Response

Spectrum Method
In Seismic Analysis and
Design of Structures

Ajaya Kumar Gupta

Professor of Civil Engineering
North Carolina State University

FOREWORD BY W.J. HALL

Professor and Head, Civil Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign

CRC PRESS
Boca Raton London New York Washington, D . C .
 New Directions in Civil Engineering
Series Editor
W. F. CHEN
Hawaii University

Published Titles
Advanced Analysis of Steel Frames:Theory, Software, and Applications
W.F. Chen and Shouji Toma
Analysis and Software of Cylindrical Members
W.F. Chen and Shouji Toma
Artificial Intelligence and Expert Systems for Engineers
C.S. Krishnamoorthy and S. Rajeev
Cold Weather Concreting
Boris A. Krylov
Concrete Beams with Openings: Analysis and Design
M.A. Mansur and Kiang-Hwee Tan
Concrete Buildings: Analysis for Safe Construction
W.R Chen and K.H. Mossallam
Flexural-Torsional Buckling of Structures
N.S. Trahair
Fracture P r o c e s s e s of Concrete
Jan G.M. van Mier
Fracture and Size Effect in Concrete and Other Quasibrittle Materials
Zdenek R Bazant and Jaime Pianos
Introduction to Environmental Geotechnology
Hsai-Yang Fang
Limit Analysis and Concrete Plasticity
M.P. Nielsen
L R F D Steel Design Using Advanced Analysis
W.F. Chen and Seung-Eock Kim
Response Spectrum Method in Seismic Analysis and Design of Structures
Ajaya Kumar Gupta
Simulation-Based Reliability A s s e s s m e n t for Structural Engineers
Pavel Marek, Milan Gustar, and Thalia Anagnos
Stability Design of Steel Frames
W.R Chen and E.M. Lui
Stability and Ductility of Steel Structures under Cyclic Loading
Yuhshi Rukumoto and George C. Lee
The Finite Strip Method
Y.K. Cheung andh.G. Tham
Theory of Adaptive Structures: Incorporating Intelligence into
Engineered Products
Senol JJtku
Unified Theory of Reinforced Concrete
Thomas T.C. Hsu
WaterTreatment P r o c e s s e s : Simple Options
S. Vigneswaran and C. Visvanathan
Forthcoming Titles
Analysis and Design of Steel Concrete Composite Structures
Edoardo Cosenza and Riccardo Zandonini
Contaminated Soils: Fate of Pollutants and Remediation
Raymond N. Yong and Hywel R. Thomas
Earthquake Engineering Handbook
W.E Chen and Charles S. Scawthorn
Transportation Engineering: Planning Methods Handbook
Konstandinos Goulias
 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Gupta, Ajaya K.
Response spectrum method in seismic anylysis and design
of new structures / Ajaya Kumar Gupta; foreward by W.J. Hall,
p. cm. — (New directions in civil engineering)
ISBN 0-8493-8628-4
1. Earthquake engineering. 2. Stuctural engineering.
3. Seismic waves. I. Title. II. Series.

TA654.6.G87 1990
624.1'762—dc20

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with
permission, and sources are indicated. A wide variety of references are listed. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish
reliable data and information, but the authors and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials
or for the consequences of their use.
Neither this book nor any part may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without prior
permission in writing from the publisher.

The consent of CRC Press LLC does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works,
or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from CRC Press LLC for such copying.

Direct all inquiries to CRC Press LLC, 2000 N.W. Corporate Blvd., Boca Raton, Florida 33431.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identification and explanation, without intent to infringe.

Visit the CRC Press Web site at www.crcpress.com

© 1990 by Blackwell Scientific Publications, Inc.

© 1992 by CRC Press LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government works

International Standard Book Number 0-8493-8628-4
Dedicated to my parents
Dr Chhail Bihari Lai Gupta and
Mrs Taravali Gupta
Contents

Foreword, ix

Preface, xi

Acknowledgments, xv

1 Structural dynamics and response spectrum, 1

1.1 Single-degree-of-freedom system, 1
1.2 Response spectrum, 2
1.3 Characteristics of the earthquake response spectrum, 6
1.4 Multi-degree-of-freedom systems, 7
References, 10

2 Design spectrum, 11
2.1 Introduction, 11
2.2 'Average' elastic spectra, 12
2.3 Site-dependent spectra, 16
2.4 Design spectrum for inelastic systems, 23
2.5 Comments, 27
References, 28

3 Combination of modal responses, 30

3.1 Introduction, 30
3.2 Modes with closely spaced frequencies, 31
3.3 High frequency modes—rigid response, 39
3.4 High frequency modes—residual rigid response, 45
References, 49

4 Response to multicomponents of earthquake, 51

4.1 Introduction, 51
4.2 Simultaneous variation in responses, 52
4.3 Equivalent modal responses, 55
4.4 Interaction ellipsoid, 59
4.5 Approximate method, 60
4.6 Application to design problems, 62
References, 64

5 Nonclassically damped systems, 66

5.1 Introduction, 66
5.2 Analytical formulation, 67
5.3 Response spectra, 71
viii / C O N T E N T S

5.4 Key frequencies f and / , 74

L H

5.5 Modal combination, 75

5.6 Modal combination for high frequency modes, 77
5.7 Modal combination for high frequency modes—residual rigid response, 78
5.8 Application, 81
References, 87

6 Response of secondary systems, 89

6.1 Introduction, 89
6.2 Formulation of the coupled problem, 91
6.3 Coupled modal properties, 95
6.4 Coupled response calculation, 98
6.5 Comparison of coupled response with the response from conventional
IRS method, 101
6.6 An alternate formulation of the coupled response, 106
6.7 Secondary system equivalent oscillators, 108
6.8 Evaluation of instructure spectral quantities, 110
6.9 Examples of instructure response spectra, 114
6.10 Correlation coefficients, 116
6.11 Response examples, 118
References, 124

7 Decoupled primary system analysis, 125

7.1 Introduction, 125
7.2 S D O F - S D O F system, 126
7.3 M D O F - M D O F systems, 130
7.4 Application of the frequency and response ratio equations, 131
References, 138

8 Seismic response of buildings, 139

8.1 Introduction, 139
8.2 Analysis, 139
8.3 Building frequency, 144
8.4 Seismic coefficient, 144
References, 152

Appendix: Numerical evaluation of response spectrum, 153

A . l Linear elastic systems, 153
A.2 Bilinear hysteretic systems, 156
A.3 Elastoplastic systems, 158
A.4 Notes for a computational algorithm, 159
A. 5 Records with nonzero initial motions, 160
References, 163

