratio, PR (T/Ts)

4.2 Influence of Damping Ratio
Figure 4 shows the influence of damping ratio, (as percentage of critical damping) on DMF
for H= 35 m soil column subjected to far field (R=100 km) earthquake ground motion with
RSVmax= 100 mm/s. The logarithmic decrement of DMF with the increment in the damping
ratio () is evident in Figure 4. Newmark and Hall (1973) also proposed such logarithmic
decrement of DMF with the increase in the damping ratio (Equation 1). It can be observed
from Figure 4 that DMF for PR=0.25 and PR=3.0 represent the upper and lower boundaries
of DMF suggested in the reviewed design codes (Refer Figure 1). This further signifies the
masking effect of site period in the statistical analyses for the DMF in the earlier studies.
1

DMF

0.8
0.6
0.4
H= 35 m
RSVmax= 100 mm/s
R= 100 km
PI= 0%
Bedrock SWV= 1000 m/s

PR= 0.25
PR= 0.5
PR= 1.0
PR= 2.0
PR= 3.0

0.2
0
5

15

25

Damping, (%)

35

Figure 4: Influence of damping ratio () on DMF

4.3 Influence of earthquake shaking levels
The influence of earthquake shaking level (characterised by RSVmax) has been shown in
Figure 5. It can be observed that at resonance period (PR=1.0), higher shaking level produces
higher DMF, although the difference is not noteworthy for ground motion with RSVmax>100
m/s. The DMF decreases with the increase in the shaking level for all other PR. Boomer and
Mendis (2005) have also observed that DMF decreases with increasing moment magnitude of
earthquake events; whereas, Cauzzi and Faccioli (2008) observed that DMF moderately
depends on the magnitude of earthquake events. On the other hand, Hao et al. (2011)
7

observed that earthquake moment magnitude has significant influence on DMF except for
soft soil sites. It is noted that none of these studies paid adequate attention to the site period.

Figure 5: Influence of earthquake shaking level on DMF

4.4 Influence of source-site distance
The influence of source-site distance has been shown in Figure 6. Earthquake ground motions
used in the analyses were generated considering two source-site distances: R= 50 km (Near
Field event, NF) and R=100 km (Far Field event, FF). It is noted that RSVmax remains
constant for both events in order to investigate the influence of site-source distance alone. It
can be observed from Figure 6 that, at resonance period (PR=1.0) the DMF is slightly greater
in FF events. However, this trend is reversed for other PR. Bommer and Mendis (2005)
observed that DMFs decrease with increase in the source-site distances. However, the effect
of source-site distance was found to be negligible in Hao et al. (2011), especially for sitesource distance closer than 100 km.
4.5 Influence of geotechnical properties of soil sites
Plasticity Index (PI) of the soil is the controlling parameter for dynamic properties of the soil,
especially when subjected to earthquake ground motion. With the increase in the PI, the rate
of shear modulus degradation and damping of soils decrease (Vucetic and Dobry 1991),
which has significant influence on the seismic response of the site. However, the influence of
soil PI on DMF has not been observed to be significant especially for PR>1.0 (Figure 7). For
PR<1.0, the general tendency is that the DMF increase with the increase in the PI of the soil
sites. It is noted that in order to depict the key factors contributing to the DMF, the soil
sediments has been modelled as homogeneous materials overlying the bedrock. In reality,
properties of soil sediments could vary with depth. However, it is believed that the effect of
non-homogeneous soil sediment on DMF may not be significant as the effect might be
reflected in the calculation of site period (Ts).
8

Figure 6: Influence of earthquake source-site distance (NF and FF) on DMF

Figure 7: Influence of soil PI on DMF

4.6 Influence of bedrock rigidity

The shear rigidity of the bedrock plays an important role in the seismic site response
analyses, as the amount of seismic waves reflected back from the soil-bedrock interface
considerably depends on the impedance contrast between rock and soil (Tsang et al. 2012).
Site modifications due to earthquake ground shaking are associated with filtering
mechanisms and superposition of reflected waves within soil layers overlying bedrock.
Hence, the response of the soil and the superstructure can be sensitive to the shear rigidity of
the bedrock materials. However, the effect of bedrock rigidity on the DMF has not be found
significant for the range of vibration period considered herein (Figure 8), although nontransmitting bedrock condition (rigid bedrock overlying soil sediments) shows slightly
increased DMF for PR other than 1.0.

