See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223109492

Influence of stiffness degradation on strength

demands of structures built on soft soil site

ARTICLE in ENGINEERING STRUCTURES · OCTOBER 2002

Impact Factor: 1.84 · DOI: 10.1016/S0141-0296(02)00052-4

CITATIONS READS

34 251

2 AUTHORS:

Eduardo Miranda Jorge Ruiz-Garcia

Stanford University Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de …
111 PUBLICATIONS 2,329 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 662 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Jorge Ruiz-Garcia
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 04 February 2016
 Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281
www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Influence of stiffness degradation on strength demands of structures

built on soft soil sites
Eduardo Miranda a,∗, Jorge Ruiz-Garcia b
a
Department of Civil and Environ. Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USA
b
Department of Civil and Environ. Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4020, USA

Received 1 August 2001; received in revised form 19 March 2002; accepted 1 April 2002

Abstract

The effect of stiffness degradation on the lateral strength demands of inelastic single-degree-of-freedom systems subjected to
soft soil records is investigated. The modified-Clough model is used to represent structures that exhibit significant stiffness degra-
dation when subjected to reverse cyclic loading and the elastic-perfectly-plastic model is used to represent non-degrading structures.
The study is based on two sets of ground motions. The first set includes 100 accelerograms recorded in various recent earthquakes
on soft soil sites of Mexico City. The second set includes 16 ground motions recorded on bay mud sites in the San Francisco Bay
Area during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. A special emphasis is placed on the effect of stiffness degradation on strength
reduction factors that permit the estimation of inelastic strength demands from elastic strength demands. Mean ratios of lateral
strength demands of stiffness degrading systems to lateral strength demands of non-degrading systems for both sets of ground
motions are presented. It is concluded that structures with stiffness degradation, and with periods of vibration shorter than the
predominant period of vibration of the ground motion, can experience lateral strength demands larger than those of non-degrading
structures in the same period range. Whereas for structures with periods of vibration equal or longer than the predominant period
of the ground motion, the lateral strength demands are typically smaller for stiffness-degrading structures than those of non-degrading
structures.  2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

Keywords: Lateral strength demand; Stiffness degradation; Soft soil sites; Strength reduction factor; Ductility demand

1. Introduction
Present seismic design codes allow structures to
undergo inelastic deformations in the event of strong
earthquake ground motions. In current design procedures
inelastic behavior is accounted for through the use of
strength reductions factors that allow structures to be
designed for lateral forces that are smaller than those
required by the structure to remain elastic during severe
earthquakes. Reinforced concrete structures and other
types of structures, even when they have very good
detailing, when subjected to reversed cyclic loading
exhibit a gradual loss of lateral stiffness usually referred
to as stiffness degradation. The effect of stiffness degra-
dation on the seismic response of structures subjected to
∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-650-723-4450; fax: +1-650-725-
6014.
E-mail address: miranda@ce.stanford.edu (E. Miranda).
records obtained on firm soils has been the topic of sev-
eral investigations. Clough and Johnston [1,2] conducted
one of the first studies of this type which investigated
the effects of stiffness degradation on single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) systems subjected to four earthquake
ground motions. This study concluded that ductility
demands in the degrading systems were not significantly
different from those observed in ordinary elasto-plastic
structures, except for structures having a period of
vibration less than 0.5 s, and recommended further
investigations on the earthquake resistance of degrading
stiffness structures in the short period range.
Other early studies reached similar conclusions [3–8].
In particular, the study by Riddell and Newmark [6] con-
cluded that ordinates of the average spectra did not vary
significantly when various nonlinear models were used,
and that the use of the elastoplastic idealization pro-
vided, in almost every case, a conservative estimate of
the average response to a number of earthquake motions.
With the exception of the study by Al-Sulaimani, [8]

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter  2002 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd.

PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 2 - 4
1272 E. Miranda, J. Ruiz-Garcia / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281
these early studies did not provide a quantitative measure
of the effect of stiffness degradation on the seismic
response of SDOF systems.
Some recent studies have provided quantitative meas-
ures of the effect of stiffness degradation on the seismic
response of SDOF systems. For example, Krawinkler
and his co-workers [9,10] have presented average ratios
of strength reduction factors of stiffness degrading sys-
tems to elastoplastic systems when subjected to a set of
15 earthquake ground motions recorded on firm soils in
California. These studies show that strength reduction
factors of stiffness-degrading structures are smaller than
those of non-degrading structures for periods of
vibration smaller than about 0.4 s. For longer periods,
the strength reductions factors of stiffness-degrading
structures are, on average, up to 20% larger than those
of non-degrading structures, which means that in this
spectral region lateral strength demands of non-degrad-
ing structures are larger than those with stiffness degra-
dation. In the short period range, the larger the ductility
ratio the larger the difference between the strength
reduction factors of stiffness-degrading and non-degrad-
ing structures. However, no clear trend with change in
the level of ductility ratio could be observed in the
medium- and long-period range. Other recent studies of
the effect of stiffness degradation on the response of
SDOF systems include the studies by Lee at al. [11] and
that of Borzi and Elnashai [12]. The effect of stiffness
degradation on the response of multi-degree-of-freedom
structures has been the topic of some recent investi-
gations [13,14]. The study by Gupta and Krawinkler [13]
found that MDOF structures with stiffness degradation
have a global (roof) drift similar to that observed of
SDOF systems with period equal to that of the funda-
mental mode of the MDOF structure. The study by
Foutch and Shi [14] concluded that the hysteresis type
has only a minimum effect on ductility demands, and
that the effects of hysteresis type in the MDOF systems
they investigated were similar to those of SDOF systems
reported by previous investigators.
All of the previously mentioned studies have only
considered ground motions recorded either on rock or
on firm soil. Recent studies [10,15–17] have concluded
that seismic demands on structures built on very soft soil
can be significantly different from those of structures on
rock or on firm sites. In particular, these studies have
concluded that seismic demands of structures built on
soft soil are strongly dependent on the ratio of the period
of vibration of the structure to the predominant period
of the ground motion. However, these studies did not
consider the effect of stiffness degradation in combi-
nation with ground motions recorded in soft soils.
There have been only two studies that have investi-
gated the effects of stiffness degradation considering
very soft soil records [18,19]. Both of these studies were
conducted as a result of the September 19th, 1985
Michoacan earthquake and only considered one acceler-
ogram, namely the EW component of the ground motion
recorded at the SCT site in Mexico City. Even though
both studies considered similar hysteretic models and the
same earthquake ground motion record, the conclusions
from these studies differ considerably. The study by Tar-
quis [18] concluded that for earthquakes with narrow
band elastic spectra, as those typically recorded on soft
soil deposits, strength requirements for a given allowable
ductility are strongly dependent on the force deformation
characteristics of the system. On the other hand, the
study by Meli and Ávila [19] concluded that strength
demands for stiffness degrading systems show little dif-
ference from those of the elastic perfectly-plastic sys-
tems.
The objective of this study is to present the results of
an investigation whose main goal was to provide more
information on the effects of stiffness degradation in
structures built on very soft soils when subjected to
earthquake ground motions. In particular this study tried
to: (1) use a relatively large number of ground motions
in order to identify the most important trends; (2) assess
the spectral regions (as a function of the predominant
period of the ground motion) where stiffness degradation
leads to larger lateral strength demands and hence cannot
be neglected; (3) quantify the differences in lateral
strength demands in stiffness-degrading systems with
respect to those in non-degrading systems; and (4) evalu-
ate the effects of stiffness degradation as a function of
the level of inelastic deformation and as a function of
the ratio of the period of vibration to the predominant
period of vibration of the ground motion.
2. Load-deformation hysteretic models
Most studies that have investigated the inelastic
response of structures when subjected to earthquake
ground motions have used the elastic-perfectly plastic
(EPP) model. This model, which is shown in Fig. 1a, is
used in this study to represent structures with no stiffness
degradation. The EPP load-deformation hysteretic model
is characterized by having a constant loading stiffness
up to yielding which occurs at a yielding strength, Fy,
which is assumed to be equal in both loading directions.
During yielding, the system has no lateral stiffness and
the unloading stiffness is equal to the loading stiffness.
Only two parameters are needed to characterize this
model, the initial stiffness Ke and the yielding
strength, Fy.
Many hysteretic models have been proposed to rep-
resent the load-deformation characteristics of reinforced
concrete structures when subjected to reversed cyclic
loading. One of the first models to include the effect of
stiffness degradation was the one proposed by Clough
and Johnston [2], which is shown in Fig. 1b. This model
 E. Miranda, J. Ruiz-Garcia / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281
Fig. 1. Load-deformation hysteretic models used in this study: (a) Elastic-perfectly plastic; (b) Clough; (c) Modified-Clough.
has an elasto-plastic-perfectly-plastic envelope, however
it differs from the EPP model in that, after the initial
yielding, further loading branches are directed towards
the furthest unloading point in the direction of loading,
thus with a lateral stiffness smaller than the initial stiff-
ness. The degree of degradation depends on the
maximum displacement in prior inelastic excursions.
Thus, the larger the maximum inelastic displacement, the
smaller the loading stiffness. Similarly to the EPP model,
the unloading stiffness in the Clough model is always
kept equal to the initial elastic stiffness.
Based on experimental results of a number of
medium-sized reinforced concrete members subjected to
reversed cyclic loading, Takeda, Sozen and Nielsen [20]
proposed a hysteretic model to reproduce analytically the
behavior of reinforced concrete structures. A trilineal
envelope characterizes this model, now commonly used
and known as the Takeda model. It also differs from
the Clough model by considering a degrading unloading
stiffness whose amplitude depends on the maximum dis-
placement demand in the direction of loading. Many
other models have been proposed for stiffness degrading
structures [3–8,21]. A good review of some of these earl-
ier hysteretic models is provided in Otani, [7].
In order to represent structures with stiffness degra-
