The Role of Phase Difference Components of Ground Motions

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:1385–1406

Published online 19 April 2007 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.686
The role of phase difference components of ground motions

in the torsional response of asymmetric buildings
Nicholas Andrew Alexander∗, †, ‡

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TR, U.K.
SUMMARY
It is demonstrated that the difference in phase content between orthogonal, horizontal, accelerograms
can directly influence the effective (band-limited) torque energy applied to a plan asymmetric structure.
This is not the case where a plan asymmetric structure is excited solely by a unidirectional, horizontal,
accelerogram ground motion. It is shown that this effective torque energy is well correlated with building
torsional (response) acceleration energy and element ductility demands for a broad class of multistorey
structures. Nonlinear time-history analyses employing a database of accelerogram abstracted from USGS
are used to quantify the influence of the phase difference content on these building responses. Bias in
nonlinear time-history analyses based on a small sample of accelerograms caused by phase difference
content is discussed. Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 21 June 2006; Revised 8 January 2007; Accepted 2 March 2007
KEY WORDS: phase difference component; asymmetric building torsion
1. INTRODUCTION
At present, the increase in computational power and the availability of enhanced and more useable
nonlinear finite-element codes has resulted in an evolution of analytical methodologies towards
the nonlinear time-history approach. The feasibility of performing such analyses on complex,
materially nonlinear building structures has come into the realm of the structural designer not
just the researcher; though this is true only for unusual, expensive or safety critical structures at
∗ Correspondence to: Nicholas Andrew Alexander, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol
BS8 1TR, U.K.
†
E-mail: nick.alexander@bristol.ac.uk
‡
Lecturer.
Contract/grant sponsor: University of East London

