Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design-A Guide For Practicing Engineers

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/304395056
Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design- A Guide for Practicing

Engineers
Book · January 2010
CITATIONS READS
55 2,657
3 authors:
Andrei M Reinhorn Gregory G Deierlein

University at Buffalo, The State University of New York Stanford University
328 PUBLICATIONS 12,569 CITATIONS 179 PUBLICATIONS 5,367 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Michael Willford
Arup
51 PUBLICATIONS 1,214 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Capacity Design of Rocking Systems using Modified Modal Analysis View project
Shake table controls for testing nonlinear inelastic structures View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Andrei M Reinhorn on 04 November 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

NIST GCR 10-917-5
NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4
Nonlinear Structural Analysis

For Seismic Design
A Guide for Practicing Engineers
Gregory G. Deierlein
Andrei M. Reinhorn
Michael R. Willford
NEHRP Seismic Design
Technical Briefs
NEHRP (National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program) Technical Andrei Reinhorn, Ph.D., S.E., is a professor at the University at Buffalo.
Briefs are published by NIST, the National Institute of Standards and He has published two books and authored two computer platforms
Technology, as aids to the efficient transfer of NEHRP and other (IDARC and 3D-BASIS) for nonlinear analysis of structures and for
research into practice, thereby helping to reduce the nation’s losses base isolation systems. He has served as Director of the Structural
from earthquakes. Engineering and Earthquake Engineering Laboratory at the University
at Buffalo.
National Institute of
Standards and Technology Michael R. Willford, M.A., C.Eng. is a Principal of the global consulting
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a federal firm Arup with 35 years experience of design of structures for buildings,
technology agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce that civil, and offshore projects in many parts of the world. A specialist in
promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing structural dynamics, he is leader of Arup’s Advanced Technology and
measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance Research practice, specializing in the development and application of
economic security and improve our quality of life. It is the lead agency innovative design techniques using performance-based methods.
of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). Dr.
John (Jack) R. Hayes is the Director of NEHRP, within NIST’s Building About the Review Panel
and Fire Research Laboratory (BFRL). Dr. Kevin K. F. Wong managed The contributions of the three review panelists for this publication are
the project to produce this Technical Brief for BFRL. gratefully acknowledged.
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture Graham H. Powell, Ph.D., is Emeritus Professor of Structural
This NIST-funded publication is one of the products of the work of Engineering, University of California at Berkeley and was a lecturer in
the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture carried out under Contract Civil Engineering, University of Cantebury, New Zealand, 1961-1965. He
SB 134107CQ0019, Task Order 69195. The partners in the NEHRP is a consultant to Computers and Structures Inc., publisher of his text
Consultants Joint Venture are the Applied Technology Council (ATC) and Modeling for Structural Analysis. He has special expertise in seismic
the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering resistant design and the modeling of structures for nonlinear analysis.
(CUREE). The members of the Joint Venture Management Committee
are James R. Harris, Robert Reitherman, Christopher Rojahn, and Finley A. Charney, Ph.D., P.E., is an Associate Professor in the
Andrew Whittaker, and the Program Manager is Jon A. Heintz. Assisting Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Virginia
the Program Manager is ATC Senior Management Consultant David A. Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, and is President of Advanced
Hutchinson, who on this Technical Brief provided substantial technical Structural Concepts, Inc., also located in Blacksburg. Prior to joining
assistance in the development of the content. Virginia Tech in 2001, Charney accumulated twenty years of experience
as a practicing structural engineer. He is the author of many publications
on the application of structural analysis methods in seismic design.
About The Authors
Gregory G. Deierlein, Ph.D., P.E., is a faculty member at Stanford Mason Walters, S.E., is a practicing structural engineer and a principal
University where he specializes in the design and behavior of steel and with Forell/Elsesser Engineers, Inc. in San Francisco. Walters has
concrete structures, nonlinear structural analysis, and performance- been in private practice for over 30 years, focusing on the application
based design of structures for earthquakes and other extreme loads. of the seismic protective systems for numerous significant buildings
Deierlein is the Director of the John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering and bridge projects. Examples of these projects include the elevated
Center at Stanford. He is active in national technical committees involved BART/Airport Light Rail Station at San Francisco International Airport,
with developing building codes and standards, including those of the and the seismic isolation retrofit of the historic Oakland City Hall. Many
American Institute of Steel Construction, the Applied Technology Council, of Mr. Walters’ projects have incorporated nonlinear dynamic and static
and the American Society of Civil Engineers. analysis procedures.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) Consortium of Universities for Research in

201 Redwood Shores Parkway - Suite 240 Earthquake Engineering (CUREE)
Redwood City, California 94065 1301 South 46th Street - Building 420
(650) 595-1542 Richmond, CA 94804
www.atcouncil.org email: atc@atcouncil.org (510) 665-3529
www.curee.org email: curee@curee.org
NIST GCR 10-917-5
Nonlinear Structural Analysis

For Seismic Design
A Guide for Practicing Engineers

Prepared for
U.S. Department of Commerce
Building and Fire Research Laboratory
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8600
By
Gregory G. Deierlein, Ph.D., P.E.

Stanford University
Stanford, California
Andrei M. Reinhorn, Ph.D., S.E.

University at Buffalo, SUNY
Buffalo, New York
Michael R. Willford, M.A., C.Eng.

Arup
San Francisco, California
October 2010
U.S. Department of Commerce

Gary Locke, Secretary
National Institute of Standards and Technology

Patrick Gallagher, Director
Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................1
2. Nonlinear Demand Parameters and Model Attributes.......................................4
3. Modeling of Structural Components.............................................................12
4. Foundations and Soil Structure Interaction...................................................19
5. Requirements for Nonlinear Static Analysis..................................................21
6. Requirements for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis..............................................23
7. References.............................................................................................27
8. Notations and Abbreviations......................................................................30
9. Credits....................................................................................................32
Disclaimers
The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use the International System of Units (metric units) in all of its
publications. However, in North America in the construction and building materials industry, certain non-SI units are so widely used instead
of SI units that it is more practical and less confusing to include measurement values for customary units only in this publication.
This publication was produced as part of contract SB134107CQ0019, Task Order 69195 with the National Institute of Standards and
Technology. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology or the US Government.
This Technical Brief was produced under contract to NIST by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a joint venture of the Applied
Technology Council (ATC) and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE). While endeavoring to
provide practical and accurate information in this publication, the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, the authors, and the reviewers do
not assume liability for, nor make any expressed or implied warranty with regard to, the use of its information. Users of the information
in this publication assume all liability arising from such use.
Cover photo – Nonlinear analysis model for a seismic retrofit study of an existing building with concrete shear walls.
How to Cite This Publication

Deierlein, Gregory G., Reinhorn, Andrei M., and Willford, Michael R. (2010). “Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design,” NEHRP
Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council
and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Gaithersburg, MD, NIST GCR 10-917-5.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Role and Use of Nonlinear
Analysis in Seismic Design Sidebar 1
Performance Levels and Acceptance Criteria
While buildings are usually designed for seismic resistance
The earthquake performance of buildings generally
using elastic analysis, most will experience significant inelastic
relates to damage incurred to the building’s structure,
deformations under large earthquakes. Modern performance-
envelope, partitions, ceilings, mechanical/electrical
based design methods require ways to determine the realistic systems, and contents. While the building performance
behavior of structures under such conditions. Enabled by is a continuum, for design purposes it is convenient
advancements in computing technologies and available test to identify discrete performance levels for the major
data, nonlinear analyses provide the means for calculating structural and other building components that significantly
structural response beyond the elastic range, including strength affect building function, property protection, and safety.
and stiffness deterioration associated with inelastic material ASCE 41 (ASCE 2007) and other standards generally
behavior and large displacements. As such, nonlinear analysis provide guidance on three performance levels:
can play an important role in the design of new and existing
buildings. • Immediate Occupancy – Achieve essentially elastic
behavior by limiting structural damage (e.g., yielding
Nonlinear analyses involve significantly more effort to of steel, significant cracking of concrete, and
perform and should be approached with specific objectives in nonstructural damage.)
mind. Typical instances where nonlinear analysis is applied
in structural earthquake engineering practice are to: (1) assess • Life Safety - Limit damage of structural and
and design seismic retrofit solutions for existing buildings; (2) nonstructural components so as to minimize the
design new buildings that employ structural materials, systems, risk of injury or casualties and to keep essential
or other features that do not conform to current building code circulation routes accessible.
requirements; (3) assess the performance of buildings for
specific owner/stakeholder requirements (Figure 1-1). If the • Collapse Prevention – Ensure a small risk of partial
or complete building collapse by limiting structural
intent of using a nonlinear analysis is to justify a design that deformations and forces to the onset of significant
would not satisfy the prescriptive building code requirements, strength and stiffness degradation.
it is essential to develop the basis for acceptance with the
building code authority at the outset of a project. The design ASCE 41 provides acceptance criteria in terms of
basis should be clearly defined and agreed upon, outlining in deformation and force demands on individual structural
specific terms all significant performance levels (Sidebar 1) components. Other demand parameters (especially
and how they will be evaluated. story drifts and floor accelerations) are also important
indicators of damage to nonstructural components and
overall building performance (PEER 2010; Willford et
al. 2008; PEER/ATC 2010; ATC 2009). Moreover, there
may be other significant performance limits (such as
onset of damage to the building envelope) that have
major implications on lifecycle cost and functionality.
While the risk (or likelihood) of exceeding the damage

specified in performance levels is predicated by building
occupancy and other factors, for typical buildings, i.e.,
Occupancy Category II in ASCE 7 (ASCE 2010), it is
generally accepted to check the Collapse Prevention
(a) (b) performance level for the Maximum Considered
Figure 1-1 – New headquarters of San Francisco Public Utility Earthquake ground motion intensity and Life Safety
Commission Building designed using nonlinear response history analysis for the Design Basis Earthquake (defined as 2/3 of the
to meet stringent immediate occupancy performance criteria. Maximum Considered Earthquake intensity in ASCE 7).
The appropriate ground motion intensity for checking
Immediate Occupancy is less well-defined, since this
Sidebars in the guide
performance level is not typically addressed in building
Sidebars are used in this Guide to illustrate key points, codes.
and to provide additional guidance on good practices and
open issues in analysis, design, and construction.
Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design: A Guide for Practicing Engineers
1
Once the goals of the nonlinear analysis and design basis are deformations as well as forces. They also require definition of
defined, the next step is to identify specific demand parameters component models that capture the force-deformation response
and appropriate acceptance criteria to quantitatively evaluate the of components and systems based on expected strength and
performance levels. The demand parameters typically include stiffness properties and large deformations. Depending on the
peak forces and deformations in structural and nonstructural structural configuration, the results of nonlinear analyses can be
components, story drifts, and floor accelerations. Other demand sensitive to assumed input parameters and the types of models
parameters, such as cumulative deformations or dissipated used. It is advisable to have clear expectations about those
energy, may be checked to help confirm the accuracy of the portions of the structure that are expected to undergo inelastic
analysis and/or to assess cumulative damage effects. deformations and to use the analyses to (1) confirm the locations
of inelastic deformations and (2) characterize the deformation
In contrast to linear elastic analysis and design methods that demands of yielding elements and force demands in non-
are well established, nonlinear inelastic analysis techniques and yielding elements. In this regard, capacity design concepts are
their application to design are still evolving and may require encouraged to help ensure reliable performance (Sidebar 2).
engineers to develop new skills. Nonlinear analyses require While nonlinear analyses can, in concept, be used to trace
thinking about inelastic behavior and limit states that depend on structural behavior up to the onset of collapse, this requires
sophisticated models that are validated against physical tests
to capture the highly nonlinear response approaching collapse.
Sidebar 2 Since the uncertainties in calculating the demand parameters
Capacity Design increase as the structure becomes more nonlinear, for design
purposes, the acceptance criteria should limit deformations
Capacity design is an approach whereby the designer to regions of predictable behavior where sudden strength and
establishes which elements will yield (and need to stiffness degradation does not occur.
be ductile) and those which will not yield (and will be
designed with sufficient strength) based on the forces This Technical Brief is intended to provide a summary of the
imposed by yielding elements. The advantages of this important considerations to be addressed, considering the
strategy include: current capabilities of nonlinear analysis technologies and
how they are being applied in practice. The scope includes
• Protection from sudden failures in elements that both nonlinear static (pushover) and dynamic (response
cannot be proportioned or detailed for ductile history) analyses, but with the emphasis towards the latter.
response. This guide is intended to be consistent with building codes
and standards, however, as the use of nonlinear analysis for
• Limiting the locations in the structure where expensive
design is still evolving, there are many areas where details
ductile detailing is required.
of the implementation are open to judgment and alternative
interpretations. Finally, while this technical brief is concerned
• Greater certainty in how the building will perform
under strong earthquakes and greater confidence in primarily with buildings, the guidance can generally apply to
how the performance can be calculated. nonlinear analysis of other types of structures.
• Reliable energy dissipation by enforcing deformation 1.2 Background on Use of Nonlinear