dation the modified-Clough model is used in this study.
This model is based on the Clough model, however, it
incorporates a modification that was pointed out by
Mahin and Bertero [22] and later on implemented in a
computer program by Mahin and Lin [23]. As shown in
Fig. 1b, in the original Clough model, after unloading
from point A and reloading from point B, loading would
take place towards point C, which is not realistic. In the
modified-Clough model reloading from point B is
towards the unloading point A, and after reaching this
point further loading is directed towards point C.
Several studies have concluded that the modified-
Clough model is capable of reproducing the behavior of
properly designed reinforced concrete structures where
shear failure is avoided and the behavior is primarily
flexural. However, it is not capable of capturing neither
pinching nor strength degradation caused by high shear
1273
stresses, slippage of steel bars or other phenomena.
Thus, results from this study should not be used for
structures where, besides stiffness degradation, signifi-
cant pinching and/or strength degradation can occur.
3. Strength reduction factors
The strength-reduction factor (i.e. reduction in
strength demand due to nonlinear hysteretic behavior)
Rµ is defined as [17] the elastic strength demand divided
by the inelastic strength demand
Fy(m ⫽ 1)
Rm ⫽ (1)
Fy(m ⫽ mi)
where Fy (m=1) is the lateral yielding strength required
to maintain the system elastic and Fy (m=mi) is the lateral
yielding strength required to maintain the displacement
ductility demand, m, less or equal to a predetermined
target ductility, mi. Eq. (1) can also be rewritten as
Cy(m ⫽ 1)
Rm ⫽ (2)
Cy(m ⫽ mi)
where Cy (m=1) is the seismic coefficient (lateral yield-
ing strength divided by the weight of the structure)
required to avoid yielding; and Cy (m=mi) is the minimum
seismic coefficient required to control the displacement
ductility demand, m, to a target ductility demand, mi. For
earthquake-resistant design, Rµ corresponds to the
maximum reduction in lateral strength that can be used
in order to limit the displacement ductility demand to a
predetermined ductility mi in a structure that will have a
lateral strength equal to the design strength. For each
earthquake record, the inelastic strength demands were
computed for a family of 50 SDOF systems undergoing
six levels of inelastic deformation (µ equal to 1.5, 2–6).
The inelastic strength demand Fy (m=mi) was computed
by iteration on the lateral yielding strength of the system
for a specific period of vibration and specific values of
m until the ductility displacement demand was, within a
tolerance of 1%, equal to the specified ductility ratio.
1274 E. Miranda, J. Ruiz-Garcia / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281
Thus, for a given ground acceleration time history, a Rµ
spectrum can be constructed by plotting the strength
reduction factors (computed with Eq. (1)) of a family
of SDOF systems (with different periods of vibrations)
undergoing different levels of inelastic deformation mi
when subjected to the same ground motion. Of particular
relevance to this study is to investigate whether the
strength reduction factors of stiffness-degrading systems
are smaller, equal or larger than those of elastoplastic
systems.
4. Earthquake ground motions used in this study
A total of 116 earthquake acceleration time histories
were considered in this investigation. The first set of
earthquake ground motions consists of 100 acceleration
time histories recorded in the soft soil zone of Mexico
City in five recent earthquakes. Fig. 2 shows a map of
the current seismic microzonation of Mexico City. Three
zones can be observed, the soft zone (“lake bed” zone),
the transition zone and the firm zone (hill zone). Mexico
City is located partly on an old lake bed that was formed
by the Texcoco, the Chalco and the Xochimilco lakes.
Relatively thick deposits of lacustrine clay form the soft
zone. In the lake bed zone the depth of these soft clay
deposits varies from 10 m (33 ft) to 60 m (197 ft). These
clay deposits are very deformable and are characterized
by very high water contents that reach more than 400%,
shear wave velocities as low as 40 m/s, and high plas-
ticity indexes. The firm soil (hill zone) represented by a
dark gray in the figure is mainly formed by volcanic tuff.
Fig. 2. Location of Ground Motion Accelerographic Stations in Mex-
ico City where records used in this study were obtained.
The soils corresponding to this zone are in general hardly
compressible and exhibit a relatively high shearing
strength. The transition zone lies between the hill and
lake bed zone and is characterized by the variability of
the soil profile. Sequences of hard soils, sands, silty
sands and soft clays are typical soil stratigraphies of this
area. Damage surveys [24] showed that most of the
structures that collapsed or suffered major damage dur-
ing the 1985 Michoacan earthquake were located within
the zone bounded by the dotted line in Fig. 2. Table 1
lists the first set of records considered in this study. For
each record earthquake magnitude and peak ground
acceleration are given.
The second set includes 16 ground motions recorded
on bay mud sites in the San Francisco Bay Area during
the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. San Francisco Bay is
located in a basin about 15 km wide bounded by the
active San Andreas and Hayward fault zones [25]. This
region is characterized by a wide variety of geologic
deposits, from rock sites in the hill area, to estuarine
mud and clay deposits in the flatlands along the margins
of the bay. The bay mud area is comprised of unconsoli-
dated, water-saturated, dark plastic clay and silty clay
with well-sorted silt and sand dunes in some areas. It
may contain more than 50% of water content and low
shear-wave velocities in the range of 67 to 116 m/s.
Table 2 summarizes the second set of records used in
this study.
Five percent damped absolute acceleration response
spectrum corresponding to three ground motions
recorded in the lake bed zone of Mexico City during the
April 25, 1989 earthquake are shown in Fig. 3. It can
be seen that earthquake ground motions from this region
of Mexico City are characterized by having narrow band
spectra with peak spectral acceleration ordinates that are
typically between five and six times the peak ground
acceleration. These spectral amplifications are approxi-
mately two times larger than those that, on average,
occur for the same level of damping in spectra of ground
motions recorded on rock or firm sites. Furthermore, the
frequency content of these ground motions is charac-
terized by a clearly defined predominant frequency and
narrower spectra.
Miranda [15,17] showed that estimation of the pre-
dominant frequency of the ground motion was very
important in order to adequately assess seismic demands
on both linear elastic and nonlinear structures built on
soft soils. A good example of this observation is shown
in Fig. 4a, where strength reduction factors computed
with the elastoplastic model and required to control the
displacement ductility ratio to four are shown for the
same three ground motions used to produce the results
shown on Fig. 3. It can be seen that strength reduction
factors of ground motions recorded on soft soil are
characterized by very distinct peaks, where the strength
reduction factors are significantly larger than the dis-
 E. Miranda, J. Ruiz-Garcia / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281 1275

