You are on page 1of 28


Summary and Application Example

This document records in detail an effort to assess The discussion in Chapter 2 includes basic descriptions
current nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) given in of the two nonlinear static procedures that are currently
FEMA 356 and ATC-40 for the seismic analysis and used in practice. FEMA 356 uses a displacement
evaluation of structures. In addition, the document modification procedure (Coefficient Method) in which
presents approaches that were developed to improve several empirically derived factors are used to modify
these procedures for future application by practicing the response of a single-degree-of-freedom model of the
engineers. Not all of the portions of the two documents structure, assuming that it remains elastic. The
were evaluated. Conclusions regarding the relative alternative Capacity-Spectrum Method of ATC-40 is
accuracy or technical soundness of these documents actually a form of equivalent linearization. This
should not be inferred beyond the specific material and technique uses empirically derived relationships for the
discussions contained in this document. effective period and damping as a function of ductility
to estimate the response of an equivalent linear SDOF
The purpose of this summary is to present a practical oscillator.
overview of the results and to illustrate the application
of NSPs, that include the proposed improvements for an 10.2 Evaluation of Current Nonlinear Static
example building. Sections 10.1 through 10.8 contain Procedures
key results of analytical studies conducted as part of this
project and resulting suggestions for specific changes to In practice, the current procedures can result in
existing procedures for nonlinear static analysis estimates of maximum displacement that are
procedures. Section 10.9 discusses some important significantly different from one another. This has
aspects of uncertainty and reliability of nonlinear static caused concern on the part of practicing engineers. One
procedures and the suggestions for improvement. of the major objectives of the project was to ascertain
Section 10.10 summarizes some key observations with the reasons for these differences and to try to correct
respect to shortcomings of inelastic seismic analysis both procedures to produce similar results. Chapter 3
procedures that were not fully resolved in this project. documents a comprehensive evaluation of both
These are areas in which significant improvement might procedures. The basic technique was to develop a
be made in the future. Section 10.11 is the application series of nonlinear single-degree-of-freedom oscillators
example. of varying period, strength, and hysteretic behavior.
These were subjected to ground motion representing
10.1 Overview of Inelastic Seismic Analysis different site soil conditions. The resulting database of
Procedures approximately 180,000 predictions of maximum
displacement was used as a benchmark to judge the
Nonlinear static procedures are one type of inelastic accuracy of the approximate NSPs. This was
analysis that can be used to estimate the response of accomplished by comparing the estimates for each
structures to seismic ground shaking. The differences oscillator from both NSPs to the results of the nonlinear
among the various approaches to inelastic analysis in response-history analyses. Differences in the two
general relate to the level of detail of the structural estimates were compiled and compared in a statistical
model and the characterization of the seismic ground study.
shaking. Detailed structural models can often be
simplified into equivalent multi-degree-of-freedom 10.2.1 Key Observations: ATC-40 Version of
models; or, in some cases, single-degree-of-freedom Capacity-Spectrum Method
oscillator models, as with nonlinear static procedures. Longer-period response. The ATC-40 procedures for
The most detailed characterizations of seismic ground structures with hysteretic behavior type A tended to
motion are actual ground motion records that comprise underestimate the maximum displacement response for
accelerations, velocities, and displacements expected at inelastic systems. The underestimation averages 25%
the ground surface at a specific site. A simplification to 35% for systems with periods longer than about 0.7 s.
can be made by representing the effects ground motion
has in the frequency domain with response spectra that For structures with hysteretic behavior type B, the
plot maximum response of an elastic SDOF oscillator as ATC-40 procedures led to small underestimations or
a function of period. This is the type of characterization small overestimations of lateral displacement of
normally used for nonlinear static procedures. systems with periods longer than about 0.6 s. Whether

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-1

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

ATC-40 underestimates or overestimates depends on period structures do not behave in this manner. FEMA-
the level of lateral strength and on the site class. 356 defines a characteristic site period to differentiate
between these two types of behavior. Characteristic site
For structures with hysteretic behavior type C, the periods of FEMA 356 are based on the period at the
ATC-40 procedures led to overestimations of the intersection of the constant-acceleration spectral region
maximum displacement for all periods. The and the constant-velocity spectral region. These
overestimation increases as R increases. Average characteristic periods are shorter than the transition
overestimations for periods greater than 0.5 s range periods observed from nonlinear response-history
from approximately 5% for systems with R = 1.5 to analyses. This can result in underestimation of inelastic
about 35% for systems with R = 8. deformations for periods between the characteristic site
period and periods that are approximately 1.5 times the
Shorter-period response. The ATC-40 procedures can characteristic site period.
lead to significant overestimations of the maximum
displacements of inelastic oscillators for periods shorter Ratio of inelastic to elastic deformation, coefficient
than those noted above. The overestimations increase C1. The use of the equal displacement approximation to
with decreasing strength. Estimated displacements in compute the coefficient C1 for systems with periods
the short-period range can be, on average, up to two longer than the characteristic periods leads to relatively
times larger than the benchmark displacements from good approximations of maximum inelastic
response-history analyses. deformations for systems with EPP behavior for periods
longer than about 1 s. Only small overestimations in the
Degrading stiffness and strength. ATC-40 assumes order of 5% or 10% are produced with this
that the inelastic deformation demands in structures approximation. Note that for very soft soil sites and
with behavior type B will be larger than those in near-fault records, this is only true for systems with
structures with behavior type A, while results of periods of vibration that are approximately 1.5 times
nonlinear response-history analyses show that the longer than the predominant period and the pulse
deformations are actually approximately the same or periods, respectively.
slightly larger for the elastic-perfectly-plastic (EPP)
model as compared to the stiffness-degrading (SD) For systems with R larger than about 2.5, the limiting
model. The current provisions of ATC-40 do not values (capping) of C1 imposed by Section of
address the potential dynamic instability that can arise the LSP of FEMA 356 will control the estimate of
in systems with in-cycle strength degradation and/or P- maximum inelastic deformation. This can lead to
delta effects. theoretically large underestimates of displacements in
short-period structures, particularly on soft sites.
Limitations on damping and spectral reduction fac-
tors. ATC-40 specifies limits on effective damping that If capping is not used, and if the transition period is
result in the imposition of minimum spectral-reduction lengthened, the FEMA 356 equation to calculate C1
factors based on the anticipated performance of does not adequately capture the changes in inelastic
building types. These limitations were based on deformation demands that are produced with changes in
engineering judgment that has not been borne out in the R for short-period structures. The magnification of
analytical studies reported here. While the intention of inelastic displacement demands with decreasing lateral
these limitations may have been to provide some strength for short-period structures was found to be
conservatism for degrading structures, the resulting larger than that implied by FEMA 356.
estimates of displacement exceed expected mean values
when compared with actual behavior for many cases. Degradation of stiffness and strength (Coefficients
C2 and C3). There is not a clear division of the intent of
10.2.2 Key Observations: FEMA 356 and the coefficients C2 and C3. This problem was documented
Coefficient Method in FEMA 357. In particular, C2 is supposed to account
Transition period for the equal-displacement for changes in lateral displacement produced by
approximation. Nonlinear dynamic analyses departures of the hysteretic behavior from an EPP
demonstrate that the total displacement experienced by hysteretic model (such as pinching, stiffness
long-period structures that undergo inelastic response degradation and strength degradation.). P- effects are
tends to be about the same as structures of the same accounted for by C3 in the current provisions of FEMA
period, responding in an elastic manner, leading to the 356. FEMA 356 does not distinguish between cyclic
so-called equal displacement approximation. Short- strength degradation and in-cycle strength degradation.