Contract/grant sponsor: University of Bristol
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1386 N. A. ALEXANDER
present. For example, there are strong scientific and technical arguments that would advocate this
approach for large asymmetric building structures.
The most widely used alternative is, of course, classical linear modal analysis which employs a
design spectrum that is pseudo-nonlinear and highly smoothed. The disadvantages of using modal
analysis are well known [1]; however, design spectra, in various codes of practice UBC, IBC,
EC8 [2], etc., contain useful summaries and, in some crude sense, a probabilistic interpretation of
the characteristics of a series of severe seismic events. Thus, the abandonment of modal analysis
in favour of a nonlinear time-history approach raises the question about how to use the design
spectrum. Many researchers [3–7], etc. have advocated using the design spectrum to generate a
series of artificial accelerograms. Typically, the amplitude spectrum of a random time series is
adjusted such that its response spectrum matches approximately a particular design spectrum. The
phase content of this artificial time series is typically random. The application of an enveloping
function, in time, does modify the random phase spectra in a non-uniform way [8]. An alternative
is to use recorded accelerograms from actual seismic events. In both cases the question remains
about the selection of accelerograms and how many to use for the purposes of a reliable estimate
of the performance of the building structure when subject to the unknown future seismic event.
Any time series, whether stationary or not, can be decomposed into amplitude, phase, and
frequency components by the Fourier transform. In the case of non-stationary time series the
amplitude and phase components produced are pragmatic first approximations; they are averaged
values across the time domain. The influence of the amplitude content has been investigated
at length using power (density) spectra, etc. Less work is available in the literature about the
influence of the phase content [8–12]. It is true that there is zero power (density) in the phase
content; however, it does control the timing of the application of the power within the time series.
Under the condition of multiple seismic inputs to a structure, e.g. a pair of accelerogram time
series, the synchronization or lack of synchronization of power components of the two time series
is critical to the response behaviour of the system; and this is governed by the time-series phase
content.
This paper considers the analysis of asymmetric building structures. Particularly, it attempts to
determine if certain critical phase and amplitude combinations in orthogonal accelerogram pairs
can produce more or less torsional motion in such structures. The reason why this may be important
is that it is currently typical to use only a small sample of real accelerograms, perhaps only 3, [2],
in a nonlinear time-history analysis. A small sample may or may not accurately describe an
unknown population statistic, and often it does not; unless more information is known about the
characteristics of the unknown population. The unknown population here defines the probability
of a certain unknown future seismic event producing a particular critical structural response. In the
case of artificial accelerograms a larger number of records are often used. However, without an
understanding of the effect of the ground motion phase components on the structural performance,
it is still possible that they misrepresent the unknown population statistics.
2. THE SELECTION OF ACCELEROGRAM INPUT DATA
The selection of accelerograms is fraught with difficulty and this is a critical component of nonlinear
time-history analysis. In an ideal situation, a statistically large sample of records would be selected
from a single population. This sample would then be used to develop a specified confidence level in
the modelling. The first problem here is identifying a single population. How shall this population
Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:1385–1406
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
THE ROLE OF PHASE DIFFERENCE COMPONENTS OF GROUND MOTIONS 1387
be characterized? Which geophysical descriptors shall be used?, e.g. event magnitude, fault type
and geometry, epicentral distance, site soil characteristics, event duration, power spectral content,
etc. If a restrictive set of criteria is employed in the selection of records, then unfortunately only
a small sample of records is available. This small sample is due to a limited number of records
available in accelerogram databases. One option is to modify records that fall outside this set of
criteria by applying some type of scaling, e.g. time scaling to adjust the event duration, frequency
scaling to modify its frequency content, amplitude scaling to modify total energy content and peak
amplitude, etc. In this way a larger sample is achieved. However, any modification of records runs
the risk of generating unrealistic accelerograms and adversely influencing any statistical inferences
made.
In this paper, the least invasive modification is proposed, i.e. simple amplitude scaling (normal-
ization). Normalization of the accelerograms to a common Arias intensity will scale only their
amplitude information and this scaling is uniformly applied across the frequency domain. The aim
here is to determine the influence of phase differences between orthogonal motions. Thus, time
scaling and some frequency scaling may influence phase content of a record so is avoided here.
Another modification to the records has been proposed in [13]. In this paper, the covariance
matrix between orthogonal accelerograms, at one station, can be used to determine the principle
(eigenvectors) axes [x , y ] of the ground motion. These principle axes represent a vector basis
about which the accelerograms covariance’s (at zero lag ), Equation (1), cx y (0) = 0 and hence
cross-correlation coefficients are zero. In turn this implies, from Equation (1), a zero mean of the
cross-power spectral density function Sx y () d = 0. However, this condition cannot on its own
enforce a known phase difference for all frequency components of the modified records. Thus,
it is not possible to zero the phase difference spectrum between accelerograms by adopting this
procedure, i.e. D () = arg(Sx y ()) does not normally equal zero. This pre-processing of the
accelerogram data modifies the phase difference content but in general does not zero it; hence it
is not used in this paper
∞ ∞
1
cx y () = x (t + )y (t) dt = Sx y () exp(i) d (1)
−∞ 2 −∞
The role of correction of the accelerogram data can be critical. It is feasible that the phase content
of a corrected record can be corrupted by filtering incorrectly and/or by performing instrument
deconvolution with an inappropriate model of the accelerometer: Alexander et al. [14] discuss
these issues. However, in this paper, all records are abstracted from the USGS database [15] and
are not corrected by the author. The rationale here is to use data with which a design engineer
may well choose to work.
A sample of 40 accelerograms in 20 pairs has been taken from the USGS database. The selection
criteria are: (i) within a magnitude range 5.8–6.8 ML; (ii) within 30 km of the epicentre; (iii) free-
field records or records from basement levels of buildings; (iv) with a soil class of 4, alluvium; and
(v) located in California, U.S.A. The reason for such a broad selection criteria was to achieve a
large enough sample. A large sample is required to enable a more robust estimate of the population
statistics. All the corrected records from USGS database that fell within the range of these selection
criteria were selected.
The normalization is based on the accelerograms Arias intensities [16], which is a measure of the
total energy of the record. There is a dilemma about scaling two orthogonal components x and y.
If they are both normalized to the same Arias intensity, of 1 m/s say, the original ratio of x to y
total energy is destroyed. However, if the larger record, say x, is normalized to 1 m/s and then the
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
y is scaled such that the total energy ratio, x/y, is maintained then the total combined energy of
x and y may vary for different record pairs. In this paper, the mean Arias intensity of Ia , of the
unnormalized records ẍg∗ and ÿg∗ is computed