modes (plastic mechanisms) where inelastic Analysis in Building Design in the USA
deformations are distributed to ductile components.
The first widespread practical applications of nonlinear analysis
The well known “strong column/weak beam” requirement
in earthquake engineering in the USA were to assess and
is an example of a capacity design strategy, where the
retrofit existing buildings. The first significant guidelines on
intent is to avoid inelastic hinging in columns that could
the application of nonlinear analysis were those published in
lead to premature story mechanisms and rapid strength
degradation in columns with high axial loads. The FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
design of yielding links and elastic braces in eccentrically of Buildings (FEMA 1997) and ATC 40 Seismic Evaluation
braced frames is another example of capacity design. and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC 1996). Owing to the
Where inelastic analysis is used, capacity design can be state of knowledge and computing technologies at the time of
implemented by modeling the specified yielding elements their publication (mid-1990s), these documents focus primarily
with their “expected” strengths and the protected on nonlinear static (pushover) analysis. They have since been
elements as elastic. This permits the determination of carried forward into ASCE 41 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
and design for the maximum expected force demands Buildings (ASCE 2007), and improvements have been proposed
in the protected elements. in FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis
Procedures (FEMA 2005) and FEMA P440A Effects of Strength
and Stiffness Degradation on Seismic Response (FEMA
2
2009a). Note that while ASCE 41 and related documents have Cyclic Envelope: Curve of generalized force versus
a primary focus on renovating existing buildings, the nonlinear deformation that envelopes response data obtained from cyclic
analysis guidance and component modeling and acceptance loading of a structural component or assembly.
criteria in these documents can be applied to new building
design, provided that the chosen acceptance criteria provide In-Cycle Degradation: Reduction in strength that is associated
performance levels expected for new building design in ASCE with negative slop of load versus deflection plot within the same
7 (Sidebar 1). cycle in which yielding occurs.
About the same time that FEMA 273 and ATC 40 were under Monotonic Curve: Curve of generalized force versus
development, nonlinear analysis concepts were also being deformation data obtained from monotonic loading of a
introduced into methods for seismic risk assessment, the most structural component or assembly.
widely known being HAZUS (Kircher et al. 1997a; Kircher et
al. 1997b; FEMA 2006). In particular, the building-specific
loss assessment module of HAZUS employs nonlinear static
analysis methods to develop earthquake damage fragility
functions for buildings in the Earthquake Loss Estimation
Methodology, HAZUS99-SR2, Advanced Engineering Building
Module (FEMA 2002).
More recently, the role of nonlinear dynamic analysis for design

is being expanded to quantify building performance more
completely. The ATC 58 Guidelines for Seismic Performance
Assessment of Buildings (ATC 2009) employ nonlinear
dynamic analyses for seismic performance assessment of new
and existing buildings, including fragility models that relate
structural demand parameters to explicit damage and loss
metrics. Nonlinear dynamic analyses are also being used to
assess the performance of structural systems that do not conform
to prescriptive seismic force-resisting system types in ASCE
7 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
(ASCE 2010). A significant impetus for this is in the design
of tall buildings in high seismic regions, such as outlined in
the following documents: Seismic Design Guidelines for Tall
Buildings (PEER 2010), Recommendations for the Seismic
Design of High-rise Buildings (Willford et al. 2008), and the
PEER/ATC 72-1 Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic
Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings (PEER/ATC 2010).
1.3 Definitions of Terms in this Guide

While structural engineers familiar with the concept of
nonlinear analysis for seismic design have been exposed to the
following terms in a number of publications, the meanings of
these terms have sometimes varied. The following definitions
are used in this Guide.
Backbone Curve: Relationship between the generalized force

and deformation (or generalized stress and strain) of a structural
component or assembly that is used to characterize response in
a nonlinear analysis model.
Cyclic Strength Degradation: Reduction in strength, measured

at a given displacement loading cycles, due to reduction in yield
strength and stiffness that occurs during the cyclic loading.
3
2. Nonlinear Demand Parameters and Model Attributes
2.1 Demand Parameters is not absolute. Nevertheless, the distinction provides a
practical approach to establish requirements for the analysis
Modern performance-based seismic design entails setting and design. Deformation-controlled components must be
performance levels and checking acceptance criteria for modeled as inelastic, whereas force-controlled components
which a building is to be designed. Performance levels under may be modeled as elastic, provided that the force demands
defined intensities of ground shaking should be checked using do not imply significant yielding in the components. ASCE
appropriate demand parameters and acceptance criteria. The 41 defines deformation and strength acceptance criteria for
performance acceptance criteria may be specified for the overall Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, and Collapse Prevention
systems, substructures, or components of a building. performance levels, and PEER/ATC 72-1 provides guidance
on criteria for the onset of structural damage and significant
For a given building and set of demand parameters, the structure strength/stiffness degradation.
must be modeled and analyzed so that the values of the demand
parameters are calculated with sufficient accuracy for design Displacements, velocities, and accelerations are additional
purposes. The performance is checked by comparing the demand parameters that can provide insights into the overall
calculated values of demand parameters (in short the “demands”) building response and damage to nonstructural components
to the acceptance criteria (“capacities”) for the desired and contents. Story racking deformations (which can often be
performance level. The calculated demands and acceptance approximated as story drift ratios) provide a good measure of
criteria are often compared through “demand-capacity” ratios. overall structural response, including the vertical distribution of
The acceptance criteria for seismic performance may vary deformations and global torsion of the building, and demands
depending on whether static or dynamic nonlinear analysis is in deformation-sensitive components, such as the building
used and how uncertainties associated with the demands and façade, interior partitions, or flexible piping systems. Peak
acceptance criteria are handled. For example, the component floor accelerations and velocities are commonly used to design
models, demand parameters, and acceptance criteria used in and assess performance of stiff acceleration-sensitive building
nonlinear static procedures need to implicitly account for cyclic components, such as rigidly anchored equipment, raised floor
degradation effects that are not modeled in the static analysis. systems, braced ceiling systems, and rigid piping systems.
On the other hand, some dynamic analysis models may directly
incorporate degradation due to cyclic loading, in which case 2.2 Structural Analysis Model Types
different models and acceptance criteria may be used.
Inelastic structural component models can be differentiated
Acceptance criteria for structural components generally by the way that plasticity is distributed through the member
distinguished between “deformation-controlled” (ductile cross sections and along its length. For example, shown in
components that can tolerate inelastic deformations) and Figure 2-1 is a comparison of five idealized model types for
“force-controlled” (non-ductile components whose capacities simulating the inelastic response of beam-columns. Several
are governed by strength). In reality, most components exhibit types of structural members (e.g., beams, columns, braces,
some amount of inelastic deformation, and the distinction and some flexural walls) can be modeled using the concepts
between force- and deformation-controlled components illustrated in Figure 2-1:
Figure 2-1 – Idealized models of beam-column elements.
4
• The simplest models concentrate the inelastic deformations interpret relative to acceptance criteria that are typically
at the end of the element, such as through a rigid-plastic reported in terms of hinge rotations and deformations.
hinge (Figure 2-1a) or an inelastic spring with hysteretic
properties (Figure 2-1b). By concentrating the plasticity in Concentrated and finite length hinge models (Figures 2-1a
zero-length hinges with moment-rotation model parameters, through Figure 2-1c) may consider the axial force-moment
these elements have relatively condensed numerically (P-M) interactions through yield surfaces (see Figure 2-2). On
efficient formulations. the other hand, fiber (Figure 2-1d) and finite element (Figure
2-1e) models capture the P-M response directly. Note that
• The finite length hinge model (Figure 2-1c) is an efficient while the detailed fiber and finite element models can simulate
distributed plasticity formulation with designated hinge certain behavior more fundamentally, they are not necessarily
zones at the member ends. Cross sections in the inelastic capable of modeling other effects, such as degradation due to
hinge zones are characterized through either nonlinear reinforcing bar buckling and fracture that can be captured by
moment-curvature relationships or explicit fiber-section simpler phenomenological models (Sidebar 3).
integrations that enforce the assumption that plane
sections remain plane. The inelastic hinge length may
be fixed or variable, as determined from the moment- Sidebar 3:
curvature characteristics of the section together with the Distributed Versus Concentrated
concurrent moment gradient and axial force. Integration Plasticity Elements
of deformations along the hinge length captures the spread
of yielding more realistically than the concentrated hinges, While distributed plasticity formulations (Figures 2-1c to
while the finite hinge length facilitates calculation of hinge 2-1e) model variations of the stress and strain through
rotations. the section and along the member in more detail,
important local behaviors, such as strength degradation
• The fiber formulation (Figure 2-1d) models distribute due to local buckling of steel reinforcing bars or flanges,
plasticity by numerical integrations through the member or the nonlinear interaction of flexural and shear, are
difficult to capture without sophisticated and numerically
cross sections and along the member length. Uniaxial
intensive models. On the other hand, phenomenological
material models are defined to capture the nonlinear
concentrated hinge/spring models (Figure 2-1a and
hysteretic axial stress-strain characteristics in the cross 2-1b), may be better suited to capturing the nonlinear
sections. The plane-sections-remain-plane assumption is degrading response of members through calibration
enforced, where uniaxial material “fibers” are numerically using member test data on phenomenological moment-
integrated over the cross section to obtain stress resultants rotations and hysteresis curves. Thus, when selecting
(axial force and moments) and incremental moment- analysis model types, it is important to understand (1)
curvature and axial force-strain relations. The cross section the expected behavior, (2) the assumptions, and (3) the
parameters are then integrated numerically at discrete approximations inherent to the proposed model type.
sections along the member length, using displacement or While more sophisticated formulations may seem to
force interpolation functions (Kunnath et al. 1990, Spacone offer better capabilities for modeling certain aspects of
et al. 1996). Distributed fiber formulations do not generally behavior, simplified models may capture more effectively
report plastic hinge rotations, but instead report strains in the the relevant feature with the same or lower approximation.
steel and concrete cross section fibers. The calculated strain It is best to gain knowledge and confidence in specific
demands can be quite sensitive to the moment gradient, models and software implementations by analyzing
element length, integration method, and strain hardening small test examples, where one can interrogate specific
parameters on the calculated strain demands. Therefore, behavioral effects.
the strain demands and acceptance criteria should be
benchmarked against concentrated hinge models, for which
rotation acceptance criteria are more widely reported.
Some types of concentrated hinge models employ axial load-
• The most complex models (Figure 2-1e) discretize the moment (P-M) yield surfaces. Whereas these models generally
continuum along the member length and through the cross do a good job at tracking the initiation of yielding under axial
sections into small (micro) finite elements with nonlinear load and bending, they may not capture accurately the post-
hysteretic constitutive properties that have numerous input yield and degrading response. On the other hand, some hinge
parameters. This fundamental level of modeling offers the elements with detailed moment-rotation hysteresis models
most versatility, but it also presents the most challenge in (Figure 2-3) may not capture P-M interaction, except to the
terms of model parameter calibration and computational extent that the moment-rotation response is defined based on
resources. As with the fiber formulation, the strains average values of axial load and shear that are assumed to be
calculated from the finite elements can be difficult to present in the hinge. A simple check on the model capabilities
5
(a) Steel columns (b) Concrete walls and columns
Figure 2-2 – Idealized axial-force-moment demands and strength interaction surfaces.
(a) Hysteretic model (b) Model with stiffness (c) Model with cyclic
without deterioration degradation strength degradation
(d) Model with fracture (e) Model with post-capping (f) Model with bond slip or
strength degradation gradual strength deterioration crack closure (pinching)
Figure 2-3 – Types of hysteretic modeling.
6
is to analyze a concrete column under a low and high value of To develop flexural mechanisms, the member shear strength
axial load (above and below the compression failure balance must be larger than the flexural strength, which is typically
point) to examine whether the model tracks how the axial required in capacity design provisions for seismic design.
load affects the differences in rotation capacity and post-peak Where the shear strength is not sufficient to preclude shear
degradation. A further check would be to vary the axial loading yielding and failure (such as in some existing buildings), shear
during the analysis to see how well the effect of the changing effects must be considered in the analysis model in addition to
axial load is captured. flexural and axial load effects. A fairly straightforward way
Sidebar 4
Monotonic Versus Cyclic Envelope Curve
ASCE 41 and other documents provide standardized backbone relationships (Figure 2-7) between characteristic
forces and deformations of structural components to define component behavior, demand parameters, and
acceptance criteria. For use in nonlinear analysis, it is important to distinguish between so-called “monotonic” and
“cyclic envelope” curves. The monotonic curve represents the response that would be observed for a component
tested under monotonic loading, and the cyclic envelope encloses the forces and displacements under cyclic
loading. As shown below (Figures 2-4 and 2-5), the cyclic envelope varies depending on the applied cyclic
loading history, and backbone curves derived from cyclic envelopes are typically based on standardized loading
protocols. For nonlinear static analysis, where the cyclic effects of earthquake loading are not modeled directly
in the analysis, the nonlinear component models should be defined based on the degraded cyclic envelope. For
nonlinear dynamic analysis, the choice of component curves depends on how cyclic degradation is modeled.
Direct modeling of cyclic degradation begins with a monotonic backbone curve and degrades this relationship as
the analysis proceeds (Ibarra et al. 2005). Indirect modeling does not degrade the component backbone curve.
Instead, it uses the cyclic envelope (with an implied amount of cyclic degradation) to define the component backbone
curve in analysis. Whichever technique is used (direct or indirect), the nonlinear analysis should be exercised
under cyclic loading to ensure that the model can represent the degradation observed in tests and implied by
model parameters in ASCE 41 or other sources.
(a) Cyclic versus monotonic results (b) Monotonic and cyclic envelope curves (ASCE 2007)
Figure 2-4 – Load versus displacement data from wood shear walls.
Figure 2-5 – Idealized model backbone curves derived from monotonic and cyclic envelope curves (PEER/ATC 2010).
7
to model shear effects is by adding a nonlinear shear spring in stiffness, strength, and deformation limits in steel, reinforced
series with the axial-flexural model. concrete, masonry and wood members; base isolators; and
energy dissipation components of moment frames, braced
2.3 Model Parameters for Cyclic Loading frames, shear walls, diaphragms, infills, and foundations.
In modeling the hysteretic properties of actual elements for Shown in Figure 2-7 is an idealized force versus deformation
analysis, the initial stiffness, strength, and post-yield force- relationship as defined in ASCE 41 for specifying the force
displacement response of cross sections should be determined and deformation parameters of nonlinear component models.
based on principles of mechanics and/or experimental data, In ASCE 41, the force-deformation relationship is intended to
considering influences of cyclic loading and interaction of represent the cyclic envelope that reflects strength degradation
axial, shear, and flexural effects. Under large inelastic cyclic due to cyclic loading (Sidebar 4). This is in contrast to the
deformations, component strengths often deteriorate (Figure monotonic curve that represents the response under monotonic
2-3) due to fracture, crushing, local buckling, bond slip, or loading. The cyclic envelope and monotonic backbone curves
other phenomena. If such degradations are included through are similar in that each includes four important points of
appropriate modifiers to the stiffness and internal forces, strength and associated deformation. Referring to Figure 2-7,
the model can simulate most regular materials and devices these points include: effective yield (point B), peak strength
experiencing hysteretic behavior (Ibarra et al. 2005; FEMA (point C), residual strength (point D), and ultimate deformation
2009a). ASCE 41 provides guidelines for estimation of (point E). While ASCE 41 typically provides specific values to
Sidebar 5
Cyclic Versus In-cycle Degradation
Hysteretic models used for nonlinear dynamic analysis should distinguish and account for “cyclic” versus “in-cycle”
degradation of strength and stiffness. Cyclic degradation is an apparent loss in strength at a given deformation level
under reverse cyclic loading that occurs due to concrete cracking, bond slip, the Bauschinger effect (in metals),
etc. Under continued loading in one direction, the observed strength loss under cyclic loading is recovered at
larger deformations. On the other hand, in-cycle degradation is the loss in strength that occurs under increasing
deformations within one loading excursion of a cycle or under monotonic loading. In-cycle degradation displays a
negative post-yield stiffness. In-cycle degradation in reinforced concrete and masonry components is generally due
to concrete crushing, shear failure, buckling or fracture of reinforcement, and splice failures. In steel components,
in-cycle degradation occurs due to local and/or lateral torsional buckling and rupture or fracture of steel. In practice,
most components experience both types of degradation. Studies have shown that in-cycle degradation is more
damaging and contributes to so-called ratcheting behavior under dynamic loading, which can ultimately lead to
collapse. See FEMA 440.
Strength loss occurs in subsequent cycles; Strength loss occurs during