10-2 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

Strength loss occurs in

subsequent cycles; Strength loss occurs
not in the same cycle as yield. in same cycle as yield.

Strength and stiffness degrading model






-400 -300 -200 -100Displacement
0 100 200 300 400

Cyclic strength degradation In-cyclic strength degradation


Figure 10-1 Differences between cyclic and in-cycle strength degradation

In-cycle degradation produces effects similar to P-, deformation (in-cycle) and that which occurs in
which can lead to dynamic instability in weak subsequent cycles (cyclic). This important distinction
structures. illustrated in Figure 10-1. In-cycle strength degradation,
including that associated with P- effects, can lead to
The C2 coefficient of FEMA 356 implies that inelastic dynamic instability. To account for this, a lower limit
displacement should increase for stiffness degrading on the strength of structures that exhibit strength-
systems as compared with EPP systems. With the degrading behavior is suggested for use with nonlinear
exception of periods of vibration smaller than about 0.7 static procedures. The limit is a function of the period
s, the maximum displacement of stiffness-degrading of the structure and the post-elastic stiffness
systems is actually very similar to or slightly smaller characteristics, as modified for in-cycle strength
(5% to 10%) than the maximum displacement of EPP degradation. If the structure has less strength than the
systems. limit, nonlinear dynamic analysis is recommended.

FEMA 356 introduced an alternative recommendation 10.4 Improved Procedures for

for C2 that was not in FEMA 273, as follows: Displacement Modification
Alternatively, use of C2 = 1 shall be permitted for
nonlinear procedures. The ambiguity of conflicting Based on the evaluation of NSPs, Chapter 5 proposes
recommendations is confusing to users of FEMA 356. modifications to the Coefficient Method of FEMA 356.
The suggestions relate primarily to the coefficients
Coefficient C3 does not adequately address the themselves. These are tabulated along with the current
possibility of dynamic instability. specifications in Table 10-1. The changes are briefly
summarized as follows:
10.3 Strength Degradation
10.4.1 Summary of Findings Pertaining to
The results of the evaluation of the NSPs suggest that Coefficient C1
both procedures would benefit from greater clarity with This coefficient represents the approximate ratio of the
respect to the different types of possible degradation in maximum displacement of an EPP SDOF oscillator
structures subject to seismic shaking. This is model to that of a fully elastic counterpart. The
particularly critical for degradation in strength. proposed modification is based on the results of the
Chapter 4 discusses the differences between the simplified dynamic analyses conducted as a part of the
consequences of strength loss within a single cycle of

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-3

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

Table 10-1 Coefficients for Use in Equations for Effective Damping

Coefficient Current Specification Modification Purpose of Coefficient

C1 1.0 for Te Ts R 1 Convert max. elastic

C1 = 1 + displacement to esti-
[1.0 +(R-1)Ts/Te]/R for Te<Ts aT
mate for inelastic sys-
where a =
130 for site class B
90 for site class C
60 for site class D
C1 1.5 for Te < 0.1s Not recommended
(with short T cap) interpolating to
1.0 for Te Ts

C2 Immediate Occupancy 2 Hysteretic pinching

(degrading systems) 1.0 C2 = 1 +
1 R 1 Cyclic degradation
Life Safety 800 T
1.3 for T 0.1 recommended only for
interpolating to structures with significant
1.1 for T Ts stiffness and/or strength
Collapse Prevention
1.5 for T 0.1
interpolating to
1.2 for T Ts

C2 1.0 1.0
C3 3/2 Eliminate in favor of P-
( R 1)
1.0 + strength limit In-cycle degradation

evaluation database. The proposed relationship is a 10.4.2 Summary of Findings Pertaining to

function of strength (R), period (T), and site class. Coefficient C2
This coefficient accounts for the change in maximum
The current provisions of FEMA 356 allow the C1 inelastic displacement for systems that exhibit cyclic
coefficient to be limited for short-period structures. degradation of stiffness and strength. The proposed
Although this limitation was intended to recognize that modification is based on the results of the simplified
short-period buildings do not respond as often predicted dynamic analyses conducted as a part of the evaluation
by analysis, the basis of the limitation is subjective. For database. In many cases, the data suggest that cyclic
this reason, the use of the cap on C1 is not degradation does not increase maximum displacements.
recommended. However, the effects of soil-structure However, there are exceptions, especially for short-
interaction can have a mitigating effect on maximum period, low-strength structures.
inelastic displacements of short-period structures.
Some rational procedures for including the SSI effect in 10.4.3 Summary of Findings Pertaining to
nonlinear static analyses are presented in Chapter 8. Coefficient C3
This coefficient was intended to account for P-
effects. Review of related research and results of
detailed analyses indicate that maximum inelastic