1 L N
Ia = ẍg∗ (t)2 + ÿg∗ (t)2 dt = (ẍ ∗ [(k − 1)]2 + ÿg∗ [(k − 1)]2 ) (2)
2g 2 0 4g k=1 g
1 1
ẍg = √ ẍg∗ , ÿg = √ ÿg∗ (3)
Ia Ia
The total length, in seconds, of the accelerogram is (N − 1) = L, the sample interval in seconds
is and there are N discrete sample points in the digitized record. The normalized accelerogram
pair, Equation (3), have a combined total energy for x and y of 1 m/s which is constant for every
pair of accelerograms.
3. BUILDING IDEALIZATION
3.1. Equations of motion

Consider the following class of building shown in Figure 1. The equations of motion (4) and (5) are
well-documented results by Thambiratnam and Corderoy [17], Hejal and Chopra [18] and others
that have been derived by consideration of a single-storey idealization. The structural deformations,
in the horizontal plane, are given by the sway deformations x(t), y(t) and the rotational deformation
(t). The origin O for these deformations is aligned vertically with the centre of mass (CM). It is
z ys
ex
CS
CM ey xs
xg
O
yg
Figure 1. Building idealization.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
assumed that the building has no vertical variation in mass or flexural stiffness.
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
ẍ 1 0 − y x ẍg
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ÿ ⎥ + 2 ⎢ 0 2y x y2 ⎢ ⎥ ⎢
⎥ ⎣ y ⎦ = − ⎣ ÿg ⎥
⎦ (4)
⎣ ⎦ x⎣ ⎦
¨ − y x 2y 2 2 2
y + x y +
2 0
ü + 2x Du = −ü g (5)
ex ey Kx Ky K
x = , y = , 2x = , 2y = , 2 = (6)
r r M M r 2 Kx
System (4) is defined in terms of parameters defined in Equation (6). The flexural and torsional
building stiffnesses are K x , K y , and K , respectively, M is the building mass, r the radius of
gyration about the CM and (ex , e y ) are the co-ordinates of the centre of stiffness from the CM.
3.2. Frequency domain analysis

The frequency domain representation of the equations of motion (5) can be presented by applying
the Fourier transform and the Eulerian relationships, thus

Ü = −2 [2 I − D]−1 Ü g where = (7)
x
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
Ẍ () r1 () −x y 2y
⎢ ⎥ 2 ⎢ ⎥ Ẍ g ()
⎢ Ÿ () ⎥ = − ⎢ ⎢ −x y 2y r2 ()
⎥
⎥ (8)
⎣ ⎦ p() ⎣ ⎦ Ÿg ()
¨
() − (2 − 2 ) x 2y (2 − 1)
y y
Functions r1 () and r2 () are the ‘zeros’ polynomials, are given by Equations (9) and (10). The
‘poles’ polynomial p() is given by Equation (11) and is also the characteristic polynomial of D
r1 () = 4 − (2 + (1 + 2x )2y + 2y )2 + 2y (2y + 2 ) (9)
r2 () = 4 − (2 + (1 + 2x )2y + 2y )2 + 2x 2y + 2 (10)
p() = 6 −(2 +(1 + 2x )2y +2y +1)4 +((2y +1)2 +(2x +2y +1)2y )2 −2y 2
= (2 − 21 )(2 − 22 )(2 − 23 ) (11)
By employing a co-ordinate substitution the ground acceleration vector can be expressed in terms
of T1 () and T2 (), the applied normalized torques (units m/s2 ). The actual torque applied to the
building by the ground motion is r T2 (). The torque r T1 () can be viewed as the torque applied
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
to the building that is reflected about the x- or y-axis by the ground motion. Subsequently, in this
paper T1 () and T2 () shall be referred to as the applied torques

