You are on page 1of 26

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.93)

Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control


Rafael Riddell1;; and Jaime E. Garcia2
1 Department

of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering; Universidad Catolica de Chile; Santiago; Chile


2 Department of Civil Engineering; Universidad de Cuenca; Azuay; Ecuador

SUMMARY
The inelastic response of single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems subjected to earthquake motions
is studied and a method to derive hysteretic energy dissipation spectra is proposed. The amount of
energy dissipated through inelastic deformation combined with other response parameters allow the estimation of the required deformation capacity to avoid collapse for a given design earthquake. In the
=rst part of the study, a detailed analysis of correlation between energy and ground motion intensity
indices is carried out to identify the indices to be used as scaling parameters and base line of the
energy dissipation spectrum. The response of elastoplastic, bilinear, and sti?ness degrading systems
with 5 per cent damping, subjected to a world-wide ensemble of 52 earthquake records is considered.
The statistical analysis of the response data provides the factors for constructing the energy dissipation spectrum as well as the NewmarkHall inelastic spectra. The combination of these spectra allows
the estimation of the ultimate deformation capacity required to survive the design earthquake, capacity that can also be presented in spectral form as an example shows. Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS:

hysteretic energy; intensity index; energy spectrum; non-linear response; ultimate


deformation; structural damage

INTRODUCTION
Over the last 10 or 15 years the concern in seismic design has been progressively shifting
to performance. Damage observed during earthquakes seems to have called the attention of
the earthquake design community, including developed countries, in the sense that a code
designed building may not necessarily ful=ll the earthquake design philosophy [1] that if an
unusual earthquake, somewhat greater than the most severe probable earthquake that is likely
within the expected life of the building, should occur, the structure may undergo larger deformations and have serious permanent displacements and possibly require major repair, but it

Correspondence to: Rafael Riddell, Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Universidad CatGolica
de Chile, Casilla 306-Correo 22, Santiago, Chile.
E-mail: riddell@ing.puc.cl
Contract=grant sponsor: National Science and Technology Foundation of Chile (FONDECYT); contract=grant number: 1990112

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 18 May 2000


Revised 2 November 2000 and 12 February 2001
Accepted 14 March 2001

1792

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

will not collapse. The reason is that the seismic code emphasis is on strength, while toughness should result from compliance with the material design code, but no accurate veri=cation
of the seismic performance of the designed structure is ever made. Although there is possible
agreement that non-linear 3-D history analyses for veri=cation ground motions is the answer,
signi=cant improvement and standardization of these procedures is still necessary for general
use in the profession. But the problem is not only one of veri=cation against collapse. The
number of deaths and the important economic losses induced by recent earthquakes suggest
that the acceptable level of damage also needs to be revised. It is therefore expected that
damage assessment will become a central issue in the years to come. Until the aforementioned sophisticated analysis procedures become generally available, simpler approaches are
necessary. The development of simple techniques also permits one to gain insight into the
fundamental principles governing a problem. With the previous objectives in mind, hysteretic
energy dissipation was studied, starting from a thorough consideration of the correlation between energy and intensity indices and ending with the rules to construct energy spectra. The
energy spectrum is necessary to asses seismic structural damage, since recent approaches consider structural damage as a combination of maximum deformation (or ductility) and the e?ect
of repeated cyclic response in the inelastic range or cumulative damage. Available damage
models can be directly applied from the energy spectrum and standard NewmarkHall spectra,
establishing a direct relationship between strength, ductility, deformation, energy dissipation
and damage.
STRUCTURAL MODELS AND GROUND MOTIONS CONSIDERED
A simple SDOF system was used in this study, with the forcedisplacement relationship given
by three non-linear models: elastoplastic, bilinear, and sti?ness degrading (Figure 1). These

Figure 1. Single-degree-of-freedom system and non-linear loaddeformation models used.


Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1793

models cover a broad range of structural behaviour; they are intended to represent overall
generic behaviour, rather than speci=c characteristics of individual systems [2; 3]. Strength
deterioration was not considered, mainly because in a well-detailed structure it should only
occur at extreme deformations near the failure state. A damping factor  = 0:05 (5 per cent
of critical) was used.
Fifty-two earthquake records were used as input ground motion (Table I). These records
represent moderate-to-large intensities of motion. Damage was observed near the recording
site of all these motions. Most of them satisfy the following intensity condition: peak ground
acceleration larger than 0:25 g and=or peak ground velocity larger than 25 cm=sec. It was not
attempted to group the records according to similar characteristics regarding soil conditions,
tectonic environment, Mercalli Intensity, distance to fault, or others; the reason was in part
the lack of dataon geotechnical information for exampleand the diOculty to form groups
of statistical signi=cance. Indeed, if families of similar characteristics could be arranged in
future studies, the scatter of results should decrease so that energy estimates could be made
more accurately. It must be pointed out, however, that the =ndings of the study may not be
directly extrapolated to soft soils since most of the ground motion data considered is on =rm
ground.
EQUATION OF MOTION AND ENERGY EXPRESSIONS
The equation of motion of the system shown in Figure 1 can be written as
u(t)
Q + 2!u(t)
+

R(u)
= y(t)
Q
m

(1)


where u is the relative displacement of mass m with respect to its base, ! = k=m is the
undamped elastic circular frequency, R(u) is the hysteretic restoring force with sti?ness parameter k (Figure 1),  = c=2!m is the damping factor as a fraction of the critical value,
and y(t)
Q
is the base acceleration. Integrating Equation (1) with respect to u leads to the
well-known energy balance equation [4; 5] which must hold at any time during motion:

E K + E D + E H + ES = EI
where, using du = u dt,

EK =

1
2 u(0)
u(t)
Q u(t)
dt = [u(t)
2]
2

(2)

(3)

represents the kinetic energy per unit of mass, which becomes null if the initial velocity is
zero and the integration is carried out long enough until the system comes to rest;
 t
u 2 (t) dt
(4)
ED = 2!
0

is the energy per unit of mass dissipated by the viscous damper;



1 t
E H + ES =
R(u)u(t)
dt
m 0
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

(5)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1794

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

Table I. Earthquakes records used in this study.