10-4 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

displacements tend to increase abruptly, leading to the Performance Point. Similar to the current ATC-40
dynamic instability and implied collapse for relatively procedure, the effective period and damping are both
weak structures. The point at which this transition dependent on ductility and consequently, an iterative or
occurs is related to the strength, period, and post-elastic graphical technique is required to calculate the
stiffness of the structure. Although the current Performance Point. Several options are outlined in
expression includes these variables, it does not predict Chapter 6.
the instability. The recommendation is for a limit on
minimum strength (maximum R) for structural models 10.6 Evaluation and Comparison of
that exhibit strength degradation. This limit eliminates Improved Nonlinear Static Procedures
the need for the C3 coefficient.
The improved procedures were evaluated in an
10.5 Improved Procedures for Equivalent independent study. This study utilized nine EPP
Linearization oscillators with three different periods and three
different strength values. These were subjected to
Many engineers favor working with the Capacity- thirteen ground motions for class C sites. The motions
Spectrum Method, a form of equivalent linearization. were scaled in accordance with the NEHRP
This is likely due, at least in part, to the intuitive nature Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for
of the procedure that graphically relates capacity to New Buildings and Other Structures to match a NEHRP
demand. Chapter 6 presents the results of an effort to design-response spectrum. Estimates of maximum
improve the practical application of equivalent displacements were calculated utilizing both current
linearization procedures. The resulting suggestions procedures and the proposed improved procedures.
focus on improved estimates of equivalent period and This was done using both the NEHRP design spectrum
damping. These differ from the assumptions in ATC- and the average spectrum for the scaled ground
40. Generally, the optimal effective period is less than motions. This study was not comprehensive enough to
the secant period (see Figure 10-2). The optimal make broad general conclusions. However, a number
of key observations were made:
The improved procedures do not exhibit large
Sa differences between displacement modification and
equivalent linearization approaches. This differs
Tsec from previous experience with the ATC-40
Spectral Acceleration

aeff Capacity-Spectrum Method and the FEMA 356

ADRS (0) Coefficient Method.
amax The improved procedures also produced more
capacity spectrum
accurate estimates of displacements when compared
ADRS ( eff) to response-history analysis results than those
MADRS ( eff ,M) produced by the current nonlinear procedures. For
displacement ductility of less than ten, the new
dmax Sd procedures produced estimates that were within one
Spectral Displacement
standard deviation of the response-history results.
Figure 10-2 Acceleration-displacement response Improved procedures also seem to work well, at
spectrum (ADRS) showing effective period least for the case that was studied, in estimating
and damping parameters of equivalent linear maximum displacement response in conjunction
system, along with a capacity curve. with a design spectrum. Further investigations are
warranted to assess the uncertainty involved with
this approach on a more general basis.
effective damping is also less than that specified in
ATC-40. Note also in Figure 10-2 that the optimal The results of the evaluation of the improved
effective period does not intersect the capacity spectrum nonlinear procedures illustrate the dispersion of
for the structure at the maximum inelastic displacement results from nonlinear response-history analysis
or Performance Point. In order to preserve this useful using design level ground motions. This dispersion
visualization feature, Chapter 6 also includes an is the result of the many uncertainties involved in
optional adjustment to generate a modified inelastic seismic analysis. It is important for
acceleration-displacement response spectrum practitioners to keep this in mind when interpreting
(MADRS) that does intersect the capacity spectrum at the results of inelastic analyses.

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-5

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

10.7 Soil-Structure Interaction Effects distribution of forces and displacements among

There is a perception among many in the practicing
engineering community that short, stiff buildings do not sequence of inelastic behavior; and
respond to seismic shaking as adversely as might be potential foundation modes of inelastic behavior
predicted analytically. There are several reasons why (e.g. rocking, soil crushing, pier/pile slip).
short-period structures may not respond as conventional
analysis procedures predict. Among these are: Relatively stiff foundation elements on, or in, soil tend
radiation and material damping in supporting soils; to average overall shaking effects to an intensity that is
lower than localized maximums. These kinematic
structures with basements that experience reduced effects depend on the plan dimensions of the structure,
levels of shaking; its embedment into the soil, and its period. They can be
incoherent input to buildings with relatively large visualized as a low-pass frequency (high-pass period)
plan dimensions; and filter on the free-field ground motion. (see Figure 10-3).
For nonlinear static procedures this leads to a reduced
inaccuracies in modeling, including lumping of spectrum representing a foundation input motion. That
masses, neglecting foundation flexibility and some is, this effect tends to minimize the amplitude of high
elements that contribute to strength. frequency motion experienced by the structure.
These factors are often cited qualitatively, along with Relative movements in the soil beneath structures
the observed good performance of such buildings in dissipate energy through both radiation damping and
past earthquakes, as justification for less onerous hysteretic damping. Hysteretic damping is implied in
seismic demand parameters in codes and analytical the nonlinear force-deformation properties of the
procedures. Traditional design procedures have geotechnical components of foundation models, when
evolved accordingly. Consequently, FEMA 356 these elements are modeled. Radiation damping can be
currently contains limitations (caps) on the maximum incorporated into inelastic analysis procedures by
value of the coefficient C1 for short-period buildings. estimating foundation damping and combining it with
Many practicing engineers routinely use the limitations the conventional assumption for the structure to
on C1. Capping leads to prediction of maximum generate an initial system damping ratio for the system.
inelastic displacements that are less than predicted by For NSPs, the result is a further modification in initial
the current empirical relationship by a margin that spectral ordinates, depending primarily upon the
varies widely depending on period, strength, and site foundation area and effective moment of inertia.
conditions. For periods of interest for most buildings (>
0.2 sec. or so), the margin ranges from relatively small The basic principles used for the development of the
(< 20%) for firm (Class B) sites to rather large (> SSI procedures in Chapter 8 have been included in the
200%) for soft (Class E) sites. NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New Buildings
(BSSC, 2000)1 for the linear analysis and design of new
Chapter 8 presents procedures to incorporate soil- buildings for a number of years. They have been
structure interaction (SSI) into nonlinear static analyses. adapted for use with inelastic procedures. They are
The objective is to replace the subjective limits with applicable to both the displacement modification and
rational technical justifications for reducing seismic equivalent linearization forms of nonlinear static
demand. These SSI techniques address the first three analysis.
items listed above. The distribution of mass is not
addressed in this document; however, it is worthy of 10.8 Multiple-Degree-of Freedom Effects
future investigation to further improve inelastic analysis
procedures. Whether evaluating performance or designing a
structure, the engineer makes decisions primarily based
FEMA 356 and ATC-40 contain similar procedures for on component forces and deformations. These are
incorporating the strength and stiffness of foundations typically compared to some type of acceptability
into structural models for inelastic analyses. These criteria. The intensity of component deformations and
procedures result in changes in response compared to
fixed base assumptions that can be very significant for
1.Superseded in 2003 with the FEMA 450 Recommended
some structures. These changes include:
Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings
lengthening of period of the system; and Other Structures.