Author index, 165

Subject index, 167

Foreword

This book devoted to the Response Spectrum Method contains concise sections
on a number of the major topics associated with the application of spectrum tech­
niques in analysis and design. Although the theory of spectra has been understood
for some extended period of time, it was only in the past twenty years that the
approach was adopted in a major way by the profession for use in engineering
practice. This development came about as a result of three major factors, namely
that the theory and background of spectra was more fully understood, that the
theory was relatively simple to understand and use, and because there was a need
for such a simple approach by the building codes and by the advanced analysis
techniques needed in the design of nuclear power plants and lifeline systems.
The author rather directly presents his interesting and informative interpreta­
tions of various spectrum techniques in the topical chapters. He correctly points
out that much work remains to be accomplished, which is accurate, for spectra in
general only depict maxima of various effects, and in many cases, especially
where nonlinear effects are to be treated, it is often desirable to know more about
the response than just a maximum value. Research on such topics presently goes
forward on such matters at a number of institutions, and in time will lead to even
greater understanding of the theory, and to new approaches of application. In this
connection one can cite subtle yet important differences in use and interpretation
of spectra. For example, the term 'response spectrum' normally is used to refer to
a plot of maximum response parameters as a function of frequency or period, for
a given excitation of the base of a single-degree-of-freedom damped oscillator, as
for acceleration time history of excitation associated with a specific earthquake.
On the other hand a design spectrum is a similar shaped plot selected as being
representative of some set of such possible or plausible excitations for use in
design; as such it is a characterization of effects that might be expected as a result
of some possible range of excitation inputs, and possibly adjusted to reflect risk or
uncertainty considerations, personal safety requirements, economic considera­
tions, nonlinear effects, etc. One can immediately discern the differences, directly
or subtly as may be the case.
It is believed that the reader will find the interesting presentation by Dr Ajaya
Gupta to be educational and informative, and hopefully such as to promote
additional effort to improve even further our understanding of the theory and
applications thereof.
W. J. H A L L
Professor and Head, Civil Engineering
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Preface

In modern earthquake engineering the response spectrum method has emerged as

the most commonly used method of analysis. The primary reason for this
popularity is the fact that it provides the designer with a rational and simple basis
for specifying the earthquake loading. Another reason often cited is that the
method is computationally economical. I f a comparison is made between the
computational effort required in, say, a modal superposition analysis of a multi-
degree-of-freedom structure subjected to a specified ground motion history, and
that in a response spectrum analysis including the evaluation of the response
spectrum from the same motion history, it is not clear whether the response
spectrum method would do much better. A major part of the effort, which is com­
mon in both the methods, is the solution of the eigenvalue problem. In fact, i f the
objective is to evaluate the response of a structure subjected to a known
earthquake ground motion, there should not be any question about using a
standard time-domain analysis, or alternatively, an equivalent frequency-
domain analysis. It is when we are designing a structure for a potential future
earthquake that the response spectrum method is much more relevant.
Criticisms of the response spectrum method arise from the fact that the
temporal information is lost in the process of evaluating the spectrum. In the
words of Robert Scanlan: 'Multi-degree-of-freedom cases are thus improperly
1

served, intermodal phasings, in particular, being unaccounted for.' Further he

points out: The needs arising in the design of secondary responding equipment
(piping, machinery, etc., on upper floors of a structure) are not adequately met by
the given design response spectra. That is, the given primary shock spectra do not
lead directly and simply to definition of corresponding secondary shock spectra.'
Similar difficulties arise in combining the responses from three components of
the earthquake.
Much progress has been made in the last decade. Lack of temporal
information in the response spectrum method no longer appears to be a
handicap. Rational rules are now available to combine responses from various
modes, and from three components of earthquake motion. These rules account
for the physics of the problem, and can be further justified in the same spirit as
the design spectrum itself, as a representation of expected response values in an
uncertain world. Response of secondary systems can now be evaluated using
efficient modal synthesis techniques in conjunction with the response spectrum
method. Alternatively, the secondary spectrum, or the instructure response

'R. H . Scanlan, On Earthquake Loadings for Structural Design, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 5, 1977, pp. 203-205

xi
 xii/PREFACE

spectrum can be evaluated by applying similar modal synthesis techniques to the

secondary single-degree-of-freedom oscillator coupled to the primary system.
These new techniques directly use the design response spectrum at the base of the
primary structure as seismic input and account for the effects of mass interaction
(between the equipment and the structure) and of multiple support input into the
secondary system. In doing so it is no longer necessary to convert the design res­
ponse spectrum into a 'compatible' motion history or a power spectral density
function. The question o f nonclassical damping introduced in the coupled
primary-secondary system, which had not even been specifically raised 10 or 15
years ago, is now adequately addressed.
This brings us to the objective of this book. It is intended to bring together in
one volume the wealth of information on the response spectrum method that has
been generated in recent years. Needless to say that this information has reached
a critical mass suitable for a book. This book can be used as a text or as reference
material for a graduate level course. Although Chapter 1 begins with the
introductory information about the single-degree-of-freedom systems that leads
into the definition of the response spectrum, I feel that most students will be more
comfortable with the material in subsequent chapters i f they already have had an
introductory structural dynamics course. This book should also serve as a useful
reference for practicing engineers. It should help them appreciate the analytical
techniques they are already using. In many cases the book may also help them
improve those techniques, especially when the improvement would lead to
enhanced accuracy, often resulting in significantly lower response values.
It is assumed throughout the book that we are dealing with linear systems.
There are two exceptions. In Chapter 2 a brief treatment is given to inelastic res­
ponse spectra. Chapter 8 deals with conventional buildings which are customarily
designed to undergo significant inelastic deformation under the worst loading
conditions. Inelastic behavior has always been a part of seismic design of
buildings, unintentionally in the beginning, and later with full knowledge and
intention. Yet, our knowledge of the topic is relatively limited. Inelastic seismic
behavior and design continue to be a topic of active research. Detailed coverage
of current research on the topic goes beyond the realm of the response spectrum
method, and is beyond the scope of this book. Brief treatments in Chapter 2 and
Chapter 8 are intended to provide a useful link between the response spectrum
method and the design o f conventional buildings. It should be of particular
interest to the students to see the link established and, at the same time, recognize
the limitations of the link.
I have emphasized deterministic modeling of the earthquake response
phenomenon. For a given earthquake ground motion, the maximum response
values for a single-degree-of-freedom system—which are the basis of the
definition of response spectrum—are deterministic quantities. For a multi-
degree-of-freedom system, therefore, the maximum response values in individual
modes are also deterministic quantities. The modal combination rules are based
 PREFACE/xiii