T1 y x Ẍ g
= (12)
T2 y −x Ÿg
Hence, Equation (8) can be re-expressed in terms of applied torques
⎡ ⎤ ⎡ ⎤
Ẍ h 11 h 12
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ T1
⎢ Ÿ ⎥ = ⎣ h 21 h 22 ⎥
⎦ (13)
⎣ ⎦ T2
¨ h 31 h 32
where the frequency response function h 31 and h 32 are defined as follows:
4 2
h 31 = − ( − 1) (14)
2p y
2 2
h 32 = ( + 2y 2 − 22y ) (15)
2p
Consider the case where y = 1. The building torsional response ¨ is proportional to the applied
torque T2 for ∀{x , x , y , }. The torque T1 is multiplied by h 31 = 0 hence it has no influence
here. The observant may note that at frequencies 2 = 1 it appears that there is no torsional
response. However, at 2 = 1 the zero in the numerator, (2 − 1), and a pole, (2 − 1), in p()
coincide, hence these two factors (2 − 1) cancel to produce a finite non-zero torsional response.
When y = 1 there is a pole (2 − 1) in the frequency response functions for the X, Y degrees
of freedom (i.e. in h 11 , h 12 , h 21 , h 22 ) but no pole (2 − 1) for the torsional degree of freedom
(i.e. h 31 and h 32 ). Hence, in this case 2 = 1 and y = 1, the maximum response in Ẍ , Ÿ does
not coincide with a maximum in . ¨ Figure 2(a) displays an example of the frequency response
functions h 31 and h 32 for an example set of parameters, h 31 = 0 and h 32 = 0.
As the choice of x- and y-axes is arbitrary, they can be chosen such that the building lateral
stiffness K x K y , hence y must be limited to the following range: 0< y 1. Now consider the
case where y <1. The building torsional response ¨ is dependant on both the applied torques T1
and T2 . By considering h 31 and h 32 , in Equation (13), it can be shown that the following conditions,
Equation (16), are found to apply. Thus, for most of the frequency range |h 32 | much larger than
|h 31 | hence applied torque, T2 , has most influence on the building torsional response . ¨ However,
2
in the small range y < <1 the applied torque, T1 , has the most influence on . Figure 2(b)
2 ¨
displays the frequency response functions h 31 and h 32 for an example set of parameters. Thus, it
appears that when y = 1 the frequency response functions h 31 and h 32 are significantly different
to the case when y = 1 for the undamped system (4)

|h 32 | < |h 31 | : 2y <2 <1
(16)
|h 32 ||h 31 | : else
Now consider the introduction of viscous damping into Equation (4); a Rayleigh damping matrix
C = D is used, with = 2 x . Equation (7) becomes (17) which can be solved in a similar way
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
10 10
λy =1, γ= 0 λy = 0.95, γ =0
8 8
ln| h31 | , ln| h32 |
ln| h31 | , ln| h32 |

6 6
4 4
h32 h32
2 2 h31
0 0
0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
(a) Ω (b) Ω
4 4
λy =1, γ =0.05 λy =0.95, γ= 0.05
3.5 3.5
3 h32 3
h32
ln| h31 | , ln| h32 |
ln| h31 | , ln| h32 |

2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
h31
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2 1.25
(c) Ω (d) Ω
Figure 2. Example frequency response functions for torsional response: = 1.1, x = 0.1, y = 0.2.
to the above analysis. The general result equivalent to Equation (13) is obtainable in closed form.
However, only the frequency response functions for the torsional response are displayed below in
Equations (18) and (19). Note that the characteristic sixth-order polynomial p ∗ () is now defined
for the polynomial eigenvalue problem given below