10-6 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

geotechnical components structural components of

of foundation foundation
Infinitely rigid foundation and soil

ug= free field motion (FFM) with ug= free field motion (FFM) with
conventional damping conventional damping

a) Rigid base model b) Flexible base model

ug= foundation input motion (FIM) ug= foundation input motion (FIM)
with conventional damping with system damping including
Kinematic interaction Adjust for foundation foundation damping
(high T-pass filter) damping

free field motion (FFM) with foundation input motion (FIM) with
conventional damping conventional damping
Kinematic interaction
(high T-pass filter)
free field motion (FFM) with
conventional damping

c) Kinematic interaction d) Foundation damping

Figure 10-3 Foundation modeling alternatives

forces are directly related to a global displacement NSPs generally provide reliable estimates of
parameter (i.e., roof displacement or first-mode spectral maximum floor and roof displacements. They also
displacement) in NSPs. The approximate relative are capable of providing reasonable estimates of the
distribution of elastic and inelastic forces and largest inter-story drifts that may occur at any
deformations for the multiple-degree-of-freedom location over the height.
(MDOF) structure are controlled by the characteristics NSPs are not particularly capable, however, of
of the single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) model accurately predicting maximum drifts at each story,
pushover curve assumed in the analysis. The variations particularly within tall flexible structures.
of these parameters in a true multi-degree-of-freedom
system from those of the SDOF approximation are NSPs are very poor predictors of story forces,
known as MDOF effects. The adequacy of simplified including shear forces and overturning moments in
procedures to address MDOF effects has been taller structures.
questioned by a number of researchers. The use of the first-mode load vector is suggested
due to the relatively good displacement estimates
Chapter 9 summarizes the options for different load made with this assumption. Other single-load
vectors used to generate SDOF pushover curves for vectors were less consistent in producing reliable
structures. In order to investigate and illustrate these results. The use of two single-load vectors to try to
various options for evaluating MDOF effects, a envelope response parameters is not particularly
comprehensive study of five buildings compared useful.
approximate estimates from NSPs for several
parameters to those obtained from nonlinear MDOF Multi-mode pushover analysis consisting of the use
response-history analyses. The results are consistent of multiple load vectors proportional to the mode
with previous research. Practical implications for shapes of the structure that are statistically combined
structures with significant MDOF effects are: shows promise in producing better estimates in inter-

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-7

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

Overturning Moments Weak-story 9-story frame

Floor 2% Drift Floor 4% Drift

9th 9th

8th 8th

7th 7th

6th 6th

5th 5th

4th 4th

3rd 3rd

2nd 2nd

Weak2 % 1st
Weak4 %
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000

Overturning Moment (kips-ft) Overturning Moment (kips-ft)

Mean First Mode Rectangular Adaptive

Min Max Median Multimode
SD SD Inverted Triangular Code SRSS

Figure 10-4 Overturning moments in example 9-story building using various load vectors.

story drifts over the heights of the buildings. multi-degree-of-freedom model gave better
Current results documented in the literature indications of drifts and story forces than any of the
conclude that the adequacy of results from multi- approximate single-degree-of-freedom estimates
mode pushover analyses depends on the parameter (see Figure 10-4). This suggests that a future
of interest. It seems that future developments may procedure might be developed that utilizes a small
further improve multi-mode pushover analysis. number of response histories to estimate variation
The provisions of FEMA 356 as to when higher and MDOF response parameters.
modes are to be considered significant are not
particularly reliable. All of the example buildings in 10.9 Uncertainty and Reliability
Chapter 9 would have satisfied the criteria (i.e., NSPs are an important part of performance-based
higher modes would not have been significant). engineering. Performance-based engineering departs
This is in spite of the fact that all of the buildings, in from traditional practices in a number of ways. One of
one way or another, showed sensitivity to higher- the more important departures relates to the treatment of
mode effects. uncertainty and reliability. Uncertainty arises from the
Specific limitations as to when NSPs produce seismic ground motion, the structural model, and the
reliable results for MDOF structures are elusive. analysis technique utilized. Traditional prescriptive
Chapter 9 provides a discussion of important analysis and design procedures (e.g., working stress
considerations, but at this time considerable design, load and resistance factor methods) incorporate
judgment on the part of the practicing engineer is margins of safety in the calculation of demand and
required. capacity. These procedures treat uncertainty implicitly
and they are appropriately conservative with respect to
As a result of the study, it was observed that, in the actual potential consequences. In contrast,
many cases, a single time history response of a performance-based procedures can be used to predict

