EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:3–12

Published online 2 August 2006 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.609

Elastic response spectrum: A historical note

Anil K. Chopra∗, †
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.

SUMMARY
This is the first contribution in a new series of Historical Notes on seminal concepts in earthquake
engineering and structural dynamics. It records the origins and early developments (up to the late 1960’s)
of the elastic response spectrum. Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 2 May 2006; Revised 8 June 2006; Accepted 9 June 2006

KEY WORDS: historical note; response spectrum; elastic system

INTRODUCTION

Now aseminal concept in earthquake engineering, the elastic response spectrum summarizes the
peak response of all possible linear single-degree-of-freedom (SDF) systems to a particular com-
ponent of ground motion. It also provides a practical approach to apply the knowledge of structural
dynamics to the design of structures and development of lateral force requirements in building
codes. This concept is so well integrated into earthquake engineering research and practice that
many researchers and engineers using it may not be aware of its origins.
The objective of this Historical Note is to record the origins and early developments of the
elastic response spectrum. For convenient reference, we begin with a brief section on the definitions
of the various elastic response spectra.

DEFINITIONS AND BASIC RESULTS

The equation governing the deformation (relative displacement) of a linearly elastic SDF system
(one-storey frame or mass–spring damper system) subjected to ground acceleration ü g (t) can be
expressed as
ü + 2
n u̇ + 2n u = − ü g (t) (1)

∗ Correspondence to: Anil K. Chopra, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, CA, U.S.A.
†
E-mail: chopra@ce.berkeley.edu

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

4 A. K. CHOPRA

For a given ü g (t), the deformation response u(t) of the system depends only on the natural vibration
frequency n or natural vibration period Tn of the system and its damping ratio
; written formally
as u ≡ u(t, Tn ,
).
A plot of the peak value of a response quantity as a function of the natural vibration period
Tn of the system, or a related parameter such as circular frequency n or cyclic frequency f n , is
called the response spectrum for that quantity. Each such plot is for SDF systems having a fixed
damping ratio
, and several such plots for different values of
are included to cover the range of
damping values encountered in actual structures.
A variety of response spectra can be defined depending on the response quantity that is plotted.
Consider the following peak responses:
u o (Tn ,
) ≡ max |u(t, Tn ,
)|, u̇ o (Tn ,
) ≡ max |u̇(t, Tn ,
)|
t t
(2)
ü to (Tn ,
) ≡ max |ü t (t, Tn ,
)|
t

where the superscript ‘t’ in Equation (2c) denotes total acceleration: ü t ≡ ü + ü g . The deformation
response spectrum is a plot of D ≡ u o against Tn for fixed
. A similar plot for u̇ o is the relative-
velocity response spectrum, and for ü to is the acceleration response spectrum.
The pseudo-velocity response spectrum is a plot of V defined by
2
V = n D = D (3)
Tn
as a function of Tn for a fixed
. The prefix pseudo is used because V is not equal to the peak
velocity u̇ o . The peak value of strain energy stored in the system during the earthquake,
mV 2
E So = (4)
2
where the right side is the kinetic energy of the structural mass m with velocity V .
The pseudo-acceleration response spectrum is a plot of A, defined by

2
2
A = n D =
2
D (5)
Tn
as a function of Tn for a fixed
. The peak value of the equivalent static force or the base shear is
A
Vbo = m A = w (6)
g
where w is the weight of the system and g is the gravitational acceleration. The base shear is equal
to the inertia force associated with the mass undergoing pseudo-acceleration A. The prefix pseudo
is used because, for a damped system, A is not equal to the peak acceleration ü to of the system.