not in the same loading cycle the loading cycle
Cyclic strength degradation In-cycle strength degradation
Figure 2-6 – Cyclic versus in-cycle degradation (FEMA 2005).
8
dynamic instability. Large lateral deflections (D) magnify the
internal force and moment demands, causing a decrease in the
effective lateral stiffness. With the increase of internal forces, a
smaller proportion of the structure’s capacity remains available
to sustain lateral loads, leading to a reduction in the effective
lateral strength.
Shown in Figure 2-8 is an idealized base shear versus drift

curve of a cantilever structure with and without P-D effects.
If the gravity load is large the stiffness reduction (shown by
the negative slope KN) is significant and contributes to loss of
Figure 2-7 – Generalized force-deformation curve (PEER/ATC 2010).
lateral resistance and instability. Therefore the gravity load-
deformation (P-D) effect must be considered directly in the
define points B, C, and E, the descending slope between point C analysis, whether static or dynamic. This means that the gravity
and D is less well defined. Since in most cases the descending loads of the entire building must be present in the analysis,
slope is more gradual than implied in Figure 2-7, it may be and appropriate P-D analysis techniques should be introduced
more reasonable to define the descending branch between point in the structural model (Wilson 2002; Powell 2010). For
C and E (or to a point between D and E), as illustrated by the nonlinear seismic analyses, ASCE 7 specifies a gravity load
dashed line in the figure. combination of 1.0D + 0.5L, where D is the building dead
load and L is the specified live load, including allowance for
Since models that capture cyclic degradation of the backbone live load reduction.
curve are not yet common in commercial analysis software,
in most cases it is appropriate to define modeling parameters
to reproduce component cyclic envelope curves for tests or
published criteria in ASCE 41, PEER/ATC 72-1 or other sources.
Otherwise, the analyst should check that the software being used
can represent the cyclic degradation of the backbone curve with
appropriate hysteresis rules. In addition to distinctions between
monotonic and cyclic response, another important attribute of
hysteretic models is whether they capture so-called “cyclic”
versus “in-cycle” deterioration (Sidebar 5). For materials and
members not documented in available literature, degradation of
stiffness, strength and bond characteristics should be evaluated
using principles of mechanics that are supported by test data;
FEMA 440A provides additional recommendations on this Figure 2-8 – Force-deformation curve with and without the P-D effect
topic. (PEER/ATC 2010).
2.4 Geometric Nonlinear Effects 2.5 Characterization of Model Parameters

and Uncertainties
Geometric nonlinear effects are caused by gravity loads acting
on the deformed configuration of the structure, leading to an Variability in calculated demand parameters arises due to
increase of internal forces in members and connections. These uncertainties in the input ground motions and the nonlinear
geometric nonlinear effects are typically distinguished between structural response to these motions (Sidebar 6). As the usual
P-d effects, associated with deformations along the members, approach in analysis is to obtain the most likely (expected)
measured relative to the member chord, and P-D effects, structural response, the structural properties used in the analysis
measured between member ends and commonly associated with model should be median values. The statistical variability in
story drifts in buildings. In buildings subjected to earthquakes, material parameters and model components generally follow
P-D effects are much more of a concern than P-d effects, and a lognormal distribution, which implies that the median
provided that members conform to the slenderness limits for and mean (expected) values are not the same. However, as
special systems in high seismic regions (e.g., special concrete this difference is small for most material and other model
or steel moment frames as defined in ASCE 7), P-d effects do parameters, combined with the fact that in practice there is
not generally need to be modeled in nonlinear seismic analysis. rarely enough data to accurately characterize the difference,
On the other hand, P-D effects must be modeled as they can then it is reasonable to use either median or mean values to
ultimately lead to loss of lateral resistance, ratcheting (a gradual establish the parameters of the analysis model. This would
build up of residual deformations under cyclic loading), and include using median values of material properties and
9
component test data (such as the nonlinear hysteretic response
Sidebar 6 data of a flexural hinge) to calibrate the analysis models. ASCE
Uncertainties in Seismic Assessment 41 and other standards provide guidance to relate minimum
specified material properties to expected values, e.g., AISC 341
The total variability in earthquake-induced demands (AISC 2010) specifies Ry values to relate expected to minimum
is large and difficult to quantify. Considering all major specified material strengths. By using median or mean values
sources of uncertainties, the coefficients of variation in for a given earthquake intensity, the calculated values of demand
demand parameters are on the order of 0.5 to 0.8 and parameters are median (50th percentile) estimates.
generally increase with ground motion intensity. The
variability is usually largest for structural deformations 2.6 Quality Assurance
and accelerations and lower in force-controlled
components of capacity-designed structures where the Nonlinear analysis software is highly sophisticated, requiring
forces are limited by the strengths of yielding members.
training and experience to obtain reliable results. While the
The variability is generally attributed to three main
analysis program’s technical users manual is usually the best
sources: (1) hazard uncertainty in the ground motion
resource on the features and use of any software, it may not
intensity, such as the spectral acceleration intensity
calculated for a specified earthquake scenario or return provide a complete description of the outcome of various
period, (2) ground motion uncertainty arising from combinations of choices of input parameters, or the theoretical
frequency content and duration of a ground motions and practical limitations of different features. Therefore,
with a given intensity, and (3) structural behavior and analysts should build up experience of the software capabilities
modeling uncertainties arising from the variability in by performing analysis studies on problems of increasing
(i) physical attributes of the structure such as material scope and complexity, beginning with element tests of simple
properties, geometry, structural details, etc., (ii) cantilever models and building up to models that encompass
nonlinear behavior of the structural components and features relevant to the types of structures being analyzed. Basic
system, and (iii) mathematical model representation checks should be made to confirm that the strength and stiffness
of the actual behavior. Through realistic modeling of the model is correct under lateral load. Next, quasi-static
of the underlying mechanics, nonlinear dynamic cyclic tests should be run to confirm the nature of the hysteretic
analyses reduce uncertainty in demand predictions, as behavior, sensitivity tests with alternative input parameters, and
compared to nonlinear or linear static analyses where evaluation of cyclic versus in-cycle degradation (Sidebar 5).
the underlying uncertainties are masked by simplified Further validations using published experimental tests can help
analysis assumptions. However, even with nonlinear build understanding and confidence in the nonlinear analysis
dynamic analyses it is practically impossible to calculate software and alternative modeling decisions (e.g., effects of
accurately the variability in demand parameters. In
element mesh refinement and section discretization).
concept it is possible to quantify the corresponding
variability in the calculated demands using techniques
Beyond having confidence in the software capabilities and the
such as Monte Carlo simulation. However, complete
characterization of modeling uncertainty is a formidable appropriate modeling techniques, it is essential to check the
problem for real building structures. Apart from the lack accuracy of models developed for a specific project. Checks
of necessary data to characterize fully the variability begin with basic items necessary for any analysis. However,
of the model parameters (standard deviations and for nonlinear analyses additional checks are necessary to help
correlations between multiple parameters), the number ensure that the calculated responses are realistic. Sidebar 7
of analyses required to determine the resulting variability gives some suggestions in this regard.
is prohibitive for practical assessment of real structures.
Therefore, nonlinear analysis procedures are generally
aimed at calculating the median (or mean) demands.
Uncertainties in the evaluation are then accounted for
(1) through the choice of the specified hazard level
(return period) at which the analysis is run, and/or (2)
the specified acceptance criteria to which the demands
are compared. Separate factors or procedures are
sometimes applied to check acceptance criteria for force-
controlled or other capacity designed components.
10
Sidebar 7
Quality Assurance of Building Analysis Models