10-8 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

Current Potential improvement

E[( /( E[( i) app/( i) ex ]
ex] /( i) ex ]
p 2.0
Ts = 0.55 s R=4.0 T g = 0.85 s R = 4.0
R=3.0 R = 3.0
1.5 1.5
R=2.0 R = 2.0
R=1.5 R = 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5


0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0


Figure 10-5 Error associated with the Coefficient C1 as formulated in FEMA 356 (left) and the potential improved
formulation (right).

the expected consequences of future ground motions. Figure 10-6 for several different strengths. Note the
When used in this manner, the results of the analysis are dispersion of the results on either side of the mean
central (i.e., mean or median) values. This means that (expected) value. Note also that the dispersion
they represent the most likely, or expected, response. increases with lower strength (higher R), as is typical in
However, this also means that the actual response has most cases.
roughly a 50% chance of being greater and a 50%
chance of being less than the predicted response. In general, it is important to recognize the empirical
nature of the improved expressions for the proposed
The improvements to existing procedures proposed in modifications in this document. They are formulated
the document have been developed to optimize by attempting to match actual analysis data. They may
predictions of expected values. An example is appear complex, but they do not imply accuracy beyond
illustrated in Figure 10-5 showing the error associated that associated with the statistical variation in the
with the current FEMA 356 value for coefficient C1 and underlying data. Scrutiny of the detailed characteristics
a potential improved formulation. The error is of the data indicates significant uncertainties in
determined by dividing the approximate prediction of expected values. The degree of uncertainty increases
displacement by the expected value from the response for:
history analyses. The expected value in this case is the
a. shorter period;
mean of results for twenty different ground motion
records for each period (T) and for each strength (R). b. lower strength (higher R);
The closer the error is to 1.0, the better the approximate
c. degrading hysteretic behavior; and
result. Thus the potential improvement clearly provides
more accurate results than the current procedure. d. near-source ground motion.
However, the dispersion of the results for the twenty
ground motions is not apparent in this illustration. When applying these procedures, it is important to
estimate basic parameters as carefully as possible. For
The independent evaluation of the proposed example, using a conservative (low) estimate of the
improvements is summarized in Chapter 7. In this strength of a structure may lead to a conservative (high)
study, a series of bilinear EPP oscillators with post- estimate of displacement. It is suggested that realistic
elastic stiffness equal to 5% of the initial stiffness were estimates for all parameters be used to generate
subject to thirteen ground motion records. The results expected values as a result of the analysis. Then
of the nonlinear dynamic (response-history) analyses engineering judgment may be applied to inject the
for an oscillator with a period of 0.5 s are shown in appropriate degree of conservatism, considering the

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-9

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

T = 0.5s
Average Response Spectrum

NDA mean
0.12 std R=2
std R=4
Maximum Displacement (m)

std R=8




Indicates mean of NDA plus and
minus one standard deviation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Strength Reduction Factor, R

Figure 10-6 Dispersion of results for the nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA) of a SDOF oscillator subject to thirteen
NEHRP Site Class C ground motions

particular circumstances. With this in mind, it should 10.10.1 Nonlinear Modeling for Cyclic and In-
be noted that traditional design equations, including Cycle Degradation of Strength and
some of those in FEMA 356 and ATC-40, are Stiffness
conservative and may underestimate strength capacities FEMA 440 makes a distinction between two types of
and deformation acceptability for some structures and degradation of stiffness and strength of inelastic single
components. More accurate supplemental information degree-of-freedom oscillators (see Figure 10-1). This
is available from other sources (FEMA 306/307/308, distinction had not previously been addressed explicitly
FEMA 355C). by guidelines for nonlinear static procedures.
Independent studies demonstrate that if strength
10.10 Important Future Developments degradation occurs cyclically, then dynamic response of
SDOF systems is stable. In contrast, in-cycle loss of
The proposed improvements to nonlinear static analysis
strength can lead to dynamic instability. It is vitally
procedures in this document will lead to better results in
important to be able to differentiate between these two
practice. Nonetheless, not all of the shortcomings of
types of structural degradation. Current nonlinear static
NSPs have been addressed. In developing the
pushover procedures cannot fully distinguish between
improvements, a number of important observations
cyclic and in-cycle strength degradation. FEMA 440
about the need for future improvement of inelastic
includes interim recommendations based solely on
seismic analysis procedures have emerged. These are
judgment for this purpose.
summarized in the following sections.
Important questions include:
What current data exist on force-deformation
behavior and strength degradation of components
subjected to large ductility demands in a single cycle
of loading?