INSTRUMENTAL AND INTUITIVE APPROACHES

The first appearance of the idea of representing earthquake excitation by a response spectrum
is in the 1926 paper by Suyehiro [1], the first Director of the Earthquake Research Institute,

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:3–12
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM 5

which was established at the Imperial University of Tokyo soon after the 1923 Tokyo earthquake.
His so-called ‘seismic vibration analyser’ consisted of 13 compound pendulum elements having
different natural vibration periods, covering a range from 0.22 to 1.81s. During an earthquake, each
pendulum traced its motion on a rotating drum, in effect producing its deformation response; its
peak value then gave one point on the deformation response spectrum. This instrument anticipated
by several years the development of response spectrum theory. It is the ancestor of the reed gage,
widely used later for general shock and vibration measurements.
Although Suyehiro’s instrument recorded some weak tremors, it did not record any strong
shaking; Tokyo did not experience any such shaking for many years following the 1923 Tokyo
earthquake. The San Francisco office of the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) constructed
an instrument with a large number of oscillators on this principle, but did not record any strong
ground shaking either [2, p. 24]. The extent to which Suyehiro’s instrument influenced the thinking
of early researchers in the United States is not known. He did visit the United States in 1931 at
the invitation of the American Society of Civil Engineers and presented lectures at the California
Institute of Technology (Caltech) in Pasadena, Stanford University, and the University of California,
Berkeley (UCB) [3].
Without referring to Suyehiro’s work, Benioff [4] presented an intuitive idea that during an
earthquake each of a series of undamped pendula with different natural frequencies would write its
‘response seismogram’, and plotting the peak response as a function of the natural frequency would
give the deformation response spectrum, which he referred to as the ‘undamped pendular spectrum’
of an earthquake. He sketched (not computed) such a spectrum and defined ‘seismic destructiveness’
as the area under the spectrum, thus introducing the notion of spectrum intensity, an idea that
Housner [5] used in 1952 to compute spectrum intensity for several accelerograms that had then
been recorded. Benioff’s intuitive presentation of pendular spectrum and seismic destructiveness,
which occupied most of his short paper, was complemented at the end of his presentation by
a derivation of the deformation response spectrum based on the then-recent theoretical work of
Biot [6, 7], mentioned in the next section.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES

The 1930s saw a fortunate convergence of several individuals at Caltech. These included Romeo
R. Martel, Professor of Structural Engineering, who had acquired a keen interest in earthquake
engineering after meeting Suyehiro and Professor Tachu Naito of Waseda University at the World
Engineering Conference in Tokyo in 1929; Theodore von Karman, Professor of Aeronautics and
the first Director of the Guggenheim Aeronautics Laboratory; H. Benioff, Professor of Seismology;
and M. A. Biot, a graduate student.
Although the first edition of Rayleigh’s monumental ‘Theory of Sound’ had appeared in 1877,
containing a comprehensive treatment of mechanical vibration theory, sufficient in principle to
analyse any problem in structural dynamics, this theory had not found its way into to earth-
quake analysis of structures. This situation began to change in the 1930s with von Karman’s
lectures on wave motion and vibration to his students at Caltech; among them was Biot. The
two collaborated later on a landmark book based on those lectures [8], which played an
important role in the graduate education of students at Caltech, including Housner, Hudson, and
Popov, and in the theoretical research related to earthquake analysis of structures, especially at
Caltech.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:3–12
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
6 A. K. CHOPRA

The basic mathematical theory of the response of systems to arbitrary excitation was com-
pletely laid out in the 1932 PhD thesis of Biot [9] (supervised by von Karman‡ ). In Chapter
II of this thesis, which focuses on the earthquake response of buildings, he applied the modal
analysis theory to formulate the response of an undamped shear beam (chosen to idealize a
building) to arbitrary ground acceleration. In principle, the building response could then be
calculated for a given ground motion; however, he had the foresight to state that ‘. . .it is much
more convenient to divide the problem and to analyse separately the elastic properties of the build-
ing and the frequency distribution of the earthquake’. He then wrote the excitation as a Fourier
integral, defined the Fourier amplitude spectrum (although he called it the ‘energy spectrum’), and
expressed each modal contribution to the response in terms of the Fourier amplitude spectrum.
These ideas were developed further in two papers by Biot [6, 7], where he acknowledges the help
of von Karman and Martel. Therein he refers to the Fourier amplitude spectrum as the ‘spectral
intensity curve’ [6].
At the beginning of his PhD thesis under Martel’s supervision, Housner states that, ‘it is a
continuation of the work done by M. A. Biot and M. P. White’. He applied the theory for modal
analysis of earthquake response of systems to shear beams and bending beams, emphasizing the
response spectrum rather than the Fourier spectrum as a more practical approach for engineering
applications [10]. This thesis included plots of the pseudo-velocity response spectra (Housner
called them ‘V -diagrams’) for six ground motions, determined by various mechanical or graphical
methods (to be mentioned later), and a discussion of their relative accuracy.

