Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures: Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project)

FEMA 440
IMPROVEMENT OF NONLINEAR STATIC

SEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Prepared by:
Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project)

201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240
Redwood City, California 94065
Prepared for:
Department of Homeland Security

Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C.
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
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures iii

Forward
iv Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Preface
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.
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures v

Preface
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.
Each Focus Group consisted of three members. John Christopher Rojahn

Hooper, Gregory A. MacRae, and Stephen A. Mahin ATC Executive Director
vi Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Executive Summary
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-∆
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures vii

Executive Summary
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.
viii Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Executive Summary
8. Multiple-Degree-of Freedom Effects • Specific limitations as to when nonlinear static

procedures produce reliable results are elusive.
Chapter 9 reviews the accuracy and practical
implications of the requirements of ATC-40 and FEMA • As a result of the study it was observed that, in many
356 related to MDOF effects including: cases, a single time history response of a multi-
degree-of-freedom model gave better indications of
1. current options for load vectors, and drifts and story forces than any of the approximate
2. the conversion of a MDOF pushover curve to an single-degree-of-freedom estimates.
equivalent SDOF system.
9. Important Future Developments
The results of a comprehensive study of five example
buildings that examines the differences in response The proposed improvements to nonlinear static analysis
predicted using various options compared to a common procedures in this document will lead to better results in
nonlinear dynamic analyses benchmark are also practice. Nonetheless, not all of the shortcomings of
summarized. The results are consistent with previous NSP’s have been addressed. In developing the
research. Practical implications are: improvements a number of important observations
about the need for future develop and improvement of
• Nonlinear static procedures generally provide inelastic seismic analysis procedures have emerged.
reliable estimates of maximum floor and roof These include the need for additional developmental
displacements. work on:
• 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.
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures ix

Executive Summary
x Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Table of Contents
Forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

1. Overview of Inelastic Seismic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
2. Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
3. Strength Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
4. Improved Procedures for Displacement Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
5. Improved Procedures for Equivalent Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
6. Evaluation and Comparison of Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
7. Soil-Structure Interaction Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
8. Multiple-Degree-of Freedom Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
9. Important Future Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
10. Application Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv
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
2. Overview of Inelastic Seismic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.1 Structural Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 Characterization of Seismic Ground Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-2
2.3 Options for Inelastic Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
2.4 Current Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
2.4.1 The Coefficient Method of Displacement Modification from FEMA 356 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9
2.4.2 Capacity-Spectrum Method of Equivalent Linearization in ATC-40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10
3. Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

3.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 Evaluation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2.1 Hysteretic Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2.2 Earthquake Ground Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3
3.2.3 Error Measures and Statistical Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
3.3 Evaluation of Capacity-Spectrum Method of ATC-40. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.3.1 Summary of the Approximate Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.3.2 Iteration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.3.3 Evaluation Using Ground Motion Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
3.4 Evaluation of Coefficient Method (FEMA 356). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
3.4.1 Summary of the Approximate Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xi

3.4.2 Maximum Displacement Ratio (Coefficient C1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
3.4.3 Degrading System Response (Coefficient C2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15
3.4.4 P-∆ Effects (Coefficient C3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
3.5 Nonlinear Elastic Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-19
4. Strength Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

4.1 Types of Strength Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.2 Strength Degradation and SDOF Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
4.3 Global Force-Deformation Behavior with Strength Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
4.4 Limitation on Strength for In-Cycle Strength Degradation Including P-∆ Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-3
5. Improved Procedures for Displacement Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2 Maximum Displacement Ratio (Coefficient C1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2.1 Simplified Expression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2.2 Limits on Maximum Displacements for Short Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
5.3 Adjustment for Cyclic Degradation (Coefficient C2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-3
5.4 Limitation on Strength to Avoid Dynamic Instability for Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4
6. Improved Procedures for Equivalent Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.2 Basic Equivalent Linearization Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.2.1 Effective Damping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-2
6.2.2 Effective Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
6.2.3 MADRS for Use with Secant Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.3 Spectral Reduction for Effective Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-5
6.4 Solution Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-6
6.5 Approximate Solution Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
6.6 Iterative Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
6.7 Limitation on Strength to Avoid Dynamic Instability for Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
7. Evaluation and Comparison of Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.2 Summary of Evaluation Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.2.1 NEHRP Design Response Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.2.2 Ground Motions and Ground-Motion Scaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
7.2.3 Characteristics of Oscillators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
7.2.4 Nonlinear Static Procedure Estimates Using Smoothed or Average Spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
7.2.5 Response-History Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
7.3 Results of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
7.4 Summary of Implications of the Results of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-10
8. Procedures for Including Soil-Structure Interaction Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
8.2 Procedures for Kinematic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
8.3 Procedures for Foundation Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
9. Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
xii Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

9.2 Review of Current Simplified Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
9.2.1 Single-Mode Load Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
9.2.2 Multi-Mode Pushover Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
9.2.3 Summary of Current Provisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-2
9.3 Summary of Illustrative Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3
9.3.1 Load Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-3
9.3.2 Equivalent SDOF Estimates of Global Displacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-4
9.4 Practical Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-6
9.4.1 Single Load Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-7
9.4.2 Multi-Mode Pushover Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-10
9.4.3 Roof Displacement Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-11
9.4.4 Limitation of Simplified Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-11
9.5 Potential Future Improvements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12
9.5.1 Incremental Response-Spectrum Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12
9.5.2 Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure Using Scaled Response Histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-12
10. Summary and Application Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

10.1 Overview of Inelastic Seismic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
10.2 Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
10.2.1 Key Observations: ATC-40 Version of Capacity-Spectrum Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
10.2.2 Key Observations: FEMA 356 and the Coefficient Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-2
10.3 Strength Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3
10.4 Improved Procedures for Displacement Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3
10.4.1 Summary of Findings Pertaining to Coefficient C1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-3
10.5 Improved Procedures for Equivalent Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-5
10.6 Evaluation and Comparison of Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-5
10.7 Soil-Structure Interaction Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-6
10.8 Multiple-Degree-of Freedom Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-6
10.9 Uncertainty and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-8
10.10 Important Future Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-10
10.10.1 Nonlinear Modeling for Cyclic and In-Cycle Degradation of Strength and Stiffness . . . . . . 10-10
10.10.2 Soil and Foundation Structure Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11
10.10.3 Nonlinear Multi-Degree of Freedom Simplified Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-11
10.11 Application Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-12
10.11.1 Example Building Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-12
10.11.2 Basic Ground Motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-12
10.11.3 Kinematic Soil-structure Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-12
10.11.4 Fixed-Base Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-14
10.11.5 Flexible-Base Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-14
10.11.6 Foundation Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-14
10.11.7 Force-Displacement Relationships (Pushover Curves) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-15
10.11.8 Check on Minimum Strength for Strength Degrading Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-15
10.11.9 Target Displacement for Displacement Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-15
10.11.10 Calculation of the Performance Point Using Equivalent Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-16
10.11.11 Check on Assumed Ductility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-16
References and Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xiii

Project Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-1
Appendices (on enclosed CD-ROM):

A. Summary of Research on Inelastic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
A.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
A.2 Classification of Analysis Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2
A.3 Nonlinear Static Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3
A.3.1 Overview of Current Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3
A.3.2 Fundamental Bases and Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6
A.3.3 Near-Field Effects on SDOF Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8
A.3.4 Equivalent SDOF Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9
A.3.5 Behavior Mode Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9
A.3.6 MDOF and Inelastic Mechanism Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9
A.3.7 Pushover Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-11
A.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12
A.4.1 Simplified Models. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12
A.4.2 Incremental Dynamic Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12
A.5 Modeling Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-13
A.6 Demand Characterization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14
A.7 Applicability for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14
A.7.1 Role for Inelastic Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-14
A.7.2 Design Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15
A.7.3 Quantities to be Determined and Measures of Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-16
A.7.4 Statistical Measures and Treatment of Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-16
A.8 References and Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-16
B. Summary of Practice using Inelastic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

B.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
B.2 Typical Buildings and Structural Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
B.3 Inelastic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
B.4 Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
B.5 Implementation Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3
B.6 Use of Limitations on Coefficient C1 in FEMA 356 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4
B.7 Practical Guidance and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-4
C. Supplemental Data on the Evaluation of Current Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

C.1 Ground Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
C.2 Response History Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-6
C.2.1 Effect of Site Class on C1 of SDOF Systems with Elastoplastic Perfectly Plastic (EPP)
Hysteretic Behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .C-6
C.2.2 Effect of Site Class on C1 of SDOF Systems with Stiffness Degrading (SD)
C.2.3 Effect of Site Class on C1 of SDOF Systems with Strength and Stiffness Degrading (SSD)
C.2.4 Effect of Site Class on C1 of SDOF Systems with Nonlinear Elastic Hysteretic Behavior . . . . C-9
C.2.5 Evaluation of Coefficient C2 for Site Class B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-10
C.2.6 Evaluation of Coefficient C2 for Site Class C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-11
C.2.7 Evaluation of Coefficient C2 for Site Class D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-12
xiv Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

C.2.8 Evaluation of Coefficient C2 for Site Class E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-13
C.2.9 Evaluation of Coefficient C2 for Near Fault Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-14
C.2.10 Effect of Site Class on Coefficient C2 (Stiffness Degrading Hysteretic Behavior) . . . . . . . . . C-15
C.2.11 Effect of Site Class on Coefficient C2 (Strength-Stiffness Degrading Hysteretic Behavior) . . C-16
C.2.12 Effect of Site Class on Coefficient C2 (Nonlinear Elastic Hysteretic Behavior) . . . . . . . . . . . C-17
C.2.13 Effect of Hysteretic Behavior on C1 of SDOF Systems (Site Class B). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-18
C.2.14 Effect of Hysteretic Behavior on C1 of SDOF Systems (Site Class C). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-19
C.2.15 Effect of Hysteretic Behavior on C1 of SDOF Systems (Site Class D). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-20
C.2.16 Effect of Hysteretic Behavior on C1 of SDOF Systems (Site Class E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-21
C.2.17 Effect of Hysteretic Behavior on C1 of SDOF Systems (Near Fault Set) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-22
C.3 Evaluation of ATC-40 Version of Capacity Spectrum Method: Summary Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-23
C.3.1 Comparisons for Site Class B: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-23
C.3.2 Comparisons for Site Class C: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-24
C.3.3 Comparisons for Site Class D: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-25
C.3.4 Comparisons for Site Class E: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-26
C.3.5 Comparisons for Near-Fault Ground Motions: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-27
C.4 Evaluation of the Coefficient Method of FEMA 356: Summary Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-28
C.4.1 FEMA 356 Nonlinear Static Procedure (NSP) C1 Values for Different Ts Values: . . . . . . . . . C-28
C.4.2 FEMA 356 NSP C2 Values for Different Ts Values:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-30
C.4.3 Mean Error of FEMA 356 NSP (Mean of Approximate to Exact Maximum
Inelastic Displacements):. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-31
C.4.4 Dispersion of the Error in FEMA 356 NSP (Standard Deviation of Approximate to
Exact Maximum Inelastic Displacements): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-37
D. Supplementary Information and Data on Equivalent Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

D.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
D.2 Capacity-Spectrum Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
D.2.1 Structural Capacity: Inelastic Pushover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
D.2.2 Seismic Demand: Response Spectra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2
D.3 Theoretical Basis for Equivalent Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2
D.4 Starting Point For Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5
D.5 Alternative Statistical Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-6
D.5.1 Error Measure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-7
D.5.2 Optimization Criterion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-8
D.6 Effective Linear Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-9
D.7 Performance Point Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-11
D.8 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-11
E. Supplementary Information and Data on Soil-Structure Interaction Effects . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

E.1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
E.2 Kinematic interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
E.2.1 Shallow Foundations at the Ground Surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
E.2.2 Embedded Shallow Foundations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3
E.2.3 Application of Transfer Functions to Calculation of Foundation Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-4
E.2.4 Simplified Procedure for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-6
E.3 Foundation Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-8
E.3.1 Analysis of Impedance Functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-9
E.3.2 Analysis of System Damping Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-15
E.3.3 Simplified Procedure for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-20
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xv

E.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-21
F. Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

F.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
F.1.1 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
F.1.2 Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
F.2 Example Buildings and Demand Parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
F.2.1 Prototype Buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-2
F.2.2 Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-4
F.2.3 Ground Motions and Demand Intensities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-8
F.2.4 Extensions to Address P-Delta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-12
F.3 Simplified Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-13
F.3.1 Single Load Vectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-13
F.3.2 Multiple Mode Pushover Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-17
F.4 Accuracy of Estimates Made Using Simplified Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-19
F.4.1 Error Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-19
F.4.2 Results for Ordinary Ground Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-20
F.4.3 Results for Near Field Motions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-22
F.5 Equivalent SDOF Estimates of Peak Roof Displacement Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-22
F.5.1 Analysis Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-23
F.5.2 Analysis Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-24
F.6 Scaled NDP Analysis Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-24
F.6.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-24
F.6.2 Elaboration of Step 3 and Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-24
F.6.3 Statistical Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-26
F.6.4 Observed Coefficients of Variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-27
F.7 Energy-based Approaches for Pushover Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-28
F.7.1 Peak Displacement Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-28
F.7.2 Multiple Mode Estimates of Response Quantities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-28
F.8 Detailed Figure Sets for the MDOF Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-31
F.8.1 Ground Motion Details . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-32
F.8.2 Responses to Ordinary (Site Class C) Motions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-47
F.8.3 Errors Associated with Ordinary (Site Class C) Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-71
F.8.4 Responses to Near Fault Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-81
F.8.5 Errors Associated with Near Fault Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-113
F.8.6 Observed Coefficients of Variation of the Response Quantities Determined for
the Ordinary (Site Class C) Motions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-123
F.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-131
xvi Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