10-10 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

How does in-cycle strength loss in components What are the effects of foundation sliding on
affect the global dynamic stability of structural inelastic seismic response and how can these effects
models? be incorporated into practical analysis procedures?
Can this effect be adequately incorporated into 10.10.3 Nonlinear Multi-Degree of Freedom
NSPs? Simplified Modeling
What practical guidance can be provided for the Current nonlinear static procedures are based on single-
incorporation of in-cycle degradation into nonlinear degree-of-freedom models, which, while simple to
response-history analysis procedures? understand, are very limited in their ability to address
How can these effects be incorporated into complex structures and multiple-degree-of-freedom
simplified models? effects from input seismic ground motions. As noted,
FEMA 440 recognizes that current NSPs are limited in
10.10.2 Soil and Foundation Structure Interaction the ability to reliably predict the effects of inelastic
behavior of MDOF systems. Specifically, predictions
While some advances are made in FEMA 440, there is of maximum story drifts, story forces, and inelastic
not completely adequate guidance for addressing the component demands (i.e., plastic hinge rotations) are
effects of the interaction between structures and not reliable using a single-load vector. FEMA 440 also
supporting foundations and soils. This is particularly notes that current procedures for using multiple-load
important for short-period or large-footprint structures, vectors representative of the fundamental mode and one
where current models may over-predict the input or more higher modes (multi-mode pushover analysis)
ground motion. Furthermore, additional guidance on can improve results somewhat, particularly for
force-deformation relationships and damping prediction of maximum story drifts. Ongoing research
characteristics of foundations is needed. Finally, there suggests that multi-mode pushover procedures might
is an important need for adequate guidance on the effect be modified to provide better estimates of other demand
of foundation rocking on structural response. parameters as well. These improvements come at the
expense of greater computational effort and less
FEMA 440 supplements existing NSPs with transparency, however. These barriers have been cited
preliminary recommendations for the inclusion of soil- as obstacles to the practical application of nonlinear
structure-interaction effects (see Figure 10-3). These analysis techniques (i.e., using response-history
recommendations augment the existing guidelines in analysis). This raises the question: why not devote the
FEMA 356 and ATC-40 for soil-foundation stiffness effort to simplified nonlinear response-history analysis?
and strength with approximate procedures to account
for kinematic SSI and soil damping. The provisions for One of the interesting observations about MDOF effects
soil load-deformation behavior provide a framework during the preparation of the FEMA 440 report was
primarily with some default values for typical materials. that, in spite of significant dispersion among records,
The documents recommend site-specific studies if any single nonlinear response-history analysis result
performance is significantly affected by soil properties. often produced better estimates of maximum
engineering demand parameters than any of the
Important issues include: approximate analyses (see Figure 10-4). This
Is the adaptation of linear SSI procedures for observation suggests that there may be an analysis
nonlinear analysis presented in FEMA 440 adequate procedure that characterizes global engineering demand
as is, or are further adjustments warranted? as the maximum displacement response of a structural
model subject to shaking hazard represented by
What information is available on soil load- currently available regional maps (i.e., by the maps
deformation characteristics that might be adopted currently prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey for
for general practical application? the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program).
What analytical procedures are available to Maximum displacements might be estimated using
geotechnical engineers to estimate critical soil nonlinear static procedures. Story-level and
properties for inelastic seismic analysis? component-level engineering demand could then be
estimated using a simplified MDOF response-history
What are the effects of foundation rocking on analysis for a small number of ground motion records,
inelastic seismic response and how can these effects scaled to result in the previously estimated global
be incorporated into practical analysis procedures?

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-11

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

displacement demand. This approach could greatly identify pertinent sections of FEMA 440 (this
simplify nonlinear response-history analysis. document), and also FEMA 356 and ATC-40. The
calculations also include similar tags for ease of
Nonlinear response-history analysis might be facilitated reference to these three documents. The example
further by the use of simplified structural models. illustrates use of both the displacement modification
Detailed structural models often can require hundreds and the equivalent linearization procedures to estimate
of degrees of freedom, making the process prone to the maximum displacement of a building model.
error and complicating the interpretation of results. As
noted in FEMA 440, many practitioners have used 10.11.1 Example Building Description
innovative sub-structuring techniques to generate
stick or fishbone models that greatly simplify data In order to illustrate the application of NSPs, including
management, computational effort, and visualization of the suggested improvements in this document, an
results. example building has been developed. It is depicted
and described on calculation Sheet 1. This type of
In summary, this issue presents the following critical construction is typical for relatively small commercial
questions: office and/or retail uses. It is assumed to be located in
an area of relatively high seismicity. This example is
What are the limits (e.g. periods, separation of very simple from an analysis perspective since all of the
modes, mass participation) for building models walls are assumed to be identical and the floor and roof
when MDOF effects must be considered significant? diaphragms are assumed to be rigid. The building is
Can multi-mode pushover procedures provide also completely regular and symmetrical. Although
adequate results for systems with significant MDOF some actual buildings might be this simple, it is not
effects? always the case and the user should not infer that all
structures may be reduced to this level of simplicity.
Can maximum engineering demand below the
global level (i.e., story and component levels) be 10.11.2 Basic Ground Motion
predicted using a limited number of nonlinear
response-history analyses? The basic ground motion spectrum for the example is
illustrated on calculation Sheet 2. The selection of the
How should ground motion records be scaled to basic ground motion does not differ from current
produce global maximum displacement demands procedures of FEMA 356, ATC-40 and the 2000
that are representative of a specific shaking hazard? NEHRP Recommended Provisions for New Buildings.
How can MDOF structural models be simplified The same assumptions used for the evaluation study
while still providing reliable results for practical summarized in Chapter 7 are used for the example.
application? Values for short- and 1-second period spectral
accelerations at the Maximum Considered Earthquake
How can strength and stiffness degradation (see (MCE) level were assumed for 5% damping and site
Section 10.10.1) be adequately represented in class C, resulting in values SS = 1.5g and S1 = 0.6g.
MDOF structural models? Following the procedures in the 2000 NEHRP
How can improved methods for modeling Recommended Provisions for New Buildings, the short-
foundations and soil structure interaction (see and long-period values were modified for site class C to
Section 10.10.2) be incorporated into MDOF SXS = FaSS and SX1 = FvS1, where Fa = 1.0 and Fv = 1.3.
structural models? Design-basis ordinates then were obtained as
SDS = 2/3SXS and SD1 = 2/3SX1. These values were
What is the effect of concentrating masses at story used with the spectral shape defined in the NEHRP
levels on inelastic response, particularly for relative Recommended Provisions for New Buildings.
short structures?
10.11.3 Kinematic Soil-structure Interaction
10.11 Application Example
The next step, also illustrated on Sheet 2, is to modify
This section contains structural analysis calculations, the initial spectrum to account for kinematic soil-
and related commentary, utilizing nonlinear static structure interaction in accordance with Chapter 8.
procedures for the analysis of an example building. The Note that the kinematic effect associated with the base-
steps in this process are presented in the flowchart in slab averaging is considered, but not the effect related to
Figure 10-7. On the flowchart, tags have been used to embedment. This is due to the fact that the building,