George W. Housner Maurice A. Biot

(1910– ) (1905–1985)

Although the concept had already existed for several years, the response spectrum is
mathematically defined only for undamped systems in two papers that appeared in 1941. The
first, received at the Bulletin Seismological Society of America (BSSA) on 2 May 1940 [11],
defines the deformation response spectrum in terms of the Duhamel integral, although it is

‡
Biot’s thesis has no acknowledgments, but his obituary states that he was a student of von Karman. In one of Biot’s
papers, the citation to his thesis includes ‘submitted to Aeronautics Department,’ suggesting that von Karman was
his thesis advisor; other anecdotal evidence and several sources point in the same direction. However, Housner
states that Biot was the first to get his PhD with Martel on earthquakes [2, p. 23].

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:3–12
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM 7

Figure 1. (a) Deformation response spectrum; and (b) normalized pseudo-acceleration A/g
spectrum for the S39◦ W component of the ground motion recorded at the Los Angeles subway
terminal during the earthquake of 2 October 1933 [11].

referred to as the ‘displacement-frequency spectrum,’ introduces the now standard notion of the
equivalent static force’ that produces the peak deformation induced by the earthquake, and plots
this ‘force-frequency spectrum.’ In today’s terminology, this is the normalized pseudo-acceleration
A/g spectrum (see Equation (6)). Taken from this paper, Figure 1 shows these undamped spectra
for a selected ground motion.
The second paper, received at the BSSA on 4 September 1940 [12] was, in Biot’s words,
an attempt to draw ‘. . .a curve representing some kind of harmonic analysis of the earthquake,
where the acceleration intensity is plotted as a function of the frequency. We call such a curve
an earthquake spectrum (sic).’ This paper contains a figure for an undamped one-storey shear
system, presents the Duhamel integral equation for deformation and the corresponding equation
for base shear followed by Equation (6), defines A as the ‘equivalent acceleration’, and defines a
plot of A versus Tn as the ‘acceleration spectrum.’ Determined by a mechanical torsion pendulum
analyser, presented are plots of these pseudo-acceleration response spectra for undamped systems
for horizontal components of ground motions recorded in Helena, Montana (1935), and Ferndale,
California (1937 and 1938).

‘COMPUTING’ RESPONSE SPECTRA

Although the concept of a response spectrum was introduced in the mid-1930s and had matured
by 1941—at least for undamped systems—it took over two more decades to develop various
methods to determine response spectra for recorded ground motions. Later, these methods all
became obsolete with the advent of the digital computer; therefore, methods developed during the
1930s–1960s are mentioned only briefly.
Because of the lack of computers, determining the earthquake response spectrum was a
formidable task for several decades. When actual accelerograms became available, starting with
the 10 March 1933 Long Beach, California, earthquake, considerable effort was dedicated to deter-
mining the corresponding response spectrum curves. Obtaining one point on the spectrum required
determining the response of an SDF system to a given ground acceleration. The SDF system
response was determined in several ways: (1) numerical evaluation of the Duhamel integral by
White [13], who was also Martel’s student at Caltech, and by Neumann [14] of the USCGS; (2)
graphical integration using an instrument called an Integraph [15]; (3) actuating a shaking table