Beyond familiarizing oneself with the capabilities of a specific software package, the following are suggested checks
to help ensure the accuracy of nonlinear analysis models for calculating earthquake demand parameters:
• Check the elastic modes of model. Ensure that the first mode periods for the translational axes and for
rotation are consistent with expectation (e.g., hand calculation, preliminary structural models) and that
the sequence of modes is logical. Check for spurious local modes that may be due to incorrect element
properties, inadequate restraints, or incorrect mass definitions.
• Check the total mass of the model and that the effective masses of the first few modes in each direction are
realistic and account for most of the total mass.
• Generate the elastic (displacement) response spectra of the input ground motion records. Check that they
are consistent and note the variability between records. Determine the median spectrum of the records and
the variability about the median.
• Perform elastic response spectrum (using the median spectrum of the record set) and dynamic response
history analyses of the model, and calculate the displacements at key positions and the elastic base shear
and overturning moment. Compare the response spectrum results to the median of the dynamic analysis
results.
• Perform nonlinear static analyses to the target displacements for the median spectrum of the ground motion
record set. Calculate the displacements at key positions and the base shear and overturning moment and
compare to the elastic analysis results. Vary selected input or control parameters (e.g., with and without P-D,
different loading patterns, variations in component strengths or deformation capacities) and confirm observed
trends in the response.
• Perform nonlinear dynamic analyses and calculate the median values of displacements, base shear, and
overturning moment and compare to the results of elastic and nonlinear static analyses. Vary selected input
or control parameters (similar to the variations applied in the static nonlinear analyses) and compare to each
other and to the static pushover and elastic analyses. Plot hysteresis responses of selected components to
confirm that they look realistic, and look for patterns in the demand parameters, including the distribution of
deformations and spot checks of equilibrium.
11
3. Modeling of Structural Components
3.1 Moment Frames practical. Whatever the model type, the analysis should be
(Flexural Beam-Columns) capable of reproducing (under cyclic loading) the component
cyclic envelope curves that are similar to those from tests or
Inelastic modeling of moment frame systems primarily involves other published criteria, such as in ASCE 41 and PEER/ATC
component models for flexural members (beams and columns) 72-1.
and their connections. For systems that employ “special”
moment frame capacity design principles, as defined in ASCE 7, The inelastic response of flexural beams and columns is often
the inelastic deformations should primarily occur in flexural linked to the response of the connections and joint panels
hinges in the beams and the column bases. The NEHRP between them. The inelastic behavior in the beams, columns,
Seismic Design Technical Briefs by Moehle et al. (2008) and connections, and panel zone (Figure 3-1a) can each be modeled
Hamburger et al. (2009) provide a summary of design concepts, through the idealized springs, shown in Figure 3-1b (or
criteria, and expected behavior for special concrete and steel equivalent fiber models), along with appropriate consideration
moment frames. It is important to recognize, however, that of finite panel size and how its deformations affect the
the minimum design provisions of ASCE 7 and the underlying connected members. In steel structures, these yielding regions
AISC 341 (2010) and ACI 318 (2008) standards for special (beam, column, connections, and panel zone) tend to deform
moment frames do not always prevent hinging in the columns independently, except insofar as the strength of one component
or inelastic panel zone deformations in beam-to-column joints. may limit the maximum forces in an adjacent component. On
Therefore, the nonlinear model should include these effects, the other hand, in concrete frames, the inelastic deformations
unless the actual demand-capacity ratios are small enough in the beams and columns are coupled with the panel zone
to prevent them. In frames that do not meet special moment behavior, due to the bond slip of longitudinal beam and column
frame requirements of ASCE 7, inelastic effects may occur in bars in the joint region. Thus, for concrete frames, the flexural
other locations, including member shear yielding, connection hinge parameters should consider how the deformations due
failure, and member instabilities due to local or lateral-torsional to bond slip are accounted for – either in the beam and column
buckling. hinges or the joint panel spring. Depending on the specific
software implementation, the finite-size joint panel may be
Beam-columns are commonly modeled using either concentrated modeled using kinematic constraint equations, equivalent bar-
hinges or fiber-type elements. While the fiber elements spring assemblies, or approximate rigid end offsets (Charney
generally enable more accurate modeling of the initiation of and Marshall 2006; ASCE 2007).
inelastic effects (steel yielding and concrete cracking) and
spread of yielding, their ability may be limited to capture 3.1.1. Steel Moment Frames
degradation associated with bond slip in concrete joints and For steel frames that employ special seismic design and
local buckling and fracture of steel reinforcing bars and steel detailing, where the hinging locations are known and behavior
members. Concentrated hinge models, which can be calibrated is ductile, it is relatively straightforward to capture the response
to capture the overall force-deformation (or moment-rotation) by nonlinear analysis, including hinging with P-M interaction
response, including post-peak degradation, are often more and joint panel zone yielding. This would generally encompass
(a) Hinging region of beams and columns (b) Idealized analysis model
and deformable panel zone
Figure 3-1 – Beam to column connection.
12
frames that conform to the special moment frame requirements hinging can also be modeled, provided that the hinge properties
of ASCE 7 and AISC 341 (Hamburger et al. 2009). Existing and acceptance criteria are adjusted to account for their limited
“pre-Northridge” moment frames, designed in high seismic ductility. Frames with members that are susceptible to sudden
regions of the Western U.S. according to older building code shear failures or splice failures are more challenging to model.
provisions, can be analyzed with similar models, provided In such cases, nonlinear flexural models can be used to track
that the beam/connection hinge ductility is reduced to account response only up to the point where imposed shear force and/
for potential fractures at the beam-to-column connection. or splice force equals their respective strengths. Otherwise, to
Similarly, with appropriate adjustments to simulate the simulate further response, the analysis would need to capture
nonlinear moment-rotation behavior of connections, frames the sudden degradation due to shear and splice failures.
with partially restrained connections can be modeled. For
steel frames composed of members with slender section 3.2 Braced Frames
properties and/or long unbraced lengths, nonlinear modeling
is significantly more challenging due to the likelihood of local Modeling of inelastic brace behavior is complicated by the
flange or web buckling and lateral-torsional buckling. This, interactive effects of yielding, overall member buckling, local
combined with the fact that the inelastic rotation capacity of buckling, and fracture. For example, shown in Figure 3-2 is the
slender members is small, generally makes it less advantageous hysteretic plot and photo of a steel brace, tested under a cyclic
to use inelastic analysis for the design of steel frames with loading protocol. As indicated, the compression behavior is
slender members. ASCE 41 provides some criteria for dominated by global buckling with rapid drop off in strength
seismically non-conforming steel members, but as the cases and recovery of the tensile yield strength upon reloading.
covered are limited, one would need to look to other sources Compression buckling typically leads to a concentration of
for data to establish models and criteria for frames with slender flexural hinging at the mid-point of the brace, where under
and otherwise non-conforming members. increased deformations local buckles form, which then trigger
fracture during subsequent tension cycles.
3.1.2 Concrete Moment Frames
Concrete frames that meet seismic design and detailing There are several alternatives for modeling the nonlinear
requirements and qualify as special moment frames are buckling response of braces. A commonly employed approach
somewhat more difficult to model than steel frames. Stiffness is to model the brace with fiber beam-column elements, which
of members is sensitive to concrete cracking, the joints are capture yielding, overall buckling, and concentration of plastic
affected by concrete cracking and bond slip, and the post- rotations in the buckled hinge, provided the number of elements
yield response of columns and joint panels is sensitive to axial along the length of the brace is adequate. Local buckling and
load. ASCE 41 (including supplement 1) and PEER/ATC fracture can be inferred from the plastic rotation and strains in
72-1 provide models and guidance for characterizing member the hinges (Uriz and Mahin 2008). In an alternative model,
stiffness, inelastic member hinge properties, and strategies for the brace is represented by a uniaxial phenomenological spring
joint modeling. Lowes and Altoontash (2003) and Ghobarah to capture brace yielding and overall buckling (e.g., Tang and
and Biddah (1999) provide further details on modeling concrete Goel 1989; Uriz and Mahin 2008). This type of element is
beam-column joints. Frames that do not conform to the special simple to use, though its reliability is more limited by the
seismic detailing but have behavior that is dominated by flexural range of tests to which it is calibrated. In the most fundamental
(a) Measured axial force-deformation (b) Experimental set-up
Figure 3-2 – Nonlinear response of axial brace (Fell et al. 2010).
13
analysis approach, the brace is modeled with continuum finite
elements which can directly simulate yielding, overall buckling,
and local buckling (Schachter and Reinhorn 2007). With
appropriate material formulation, the finite element models can
also simulate fracture initiation (Fell et al. 2010).
The axial-flexural fiber model, which provides a good