Station, component, date

CMD Vernon, U.S.A. S08W (10=3=1933)


El Centro, U.S.A. S00E (18=5=1940)
Olympia, U.S.A. N86E (13=4=1949)
Eureka, U.S.A. N79E (21=12=1954)
Ferndale, U.S.A. N44E (21=12=1954)
Kushiro Kisyo-Dai, Japan, N90E (23=4=1962)
Ochiai Bridge, Japan, N00E (5=4=1966)
Temblor, U.S.A. S25W (27=6=1966)
Cholame 2, U.S.A. N65E (27=6=1966)
Cholame 5, U.S.A. N85E (27=6=1966)
Lima, Peru, N08E (17=10=1966)
El Centro, U.S.A. S00W (8=4=1968)
Hachinohe, Japan, N00E (16=5=1968)
Aomori, Japan, N00E (16=5=1968)
Muroran, Japan, N00E (16=5=1968)
Itajima Bridge, Japan, Long. (6=8=1968)
Itajima Bridge, Japan, Long. (21=9=1968)
Toyohama Bridge, Japan, Long. (5=1=1971)
Pacoima, U.S.A. S16E (9=2=1971)
Orion LA, U.S.A. N00W (9=2=1971)
Castaic, U.S.A. N21E (9=2=1971)
Bucarest, Romania, S00E (4=3=1977)
San Juan, Argentina, S90E (23=11=1977)
Ventanas, Chile, Trans. (7=11=1981)
Papudo, Chile, Long. (7=11=1981)
La Ligua, Chile, Long. (7=11=1981)
Rapel, Chile, N00E (3=3=1985)
Zapallar, Chile, N90E (3=3=1985)
Llo-Lleo, Chile, N10E (3=3=1985)
Vina del Mar, Chile, S20W (3=3=1985)
UTFSM, Chile, N70E (3=3=1985)
Papudo, Chile, S40E (3=3=1985)
Llay Llay, Chile, S10W (3=3=1985)
San Felipe, Chile, N80E (3=3=1985)
El Almendral, Chile, N50E (3=3=1985)
Melipilla, Chile, N00E (3=3=1985)
Pichilemu, Chile, N00E (3=3=1985)
Iloca, Chile, N90E (3=3=1985)
SCT, Mexico, N90E (19=9=1985)
Corralitos, U.S.A. N00E (18=10=1985)
KSR Kushiro, Japan, N63E (15=1=1993)
Pacoima DAM, U.S.A. S05E (17=1=1994)
Newhall, U.S.A. N00E (17=1=1994)
Pacoima-Kagel, U.S.A. N00E (17=1=1994)
Sylmar, U.S.A. N00E (17=1=1994)
Santa Monica, U.S.A. N90E (17=1=1994)

Maximum
acceleration
(g)

Maximum
velocity
(cm=sec)

Maximum
displacement
(cm)

0:133
0:348

29:03
33:45

19:50
12:36
9:38
12:55

0.280
0.258
0:159
0.478
0:276
0.348
0.489
0.434
0.409
0.130
0.269
0:257
0:220
0.612
0:261
0.450
1.171
0.255
0.316
0.206
0.193
0.268
0:603
0:469
0.467
0.304
0:712
0.363
0.176
0.231
0:352
0.434
0.297
0:686
0.259
0.278
0:171
0.630
0.725
0:415
0.591
0.433
0.843
0:883

17.09

29:38
35:65
20:01

23.66

22:52

78.08
25.44
15:20
25:81
35:43
39:12
30.28
22:56
12:93
15.90
113.23
30.00
17.16
75.12
20:60
17:87
18:93
18:83
21:64
13.46
40:29
30.74
14.60
12.41
41:79
17:77
28:58
34.25
11:68
15.09
60:61
55:20
33.59
44.68
94:73
50:88
128:88
41.75

14.72
5.22
8.36
5:55
26:27
6:89
11:67
12.96
9:68
19:97
7.90
4:59
2:80
3.38
41:92
16.53
5:05
19:93
6.33
8:04
7:43
4.49
6:54
1:69
10:49
5:42
3.11
1.60
8.43
3:50
5:78
12.02
3.73
1.39
21.16
12.03
4.73
4.65
28.81
6:64
30:67
15:09
Continued

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1795

Table I. Continued
Station, component, date

Maximum
acceleration
(g)

Moorpark, U.S.A. S00E (17=1=1994)


Castaic, U.S.A. N90E (17=1=1994)
Arleta, U.S.A. N90E (17=1=1994)
Century City-LA, U.S.A. N90E (17=1=1994)
Obregon Park-LA, U.S.A. N00E (17=1=1994)
Hollywood-LA, U.S.A. N00E (17=1=1994)

0.292
0.568
0.344
0.256
0:408
0:389

Maximum
velocity
(cm=sec)
20.28

51:51
40:37

21.36
30:86
22.26

Maximum
displacement
(cm)
4.67

9:19

8.36

6:51
2:65

4.27

is a term that composes the hysteretic energy EH , or energy dissipated per unit of mass by
inelastic behaviour, and the stored elastic-strain energy per unit mass ES , which also vanishes
when the system comes to rest; and
 u
 t
y(t)
Q du =
y(t)
Q u(t)
dt
(6)
EI =
0

is the energy input per unit of mass, or energy supplied to the system by the moving base.
Then, at the end of the motion, Equation (2) becomes
E H + ED = EI

(7)

i.e. the total energy imparted to the structure by the earthquake must be dissipated by damping
and inelastic deformations.
CORRELATION BETWEEN ENERGY AND GROUND MOTION INTENSITY INDICES
The correlation between EI and EH and various indices that have been proposed to characterize
the intensity of earthquake motions was studied with the purpose of identifying appropriate
normalization or scaling parameters to derive energy spectra. It is well known that the intensity of motion cannot be satisfactorily characterized by a single parameter. Consequently, as
in the case of response spectra, it was expected that di?erent intensity measures would be suitable in the three characteristic spectral regions: short period (acceleration sensitive systems),
intermediate period (velocity controlled responses) and long period (displacement sensitive
systems). Thus, a number of indices were considered as described next.
Arias [6; 7] proposed a measure of earthquake intensity that relates to the sum of the
energies dissipated, per unit of mass, by a population of damped oscillators of all natural
frequencies (0!):
 tf
cos1 
IA () = 
yQ 2 (t) dt
(8)
g 1 2 0
where tf is the total duration of the ground motion and g is the acceleration of gravity. Housner
[8] argued that a measure of seismic destructiveness could be given by the average rate of
buildup of the total energy per unit mass input to structures; considering that the integral of
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1796

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

the squared ground acceleration was proportional to the total input energy, he proposed the
earthquake power index
 t2
1
yQ 2 (t) dt
(9)
P=
t1 t2 t1
where t1 and t2 are the limits of the strong portion of motion. Mathematically, Equation (9)
is the average value of the squared acceleration over the interval between t1 and t2 . The
popular de=nition of signi=cant duration of motion after Trifunac and Brady [9] was adopted
in this study, i.e. the interval between instants t5 and t95 at which 5 and 95 per cent of the
integral in Equation (8) is attained, respectively. Then the earthquake power, or mean-square
acceleration, is given by Equation (10), and similarly the indices mean-square velocity Pv and
mean-square displacement Pd can be de=ned as given by Equations (11) and (12):
 t95
1
Pa =
yQ 2 (t) dt
(10)
t95 t5 t5
 t95
1
y 2 (t) dt
(11)
Pv =
t95 t5 t5
 t95
1
y2 (t) dt
(12)
Pd =
t95 t5 t5
where y(t)
and y(t) are the ground velocity and displacement histories, respectively. Hereafter,
the signi=cant duration will be designated as td = t95 t5 . For simplicity, without regard to
duration or to the constants involved in Equation (8), the integrals of the squared ground
motions have been used [10] as indices in the form:
 tf
Ea =
yQ 2 (t) dt
(13)