Figure 7: Influence of bedrock rigidity on DMF

5. Conclusions
Response spectra with structural damping ratio higher than nominal 5% of critical damping
are required for displacement-based seismic design and analyses of structures and also for the
design of structures with supplemental damping systems. Yet, the discrepancies in the
damping modification factor (DMF) for scaling the response spectra for higher than 5% of
critical damping in the design codes is very high. This might be due to inherent biasness of
the recorded earthquake ground motion used in the statistical analyses performed in obtaining
response spectral DMF.
A large number of ground response analyses using simulated earthquake records covering
wide range of soil sites and shaking levels have been carried out in this study to
systematically study the influence of a number of parameters that may influence the DMF.
10

The DMF has been found to be dependent on the vibration period, unlike code-based period
independent DMF. The influence of vibration period on the DMF has also been pointed out in
a number of previous studies. However, the significant outcome of this study is the
observation that the DMF is highly dependent on the Period Ratio, PR (T/Ts). The decrement
of DMF with the increment in the damping ratio () at different PR is logarithmic, similar to
the observation in Newmark and Hall (1973).

DMF slightly increases with the increase in the shaking level for PR=1.0; however, the DMF
slightly decreases with increase in the shaking level for other PR. On the other hand, the
DMF is larger to some extent in the NF earthquake events at PR=1. At other PR, the DMF is
little larger in FF earthquake events. The influence of soil PI and the bedrock rigidity on the
DMF has not been found significant.

References
ASCE 7-05 .2006. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. American Society of Civil
Engineers, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191, USA.
Ashour S.A. 1987. Elastic seismic response of buildings with supplemental damping. Ph.D. Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, Michigan University.
ATC-40. 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood
City, CA.
Blandon C.A. and Priestley, M.J.N. 2005. Equivalent viscous damping equations for direct displacement-based
design. Journal of Earthquake Engineering; 9(2):257-278.
Bommer J.J and Mendis R. 2005. Scaling of spectral displacement ordinates with damping ratios. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 34(2):145165.
Bommer J.J., Elnashai A.S. and Weir A.G. 2000. Compatible acceleration and displacement spectra for seismic
design codes. Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, 2000 (Paper
no. 0207)
Caltrans. 2006. Seismic Design Criteria, 1.4., California Department of Transportation, Sacr., California, USA.
Cameron W.I., and Green R.U. 2007. Damping correction factors for horizontal ground-motion response
spectra. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America; 97(3):934960.
Cardone D., Dolce M. and Rivelli M. 2009. Evaluation of reduction factors for high-damping design response
spectra. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering; 7:273291.
Cauzzi C. and Faccioli E. 2008. Broadband (0.05 to 20 s) prediction of displacement response spectra based on
worldwide digital records. Journal of Seismology; 12(4):453475.
Chandler A.M., Lam N.T.K and Sheikh M.N. 2012. Response spectrum predictions for potential near-field and
far-field earthquakes affecting Hong Kong: soil sites; Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; 22:41940.
Chopra A. 2006. Dynamics of Structures. Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall
Inc: NJ, USA. .
Eurocode 8 (EC8).2004. Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and
rules for buildings. EN 2004-1-1, CEN, Brussels.
Eurocode 8 (EC8). 1994. Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and general requirements for structures. European pre-norm ENV 1998-1, CEN, Brussels.