Ü = −2 [2 I − 2i D − D]−1 Ü g where = (17)
x
4
h 31 = − (2 i + 1)(2y − 1) (18)
2 p ∗ ()
2
h 32 = (2 i + 1)(2 + 2y 2 − 22y − 4 2y i) (19)
2 p ∗ ()
For the case y = 1, the building torsional response ¨ is proportional to the applied torque T2
for ∀{x , x , y , }. The torque T1 is multiplied by h 31 = 0 hence as with the undamped case
it has no influence. Figure 2(c) displays the frequency response function h 32 for the case of
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
damping ratio = 0.05. For the case where y <1 as long as y is nearly 1 then |h 32 | |h 31 |,
see Equation (20). This result is obtained by investigating |h 32 | − |h 31 | = 0. Figure 2(d) displays
the frequency response functions h 31 and h 32 for the case of damping ratio = 0.05. It can be
seen in the graph that |h 32 | is an order of magnitude larger than |h 31 | for all . As long as y is
significantly larger than 0.909 (from Equation (20) with = 0.05) then h 32 and T2 dominate the
torsional response. Note that from Equation (6) a value of y = 0.95 is equivalent to K y = 0.9K x
and this is a 10% difference in lateral stiffnesses

1
|h 32 ||h 31 | : 1 y (20)
2 + 1
In summary, the building torsional response (in the frequency domain) ¨ is linearly proportional to
the applied torque (in the frequency domain) T2 for a broad class of structural systems, defined by
Equation (21). This is any building structure (physically admissible and subject to the assumptions
made previously) with any x (natural frequency parameter), with any x , y (eccentricity ratios),
with any (ratio of building stiffness in the to x directions), with any (ratio of critical
damping) and with any comparable, though not necessarily identical, lateral stiffness K y and K x

1
∀ x , x , y , , , 1 y : IR (21)
2 + 1
3.3. Applied torque power and the role of phase difference content
The applied torques T1 () and T2 () can be expressed in terms of the Fourier amplitude x ()
and phase components
x () of Ẍ g , and Fourier amplitude y () and phase components
y ()
of Ÿg . The power (modulus squared) of the applied torques is given by Equations (22) and (23).
Sx x and S yy are the auto-power spectral density functions of ẍ g (t) and ÿg (t), respectively, and
Sx y is the cross-power spectral density function [19]. The positive term, A (), represents a solely
amplitude-dependent term of applied torque. This part is not affected by the phase components.
The term, P (), is amplitude and phase difference dependant. From now on in this paper P ()
shall be termed the phase difference-dependant term. In practise, the terms A () and P () can
be evaluated only numerically for particular accelerogram pairs
|T1 |2 = 2x 2y + 2y 2x + 2x y y x cos(

x −
y )
= (2x S yy + 2y Sx x ) + (2x y Re(Sx y ))
= A () + P () (22)

|T2 |2 = A () − P () (23)
These equations place bounds on the torque power, Equation (24), which is a statement of the
Cauchy–Bunyakovsky–Schwartz inequality. Power is positive so the lower bound must be zero;
thus as a corollary |A ()||P ()|, i.e. the phase difference-dependant term is never larger than
the amplitude-dependant term. Hence, the phase difference-dependant term can, in the limiting
case, double the magnitude of the torque power or reduce it to zero
0A − 2|x y Sx y |{|T1 |2 , |T2 |2 }A + 2|x y Sx y | (24)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
3.4. Band-limited applied torque energy

¨
It has been demonstrated that the torsional response acceleration () is directly proportional to
the applied torque T2 () and the frequency response function h 32 () for a broad class of building
structures, hence Equation (25). The function h 32 () acts as a band-pass filter, thus only band-
limited applied torque power is amplified to produce significant torsional response. It is obvious,
but worth stating here, that it cannot be concluded ‘large’ applied torque T2 () results in ‘large’
¨
torsional response acceleration (). The term ‘large’ implies actions that in a structural context
would be considered significant and important for a particular building. In addition, it is not true
to say that large total applied torque power |T2 |2 d implies large total response torsional power

¨ 2 d
||
¨
() ≈ h 32 (; x , x , y , , y ≈ 1, )T2 (; x , y ) (25)
When y = 1 and = 0 the function h 32 simplifies to Equation (26). The two ‘poles’ in the
denominator function define the locations of resonant maxima 21 and 22 of the filter h 32
2
h 32 = (26)
4 − (1 + 2x + 2y + 2 )2 + 2

{21 , 22 } = 12 2x (1 + 2x + 2y + 2 ) ± 12 2x (1 + 2x + 2y + 2 )2 − 42 (27)
The minimum frequency range, min , between these ‘poles’ 21 and 22 occurs at ∗