List of Figures
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
xvii Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Figure 3-13 Comparison between the mean C1 computed from nonlinear response-history analyses to
C1 in FEMA 356 (non-capped and capped). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-13
Figure 3-14 Variation of C1 for two individual ground motions recorded on soft soil E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-14
Figure 3-15 Predominant ground motion periods for the soft soil records obtained at Larkspur Ferry
Terminal and Emeryville during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-14
Figure 3-16 C1 values of Larkspur Ferry Terminal and Emeryville soft soil records for normalized
periods of vibration with respect to dominant ground motion periods of each record. . . . . . . . . .3-15
Figure 3-17 The variation of mean C1 values for site class E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-15
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-16
Figure 3-19 A sample variation of C2 values in accordance with FEMA-356 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-17
Figure 3-20 Mean displacement ratio of SD to EPP models computed with ground motions recorded
on site class D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-17
Figure 3-21 Mean displacement ratio of SSD to EPP models computed with ground motions recorded
on site classes B, C, and D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-17
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-18
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-18
Figure 3-24 The variation of C3 from FEMA 356 with respect to R for different negative post-elastic
stiffness values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-19
Figure 3-25 Bilinear system with in-cycle negative post-elastic stiffness due to P-∆ effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-19
Figure 3-26 Displacement modification factors in SDOF that exhibit in-cycle negative post-yield stiffness. .3-19
Figure 3-27 Ratio of maximum displacement for a nonlinear elastic (NE) oscillator to elastic response
for site classes B, C, and D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-20
Figure 4-1 Two types of strength degradation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-1
Figure 4-2 Example capacity curve for a medium rise concrete structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-2
Figure 4-3 Idealized force-displacement curve for nonlinear static analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4-3
Figure 5-1 Expression for coefficient C1 (Eqn.5-1 with a = 90 for site class C) and current FEMA 356
expression. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-2
Figure 5-2 Comparison of alternative expressions for the coefficient C1 for R = 4 and R = 6 for
site class C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-3
Figure 5-3 Coefficient C2 from Eq. 4-2 and FEMA 356 for site classes B, C, and D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-3
Figure 6-1 Acceleration-displacement response spectrum (ADRS) showing effective period and
damping parameters of equivalent linear system, along with a capacity curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-1
Figure 6-2 Illustration of probability density function of displacement error for a Gaussian distribution. . . . .6-2
Figure 6-3 Types of inelastic behavior considered. BLH=Bilinear Hysteretic STDG=Stiffness
Degrading, and STRDG=Strength Degrading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-2
Figure 6-4 Modified acceleration-displacement response spectrum (MADRS) for use with secant
period, Tsec. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-5
Figure 6-5 Damping coefficients, B, as a function of damping, βeff, from various resource documents. . . . . .6-6
Figure 6-6 Initial ADRS demand and capacity spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7
Figure 6-7 Bilinear representation of capacity spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-7
Figure 6-8 Determination of estimated maximum displacement using direct iteration (Procedure A) . . . . . . .6-8
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xviii

Figure 6-9 Determination of estimated maximum displacement using intersection of capacity spectrum
with MADRS (Procedure B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-8
Figure 6-10 Locus of possible performance points using MADRS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-9
Figure 6-11 Comparison of approximate solution results with results from more detailed procedures. . . . . . . 6-9
Figure 6-12 Tracking iteration for equivalent linearization by comparing assumed displacement to
calculated displacement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-10
Figure 7-1 NEHRP design response spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
Figure 7-2 NEHRP response spectrum and 5%-damped response spectra of scaled motions, used for
oscillators having T = 0.2 s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-3
Figure 7-5 Bilinear load-displacement relation of oscillators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
Figure 7-6 Linear vibration periods and strength reduction factors for oscillators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-4
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). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6
spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-7
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-8
response spectra scaled to the NEHRP spectrum, and values calculated for the average
spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
response spectra scaled to the NEHRP spectrum, and values calculated for the average
spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9
Figure 8-1 Foundation modeling assumptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-2
Figure 8-2 Ratio of response spectra for base slab averaging, RRSbsa, as a function of period, T, and
effective foundation size, be. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-3
Figure 8-3 Ratio of response spectra for embedment RRSe, for an embedment, e, of 30 feet as a function
of period, T, and shear wave velocity, vs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-4
Figure 8-4 Example of foundation damping, βf, as a function of effective period lengthening
ratio , T˜eff / Teff , for constant embedment, e/rx = 0, and various values of foundation
stiffness rotational stiffness, h/rθ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
Figure 8-5 Example of foundation damping, βf, as a function of effective period lengthening
ratio, T˜eff / Teff , for constant embedment, e/rx = 0.5, and various values of foundation stiffness
rotational stiffness, h/rθ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-6
xix Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Figure 9-1 Example results for displacements predicted by nonlinear static procedures (NSP) compared
to nonlinear dynamic response-history analyses (NDA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-5
Figure 9-2 Dispersion in results for displacement for two levels of global drift. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-6
Figure 9-3 Relatively good results for interstory drift predicted using nonlinear static procedures (NSP),
as compared to nonlinear dynamic response-history analyses (NDA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-7
Figure 9-4 Relatively poor results for interstory drift predicted using nonlinear static procedures (NSP)
compared to nonlinear dynamic response-history analyses (NDA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-8
Figure 9-5 Story forces and overturning moments in the example three-story frame building when
different load vectors are used. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-9
Figure 9-6 Story forces and overturning moments in eight-story wall and nine-story frame example
buildings, using various load vectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-9
Figure 10-1 Differences between cyclic and in-cycle strength degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-3
Figure 10-2 Acceleration-displacement response spectrum (ADRS) showing effective period and
damping parameters of equivalent linear system, along with a capacity curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-5
Figure 10-3 Foundation modeling alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-7
Figure 10-4 Overturning moments in example 9-story building using various load vectors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-8
Figure 10-5 Error associated with the Coefficient C1 as formulated in FEMA 356 (left) and the potential
improved formulation (right). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-9
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-10
Figure 10-7 Application flowchart for nonlinear static seismic analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-13
Figure D-1 SDOF oscillator model subjected to ground motion, u(t). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-2
Figure D-2 Components of the ADRS format for representing Seismic Demand - PSA versus SD . . . . . . . . D-3
Figure D-3 SDOF oscillator model represented by Equation D-7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3
Figure D-4 Linear SDOF oscillator model with effective linear parameters as represented by
Equation D-8. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4
Figure D-5 Bilinear hysteretic system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-4
Figure D-6 Early effort to define optimal equivalent linear parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-5
Figure D-7 Distribution of percent error in Performance Point displacement. Bilinear system with
alpha=0, T0 = 0.1-2.0 sec (0.1 sec increments), µ=2, 28 far-field earthquakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-6
Figure D-8 Contour values of εD over the two-dimensional parameter space of Teff and βeff for a
single combination of inelastic system and ground excitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-7
Figure D-9 Illustration of assembling εD error distributions at every combination of Teff and βeff over
an ensemble. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-8
Figure D-10 Illustration of probability density functions of displacement error for a Normal distribution. . . . D-8
Figure D-11 Contours of ℜEAR over the Teff, βeff parameter space. The optimum point is marked by
a square. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-9
Figure D-12 Example of optimal effective linear parameters - discrete points and the curve fitted
to the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-10
Figure D-13 Types of inelastic behavior considered. BLH=Bilinear hysteretic, STDG=Stiffness
Degrading, and STRDG=Strength Degrading. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-10
Figure D-14 Summary of Performance Point errors for bilinear hysteretic (BLH) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-12
Figure D-15 Summary of Performance Point Errors for Strength Degrading (STDG) model . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-13
Figure E-1 Amplitude of transfer function between free-field motion and foundation input motion
for vertically incident incoherent waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-2
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xx

Figure E-2 Relationship between effective incoherence parameter ka and small-strain shear wave
velocity νs from case histories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3
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). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-4
Figure E-4 Comparison of transfer function amplitude to ratios of response spectra (RRS) at different
damping ratios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-5
Figure E-5 RRS for foundation with be = 330 ft. Simplified model (ka /νs = n1) vs. exact solution
for ka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-7
Figure E-6 RRS from simplified model as function of foundation size, be . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-7
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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-8
Figure E-8 Foundation stiffness and damping factors for elastic and viscoelastic halfspaces (υ = 0.4). . . . . E-10
Figure E-9 Foundation damping factors for halfspace with and without hysteretic damping
and for soil profiles with indicated shear modulus profiles and no hysteretic damping. . . . . . . . E-11
Figure E-10 Dashpot coefficients for radiation damping vs. normalized frequency for different
foundation shapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-14
Figure E-11 Oscillator model for analysis of inertial interaction under lateral excitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-16
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). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-18
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-19
Figure E-14 Foundation damping factor βf expressed as a function of period lengthening for different
building aspect ratios (h/rθ) and embedment ratios (e/rx ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-20
Figure F-1 Elevation view of the 3-story (regular and weak-story) steel frames used in the study. . . . . . . . . F-2
Figure F-2 Elevation view of the 9-story (regular and weak-story) steel frames used in the study. . . . . . . . . F-3
Figure F-3 Elevation and plan views of the 8-story reinforced concrete shear wall used in the study . . . . . . . F-5
Figure F-4 Drain model of the 3-story (regular and weak story) steel frames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-6
Figure F-5 Drain model of the 9-story (regular and weak-story) steel frames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-7
Figure F-6 Drain model of the 8-story reinforced concrete shear wall. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-8
Figure F-7 Idealized material stress-strain relationships used in drain model of the 8-story reinforced
concrete shear wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-8
Figure F-8 Capacity curves for the five model building examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-11
Figure F-9 Shape vectors of the 1st mode shape load pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-14
Figure F-10 Shape vectors of the triangular load pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-15
Figure F-11 Shape vectors of the rectangular load pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-15
Figure F-12 Shape vectors of the code load pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-16
Figure F-13 Shape vectors of the SRSS load pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-17
Figure F-14 First, second, and third mode pushover results for the 3-story regular steel frame. . . . . . . . . . . . F-19
Figure F-15 Example statistical distributions of displacement ratios for the ordinary ground motions. . . . . . F-25
Figure F-16 Example comparisons of energy-based and conventional multiple mode calculations. . . . . . . . . F-29
Figure F-17 Characteristics of the ICC000 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-32
Figure F-18 Characteristics of the LOS000 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-33
xxi Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Figure F-19 Characteristics of the G02090 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-34
Figure F-20 Characteristics of the TCU122N ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-35
Figure F-21 Characteristics of the G03090 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-36
Figure F-22 Characteristics of the CNP196 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-37
Figure F-23 Characteristics of the CHY101W ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-38
Figure F-24 Characteristics of the ICC090 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-39
Figure F-25 Characteristics of the CNP106 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-40
Figure F-26 Characteristics of the E02140 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-41
Figure F-27 Characteristics of the E11230 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-42
Figure F-28 Characteristics of the ERZMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-43
Figure F-29 Characteristics of the RRSMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-44
Figure F-30 Characteristics of the LUCMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-45
Figure F-31 Characteristics of the SCHMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-46
Figure F-32 Response quantities of the 3-story building for 0.5% drift level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-47
Figure F-33 Response quantities of the 3-story building for 2% drift level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-48
Figure F-35 Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building for 0.5% drift level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-50
Figure F-36 Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building for 2% drift level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-51
Figure F-44 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building for 0.5% drift level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-65
Figure F-47 Mean and maximum errors for the 3-story building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-71
Figure F-48 Mean and maximum errors for the 3-story weak-story building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-73
Figure F-51 Mean and maximum errors for the 9-story weak-story building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-79
Figure F-52 Response quantities of the 3-story building under ERZMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-81
Figure F-53 Response quantities of the 3-story building under RRSMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-82
Figure F-54 Response quantities of the 3-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-83
Figure F-55 Response quantities of the 3-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-84
Figure F-56 Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building under ERZMV1 ground motion . . . . . F-85
Figure F-57 Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building under RRSMV1 ground motion . . . . . F-86
Figure F-58 Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion . . . . . F-87
Figure F-59 Response quantities of the 3-story weak-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion . . . . . F-88
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xxii