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:3–12
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
8 A. K. CHOPRA

and measuring the response of SDF systems by Jacobsen and Hoff [16] at Stanford University;
and (4) using the torsion pendulum as a mechanical analog of the SDF system by Savage [17] at
the Bureau of Reclamation, and others mentioned earlier [10, 12, 18, 19]. Both Biot and Housner
utilized the method proposed by White and Byrne [20] to actuate the mechanical analyser directly
by the accelerograms.
All of these procedures were cumbersome and very time consuming. The numerical procedures
required inordinate amount of time for lack of computing capability. The main difficulties involved
in the mechanical torsion pendulum lay in changing the period and damping of the mechanical
system, and the difficulty in controlling the damping with sufficient accuracy. These difficulties
were overcome by a much-improved system developed by Takahasi [21] of the Earthquake Research
Institute at the University of Tokyo, in which a moving coil galvanometer element was used as
the mechanical system.
After World War II, Housner, now a member of the faculty at Caltech, returned to the challenge
of computing response spectra. The mechanical torsion pendulum was replaced by the more
convenient electric analog, which greatly speeded up the process and increased the accuracy [22].
The resulting response spectra were the first to include various damping values. Publications
detailing this research contained approximate pseudo-acceleration spectra (but they were referred
to as the ‘acceleration spectra’)—approximate because the damped frequency  D = n 1 −
2 of
the SDF system was replaced by its undamped frequency n in the Duhamel integral equation for
u(t)—for two horizontal components of 14 ground motions recorded during 1933–1949 for three
damping values [23]. Later, these developments culminated in the development of the Electric
Analog Analyser [24], which for a few years was regularly used at Caltech and USCGS for
earthquake accelerogram analyses.
The availability of digital computers in the 1950s motivated the development of numerical
methods for solving differential equations, such as Equation (1), that were much more efficient
than numerical evaluation of the Duhamel integral, which eventually became obsolete. For example,
the landmark paper by Newmark [25], Professor and Head of Civil Engineering, University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC), on such numerical methods was published. Implementing
such methods on digital computers rendered obsolete all previous methods of obtaining response
spectra. The accuracy of methods used prior to the introduction of digital computing methods is
questionable to the point that all pre-1960 spectra must be considered with great caution [26].

TRUE AND PSEUDO-SPECTRA

In one sense, there is little motivation to mention the relative-velocity response spectrum and the
acceleration response spectrum because these ‘true’ spectra are not needed to determine the peak
deformations and forces in systems (see Equations (2a) and (6)). For this purpose, the pseudo-
acceleration (or pseudo-velocity or deformation) response spectrum is sufficient. A brief mention
of these true spectra is included, however, because the distinction between them and the pseudo-
spectra has not always been made in some early publications, and the two have sometimes been
used interchangeably. Small damping approximations introduced in defining spectra in some early
publications was another source of confusion between the true and pseudo-spectra.
It was not until the early 1960s that the relationship between the true and pseudo-spectra was
identified and their numerical differences documented. Hudson [15] broached this subject in a 1956
paper, in which in he derived Equation (4). Later, he presented the exact mathematical expressions

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:3–12
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM 9