Table 1
Earthquake ground motions recorded in Mexico City used in this study

Date Magnitude [Ms] Station name Station No. Comp. 1 PGA [cm/s2] Comp. 2 PGA [cm/s2]

09/19/85 8.1 SCT SC EW 167.9 NS 97.9

04/25/89 6.9 Alameda 01 EW 37.4 NS 45.5

04/25/89 6.9 C.U. Juarez 03 EW 37.4 NS 40.2
04/25/89 6.9 Xochipilli 06 EW 43.3 NS 43.3
04/25/89 6.9 Villa Gomez 09 EW 38.6 NS 38.6
04/25/89 6.9 P.C.C. Superficie 25 EW 42.5 NS 28.9
04/25/89 6.9 Villa del Mar 29 EW 46.5 NS 49.4
04/25/89 6.9 Jamaica 43 EW 31.2 NS 35.2
04/25/89 6.9 U. Colonia IMSS 44 EW 39.6 NS 52.3
04/25/89 6.9 Balderas 45 EW 51.4 NS 42.6
04/25/89 6.9 Rodolfo Menendez 48 EW 47.7 NS 27.7
04/25/89 6.9 San Simon 53 EW 30.5 NS 39.7
04/25/89 6.9 Tlatelolco 55 EW 32.8 NS 44.9
04/25/89 6.9 Liverpool 58 EW 40.0 NS 40.6
04/25/89 6.9 Candelaria 59 EW 45.2 NS 28.6
04/25/89 6.9 Roma RO EW 54.7 NS 45.4

10/24/93 6.6 Xochipilli 06 EW 9.9 NS 8.3

10/24/93 6.6 Villa del Mar 29 EW 11.4 NS 13.6
10/24/93 6.6 Jamaica 43 EW 8.4 NS 12.1
10/24/93 6.6 U.Colonia IMSS 44 EW 15.0 NS 12.2
10/24/93 6.6 Buenos Aires 49 EW 17.1 NS 14.4
10/24/93 6.6 Tlatelolco 55 EW 9.7 NS 8.3
10/24/93 6.6 Roma-B RO-B EW 8.5 NS 6.5
10/24/93 6.6 Roma-C RO-C EW 7.9 NS 10.5
10/24/93 6.6 SCT SC EW 10.5 NS 10.9

12/10/94 6.3 Xochipilli 06 EW 15.3 NS 16.4

12/10/94 6.3 Tlatelolco 08 EW 14.4 NS 14.8
12/10/94 6.3 Jamaica 43 EW 10.6 NS 12.1
12/10/94 6.3 Balderas 45 EW 13.7 NS 11.3
12/10/94 6.3 Buenos Aires 49 EW 15.7 NS 16.4
12/10/94 6.3 Tlatelolco 55 EW 12.8 NS 9.8
12/10/94 6.3 Cordova 56 EW 17.4 NS 17.2
12/10/94 6.3 Candelaria 59 EW 14.1 NS 14.1
12/10/94 6.3 Garibaldi 62 EW 15.1 NS 13.9
12/10/94 6.3 Roma RO EW 12.0 NS 14.2
12/10/94 6.3 Roma-A RO-A EW 16.5 NS 19.4
12/10/94 6.3 Roma-B RO-B EW 13.7 NS 10.3
12/10/94 6.3 SCT SC EW 15.0 NS 11.0

09/14/95 7.1 Alameda 01 EW 37.4 NS 45.5

09/14/95 7.1 C.U. Juarez 03 EW 25.9 NS 24.9
09/14/95 7.1 CUPJ 04 EW 26.8 NS 24.5
09/14/95 7.1 Tlatelolco 08 EW 28.5 NS 26.5
09/14/95 7.1 P. .Elias Calles 10 EW 30.0 NS 29.7
09/14/95 7.1 Jamaica 43 EW 24.3 NS 27.7
09/14/95 7.1 Tlatelolco 55 EW 19.4 NS 29.7
09/14/95 7.1 Cordova 56 EW 45.2 NS 44.1
09/14/95 7.1 Garibaldi 62 EW 25.8 NS 30.1
09/14/95 7.1 Roma RO EW 37.4 NS 28.6
09/14/95 7.1 Roma-B RO-B EW 25.0 NS 23.6
09/14/95 7.1 Roma-C RO-C EW 28.9 NS 31.1

placement ductility ratio. These peaks coincide with the be seen that, despite containing information of all three
predominant period of vibration of the ground motion. ground motions, this average does not represent an
Shown in the same figure is the average of the strength adequate characterization of the strength reduction fac-
reduction factors of these three ground motions. It can tors of any of the ground motions. To overcome this
1276 E. Miranda, J. Ruiz-Garcia / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281