∗ = 1 − 2x − 2y , min = min(2 − 1 ) = 2 2x + 2y (28)
These ‘poles’ can be used to estimate the half-power bandwidths of the function h 32 using the
standard result from a single degree of freedom system, [20]. For a particular accelerogram pair,
it is now possible to sum the torque power components within these bandwidths, see Figure 3, to
get an estimate of how much energy is likely to be converted into torsional building response. The
effective applied torque energy, Teff , defined in Equation (29) where f = 1/N is the sampling
frequency. The discrete form of Parsavel’s theorem is employed in (29). This definition of effective
applied torque energy shall be used subsequently in this paper
j (1+ )

2
Teff (x ) = |T2 |2 d
j=1 j (1− )

2 j (1+
)\2 f
2 j (1+
)\2 f
2
= A (k f ) − P (k f )
N j=1 k= j (1− )\2 f j=1 k= j (1− )\2 f
= A(x ) − P(x ) (29)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
101
ln |h31 | , ln |h32 |
h32
ω2 ( 1 ±γ )
100 ω2
ω1 ( 1 ±γ )
ω1
h31
10-1
0.5 1 1.5 2
Ω = ω / ωx
Figure 3. Example of bandwidths employed in the calculation of effective torque energy.

= 1.2, x = 0.1, y = 0.2, = 0.05, y = 0.95.
4. NONLINEAR STRUCTURAL MODEL
There is a need to carry forward ideas in the previous section to include the influence of inelastic
behaviour. Because of the complexity of the differential system it is not feasible to derive analytical
expressions for responses (solutions) in terms of applied inertial actions. Numerical and compu-
tational solution schemes, in the time domain, take over from the analytical frequency domain
approach in the previous section. This allows the system nonlinearity to be investigated. Conven-
tionally, models of nonlinear buildings require many thousands of individual finite elements. This
results in systems so complex; it is difficult to perform a complete parametric study or to observe
certain emergent behaviour. There has been work on simplifying buildings by describing the build-
ings by fewer macro-elements, by Kilar and Fajfar [21] and others. The nonlinear building model
employed here is taken from [22–24]. It represents the entire building by just three degrees of
freedom. In this sense, it is a type of global, building macro-element. The disadvantage is that the
building macro-element here is only an approximation to a universal class of asymmetric building
structures. The advantage of this nonlinear parametric formulation is that it is simple enough for
a parametric study where the actual configuration of a particular building need not be stated
ü + Cu̇ + 2x f = −ü g (30)
In the linear case, the normalized building stiffness actions are f = D u (matrix D is dimensionless).
In the nonlinear case, the normalized nonlinear building stiffness actions are f = [ f 1 f 2 f 3 ]T .
These need to be considerably more elaborate that the linear case. Alexander et al. [24] describe the
details of the algorithm employed. The general form of the linear expression in (4) is extended to
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
ui (t1) = 0
fi
Eqn (31)
Eqn (32)
u
Eqn (32)
f i ( t2 ) = 0, o i u ( t2 )
Figure 4. Nonlinear algorithm. (Note the force–deflection path drawn here lies on hypersurfaces in IR4
but is displayed for clarity, schematically, in IR2 .)
include nonlinearity. The aim is to introduce the minimum number of extra, nonlinear, parameters.
The formulation is based on a multivariate Taylor series expansion up to and including quadratic
terms. Due to the nature of the problem, an anti-symmetric function shown in Equation (31)
is conjectured. For small perturbations around the origin Equations (30) and (31) are the same
as in (4). Notation D(i, :) is the ith row of matrix D. In order to incorporate building hysteretic
behaviour there is a need for an alternate set of functions, Equation (32), for the undeforming paths.
Each row of Equation (30) has its own unique ‘deforming’ hypersurface (31) and ‘undeforming’
hyperplane (32). The symbol ‘◦’ is used for a Hadamard (elementwise) matrix product
4/3
f i = D(i, :)v − qx D(i, :)v ◦ |v|, v = u − oi (31)
f i = D(i, :)u + h i , h i = f i (t1 ) − D(i, :)u(t1 ) (32)
Note that terms ‘deforming’ and ‘undeforming’ are used rather than ‘loading’ and ‘unloading’. This
is because deformation control is employed rather than load control. Consider a force–deflection
path in a typical hysteretic loop: (i) initially origins oi for functions f i are ∀oi = 0, (ii) deform
along hypersurfaces (31) until (iii) u̇ i (t1 ) = 0, there is a switch from deforming hypersurface (31)