for u(t), u̇(t), and ü t (t), and computed the pseudo-velocity and relative-velocity response spectra
for periods less than 4 s for three ground motions and four damping ratios [27]. He concluded that
the pseudo-velocity spectrum is a good approximation to the relative-velocity spectrum, with the
quality of the approximation improving as the system damping decreases. This statement and other
similar statements in the literature of the time suggest that the velocity spectrum was thought to
be the desired end result, and the pseudo-velocity spectrum was viewed as a good approximation.
Today we consider the pseudo-velocity spectrum to be the preferred spectrum because it provides
directly the peak deformation and base shear for the system; the true relative velocity spectrum
seems to be of little direct benefit. Incidentally, the ‘pseudo-velocity spectrum’ terminology was
suggested in 1960 by Fung [28], at the time Professor of Aeronautics at Caltech; he later redirected
his research to biomechanics and is fondly known as the father of biomechanics.
A couple of years later, a more comprehensive comparison of the true and pseudo-spectra was
presented by Veletsos and Newmark [29], both faculty members at UIUC. By presenting these
spectra over the complete range of periods, 0.04–25 s, and identifying limiting values at zero
and infinite periods, it was possible to demonstrate and explain that the relative-velocity and
pseudo-velocity spectra are close only over the medium-period range; for short-period systems
V exceeds u̇ o considerably, and for long-period systems V is less than u̇ o , and the differences
between the two are large. The pseudo-acceleration A and acceleration ü to spectra were shown
to be identical for undamped systems, and the differences between the two increase as damping
increases. This difference is small for short-period systems and is of some significance only for
very long-period systems that are highly damped. About the same time, some of these results
were obtained by Jenschke, a doctoral student at the UCB, working with Clough and Penzien,
Professors of Civil Engineering; for unknown reasons, this work received little attention [30, 31].

FOURIER SPECTRUM AND PSEUDO-VELOCITY RESPONSE SPECTRUM

The Fourier amplitude and phase spectra do not only show the frequency characteristics of the
ground motion, but the system response can be calculated using Fourier integral theory, leading to
the now well-known response analysis procedure via the frequency domain. The response spectrum,
however, has been preferred for structural engineering applications because it combines both the
frequency properties of the excitation and the structural parameters influencing the response. It
brings together all the major parameters of interest in structural engineering.
Although the response spectrum and Fourier spectrum are fundamentally different, they are
related [32, 33]. Hudson [27] presented this relationship in the context of earthquake engineering,
showing that the Fourier amplitude spectrum is identical to the undamped relative-velocity response
spectrum for the special case in which the peak response occurs at the end of the ground motion—as
may happen at some vibration periods. However, at most periods, the peak response occurs during
the ground motion and the undamped relative-velocity response spectrum exceeds the Fourier
spectrum [27]. Here, the two spectra were computed for the S69E component of the 1952 Taft
ground motion and compared.

RESPONSE SPECTRUM CHARACTERISTICS

The Veletsos–Newmark report [29] mentioned earlier represented a comprehensive, in-depth

investigation of response spectra, but because of its limited distribution, this report is not as
well known as it should be; however, the related papers have been widely referenced [34, 35].

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:3–12
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
10 A. K. CHOPRA

Figure 2. Combined D–V –A response spectrum for the NS component of the ground
motion recorded at the Imperial Valley Irrigation District substation, El Centro, California,
during the Imperial Valley earthquake of 18 May 1940 [29].

Presented and interpreted were response spectra of two recorded ground motions, as well as many
idealized pulses of various shapes, with an insightful discussion relating the response spectrum
characteristics of earthquakes and pulse-type excitations. This topic has seen renewed interest
because several near-fault ground motions exhibiting a dominant velocity pulse because of forward
directivity effects were recorded during earthquakes in the 1990s and 2000s. Most of these spec-
tra were integrated presentations (permitted by Equations (3) and (5)), showing all three response
quantities D, V , and A on a special tripartite logarithmic graph paper (Figure 2). Digressing briefly,
this graph paper was invented in the late 1950s by Edward Fisher of the Westinghouse Research
Laboratory in Pittsburgh [2, p. 29] and published in the Shock and Vibration Handbook [36].
Using normalized scales D/u go , V /u̇ go , and A/ü go —where u go , u̇ go , and ü go are the peak ground
displacement, velocity, and acceleration, respectively—response spectra were presented over the
complete range of periods—in contrast, most earlier spectra extended only to 3s period. This presen-
tation made it possible to (1) demonstrate that for systems with very short period A approaches ü go ,
and for systems with very long periods D approaches u go ; these limiting values were also identified
about the same time in Jenschke’s PhD thesis at UCB [30]; (2) relate the characteristics of excita-
tions and their response spectra [35]; (3) divide the spectrum into three period ranges: displacement-
sensitive region, velocity-sensitive region, and acceleration-sensitive region because the structural
response of systems in these regions is related most directly to ground displacement, ground veloc-
ity, and ground acceleration, respectively [37]; (4) demonstrate that the effect of damping in reduc-
ing the response tends to be greatest in the velocity-sensitive region of the spectrum; and (5) idealize
the spectrum by a series of straight lines and define amplification factors relating spectral
ordinates to u go , u̇ go , and ü go for the three spectral regions, two concepts utilized by Newmark and
Hall [38, 39], also a professor at the UIUC, to construct elastic design spectra—an approach dif-
ferent than Housner’s in constructing the earliest design spectra [40, 41].