Table 2
Earthquake ground motions recorded in the San Francisco Bay area used in this study

Date Magnitude [Ms] Station Name Station No. Comp. 1 PGA [cm/s2] Comp. 2 PGA [cm/s2]

10/17/89 7.1 Foster City (Redwood Shores) FC 90 277.6 360 63

10/17/89 7.1 Treasure Island (Fire Station) TC 0 112.0 90 97.9
10/17/89 7.1 Oakland (2-Story O.B.) OAK-2 290 238.1 200 187.3
10/17/89 7.1 Oakland (Outer Harbor Wharf) OAK-W 35 281.4 305 265.5
10/17/89 7.1 S.F. International Airport SFO 90 325.7 0 230.8
10/17/89 7.1 Emeryville EMRY 260 255.0 350 255.0
10/17/89 7.1 Larkspur Ferry Terminal LFT 270 134.7 360 94.6
10/17/89 7.1 Redwood City RC 43 270.0 233 222.0

Fig. 3. Acceleration Response Spectra (ζ=5%) for Three Ground

Motions Recorded in the Lake Bed Zone of Mexico City.

problem Miranda [15] suggested normalization of the

period of vibration, T, of the SDOF systems by the pre-
dominant period of vibration of the ground motion, Tg.
Strength reduction factors for these three ground motions
but with normalized periods, T/Tg, are shown in Fig. 4b.
Also shown in the figure is the average of the three nor-
malized spectra. It can be seen that this period normaliz-
ation leads to a good characterization of the inelastic
strength demands of structures on soft soils. It shows
that, for systems with periods of vibration that are two
or more times the predominant period, the strength
reduction factor is on average, approximately equal to
the displacement ductility ratio. For systems with periods
of vibration smaller than about two-thirds of the pre-
dominant period of the ground motion, the strength Fig. 4. Strength-reduction factor spectra (µ=4) computed for three
reduction factor is smaller than the displacement duc- ground motions recorded in the lake bed zone of Mexico City: (a) as
a function of T; (b) as a function of T/Tg.
tility ratio, while the opposite is true for systems with
periods of vibration between about two thirds and two
times the predominant period of the ground motion. For In this study the predominant period of vibration was
systems with periods of vibration that are approximately computed using the approach suggested by Miranda [15–
equal to the predominant period of vibration the 17] in which the predominant period of the ground
reduction in lateral strength demand due to inelastic motion is defined as the period at which the maximum
behavior can be very large, which indicates that, for ordinate of a 5% damped relative velocity spectrum
these structures, inelastic behavior is particularly occurs. Examples of the computation of the predominant
efficient in reducing lateral strength demands. period of the ground motion for a record obtained in the
 E. Miranda, J. Ruiz-Garcia / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281
San Francisco Bay Area and in Mexico City are shown
in Figs. 5a and 5b, respectively.
5. Results of statistical study
5.1. Mean strength-reduction factors
A total of 69,600 strength-reduction factors were com-
puted as part of this investigation (corresponding to 116
earthquake ground motions, 50 periods of vibration, six
levels of inelastic deformation, and two types of hyster-
etic behavior). Mean strength-reduction factors corre-
sponding to each hysteretic behavior (i.e., modified-
Clough model and elastic-perfectly plastic model) were
then computed for each period and each displacement
Fig. 5. Estimation of the predominant period of the ground motion:
(a) for Foster City (recording station FC, 10/17/89, comp 360); (b) for
Villa del Mar (recording station 09, date 25/4/89, comp 90).
1277
ductility ratio. Fig. 6a shows mean constant-ductility
strength reduction factors, Rµ, as a function of nor-
malized periods, T/Tg, computed for non-degrading
(RµEP) systems using the Mexico City set of ground
motions. It can be seen that, in general, mean strength-
reduction factors are smaller than the target ductility for
systems with T/Tg ratio less than 0.65. For systems with
T/Tg ratio between 0.65 and 2.0 the strength-reductions
factors are greater, and in some T/Tg regions significantly
greater, than the target displacement ductility ratio
whereas for systems with T/Tg ratio greater than 2.0 the
strength-reductions factors are approximately equal to
the target ductility for non-degrading systems and
slightly greater than the target ductility for degrading
systems. Fig. 6b shows mean constant-ductility strength
reduction factors, Rµ, for stiffness-degrading (RµSD). It
can be seen that both types of hysteretic behavior
strength reduction factors show a very similar trend,
which primarily depends on the ratio of the period of
Fig. 6. Mean strength-reduction factors compared for the Mexico
City ground motions set: (a) elastoplastic perfectly plastic systems; and
(b) stiffness degrading systems.
1278 E. Miranda, J. Ruiz-Garcia / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281
vibration to the predominant period of the ground
motion, T/Tg, and the target displacement ductility ratio
m and stiffness-degrading (RµSD). However it can be seen
that the maximum mean strength reduction factor, which
occurs for T/Tg=1, is greater for stiffness degrading
structures than for non-degrading systems, suggesting
that for structures with periods of vibration close to the
predominant period of the ground motion, lateral
strength demands are larger in non-degrading systems
than in stiffness degrading systems.
Figs. 7a and 7b show similar plots of mean strength
reduction factors for systems with elastoplastic perfectly
plastic hysteretic behavior and for the modified Clough
stiffness degrading system, respectively, when subjected