Ev =

tf

Ed =

y 2 (t) dt

(14)

y2 (t) dt

(15)

tf

The root-mean-square
values of the ground motions, or e?ective values arms = Pa , vrms = Pv ,

[1113]
and drms = Pd have also been considered as potential measures of earthquake intensity

as well asthe square root of the integral of the squared ground motions: ars = Ea , vrs = Ev ,
and drs = Ed .
Other indices, which are based on the previously discussed quantities and include new
parameters, have been proposed as descriptors of earthquake intensity. Araya and Saragoni
[14] de=ned the potential destructiveness of an earthquake as

PD =

IA
02

(16)

where IA is given by Equation (8) and 0 is the number of zero-crossings per unit of time
of the accelerogram; the signi=cance of this parameter is the incorporation of the frequency
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1797

content of the ground motion through 0 . Park et al. [15] found that the characteristic intensity
0:5
IC = a1:5
rms td

(17)

was a reasonable representation of the destructiveness of ground motions because it correlated


well with structural damage expressed in terms of their damage index (Equation (37)). Fajfar
et al. [16] proposed the expression
IF = vmax td0:25

(18)

as a measure of the ground motion capacity to damage structures with fundamental periods
in the intermediate period range, wherein vmax is the peak ground velocity.
All the above indices depend only on the ground motions. They were used together with the
peak values of ground acceleration amax , ground velocity vmax , and ground displacement dmax to
test their correlation with the input and hysteretic energies. Only one response-related parameter, Housners spectral intensity, was used as well. Since the pseudo-velocity response Sv and
the maximum strain energy stored in a linearly elastic system are related by ES max = mSv2 =2,
Housner [17] argued that the spectrum itself was a measure of the severity of the earthquake,
and de=ned the spectral intensity
 2:5
Sv (; T ) dT
(19)
SI () =
0:1

Systems associated to three control frequencies 0.2, 1 and 5 cps were chosen as representative
of the three characteristic spectral regions. Two types of energy were computed for each control frequency: input energy for an elastic system, or energy dissipated by damping (EI = ED ),
and hysteretic energy EH dissipated by an inelastic system for a response associated to a
ductility factor  = 3. Use of other values of  led to the same conclusions. To visualize the
correlation among energy and the intensity indices, plots like Figure 2 were made for all the
indices. In particular, Figure 2 shows the relation between index Ev (Equation (14)) and EH ,
where each asterisk corresponds to each of the 52 earthquake records; it can be seen that Ev
and EH correlate well for intermediate and low-frequency systems (1 and 0:2 cps), but they
show no relation at all for 5 cps. To have an objective measure of the correlation, a curve of
the form
E = Q

(20)

was =tted to the data, where E is the energy, Q is the intensity index and  and  are the
non-linear regression parameters (or linear regression between the logarithms of the variables);
the goodness of the =t is quanti=ed by the correlation coeOcient given by



n (n Q n E) n Q n E
(21)
=  



(n (n Q)2 ( n Q)2 )(n (n E)2 ( n E)2 )
The correlation coeOcients for energy vs intensity, for all the indices, and for the three control
frequencies, are summarized in Tables II and III; the indices ranked top-=ve for each frequency
are noted. The correlation coeOcient is the same for indices that di?er only by a constant or
by the exponent. Several observations can be made from the results presented in these tables:
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1798

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

Figure 2. Hysteretic energy per unit of mass EH vs ground motion intensity index Ev for
control frequencies of 0.2, 1 and 5 cps.

(a) as expected, no index shows satisfactory correlation with energy in the three spectral
regions simultaneously, indeed, acceleration related indices (amax ; ars ; arms ; IC ) are better for
rigid systems (5 cps), velocity related indices (vmax ; vrs ; vrms ; IF ; SI ) are better for intermediate
frequency systems (1 cps), and displacement related indices are better for Yexible systems
(dmax ; drs ) although some velocity related indices also do well in the displacement region;
(b) the peak ground motion parameters (amax ; vmax ; dmax ) show good correlation, specially in
the displacement and acceleration regions where dmax and amax are the best, or nearly the
best indices; (c) considering the previous observation, and recalling that Nau and Hall [10]
tested the same indices used herein (except PD ; IC and IF ) and found that none of them
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1799

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

Table II. Correlation coeOcient between input energy EI for elastic


systems and various intensity indices.
Index
dmax
vmax
amax
Ed and drs
Ev and vrs
IA and Ea and ars
Pd and drms
Pv and vrms
Pa and arms
PD
IC
IF
SI
td

f = 0:2 cps

f = 1 cps

Rank

0.862
0.736
0.127
0.811
0.905
0.341
0.748
0.761
0.139
0.685
0.289
0.817
0.842
0.201

0.469
0.657
0.353
0.403
0.785
0.612
0.323
0.574
0.294
0.553
0.536
0.772
0.792
0.301

5
1

4
3

f = 5 cps

Rank
4
2
5

3
1

Rank

0.244
0.083
0.664
0.216
0.029
0.713
0.309
0.091
0.514
0.156
0.693
0.039
0.012
0.122

3
1
4
2

Table III. Correlation coeOcient between hysteretic energy EH for elastoplastic systems with response
ductility  = 3 and various intensity indices.
Index
dmax
vmax
amax
Ed and drs
Ev and vrs
IA and Ea and ars
Pd and drms
Pv and vrms
Pa and arms
PD
IC
IF
SI
td

f = 0:2 cps

f = 1 cps

Rank

0.918
0.750
0.027
0.886
0.871
0.175
0.839
0.766
0.052
0.669
0.140
0.804
0.826
0.129

0.629
0.781
0.276
0.531
0.901
0.549
0.478
0.723
0.281
0.478
0.488
0.878
0.917
0.245

2
3
4

6
5

f = 5 cps

Rank
4
2
5

3
1


0.163
0.108
0.817
0.249
0.050
0.786
0.201
0.140
0.751
0.044
0.839
0.069
0.133
0.110

Rank

2
3
4
1

provided noteworthy advantage over the peak ground motions to predict elastic and inelastic
spectral ordinates, amax ; vmax and dmax must be regarded as signi=cant intensity parameters to
characterize the earthquake demand, and especially because they can be estimated for future
earthquakes with relative ease; (d) Housners intensity is the best index for f = 1 cps, ranks
well for f = 0:2 cps, but does poorly for rigid systems; it should also be noted that SI is a
response variable, hence, it is less desirable as a predictor variable; (e) similarly, Nau and
Hall [10] found that using Housners intensity as scaling parameter, but computed over three
di?erent ranges of frequency, provided less dispersion in the ordinates of normalized elastic
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1800