Figure F-62 Response quantities of the 8-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-93
Figure F-63 Response quantities of the 8-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-95
Figure F-66 Response quantities of the 9-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-101
Figure F-67 Response quantities of the 9-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-103
Figure F-68 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under ERZMV1 ground motion . . . . . F-105
Figure F-69 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under RRSMV1 ground motion . . . . . F-107
Figure F-70 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under LUCMV1 ground motion . . . . . F-109
Figure F-71 Response quantities of the 9-story weak-story building under SCHMV1 ground motion . . . . . F-111
Figure F-73 Mean and maximum errors for the 3-story weak-story building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-115
Figure F-76 Mean and maximum errors for the 9-story weak-story building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-121
Figure F-77 Observed COVs for the 3-story frame building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-123
Figure F-78 Observed COVs for the 3-story weak story frame building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-124
Figure F-79 Observed COVs for the 8-story wall building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-125
Figure F-80 Observed COVs for the 9-story frame building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-127
Figure F-81 Observed COVs for the 9-story weak story frame building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-129
xxiii Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xxiv
List of Tables
Table 3-1 Variation of κ-Value in ATC-40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-6

Table 3-2 Minimum Allowable Spectral Reduction Factors for Displacement Ductility
Ratios Larger than 3.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-7
Table 6-1 Coefficients for use in Equations for Effective Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-3
Table 6-2 Coefficients for use in Equations for Effective Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6-4
Table 7-1 Ground Motion Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-2
Table 8-1 Approximate Values of Shear Wave Velocity Reduction Factor, n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-4
Table 10-1 Coefficients for Use in Equations for Effective Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10-4
Table A-1 Investigator Research Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Table B-1 Seismic Systems of Example Buildings Submitted by Respondees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
Table B-2 Gravity Systems of Example Buildings Submitted by Respondees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
Table B-3 Foundation Systems of Example Buildings Submitted by Respondees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
Table B-4 Inelastic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-2
Table B-5 Computer Program Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3
Table C-1 Ground Motions Recorded on Site Class B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Table C-2 Ground Motions Recorded on Site Class C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-2
Table C-3 Ground Motions Recorded on Site Class D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3
Table C-4 Ground Motions Recorded on Very Soft Soil Sites Used in This Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4
Table C-5 Near-Fault Records with Forward Directivity Used in this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5
Table E-1 Approximate values of n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-6
Table F-1 Assumed Loading for the 3- and 9-Story Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-2
Table F-2 Properties of the 8-Story Reinforced Concrete Structural Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-4
Table F-3 Assumed Loading for the 8-Story Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-5
Table F-4 Periods and Mode Shapes for the Frame and Wall Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-9
Table F-5 Base Shear Coefficient and Drift At Yield for Each Building Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-10
Table F-6 Ground Motions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-10
Table F-7 Scale Factors Applied to Each of the Ordinary Ground Motions for the Dynamic
Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-13
Table F-8 Peak Roof Drift Ratios for the Five Building Models (%) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-22
Table F-9 Values of c at the 90% Confidence Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .F-26
Table F-10 Approximate Upper Bounds to the COVs over the Height of each Building Model . . . . .F-27
Table F-11 Means of the Ratio of Roof Displacements: SDOF Estimate / Actual MDOF . . . . . . . . . .F-28
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xxv

xxvi Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440
1. Introduction
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
FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 1-1

Chapter 1: Introduction
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
1-2 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

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.


2. Overview of Inelastic Seismic Analysis
Procedures
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.

Chapter 2: Overview of Inelastic Seismic Analysis Procedures
weak column frames) a “stick” model can be used (see

Figure 2-4b and c). Often, substructuring techniques are
Component strength and helpful in developing simplified models. The purpose
stiffness properties of the simplified models is to reduce computational and
δj data management efforts. More importantly, they can
G lo also provide an improved visualization tool for the
θj bal
disp
lace engineer. The negative aspect to simplified models is
θi me nt, d that they introduce additional approximations and
δi uncertainty into the analysis.
Another important simplification to detailed structural

models is what have become known as “pushover” or
“capacity” curves. These curves form the basis of
nonlinear static procedures discussed below. They are
generated by subjecting a detailed structural model to
Figure 2-2 Schematic of a detailed 3-dimensional
one or more lateral load patterns (vectors) and then
inelastic structural model developed from
increasing the magnitude of the total load to generate a
component properties.
nonlinear inelastic force-deformation relationship for
the structure at a global level (see Figure 2-5). The load
vector is usually an approximate representation of the
the properties of some or all of the components of the relative accelerations associated with the first mode of
model include post-elastic strength and deformation vibration for the structure. In the Coefficient Method of
characteristics in addition to the initial elastic FEMA 356, the global parameters are normally base
properties. These are normally based on approximations shear and roof displacement. For the Capacity-
derived from test results on individual components or Spectrum Method of ATC-40, these are transformed to
theoretical analyses (see Figure 2-3). Information of spectral acceleration and spectral displacement.
this type is tabulated in ATC-40 and FEMA 356. In Nonlinear static procedures use these force-deformation
many instances, it is important to include the structural relationships to represent the behavior of a simple
and geotechnical components of the foundation in the single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) oscillator.
analysis model.
2.2 Characterization of Seismic Ground
As detailed as these models may be, they inevitably Motion
introduce approximations and associated uncertainties When an earthquake occurs, the amplitude, phasing,
into the analysis process. In most instances with and frequency content of the shaking depend strongly
inelastic analysis, it is preferable to base the model on on source characteristics (e.g., magnitude, rupture
the best estimate of the expected properties of the mechanism, fault plane orientation with respect to site).
structure. In this manner, the overall analysis results in In addition, the characteristics of shaking are affected
the estimate of central values (e.g., median or mean) of by attenuation that occurs as seismic waves propagate
engineering demand parameters with minimum bias. through rock from the source to the site and by local site
Subsequently, the engineer may decide on the effects. Site characteristics that may be important
appropriate interpretation of the results in light of all the include potential 3-D basin structure, dynamic
uncertainties involved and the specific decision in properties of relatively shallow sediments, and surface
question. topography. The source, attenuation, and site effects,
which are depicted schematically in the left frame of
In some instances, engineers simplify detailed structural Figure 2-6, affect the character of ground shaking as
models into equivalent multi-degree-of-freedom expressed by ground motion records (i.e., plots of the
models. These can be used to consolidate properties acceleration, velocity and displacement of a point on
into what have been termed “fish bone” models (see the ground surface as a function of time (center frame in
Figure 2-4a). In some cases, the model can simplified Figure 2-6)).
further. For example, when rotational coupling among
various vertical flexural elements is negligible (e.g., Ground motion records can be used to define elastic
cantilever shear walls or braced frames) or when story response spectra (right frame in Figure 2-6), which
shear mechanisms are anticipated (e.g., strong beam/ comprise a relationship of the maximum response

deformation
force
a) Hysteretic force-deformation behavior from tests
Force backbone curve
actual hysteretic
behavior
Deformation
b) Backbone representation of hysteretic behavior
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 2-4 Forms of simplified equivalent multiple-degree-of-freedom models.
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 ∆
Ground Acceleration (g)
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

δij
Capacity curve Equivalent Global displacement Capacity curve

(pushover) SDOF Oscillator ∆ (pushover)
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

δij
Capacity curve Equivalent Global displacement Capacity curve

(pushover) SDOF Oscillator ∆ (pushover)
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
Ground Acceleration (g)

Spectral Acceleration (g)
Period (sec) Time (sec.)
Corresponding response spectra Multiple records
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
high RELATIVE UNCERTAINTY low

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.
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
ED = Energy dissipated by damping Teq = Tsec

= Area of enclosed by hysteresis loop
= Area of parallelogram
Capacity spectrum Seismic demand
ESo = Maximum strain energy api for β = 5%
= Area of hatched triangle Kinitial
= apidpi / 2 Seismic demand
ay for βeq = β 0 + 5%
β0 = Equivalent viscous damping
associated with full ESo
hysteresis loop area
= 1 ED
4π ESo
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


3. Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures
3.1 Introduction Of particular interest is the extent to which the

approximate methods might tend to overestimate or
This chapter summarizes the results of studies to assess underestimate displacement demands (introduce bias)
the ability of current approximate nonlinear static and the spectral regions or strength levels for which
procedures to estimate the maximum displacement of these biases are likely to occur. Errors were quantified
inelastic structural models. Initial studies evaluated through statistical analyses. A large number of SDOF
both the Coefficient Method of FEMA 356 and the systems (with a wide range of periods of vibration,
Capacity-Spectrum Method of ATC-40. lateral strengths, and hysteretic behavior) were
subjected to a relatively large number of recorded
The use of NSPs (nonlinear static procedures) has earthquake ground motions. Ground motions included
accelerated in the United States since the publication of near-fault and far-fault records representative of site
ATC-40, FEMA 273/274 and FEMA 356 documents. conditions ranging from rock to very soft soil.
As a consequence there is valuable information However, it is recognized that there may be some
available on the practical application of these inelastic situations that deviate from those used in this
analysis procedures (see Appendix B, “Summary of investigation. Caution should be used when
Practice using Inelastic Analysis Procedures”). Various extrapolating the results presented in this evaluation for
researchers and practicing engineers have found that, in ground motions and site conditions that differ
some cases, different inelastic analysis methods give substantially.
substantially different estimates for displacement
demand for the same ground motion and same SDOF Section 3.2 describes the period of vibration, damping
oscillator (Aschheim et al., 1998; Chopra and Goel ratio, lateral strength, and hysteretic behavior of the
1999a,b, 2000; Albanessi et al., 2000; Kunnath and SDOF systems that were considered in this
Gupta, 2000; Lew and Kunnath, 2000; Yu et al, 2001; investigation. This section also describes the types and
Zamfirescu and Fajfar, 2001; MacRae and Tagawa, characteristics of the recorded ground motion records
2002). The disparities in displacement predictions that were used as well as the error measures computed
highlight the need for comparison and further study of in this study. Section 3.3 describes the evaluation of the
these different approaches (see Appendix A, “Summary simplified inelastic analysis procedure in ATC-40 to
of Research on Inelastic Analysis Procedures”). estimate the maximum displacement of inelastic
systems using equivalent linearization. Section 3.4
The objective of this evaluation was to study the provides a corresponding evaluation of the simplified
accuracy of the approximate methods described in analysis procedure in FEMA 356. In particular, this
ATC-40 and FEMA 356 for estimating the maximum chapter provides an evaluation of coefficients C1, C2
displacement demand of inelastic single-degree-of- and C3 in this method. Finally, Section 3.5 summarizes
freedom (SDOF) systems. This global displacement is a the dynamic response of nonlinear elastic, or rocking,
spectral displacement, termed the Performance Point in oscillators. A complete compilation of the evaluation
ATC-40. It is the roof displacement, termed the Target study data is provided in Appendix C, “Supplemental
Displacement in FEMA 356. In particular, this study Data on the Evaluation of Current Procedures.”
was aimed at identifying and quantifying the errors in
these procedures when applied to SDOF systems. For 3.2 Evaluation Procedures
this purpose, approximate total displacements
computed with ATC-40 and with FEMA 356 were 3.2.1 Hysteretic Characteristics
compared with the results of nonlinear response-history
SDOF systems with initial periods of vibration between
analyses of SDOF oscillators. The nonlinear response-
0.05 s and 3.0 s were used in this investigation. A total
history analyses are “exact” for the assumptions made
of 50 periods of vibration were considered (40 periods
for the properties of the oscillator (damping ratio and
between 0.05 s and 2.0 s, equally spaced at 0.05 s, and
type of hysteretic behavior) and for the particular
10 periods between 2.0 s and 3.0 s, equally spaced at 0.1
ground motion record. Thus these results are a useful
s intervals). The initial damping ratio, β, was assumed
benchmark to evaluate the approximate procedures.
to be equal to 5% for all systems.

Chapter 3: Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures
Elastoplastic Perfectly Plastic Stiffness Degrading

600 600
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
Strength and Stiffness Degrading Nonlinear Elastic

600 600
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

Table 3-1 Variation of κ-Value in ATC-40 κ

1.2
Hysteretic
Behavior β0 κ 1.0
Type A ≤ 0.1625 1.0 Type A

0.8
> 0.1625 1.13 – 0.51 × (π/2) × β0
Type B ≤ 0.25 0.67 0.6 Type B
> 0.25 0.845 – 0.446 × (π/2) × β0

0.4 Type C
Type C Any value 0.33
0.2
T eq / T0
4.0 0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement ductility, µ
3.0
Figure 3-4 Variation of κ-factor with the

displacement ductility ratio, µ.
2.0
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
post-yield stiffness ratio of the inelastic system.