partly on the physics of the problem, that is on deterministic concepts, and partly
on the random vibration modeling of the phenomenon. Strictly speaking, then,
these rules do not apply to responses from individual earthquakes. On the other
hand, we can look upon the modal combination rules as tools for giving
approximate values of the deterministic maximum response values. It is in this
spirit that the response spectrum analysis results have been repeatedly compared
with the corresponding time-history maxima for individual earthquakes, treating
the latter as the standard. This concept is especially powerful when judging two or
more modal combination rules within the response spectrum method. A rule
which models the physics well is likely to give results which are reasonably close
to those obtained using the time-history analysis.
Probabilistic concepts play an important role in the definition of the design
spectrum, as they do in defining other kinds of loads too. These concepts are most
useful when all the available deterministic tools have been carefully employed.
One should not replace the other. Great strides have taken place in recent years in
the development and application of random vibration techniques to the
earthquake response problems. Important contributions have been made to the
response spectrum method using the random vibration concepts. This book has
not covered those techniques and concepts for most part.
My interest in the response spectrum method has been the primary motiva­
tion for writing this book. This interest has been sustained through many years of
research on related topics in collaboration with coworkers and students. Such
personal involvement in the topic has its advantages and disadvantages in writing
a book. The advantages are obvious. The main disadvantage is that I may not be
able to do full justice in presenting the works of other researchers. To that end, I
shall welcome criticism and suggestions from the readers, which I hope will
improve the future editions of this book.
A. K. GUPTA
Acknowledgments

My interest in the response spectrum method started during my years at Sargent

and Lundy in Chicago (1971-76). My division head, Shih-Lung (Peter) Chu,
asked me to work on the combination of responses from three components of an
earthquake. A former graduate student colleague from the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign, Mahendra P. Singh (now at Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University) was also a coworker at Sargent and Lundy and was among
those who willingly shared their knowledge. During my association with Illinois
Institute of Technology (1976-80), I joined the American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE) Working Group charged with preparing a Standard for Seismic
Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures. Robert P. Kennedy, who chaired
the effort, encouraged me to become involved in the combination of modal
responses. Another colleague in the group, Asadour H. Hadjian from Bechtel, Los
Angeles actively participated in the resolution of the topic.
I came to North Carolina State University in 1980 and have had a series of
students who have participated in the efforts related to the response spectrum
method. Karola Cordero and Don-Chi Chen worked on the modal combination
methods. The ASCE Working Group was deliberating on developing the criterion
for decoupled analysis of primary systems (1981) when I became interested in the
topic along with another former student Jawahar M . Tembulkar. The decoupling
study serendipitously led me and Jing-Wen Jaw into the coupled response of
secondary systems (1983). Jerome L. Sachman and Armen Der Kiureghian were
very helpful in keeping us informed about the related developments at the
University of California at Berkeley. Min-Der Hwang and Tae-Yang Yoon are
present graduate students who have helped in this project in many ways.
Ted B. Belytschko, of Northwestern University and an editor of Nuclear
Engineering and Design, has been responsible for the publication of many of our
papers. He also reviewed early outlines of the present work, suggesting valuable
improvements. William J. Hall of the University of Illinois; Robert H . Scanlan of
the Johns Hopkins University; Bijan Mohraz of Southern Methodist University
and formerly my graduate advisor at the University of Illinois (1968-71); Takeru
Igusa of Northwestern University; and Vernon P. Matzen, James M . Nau, Arturo
E. Schultz and C. C. (David) Tung, my colleagues at North Carolina State
University, have read all or part of the manuscript and offered valuable
comments.
It has been a pleasure to work with Blackwell Scientific Publications, in
particular with Navin Sullivan, Edward Wates and Emmie Williamson. W. F.
xv
 xvi/ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Chen of Purdue University, Editor of the series New Directions in Civil

Engineering, facilitated prompt review of the manuscript.
The manuscript was produced by Engineering Publications at North Carolina
State University under the direction of Martha K. Brinson, who was assisted by
Sue Ellis and Kraig Spruill in word processing and by Mark Ransom and his
coworkers in preparing illustrations.
My talented and beautiful daughters Aparna M i n i and Suvarna (Sona) gave
me their unconditional love and support. To them, to everyone named above and
to the many other coworkers and students who have assisted me on various
occasions, I acknowledge a deep sense of gratitude.

Addendum to Second Printing

I am grateful to my graduate student Hussein Megahed and to U . S. P.

Verma of the Nuclear Power Corporation in India for bringing the corrections
made in the second printing to my attention.
Chapter 1/Structural dynamics and
response spectrum

1.1 Single-degree-of-freedom system

Figure 1.1(a) shows an ideal one story structure model. It has a rigid girder with
lumped mass m which is supported on two massless columns with a combined
lateral stiffness equal to k. The energy loss is modeled by a viscous damper, also
shown in the figure. This structure has only one degree of freedom, the lateral
displacement of the girder. Under the action of the earthquake ground motion,
w , the structure deforms, Figure 1.1(b). The relative displacement of the girder
g

with respect to the ground is u. The total displacement of the girder is

u—(—u ) = u + u . Figure 1.1(c) shows the free body diagram of the girder, in
g $

which f denotes the inertia force, f the spring (or the column) force and f
x s D

denotes the damping force. The equilibrium equation for the girder is simply

y i + / + / s = o.
D (i.i)

Our structure is linear elastic, having the force-displacement relationship shown

in Figure 1.1(d). Therefore,^ = ku. The viscous damping f o r c e d is assumed to
vary linearly with relative velocity w , ^ = cu, Figure 1.1(e). The inertia forced
is given by m(u + i/ ). A super dot ( ) denotes the time derivative. Making the
g

substitutions in Equation 1.1, we get

m(ii + u ) + cit + ku = 0,
g (1.2)

or

mil + cu + ku = — mu , g (1.3)

Equation 1.3 represents damped vibrations of the structure subjected to the

— mii force. We now use the following basic relationship of structural dynamics;
g

k = mw , and c = 2mco£ which with Equation 1.3 becomes

2

u + 2o£w + co u = — i / ,
2
g (1.4)

where co is circular frequency of the structure in radians per second and £ is the
damping ratio. For free response to be vibratory, £ < 1. For most structures £ is
small, say < 0.1, or 10%. We note that the frequency in Hertz (Hz) or in cycles per
second (cps) / = CO/2TC, and that the period of vibration T = 1 / / = 2n/(o, which is
in seconds.
Equation 1.4 can be solved using standard numerical techniques. As a result
we can obtain the time histories of displacement, velocity and acceleration, of the
spring and the damping forces, and any other related response time history. See
the Appendix.
2/CHAPTER 1

Mass M

Lateral
Stiffness k
-3h
Viscous
Damper, c

- ("tig)
(a) O n e story model (b) Model subjected to
ground motion

is- -is.