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

spectra than that which resulted from normalization to the peak ground motion parameters;
however, the advantage faded away for inelastic systems with response ductilities larger than
3; (f) although the duration of motion itself does not correlate well with input energy, nor
dissipated energy, it provides a signi=cant improvement of correlation when combined with
other indices (Parks index presents better correlation with energy than arms , and Fajfars index
improves the correlation of vmax ).
The previously discussed study permitted the narrowing down of the possibilities to a few
indices. Then two further analyses were carried out. First, examining the scatter of energy
spectra (EH ) computed for numerous frequencies, it was con=rmed that the above trends
were not limited to the particular control frequencies used, but actually extended to the entire
frequency range they were meant to represent. And second, considering the convenience of
incorporating td , new compound intensity indices of the form
I = Q 1 td 2

(22)

were evaluated. The exponents 1 and 2 were determined by means of an optimization scheme.
The objective was to minimize, over the three relevant spectral regions, the average coeOcient
of variation COV of energy spectra (EH ) for the 52 records normalized using I as scaling
parameter. The de=nition of COV will be presented in the next section. Exponents were
calculated for numerous cases: using the most promising intensity indices Q in the three
spectral regions, for the three types of forcedeformation relationships, and for =ve levels of
the response ductility factor (1.5, 2, 3, 5 and 10). For each case, the optimization procedure
consisted of varying 1 and 2 in 0.1 increments starting from 1 = 2 = 0, computing COV
for each pair ( 1 ; 2 ) and plotting contour curves of COV. A typical example of such plots
is presented in Figure 3, where the optimum pair is approximately 1 = 0:75 and 2 = 0:35,
for a minimum COV = 0:43. It can be seen in Figure 3 that COV is not very sensitive to
1 and 2 since the surface COV( 1 ; 2 ) has small curvature in the vicinity of its minimum
value. It was found that the indices Q in Equation (22) that led to smaller COVs were dmax
in the displacement region, vrms in the velocity region and amax and arms in the acceleration
region; however, using vrms instead of vmax produced less than 9 per cent reduction on COV,
while using arms instead of amax resulted in negligible variation of COV for elastoplastic
and bilinear systems and 13.6 per cent reduction for sti?ness degrading systems. Considering
that recommendations to estimate the root-mean-square values of future ground motions are
not available, compound intensity indices including only the peak ground motion parameters
dmax ; vmax and amax are proposed. On the other hand, since COV is not very sensitive to 1
and 2 , and the optimum pairs ( 1 ; 2 ) are not signi=cantly di?erent when di?erent ductility
levels and di?erent loaddeformation relationships are considered, values 1 and 2 that can
be approximately applied for all cases were selected. Thus, the following compound intensity
indices are recommended to normalize ground motions to predict energy dissipation during
earthquakes:
Id = dmax td1=3

(23)

2=3 1=3
td
Iv = vmax

(24)

Ia =
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

amax td1=3

(25a)

amax

(25b)
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1801

Figure 3. Contours of the average coeOcient of variation in the velocity region for
1
energy spectra normalized to vmax
td 2 . Sti?ness degrading systems with 5 per cent
damping and response ductility  = 3.

where Id applies in the displacement region of the spectrum for any loaddeformation model,
Iv applies in the velocity region for any model too, and Ia applies in the acceleration region,
with Equation (25a) being suitable for sti?ness degrading models and Equation (25b) for
elastoplastic or bilinear systems.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF EH SPECTRA


Spectra of energy dissipated by inelastic behaviour EH were computed for the 52 records
listed in Table I. An example is shown in Figure 4. It was found convenient to present
the energy spectrum in terms of EH , because this quantity is linearly proportional to the
ground motion amplitude, i.e. if the ground acceleration is ampli=ed by a factor ! the energy
spectrum is ampli=ed by the same factor. At the same time, since the yield levels of the
inelastic systems are taken as a fraction of the elastic response displacement, when a record
is ampli=ed by a factor ! and the yield level is ampli=ed by the same factor, the response
ductility factor is the same as that of a system with the non-ampli=ed loaddeformation
relationship subjected to
the non-ampli=ed motion. In turn, since EH corresponds to dissipated
energy per unit of mass, EH has velocity units and the three axes of the tri-partite logarithmic
plot have the same units of the conventional response spectrum. Therefore, it is appropriate to
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1802

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

Figure 4. Dissipated energy spectrum for the Sylmar N00E record of 17 January 1994. Sti?ness
degrading systems with 5 per cent damping.

refer to the three regions of the energy spectrum as displacement, velocity, and acceleration
regions.
As a =rst step, average spectra are computed. Designating the energy spectrum as

(26)
SH = EH = SH (f; ; ; R(u))
the normalized average spectrum is given by
1  SHi (f)
SZH (f) =
n i=1 Ii
n

(27)

where f is the frequency (f = !=2#), Ii is the normalization factor for the ith record, n
is the number of records and SHi is the ith spectrum for given values of  and  and for
a given restoring-force model. Average energy spectra for sti?ness degrading systems are
2=3
and amax ,
presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7, for spectra normalized to the indices dmax ; vmax
respectively; each =gure is pertinent only in the frequency range that corresponds to the
scaling index used. The shapes of the average spectra for elastoplastic and bilinear systems
are similar to those shown inthese =gures. It can be observed that: (a) for low frequencies,
and for a given value of , EH =! slightly increases with !, it does not vary signi=cantly
with , and it is approximately equal to the peak ground displacement dmax (Figure 5); (b)
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1803

Figure 5. Average energy spectra for records normalized to peak ground displacement (dmax ). Sti?ness
degrading systems with 5 per cent damping.

for intermediate frequencies (Figure 6), EH does not vary signi=cantly


with  either, but
increases as ! increases; and (c) for high frequencies (Figure 7), ! EH decreases as !
increases, but increases with . The average spectra suggest an energy spectrum shaped as
shown in Figure 8. Note that the trilinear spectrum is not parallel to the three axes of the
tripartite logarithmic plot.
The next step is to compute the corner frequencies fdv and fva (Figure 8) that de=ne the
three spectral regions. Lower and upper limits of 0.05 and 20 cps were arbitrarily chosen as
boundaries of the frequency range of practical interest. The trilinear spectrum is de=ned in
the logarithmic space by exponential curves

$ d = % d f &d

(28a)

$ v = % v f &v

(28b)

&a

(28c)

$a = % a f

where the six regression coeOcients % and & are determined by minimizing the square error
between the trilinear spectrum $ and the average energy spectrum SZH (Equation (27)) in each
spectral region:
[2 =
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

nf

j=1

wj [SZH (fj ) $(fj )]2

(29)

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1804

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

2=3
Figure 6. Average energy spectra for records normalized to vmax
. Sti?ness degrading
systems with 5 per cent damping.

where nf is the number of frequencies, wj = 0:5(fj+1 fj1 )=(fu f ) is a weight factor to


account for unequally spaced frequencies, and f and fu are the lower and upper frequencies
of the corresponding spectral region. The iterative procedure begins with assumed values of
the corner frequencies, and new values are computed in each cycle. The conditions $v = !dv $d
and $a = !va $v hold at the corner frequencies fdv and fva ; respectively (with !dv = 2#fdv and
!va = 2#fva ). Thus, using Equations (28), the corner frequencies are


fdv(i) =


fva(i) =

%(i)
v
2#%d(i)
%(i)
a
2#%(i)
v

1+&d(i) &v(i)

1+&v(i) &a(i)

(30a)


(30b)

where i denotes the ith cycle. The procedure converges rapidly until f(i+1) is as close to
f(i) as desired at each corner. The =nal step is to compute statistics in each spectral region,
for each ductility factor, and for each restoring force model. The variance and the standard
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1805

Figure 7. Average energy spectra for records normalized to peak ground acceleration (amax ). Sti?ness
degrading systems with 5 per cent damping.