Figure 3-3 shows the variation of equivalent periods for 0.0
different post-yield stiffness ratios for a wide range of 0 2 4 6 8 10
displacement ductility ratios. The equivalent period
becomes longer as the displacement ductility ratio
Figure 3-5 Variation of equivalent (effective)
increases and as the post-yield stiffness ratio decreases.
damping ratios with changes in the
displacement ductility ratio, µ.
Figures 3-4 and 3-5 present the variation of κ and
effective damping value, βeq, with changes in the
decreases to 0.53 for ductility ratio of 3.4, and remains
ductility ratio, respectively. The calculations were done
constant for larger ductilities. For structures with type C
assuming elastic perfectly plastic (EPP) behavior to
hysteretic behavior, the κ factor is equal to 0.33
represent a system that has full hysteretic loops (i.e., a
regardless of the level of ductility demand.
non-degrading system). It can be seen that for structures
with type A behavior (systems having full hysteretic
The equivalent damping ratio in the equivalent linear
loops), the κ value is 1.0 for displacement ductility
spectrum method documented in ATC-40 rapidly
ratios less than 1.3. For ductility ratios larger than 1.3,
increases once the structures yields and remains
κ decreases up to a value of 0.77 at a displacement constant for ductility ratios higher than 3.4. The
ductility ratio of 3.4 and remains constant at 0.77 for
maximum equivalent damping ratios for hysteretic
larger ductilities. Similarly, for structures with type B
behavior types A, B, and C are 0.40, 0.29 and 0.20,
hysteretic behavior, the value of κ is constant and equal
respectively. According to Equations 3-5 and 3-6,
to 0.67 for displacement ductility ratios less than 1.6,
structures with hysteretic behaviors type B and C will

have much larger displacement demands because of the SRV

1.2
SRA
1.2
1.0
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
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
was the only possible solution.

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
3.3.3 Evaluation Using Ground Motion Records
PERIOD [s]
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-

mum displacement response. Values of C2 C1

for different framing systems and structural SITE CLASS B Ts = 0.4 s
3.0
performance levels (i.e., immediate occu-
pancy, life safety, and collapse prevention) R=8.0
are obtained from Table 3.3 of the FEMA 2.5 R=6.0
R=4.0
356 document. Alternatively, C2 can take the
value of one in nonlinear procedures. R=3.0
2.0 R=2.0
R=1.5
C3 = Modification factor to represent increased
displacements due to dynamic P-∆ effects. 1.5
For buildings with positive post-yield stiff- R=2.0/3.0
ness, C3 is set equal to 1. For buildings with 1.0
R=1.5
negative post-yield stiffness, values of C3 are
calculated using the following expression:
0.5
WITH CAPPING
α ( R − 1)
32
C3 = 1.0 + (3-10) 0.0
Te
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
PERIOD [s]
where:
Te = Effective fundamental period of the C1 SITE CLASS B Ts = 0.4 s

building computed in accordance with sec- 3.0
tion 3.3.3.2.5. R=8.0
R=6.0
2.5
Ts = Characteristic period of the response R=4.0
spectrum, defined as the period associated R=3.0
with the transition from the constant-acceler- 2.0 R=2.0
ation segment of the spectrum to the con- R=1.5
stant-velocity segment of the spectrum. 1.5 R=8.0
R=1.5
R = Ratio of elastic strength demand to cal-
culated strength capacity. 1.0
Sa = Response spectrum acceleration, at the effec- 0.5

tive fundamental period and damping ratio WITHOUT CAPPING
of the building.
0.0
g= Gravitational acceleration. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
PERIOD [s]
3.4.2 Maximum Displacement Ratio
(Coefficient C1)
Figure 3-9 Comparison of coefficient C1 in FEMA
Coefficient C1 is the ratio of the maximum 356 with and without capping.
displacement for inelastic response of a SDOF
oscillator with non-degrading hysteretic behavior to the 0.55 s, 0.6 s and 1.0 s for site classes B, C, D, and E,
maximum displacement had the oscillator remained respectively. These characteristic periods are
elastic. Figure 3-9 shows the variation of C1 for site representative of the periods computed according to
class B using a characteristic period Ts equal to 0.4 s. FEMA 356 when using large ground motion intensities
This characteristic period value is computed by for which the system is expected to behave nonlinearly.
applying the procedure described in Sections 1.6.1.5 Figure 3-9 shows a comparison between the values of
and 1.6.2.1 of the FEMA 356 document. For the C1 with the limitation (capping), as defined in FEMA
evaluation of the FEMA 356 Coefficient Method, this 356 Section 3.3.3.3.2, and without the limitation.
study utilized characteristic periods equal to 0.4 s,

C1 FEMA 356 C1,EPP TWO BASIC SPECTRAL REGIONS

1.6 4.0
SITE CLASS C R = 8.0
SITE CLASS B (Ts = 0.4 s) R=1.5 3.5 (mean of 20 ground motions) R = 6.0
LSP (Section 3.3.1.3.1) 3.0
R = 4.0
NSP (Section 3.3.3.3.2) R = 8.0
R = 3.0
1.4 R = 2.0
2.5
R = 1.5
2.0
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.
Mean values of the computed ratio of the maximum

1.0
displacement for inelastic response of a SDOF
oscillator with non-degrading hysteretic behavior, to the
maximum displacement had the oscillator remained
elastic when subjected to 20 ground motions recorded
0.8
on site class C, is shown in Figure 3-11. It can be seen
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
that this ratio is clearly different in two spectral regions.
PERIOD [s]
Based on this figure, the following observations can be
made:
Figure 3-10 A close up view of the effect of the
capping limitation of C1 coefficient. • For periods longer than about 1.0 s, the computed C1
ratio is on average fairly insensitive to the level of
The most important observation that can be made from strength (i.e., the value of C1 does not change much
Figure 3-9 is that with the limitations on C1 imposed by with changes in R).
FEMA 356 for structures with short periods of vibration • In the long-period spectral region, the computed C1
(often referred to as “capping”), the C1 coefficient ratio is on average independent of the period of
becomes independent of the lateral strength of the vibration (i.e., the value of C1 does not change much
structure. This means that changes in R do not produce with changes in T).
changes in lateral displacement demand. Figure 3-10
shows a close-up view of the C1 coefficients for site • The equal-displacement approximation is a
class B as a function of period. For R = 1.5 (top graph) relatively good approximation of the expected value
the equation specified in the NSP will control this of C1 in the long-period spectral region (i.e., the
coefficient for periods between 0.2 and 0.4 s, while for value of C1 is approximately equal to one when T >
R = 2.0 (bottom graph) the NSP equation has only a 1.3).
minimal effect for periods between 0.3 and 0.4 s. For

• In the short-period region, inelastic displacements C1,EPP

are on average larger than elastic displacements (i.e., 4.0
R= 8.0
C1 is larger than one). 3.5 SITE CLASSES B R= 6.0
(mean of 20 ground motions) R= 4.0
• In the short-period region, the value of C1 is highly 3.0 R= 3.0
dependent (i.e., very sensitive) on the level of lateral 2.5
R= 2.0
R = 8.0
strength. In general, C1 increases as R increases (i.e., R= 1.5
as the lateral strength decreases). 2.0
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
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
displacement approximation underestimates 1.0

displacements, from the region in which this R = 1.5
0.5
approximation is valid, increases as the site becomes
softer. For site classes B and R smaller than 8, this 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
period is approximately 1.0 s; for site class C it is PERIOD
approximately 1.1 s; and for site class D it is
approximately 1.4 s. C1,EPP
4.0
R= 8.0
Figure 3-13 compares mean values of the computed 3.5 SITE CLASS D R= 6.0
ratio of the maximum displacement for inelastic (mean of 20 ground motions) R= 4.0
3.0
response of a SDOF oscillator with elasto-plastic R= 3.0
R= 2.0
hysteretic behavior to the maximum displacement had 2.5
R= 1.5
the oscillator remained elastic when subjected to 20 2.0
R = 8.0
ground motions recorded on site B to the approximate
coefficient C1 specified in FEMA 356. 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.
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).

C1 Sv [cm/s] LARKSPUR FERRY TERMINAL

LARKSPUR FERRY TERMINAL
4.0 160
R = 6.0 R = 6.0
R = 5.0
Tg = 2.09 s
140
R = 4.0
3.0 R = 3.0 120
R = 2.0
R = 1.5 100
2.0
80
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

underestimations of displacements are produced while

C1 LARKSPUR FERRY TERMINAL
4.0 in other cases large overestimations of displacements
R = 6.0 R = 6.0 are computed. This suggests that the variation of C1
R = 5.0
R = 4.0
with changes in period and lateral strength as specified
3.0 in FEMA 356 could be improved.
R = 3.0
R = 2.0
R = 1.5
2.0
3.4.3 Degrading System Response (Coefficient
C2)
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
PERIOD [s] PERIOD [s]
E[(∆ i)app/(∆ i)ex] E[(∆ i)app/(∆ i)ex] SITE CLASS C

SITE CLASS C
3.0 3.0
Ts = 0.55 s R=8.0 Ts = 0.55 s R=8.0
R=6.0 (C2 = 1.0) R=6.0
(C2 = 1.0)
R=4.0 R=4.0
2.5 2.5
R=3.0 R=3.0
R=2.0 R=1.5
R=2.0
R=1.5 R=1.5
2.0 2.0
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
Life Safety 1.5

Collapse Prevention
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.
∆i,SD / ∆i,EPP correspond to site class C. The trends are in general

2.2 similar to those presented in Figure 3-22; however, in
2.0 SITE CLASS D R= 6.0 this case overestimations are larger and
(mean of 80 ground motions) R= 5.0 underestimations are smaller.
1.8 R= 4.0
R= 3.0
1.6 R= 2.0 3.4.4 P-∆ Effects (Coefficient C3)
1.4 R = 6.0 R= 1.5
The displacement modification factor C3 is intended to
1.2 account for increased displacements due to dynamic P-
1.0 R = 1.5 ∆ effects. Displacement modification factors (C3)
R = 1.5
0.8 R = 6.0 computed using Equation 3-10 of FEMA 356 are shown
in Figure 3-24. Displacement amplifications increase as
0.6
the post-yield negative stiffness ratio α decreases
0.4 (becomes more negative), as R increases, and as the
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 period of vibration decreases.
PERIOD [s]
In order to evaluate this coefficient, the model shown in

Figure 3-25 was considered. Several studies have
Figure 3-20 Mean displacement ratio of SD to EPP
shown that systems with negative post-elastic stiffness
models computed with ground motions
may exhibit dynamic instability when subjected to
recorded on site class D.
earthquake ground motions (Jennings and Husid, 1968;
presented in this figure are for site class B. For periods Husid, 1969; Bernal 1987, 1992; MacRae, 1994; and
of vibration larger that 1.0 s, the simplified method in Miranda and Akkar, 2003). An example from Miranda
FEMA 356 overestimates displacements by about 25%. and Akkar (2003) is shown in Figure 3-26. In this
For short periods of vibration, maximum displacements figure, the ratio of maximum displacement of the
tend to be overestimated for small values of R and system with negative post-yield stiffness to the
underestimated for large values of R. This trend is more maximum displacement in an elastic system is plotted
pronounced when capping is included. for two systems with a period of 1.0 s as a function of R
when subjected to a recorded earthquake ground
Figure 3-23 presents mean errors calculated from the motion. The darker line represents a system with
ratio of the displacements computed using C1 and C2 as relatively severe negative post-elastic stiffness, while
determined from FEMA 356 to maximum the light line represents a system with more moderate
displacements computed with nonlinear response- negative post-elastic stiffness. It can be seen that in the
history analyses for the SSD model. Results in this case system with moderate negative stiffness (α = –0.06), R

E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] E[(∆ 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 level R=6.0 C2 as for Life Safety performance level R=6.0
2.5 C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s R=4.0 2.5 C2=1.3 for T < 0.1 s R=4.0
R=3.0 R=3.0
C2=1.1 for T > Ts C2=1.1 for T > Ts
R=2.0 R=2.0
2.0 R=1.5 2.0 R=1.5
R = 8.0
R = 1.5 R = 8.0 R = 1.5
1.5 1.5
1.0 R = 1.5 1.0 R = 1.5
0.5 R = 8.0 0.5 R = 8.0

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 3-22 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.
E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex]

SITE CLASS C E[(∆ i )app /(∆ i )ex] SITE CLASS C
3.0 3.0
Ts = 0.55 s R=8.0
Ts = 0.55 s R=8.0
C2 as Collapse Prevention performance level R=6.0
R=6.0
R=4.0 C2 as Collapse Prevention performance level
2.5 C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s R=4.0
R=3.0 2.5
C2=1.5 for T < 0.1 s R=3.0
C2=1.2 for T > Ts R=2.0 R=2.0
R=1.5 C2=1.2 for T > Ts
R=1.5
2.0 R = 1.5 2.0
R = 1.5
R = 8.0 R = 8.0
1.5 1.5
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
Figure 3-24 The variation of C3 from FEMA 356 with

Figure 3-26 Displacement modification factors in
respect to R for different negative post-
SDOF that exhibit in-cycle negative post-
elastic stiffness values.
yield stiffness.
F 3.5 Nonlinear Elastic Behavior

The results of the response-history analyses for the
Fy nonlinear elastic (NE) model are illustrated in
Figure 3-27. Comparison with Figure 3-12 indicates
αK that the maximum nonlinear elastic (NE) response is
K generally greater than the EPP. The difference varies
with both period and strength and can exceed 40% in
some cases. Neither ATC-40 nor FEMA 356 explicitly
∆ address nonlinear elastic behavior. In reality, it is not
∆y ∆si found often for typical structural systems. It represents
a pure rocking response. Virtually all structures exhibit
Figure 3-25 Bilinear system with in-cycle negative some hysteretic damping that tends to reduce response
post-elastic stiffness due to P-∆ effects. from that predicted for pure rocking.