(c) F r e e body diagram

(d) Elastic force-deformation (e) Viscous damping f o r c e -

relation velocity relation

Fig. 1.1 A single-degree-of-freedom model. (Based on Chopra [1].)

1.2 Response spectrum

We can solve Equation 1.4 for many single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structures
having different frequencies, each subjected to the same earthquake ground
motion. For each structure we can calculate the absolute maximum value of the
response of interest from the corresponding time history. In earthquake response
calculations the sign of response is often not considered. For design purposes the
maximum positive and negative values are assumed to have equal magnitudes,
hence the absolute sign. The curve showing the maximum response versus
structural frequency relationship is called the response spectrum.
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM/3

20 25 30
Time, s e c

Fig. 1.2 Ground acceleration history of El Centro earthquake (SOOE, 1940).

For designing a structure, we are most interested in the maximum spring force
f which can be evaluated i f the maximum relative displacement u is known. A
Si

plot between maximum relative displacement and structural frequency is called

the displacement response spectrum. Its ordinates are called spectral displace­
ments, and are denoted by S (f, £). Depending upon the context, they can also be
D

denoted by 5 (CD, £ ) , S (f), aS (CO), or simply by S . Let us write

d D d D

S = max\u(t)\.
D (1.5)

Figure 1.2 shows the ground acceleration time history of the El Centro (SOOE,
1940) earthquake. The corresponding displacement response spectrum is shown
in Figure 1.3(a).
Let us consider the spring force-displacement relationship^ = ku. We have
indicated earlier that i f the relative displacement u is known, we can find the
spring force f . Alternatively, i f the spring force is known, we can determine the
s

corresponding relative displacement. We can visualize this as a pseudo-static

problem shown in Figure 1.4. Now let us think of f as a pseudo-inertia force,
s

which can be written in terms of the pseudo acceleration a as ma. The

relationships, ma = f = ku, give a = (k/m)u = (0 u. The absolute maximum
s
2

value of a is called spectral acceleration 5 . We can easily see

A

5 = max 10(01 =co 5' .

A
2
D (1.6)

From Equation 1.2 we observe that when cu is small we can write

m(u 4- M ) a —ku, or the total acceleration (u + u ) ~ (—k/m)u = —co w. This
g g
2

means,
5 sa max) ii + M | .
A g (1.7)

This pseudo-acceleration response spectrum for the El Centro earthquake is

plotted in Figure 1.3(c).
4/CHAPTER 1

Frequency, Hz

Fig. 1.3 (a) Displacement response spectrum, (b) Velocity response spectra, (c)
Acceleration response spectrum for E l Centro earthquake (SOOE, 1940); damping ratio, £ «=
0.02.
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM/5

Having defined the response spectra for relative displacement and for pseudo
acceleration, we wish to define a response spectrum for velocity. It can be done in
more than one way. First, let us define a spectral velocity S such that the kinetic
v

energy associated with it is equal to the maximum strain energy of the spring,
( l / 2 ) m S = (l/2)kSl. This gives
v

S = (i)S .
W D (1.8)

The spectral velocity S is really a pseudo velocity because it is not directly

w

related to the actual velocity of the structure. This pseudo-velocity response

spectrum for the El Centro earthquake is plotted in Figure 1.3(b).
We now have three spectral quantities 5 , S and S which have units of
D w A

displacement, velocity and acceleration, respectively. Only spectral displacement

S is directly based on an actual response quantity, the maximum relative
D

displacement. Equations 1.6 and 1.8 give their mutual relationships

S = coSv = co S .
A
2
D (1.9)

Because of this relationship it is possible to read S , S and S from the same

D y A

logarithmic chart shown in Figure 1.5. This chart is known as the tripartite chart
because, for any frequency f, there are three scales, one each for S , S and 5 .
D w A

Now consider the second way of defining a velocity spectrum. We shall denote
the new quantity by Sy. It is defined as the absolute maximum relative velocity

S = max|w(0|.
v (1.10)
The relative velocity spectrum is shown in Figure 1.3(b) with the dashed lines.
The two spectra in the figure are close in the intermediate frequency range; the
pseudo velocity spectrum is higher in the high frequency range, and the relative
velocity spectrum is higher in the low frequency range. Thus, as a rule, we cannot
substitute one spectrum for the other.
 6/CHAPTER 1

Frequency, Hz

Fig. 1.5 Tripartite response spectrum for E l Centro earthquake (SOOE, 1940); damping
ration, £ - 0.02.

For the SDOF structure, the response spectrum quantity of interest is any one
of S , Sy or iS . Also, for the classically damped multi-degree-of-freedom
D A

(MDOF) systems defined in Section 1.4, we need only one of those three spectra.
We shall see in Chapter 5, that we also need Sy for nonclassically damped M D O F
systems.

1.3 Characteristics of the earthquake response spectrum

Let us observe Figure 1.5 again, which shows the tripartite El Centro (SOOE,
1940) response spectrum, along with the maximum ground displacement,
velocity and acceleration values. It is clear that in the low frequency range
S = m a x | u | , and in the high frequency range 5 = m a x \ u \ . This pheno­
D g A g

menon can be easily explained.

The low frequency range is characterized by a low value of the spring stiffness
fc, (0 = yj(k/m). As the spring stiffness becomes smaller and smaller, it
progressively ceases to transmit any motion to the mass. In the limit, the total
displacement of the mass tends to zero. Relative displacement of the oscillator
becomes — w , or S = max | u |.
g D %
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM/7

Maximum relative displacement can be expressed as: S = Iwlmax — D

I ynujk | X (dynamic amplification factor). We know that when the oscillator

max

(structural) frequency is sufficiently greater than the dominant frequencies of the

input force (raii ), then the dynamic amplication factor = 1.
g

Therefore, S = | mujk | D m a x = | w /co 1

g
2
m a x , or S = co 5 = | u |
A
2
D % max .