Figure 8. Shape of the smoothed spectrum of energy dissipation.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1806

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

deviation are de=ned as


n
1
VAR($) =
n i=1

)($) =

fu
f

[SHi (f)=Ii $(f)]2 df


fu f

VAR($)

(31)
(32)

where i denotes the ith record, and n is the number of records. In turn, as mentioned in the
previous section, for the evaluation of the compound intensity indices, the average coeOcient
of variation over a spectral region was computed as
COV($) =


j

wj COV[$(fj )]

(33)

where COV[$(fj )] is the discrete coeOcient of variation for each frequency in the region
given by

1
1
[SHi (fj )=Ii $(fj )]2
(34)
COV[$(fj )] =
$(fj ) n i
The =nal results of the method outlined above are summarized in Tables IV, V and VI for
the elastoplastic, bilinear and sti?ness degrading models, respectively. These tables give the
coeOcients % and & (Equation (28)) and statistics according to Equations (32) and (33); in
addition to the results associated with normalization to the indices given by Equations (23)
(25), which produce the least dispersion, the results related to normalization by the peak
ground motion parameters with no regard to td are also provided.
The calculated statistics arebased on the assumption that the square root of the energy
dissipated per unit of mass ( EH ) is normally distributed. The assumption is sound if the
derived probability distribution for EH ; the variable of interest, presents good =t with the actual
response data. The =tness was checked applying the KolmogorovSmirnov test at three control
frequencies that presented the most scatter; it was found that the test satis=ed a signi=cance
level of 5 per cent by an ample margin.
As a part of the study, factors for constructing elastic and inelastic design spectra were also
obtained. The procedure due to VeletsosNewmarkHall-Mohraz [1823] and later revised by
RiddellNewmark [3; 24] is well known. Indeed, the method is simpler than the extension
to energy spectra presented above, because the ordinates of the trilinear design spectrum, in
the region response ampli=cation, are parallel to the corresponding axes of the tripartite grid.
Factors for elastoplastic systems with 5 per cent damping are presented in Table VII. These
factors can be conservatively used for bilinear and sti?ness degrading systems, since on the
average the ductility demand on them is less than that imposed on elastoplastic systems, as
earlier reported [3; 25] and con=rmed in this work. The ordinates of the design spectrum S
for given ductility factor  are obtained applying the ampli=cation factors  (Table VII) to
the corresponding peak ground motion parameters pg :
S =
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 pg

(35)
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1807

Table IV. Factors for constructing energy dissipation spectra (EH ) for elastoplastic
systems with 5 per cent damping.
Spectral region and
normalization index

$ = % f&

Ductility

Standard deviation

COV

%

&

)

1.5
2
3
5
10

0.58
0.60
0.59
0.53
0.44

0.18
0.11
0.04
0:14
0:05

0.17
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.16

0.38
0.34
0.31
0.31
0.34

Displacement dmax

1.5
2
3
5
10

1.49
1.58
1.53
1.38
1.15

0.20
0.13
0.06
0:01
0:04

0.44
0.50
0.55
0.59
0.57

0.38
0.37
0.38
0.42
0.48

2=3 1=3
td
Velocity vmax

1.5
2
3
5
10

1.28
1.55
1.75
1.85
1.88

0.15
0.17
0.18
0.17
0.14

0.82
0.94
0.99
0.99
0.93

0.57
0.53
0.48
0.45
0.42

2:3
Velocity vmax

1.5
2
3
5
10

3.20
3.88
4.42
4.74
4.86

0.13
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.13

2.13
2.50
2.78
2.90
2.83

0.60
0.57
0.55
0.53
0.51

Acceleration amax

1.5
2
3
5
10

3.56
4.40
5.16
5.50
5.73

0:48
0:44
0:39
0:29
0:18

0.49
0.65
0.84
1.06
1.31

0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.35

Displacement

dmax td1=3

where pg represents dmax , vmax , or amax depending on the spectral region of interest. The elastic
spectrum Se is given by Equation (35) for the particular case  = 1; wherefrom the inelastic
spectrum can be alternatively obtained as
S = , Se

(36)

where , is also given in Table VII. It is worth commenting here that Equation (36) is often misunderstood as equivalent to deriving inelastic spectra from elastic response analyses.
This is certainly not the case because actual inelastic responses directly lead to the  factors
(average ampli=cation with respect to the peak ground motion parameters). Simple approximations
 for , are well known: the ratios 1= for the displacement and velocity regions,
and 1= 2 1 for the acceleration region (which were shown [3] to be unconservative for
high ductility and high damping, as also apparent in this study). Table VII also provides
the standard deviation ) and the coeOcient of variation COV = ) =  calculated over the
corresponding spectral regions.
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1808

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

Table V. Factors for constructing energy dissipation spectra (EH ) for bilinear
systems with 5 per cent damping.
Spectral region and
normalization index

$ = % f&

Ductility

Standard deviation

COV

%

&

)

Displacement dmax td1=3

1.5
2
3
5
10

0.59
0.62
0.59
0.51
0.41

0.19
0.12
0.04
0:03
0:08

0.17
0.18
0.17
0.17
0.14

0.38
0.33
0.31
0.31
0.34

Displacement dmax

1.5
2
3
5
10

1.52
1.61
1.53
1.33
1.05

0.21
0.14
0.06
0:02
0:08

0.44
0.50
0.56
0.58
0.53

0.38
0.37
0.39
0.43
0.48

2=3 1=3
td
Velocity vmax

1.5
2
3
5
10

1.29
1.56
1.77
1.89
1.88

0.16
0.18
0.18
0.15
0.14

0.84
0.96
1.01
0.98
0.89

0.58
0.54
0.48
0.44
0.40

2=3
Velocity vmax

1.5
2
3
5
10

3.22
3.93
4.51
4.85
4.86

0.14
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.12

2.22
2.63
2.88
2.91
2.76

0.62
0.59
0.56
0.53
0.50

Acceleration amax

1.5
2
3
5
10

3.64
4.67
5.39
5.85
5.95

0:49
0:46
0:37
0:27
0:13

0.51
0.71
0.95
1.24
1.59

0.39
0.40
0.41
0.40
0.37

The COV values in Table VII are consistent with previous studies. Riddell and Newmark
[3] found COVs in the range 0.180.22 in the acceleration region of the spectrum, 0.310.39
in the velocity region and 0.410.49 in the displacement region, for  between 1 and 10, while
Riddell [25] obtained COVs between 0.190.31, 0.250.4, and 0.330.44 in the mentioned
regions respectively, for the same damping and range of . Miranda [26] and Riddell [25] have
reported COV values for the response modi=cation factor R (R , the ratio between elastic
and inelastic response, is a close relative of , , the former being calculated for individual
frequencies while the latter is a frequency-band ratio). Miranda [26] found COV(R ) varying
between about 0.25 and 0.45 for groups of records on rock and alluvial soils, for  between
2 to 6, with COV increasing as ductility increased; Riddell [25] obtained practically the same
COVs for R . It is worth recalling that Miranda [26] and Riddell [25] considered earthquake
records grouped according to soil conditions and thus the dispersion should decrease due to
the similar frequency content of the motions, whereas in this study a wide variety of ground
motions regarding soil conditions and tectonic settings were used. In a recent study, Ordaz
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1809