CR,NLE
5.0
SITE CLASS B R= 6.0
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
Figure 3-27 Ratio of maximum displacement for a

nonlinear elastic (NE) oscillator to elastic
response for site classes B, C, and D.

4. Strength Degradation
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-
Strength loss occurs in subsequent cycles; Strength loss occurs

not in the same cycle as yield. in same cycle as yield.
600
Strength and stiffness degrading model
400
200
Force
-200
-400
-600
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Displacement
a) Cyclic strength degradation b) In-cycle strength degradation
Figure 4-1 Two types of strength degradation.

Chapter 4: Strength Degradation
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

The recommended limitation on the design force

α e = α P −∆ + λ (α 2 − α P −∆ ) (4-1)
reduction, Rmax, is as follows (see also Figure 4-3 for
notation):
where 0 ≤ λ ≤ 1.0 .
−t
Current knowledge of component behavior as well as ∆ α
unknown characteristics of the future ground motion Rmax = d + e (4-2)
make it impossible at present to know the correct value
∆y 4
of λ. For the present, it is recommended that λ be
assigned a value of 0.2 for sites not subject to near field where
effects and 0.8 for those that are. These values, solely
t = 1 + 0.15 lnT (4-3)
based on judgment, are intended to recognize the
potential for dynamic instability that might arise from
in-cycle strength losses associated with large impulsive
near-field motions while, at the same time, avoid If this limitation is not satisfied, then a nonlinear
penalizing structures with predominantly cyclic dynamic analysis using representative ground motion
strength loss associated with non-impulsive motions. records for the site should be implemented to
investigate the potential for dynamic instability. The
4.4 Limitation on Strength for In-Cycle structural model must appropriately model the strength
Strength Degradation Including P-∆ degradation characteristics of the structure and its
Effects components.
When using displacement modification techniques Equation 4-2 is a simplification of an expression
similar to the coefficient method of FEMA 356, it is derived by Miranda and Akkar (2003), which was
recommended that the displacement prediction be obtained using single-degree-of-freedom systems. It
modified to account for cyclic degradation of stiffness should be noted that significant variability exists in the
and strength. Chapter 5 presents an improved strength required to avoid dynamic instability; hence,
procedure for calculating the coefficient C2 for this this equation is aimed only at identifying cases where
purpose. It is also suggested that the current coefficient dynamic instability should be further investigated using
C3 be eliminated and replaced with a limit on minimum response history analyses and not as an accurate
strength (maximum value of R) required to avoid measure of the lateral strength required to avoid
dynamic instability. The same limitation on Rmax is dynamic instability in MDOF structures.
recommended for the equivalent linearization
alternative in ATC-40 as modified in Chapter 6 of this The use of the equivalent linearization techniques (see
document. Chapter 6) can provide initial insight into whether the
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
Figure 4-3 Idealized force-displacement curve for nonlinear static analysis

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

5. Improved Procedures for Displacement
Modification
5.1 Introduction structures that may reduce their response to ground

motions in lieu of the current limitations on the
Based on the evaluation summarized in Chapter 3 and coefficient C1.
available research data, suggested improvements to the
Coefficient Method of FEMA 356 have been developed 5.2.1 Simplified Expression
and are presented in this chapter. Recommendations
include several improved alternatives for the basic ratio For most structures the following simplified expression
of the maximum displacement (elastic plus inelastic) for may be used for the coefficient C1:
an elastic perfectly plastic SDOF oscillator to the
maximum displacement for a completely linear elastic R −1
oscillator that is designated as the coefficient C1 in C1 = 1 + (5-1)
FEMA 356. This chapter also recommends that the a Te2
current limitations (capping) allowed by FEMA 356 to
the coefficient C1 be abandoned. In addition, a where Te is the effective fundamental period of the
distinction is recognized between two different types of SDOF model of the structure in seconds and R is the
strength degradation that have different effects on strength ratio computed with Equation 3-16 of the
system response and performance, as discussed in FEMA 356 document. The constant a is equal to 130,
Chapter 4. This distinction leads to recommendations 90, and 60 for site classes B, C, and D, respectively. For
for the coefficient C2 to account for cyclic degradation periods less than 0.2 s, the value of the coefficient C1
in strength and stiffness. It is also suggested that the for 0.2 s may be used. For periods greater than 1.0 s, C1
coefficient C3 be eliminated and replaced with a may be assumed to be 1.0.
limitation on strength in accordance with Section 4.4.
This expression provides improved estimation of the
The proposed expressions for coefficients in this section ratio of peak deformations of inelastic SDOF systems
are based on empirical data. They have been formulated with elasto-plastic behavior to peak deformations of
to provide estimates of expected values based on linear single-degree-of-freedom systems. Equation 5-1
available analytical results on the response of SDOF is plotted in Figure 5-1. This equation estimates mean
oscillators subjected to ground motion records. As values of this ratio. Considerable dispersion (scatter)
noted in the subsequent text, there is dispersion, at times exists about the mean. For information and discussion
large, in the data. The user should be cognizant of this of the dispersion of C1 see Ruiz-Garcia and Miranda
when applying these procedures in practice. (2003). When interpreting results and assessing
structural performance, engineers should consider the
5.2 Maximum Displacement Ratio implications of these uncertainties. For example, the
(Coefficient C1) expression can be used with a = 60 for softer sites (class
E and F) to estimate displacements, but it is less reliable
The coefficient C1 in FEMA 356 is used along with due to very high dispersion of results in studies of
other coefficients in a nonlinear static procedure known SDOF oscillators for soft sites. Similarly, this equation
as the Coefficient Method. This form of displacement may not provide completely adequate results for ground
modification is described in more detail in Section 3.4.1 motions strongly influenced by forward directivity
of this document and in Chapter 3 of FEMA 356. As a effects, for the same reason.
result of the work summarized in Chapter 3 and a
review of available pertinent research, improvements to Systems with nonlinear elastic hysteretic behavior (e.g.
the coefficient C1 can be made. A relatively simple rocking) can have deformation ratios larger than those
expression is proposed here. As noted in Section 3.4.1, computed with Equation 5-1. Results of the studies for
FEMA 356 currently allows the coefficient C1 to be nonlinear elastic systems (NE) summarized in
limited (capped) for relatively short-period structures. It Section 3.5 indicate that these oscillators can exhibit
is suggested that this limitation not be used. This may displacements up to 40% larger than their elasto-plastic
increase estimates of displacement for some structures. counterparts. However, most systems that exhibit
However, Chapter 8 presents rational procedures to rocking also have some hysteretic energy dissipation (as
account for some of the characteristics of short-period

Chapter 5: Improved Procedures for Displacement Modification
C1
3.4 FEMA, R=4

Eq.5-1,R=2
3.2 FEMA, R=2
Eq.5-1,R=4
3.0
FEMA, R=6 Eq.5-1,R=6
2.8
2.6
2.4 R=6
FEMA 356, R=2
2.2 FEMA 356, R=4
2.0 FEMA 356, R=6
1.8 R=4 FEMA 356, capped
1.6 FEMA,
capped
1.4
R=2
1.2
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Period, T(sec)
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:

5.4 Limitation on Strength to Avoid post-elastic stiffness caused by in-cycle strength

Dynamic Instability for Nonlinear degradation.
Static Procedures
It is suggested that the current coefficient C3 be
The studies of the Coefficient Method in Chapter 3
eliminated and replaced with a limit on minimum
indicate that global displacement demand is not
strength (maximum R) required to avoid dynamic
significantly amplified by degrading strength until a
instability. The proposed limitation is presented in
critical point at which dynamic instability may occur.
Section 4.4.
This point is related to the initial strength and period of
the oscillator as well as the magnitude of the negative

6. Improved Procedures for Equivalent Linearization
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
Initial elastic demand with

damping = β0
amax
capacity spectrum
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.

Chapter 6: Improved Procedures for Equivalent Linearization
6.2 Basic Equivalent Linearization

Parameters
Optimal equivalent linear parameters (i.e., effective
period, Teff, and effective damping, βeff) are determined
through a statistical analysis that minimizes, in a
rigorous manner, the extreme occurrences of the
difference (i.e., error) between the maximum response
of an actual inelastic system and its equivalent linear
counterpart. Conventionally, the measurement of error
has been the mean of the absolute difference between
the displacements. Although this seems logical, it might
not lead to particularly good results from an engineering
standpoint in which the difference between
conservative or unconservative estimates is important.
This is illustrated in Figure 6-2. It is possible to select
linear parameters for which the mean error is zero, as
for the broad, flat distribution. However, the narrower
curve might represent equivalent linear parameters that Figure 6-2 Illustration of probability density function
provide better results from an engineering standpoint, of displacement error for a Gaussian
since the chance of errors outside a –10% to +10% distribution.
range, for example, are much lower, even accounting
for the –5% mean error. This is owing to the smaller
standard deviation. See Appendix D for details on the included are parameters that have been optimized for all
optimization process. types of behavior.
A variety of different inelastic hysteretic systems have 6.2.1 Effective Damping

been studied including bilinear hysteretic (BLH), Effective viscous damping values, expressed as a
stiffness- degrading (STDG), and strength-degrading percentage of critical damping, for all hysteretic model
behavior as shown in Figure 6-3. Note that the bilinear types and alpha values have the following form:
model (BLH) is the same as the elastic perfectly plastic
(EPP) discussed in Chapter 3. Similarly, the stiffness For 1.0 < µ < 4.0:
degrading model (STDG) is the same as the SD model
in Chapter 3. In contrast, the strength-degrading model
βeff = A ( µ − 1) + B ( µ − 1) + β0
2 3
(STRDG) differs from the SSD model of Chapter 3. A (6-1)
negative value of the post-elastic stiffness ratio, α, is
indicative of in-cycle degradation (see Chapter 4). Also
BLH (α=0%) STDG (α=0%) STRDG (α=−5%)
Figure 6-3 Types of inelastic behavior considered. BLH=Bilinear Hysteretic STDG=Stiffness Degrading, and
STRDG=Strength Degrading.