We can think of the tripartite response spectrum as 'anchored' on the two

sides to the maximum ground displacement and acceleration values. In the
intermediate frequency range the spectrum has amplified spectral displacement,
velocity and acceleration. These observations will be useful in developing design
spectra in the next chapter.

1.4 Multi-degree-of-freedom systems

Figure 1.6 shows a 3-degree-of-freedom (3-DOF) structure which is a simple
example of MDOF systems. The equation of motion for this structure can be
derived in a manner similar to that for the SDOF structure we did earlier. For a
rigorous derivation the reader is referred to books on structural dynamics [2].
Our example 3-DOF structure has three story masses, m,, m , m , and three story 2 3

stiffnesses, k k ,k . The three DOF are associated with the lateral (horizontal)
u 2 3

displacements of the three masses. The structure deforms under the action of
earthquake ground motion, u . The relative displacement of the structure is given
%

by U = [u u u ]. The inertia force vector is

T
{ 2 3

m, 0 0 " «l + M g

f, = m{£/ + i / } = g 0 m2 0 U 2 + M g

_ 0 0 m_ i ."3 + « g j

where U is a vector of ground acceleration « . The vector of spring forces is given

t g

by

k,+k 2 -k 2 0
F = KU =
S -k 2 k +k
2 3 u 2

_0 -*3 _ 3_
M

When damping is absent the equilibrium equation simply becomes F + F = 0, t s

which can be written as

MU + KU= - M l fc" .
g (1.13)

In the above equation M is the mass matrix of the structure, K the stiffness
matrix, and the vector 1 consists of unit elements. For the 3-DOF structure these
matrices are explicitly defined above. For other MDOF structure these matrices
8/CHAPTER 1

>ssss\s\sssvsssa

ITI 2

™1

^ ^ ^ ^ ^
u Q

(a) Simple 3 - D O F S y s t e m (b) Deformed Shape

Fig. 1.6 Example of a multi-degree-of-freedom system.

can be obtained using standard procedures [2]. A more general form of the
undamped equation of motion is
MU + KU= -MU U .
h g (1.14)

The vector U defines static structural displacements when the support undergoes
b

a unit displacement in the direction of the earthquake. For the simple structure at
hand, it is easy to see that U becomes 1 as in Equation 1.13.
h

The mode shapes and the frequencies of the structure are obtained by solving
the following eigenvalue problem
[-a> M + K]U = 0,
2
(1.15)

where co is a natural frequency of the structure. The solution of Equation 1.15

gives Af frequencies and the corresponding mode shapes or modal vectors, where
TV is the number of DOF of the structure. Figure 1.7 shows the mode shapes and
frequencies of 3-DOF structure when m, = m = m = m, and k = k = 2 3 x 2

k = k. Let us denote the frequency of the /th mode of an iV-DOF structure by CD,
3

and the modal vector by ((>,. The modal vectors have the following orthogonal
properties

4>, Mty = 0
T
and <)>, Kfy = 0 for
T
(1.16a)

The modal vectors are often 'normalized' such that

• , J I # f c = 1,
r
(1.16b)

in which case, it can be shown that

•/Kfc-©, . 2
(1.16c)
 STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS AND RESPONSE SPECTRUM/9

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

f = 0 . 0 7 0 8 ^ Hz f = 0.198 Hz f » 0 . 2 8 7 - / | j Hz

Fig. 1.7 Unnormalized mode shapes and frequencies of a 3-DOF system,

m, = m = m 3 , k = k = k .
2 x 2 3

The response of the structure is represented in terms of a linear superposition

of mode shapes

N N

/= 1 /= 1

where y terms are called normal coordinates, and are functions of the time
f

variable /. Substitution of Equation 1.17 in Equation 1.14, premultiplication by

4>y, and the application of the orthogonality conditions from Equation 1.16 gives
r

] '/ + co?y = - y , w ,
;
/ g (1.18)

in which y, is called the participation factor for mode /, and is given by

T r ^ M t / , (1.19)

Equation 1.18 is similar to Equation 1.4 for the SDOF structure for the
undamped case.
It is difficult accurately to define the damping matrix for a MDOF structure.
Often it is assumed that the damping matrix C has orthogonality properties
similar to those of M and K, and that we can define the damping ratio for each
mode just as we did for a SDOF structure
<t> C<|> .= 0 f o r z V 7 ;
r
; y tfCfy = 2©^.. (1.20)
10/CHAPTER 1

Structures that have the idealized damping matrix property given by the above
equations are called classically damped. Equation 1.18 is replaced by

y, + 2a)C/J>/ + co? y = - y , w .
/ t g (1.21)

In the modal superposition method Equation 1.21 is solved to obtain the time
histories of the normal coordinates y which with Equation 1.17 give the history
i9

of the relative displacement vector U, etc.

We shall now use the above concept to apply the response spectrum method to
the MDOF structure. The comparison of Equations 1.4 and 1.21 shows,
yM = yMQ, when co = co, and £ = Hence, y = y S (co„ Q = y , ^ , .
imax ; D

Thus, the maximum displacement vector in the ith mode can be written as

^ w = Y/<l>/S . D/ (1.22)

Given the displacement vector U , we can determine the maximum value of

imax

any response of interest. Methods of combining maximum response values from

various modes, and from three components of earthquake are presented in
Chapters 3 and 4, respectively.

References
1. A . K . Chopra, Dynamics of Structures — A Primer, Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, Berkley, California, 1981.
2. R.W. Clough and J. Penzien, Dynamics of Structures, McGraw Hill, New York, 1975.
Chapter 1/Structural dynamics and response spectrum
A.K. Chopra , Dynamics of Structures A Primer, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkley, California, 1981.
R.W. Clough and J. Penzien , Dynamics of Structures, McGraw Hill, New York, 1975.