to set of ground motions recorded in the San Francisco
Bay Area. It can be seen that, despite the fact that the
Mexico City deposits are characterized by significantly
lower shear wave velocities, mean strength-reduction
factors exhibit a similar trend than those computed using
Fig. 7. Mean strength-reduction factors computed for the San Franci-
sco Bay area ground motion set: (a) elastoplastic perfectly plastic sys-
tems; and (b) stiffness degrading systems.
the Mexico City ground motion set. However, for both
hysteretic behaviors considered here, the Mexico City
ground motion set produces larger strength reduction
factors for systems with periods of vibration between
0.65 and 2 times the predominant period of vibration,
while mean strength reduction factors of the San Franci-
sco Bay Area ground motion set are larger for T/Tg
smaller than 0.65 and for T/Tg greater than 2.
5.2. Quantification of the effects of stiffness
degradation
In order to study further the effect of stiffness degra-
dation on the lateral strength demands, and particularly
to quantify the effect of stiffness degradation on lateral
strength demands, degrading to non-degrading inelastic
strength-demand ratios rm, were computed. This para-
meter defined as the ratio of the lateral strength demand
in the stiffness degrading system, FySD, to the lateral
strength demand in the non-degrading system
(elastoplastic perfectly plastic) FyEP.
FySD(m ⫽ mi)
rm ⫽ (3)
FyEP(m ⫽ mi)
This ratio is a measure of how larger or smaller are
the lateral strength demands in systems with stiffness
degradation compared to those in non-degrading sys-
tems. Multiplying and dividing (3) by the lateral strength
required to maintain the system elastic and substituting
(1) we get
Fy(m ⫽ 1)
FyEP(m ⫽ mi) RµEP
rm ⫽ ⫽ (4)
Fy(m ⫽ 1) RµSD
FySD(m ⫽ mi)
Thus, this ratio also represents the ratio of the strength
reduction factor in elastoplastic systems with respect to
that of systems with stiffness degradation. This ratio was
computed for each record, each T/Tg ratio and each level
of ductility mi for a total of 34,800 degrading to non-
degrading inelastic strength-demand ratios.
Fig. 8 shows mean degrading to non-degrading inelas-
tic strength-demand ratios computed for the Mexico City
ground motion set. Spectral regions and ductility ratios,
where this ratio is larger than one, correspond to situ-
ations in which lateral strength demands of stiffness
degrading systems are, on average, larger than those of
non-degrading systems. Similarly, values in which this
mean ratio is smaller than one correspond to situations
in which the lateral strength demands of non-degrading
systems are, on average, larger than those of stiffness
degrading systems. It can be seen that values T/Tg divid-
ing regions where this ratio is, on average, larger than
one, from those in which is on average smaller than one
is not constant and varies with the level of inelastic
 E. Miranda, J. Ruiz-Garcia / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281
Fig. 8. Mean inelastic strength-demand ratio computed for the Mex-
ico City ground motion set.
deformation. These limiting values of T/Tg that divide
the region where it is unconservative to neglect the
effects of stiffness degradation (i.e., stiffness degradation
produces larger lateral strength demands) from spectral
regions where it is conservative to neglect the effects of
stiffness degradation (regions in which stiffness degra-
dation leads to smaller lateral strength demands than
those of non-degrading systems) increase, in general,
with a decreasing level of inelastic behavior. As seen in
this figure, these limiting T/Tg ratios range from 0.60 for
m=6 to about 0.9 for m=1.5. It can also be seen that for
m=1.5 there is another region where rm is also smaller
than one for T/Tg between 0.35 and 0.45. It can be seen
that, for periods of vibration that are small compared to
the predominant period of the ground motion, the lateral
strength demands in systems that exhibit stiffness degra-
dation can be on average up to 22% larger than those of
elastoplastic systems. Meanwhile for systems with for
T/Tg⬎1, rm decreases as the displacement ductility level
increases. For structures with periods from one to two
times the predominant period of the ground motion the
lateral strength demands of stiffness degrading systems
range from 10% smaller (for m=1.5) to 35% smaller (for
m=6) than those of the elastoplastic systems. Thus, struc-
tures in these period regions may have benefited from the
effects of stiffness degradation during the 1985 Mexican
earthquake, leading to smaller levels of damage than
those that would be inferred from the use of elastoplastic
models. For example, for a structure with an initial per-
iod of vibration equal to the predominant period of the
ground motion (i.e., T/Tg=1) the lateral strength demand
needed to keep the displacement ductility demand below
four for non-degrading systems is approximately 1.30
times greater than that of stiffness-degrading systems.
Degrading to non-degrading inelastic strength-demand
ratios can be useful in earthquake-resistant design
because they allow the use of previous results of lateral
1279
strength demands, computed for inelastic SDOF systems
with elastoplastic behavior, to estimate the inelastic
strength demands in structures with stiffness degradati-
on.
Mean degrading to non-degrading inelastic strength-
demand ratios computed for the San Francisco Bay Area
ground motion set are shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen,
that in general the trends for this second set of ground
motions is similar to that observed for the Mexico City