compromise between modeling rigor and computational
demands, requires calibration with test data to determine the
appropriate number of elements, amplitude of initial out-of-
straightness imperfections, and material hardening parameters.
Uriz and Mahin (2008) found that the fiber approach gave
reasonable results for the following model parameters: (1)
brace subdivided into two or four elements, (2) initial geometric
imperfection amplitude of 0.05 % to 0.1 % of the member length,
and (3) ten to fifteen layers (fibers) through the cross section
depth. For braces with compact sections as specified by AISC
341, local buckling is usually delayed enough to be insignificant Figure 3-3 – Masonry infill wall panel and model.
until large deformations (story drifts on the order of 2 % to 4 %,
depending on the brace compactness and slenderness). ASCE members, and they may result in either column or beam shear
41 provides acceptance criteria, described as a function of axial failures. Depending on their height-to-thickness slenderness,
brace displacements, which can be obtained from the fiber-type unreinforced infill walls can also fail out-of-plane, sometimes
beam-column models, phenomenological axial spring models, in combination with one of the other modes.
or finite element models.
For either the shear sliding or compression crushing mode,
3.2.1 Buckling-Restrained Braces it is reasonable to analyze frames with infills using a single
In contrast to conventional braces, buckling-restrained equivalent strut or two diagonal compression struts for reversed
braces are straightforward to model with uniaxial nonlinear cyclic loading analysis. Such an approach is adopted by FEMA
springs. Yield strength, cyclic strain hardening, and low- 306 (FEMA 2009b) and ASCE 41. Detailed finite element
cycle fatigue endurance data are generally available from the analysis can also be used if such a refinement is required, but
brace manufacturers. Bi-linear force-deformation models it presents challenges both in terms of computational demands
are sufficiently accurate to capture the behavior. Acceptance and constitutive modeling of the infill and boundary interface.
criteria for the brace elements, based on peak deformations For software that supports use of a single axial spring, the
and cumulative deformations, can be inferred from the AISC spring strength should be based on the governing failure
341 qualification testing requirements for buckling restrained mode (sliding or compression failure). Madan et al. (1997)
braces. provides an example of a more advanced series spring strut
model, which captures the combined behavior of diagonal
3.3 Infill Walls and Panels sliding shear and compression failure, including cyclic
deterioration. Kadysiewski and Mosalam (2009) provides a
Although not widely employed for new construction in modeling approach that considers both in-plane and out-of-
high seismic regions of the U.S., frames with infill walls are plane failure.
commonly encountered in existing buildings around the world
and in regions of low to moderate seismicity of the U.S. The Modeling of the equivalent diagonal strut requires knowledge
infill wall system is conventionally modeled as a frame structure of the stiffness and cyclic strength behavior. The equivalent
with beams and columns braced with one or two diagonal struts strut is represented by the actual infill thickness that is in
representing the masonry infill (Figure 3-3). In most cases, the contact with the frame, the diagonal length, and an equivalent
infill panel failure will initiate in sliding along the horizontal width which may be calculated using the recommendations
joints, where the capacity is limited by the shear strength of given in the concrete and masonry chapters of ASCE 41. Only
the mortar. Alternatively, if the panel is strong in shear, the the masonry wythes in full contact with the frame elements
diagonal strut will crush near the frame joint and lose strength. should be considered when computing in-plane stiffness, unless
This mode of failure has limited deformation capacity because positive anchorage capable of transmitting in-plane forces from
the crushing will be abrupt. The large panel forces generated frame members to all masonry wythes is provided on all sides
in this mode will be distributed along the beam and column of the walls.
14
3.4 Shear Walls • Nonlinearity only arises at the designated hinge(s), and
equivalent flexural and shear stiffness must be specified
Reinforced concrete shear walls are commonly employed in for elastic elements outside of the hinge. ASCE 41 and
seismic lateral-force-resisting systems for buildings. They PEER/ATC 72-1 provide guidance on effective stiffness
may take the form of isolated planar walls, flanged walls parameters that account for flexural and shear cracking
(often C-, I- or T-shaped in plan) and larger three dimensional to handle typical cases (i.e., planar walls with typical
assemblies such as building cores. Nearby walls are often reinforcement, wall proportions, and gravity stresses).
connected by coupling beams for greater structural efficiency
where large openings for doorways are required. The seismic • The flexural strength may be estimated by the nominal
behavior of shear walls is often distinguished between slender strength provisions of ACI 318 using expected material
(ductile flexure governed) or squat (shear governed) according properties and taking account of the axial load. Where the
to the governing mode of yielding and failure. In general, it axial load varies significantly during loading (e.g., coupled
is desirable to achieve ductile flexural behavior, but this is not shear walls) a P-M interaction surface (Figure 2-2) should
possible in circumstances such as (1) short walls with high be used rather than a constant flexural strength.
shear-to-flexure ratios that are susceptible to shear failures,
(2) bearing walls with high axial stress and/or inadequate • Shear failure should be prevented in slender shear walls,
confinement that are susceptible to compression failures, and and studies have shown (PEER/ATC 72-1) that standard
(3) in existing buildings without seismic design and detailing seismic design criteria may underestimate the actual shear
qualifying the wall system as special as defined in ASCE 7. force demands. Therefore, it is best to perform the analysis
to determine the shear force demands and then to design
Cyclic and shake table tests on reinforced concrete shear walls the wall to resist these demands, considering variability
reveal a number of potential failure modes that simple models in the shear demands and capacities. Since shear strength
cannot represent explicitly, however these failure modes are varies with applied axial stress (which varies during an
generally reflected in the backbone curves, hysteresis rules, and earthquake in coupled shear walls) it may be necessary to
performance criteria adopted in lumped plasticity models. These check the design at multiple time steps during nonlinear
failure modes include (1) rebar bond failure and lap splice slip, dynamic analyses.
(2) concrete spalling, rebar buckling, and loss of confinement,
(3) rebar fracture on straightening of buckle, and (4) combined • Beam-column elements are more problematic to use in
shear and compression failure at wall toe. Some of these failure three-dimensional wall configurations with significant
modes can be captured, either explicitly or implicitly, in fiber bi-directional interaction, particularly if the wall system is
and finite element type modeling approaches. subjected to torsion.
3.4.1 Modeling of Slender Walls Fiber-type models are commonly employed to model slender
Slender concrete shear walls detailed to current seismic design walls, where the wall cross section is discretized into a number
requirements, having low axial stress, and designed with of concrete and steel fibers. With appropriate material nonlinear
sufficient shear strength to avoid shear failures, perform in a axial stress-strain characteristics, the fiber wall models can
similar manner to reinforced concrete beam-columns. Ductile capture with reasonable accuracy the variation of axial and
flexural behavior with stable hysteresis can develop up to hinge flexural stiffness due to concrete cracking and steel yielding
rotation limits that are a function of axial load and shear in the under varying axial and bending loads. A principal limitation
hinge region. of conventional beam-column element fiber formulations is the
assumption that plane sections remain plane, such that shear
Subject to the cautions noted below, simple slender walls lag effects associated with flexure and warping torsion are not
(including coupled walls) can be modeled as vertical beam- captured. These effects may be significant in non-planar core
column elements with lumped flexural plastic hinges at the wall configurations. This limitation may be alleviated through
ends with reasonable accuracy and computational efficiency. formulations that model the wall with two-dimensional shell-
The modeling parameters and plastic rotation limits of ASCE type finite elements. The fiber idealization can be implemented
41 may be used for guidance. The following points should in the shell elements to integrate through the cross section
be noted: for axial/flexural effects, but in-plane shear is uncoupled and
remains elastic. The number of elements required across a
• The lumped hinge models are only suitable for assessing wall segment width and over the wall height depends on the
performance within such allowable plastic hinge rotation available element types, the wall proportions, and the bending
limits as stable hysteresis occurs, considering axial and moment gradient. In particular, the number of elements over
shear forces in the hinge. the hinge length will impact the effective gage length of the
calculated strains.
15
(a) Rectangular cross section (b) Tee-shaped cross section
Figure 3-4 – Test versus fiber analysis hysteresis response for concrete shear walls (PEER/ATC 2010).
Shown in Figure 3-4 are comparisons between tests and fiber with prescribed hysteretic rules. Such models do, however,
shell-type analyses of a rectangular and T-shaped wall. In require greater expertise and computational resources and
general the analysis captures the overall behavior well, except should be validated against test data that replicate the conditions
for the T-shaped wall with the web in compression. In this being simulated.
case the discrepancy is attributed to the challenge in calculating
concrete compressive strains and the associated concrete 3.4.2 Modeling Coupling Beams
degradation. In comparison, responses of the rectangular wall Coupled shear walls are commonly used to provide vertical
and of the T-shaped wall with the web in tension are governed shear transfer across door openings in walls or service cores.
by tensile yielding of the reinforcing bars, which is easier to The coupling increases the stiffness and strength of such walls
model. This example highlights the difficulty in capturing relative to the uncoupled situation. The seismic demands on
degradation due to localized damage. Users should refer to coupling beams are usually high, and it is common to adopt
the technical reference of their analysis software for details of a diagonal reinforcement arrangement in order to maximize
specific implementations and guidance on modeling walls. ductility and limit stiffness and strength degradation.
Features are available in some software platforms for advanced Where coupling beam strength is governed by flexural hinging
modeling of reinforced concrete using detailed two-dimensional and/or where diagonal reinforcement is used, coupling beams
shell or three-dimensional solid elements with smeared or are usually modeled as concentrated plasticity flexural members
explicit representation of reinforcement and concrete cracking. with concentrated flexural hinges and equivalent (elastic)
Such models are useful for assessment of walls where there is flexural and shear stiffness along the beam length. Otherwise,
strong interaction between shear and flexure, such as in flexural where the beam strength is governed by shear failure, it
hinge regions where the shear force demand is close to the shear is advisable to use a beam element with an inelastic shear
capacity, and for other situations where nonlinear stress and spring. When the shear walls are modeled as beam-column
strain fields violate the assumptions of idealized hinge or fiber line elements, it is necessary to represent the width of the wall
models. The detailed finite element models do not rely upon as a rigid horizontal beam (or constraint) in order to give the
the plane sections remain plane assumption, and therefore they coupling beams the correct span. ASCE 41 provides hinge
can better model situations with coupled inelastic flexural-shear properties based on the shear force demand and reinforcing
behavior. For example, tests show clearly that plane sections bar arrangement. ASCE 41 does not distinguish effective
do not remain plane at the critical sections of walls at higher (elastic) stiffness values between coupling beams and other
demand levels and that maximum (localized) concrete and beams. However, other sources (e.g., Paulay and Priestley
reinforcing bar strains are under-predicted by conventional 1992) recommend lower effective (elastic) stiffness values for
fiber beam-column element analyses. The resulting concrete coupling beams, to account for the lower span-to-depth ratios
crushing and reinforcing bar buckling can be critical failure and greater longitudinal bar strain penetration (bond slip at the
modes for walls carrying high compressive stress. Well founded end anchorage into the concrete walls) of the coupling beams
constitutive models can take account of load history effects in as compared to conventional beams.
a more explicit manner than concentrated plasticity approaches
16
As with other cases where the model parameters are uncertain, linear stiffness parameters are used, the assumed stiffnesses
it is recommended to investigate the sensitivity of the calculated should be reviewed in the light of the induced stresses and
demand parameters by conducting analyses for the expected updated as necessary. Alternatively, where inelastic diaphragm
range of coupling beam and wall model parameters. effects are a major factor to the system behavior, nonlinear
finite element formulations (membrane or shell) may be used.
3.4.3 Modeling Squat Shear Walls Analysis with upper and lower bound stiffness can also be
Squat shear walls fail in shear rather than flexure, and present useful to determine the sensitivity of the calculated behavior
significant modeling challenges. Monotonic tests show greater to variability in diaphragm stiffness.
displacement ductility than can be relied upon in cyclic loading,
where degradation of stiffness and strength (with highly pinched The stiffness of floor beams (with slabs acting as “flanges”)
hysteresis loops) is observed. These behaviors are not easily framing with gravity columns can sometimes significantly
captured using beam-column or fiber-type elements. Some increase the lateral stiffness of a structure even if the beams
analysis platforms contain suitable formulations comprising in- are designed as gravity framing only, and including them in the
series nonlinear shear and flexure springs. In addition, detailed analysis can benefit the performance assessment of a design. A
nonlinear reinforced concrete shell finite element formulations possible modeling technique is to include the grillage of primary
are available in some platforms, which can reproduce most floor beams and girders in the model as beam elements with
observed features of behavior, though require careful calibration two-dimensional shell or membrane elements to represent the
against test results. in-plane stiffness of the diaphragm. In this case the slab may
be modeled with a coarse mesh, and the stiffness and strength
3.5 Floors, Diaphragms, and Collectors formulation of the beams in bending should include any desired
interaction with the slab.
Floor diaphragms and collectors should be modeled to
realistically represent the distribution of inertia loads from In accordance with ASCE 7, the collectors should be designed
floors to the other elements of the lateral system and the with sufficient strength to remain essentially elastic under the
redistribution of lateral forces among different parts of lateral forces induced from earthquakes, and there is an argument
system due to changes in configuration, relative stiffness, and/ (PEER/ATC 72-1) to design certain key diaphragms to remain
or relative strength. Floor diaphragms are often modeled as essentially elastic as well. The calculated forces and stresses of
rigid, as this reduces the modeling and computational effort. seismic collectors should be interpreted with care. Membrane
This assumption is acceptable in many cases when the stresses or shell finite elements in parallel with beams may take some
and force transfers in the diaphragms are low relative to the of the “collector” force that a hand calculation would assign to
diaphragm strength. However, the rigid modeling assumption the collector beam. Alternatively, where collectors are modeled
is not always appropriate or the most convenient for design. as rigid (or very stiff elastic elements), the collector forces from
The following questions should be considered: dynamic analyses may be excessively large due to transient
peaks, which would be damped out by minor yielding of the
• How does the stiffness of the diaphragm compare with collector elements or their connections.
that of the vertically oriented components, including
consideration of slab cracking where diaphragm stresses For further guidance on the analysis and design of reinforced
are high? concrete diaphragms refer to NEHRP Seismic Design Technical
Brief No. 3 Seismic Design of Cast-in-Place Concrete
• Would explicit modeling of diaphragms and collectors as Diaphragms, Chords, and Collectors (Moehle et al. 2010) and
flexible, using finite elements, facilitate the calculation of PEER/ATC 72-1.
their design forces?
3.6 Energy Dissipating Devices
• Will the rigid diaphragm constraint that suppresses axial
deformations in framing members in the plane of the Use of passive energy dissipation is an emerging technology
diaphragm distort the structural behavior, such as by that enhances building performance by reducing the demands
eliminating the axial deformations of horizontal chords of through addition of damping devices and stiffening elements.
braced lateral systems? In determining the seismic demand parameters, a nonlinear
analysis model is required that can capture the forces,
The adopted modeling approach should make a realistic deformations, or other demand parameters for the devices.
representation of the stiffness of the diaphragm and collectors The analysis model of the device should account for its
and enable the force demands to be extracted for design. Since dependence on loading rates, temperature, sustained (gravity
concrete floor slabs may crack, it is difficult to make exact and other) loads, and other interactions. Multiple analyses
predictions of stiffness, particularly when (1) the reinforcement may be necessary to capture and bound the effects of varying
ratios are low, (2) the demands induce significant cracking, and/ mechanical characteristics of the devices.
or (3) the slab is formed on profiled metal decking. If equivalent
17
(a) Viscous (b) Visco-elastic (c) Friction (hysteretic) (d) General hysteretic
Figure 3-5 – Idealized response plots of energy dissipation devices.
Energy dissipation devices are usually modeled as combinations radius of curvature and proportional to the weight supported
of dashpots and equivalent elastic or hysteretic springs. The by the isolator. The variability of model parameters, related
resulting models incorporate one or more of the four main to such factors as the rate of loading, temperature dependence,
categories shown in Figure 3-5. The models of actual devices and longevity of devices life-cycle is extremely important in
may be slightly different than shown in Figure 3-5, when determining the response of base-isolated structures and should
employing nonlinear dependencies to deformations or velocities be accounted for by analyses under the expected range of
(such as for the nonlinear fluid dampers). While dampers isolator properties. The reader is directed to Nagarajaiah et al.
generally follow the force-displacement relations shown (1991), Constantinou et al. (1999), and Naeim and Kelly (1999)
in Figure 3-5, when assembled in structures using flexible for design and modeling details and to ASCE 7 and ASCE
diagonal braces, these models should be modified to account 41 for suggested procedures to derive the model component
for interactions with the braces (Charney et al. 2008). Series properties.
spring models representing the device and the brace allow
consideration of such interactions (Reinhorn et al. 2009).
For further details about modeling of devices for nonlinear

analyses and their effect in buildings, see Constantinou and
Symans (1993), Constantinou et al. (1998), ASCE 7, and
ASCE 41.
3.7 Seismic Isolators
Seismic isolators can be generally classified as either elastomeric

or sliding, and isolation systems may be composed of one or
multiple types of isolators. Elastomeric isolators may be either
bearings made of high-damping rubber or bearings with low-
damping rubber that have a lead core. Sliding isolators may be
flat assemblies, or have curved surfaces, such as the friction-
pendulum system. Nonlinear analysis procedures should
explicitly model the force-deflection properties of isolators.
The elastomeric bearings may be modeled similarly to the