Chapter 2/Design spectrum

M.A. Biot , A Mechanical Analyzer for the Prediction of Earthquake Stresses, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 31,
1941, pp. 151171.
M.A. Biot, Analytical and Experimental Methods in Engineering Seismology , Proceedings, ASCE, Vol. 68, 1942, pp. 4969.
G.W. Housner , An Investigation of the Effects of Earthquakes on Buildings, Ph.D. Thesis, California Institute of Technology,
Pasadena, California, 1941.
G.W. Housner , Behavior of Structures During Earthquakes, Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 85, No. EM4,
1959, pp. 109129.
N.M. Newmark and A.S. Veletsos , Design Procedures for Shock Isolation Systems of Underground Protective Structures, Vol. III,
Response Spectra of Single-Degree-of-Freedom Elastic and Inelastic Systems, Report for Air Force Weapons Laboratory, by
Newmark, Hansen and Associates, RTD TDR 633096, June 1964.
A.S. Veletsos , N.M. Newmark and C.V. Chelapati , Deformation Spectra for Elastic and Elasto-Plastic Systems Subjected to Ground
Shock and Earthquake Motions, Proceedings, Third World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, 1965.
J.A. Blume , N.M. Newmark and L.H. Corning , Design of Multi-Story Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake Motions, Portland
Cement Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1961.
B. Mohraz , W. J. Hall and N.M. Newmark , A Study of Vertical and Horizontal Earthquake Spectra, Nathan M. Newmark Consulting
Engineering Services, Urbana, Illinois; AEC Report No. WASH1255, 1972.
J.A. Blume , R.L. Sharpe and J.S. Dalai , Recommendations for Shape of Earthquake Response Spectra, John A. Blume and
Associates, San Francisco, California; AEC Report, No. 1254, 1972.
American Society of Civil Engineering, Standard for the Seismic Analysis of Safety Related Nuclear Structures, September 1986.
N.M. Newmark , J.A. Blume and K.K. Kapur , Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants, Journal of the Power Division, ASCE,
Vol. 99, 1973, pp. 287303.
United States Atomic Energy Commission, Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plants, Regulatory Guide,
No. 1.60, 1973.
S.H. Hayashi , H. Tsuchida and E. Kurata , Average Response Spectra for Various Subsoil Conditions, Third Joint Meeting, U.S.
Japan Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, UJNR, Tokyo, May 1971.
H.B. Seed , Ugas and J. Lysmer , Site-Dependent Spectra for Earthquake-Resistant Design, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 66, No. 1, February 1976, pp. 221243.
E. Kuribayashi , T. Iwasaki , Y. Iida and K. Tuji , Effects of Seismic and Subsoil Conditions on Earthquake Response Spectra,
Proceedings, International Conference on Microzonation, Seattle, Washington, 1972, pp. 499512.
B. Mohraz , A Study of Earthquake Response Spectra for Different Geological Conditions, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 66, No. 3, June 1976, pp. 915935.
A.S. Veletsos and N.M. Newmark , Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the Response of Simple Systems to Earthquake Motions,
Proceedings, Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II, 1960.
R. Riddell and N.M. Newmark , Statistical Analysis of the Response of Nonlinear Systems Subjected to Earthquakes, Structural
Research Series, No. 468, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, August 1974.
F.E. Elghadamsi and B. Mohraz , Site-Dependent Inelastic Earthquake Spectra, Technical Report, Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Department, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, June 1983.
29 N.M. Newmark and W.J. Hall , Earthquake Spectra and Design (Engineering Monograph on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design,
and Strong Motion Records, M.S. Agbabian , Coordinating Editor), Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California,
1982.
G.W. Housner and P.C. Jennings , Earthquake Design Criteria (Engineering Monograph on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design,
and Strong Motion Records, M.S. Agbabian , Coordinating Editor,), Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California,
1982.

Chapter 3/Combination of modal responses

L.E. Goodman , E. Rosenblueth and N.M. Newmark . Aseismic Design of Elastic Structures Founded on Firm Ground. Proceedings,
ASCE, November 1953, pp. 349351, 349427.
R.L. Jennings and N.M. Newmark , Elastic Response of Multi-Story Shear-Beam-Type Structures Subjected to Strong Ground Motion,
Proceedings, Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II, Tokyo, 1960.
H.D. Merchant and D.E. Hudson , Mode Superposition in Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Systems Using Earthquake Response Spectrum
Data. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 52, No. 2, 1962, pp. 405416.
R.W. Clough , Earthquake Analysis by Response Spectrum Superposition , Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 52,
No. 3, 1962, pp. 647680.
N.M. Newmark , W.H. Walker , A.S. Veletsos and R.J. Mosborg , Design Procedures for Shock Isolation Systems of Underground
Protective Structures, Report for Air Force Weapons Laboratory, by Newmark, Hansen and Associates, RTD TDR 633096, December
1965.
A.G. Davenport , Note on the Distribution of the Largest Value of a Random Function with Application to Gust Loading, Proceedings,
Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol. 28, 1963, pp. 187196.
A.K. Singh , S.L. Chu and S. Singh , Influence of Closely Spaced Modes in Response Spectrum Method of Analysis, Proceedings,
Speciality Conference on Structural Design of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities, ASCE, Chicago, Illinois, 1973.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Design Response Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Regulatory Guide, No.
1.60, Washington, DC, 1975.
E. Rosenblueth and J. Elorduy , Response of Linear Systems in Certain Transient Disturbances, Proceedings, Fourth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, 1969, Al, pp. 185196.
R. Villaverde , On Rosenblueths Rule to Combine the Modes of Systems with Closely Spaced Natural Frequencies, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 74, No. 1, February 1984, pp. 325338.
J.M. Nau and W.J. Hall , An Evaluation of Scaling Methods for Earthquake Response Spectra, Structural Research Series, No. 499,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, May 1982.
A.K. Gupta and . Cordero , Combination of Modal Responses, Transaction, Sixth International Conference on Structural Mechanics in
Reactor Technology, Paper No. K7/15, Paris, August 1981.
M.P. Singh and S.L. Chu , Stochastic Considerations in Seismic Analysis of Structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 4, 1976, pp. 295307.
A. Der Kiureghian , A Response Spectrum Method for Random Vibrations, Report No. UCB/EERC80//15, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California, 1980.
E.L. Wilson , A. Der Kiureghian and E.P. Bayo , A Replacement for the SRSS Method in Seismic Analysis, Short Communication,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dyna mics, Vol. 9, 1981, pp. 187194.
B.F. Maison , C.F. Neuss and K. Kasai , The Comparative Performance of Seismic Response Spectrum Combination Rules in Building
Analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 11, 1983, pp. 623647.
R.P. Kennedy , Recommendations for Changes and Additions to Standard Review Plans and Regulatory Guides Dealing with Seismic
Design Requirements for Structures, Report prepared for Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Published in NUREG/CR-1161, June 1979.
D.W. Lindley and J.R. Yow , Modal Response Summation for Seismic Qualification, Second ASCE Speciality Conference on Civil
Engineering and Nuclear Power, Vol. VI, Paper 82, Knoxville, TN, September 1980.
A.H. Hadjian , Seismic Response of Structures by Response Spectrum Method, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 66, No. 2,
August 1981, pp. 179201.
M.P. Singh and K.B. Mehta , Seismic Design Response by an Alternative SRSS Rule , Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 11, 1983, pp. 771783.
A.K. Gupta and D.C. Chen , Combination of Modal Responses: A Follow Up, Report, Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, November 1982.
A.K. Gupta and D.C. Chen , A Simple Method of Combining Modal Responses, Transactions, Seventh International Conference on
Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Paper No. /10, Chicago, August 1983.
A.K. Gupta and D.C. Chen , Comparison of Modal Combination Methods, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 78, March 1984, pp.
5368.
A.K. Gupta and J.W. Jaw , Modal Combination in Response Spectrum Analysis of Piping Systems, in Seismic Effects in PVP
Components, PVP, Vol. 88, ASME, 1984, pp. 112; presented at Pressure Vessel and Piping Conference, San Antonio, Texas, June
1984.
A.K. Gupta , Modal Combination in Response Spectrum Method, Proceedings, Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
San Francisco, 1984.
American Society of Civil Engineers, Standard for the Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures, September 1986.
K.M. Vashi , Computation of Seismic Response from Higher Frequency Modes, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology, ASME, Vol.
103, February 1981, pp. 1619.
G.H. Powell , Missing Mass Correction in Modal Analysis of Piping Systems, Transactions, Fifth International Conference on Structural
Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Paper No. KlO/3, 1979.
A.J. Salmonte , Consideration on the Residual Contribution in Modal Analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.
10, 1982, pp. 295304.