ground motion set, although in this case the curves are
not as smooth because this second ground motion set
has a much smaller number of ground motions. In parti-
cular the limiting T/Tg ratios dividing the spectral
regions, where it is unconservative to neglect the effects
of stiffness degradation, from spectral regions, where it
is conservative to neglect the effects of stiffness degra-
dation, are approximately the same for both ground
motions sets. However, the rm ordinates for T/Tg greater
than one are larger than those obtained for the Mexico
City ground motions set.
For both sets of ground motions strength demands of
stiffness degrading systems are smaller than those of ela-
stoplastic systems for T/Tg ⬎1. This may appear to be
counter intuitive as one may perhaps expect higher
strength demands for stiffness degrading systems,
regardless of their period. However, a similar trend has
also been reported for systems with periods longer than
0.6 s when subjected to ground motions recorded on firm
soil [2,6,10].
Fig. 10 shows the coefficient of variation of the
degrading to non-degrading inelastic strength-demand
ratios rm corresponding to the ground motions recorded
on Mexico City. It can be seen that, in general, disper-
sion increases as the level of inelastic deformation
increases for a T/Tg ratio greater than 0.5. Furthermore,
for a given displacement ductility ratio the coefficient of
variation is not constant and it depends on the T/Tg ratio.
Fig. 9. Mean inelastic strength-demand ratio computed for the San
Francisco Bay area ground motion set.
1280 E. Miranda, J. Ruiz-Garcia / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281
Fig. 10. Coefficient of variation of the inelastic strength-demand ratio
computed for the Mexico City ground motion set.
The largest dispersions of the degrading to non-degrad-
ing inelastic strength-demand ratios occur for when the
period of vibration is approximately equal to the pre-
dominant period of vibration of the ground motion. Fig.
11 shows degrading to non-degrading inelastic strength-
demand ratios rm corresponding to mean plus one stan-
dard deviation. It can be seen that in this case for T/Tg
ratios larger than one, the inelastic strength demands of
stiffness degrading systems are very similar to those of
non-degrading systems. However, for systems with per-
iods of vibration smaller than the predominant period
of the ground motion, the inelastic strength demand of
degrading systems can be up to 40% greater than the
lateral strength demand for non-degrading systems.
Fig. 11. Mean plus one standard deviation of the inelastic strength-
demand ratio computed for the Mexico City ground motion set.
6. Summary and conclusions
The primary purpose of this investigation was to
assess the influence of stiffness degradation on strength
demands of structures built on very soft soil sites. For
this purpose, a comprehensive statistical study has been
presented of strength reduction factors computed for
inelastic SDOF systems with two types of hysteretic
behavior undergoing different levels of inelastic defor-
mation when subjected to a relatively large number of
earthquake ground motions. The modified-Clough model
was chosen to represent the structures that exhibit stiff-
ness-degrading behavior under reversed cycling loading,
while the elastic-perfectly plastic model was used to
simulate the structures with non-degrading character-
istics. Two sets of ground motions were used. A first
set includes 100 ground motions recorded on soft soils
deposits in Mexico City during five different earthquakes
while the second ground motion set comprises 16 ground
motions recorded in bay mud deposits of the San Franci-
sco Bay Area during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the
results of this study. The strength-reduction factors that
allow the evaluation of inelastic strength demands from
elastic strength demands vary significantly with the ratio
of the period of vibration, T, to the predominant period
of the ground motion, Tg, for both stiffness degrading
and non-degrading systems. With the exception of sys-
tems with periods of vibration that are two or more times
the predominant period of the ground motion, strength
reduction factors computed with ground motions
recorded on soft soils are significantly different than
those computed from ground motions recorded on rock
or firm soil sites. Hence strength reduction factors
derived from firm site records should not be used for the
design or the evaluation of structures on soft soils. For
systems with periods of vibration smaller than about
two-thirds of the predominant period of the ground
motion, the strength reduction factor is smaller than the
displacement ductility ratio, while the opposite is true
for systems with periods of vibration between two thirds
and two times the predominant period of the ground
motion.
In order to quantify the effects of stiffness degradation
of the seismic response of structures on soft soils,
degrading to non-degrading lateral strength demand
ratios, rm were computed. For structures with periods of
vibration shorter than the predominant period of the
ground motion, the lateral strength demands of stiffness
degrading systems can be on average up to 20% larger
than those of non-degrading systems. This means that in
this spectral region structures to be built on soft soils
that may exhibit stiffness degradation when subjected to
cyclic reversals, in some cases need to be designed for
higher lateral forces than non-degrading structures, in
order to control the ductility demands to the same level