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:3–12
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 ELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM 11

CLOSURE

By the late-1960s, the elastic response spectrum was well developed and understood, and had
become a central concept in earthquake engineering. At this point, consistent with the objective
of this new series of Historical Notes, we shall end our brief history of the gestation of the elastic
response spectrum.
Starting in the mid-1950s, researchers began recognizing the importance of studying the response
of structures deforming into their inelastic range during intense ground shaking. Subsequent
research in the late 1950s to early 1960s led to the inelastic response spectrum, another seminal
concept in earthquake engineering, which is the subject chosen for the second paper planned for
this series of Historical Notes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparing such a historical note, although interesting and educational in many different ways, is difficult
because the published record is always incomplete, and all those involved cannot be interviewed. To
minimize the possibility of factual errors, I sought comments on early drafts of this note from William
J. Hall, Paul C. Jennings, Mihailo D. Trifunac, and Anestis S. Veletsos. I gratefully acknowledge their
advice, especially Trifunac’s, whose comments were extensive. His paper on a similar topic, but with a
different scope and emphasis, is included in the list of references.

REFERENCES
1. Suyehiro K. A seismic vibration analyzer and the records obtained therewith. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research
Institute—University of Tokyo 1926; 1:59–64.
2. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. Connections, The EERI Oral History Series: George W. Housner
(S. Scott, Interviewer). Oakland, CA, 1997; 275.
3. Suyehiro K. Engineering seismology notes on American lectures. Proceedings of the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) 1932; 58(4):9–110.
4. Benioff H. The physical evaluation of seismic destructiveness. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
1934; 24:398–403.
5. Housner GW. Spectrum intensity of strong motion earthquakes. Proceedings of the Symposium on Earthquakes
and Blast Effects on Structures, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1952; 20–36.
6. Biot MA. Theory of elastic systems vibration under transient impulse with an application to earthquake-proof
buildings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. 1933; 19(2):262–268.
7. Biot MA. Theory of vibration of buildings during earthquakes. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Matematik und
Mechanik 1934; 14(4):213–223.
8. von Karman T, Biot MA. Mathematical Methods in Engineering. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1940.
9. Biot MA. Transient oscillations in elastic system. Ph.D. Thesis No. 259, Aeronautics Department, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1932.
10. Housner GW. An investigation of the effects of earthquakes on buildings. Ph.D. Thesis, Civil Engineering
Department, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1941.
11. Housner GW. Calculating response of an oscillator to arbitrary ground motion. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1941; 31:143–149.
12. Biot MA. A mechanical analyzer for the prediction of earthquake stresses. Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America 1941; 31:151–171.
13. White MP. Discussion of ‘Analytical and experimental methods in engineering seismology’ by M. A. Biot.
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1942; 108:390–394.
14. Neumann F. The analysis or records. Earthquake investigations in California 1934–1935. Special Publication No.
201, U.S. Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic Survey, Washington, DC, 1936; 31–42.
15. Hudson DE. Response spectrum techniques in engineering seismology. Proceedings of the First World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, CA, 1956; 4-1–4-12.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:3–12
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
12 A. K. CHOPRA