hysteretic spring model shown in Figure 3-5(d), with the initial
stiffness determined by the shear stiffness of the rubber layers
and the post-yielding stiffness defined by the characteristics of
the rubber and/or lead plug. The sliding isolators are modeled
using the friction model shown in Figure 3-5(c), with the
friction level defined by the friction coefficient of the sliding
surfaces and normal forces due to gravity and other loads acting
on the isolator. For isolators with curved sliding surfaces, a
post-sliding stiffness is assigned, inversely proportional to the
18
4. Foundations and Soil-Structure Interaction
4.1 Introduction and Overview of Incorporation of foundation effects into structural-response
Soil Behavior prediction requires some basic understanding of soils and
soil-structure interaction. The behavior of soils is significantly
For many projects the effect of site soils is dealt with nonlinear under strong ground shaking, and soil materials
independently of the structure. The structural designer inputs display strain softening, energy dissipation through material
“free field” response spectra or ground motions directly to an hysteresis and radiation damping, and strain rate dependency.
analysis of the structure without any consideration of interaction Soils generally have no distinct yield point and exhibit gradual
and then designs the foundations for the resulting forces. reduction of stiffness with increasing strain. Certain types of
However, in some cases this approach can give unrealistic soil (typically saturated sands and silts) can develop excess
results, leading to foundations and superstructure designs that pore water pressure during earthquake shaking, resulting in
may be overly conservative or unconservative (Sidebar 8). reduced effective stress levels, softening, weakening and in the
extreme, complete loss of strength (liquefaction). While pore
pressure generation and liquefaction models exist, treatment
Sidebar 8 of liquefiable soils in structural analysis is a significant
When to Include Soil-Structure Interaction challenge.
in Analysis
Even if a detailed geotechnical investigation is available, a high
In most cases ignoring soil-structure interaction is degree of uncertainty in behavior of the soils will remain. For
conservative, provided the design response spectra this reason, it is recommended that analyses are undertaken
and ground motions adequately envelope the kinematic using upper and lower bounds of soil properties. The upper
effect of the foundation structure and its effect on site bound soil stiffness and strength is usually more critical for the
response. This may be difficult to do in cases such as demands on the structure itself, and lower bound properties may
the following, where soil-structure interaction analysis be critical for the design of the foundation.
is advisable to reduce risk:
• The foundation system alters the soil properties

4.2 Overview of Soil-Structure Analysis
(e.g., a pile foundation in soft soils). Issues
• Buildings with a deep basement or pile foundation Modeling of soil-structure interaction is dominated by the
system where it is difficult to determine the issues associated with the soil being an infinite medium,
effective ground excitation and where the making it difficult to model the transmission of earthquake-
structural inertia forces are dependent on the induced stress and strain waves through the boundaries of the
foundation reaction with the soil. This issue is soil model. Whereas various forms of transmitting boundaries
compounded for sites where the soil properties have been devised for linear frequency domain analysis, no
vary significantly with depth. exact boundary formulations exist for nonlinear (time domain)
dynamic analysis. There are two generic approaches to practical
• Where the site conditions are susceptible to large nonlinear soil-structure interaction analysis:
ground deformations, e.g., lateral spreading or
ground fault rupture, or soil liquefaction.
• The direct approach, in which a volume of soil is modeled
Soil-structure interaction analysis is also undertaken to
explicitly with the structure and a “total” solution is obtained
realize substantial construction cost savings by reducing in a single analysis.
the conservatisms in the conventional approach. This
is typically worthwhile on sites with relatively soft soils • The indirect (substructure) approach in which the analysis
where: is performed in two stages: (1) The effective input motions
seen by the structure are derived by consideration of the
• The flexibility of the soil-foundation system incoming seismic waves and the geometry of the foundation
significantly elongates the effective natural periods (kinematic interaction); and (2) The dynamic response
of the structure and increases the damping, of the structure is calculated by applying the motions to
leading to reduced earthquake design forces. the structural model via a simplified representation of the
foundation (inertial interaction).
• Where the structure is massive and its inertia
forces significantly increase the strain levels in the
soil relative to the free field response.
19
4.4 Indirect Approach
In the indirect approach, the dynamic compliances of the soil

domain are represented as spring-damper pairs for each degree
of freedom of the foundation being considered. A typical model
is shown in Figure 4-2, where the ground motion time history
is applied (as an acceleration or velocity history) to the “far
end” of the spring-damper pair. Note that the number of spring-
damper pairs may be larger than shown in the figure, depending
on (1) whether the foundation is modeled as rigid or flexible,
and (2) how rocking is represented, either as a rotational spring
or multiple axial springs.
The properties of the spring damper pairs may be based on (1)

analytical and numerical solutions for rigid bodies sitting on
Figure 4-1 – Soil structure interaction - direct approach. or embedded in an elastic halfspace (Wolf 1985; Werkle and
Waas 1986), or (2) alternatively by numerical frequency domain
analysis. If the soil resistance is represented by springs having
4.3 Direct Approach in the Time Domain gradual strain softening, the initial stiffness characteristics
may be based upon small strain soil moduli. If a simpler (e.g.,
The direct approach is described first since it is more intuitive, bilinear) spring is used, then a representative elastic stiffness,
although the computational modeling requirements are more based on expected strain level, should be used. In either case
advanced. As shown in Figure 4-1, in this approach the soil a strength cap equal to the expected ultimate resistance should
is discretized using solid (brick) nonlinear finite elements (or be introduced. Since forces in the soil dampers may be large,
finite difference elements) and the structure and the structural the strength limit (say in foundation sliding) should be applied
foundation system, which may be flexible and nonlinear, are to the combined spring-damper force.
modeled explicitly. The ground motions (including spatial
variability, when significant) are applied at special boundaries
at the base and sides of the model, and the kinematic interaction
is modeled directly. The medium beneath the lower boundary
of the model is modeled as grounded linear viscous dampers,
to which the desired ‘bedrock’ ground motions are induced via
applied force history. This is done to prevent spurious stress
wave reflection at the lower boundary.
The horizontal dimension of the soil block should be sufficiently

large such that the motion at the nodes of the lateral boundaries
can be considered as that of the free-field. The free-field ground
motion histories are applied to the lateral boundaries. It is
advisable to test the sensitivity of the model to the finite element
mesh density, soil properties, and proximity of boundaries to
the structure.
Figure 4-2 – Soil structure interaction - indirect approach.
20
5. Requirements for Nonlinear Static Analysis
5.1 Basis for the Analysis dynamic instability. FEMA 440A also provides guidance
on how to conduct simplified nonlinear dynamic analyses
In the nonlinear static procedure, the structural model is on a structure-specific basis to reduce the uncertainty in the
subjected to an incremental lateral load whose distribution calculated target displacement, relative to the default method
represents the inertia forces expected during ground shaking. in ASCE 41.
The lateral load is applied until the imposed displacements
reach the so-called “target displacement,” which represents 5.3 Calculation of Seismic Demand
the displacement demand that the earthquake ground motions
would impose on the structure. Once loaded to the target The total gravity load should be applied first, prior to the
displacement, the demand parameters for the structural incremental lateral load, so as to capture the effects of gravity-
components are compared with the respective acceptance induced forces and P-∆ effects on component yielding and
criteria for the desired performance state. System level demand the post-peak response. The lateral load distribution should
parameters, such as story drifts and base shears, may also be reflect the expected inertia forces at the floor levels, usually
checked. The nonlinear static procedure is applicable to low- proportional to the floor masses and the modal shape of the
rise regular buildings, where the response is dominated by the fundamental mode. Other lateral force distributions may be
fundamental sway mode of vibration. It is less suitable for used to further interrogate the response. However, studies
taller, slender, or irregular buildings, where multiple vibration have shown that those do little to improve the accuracy of the
modes affect the behavior. See Sidebar 9 for further discussion nonlinear static procedure (ASCE 2007; FEMA 2005).
on the applicability of nonlinear static analysis.
The analysis is conducted until the displacement at the control
5.2 Analysis Methods, Modeling, and point reaches the target displacement. Several methods are
Outcome available for calculating the target displacement, the two most
prevalent being the so-called “coefficient method” and the
The nonlinear stiffness and strength of the components are “capacity spectrum method” (FEMA 2005). In ASCE 41,
modeled based on a cyclic envelope curve, which implicitly the target displacement is determined using the coefficient
accounts for degradation due to cyclic loading that is expected method as the product of the elastic spectral displacement and
under earthquakes. Loads are applied at nodes where dynamic three modification factors. The elastic spectral displacement
inertia forces would develop, and they are monotonically is expressed as a function of the elastic spectral acceleration
increased without load reversals. A control point is defined for and the effective period. The three modification coefficients
the target displacement, usually at the top (roof level) of the (1) scale the spectral displacement to the control point
structure. The plot of the resulting base shear force as a function displacement, typically at the roof level, (2) adjust for inelastic
of the control point (roof) displacement is often recognized as effects as a function of the ratio of elastic force demands to
the “pushover curve” of the structure. The pushover curve can the structural strength, and (3) adjust for hysteretic stiffness
be further simplified by idealized sloping branches of elastic, and strength degradation, and pinching. The alternative
post-yield hardening and softening (degrading) behavior, as capacity spectrum method employs the concepts of equivalent
shown in Figure 5-1, and used to examine overall building linearization whereby an effective period of vibration and
performance. FEMA 440 and 440A describe how the idealized equivalent viscous damping are determined from the pushover
pushover curve has been used in simplfied nonlinear dynamic curve. The intersection of the pushover curve with the capacity
analyses to establish minimum strength criteria for lateral spectrum curve defines the target displacement (or performance
point).
5.4 Acceptability Criteria and Performance

Evaluation
At a given target displacement, the nonlinear static procedure

defines force, deformation, or ductility demands in the structural
components. ASCE 41 defines two acceptability criteria, one
dealing with local component checks for force-controlled or
deformation-controlled components, and the second a check
for overall stability. The local checks are defined by comparing
the calculated demands to the component acceptance criteria.
Figure 5-1 – Idealized static pushover backbone curve (FEMA 2005). Chapters 4 through 8 of ASCE 41 specify component modeling
21
parameters and acceptance criteria for foundations, frames,
walls, diaphragms, and other structural components made
of steel, concrete, wood, and masonry. The strength criteria
in ASCE 41 often refer to the underlying industry design
standards for detailed information on material properties and
the calculation of component strengths. The global dynamic
instability check limits the magnitude of the inelastic strength
reduction factor, reflecting the influence of P-∆ effects and
post-peak negative stiffness in the structural components
(Figure 5-1). The dynamic instability criterion of ASCE 41
is the same as one developed in FEMA 440. More recently,
a revised dynamic instability criterion has been proposed in
FEMA 440A, which is more accurate and less conservative
than the limit in ASCE 41 and FEMA 440.
Sidebar 9
Nonlinear Static Versus
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
Nonlinear dynamic analysis methods generally provide