11


FEMA-273. 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
GB 50011. 2010. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. China Architecture & Building Press, Beijing, China
Hao A., Zhou D., Li, Y. and Zhang H. 2011 Effects of moment magnitude, site conditions and closest distance
on damping modification factor. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; 31: 1232-1247.
Hatzigeorgiou G.D. 2010. Damping modification factors for SDOF systems subjected to near-fault, far-fault and
artificial earthquakes, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 39:1239-1258.
Heidebrecht A.C., Henderson P., Naumoski N. and Pappin J.W. 1990. Seismic response and design for
structures located on soft clay sites. Canadian Geotechnical Journal; 27(3):33041.
Henderson P., Heidebrecht A.C., Naumoski N. and Pappin J.W. 1990. Site response effects for structures
located on sand sites. Canadian Geotechnical Journal; 27(3):34254.
Hubbard D.T. and Mavroeidis, G.P. 2011. Damping coefficients for near-fault ground motion response spectra.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; 31: 401417
Kawashima K. and Aizawa K. 1986. Modification of earthquake response spectra with respect to damping ratio.
Proceedings of the 3rd US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Charleston, SC, vol. II: 1107-1116.
Lam N.T.K. and Wilson J.L. 1999. Estimation of the site natural period from borehole records. Australian
Journal of Structural Engineering; SE1(3):17999.
Lam N.T.K., Wilson J.L. and Hutchinson G. 2000. Generation of synthetic accelerograms using seismological
odelling: a review. Journal of Earthquake Engineering; 4(3):32154.
Lee S.H., Min K.W., Hwang J.S. and Kim J. 2004.Evaluation of equivalent damping ratio of a structure with
added dampers. Engineering Structures; 26: 335346
Lin Y.Y. and Chang K.C. 2003. A study on damping reduction factor for buildings under earthquake ground
motion. Journal of the Structural Engineering; 129(2):206214.
Lin Y.Y and Chang K.C. 2004. Effects of site classes on damping reduction factors. Journal of Structural
Engineering; 130(11): 1667-1675.
Lin Y.Y. 2007. Statistical study on damping modification factors adopted in Taiwans seismic isolation design
code by using the 21 September 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake, Taiwan. Engineering Structures; 29:682693.
Naeim F. and Kircher C.A. 2001. On the damping adjustment factors for earthquake response spectra. Structural
Design of Tall Buildings; 10:361369.
NEHRP. 2003. Recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures.
Washington, DC: Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2003.
Newmark N.M. and Hall W.J. 1973. Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities. Report no. 46,
Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973.
Newmark N.M. and Hall, W.J. 1982. Earthquake spectra and design, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Berkeley, California, USA.
Otani, S. and Kani, N. 2002. Japanese state of practice in design of seismically isolated buildings. The Fourth
U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete
Building Structures 2224 October 2002, Toba, Japan; 13-28.

12


Priestley M.J.N, Calvi G.M. and Kowalsky M.J. 2007. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures. IUSS
Press: Pavia, Italy.
Ramirez O.M., Constantinou M.C., Whittaker A.S., Kircher C.A. and Chrysostomou C.Z. 2002. Elastic and
inelastic seismic response of buildings with damping systems. Earthquake Spectra; 18(3):531547.
Schnabel P.B., Lysmer J., Seed H.B.1972. A computer program for earthquake response analysis of orizontally
layered sites. Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report: EERC 72-12. USA: University of California at
Berkeley; 1972.
Song J., Chu Y.L., Liang Z., Lee G.C. 2007. Estimation of peak relative velocity and peak absolute acceleration
of linear SDOF systems. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration; 6(1):110.
Stafford P.J. and Bommer J.J. 2009. Empirical equations for the prediction of the equivalent number of cycles of
earthquake ground motion. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering; 29:14251436.
Stafford P.J., Mendis R. and Bommer J.J. 2008. Dependence of damping correction factors for response spectra
on duration and number of cycles. Journal of the Structural Engineering (ASCE), 134(8):13641373.
Tsang H.H., Chandler A.M. and Lam N.T.K. 2006. Estimating nonlinear site response by single period
approximation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; 35(9):105376.
Tsang, H.H., Sheikh, M.N. and Lam, N.T.K. 2012. Modelling shear rigidity of stratified bedrock in site response
analysis. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 34:89-98.
UBC. 1997. Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1994.
Vucetic M, Dobry R.1991. Effect of soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
(ASCE): 117(1):89107.
Wu J.P. and Hanson R.D. 1989. Study of Inelastic response spectra with high-damping. Journal of the Structural
Division (ASCE); 115(6):1412-1430.

13