For 4.0 ≤ µ ≤ 6.5: of these coefficients to building models with a number

of components may be done with caution. If all
βeff = C + D ( µ − 1) + β0
components exhibit similar behavior (e.g., flexurally
(6-2)
controlled concrete with stiffness degradation and strain
hardening), then it is reasonable to infer that hysteretic
For µ > 6.5: behavior of the overall building will be similar to the
behavior of the simple idealized oscillators on which
⎡ F ( µ − 1) − 1 ⎤ ⎛ T ⎞ 2 this table is based. For building models in which
βeff = E⎢ ⎥ eff ⎟ + β0
2 ⎜
(6-3) components exhibit disparate force-deformation
⎢⎣ [F ( µ − 1)] ⎥⎦ ⎝ T0 ⎠ behavior, it is less clear which coefficients to use. When
in doubt, the practitioner should use the more generally
Values of the coefficients in the equations for effective optimized equations presented in the following
damping of the model oscillators are tabulated in paragraph.
Table 6-1. Note that these are a function of the
characteristics of the capacity curve for the oscillator in The following approximate equations for the effective
terms of basic hysteretic type and post-elastic stiffness, damping value have been optimized for application to
α. any capacity curve, independent of hysteretic model
type or alpha value used for the study:
The coefficients in Table 6-1 have been optimized to fit
the empirical results for idealized model oscillators For 1.0 < µ < 4.0:
having well defined hysteretic behavior designated
earlier in this document as Elastic Perfectly Plastic
βeff = 4.9 ( µ − 1) − 1.1( µ − 1) + β0
2 3
(6-4)
(EPP), Stiffness Degrading (SD) and Strength and
Stiffness Degrading (SSD). Real buildings, comprised
of a combination of many elements, each of which may For 4.0 ≤ µ ≤ 6.5:
have somewhat different strength and stiffness
characteristics, will seldom display hysteretic behaviors βeff = 14.0 + 0.32 ( µ − 1) + β0 (6-5)
that match those of the oscillators, exactly. Adaptation
Table 6-1 Coefficients for use in Equations for Effective Damping

Model α (%) A B C D E F
Bilinear hysteretic 0 3.2 –0.66 11 0.12 19 0.73

Bilinear hysteretic 2 3.3 –0.64 9.4 1.1 19 0.42
Stiffness degrading 0 5.1 –1.1 12 1.4 20 0.62
Stiffness degrading 10 5.3 –1.2 9.2 1.9 21 0.37
Stiffness degrading 20 4.6 –1.0 9.6 1.3 23 0.34
Strength degrading -3a 5.3 –1.2 14 0.69 24 0.90
Strength degrading –5a 5.6 –1.3 14 0.61 22 0.90
a. Negative values of post-elastic stiffness should be limited to αe, as discussed in Section 4.3

Table 6-2 Coefficients for use in Equations for Effective Period

Model α(%) G H I J K L
Bilinear hysteretic 0 0.11 –0.017 0.27 0.090 0.57 0.00

Stiffness degrading 0 0.17 –0.032 0.10 0.19 0.85 0.00
Strength degrading –3a 0.18 –0.033 0.17 0.18 0.76 –0.03
Strength degrading –5a 0.20 –0.038 0.25 0.17 0.71 –0.05
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
For 4.0 ≤ µ ≤ 6.5:

For 4.0 ≤ µ ≤ 6.5:
[ ]
Teff = I + J ( µ − 1) + 1 T0 (6-8)
Teff = ⎡⎣ 0.28 + 0.13 ( µ − 1) + 1⎤⎦ T0 (6-11)
For µ > 6.5:
For µ > 6.5:
⎧⎪ ⎡ ( µ − 1) ⎤ ⎫⎪
Teff = ⎨K ⎢ − 1⎥ + 1⎬ T0 (6-9)
1 + L ( µ − 2 ) ⎦⎥ ⎪ ⎧⎪ ⎡ ( µ − 1) ⎤ ⎫⎪
⎩⎪ ⎢⎣ ⎭ Teff = ⎨ 0.89 ⎢ − 1⎥ + 1⎬ T0 (6-12)
⎪⎩ ⎢⎣ 1 + 0.05 ( µ − 2 ) ⎦⎥ ⎪⎭
Values of the coefficients in the equations for effective
period of the model oscillators are tabulated in Note that these expressions apply only for T0 = 0.2 to
Table 6-2. Note that these are a function of the 2.0 s.
characteristics of the capacity spectrum for the

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
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 ⎠
dmax Sd using the equations in Section 6.2.2 for the effective

Spectral Displacement period and recognizing from Equation 3-5 that
Figure 6-4 Modified acceleration-displacement

⎛ T0 ⎞ 1 + α ( µ − 1)
2
response spectrum (MADRS) for use with
⎜ ⎟ = (6-15)
secant period, Tsec. ⎝ Tsec ⎠ µ
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
2000 NEHRP Table 13A.3.1
2.0 FEMA 356 Table 1.6
ATC 40 Eqn 8-10 (no limits)
1.8 FEMA 440 Eqn 6-17
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 ⎞
⎜d ⎟
capacity curve for ⎝ y⎠
api structure
initial ADRS demand d pi

with damping βo µ= (6-19)
dy
dpi Sd 8. Using the calculated values for post-elastic stiff-

ness, α, and ductility, µ, from Step 7, calculate the
corresponding effective damping, βeff, (see
Section 6.2.1). Similarly calculate the correspond-
Figure 6-6 Initial ADRS demand and capacity ing effective period, Teff, (see Section 6.2.2).
spectrum.
After this step in the procedures, a number of options
Sa are available for identifying a single solution. Three
T0
possible procedures are described below.
Procedure A (Direct Iteration). In this procedure, the

iteration is done to converge directly on a performance

api capacity curve for
structure point. The ADRS demand spectra generated for the
ay various values of effective damping are not modified to
intersect the capacity spectrum, as outlined in
bilinear representation Section 6.2.3.
of capacity curve
A9. Using the effective damping determined from
dy dpi Sd Step 8, adjust the initial ADRS to βeff (see
Section 6.3).
A10. Determine the estimated maximum displace-
Figure 6-7 Bilinear representation of capacity ment, di, using the intersection of the radial
spectrum. effective period, Teff, with the ADRS for βeff.
The estimated maximum acceleration, ai, is that
corresponding to di on the capacity curve (see
5. Select an initial performance point (maximum Figure 6-8).
acceleration, api, and displacement, dpi). This may A11. Compare the estimated maximum displacement,
be based on an equal-displacement approximation di, with the initial (or previous) assumption. If it
as shown in Figure 6-6 or any other point based on is within acceptable tolerance, the performance
engineering judgment. point corresponds to ai and di. If it is not within
6. Develop a bilinear representation of the capacity acceptable tolerance, then repeat the process
spectrum in accordance with the procedures in from Step 5 using ai and di, or some other
ATC-40. This defines the initial period, T0, yield selected assumption (see Section 6.6), as a start-
displacement, dy, and yield acceleration, ay. (see ing point.
Figure 6-7). Note that these parameters may vary
for differing assumptions api and dpi Procedure B (Intersection with MADRS). In this
procedure, the performance point is defined as the
7. For the bilinear representation developed in Step 6,
intersection of the capacity spectrum with the modified
calculate the values of post-elastic stiffness, α, and
ADRS (MADRS). The MADRS demand spectrum is
ductility, µ, as follows:
generated by modifying the ADRS for the various
values of effective damping, as outlined in
Section 6.2.3.

T0
T0
Sa
Sa
Teff (µ, CS)
capacity curve(CS)
ai for structure
capacity curve (CS)
api ai for structure
initial ADRS, β0 api
ADRS, βeff (µ, CS)
initial ADRS, β0
ADRS, βeff (µ, CS)

MADRS, βeff (µ, CS, M)
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)
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.
Loci of Performance Points for T = 0.2, 0.5, and 1.0 sec

Eqns 6-1 to 6-3 and 6-7 to 6-9 for alpha=0%
700
Eqns 6-1 to 6-3 and 6-7 to 6-9 for alpha=5%
600 Eqns 6-1 to 6-3 and 6-7 to 6-9 for alpha=10%
500 Eqns 6-1 to 6-3 and 6-7 to 6-9 for alpha=20%
Approx MADRS Approach (Eqns 6-20 to 6-22)

SA (in/s/s)
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.

D11. A possible performance point is generated by the

intersection of the radial effective period, Teff,
with the MADRS (see Figure 6-9). 10
Actual Performance Point will fall
9
D12. Increase or decrease the assumed performance on line where d i = d pi
8
point and repeat the process to generate a series
of possible performance points. 7
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
Subsequent assumptions for the performance point can Assumed d p i

be calculated by averaging the previous value of the
initial assumption dpi and the calculated result di, then
choosing the corresponding acceleration value from the Figure 6-12 Tracking iteration for equivalent
capacity curve. However, this is not required and some linearization by comparing assumed
educated guessing and judgment can improve solution displacement to calculated displacement.
time. For example, the initial assumption, dpi, and the
resulting estimated maximum displacement, di, can be
plotted as a point, as shown in Figure 6-12. Note that 6.7 Limitation on Strength to Avoid
the actual performance point will fall along the line Dynamic Instability for Nonlinear
where the two values are equal. By tracking the Static Procedures
subsequent trial point with this type of plot, it is easy to The evaluation of current procedures summarized in
see solution trends. An example with three iterations is Chapter 3 revealed that oscillators that exhibit in-cycle
shown in Figure 6-12. After the second trial, it is strength degradation can be prone to dynamic instability
apparent that the performance point is larger than the during strong shaking. The subject is covered in detail
estimate, as the track of the trial points has not crossed in Chapter 4. When using equivalent linearization
the line of equal displacement. So the third trial procedures, the strength of the structural model should
assumes a relatively large displacement. The results of be checked in accordance with Section 4.4.
the third trial indicate a solution somewhere between
the assumptions of Trial 2 and Trial 3.

7. Evaluation and Comparison of Improved
Nonlinear Static Procedures
7.1 Introduction 7.2 Summary of Evaluation Procedures

Previous chapters have introduced improvements to 7.2.1 NEHRP Design Response Spectrum
nonlinear static procedures that are useful for estimating Procedures similar to the 2000 NEHRP Recommended
the peak displacement amplitude for a SDOF oscillator Provisions for New Buildings were used to define
subjected to earthquake ground motion. This chapter design response spectra. Values for short- and 1-second
compares results of those methods with results obtained period spectral accelerations at the Maximum
using nonlinear response-history analyses for ground Considered Earthquake (MCE) level were read from the
motion records selected and scaled to be representative pertinent maps for 5% damping and site class C,
of a specific hazard level and site conditions. The resulting in values SS = 1.5 g and S1 = 0.6 g. Following
ground motion selection and scaling procedures are the 2000 NEHRP procedures, the short- and long-
similar to those specified in the 2000 NEHRP period values were modified for site class C to
Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for SMS = FaSS and SM1 = Fv S1, where Fa = 1.0 and
New Buildings and Other Structures (BSSC, 2000),1 Fv = 1.3. Design-basis ordinates then were obtained as
and therefore provide an example of the types of results SDS = (2/3)SMS and SD1 = (2/3)SM1. These values were
one might obtain in a practice-related application. used with the spectral shape defined in the NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for New Buildings
Several nonlinear oscillators were selected, having (Figure 7-1) to derive the NEHRP design response
different vibration periods and strengths. The oscillators spectrum. Note that the acceleration values in
were assumed to be sited on ground classified as Figure 7-1 and in the rest of the document are actually
NEHRP Site Class C, with ground motions generated pseudo-acceleration values.
by a fault capable of a strike-slip earthquake of
magnitude Ms = 7. Smooth design response spectra
were established using the 2000 NEHRP Recommended
Provisions for New Buildings, scaled for the design-
basis earthquake. Furthermore, ground motion records
from representative sites and earthquakes were selected
and scaled. Displacement amplitudes of the oscillators
were calculated by both the nonlinear static procedures
and nonlinear dynamic response-history analysis, for
comparison purposes.
The scope of the study reported in this chapter is limited

by the periods, strengths, and hysteretic behavior of the
SDOF oscillators, as well as the number and nature of
the ground motions used. The results do not represent a
large statistical sample and broad general conclusions
should not be drawn solely from these data.
Nonetheless, they are illustrative of the types of errors Figure 7-1 NEHRP design response spectrum.
and variations among procedures that should be
anticipated when using these simplified analysis
7.2.2 Ground Motions and Ground-Motion
techniques. Scaling
Ground motions were intended to be representative of
design-level motions for a facility located
approximately 10 km from a fault rupturing with strike-
slip mechanism at magnitude Ms 7. The soil at the site
1.Superseded in 2003 with the FEMA 450 Recommended corresponds to NEHRP Site Class C. Ground motions
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings were selected from the Pacific Earthquake Engineering
and Other Structures. Research (PEER) Center strong ground motion

Chapter 7: Evaluation and Comparison of Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures
Table 7-1 Ground Motion Records

PGV PGD Distance closest to fault
Earthquake Magnitude Record PGA (g) (cm/s) (cm) rupture (km)
Imperial Valley 1979/ M 6.5, IMPVALL/H-PTS315 0.204 16.1 9.94 14.2

10/15 23:16 Ml 6.6, IMPVALL/H-CPE147 0.169 11.6 4.25 26.5
Ms 6.9
IMPVALL/H-CPE237 0.157 18.6 7.95 26.5
Landers 1992/06/28 M 7.3 LANDERS/CLW-LN 0.283 25.6 13.74 21.2
11:58 Ms 7.4 LANDERS/CLW-TR 0.417 42.3 13.76 21.2
LANDERS/MVH000 0.188 16.6 9.45 19.3
LANDERS/MVH090 0.14 20.2 6.33 19.3
LANDERS/DSP000 0.171 20.2 13.87 23.2
LANDERS/DSP090 0.154 20.9 7.78 23.2
LANDERS/JOS000 0.274 27.5 9.82 11.6
LANDERS/JOS090 0.284 43.2 14.51 11.6
LANDERS/NPS000 0.136 11 4.97 24.2
PGA: peak ground acceleration; PGV: peak ground velocity; PGD: peak ground displacement
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.