10-12 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

Develop fixed base Select ground motion

FEMA 356
structural model spectrum
FEMA 356
Chap.3,5,6,7,8 Sect. 1.6
ATC 40 ATC 40
Chap. 8,9 Sect. 4.4

FEMA 440
Model foundation stiffness and Modify spectrum for kinematic Sect. 8.2
FEMA 356
strength and modify structural soil-structure interaction
Chap. 4
ATC 40 model for flexible base
Chap. 10

FEMA 440 FEMA 440

Sect. 9.4.1 Select static load vector Modify spectrum for Sect. 8.3
FEMA 356 foundation damping
ATC 40
Sect. 8.2.1

FEMA 356
Sect. 3.3.3 Generate global force-
ATC 40 deformation curve for
Sect. 8.2.1
equivalent SDOF model

FEMA 440
Sect. 4.5 Check for minimum strength
to avoid dynamic instability

Displacement modification Equivalent linearization

FEMA 356 Select procedure to ATC 40
determine maximum

FEMA 440
Convert from spectral to roof Determine equation for Sect. 6.2.1
ATC 40
FEMA 356 displacement, Coeff. C0 effective damping
Sect. Sect.

FEMA 440 FEMA 440

Sect. 5.2 Convert from elastic to inelastic Determine equation for Sect. 6.2.2
ATC 40
FEMA 356 displacement, Coeff. C1 effective period
Sect. Sect.

FEMA 440 FEMA 440

Sect. 5.3 Adjust for cyclic strength Select solution procedure and Sect. 6.4
ATC 40
FEMA 356
degradation, Coeff. C2 calculate maximum displacement
Sect. Sect.

Calculate maximum
FEMA 356
Eqn. 3-15

FEMA 440
Check ductility, ,
Sect. 8.3 with assumed value

Figure 10-7 Application flowchart for nonlinear static seismic analysis

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-13

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

although supported three feet below grade, does not period may be calculated as shown at the end of the
have a basement. The result of this step is a reduced calculations on Sheet 3.
spectrum representing the foundation input motion.
10.11.5 Flexible-Base Model
10.11.4 Fixed-Base Model
The process continues by repeating the calculations
The basic procedures to develop a structural model and with the assumption of a flexible base, as shown on
determine a lateral force and deformation relationship calculation Sheet 4. The stiffness of the foundation in
(pushover curve) for a structure remain essentially the this case is assumed to be controlled by the soil
same as in ATC-40 and FEMA 356. For the example properties (i.e., foundation structure assumed to be rigid
building, a fixed-based model is relatively simple, as compared to the supporting soil). The initial shear
shown on Sheet 3. The fixed-based model is necessary, modulus of the soil material is calculated based on the
even if the intention is to include a flexible foundation, shear wave velocity for the material. For a Class C site,
due to the fact that foundation damping procedures rely this ranges from 1200 to 2500 feet per second. The
on an estimate of the change in period from a fixed base effective shear modulus is calculated by reducing the
to a flexible model. The total masses for the building initial value, depending on the severity of shaking at the
are calculated assuming that the roof weight is site. In this case a ratio was determined in accordance
approximately 140 psf and that the floors are with the recommendations of FEMA 356.
approximately 160 psf. These estimates are intended to
include not only the weight of the structural Both FEMA 356 and ATC-40 contain equations for
components of the buildings, but also other dead loads calculating rotational and translational stiffness of
and actual live loads. In an actual application, the foundations assuming a rigid plate acting on a
weights would be determined in a more detailed take- homogeneous elastic half space representing the soil.
off. The effective rigidities of the walls are calculated The equations in FEMA 356 differ from those in ATC-
in accordance with the requirements of FEMA 356 and 40 in their formulation. The equations shown Sheet 4
ATC-40 for walls that are cracked. The requirements in are from FEMA 356. Essentially the same values can
this case are identical in both documents. be determined by using the equations in ATC-40. Note
that both the rotational stiffness and the translational
The linear dynamic properties for the model shown on stiffness are increased due to the embedment of the
Sheet 3 are calculated utilizing the basic equations in foundation. It should be noted that the translational
ATC-40, Section 8.5. In many practical applications, stiffness in this case is calculated only for the six shear
these calculations are done using computer software. walls acting in each direction. In reality, the stiffness is
The determination of the linear dynamic properties can probably higher, due to the effect of the foundations
be simplified by using Rayleighs method to reduce the beneath the walls acting in the orthogonal direction, as
number of degrees of freedom in the model to the lateral well as the slab on grade that ties all the footings
displacement at the roof and that at the floor level. The together.
process is initiated by estimating a mode shape
assuming a uniform acceleration acting on the story Once the foundation stiffness values are calculated,
masses. Then the deflections at the roof and the floor Rayleighs method can be used once again to reduce the
are calculated. In this case, moment-area calculations degrees of translational freedom to two. The
were used for this purpose. These displacements are calculations to determine dynamic properties for the
then normalized to a unit displacement at the roof to flexible based model as shown on Sheet 4 are then
determine an initial estimate of the fundamental mode analogous to those for a fixed base.
shape. Then a first-mode participation factor is
calculated. Utilizing the participation factor, modal 10.11.6 Foundation Damping
story forces for unit spectral acceleration can be
calculated. This essentially revises the loads that were The next step is to modify the ground motion spectrum
initially assumed using uniform acceleration. further for the effects of foundation damping. The
Application of these revised forces to the model results calculations to determine foundation damping are
in a change in the displacement at the roof and the floor. illustrated on calculation Sheet 5. This process begins
These are once again normalized to the roof with an estimate of the effective stiffness of the fixed-
displacement to generate a revised mode shape. The base model. Note that the mass must be modified by
process continues until the calculated mode shape is the effective mass coefficient. The equation for this
essentially equal to that which was assumed. Then the may be found in ATC-40. The equivalent foundation