Table VI. Factors for constructing energy dissipation spectra (EH ) for sti?ness degrading
systems with 5 per cent damping.
Spectral region and
normalization index

$ = % f&

Ductility

Standard deviation

COV

%

&

)

1.5
2
3
5
10

0.69
0.66
0.56
0.46
0.34

0.21
0.14
0.06
0.01
0:04

0.18
0.17
0.16
0.13
0.10

0.34
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.30

Displacement dmax

1.5
2
3
5
10

1.78
1.69
1.44
1.17
0.88

0.22
0.15
0.07
0.01
0:03

0.50
0.52
0.50
0.45
0.36

0.37
0.36
0.37
0.39
0.40

2=3 1=3
td
Velocity vmax

1.5
2
3
5
10

1.67
1.85
1.91
1.87
1.75

0.17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18

1.00
1.04
1.00
0.92
0.83

0.52
0.48
0.44
0.40
0.37

2=3
Velocity vmax

1.5
2
3
5
10

4.24
4.70
4.88
4.81
4.54

0.15
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.17

2.84
3.02
2.97
2.83
2.61

0.59
0.55
0.52
0.49
0.47

Acceleration amax td1=3

1.5
2
3
5
10

2.18
2.39
2.37
2.27
2.12

0:41
0:33
0:21
0:08
0:06

0.41
0.50
0.60
0.71
0.83

0.49
0.46
0.42
0.38
0.34

Acceleration amax

1.5
2
3
5
10

5.49
6.05
6.10
5.88
5.54

0:41
0:33
0:22
0:09

1.10
1.39
1.71
2.10
2.62

0.53
0.50
0.47
0.45
0.42

Displacement

dmax td1=3

0.05

and Perez [27] proposed rules to predict R that featured better accuracy than other available
relationships; it should be noted, though, that they predicted R on the basis of response
quantities: the relative velocity spectrum and=or the displacement response spectrum. The
factors in Tables IVVII, however, are predicted on the basis of a priori parameters: the peak
ground motion parameters or other ground motion intensity indices. COV (average COV) of
hysteretic energy spectra in the displacement and acceleration regions can be held in the range
0.30.5 if the appropriate normalization index is used (indices including td ). The larger COV
in the velocity region could be reduced if vrs o vrms were used instead of vmax ; as mentioned
above; however, estimates of the former indices for future earthquakes are not available and
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1810

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

Table VII. Factors for constructing elastic and inelastic design spectra for systems with 5 per cent
damping.
Spectral region and
normalization index

Ductility 

Displacement dmax

1
1.5
2
3
5
10

Velocity vmax

Acceleration amax

)

COV

,

1.76
1.07
0.76
0.50
0.30
0.15

0.77
0.45
0.32
0.23
0.14
0.07

0.44
0.42
0.42
0.45
0.46
0.48

1.00
0.61
0.43
0.29
0.17
0.08

1
1.5
2
3
5
10

1.67
1.05
0.78
0.54
0.36
0.22

0.78
0.42
0.31
0.21
0.14
0.08

0.46
0.40
0.40
0.39
0.37
0.36

1.00
0.62
0.47
0.32
0.22
0.13

1
1.5
2
3
5
10

2.09
1.46
1.23
1.02
0.84
0.67

0.71
0.38
0.28
0.22
0.18
0.16

0.34
0.26
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.24

1.00
0.70
0.59
0.49
0.40
0.32

2=3 1=3
so the latter was preferred. If vmax
td is used as recommended (Equation (24)), COV in the
velocity region ranges between 0.37 and 0.58. Such a range denotes large uncertainty but it
is not extraordinarily larger than the above-commented values.

CONSTRUCTION OF DISSIPATED ENERGY SPECTRA AND APPLICATION TO


DAMAGE CONTROL
The =rst step in the construction of energy and design spectra involves the de=nition of the
earthquake hazard in terms of estimates of the expected peak ground motion parameters at
the site under consideration. A discussion of this subject is beyond the scope of this paper.
The spectra presented in this section will be anchored to a peak ground acceleration of 1g;
which is only a referential value selected for illustrative purposes and has no e?ect on the
observations to be made. The design peak ground velocity and displacement will be de=ned
2
. In this study, mean
on the basis of average values of the ratios vmax =amax and amax dmax =vmax
values of 98:5cm=sec=g and 4 were obtained for the previously mentioned ratios, while Riddell
and Newmark [3] found averages of 89 and 6, respectively. Assuming vmax =amax = 85 and
2
= 6; vmax = 85 cm=sec and dmax = 44 cm are obtained. Next, energy dissipation
amax dmax =vmax
spectra and inelastic spectra required for damage assessment will be constructed. Spectra for
elastoplastic systems with 5 per cent damping and response ductility  = 5 will be considered.
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1811

Energy spectrum
Assuming that no estimate of the ground motion duration td is available, the design ground
motion (Figure 8) for constructing the energy spectrum (ES) is simply taken as dmax = 44 cm,
2=3
vmax
= 852=3 = 19 cm=sec; and amax = 1g. The factors to determine the spectral ordinates are
given in Table IV. Supposing that some degree of conservatism is desired, factors associated with the mean plus one standard deviation level will be used (15.9 per cent probability of exceedance). Thus, the spectral ampli=cation factors for  = 5 are $d = (1:38 +
0:59)f0:01 = 1:97f0:01 in the displacement region, $v = (4:74+2:9)f0:15 = 7:64f0:15 in the velocity region, and $a = (5:5 + 1:06)f0:29 = 6:56f0:29 in the acceleration region. For f = 0:05;
the lowest frequency
of the spectrum (Figure 8), the ampli=cation factor $d = 2:03 is ob
tained; then EH =! = dmax $d = 89 cmdetermines point J of the spectrum (Figure 8). Similarly, for f = 20; $a = 2:75 gives ! EH = 2:75amax = 2:75g which corresponds to point M
2=3
(Figure 8). The corner frequency fdv is calculated from the condition dmax $d ! = vmax
$v i.e.,