more realistic models of structural response to strong
ground shaking and, thereby, provide more reliable
assessment of earthquake performance than nonlinear
static analysis. Nonlinear static analysis is limited in its
ability to capture transient dynamic behavior with cyclic
loading and degradation. Nevertheless, the nonlinear
static procedure provides a convenient and fairly
reliable method for structures whose dynamic response
is governed by first-mode sway motions. One way to
check this is by comparing the deformed geometry from
a pushover analysis to the elastic first-mode vibration
shape. In general, the nonlinear static procedure works
well for low-rise buildings (less than about five stories)
with symmetrical regular configurations. FEMA 440,
FEMA 440A, and NIST (2010) provide further details on
the simplifying assumptions and limitations on nonlinear
static analysis. However, even when the nonlinear static
procedure is not appropriate for a complete performance
evaluation, nonlinear static analysis can be an effective
design tool to investigate aspects of the analysis model
and the nonlinear response that are difficult to do by
nonlinear dynamic analysis. For example, nonlinear
static analysis can be useful to (1) check and debug the
nonlinear analysis model, (2) augment understanding
of the yielding mechanisms and deformation demands,
and (3) investigate alternative design parameters and
how variations in the component properties may affect
response.
22
6. Requirements for Nonlinear Dynamics Analysis
6.1 Basis, Limitations, and Outcome for effects on (1) force and deformation demands in structural
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis components and (2) large displacement P-∆ effects. Generally,
inclusion of gravity loads will require a two-step (non-
In contrast to the nonlinear static procedure, the nonlinear proportional loading) analysis, whereby the gravity loads are
dynamic procedure, when properly implemented, provides a applied first and then held constant while the earthquake ground
more accurate calculation of the structural response to strong motions are applied.
ground shaking. Since the nonlinear dynamic analysis model
incorporates inelastic member behavior under cyclic earthquake 6.3 Modeling of Damping Effects
ground motions, the nonlinear dynamic procedure explicitly
simulates hysteretic energy dissipation in the nonlinear range. In the context of the nonlinear dynamic procedure, equivalent
Only the damping in the linear range and other non-modeled viscous damping is associated with the reduction in vibrations
energy dissipation need to be added as viscous damping. through energy dissipation other than that which is calculated
The dynamic response is calculated for input earthquake directly by the nonlinear hysteresis in the modeled elements.
ground motions, resulting in response history data on the This so-called inherent damping occurs principally in (1)
pertinent demand parameters. Due to the inherent variability structural components that are treated as elastic but where
in earthquake ground motions, dynamic analyses for multiple small inelastic cracking or yielding occurs, (2) the architectural
ground motions are necessary to calculate statistically robust cladding, partitions, and finishes, and (3) the foundation and
values of the demand parameters for a given ground motion soil (if these are not modeled otherwise). Special energy
intensity or earthquake scenario. dissipation components (e.g., viscous, friction, or hysteretic
devices) should be modeled explicitly in the analysis, rather
As nonlinear dynamic analysis involves fewer assumptions than than as inherent damping.
the nonlinear static procedure, it is subject to fewer limitations
than nonlinear static procedure. However, the accuracy of The amount of inherent viscous damping requires careful
the results depends on the details of the analysis model and consideration of the available sources of energy dissipation
how faithfully it captures the significant behavioral effects. and whether these are otherwise captured in the analysis. For
Acceptance criteria typically limit the maximum structural example, fiber-type component models, which capture the
component deformations to values where degradation is initiation and spread of yielding through the cross section and
controlled and the nonlinear dynamic analysis models are along the member lengths, will tend to capture hysteretic energy
reliable. dissipation at lower deformations than lumped plasticity (hinge)
models, where the inelastic hysteresis does not initiate until the
demand exceeds the modeled yield strength of the member.
6.2 Modeling of Inertial Mass and Damping may also occur in components of the gravity framing
Gravity Load that undergo local inelastic deformations but are not modeled
directly in the structural analysis.
The inertial mass should be the expected mass, including
self weight of the building plus some allowance for contents, The equivalent viscous damping is included through the [C] term
generally following the same assumptions as applied to in the equation of motion. Two key questions are (1) what is an
determine seismic masses for design per ASCE 7 or other appropriate value for the inherent damping, and (2) how can the
standards. It is usually adequate to lump the masses at the terms of the damping matrix be formulated to achieve that value.
floor levels and to include inertial effects in the two horizontal In the commonly employed Rayleigh damping formulation, the
directions, including rotation about the vertical building axis. damping matrix [C] is calculated as a linear combination of
Vertical inertial effects (i.e., vertical mass and ground motion the mass and stiffness matrix ([C]=am[M]+ak[K]), where the
components) should be modeled for buildings with long-span proportionality factors am and ak can be chosen to provide a
framing, e.g., arena roofs or long-span floor systems, where the defined percentage of critical damping at two specific periods
vertical period of vibration is in the range that may be excited of vibration. Reasonable periods to specify these damping
by the vertical component of earthquake ground motions values are 0.2T and 1.5T, where T is the fundamental period of
(periods on the order of 0.1 seconds or larger). Otherwise, vibration of the structure. In modal damping formulations, the
where members are sensitive to vertical loads, the influence of damping matrix is formulated by specifying values of critical
the code-specified vertical earthquake load, e.g., the Ev factor damping for one or more vibration modes, using information
in ASCE 7, should be accounted for in the calculated force about the mode shapes and vibration periods. Alternatively, the
demands. damping effects of specific components, such as partition walls,
could be modeled with explicitly defined viscous damping
Gravity loads (defined and factored per ASCE 7) should be terms in the [C] matrix or hysteretic springs in the stiffness
included in the dynamic analyses, so as to account for their [K] matrix.
23
The common Rayleigh and modal damping formulations were specified damping to values within these ranges, it is further
originally developed in the context of linear-elastic dynamic recommended to assess the sensitivity of the calculated demand
analysis, where the stiffness matrix [K] is constant and the parameters to the damping model formulation (e.g., Rayleigh
vibration modes can be uniquely calculated. However, for versus modal) and the assumed critical damping values.
nonlinear analysis, where member stiffnesses are changing
and unique vibration modes do not exist, the application of 6.4 Input Ground Motions
each method has implementation issues, which are discussed
by Hall (2006), Charney (2008), PEER/ATC 72-1, and Input ground motions should be selected and scaled so as to
others. For example, it is generally accepted that the stiffness accurately represent the specific hazard of interest. As outlined
proportional term of the damping matrix (ak[K]) should exclude in ASCE 7, the ground motions should reflect the characteristics
or minimize contributions from components whose stiffness of the dominant earthquake source at the building site, such
changes dramatically during the analysis or for components, as fault mechanism, distance to the fault, site conditions, and
such as rigid links, that are assigned artificially high stiffness. characteristic earthquake magnitude. Recent studies have
Some contend that this concern can be minimized by using the further shown that the shape of the ground motion response
tangent rather than initial elastic stiffness matrix in the stiffness spectra is an important factor in choosing and scaling ground
proportional damping term, while another suggested approach motions, particularly for higher intensity motions (Baker and
is to eliminate the stiffness proportional damping term and to Cornell 2006). While a comprehensive discussion on the
only specify a value for the mass proportional damping term selection and scaling of ground motion records is beyond the
(am[M]). At present there is no clear consensus as to how to scope of this Technical Brief, the following are some of the
resolve these issues; moreover, some of the proposed solutions issues to consider:
must be implemented within the software formulation and
cannot otherwise be controlled by the software user. Therefore, • Target hazard spectra or scenario: While the earthquake
the software documentation should be consulted for details hazard is a continuum, building codes typically define
on the damping implementation and guidance on specifying specific ground motion hazard levels for specific performance
damping parameters. checks. Generally, the hazard is defined in terms of response
spectral accelerations with a specified mean annual
The inherent damping depends on many factors specific to a frequency of exceedence, although other definitions are
given building, e.g., structural materials, type and detailing of possible including scenario earthquakes, e.g., an earthquake
partition and façade walls, height of building, foundation type, with a specified magnitude and distance from the site, or
and the analysis model (e.g., lumped plasticity versus fiber deterministic bounds on ground motion intensities.
type models). Therefore it is difficult to generalize as to the
appropriate amount of additional damping to use in a nonlinear • Source of ground motions: For building assessment and
analysis. As summarized in PEER/ATC 72-1 measurements of design, the input earthquake ground motions can either be
total damping, expressed in terms of percent critical damping (1) actual recorded ground motions from past earthquakes,
in the first translational mode, range from low values of 0.5 % (2) spectrally matched ground motions that are created by
to 1 % in buildings under wind and ambient vibrations up to manipulating the frequency content and intensity of recorded
10 % in buildings subjected to earthquakes. However, in the ground motions to match a specific hazard spectrum, or (3)
latter case, the measured damping of 10 % is likely to reflect artificially simulated motions. Opinions differ as to which
energy dissipation due to both nonlinear hysteretic and inherent types are most appropriate. Recorded ground motions
damping. Thus, reported measurements of damping require are generally scaled to match the hazard spectrum at one
careful interpretation. or more periods. For example, ASCE 7 specifies rules
for scaling the ground motions based on their spectral
Based on these observations and guidance in various documents, acceleration values for periods between 0.2T to 1.5T, where
it is suggested to specify equivalent viscous damping in the T is the fundamental period of vibration of the structure.
range of 1 % to 5 % of critical damping over the range of When structures are expected to respond in multiple modes,
elastic periods from 0.2T to 1.5T (with T as defined previously). such as in tall buildings, spectral matching may be more
Critical damping values should be specified in the lower end of appropriate, since scaling of actual recorded motions to
this range for (1) tall buildings and other structures where there a uniform hazard spectrum may bias the analysis results
is less participation by partition walls, cladding and foundations, to either overestimate the response at short periods or
and (2) service level earthquake analyses where story drift underestimate it at longer periods.
ratios are limited to about 0.005. For tall buildings, the Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center guidelines (PEER • Number of ground motions: Given the inherent variability
2010) recommend that viscous damping be less than 2.5% over in earthquake ground motions, design standards typically
the range of predominant modes, and Council on Tall Buildings require analyses for multiple ground motions to provide
and the Urban Habitat (Willford et al. 2008) recommends statistically robust measures of the demands. For example,
damping values in the range of 1% to 2%. Beyond limiting the ASCE 7 requires analyses for at least seven ground motions
24
(or ground motion pairs for three-dimensional analyses) to Therefore, the first step before any interpretation of results
determine mean values of demand parameters for design. should be to establish confidence in the reliability of the model
In concept, it is possible to obtain reliable mean values with through strategies such as described in Sidebar 7. Moreover, as
fewer records, such as through the use of spectrally matched described in Sidebar 9, nonlinear static analyses can be used to
records, but there is currently no consensus on methods augment the nonlinear dynamic analysis to interrogate structural
to do so. Moreover, while one could calculate additional behavior and the effect of design changes on the demands.
statistics besides the mean, e.g., the standard deviation of
the demand parameters, the reliability of such statistics is Shown in Figure 6-1 is an illustration of results for nonlinear
questionable when based on only seven ground motions. static and dynamic analyses of an eight-story concrete frame,
This is especially true when spectrally matched records are based on a study by Haselton and Deierlein (2007). Included
used, where the natural variability in the ground motions are (a) the static pushover curve, (b) story drift ratios from static
is suppressed. analysis for three target roof displacements, (c) peak story drifts
versus ground motion intensity from dynamic analyses for
6.5 Interpretation of Results seven ground motions, and (d) medians of the peak story drift
ratios from dynamic analyses at three ground motion intensities.
Given the inherent variability in the response of structures The results shown here are just a small sample of the demand
to earthquake ground motions and the many simplifying parameters that would need to be checked at appropriate
assumptions made in analysis, the results of any linear or earthquake intensity levels. For comparison purposes, the story
nonlinear analysis for earthquake performance should be drift ratios from the static (Figure 6-1b) and dynamic (Figure
interpreted with care. While nonlinear dynamic analyses will, 6-1d) analyses are plotted at corresponding ground motion
in theory, provide more realistic measures of response than intensities. In this example, the differences in median drift
other methods, the reliability of nonlinear dynamic analyses ratios from these two methods are rather modest, especially in
can be sensitive to modeling assumptions and parameters. comparison to the large variability among individual ground
(a) Nonlinear static procedure pushover plot (b) Nonlinear static procedure story drift distribution
(c) Nonlinear dynamic procedure peak story drifts (d) Nonlinear dynamic procedure story drift distribution
Figure 6-1 – Nonlinear analysis results for eight story concrete moment frame (adapted from Haselton and Deierlein 2007).
25
motions (Figure 6-1c). NIST (2010) conducted a more detailed and/or static nonlinear analyses to characterize the change in
study of the relative accuracy between nonlinear static and the calculated demand parameters.
dynamic analyses.
In spite of the large inherent uncertainties in earthquake ground
According to ASCE 7 and as commonly applied in practice, motions and their effects on structures, nonlinear dynamic
when seven or more ground motions are run, the calculated analysis is considered to be the most reliable method available
mean demand parameter values should be compared to the to evaluate the earthquake performance of buildings. Primarily,
acceptance criteria for the specified performance levels. the nonlinear dynamic procedure enables the evaluation of
Assuming a lognormal distribution of demand parameters design decisions on a more consistent and rational basis as
with a dispersion (standard deviation of the natural log of the compared to other simplified analysis methods. The potential
data and similar to a coefficient of variation) of 0.5, the checks impact of uncertainties in the structural response can, to some
based on mean values imply that the acceptance criteria would extent, be mitigated through capacity design approaches in new
be exceeded about 40 % of the time. This large probability of buildings and to some extent in devising structural retrofits
exceedence is an accepted standard of practice, provided that for existing buildings. Otherwise, the uncertainties can be
the likelihood (e.g., mean annual frequency of exceedence) of addressed using the methods suggested previously. Ultimately,
the specified earthquake intensity is sufficiently low for the the engineer must understand the capabilities and limitations
performance level being checked. However, where “overload” of any method of analysis and make appropriate use of it to
of non-ductile force-controlled components may lead to sudden characterize the structural behavior with sufficient accuracy
failures that could significantly affect the overall building and confidence for design.
safety, it is generally recognized that more stringent criteria
should be applied.
The PEER Seismic Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings (2010)