10-14 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

radius for translation is calculated for the entire considered. The first case involves an arbitrary
footprint of the building. Using this radius, the assumption that the strength is approximately 0.4 W,
translational stiffness of the foundation can be resulting in an R-factor of 1.52. If the governing
estimated using FEMA 440. Note that this estimate inelastic mechanism were foundation rocking or some
corresponds well with that calculated using the actual other ductile mechanism, the pushover curve might be
soil properties on Sheet 4. as shown on Sheet 7 for the positive post-elastic
stiffness model. Note that a positive post-elastic
The effective height of the building is required to stiffness of 5% reflects some strain hardening and
estimate the rotational stiffness of the foundation. This participation of the slab and columns. If the mechanism
parameter is essentially the centroid of the first-mode included modes of behavior that imply the loss of
shape measured from the base. As noted in Chapter 8, strength, the post-elastic portion of the curve would
70% of the total height of the building is often a good have a negative slope for such a degrading system. For
approximation. In this example the dynamic properties the second model, this is assumed to be -25% of the
are used to calculate the actual value. Rotational initial oscillator stiffness for the strength-degrading
stiffness of the foundation can then be estimated. Note model, as also illustrated in the pushover diagrams on
again that the estimate on Sheet 5 compares reasonably Sheet 7. Each of these cases is examined further.
well with that calculated for the flexible-base model
using the soil properties of the foundation directly. This 10.11.8 Check on Minimum Strength for Strength
leads to an equivalent foundation radius for rotation, Degrading Model
which can be visualized as a radius of gyration The model with degrading strength must be checked to
representing the effective moment of inertia of the determine if there is a potential for dynamic instability,
foundation. as shown on calculation Sheet 8. The maximum
negative post elastic stiffness evident from the pushover
The actual amount of foundation damping depends on curve could be due to cyclic and/or in-cycle loss of
the relative amount of inelasticity in the foundation strength (including P- effects). As noted in Chapter 4,
compared with that in the structure. The procedures in there is currently no practical means of separating these
Chapter 8 essentially assume that the inelasticity is effects. The suggestion in this document is to assume
concentrated in the structure, which leads to a that the effective post-elastic stiffness, for sites located
conservative estimate of foundation damping. The in the near field, is equal to that attributable to P-
calculation requires an estimate of the system ductility effects plus 80% of the balance evident from the
demand. An initial assumption of 3.0 is made for the pushover curve. For non-near-field sites the percentage
example. Combining this with an initial damping of 5% drops to 20%. This is strictly a subjective provision and
leads to an effective damping for the flexible-base further research is needed on this issue. For the
model. Combining the foundation damping with the strength-degrading model in the example, dynamic
initial assumed damping value (5%) leads to an estimate analysis would not be required for the building in either
of the total flexible-base system damping. The case. However, as noted on Sheet 8, the assumed
foundation input motion calculated, including the design level ground motions equal 2/3 of MCE ground
effects of kinematic interaction, is based on the initial motions. Larger motions would imply lower relative
assumption of 5% damping. The foundation input strength (higher R) for the model. In fact, the MCE
motion is then modified to reflect the flexible based motion likely would result in an R greater than the
damping as shown on calculation Sheet 6. maximum allowable and the potential for dynamic
instability. This is discussed further below in
10.11.7 Force-Displacement Relationships
(Pushover Curves) conjunction with equivalent linearization procedures.

The next step in the process is the selection of a lateral 10.11.9 Target Displacement for Displacement
load vector. FEMA 356 and ATC-40 both require and/ Modification
or suggest a number of options for this selection. Based The target displacement for the positive post-elastic
on the recommendation in Chapter 8, a vector stiffness model is calculated using the displacement
proportional to the first-mode shape is sufficient and modification as shown on calculation Sheet 9. The
preferable to the others; thus the first-mode shape for procedure is the Coefficient Method of FEMA 356
the flexible-base model is used to generate the basic modified with the suggested changes for the
load-deformation characterizations for the model (see coefficients C1 and C2. The coefficient C2 is included
calculation Sheet 7). Two different possibilities are in the calculation since a concrete structure is likely to

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-15

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

have stiffness degradation and pinching hysteretic of the locus of performance points, as shown on Sheet
behavior. Note that the solution for maximum 11. A check using the general equations for effective
displacement for the strength-degrading model (near- damping (Equations 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6) and effective
and non-near field) would be the same as the case on period (Equations 6-10, 6-11, and 6-12) produced
Sheet 9, since the displacement-modification procedure essentially the same performance point.
does not directly consider negative post-elastic stiffness
in the calculation of the coefficients. 10.11.11 Check on Assumed Ductility

10.11.10 Calculation of the Performance Point The solutions for the positive post elastic-stiffness
Using Equivalent Linearization model are essentially equivalent for displacement
modification and equivalent linearization. The
The solution for the maximum displacement of the resulting ductility demand is approximately 1.8, as
positive post-elastic stiffness model using equivalent opposed to the assumed value of 3.0. This would result
linearization procedures is shown on calculation Sheets in an increase from 6.9% to 7.9% in initial flexible-base
10 and 11. The effective damping and period damping for the model. This reduces the maximum
calculations for a stiffness-degrading oscillator with displacement slightly, but not significantly, in this case.
positive post-elastic stiffness of 5% are shown on Sheet
10. The selected solution procedure is the construction

10-16 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-17

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

10-18 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-19

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

10-20 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-21

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

10-22 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-23

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

10-24 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-25

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

10-26 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

FEMA 440 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures 10-27

Chapter 10: Summary and Application Example

10-28 Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures FEMA 440