Chapter 4/Response to multicomponents of earthquake

J. Penzien and M. Watabe , Simulation of 3-Dimensional Earthquake Ground Motion, Bulletin of International Institute of Seismology
and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 12, 1974, pp. 103115.
J.L. Bogdanoff , J.E. Goldberg and A.J. Schiff , The Effect of Ground Transmission Time on the Response of Long Structures, Bulletin
of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 55, No. 3, June 1965, pp. 627640.
N.M. Newmark , Torsion in Symmetric Buildings, Proceedings, Fourth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 2, Paper A-
3, Santiago, Chile, 1968, pp. 1932.
E. Rosenbueth , The Six Components of Earthquake, Proceedings, Twelfth Regional Conference on Planning and Design of Tall
Buildings, Sydney, Australia, 1973, pp. 6381.
N.D. Nathan and J.R. MacKenzie , Rotational Components of Earthquake Motion, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 2, 1975,
pp. 430436.
E. Rosenblueth , Tall Building Under Five-Components Earthquake , Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. 2,
February 1976, pp. 453459.
W.K. Tso and T.I. Hsu , Torisonal Spectrum for Earthquake Motion , Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.
6, 1972, pp. 375382.
A.K. Gupta , Multicomponent Seismic Design, Proceedings, Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey,
September 1980.
M. Amin and A.H.S. Ang , Nonstationary Stochastic Model of Earthquake Motion, Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE,
Vol. 94, No. EM2, April 1968.
M. Ghafory-Ashtiany and M.P. Singh , Seismic Response for Multicomponent Earth-quakes, Technical Report, NSF Grant No. CEE-
8214070, Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, April
1984.
U.E. Rosenblueth and H. Contreras , Approximate Design for Multicomponent Earthquakes, Journal of Engineering Mechanics
Division, ASCE, Vol. 103 No. EM5, 1977, pp. 881893.
A.K. Gupta and S.L. Chu , A Unified Approach to Designing Structures for Three Components of Earthquake, Proceedings,
International Symposium on Earthquake Struc tural Engineering, St. Louis, Missouri, August 1976, pp. 581596.
A.K. Gupta and S.L. Chu , Probable Simultaneous Response by the Response Spectrum Method of Analysis, Nuclear Engineering
and Design, Vol. 44, 1977, pp. 9395.
J.L. Synge and A. Schild , Tensor Calculus, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1949.
A.K. Gupta and S.L. Chu , Equivalent Modal Response Method for Seismic Design of Structures, Nuclear Engineering and Design,
Vol. 44, 1977, pp. 8791.
A.K. Gupta , Design of Nuclear Power Plant Structures Subjected to Three Earthquake Components, Proceedings, ASCE Speciality
Conference on Civil Engineering and Nuclear Power, Knoxville, Tennessee, September 1980.
A.K. Gupta and M.P. Singh , Design of Column Sections Subjected to Three Components of Earthquake, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Vol. 41, 1977, pp. 129133.
A.K. Gupta , Approximate Design for Three Earthquake Components , Journal of Engin eering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 104,
No. EM6, December 1978, pp. 14531456.
A.K. Gupta , S.J. Fang and S.L. Chu , A Rational and Economical Seismic Design of Beam-Columns in Steel Frames, Transactions,
Fourth International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology, Paper No. K9/7, San Francisco, 1977.
A.K. Gupta , Rational and Economic Multicomponent Seismic Design of Piping Systems, Journal of Pressure Vessel Technology,
ASME, Vol. 100, November 1978.
Chapter 5/Nonclassically clamped systems
G.B. Warburton and S.R. Soni , Errors in Response Calculations of Non-Classically Damped Structures, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 5, 1977, pp. 365376.
R.W. Clough and S. Mojtahedi , Earthquake Response Analysis Considering Non- Proportional Damping , Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 4, 1976, pp. 489496.
K.A. Foss , Coordinates Which Uncouple the Equations of Motion of Damped Linear Dynamic Systems, Journal of Applied Mechanics,
Vol. 25, September 1958, pp. 361364.
W.C. Hurty and M.F. Rubenstein , Dynamics of Structure, Prentice Hall, Clifton, New Jersey, 1964.
T. Itoh , Damped Vibration Mode Superposition Method for Dynamic Response Analysis, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 2, 1973, pp. 4757.
M.P. Singh , Seismic Response by SRSS for Nonproportional Damping, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol.
106, No. EM6, December 1980, pp. 14051419.
R. Villaverde and N.M. Newmark , Seismic Response of Light Attachments to Buildings, Structural Research Series, No. 469,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, February 1980, Chapter 5.
T. Igusa and A. Der KJureghian , Dynamic Analysis of Multiply Tuned and Arbitrarily Supported Secondary Systems, Report No.
UCB/EERC-83/07, University of California, Berkeley, July 1983.
A.K. Gupta and J.W. Jaw , Seismic Response of Nonclassically Damped Systems, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 91, January
1986, pp. 153159.
A.S. Veletsos and C.E. Ventura , Modal Analysis of Non-Classically Damped Linear Systems, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 14, 1986, pp. 217243.
A.K. Gupta and J.W. Jaw , Response Spectrum Method for Nonclassically Damped Systems, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.
91, January 1986, pp. 161169.
M.P. Singh , M. Ghatory-Ashtiany , Modal Time History Analysis of Nonclassically Damped Structures for Seismic Motion, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 14, No. 1, January - February 1986, pp. 113146.
D.A. Pecknold and R. Riddell , Effect of Initial Base Motion on Response Spectra, Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
ASCE, Vol. 105, No. EM6, December 1979, pp. 10571060.
J.M. Nau and W.J. Hall , An Evaluation of Scaling Methods for Earthquake Response Spectra, Structural Research Series, No. 499,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, May 1982.
A.K. Gupta and J.M. Tembulkar , Dynamic Decoupling of Multiply Connected MDOF Secondary Systems, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Vol. 81, 1984, pp. 375383.