For T = 1.0 sec ( range 0.20 ~ 1.50 sec)
DBE 8
Strength Reduction Factor

18 average
H-CPE237 , (SF = 1.77)
CLW -TR , (SF = 1.43)
MVH000 , (SF = 2.51)
16 MVH090 , (SF = 2.20)
DSP000 , (SF = 2.26)
DSP090 , (SF = 1.53)
JOS000 , (SF = 1.29) 4
14 JOS090 , (SF = 0.98)
NPS000 , (SF = 3.35)
NPS090 , (SF = 2.37) 2
12
0.2 0.5 1.0

Sa ( m/s ec 2)
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
exceeding 5% of critical damping were calculated using

the spectral reduction factors of ATC-40; however, the
limits on the reductions (ATC-40 Tables 8-1 and 8-2)
were not imposed. Damping factors and effective
periods were calculated using the equations and
tabulated quantities in FEMA 440 Chapter 6, specific to
the bilinear oscillator behavior with 5% post-elastic
Displacement stiffness, rather than the more generally applicable
equations. Iteration Procedure A was used with the
Figure 7-5 Bilinear load-displacement relation of average spectra, while iteration Procedure B was used
oscillators. for the smooth spectra, in general accordance with
Section 6.4. Convergence was assumed when the

Ground motion: DSP090 (SF = 1.53)

2
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)
0.05 FEMA 440 EL

FEMA 440 DM
Approx. EL
0.04 ATC 40
FEMA 356
0.03 µ=10
std R=2
std R=8
0.02 std R=4
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
0.14
0.12
NDA
0.10 FEMA 440 EL

FEMA 440 DM
Approx. EL
0.08 ATC 40
FEMA 356
0.06 µ=10
std R=2
std R=4
0.04 std R=8
0.02
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
spectra scaled to the NEHRP spectrum, and values calculated for the NEHRP spectrum.
T = 1.0s
0.25
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
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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
minus one standard deviation NDA mean

0.050 FEMA 440 EL
FEMA 440 DM
Approx. EL
0.040
ATC 40
FEMA 356
0.030 µ=10
0.020
0.010
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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
0.14
0.12
NDA mean
0.10 FEMA 440 EL

FEMA 440 DM
Approx. EL
0.08 ATC 40
FEMA 356
µ=10
0.06
std R=2
std R=4
0.04 std R=8
0.02
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
spectra scaled to the NEHRP spectrum, and values calculated for the average spectrum.
T = 1.0s
0.25
0.20 NDA mean

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
\ Strength Reduction Factor, R

spectra scaled to the NEHRP spectrum, and values calculated for the average spectrum

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

8. Procedures for Including Soil-Structure Interaction
Effects
8.1 Introduction properties of the springs indicated in Figure 8-1b) in a

structural model for inelastic analysis. Those provisions
This chapter presents simplified procedures for normally use the free-field motion as the seismic
including the effects of interaction between a structure demand with 5% damping as the conventional initial
and the supporting soils in a structural model for value. This approach is capable of modeling both the
nonlinear static analysis procedures. There are three structural and geotechnical (soil) components of the
primary categories of soil-structure interaction (SSI) foundation. The result is that the response of the overall
effects. These include: structural system includes deformations (elastic and
• introduction of flexibility to the soil-foundation inelastic) in the structural and geotechnical parts of the
system (flexible foundation effects), foundation system. These deformations are sometimes
referred to as an inertial SSI effect. These
• filtering of the ground motions transmitted to the improvements in modeling can lead to significant
structure (kinematic effects), and departures from fixed-base results and more accurate
• dissipation of energy from the soil-structure system representation of probable structural response.
through radiation and hysteretic soil damping Compared with the fixed-base modeling approach, the
(foundation damping effects). predicted period of the structure lengthens, the
distribution of forces among various elements changes,
Current analysis procedures in FEMA 356 and ATC-40 the sequence of inelasticity and the modes of inelastic
partially address the flexible foundation effect through behavior can change, and foundation mechanisms (e.g.,
guidance on including the stiffness and strength of the rocking, soil bearing failure, and pier/pile slip) can be
geotechnical (soil) components of the foundation in the directly evaluated and considered. All of these effects
structural analysis model. However, these procedures result in more realistic evaluation of the probable
do not address the reduction of the shaking demand on structural behavior and performance.
the structure relative to the free-field motion caused by
kinematic interaction or the foundation damping effect. Figure 8-1c illustrates the filtering effects that soil-
Guidance on including these effects in NSPs is provided structure interaction can have on the character and
in this section. A simple example illustrates the intensity of ground motion experienced by the structural
application of these procedures. Appendix E provides model. Kinematic interaction results from the presence
detailed information on these soil-structure interaction of relatively stiff foundation elements on or in soil that
effects. cause foundation motions to deviate from free-field
motions. Two effects are commonly identified: base-slab
Figure 8-1a illustrates the assumption that the structural averaging and embedment effects. The base-slab
model is mounted on a rigid base that is excited by the averaging effect can be visualized by recognizing that
free-field motion. The free-field motion is the the instantaneous motion that would have occurred in
theoretical movement of a single point on the surface of the absence of the structure within and below its
the ground, assuming that there is no structure near it. footprint is not the same at every point. Placement of a
The fixed-base modeling assumption is inappropriate structure and foundation across these spatially variable
for many structures though. Structural systems that motions produces an averaging effect in which the
incorporate stiff vertical elements for lateral resistance overall motion is less than the localized maxima that
(e.g., shear walls, braced frames) can be particularly would have occurred in the free field. The embedment
sensitive to even small base rotations and translations effect is associated with the reduction of ground motion
that are neglected with a fixed base assumption. that tends to occur with depth in a soil deposit. Both
Relatively flexible vertical elements (e.g., moment base-slab averaging and embedment affect the character
frames) are often not significantly affected by SSI. of the foundation-level motion (sometimes called the
foundation input motion, or FIM) in a manner that is
Figure 8-1b illustrates the incorporation of foundation independent of the superstructure (i.e., the portion of the
flexibility into the structural model directly. ATC-40 structure above the foundation), with one exception. The
and FEMA 356 include provisions for estimating the effects are strongly period-dependent, being maximized
flexibility and strength of the foundation (i.e., the at small periods. The effects can be visualized as a filter

Chapter 8: Procedures for Including Soil-Structure Interaction Effects
geotechnical components structural components of

of foundation foundation
Infinitely rigid foundation and soil
ug= free field motion (FFM) with ug= free field motion (FFM) with
conventional damping conventional damping
a) Rigid base model b) Flexible base model
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
c) Kinematic interaction d) Foundation damping
Figure 8-1 Foundation modeling assumptions.
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.

input motion imparted to the system model as seismic 1
from base slab aver aging ( RRS bsa)

shaking demand.
Foundat ion/ fr ee- field RRS

0.9
8.2 Procedures for Kinematic Effects
The ground motions imposed at the foundation of a 0.8
structure can differ from those in the free field due to
averaging of variable ground motions across the
foundation slab, wave scattering, and embedment 0.7
Simplified Model
effects. These effects are referred to here as kinematic b e = 65 ft
interaction effects, and they tend to be important for 0.6 b e = 130 ft
buildings with relatively short fundamental periods b e = 200 ft
(i.e., periods < ∼ 0.5 s), large plan dimensions, or 0.5 b e = 330 ft
basements embedded 10 feet or more in soil materials.
This section presents procedures to account for
kinematic effects on building structures. 0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
A ratio of response spectra (RRS) factor can be used to Period (s)
represent kinematic interaction effects. An RRS is
simply the ratio of the response spectral ordinates Figure 8-2 Ratio of response spectra for base slab
imposed on the foundation (i.e., the foundation input averaging, RRSbsa, as a function of period,
motion, FIM) to the free-field spectral ordinates. Two T, and effective foundation size, be.
phenomena should be considered in evaluating RRS:
base slab averaging and foundation embedment, both of 1.2
which are introduced in the preceding section. Base- 1 ⎛ be ⎞
RRSbsa = 1 − ⎜ ⎟ ≥ the value for
slab averaging occurs to some extent in virtually all 14,100 ⎝ T ⎠
buildings. The slab-averaging effect occurs at the T = 0.2 s (8-1)
foundation level for mats or spread footings
interconnected by either grade beams or reinforced 3. If the structure has a basement embedded a depth e
concrete slabs. Even if a laterally stiff foundation from the ground surface, evaluate an additional
system is not present, averaging can occur at the first RRS from embedment (RRSe) as a function of
elevated level of buildings with rigid diaphragms. The period (see Figure 8-3). The curves in Figure 8-3
only case in which base-slab averaging effects should are described by the following:
be neglected is in buildings without a laterally
connected foundation system and with flexible floor ⎛ 2πe ⎞
and roof diaphragms. Foundation embedment effects RRSe = cos⎜ ⎟ ≥ the larger of 0.453 or the
should be considered for buildings with basements. ⎝ Tnvs ⎠
Such effects should not be considered for buildings RRSe value for T = 0.2 s. (8-2)
without basements, even if the footings are embedded.
Embedment effects tend to be significant when the where
depth of basements is greater than about 10 feet. The
following simplified procedure (adapted from Kim and e = foundation embedment (in feet)
Stewart (2003) and other sources) is recommended for vs = shear wave velocity for site soil conditions,
analysis of these two kinematic interaction effects as a taken as average value of velocity to a depth
function of period, T, of the structural model: of be below foundation (ft/s)
1. Evaluate the effective foundation size be = ab , n = shear wave velocity reduction factor for the
where a and b are the full footprint dimensions (in expected PGA as estimated from Table 8-1.
feet) of the building foundation in plan view.
2. Evaluate the RRS from base-slab averaging 4. Evaluate the product of RRSbsa times RRSe to
(RRSbsa) as a function of period (see Figure 8-2). obtain the total RRS for each period of interest. The
An approximation to the curves in Figure 8-2 is spectral ordinate of the foundation input motion at
given by the following: each period is the product of the free-field spectrum
and the total RRS.

1.2 foundation or footings interconnected with a

reinforced slab and/or grade beams); however,
Fo un d ati on /Fre e- Fie ld R R S
it is considered reasonable to extend its applica-

1
tion to all structures except those without both
an interconnected foundation and rigid floor
0.8 and roof diaphragms.
c. has not been rigorously studied for structures
0.6 e = 30 ft with plan dimensions greater than 200 ft.; how-
v s = 2500 ft/s
ever, it is considered reasonable to extend the
v s = 1200 ft/s application to these conditions, provided that
0.4
v s = 600 ft/s the foundation elements are laterally connected.
0.2 d. has not been rigorously studied for structures
with pile-supported foundations; however it is
considered reasonable to extend application to
0
pile-supported structures in which the cap and
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
soil are in contact or in which the caps are later-
Period (s) ally connected to one another by a slab or grade
beams.
Figure 8-3 Ratio of response spectra for embedment
RRSe, for an embedment, e, of 30 feet as 8.3 Procedures for Foundation Damping
a function of period, T, and shear wave
velocity, vs. Damping related to foundation-soil interaction can
significantly supplement damping that occurs in a
Table 8-1 Approximate Values of Shear Wave structure due to inelastic action of structural
Velocity Reduction Factor, n components. The damping from foundation-soil
interaction is associated with hysteretic behavior of soil
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) (not to be confused with hysteretic action in structural
components) as well as radiation of energy into the soil
0.10g 0.15g 0.20g 0.30g from the foundation (i.e., radiation damping). These
n 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.65
foundation damping effects tend to be important for
stiff structural systems (e.g., shear walls, braced
frames), particularly when the foundation soil is
5. Repeat steps 2 through 4 for other periods if desired relatively soft (i.e., Site Classes D-E).
to generate a complete spectrum for the foundation
input motion (FIM). The effects of foundation damping are represented by a
If desired, more detailed procedures can also be used, modified system-damping ratio. The initial damping
which are described in Appendix E. ratio for the structure neglecting foundation damping is
referred to as βi, and is generally taken as 5%. The
Limitations associated with application of this approach damping attributed to foundation-soil interaction alone
include the following, each of which is explained in (i.e., the foundation damping) is referred to as βf.
Appendix E: Finally, the damping ratio of the complete structural
system, accounting for foundation-soil interaction, as
• Kinematic interaction effects should be neglected for well as structural damping, is referred to as β0. The
soft clay sites such as Site Class E. change in damping ratio from βi to β0 modifies the
• Embedment effects can be neglected for foundations elastic response spectrum. The spectral ordinates are
embedded in firm rock (Site Classes A and B). reduced if β0 > βi.
• 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 ⎩ ⎣ ⎭
8 where the term µ is the expected ductility demand

Kx = Grx (8-5) for the system (i.e., including structure and soil
2 −υ
effects). Thus, the ductility must be estimated prior
where G = effective, strain-degraded soil shear to the actual solution and subsequently verified.
modulus (see FEMA 356, Table 4.7) and υ = soil
Poisson’s ratio (∼0.3 for sand, ∼0.45 for clay). 8. Evaluate the initial fixed-base damping ratio for the
structure (βi), which is often taken as 5%.
5. Calculate the equivalent foundation radius for rota- 9. Determine foundation damping due to radiation
tion, rθ, by first evaluating the effective rotational damping, βf, based on T˜eff / Teff , e/rx, and h/rθ,
stiffness of the foundation, Kθ, as using the plots in Figures 8-4 and 8-5. An approxi-
mation to those curves is given by the following:
( )
* 2
K fixed h*
Kθ = 2
(8-6) ⎛ T˜ ⎞ ⎛ T˜ ⎞
2
⎛ T ⎞ *
K fixed β f = a1 ⎜ eff − 1⎟ + a2 ⎜ eff − 1⎟ (8-9)
⎜⎝ T ⎟⎠ − 1 − ⎝ Teff ⎠ ⎝ Teff ⎠
Kx
where βf is in percent and
Where h* is the effective structure height taken as
the full height of the building for one-story