specify required strengths for force-controlled elements equal
to 1.3 to 1.5 times the mean demand parameter, where the
lower multiplier (1.3) is permitted for systems where capacity
design is used to shield force-controlled members. Assuming
dispersion of 0.5 in the displacement demands, there is a 15 %
to 20 % probability that the actual demands will exceed the
specified required strengths, i.e., 1.3 to 1.5 times the calculated
mean demands. Whether or not these increased deformation
demands will translate into increased component force demands
depends on the structural configuration and the interaction
of yielding and non-yielding components. While relatively
straightforward to apply, the simple demand multipliers
assume a fixed relationship between ground motion intensities,
drifts, and component deformation and force demands. This
assumption is very approximate for nonlinear systems. An
alternative method to evaluate the increased demands is to
(1) repeat the nonlinear dynamic analyses for ground motions
whose intensities are factored up by an appropriate factor (e.g.,
a factor of 1.5 based on the PEER guidelines), and (2) calculate
mean demands for critical force-controlled components under
the amplified input motions. This alternative procedure has the
benefit of accounting directly for inelastic force redistributions
and possible shielding of force-controlled components. While
both of these approaches account for variability in earthquake
ground motions, neither directly addresses structural model
uncertainties, where the variation in response of specific
structural components may change the inelastic mechanisms
and distribution of internal forces and deformations. Therefore,
where the uncertainty in analysis model parameters is large and
has the potential to significantly alter the structural response,
it may be appropriate to interrogate the model for such effects.
This could be done by systematically varying the model
properties for the critical components and conducting dynamic
26
7. References
ACI (2008). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary (ACI 318R-08), American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
AISC (2010). Seismic provisions for structural steel buildings, ANSI/AISC 341-10, American Institute of Steel Construction,
Chicago, IL.
ASCE (2007). Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE/SEI Standard 41-06 with supplement 1, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ASCE (2010). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE/SEI Standard ASCE 7-10, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ATC (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, ATC 40, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA.
ATC (2009). Guidelines for seismic performance assessment of buildings, ATC 58, 50 % Draft Report, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, CA.
Baker, J. W. and Cornell, C. A. (2006). “Spectral shape, epsilon and record selection,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 35 (9), p. 1077-1095.
Charney, F. A. (2008). “Unintended consequences of modeling damping in structures,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 134 (4), p. 581-592.
Charney, F. A. and Marshall, J. D. (2006). “A comparison of the Krawinkler and scissors models for including beam-column
joint deformations in the analysis of moment-resisting steel frames,” Engineering Journal, American Institute of Steel
Construction, 43 (1), p. 31-48.
Charney, F. A. and McNamara, R. J. (2008). “A method for computing equivalent viscous damping ratio for structures with
added viscous damping,” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 134 (1), p. 32-44.
Constantinou, M. C. and Symans, M. D. (1993). “Seismic response of structures with supplemental damping,” Structural
Design of Tall Buildings, 2 (2), p. 77-92.
Constantinou, M. C., Soong, T. T., and Dargush, G. F. (1998). Passive energy dissipation for structural design and retrofit,
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Monograph Series, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY.
Constantinou, M. C., Reinhorn, A. M., Tsopelas, P., and Nagarajaiah, S. (1999). “Techniques in the nonlinear dynamic
analysis of seismic isolated structures,” Structural Dynamic Systems Computational Techniques and Optimization: Seismic
Techniques, Gordon and Breach International Series in Engineering Technology and Applied Science, Vol. 12, p. 1-24,
Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Fell, B. V., Kanvinde, A., and Deierlein, G. G. (2010). Large-scale testing and simulation of earthquake induced ultra low
cycle fatigue in bracing members subjected to cyclic inelastic buckling, Blume Earthquake Engineering Center TR 172,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
FEMA (1997). NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA Report 273, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2002). Earthquake loss estimation methodology, HAZUS99-SR2, advanced engineering building module, technical
and user’s manual. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2005). Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, FEMA Report 440, Washington, D.C.
27
FEMA (2006). HAZUS-MH MR2 Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology, earthquake model, technical manual. Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2009a). Effects of strength and stiffness degradation on the seismic response of structural systems, FEMA Report
440a, Washington, D.C.
FEMA (2009b). Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings, FEMA Report 306, Washington,
D.C.
Ghobarah, A. and Biddah, A. (1999). “Dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete frames including joint shear deformation,”
Engineering Structures, 21 (11), p. 971-987.
Hall, J. F. (2006). “Problems encountered from the use (or misuse) of Rayleigh damping,” Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 35 (5), p. 525-545.
Hamburger, R. O., Krawinkler, H. K., Malley, J. O., and Adan, S. M. (2009). Seismic design of special moment frames: A
guide for practicing engineers, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 2., NIST GCR 09-917-3, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Haselton, C. B. and Deierlein, G. G. (2007). Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame
buildings, Blume Earthquake Engineering Center TR 156, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
Ibarra, L., Medina, R., and Krawinkler, H. (2005). “Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration,”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 34 (12), p. 1489-1511.
Kadysiewski, S. and Mosalam, K. M. (2009). Modeling of unreinforced masonry infill walls considering in-plane and out-
of-plane interaction, PEER Report 2008/102, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at
Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Kircher, C. A., Nassar, A. A., Kustu, O., and Holmes, W. T. (1997a). “Development of Building Damage Functions for
Earthquake Loss Estimation,” Earthquake Spectra, 13 (4), p. 663-682.
Kircher, C. A., Reitherman, R. K., Whitman, R. V., and Arnold, C. (1997b). “Estimation of Earthquake Losses to Buildings,”
Earthquake Spectra, 13 (4), p. 703-720.
Kunnath, S. K., Reinhorn, A. M. and Park, Y. J. (1990). “Analytical modeling of inelastic seismic response of R/C
structures,” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 116 (4), p. 996-1017.
Lowes, L. N. and Altoontash, A. (2003). “Modeling reinforced concrete beam-column joints subjected to cyclic loading,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 129 (12), p. 1686-1697.
Madan, A., Reinhorn, A. M., Mander, J., and Valles, R. (1997). “Modeling of Masonry Infill Panels For Structural Analysis,”
Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 123 (10), p. 1295-1302.
Moehle, J. P., Hooper, J. D., and Lubke, C. D. (2008). Seismic design of reinforced concrete special moment frames: A
guide for practicing engineers, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 1., NIST GCR 09-917-1, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Moehle, J. P., Hooper, J. D., Kelly, D. J., and Meyer T. R. (2010). Seismic design of cast-in-place concrete diaphragms,
chords, and collectors, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 3., NIST GCR 10-917-4, National Institute of Standards
and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Nagarajaiah, S., Reinhorn, A. M., and Constantinou, M. C. (1991). “Nonlinear dynamic analysis of three dimensional base
isolated structures,” Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 117 (7), p. 2035-2054.
28
Naeim, F. and Kelly, J. M. (1999). Design of seismic isolated structures: From theory to practice, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, NY.
NIST (2010). Applicability of nonlinear multiple-degree-of-freedom modeling for design, NIST GCR 10-917-9, prepared by
the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York, NY.
PEER (2010). Seismic design guidelines for tall buildings, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
PEER/ATC (2010). Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings, PEER/ATC 72-1
Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, October 2010.
Powell, G. (2010). Modeling for structural analysis – Behavior and basics, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA (in
press).
Reinhorn, A. M., Roh, H., Sivaselvan, M., Kunnath, S. K., Valles, R. E., Madan, A., Li, C., Lobo, R., and Park, Y. J. (2009).
IDARC 2D Version 7.0: A program for the inelastic damage analysis of structures, Technical Report MCEER-09-0006,
University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
Schachter, M. and Reinhorn, A. M. (2007). Three-dimensional modeling of inelastic buckling in frame structures, Technical
Report MCEER-07-0016, University at Buffalo, State University of New York.
Spacone, E., Filippou, F. C., and Taucer, F. F. (1996). “Fiber beam-column model for nonlinear analysis of R/C frames. 1:
formulation,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25 (7), p. 711-725.
Tang, X. and Goel, S. C. (1989). “Brace fractures and analysis of phase I structures,” Journal of Structural Engineering,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 115 (8), p. 1960-1976.
Uriz, P. and Mahin, S. A. (2008). Towards earthquake resistant design of concentrically braced steel structures, PEER
2008/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
Willford, M., Whittaker, A., and Klemencic, R. (2008). Recommendations for the seismic design of high-rise buildings,
Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL.
Wilson, E. (2002). Three-dimensional static and dynamic analysis of structures, 3rd Ed., Computers and Structures Inc.,
Berkeley, CA.
Werkle, H. and Waas, G. (1986). “Dynamic stiffness of foundations on inhomogeneous soils,” Proceedings of the 8th
European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal.
Wolf, J. P. (1985). Dynamic soil-structure interaction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
29
8. Notations and Abbreviations
30
Abbreviations
ACI American Concrete Institute
AISC American Institute of Steel Construction
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ATC Applied Technology Council
CUREE Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
SEI Structural Engineering Institute
PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
31
9. Credits
Cover photo Image courtesy of Tipping Mar
Figure 1-1 (a) Image courtesy of KMD Architects and Tipping Mar
Figure 1-1 (b) Image courtesy of Tipping Mar
Figure 2-1 Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Andrei Reinhorn
Figure 2-4 Image courtesy of American Society of Civil Engineers

Printed with permission from ASCE
Figure 2-5 Image courtesy of Applied Technology Council
Figure 2-6 Image courtesy of Federal Emergency Management Agency
Figure 3-1 Image courtesy of Greg Deierlein
Figure 3-2 Image courtesy of Benjamin Fell
Figure 4-1 Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Michael Willford
Figure 4-2 Image courtesy of Kevin Wong and Michael Willford
Figure 5-1 Image courtesy of Federal Emergency Management Agency
Figure 6-1 Image courtesy of Curt Haselton and Greg Deierlein
32
View publication stats

Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design-A Guide For Practicing Engineers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design-A Guide For Practicing Engineers

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

Nonlinear Structural Analysis For Seismic Design-A Guide For Practicing Engineers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design- A Guide for Practicing

Book · January 2010

Andrei M Reinhorn Gregory G Deierlein

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4

Nonlinear Structural Analysis

A Guide for Practicing Engineers

Applied Technology Council (ATC) Consortium of Universities for Research in

Nonlinear Structural Analysis

A Guide for Practicing Engineers

Gregory G. Deierlein, Ph.D., P.E.

Andrei M. Reinhorn, Ph.D., S.E.

Michael R. Willford, M.A., C.Eng.

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Institute of Standards and Technology

How to Cite This Publication

While the risk (or likelihood) of exceeding the damage

• Reliable energy dissipation by enforcing deformation 1.2 Background on Use of Nonlinear

More recently, the role of nonlinear dynamic analysis for design

1.3 Definitions of Terms in this Guide

Backbone Curve: Relationship between the generalized force

Cyclic Strength Degradation: Reduction in strength, measured

Figure 2-1 – Idealized models of beam-column elements.

Figure 2-2 – Idealized axial-force-moment demands and strength interaction surfaces.

Figure 2-3 – Types of hysteretic modeling.

Strength loss occurs in subsequent cycles; Strength loss occurs during

Cyclic strength degradation In-cycle strength degradation

Figure 2-6 – Cyclic versus in-cycle degradation (FEMA 2005).

Shown in Figure 2-8 is an idealized base shear versus drift

2.4 Geometric Nonlinear Effects 2.5 Characterization of Model Parameters

Figure 3-1 – Beam to column connection.

(a) Measured axial force-deformation (b) Experimental set-up

Figure 3-2 – Nonlinear response of axial brace (Fell et al. 2010).

The axial-flexural fiber model, which provides a good

Figure 3-5 – Idealized response plots of energy dissipation devices.

For further details about modeling of devices for nonlinear

3.7 Seismic Isolators

Seismic isolators can be generally classified as either elastomeric

The elastomeric bearings may be modeled similarly to the

• The foundation system alters the soil properties

In the indirect approach, the dynamic compliances of the soil

The properties of the spring damper pairs may be based on (1)

The horizontal dimension of the soil block should be sufficiently

Figure 4-2 – Soil structure interaction - indirect approach.

5.4 Acceptability Criteria and Performance

At a given target displacement, the nonlinear static procedure

Nonlinear dynamic analysis methods generally provide

The PEER Seismic Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings (2010)

ACI American Concrete Institute

AISC American Institute of Steel Construction

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ATC Applied Technology Council

CUREE Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

SEI Structural Engineering Institute

PEER Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center