Chapter 6/Response of secondary systems

J. Penzien and A.K. Chopra , Earthquake Response of Appendages on a Multistory Building, Proceedings, 3rd World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. II, New Zealand, 1965.
J.M. Biggs and J.M. Roesset , Seismic Analysis of Equipment Mounted on a Massive Structure, in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power
Plants, Ed. by R.J. Hansen , MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1970.
K.K. Kapur and L.C. Shao , Generation of Seismic Floor Response Spectra for Equipment Design, Speciality Conference on Structural
Design of Nuclear Power Plant Facilities, ASCE, Chicago, Illinois, 1973.
M.P. Singh , Generation of Seismic Floor Spectra, Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 101, No. EM5, Proceedings
Paper 1 165 1, October 1975, pp. 593607.
M.P. Singh , Seismic Design Input for Secondary Structures, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST2, Proceedings
Paper 15207, February 1980, pp. 505517.
K.A. Peters , D. Schmitz and U. Wagner , Determination of Floor Response Spectra on the Basis of the Response Spectrum Method,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 44, 1977, pp. 255262.
J.L. Sackman and J.M. Kelly , Equipment Response Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 57,
1980, pp. 277294.
G.C. Ruzicka and A.R. Robinson , Dynamic Response of Tuned Secondary Systems, Structural Research Series, No. 485,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1980.
R. Villaverde and N.M. Newmark , Seismic Response of Light Attachments to Buildings, Structural Research Series, No. 469,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana (1980).
J.L. Sackman , A. Der Kiureghian and B. Nour-Omid , Dynamic Analysis of Light Equipment in Structures: Modal Properties of the
Combined System, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 109, February 1983, pp. 7389.
A. Der Kiureghian , J.L. Sackman and B. Nour-Omid , Dynamic Analysis of Light Equipment in Structures: Response to Stochastic
Input, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 109, February 1983.
A.G. Hernried and J.L. Sackman , Response of Equipment in Structures Subjected to Transient Excitation, Report No. UBC/SEM,
University of California, Berkeley, 1982.
A.K. Gupta , Seismic Response of Multiply Connected MDOF Primary and Secondary Systems, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol.
81, September 1984, pp. 385394.
A.K. Gupta and J.W. Jaw , Complex Modal Properties of Coupled Moderately Light Equipment-Structure Systems, Nuclear
Engineering and Design, Vol. 91, January 1986, pp. 153159.
A.K. Gupta and J.W. Jaw , Coupled Response Spectrums Analysis of Secondary Systems Using Uncoupled Modal Properties,
Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 92, March 1986, pp. 6168.
A.K. Gupta and J.W. Jaw , CREST, A Computer Program for Coupled Response Spectrum Analysis of Secondary Systems, Users
Manual, Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, June 1985.
A.K. Gupta and J.W. Jaw , A New Instructure Response Spectrum (IRS) Method for Multiply Connected Secondary Systems with
Coupling Effects, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 96, September 1986, pp. 6380.
T. Igusa and A. Der Kiureghian , Dynamic Response of Multiply Supported Secondary Systems, Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, Vol. 111, No. 1, January 1985, pp. 2041.
A. Asfura and A. Der Kiureghian , Floor Response Spectrum Method for Seismic Analysis of Multiply Supported Secondary Systems,
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 14, 1986, pp. 245265.
A.K. Gupta and J.M. Tembulkar , Dynamic Decoupling of Multiply Connected MDOF Secondary Systems, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Vol. 81, September 1984, pp. 375383.
IMSL, Inc., International Mathematics and Statistics Library, 1979.
Chapter 7/Decoupled primary system analysis
C.W. Lin and .. Liu , A Discussion of Coupling and Resonant Effects for Integrated Sys tems Consisting of Subsystems, Proceedings,
Extreme Load Conditions and Limit Analysis Procedures for Structural Reactor Safeguards and Containment Structures, Paper U33,
Berlin, September 1975.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Review Plan, Section 3.7.2, Seismic System Analysis, June 1975.
RDT Standard F92T, Seismic Requirements for Design of Nuclear Power Plants and Test Facilities, January 1974.
A.H. Hadjian and B. Ellison , Decoupling of Secondary Systems for Seismic Analysis, ASME-PVP Conference, Reprint No. 84-PVP-
59, San Antonio, Texas, June 1984.
A.K. Gupta and J.M. Tembulkar , Dynamic Decoupling of Secondary Systems, Nuclear Engineering and Design, Vol. 81, September
1984, pp. 359373.
A.K. Gupta and J.M. Tembulkar , Dynamic Decoupling of Multiply Connected MDOF Secondary Systems, Nuclear Engineering and
Design, Vol. 81, September 1984, pp. 375383.

Chapter 8/Seismic response of buildings

G.V. Berg , Seismic Design Codes and Procedures, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California, 1983.
International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, Whittier, California, 1982.
Structural Engineers Association of California, Recommended Lateral Forces and Commentary, San Francisco, California, 1980.
Applied Technology Council, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, ATC306, National Bureau
of Standards, Washington, DC, 1978.