16. Hoff NJ. Discussion of ‘Analytical and experimental methods in engineering seismology’ by M. A. Biot.
Transactions (ASCE) 1942; 108:388–390.
17. Savage JL. Earthquake studies of Pitt river bridge. Civil Engineering 1939; 470–472.
18. Neumann F. A mechanical method of analyzing accelerograms. Proceedings of the American Geophysical Union,
Washington, DC, 1936; 111–115.
19. Biot MA. Analytical and experimental methods in engineering seismology. Transactions of the American Society
of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1942; 108:365–408.
20. White MP, Byrne RE. Model studies of the vibrations of structures during earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1939; 29:327–332.
21. Takahasi R. A response computer preliminary report. Proceedings of the Third Japan National Congress for
Applied Mechanics, 1953; 373–376.
22. Housner GW, McCann GD. The analysis of strong-motion earthquake records with the electric analog computer.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1949; 39:47–56.
23. Housner GW, Martel RR, Alford JL. Spectrum analysis of strong-motion earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America 1953; 43:97–119.
24. Caughey TK, Hudson DE, Powell RV. The CIT Mark II Electric Analog Type Response Spectrum Analyzer for
Earthquake Excitation Studies. Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, CA, 1960.
25. Newmark NM. A method of computation for structural dynamics. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division
(ASCE) 1959; 85:67–94.
26. Trifunac MD. 70th anniversary of Biot spectrum. 23rd ISET annual lecture. ISET Journal of Earthquake
Technology 2003; 40(1):19–50 (Paper No. 431).
27. Hudson DE. Some problems in the application of spectrum techniques to strong-motion earthquake analysis.
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 1962; 52:417–430.
28. Fung YC. Shock loading and response spectra. In Shock and Vibration Response, Barton MV (ed.). ASME:
New York, 1960.
29. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. Response spectra for single-degree-of freedom elastic and inelastic systems. Report
No. RTD-TDR-63-3096, vol. III, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, June 1964.
30. Jenschke VA, Clough RW, Penzien J. Analysis of earth motion accelerograms. Report No. SESM 64-1, University
of California, Berkeley, CA, 1964.
31. Jenschke VA, Clough RW, Penzien J. Characteristics of strong ground motions. Proceedings of the Third World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. III, New Zealand, 1965; 125–142.
32. Kawasumi H. Notes on the theory of vibration analyzer. Bulletin of the Earthquake Research Institute—University
of Tokyo 1956; 34(Part I).
33. Rubin S. Concepts in shock data analysis. In Shock and Vibration Handbook (Chapter 23), Harris CM, Crede CE
(eds). McGraw-Hill: New York, 1961.
34. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions.
Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 2, Japan, 1960; 895–912.
35. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM, Chelapati CV. Deformation spectra for elastic and elasto-plastic systems subjected
to ground shock and earthquake motion. Proceedings of the Third World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
vol. II, New Zealand, 1965; 663–682.
36. Harris CM, Crede CE (eds). Shock and Vibration Handbook. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1961; 1-9, 2-8.
37. Veletsos AS. Maximum deformation of certain nonlinear systems. Proceedings of the Fourth World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 1, Santiago, Chile, 1969; 155–170.
38. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities. Proceedings of the Fourth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. II, Santiago, Chile, 1969; 37–50.
39. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Procedures and criteria for earthquake resistant design. Building Practices for Disaster
Mitigation. Building Science Series No. 46, vol. 1. National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, 1973;
209–236.
40. Housner GW. Behavior of structures during earthquakes. Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division (ASCE)
1959; 85(EM4):109–129.
41. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. Nuclear reactors and earthquakes. Report No. TID-7024, Division of Reactor
Development, Washington, DC, 1963.
42. Hudson DE. A history of earthquake engineering. Proceedings of the IDNDR International Symposium on
Earthquake Disaster Reduction Technology—30th Anniversary of IISEE, Tsukuba, Japan, 1992; 3–13.

Copyright q 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:3–12
DOI: 10.1002/eqe