2=3
0:01
0:15
! = 145:2f
86:7f
which yields fdv = 0:207 and
EH = vmax $v = 145:2(0:207)0:15 =
2=3
$v ! = amax $a ;
115 cm=sec (point K in Figure 8). The corner frequency fva results from vmax

2=3
0:15
0:29
i.e. 145:2f ! = 6433f
; wherefrom fva = 3:882cps and EH = vmax $v = 145:2(3:882)0:15 =
178 cm=sec (point L in Figure 8). The completed trilinear energy spectrum
is plotted in
Fig

ure 9, for which the relevant labels of the tripartite grid axes are EH =!, EH ; and ! EH
in the displacement, velocity, and acceleration regions, respectively. It can be seen in Figure 9 that the energy dissipation demand varies considerably with frequency. At the peak of
the smoothed energy spectrum (f = 3:88 cps) EH = 31684 cm2 =sec2 while at the ends of the
spectrum EH is 780 and 460 cm2 =sec2 ; respectively, i.e. ratios of the order of 40 and 70,
respectively.
Inelastic spectra
As selected above, the design ground motion parameters are dmax = 44 cm; vmax = 85 cm=sec;
and amax = 1g. In this case, the spectrum to be constructed =rst is the inelastic yield spectrum
[3] (IYS), also known as constant-ductility spectrum [28], which corresponds to a plot of
the yield deformation uy necessary to limit the maximum deformation of the system to a
speci=ed multiple of the yield deformation itself (umax = uy ). Since the factors given in
Table VII synthesize the characteristics of a family of 52 earthquake records, the spectrum
corresponds to a smoothed design spectrum, in opposition to a response spectrum that refers
to the response to one speci=c excitation. In this case, the spectral quantities of interest
are uy in the displacement axis and !2 uy in the acceleration axis; the latter multiplied by
the mass gives the yield resistance Fy of the system, which in the case of an elastoplastic
system is also its maximum strength. In the ampli=ed region of the spectrum, between 0.15
and 10 cps; the spectral ordinates are obtained using the mean-plus-one-standard-deviation
(  +) ) factors given in Table VII for  = 5: 0.44, 0.5 and 1.02 for the displacement, velocity,
and acceleration regions, respectively. Thus, the spectral ordinates are: 44 0:44 = 19 cm;
85 0:5 = 43 cm=sec and 1g 1:02 = 1:02g. The spectrum is completed with transition zones:
in the lowest frequency (0:05cps) the spectral ordinate is dmax = = 44=5 = 8:8cm; in the highest
frequency (33cps) the spectral ordinate is [3] amax 0:07 = 0:89g. The complete inelastic design
spectrum is presented in Figure 9. The second spectrum of interest is the total deformation
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1812

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

Figure 9. Inelastic design spectrum, dissipated energy spectrum, and required deformation capacity spectrum, for design ductility  = 5 and design ground motion speci=ed
by amax = 1g; vmax = 85 cm=sec, and dmax = 44 cm.

spectrum (TDS), which simply gives the maximum deformation of the system umax = uy . It
is easily obtained by multiplying the IYS or constant ductility spectrum by . In this case
the relevant axis of the tripartite logarithmic plot is the displacement axis which corresponds
to umax . Although this type of presentation has been available for around 40 years, it is less
known; it should become more popular as the need to estimate maximum deformations arises
in connection with displacement based design. This spectrum is not included in Figure 9, to
avoid confusion.
Damage considerations
A great deal of e?ort has been taken to gain insight into the factors controlling damage and
collapse during earthquakes. A detailed presentation and discussion of this subject exceeds
the scope of this paper, instead several key references which contain numerous entries to
the literature on the subject are given [2936]. There seems to be agreement on the fact
that earthquake damage occurs not only due to maximum deformation or maximum ductility
attained, but is associated with the hysteretic energy dissipated by the structure as well. Park
and Ang [30] proposed a simple index for seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1813

structures:
DPA =

umax
mEH
+
uu
Fy uu

(37)

where umax is the maximum deformation under earthquake excitation (as de=ned above), uu is
the ultimate deformation capacity under monotonic loading, Fy is yield resistance (as de=ned
above), mEH is the total hysteretic energy dissipation,  is a parameter that weights the e?ect
of cyclic loading on structural damage and DPA 1 means complete collapse or total damage.
Note that umax =uu would be equal to 1 if umax was measured in a monotonic loading test, in
turn mEH =Fy uu would also equal 1 under such a test. The clear implication of Equation (37)
is that, under earthquake loading, when energy dissipation takes place, umax cannot reach uu .
Values of  based on experimental data [30] varied between 0:3 and 1.2, with a median
[35] of 0.15. Since the latter value has been also used by other authors [30; 3436],  = 0:15
will be taken for the following example. Further elaboration on appropriate values of  for
di?erent structural materials and con=gurations is probably needed.
Using the energy spectra presented herein combined with NewmarkHall spectra, a simple
estimation of the required deformation capacity of a structure can be made. Indeed, taking
DPA = 1; the ultimate deformation capacity supplied to the structure must comply with
uu umax + 

mEH
Fy

(38)

recalling that uu is the design capacity based on monotonic testing data and monotonic behaviour knowledge, while the second member of Equation (38) corresponds to earthquake
response quantities. The latter quantities are directly read from the spectra presented above;
in fact, umax is the TDS, Fy =m is the IYS but read in the acceleration axis (or IYS !2 if read
in the displacement axis), and EH is the ES squared. In symbolic form, for each frequency,
Equation (38) can be written as
UDCSTDS + 

ES2
IYS

(39)

where UDCS is the ultimate deformation capacity spectrum. In other words, UDCS gives the
required monotonic deformation capacity for the structure to survive the design earthquake
without collapse. The UDCS is plotted in Figure 9 according to Equation (39); naturally
it is read in the displacement axis. Note also that di?erent levels of acceptable damage,
i.e. performance, may be established by taking di?erent values of DPA ; for example taking
DPA = 0:5 the design condition given by Equation (38) becomes


mEH
uu 2 umax + 
(40)
Fy
The appeal of this expression is that the quantity in parenthesis in the second member does
not change, i.e. it is obtained from the same design spectra based on the same design ground
motion, but certainly the structure should be provided more displacement capacity if better
performance is desired. The implication is that performance based design need not be speci=ed
through a set of ground motions of di?erent intensities, but through one design motion with
performance controlled by the design parameters selected (Fy or ) and deformation capacity
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1814