30 e / rx = 0.5
e / rx = 0 (radiation damping only)
Foundation D amp ing, βf (%)
(radiation damping only) 30
Fo undation Damping, β f (%)

20 h / rθ = 0.5
h / rθ = 0.5
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.
a2 = ce ⎡⎣ 25 ln ( h / rθ ) − 16 ⎤⎦ (8-9b) procedures of FEMA 356 and Chapter 5 or the

equivalent linearization procedures of ATC-40 and
ce = 1.5 ( e / rx ) + 1 (8-9c) Chapter 6. The ductility demand should be checked
against the value assumed in Step 7 above.
The above equations are most applicable for
The damping ratios determined in accordance with this
T˜eff / Teff < 1.5, and generally provide conservative
(low) damping estimates for higher T˜eff / Teff . section represent radiation damping effects only.
Hysteretic soil damping effects are neglected, since
10. Evaluate the flexible-base damping ratio (β0) from ductility in soil springs is included as part of structural
βi, βf, and T˜eff / Teff as follows: pushover analysis.
βi Limitations on the damping analysis described above

β0 = β f + (8-10) include the following:
(T˜ )
3
eff / Teff
• The procedure above should not be used when shear
walls or braced frames are spaced sufficiently
11. Evaluate the effect on spectral ordinates of the closely that waves emanating from distinct
change in damping ratio from βi to β0 (in accor- foundation elements will destructively interfere with
dance with Section 6.3); then modify the spectrum each other across the period range of interest. This
of the foundation input motion (recall that founda- can effectively decrease the energy dissipated in the
tion input motion is equal to the free-field motion if soil material, and the above formulation could
kinematic effects are neglected). overestimate the related damping. Unfortunately,
this effect has not been investigated sufficiently to
From this point, the maximum expected displacement justify definitive limits. In the absence of such
of the nonlinear SDOF oscillator model can be limits, a reasonable approximation might be to
estimated using the displacement modification neglect the effect of softly-coupled foundation

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.


9. Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
9.1 Introduction nonlinear dynamic analyses benchmark are also

summarized. Finally, this chapter provides
One of the primary assumptions of nonlinear static recommendations for practical applications and
analysis procedures is that the behavior of a structure identifies promising developments for the future.
with multiple degrees of freedom (MDOF) subject to
seismic ground motion can be estimated from the 9.2 Review of Current Simplified
response of an oscillator with a single degree of Procedures
freedom (SDOF). In order to generate the SDOF model,
the engineer generates a global force-deformation There are a number of options for the form of the load
relationship for the structure by subjecting a MDOF vector used to generate the SDOF model of a structure.
model to a predetermined lateral load vector. This Some are based on a single vector and one uses several
relationship is then converted to an equivalent SDOF vectors applied to comprise a multi-mode pushover
representation to estimate the maximum global approach. In all the options, lateral forces are applied
displacement of the model using displacement- incrementally to a nonlinear structural model to
modification or equivalent linearization techniques. The generate a “pushover” or capacity curve representing
global displacement is typically monitored at the roof the relationship between the applied lateral force and
level or center of mass. The magnitude of localized the global displacement at the roof or some other
demand in the MDOF model (e.g., story drifts and control point. The applied lateral force at any level in
forces or component deformations) are directly related the structure is proportional to the mass at that level and
to the global displacement. The actual maximum global an acceleration determined from a specific shape vector
displacement for the MDOF system can differ from the assumption. The various options are summarized below,
equivalent SDOF approximation. The distribution of as are the specifications of ATC-40 and FEMA 356
localized demand depends on the assumptions related to MDOF effects.
associated with the load vector used to generate the
equivalent SDOF model. The distribution of forces on 9.2.1 Single-Mode Load Vectors
the structure changes continuously during an
earthquake. In the elastic range, this is attributable to Concentrated Load. The simplest assumption for a
the fact that the response comprises contributions from load vector is a single concentrated load located
multiple modes of vibration. The actual distribution is normally at the top of the structure.
difficult to assess since the dynamic characteristics of
the ground motion itself are a major influence. Uniform. A uniform load vector assumes that the
Inelasticity further complicates the situation. The acceleration in the MDOF model is constant over its
combined deviations of the actual distribution of forces height. This alternative is sometimes termed
and deformations from those associated with the “rectangular.”
equivalent SDOF system and the assumed load vector
are termed MDOF effects. They can result in maximum Triangular. A triangular-shaped vector assumes that the
inelastic response in components or elements that differ acceleration increases linearly from zero at the base to a
from the SDOF model predictions in nonlinear static maximum at the top of the MDOF model.
analysis.
Code Distribution. The “code” load pattern appears in
This section reviews the accuracy and practical many documents. The acceleration pattern varies from
implications of the requirements of ATC-40 and FEMA the triangular shape for periods less than 0.5 s to a
356 related to MDOF effects including: parabolic shape for periods greater than 2.5 s, as a
1. current options for load vectors, and means to account for higher-mode effects.
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

Chapter 9: Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Effects
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.

1. Concentrated load Ground Motions

2. Code distribution • Eleven site Class C motions, 8-20 km from the fault
rupture, five events
3. First mode
• Four near-field motions: Erzincan, Northridge
4. Adaptive
(Rinaldi Receiving Station & Sylmar County
5. Multi-mode pushover Hospital), and Landers earthquakes
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)
Sa Vmdof W • 1.8 to 5.0% for 3-story frames, 1.7-2.1% for 9-story

Cy = = (9-3) frames
g α1
• 0.6 – 2.1% drift, as a percentage of building height,
where Sa = the pseudo-acceleration associated with for wall
yield of the ESDOF system, g = the acceleration of
gravity, Vy, mdof = the yield strength of the MDOF Load Vectors
system, W = the weight of the MDOF system, and • Triangular
α1 = the modal mass coefficient.
• Uniform
9.3 Summary of Illustrative Examples • Code
In order to compare and illustrate the effects of the • First mode
various options with NSPs related to the effects of • Adaptive
higher modes, five example buildings were analyzed.
Detailed information and results of the analyses are • SRSS
contained in Appendix F. The basic description of the • Multi-mode pushover
example buildings and the other features of the analysis
are listed below. Response Parameters
Example Buildings • Floor and roof displacement
• Three-story, steel frame (SAC LA Pre-Northridge • Interstory drift

M1 Model) • Story shear
• Three-story, weak-story steel frame (lowest story at • Overturning moment
50% of strength)
• Eight-story, shear wall (Escondido Village) Error Measurements
• Nine-story, steel frame (SAC LA Pre-Northridge M1 • Mean over all floors

Model) • Maximum over all floors
• Nine-story, weak-story steel frame (lowest story at 9.3.1 Load Vectors
60% of strength)
For analyses using the ordinary ground motions, each
motion was scaled to result in the pre-determined levels
of total drift at the roof for each example building in the

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

(a) Three-story frame building at 4% drift
(b) Eight-story wall building at 2% drift (c) Nine-story frame at 4% drift

Mean First Mode Rectangular Adaptive
Min Max Median Multimode
SD SD Inverted Triangular Code SRSS
NDA NSP Load Vectors
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

Figure 9-3 Relatively good results for interstory drift predicted using nonlinear static procedures (NSP), as compared
to nonlinear dynamic response-history analyses (NDA).
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?

S tory 0 .5% D rift S tory 2% D rift
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 (% )
(c) N in e sto ry reg ular bu ild in g a t 4% roof drift

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
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
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
Overturning Moment (kips-ft)
(a) Story shears for the eight-story wall (b) Overturning moments for the nine-story
building at 1% drift frame at 4% drift

Figure 9-6 Story forces and overturning moments in eight-story wall and nine-story frame example buildings, using
various load vectors.

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

displacement matches a predetermined target level of confidence. A derivation of such a coefficient is

displacement. In effect, the seismic hazard would be provided in Appendix F
characterized by the maximum inelastic displacement at
the roof level. This displacement could be estimated for Discussion
a structure using nonlinear static procedures in
conjunction with the NEHRP maps, for example. Thus, The proposed analysis method retains the benefits of the
nonlinear response-history analyses would be used to pushover method, in that the engineer can use the
investigate MDOF effects through nonlinear dynamic pushover to quickly identify the likely nonlinear
analyses using a relatively small number of ground mechanism of the system and the expected peak
motion records scaled to give the same roof displacement response. The method makes use of
displacement. Such a procedure could avoid both the currently available spectral descriptions of seismic
necessity of generating a series of spectrum-compatible hazard as well as the improvements described in
records and the difficulty of combining the results of the Chapters 5 and 6 of this document. The dynamic
analyses for practical use. This potential method, analyses indicate the variability in response quantities
termed the “Scaled NDP” method, is summarized here, associated with the randomness in the higher mode
with supporting information provided in Appendix F amplitudes and timing relative to the first mode. In
effect, the static load vector of traditional pushover
The basic suggested procedure is outlined below. analysis, used to determine the peak of global
displacement demand, is augmented by a dynamic load,
represented by the scaled ground motion record.
Step 1. Given a spectrum representative of the site
hazard of interest, estimate the peak displacement of the
Within the limitations of the nonlinear model, each
roof (or more generally, a “control point”) using the
analysis faithfully represents the influence of higher
displacement modification or equivalent linearization
modes on response quantities such as interstory drift,
procedures, described in Chapters 5 and 6, respectively.
story shear, and overturning moment, and does so in a
manner that accounts for capacity limits on force and
Step 2. Select n ground motion records that reflect the moment quantities. Any single dynamic analysis is a
characteristics of the hazard (e.g., magnitude, distance, valid representation of actual response of the model,
and site class) and for each record, conduct a nonlinear and each analysis helps to establish the central tendency
dynamic analysis, with the record scaled iteratively and range of peak response quantities.
until the peak displacement of the control point is equal
to the estimate determined in Step 1. Extract peak Refinements and improvements may potentially be
values of the response quantities of interest from the made in the areas of (1) characterizing and selecting
results of each analysis and compute the sample mean, site-specific ground motions, (2) determining the
xn , of each peak quantity of interest. At least three confidence levels and numbers of standard deviations
analyses (n ≥ 3) are suggested. above the mean that should be used in the estimation of
various response quantities, and (3) improvement of the
Step 3. Although the sample mean is the best estimate precision of the NSP estimates of peak roof
of the true mean, sampling error may be present. displacement. The conservatism of current pushover
Furthermore, estimates of some response quantities techniques, in their tendency to overestimate the peak
may be desired at the mean plus κ standard deviation roof displacements of structures responding
level. Thus, the sample mean could be multiplied by a inelastically, may provide a desirable level of
coefficient that depends on the coefficient of variation conservatism to the method at this stage in its
of the sample, in order to estimate a response quantity at development.
the mean plus κ standard deviation level with a desired


Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures: Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures: Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures: Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEMA 440

IMPROVEMENT OF NONLINEAR STATIC

Applied Technology Council (ATC-55 Project)

Department of Homeland Security

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures iii

iv Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures v

Each Focus Group consisted of three members. John Christopher Rojahn

vi Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures vii

viii Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

8. Multiple-Degree-of Freedom Effects • Specific limitations as to when nonlinear static

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures ix

x Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv

2. Overview of Inelastic Seismic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

3. Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xi

4. Strength Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1

5. Improved Procedures for Displacement Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1

6. Improved Procedures for Equivalent Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1

7. Evaluation and Comparison of Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1

8. Procedures for Including Soil-Structure Interaction Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1

9. Multiple-Degree-of-Freedom Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1

xii Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

10. Summary and Application Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1

References and Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xiii

Appendices (on enclosed CD-ROM):

B. Summary of Practice using Inelastic Analysis Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C. Supplemental Data on the Evaluation of Current Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

xiv Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

D. Supplementary Information and Data on Equivalent Linearization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E. Supplementary Information and Data on Soil-Structure Interaction Effects . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xv

F. Supplementary Information and Data on Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Effects . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

xvi Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

xvii Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xviii

xix Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xx

xxi Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xxii

xxiii Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Table 3-1 Variation of κ-Value in ATC-40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-6

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures xxv

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 1-1

1-2 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 1-3

1-4 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 2-1

weak column frames) a “stick” model can be used (see

Another important simplification to detailed structural

2-2 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

a) Hysteretic force-deformation behavior from tests

Force backbone curve

b) Backbone representation of hysteretic behavior