 E. Miranda, J. Ruiz-Garcia / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 1271–1281
in both types of structure. For structures whose period
of vibration is close to or larger than the predominant
period of vibration of the ground motion, lateral strength
demands for stiffness degrading systems are, on average,
smaller than those of non-degrading system. Thus, in this
spectral region stiffness degradation is, on average, ben-
eficial to the structure by reducing lateral strength
demands.
Limiting values of T/Tg that divide spectral regions
where lateral strength demands of stiffness-degrading
structures are, on average, larger than those of non-
degrading structures from regions where lateral strength
demands of stiffness-degrading structures are, on aver-
age, smaller than those of non-degrading structures
depend on the level of inelastic deformation. In general,
these limiting T/Tg decrease with increasing level of
inelastic behavior.
Acknowledgements
The second author would like to express his gratitude
to the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia
(CONACYT) in Mexico for the financial support pro-
vided through the loan-scholarship No. 124834 to pursue
his doctoral studies under the supervision of the first
author. The authors also acknowledge the comments and
suggestions to improve this manuscript offered by two
anonymous reviewers.
References
[1] Clough RW. Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake duc-
tility requirements. Report No. 66-16, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1966.
[2] Clough RW, Johnston SB. Effect of stiffness degradation on
earthquake ductility requirements. In: Proc of the Japan Earth-
quake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, 1966; 227–232.
[3] Nielsen NN, Imbeault FA. Validity of various systems. In: Proc
of the Third Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo,
Japan, 1970; 707–714.
[4] Anagnostopoulus SA. Non-linear dynamic response and ductility
requirements of buildings subjected to earthquakes. Report No.
349, Dept of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Tech-
nology, MA, 1972.
[5] Iwan WD. The Response of simple stiffness degrading structures.
In: Proc of the Sixth World Conf on Earthquake Engrg, New
Delhi, India, 1977; 1094–1099.
[6] Riddell R, Newmark NM. Statistical analysis of the response of
1281
nonlinear systems subjected to earthquakes, Report No. 468,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign, IL, 1979.
[7] Otani S. Hysteretic models of reinforced concrete for earthquake
response analysis. Journal of the Faculty of Engineering, The
University of Tokyo, Vol. XXXVI, No. 2, 1981; 125–159.
[8] Al-Sulaimani GI. Inelastic response of degrading and nondegrad-
ing systems under seismic actions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Texas at Austin, TX, 1982.
[9] Nassar A, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF
systems. Rep. No. 95, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Centre, Stanford University, 1991.
[10] Rahnama M, Krawinkler H. Effects of soft soil and hysteresis
model on seismic demands. Rep. No. 108, John A. Blume Earth-
quake Engineering Centre, Stanford University, CA, 1993.
[11] Lee LH, Hang SW, Oh YH. Determination of ductility factor
considering different hysteretic models. Earthquake Eng and
Struct Dyn 1999;21:957–77.
[12] Borzi B, Elnashai AS. Refined force reduction factors for seismic
design. Engineering Structures 2000;22:1244–60.
[13] Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Effect of stiffness degradation on defor-
mation demands for SDOF and MDOF structures. In: Proc 6th
Natl. Conf on Earthquake Engrg, Seattle, Washington, 1998.
[14] Foutch DA, Shi S. Effects of hysteresis type on the seismic
response of buildings. In: Proc 6th Natl Conf on Earthquake
Engrg, Seattle, Washington, 1998.
[15] Miranda E. Seismic evaluation and upgrading of existing build-
ings. Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1991.
[16] Miranda E. Evaluation of site-dependent inelastic seismic design
spectra. J of Structural Eng, ASCE 1993;119(5):1319–38.
[17] Miranda E. Site-Dependent strength reduction factors. J of Struc-
tural Eng, ASCE 1993;119(12):3505–19.
[18] Tarquis F. Structural response and design spectra for the 1985
Mexico City earthquake. Report No. GD 89-1, Dept. of Civil
Engineering., Univ of Texas at Austin, TX, 1988.
[19] Meli R, Ávila JA. The Mexico earthquake of September 19,
1985—Analysis of building response. Earthquake Spectra, EERI
1988;5:1–17.
[20] Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NM. Reinforced concrete response
to simulated earthquakes. J of the Structural Div, ASCE
1970;96(12):2257–573.
[21] Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM, Park YJ. Analytical modeling of
inelastic response of R/C structures. J of Structural Eng, ASCE
1990;116(4):996–1027.
[22] Mahin SA, Bertero VV. Nonlinear seismic response of a coupled
wall system. J of the Structural Div, ASCE 1976;102(9):1759–
980.
[23] Mahin SA, Lin J. Construction of inelastic response spectra for
single-degree-of-freedom systems. Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Report UCB/EERC-83/17, University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, CA, 1983.
[24] Rosenblueth E, Meli R. The 1985 Mexico earthquake: causes and
effects in Mexico City. Concrete International,6, 8
1985;198:23–34.
[25] Borcherdt RD. Effects of site conditions on strong ground shak-
ing in the San Francisco bay region during the 1989 Loma Prieta
earthquake. In: Proc of the XI World Conf on Earthquake Engrg,
Acapulco, Mexico, 1996; Paper No. 2028.