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

supplied (uu ). Finally, it is worth mentioning that an alternative approach to damage control
has been proposed [33] in terms of equivalent ductility, which corresponds to a ductility limit
that cannot be exceeded in order to satisfy a given performance level (permissible damage).
As a consequence of the deterioration resulting from cyclic inelastic behaviour, the equivalent
ductility max is smaller than the ultimate ductility capacity u determined under monotonic
loading. The method requires estimation of a parameter that depends on EH and umax ; which
can be readily determined with the energy spectra and total deformation spectra presented in
this paper.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study has attempted to contribute to a better understanding of hysteretic energy dissipation in single-degree-of-freedom systems, since it has been recognized for some time that
energy dissipation is a form of structural damage, and thereby plays an important role in the
assessment of seismic performance. A basic investigation was carried out to identify ground
motion intensity indices that correlated well with input and dissipated energy. It was found
that: (a) no index shows satisfactory correlation with energy in the three spectral regions
simultaneously; (b) peak ground motions parameters present good correlation with energy,
specially in the displacement and acceleration regions, while Housners intensity is the best
in the intermediate region; and (c) compound indices of the form I = Q 1 td2 ; where Q is a
peak ground motion parameter and td is the signi=cant duration of motion, are recommended
as most appropriate to normalize hysteretic energy spectra, since incorporating td provides
less dispersion of the spectral ordinates, and because design ground motion parameters can
be selected with relative ease.
The next step was the statistical analysis of hysteretic energy spectra computed for 52
earthquake records, to produce rules for constructing energy dissipation spectra applying ampli=cation factors to a selected design ground motion, in much the similar fashion as the
NewmarkHall method, although somewhat more elaborated in this case because the spectral
ordinates are not parallel to the axes of the tripartite logarithmic plot. Factors to construct energy spectra for elastoplastic, bilinear and sti?ness degrading systems are presented, including
statistics to account for spectral ordinates associated to di?erent probabilities of exceedance.
Finally, on the basis of the damage model due to Park and Ang, and using the proposed
hysteretic energy spectra combined with NewmarkHall spectra, estimates of the required
deformation capacity of a structure associated with di?erent performance levels can be made.
With the energy spectrum the response information for single-degree-of-freedom systems is
complete, and relationships between strength, deformation, ductility, energy dissipation, and
damage become established. Now, the reliability of the damage prediction or assessment will
mostly depend on the adequacy of the damage model.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was carried out in the Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering at the Universidad CatGolica de Chile with =nancial assistance from the National Science and Technology Foundation
of Chile (FONDECYT) under grant No. 1990112.
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

HYSTERETIC ENERGY SPECTRUM AND DAMAGE CONTROL

1815

REFERENCES
1. Blume JA, Newmark NM, Corning LH. Design of multistory reinforced concrete buildings for earthquake
motions. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL, 1961.
2. Riddell R, Newmark NM. Forcedeformation models for nonlinear analysis. Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE 1979; 105(ST12):27732778.
3. Riddell R, Newmark NM. Statistical analysis of the response of nonlinear systems subjected to earthquakes.
Structural Research Series No. 468, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1979.
4. Kato B, Akiyama H. Energy input and damages in structures subjected to severe earthquakes. A.I.J, No. 235,
1975.
5. Zahrah T, Hall WJ. Seismic energy absorption in simple structures, Structural Research Series No. 501,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1982.
6. Lange JG. Una medida de intensidad sG\smica. Departamento de Obras Civiles, Universidad de Chile, Santiago,
Chile, 1968.
7. Arias A. A measure of earthquake intensity. Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants. MIT Press: Cambridge,
1970.
8. Housner GW. Measures of severity of earthquake ground shaking. Proceedings of the U.S. National Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Ann Arbor, MI, 1975.
9. Trifunac MD, Brady AG. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America 1975; 65(3):581626.
10. Nau JM, Hall WJ. An evaluation of scaling methods for earthquake response spectra. Structural Research
Series No. 499, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1982.
11. Housner GW, Jennings PC. Generation of arti=cial earthquakes. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
ASCE 1964; 90(EM1):113150.
12. Housner GW. Strong ground motion. In Earthquake Engineering, chapter 4. Wiegel RL (ed.). Prentice-Hall
Inc.: Engelwood Cli?s, NJ, 1970.
13. Housner GW. Design spectrum. In Earthquake Engineering, chapter 5. Wiegel RL (ed.). Prentice-Hall Inc.:
Engelwood Cli?s, NJ, 1970.
14. Araya R, Saragoni R. Capacidad de los movimientos sG\smicos de producir dano estructural. SES I 7=80 (156),
Universidad de Chile, Santiago.
15. Park Y-J, Ang AH-S, Wen YK. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1985; 111(4):740757.
16. Fajfar P, Vidic T, Fischinger M. A measure of earthquake motion capacity to damage medium-period structures.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1990; 9(5).
17. Housner GW. Spectrum intensities of strong motion earthquakes. Proceedings of the Symposium on Earthquake
and Blast E/ects on Structures, EERI, California, 1952.
18. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. E?ect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake
motions. Proceedings of the 2WCEE, vol. 2, Japan, 1960.
19. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. Response spectra for single-degree-of-freedom elastic and inelastic systems. Report
No. RTD-TDR-63-3096, vol. III, Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Albuquerque, NM, 1964.
20. Veletsos AS. Maximum deformation of certain nonlinear systems. Proceedings of the Fourth WCEE, vol. I,
Chile, 1969.
21. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities. Proceedings of the Fourth WCEE,
vol. 3, Chile, 1969.
22. Newmark NM, Hall WJ, Mohraz B. A study of vertical and horizontal earthquake spectra. U.S. Atomic Energy
Commission Report WASH-1225, Washington D.C., 1973.
23. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Procedures and criteria for earthquake resistant design. Building Practices for Disaster
Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards, Building Science Series No. 46, 1973.
24. Riddell R. E?ect of damping and type of material nonlinearity on earthquake response. Proceedings of the
Seventh WCEE, vol. 4, Turkey, 1980.
25. Riddell R. Inelastic design spectra accounting for soil conditions. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1995; 24(11):14911510.
26. Miranda E. Site-dependent strength-reduction factors. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1993;
119(12):35033519.
27. Ordaz M, Perez-Rocha L. Estimation of strength-reduction factors for elastoplastic systems: a new approach.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1998; 27(9):889901.
28. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures. Prentice-Hall Inc.: Engelwood Cli?s, NJ, 1995.
29. Banon H, Veneziano D. Seismic safety of reinforced concrete members and structures. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1982; 10:179193.
30. Park Y-J, Ang AH-S. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1985; 111(4):722739.
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816

1816

R. RIDDELL AND J. E. GARCIA

31. Zhu TJ, Tso WK, Heidebrecht AC. E?ect of peak ground a=v ratio on structural damage. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE 1988; 114(5):10191037.
32. McCabe SL, Hall WJ. Assessment of seismic structural damage. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE
1989; 115(9):21662183.
33. Fajfar P. Equivalent ductility factors taking into account low-cycle fatigue. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1992; 21:837848.
34. Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Ramasco R. The use of damage functions in earthquake engineering: a comparison
between di?erent methods. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993; 22:855868.
35. Chai YH, Romstad KM, Bird SM. Energy-based linear damage model for high intensity seismic loading. Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1995; 121(5):857864.
36. Krawinkler H. Performance assessment of steel components. Earthquake Spectra 1987; 3:2241.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:17911816