to undeforming hyperplane (32). Undeform along hyperplane (32) until (iv) f i (t2 ) = 0 redefine
(new offset origin) oi = u(t2 ). Switch back to hypersurface (31). Go to (ii). Figure 4 displays a
schematic version of this algorithm.
From a physical point of view this nonlinear model is designed to imitate, qualitatively, the kinds
of behaviour associated with a standard push-over force–deflection curves (along x, y and axes).
It includes hysteretic, dissipative, components that sum the inelastic behaviour over the entire
structure. A comparison of this nonlinear model with other element-based approaches is given
in [22]. In summary, this nonlinear model shows global characteristics that would be expected;
reduction in acceleration spectra with increases in ductility demand spectra, etc. However, its
performance is not identical to an element-based single-storey model. The differences lie in the
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
ductility demands spectra. An element-based single-storey model can have peaks in ductility
demands at specific narrow frequency bandwidths. The proposed building nonlinearity shows a
ductility demand spectra that is flatter and more broadband. The ductility spectra are more similar
(in this proposed nonlinear building model) to the assumed (and implicit) ductility spectra of the
design spectra in most codes of practice.
While the matrix D is preserved in the nonlinear system, its influence is less constraining than
it might initially be thought. The effective coupling properties (in the nonlinear case) between
sway and torsion are not the same as in the linear case. The linear eccentricities x and y can
be determined by an application of an external static force on the structure applied at a location
that does not produce any torsional motion. It can be shown in the nonlinear formulation that this
does not produce the same values. In addition, the location of this nonlinear stiffness centre is
dependant on the time history, i.e. it changes with time.
The simplicity of such an approach, from a parametric point of view, is that all linearly elastic
parameters are maintained and one extra nonlinear parameter is added, i.e. parameter q that is
inversely proportional to the building strength. Concepts of strength eccentricities which are highly
dependant on actual plan configurations are not introduced directly. This is because the location
of all resisting elements is unknown and hence it has not been possible to compute the location
of the centre of strength. However, this is an advantage from a parametric point of view as this
general nonlinear model does not require an extensive set of nonlinear system parameters derived
from element locations and strengths.
4.1. Estimating element ductility demand

While inelastic behaviour is conceptually summed for the entire structure by the algorithm of the
previous section it would be useful and instructive to estimate the levels of ductility demand in a
hypothetical laterally resisting element. Thus, while the model in the section above does not directly
or individually model laterally resisting elements, it is still possible to estimate demand levels in
such elements. The advantage with using such an approach is that the plan configuration need not
be specified and the locations of any such laterally resisting element are stated abstractly rather
than prescriptively; thus more of the system parameter space is investigated with this approach.
Also the interactions between sway and torsional responses are considered.
Let the plan co-ordinates of an element k from the origin be (ak , bk ). The deformation dis-
placement of this element k is given by (33) which is a well-established relationship [18]. The
resultant deformation of an element k that lies on a circle centred at origin and radius r , the radius
of gyration about the origin, is given by (33); where (ak , bk ) = (r cos , r sin ). The reason for
using this assumption is to remove the influence of plan geometry and hence the parameter r from
the equation. A structural engineer may actually be interested in an element that has the largest
ductility levels that could typically be located at the greatest distance from the CM (origin), e.g. at
a plan corner and outside this circle. However, the exact location of this corner element is a function
of plan geometry hence it could be argued that it is not as universal a result as elements that are
located on a circle radius r that could exist in any plan configuration structure: mathematically,
this result also simplifies
2
a k 2 bk
2k (t) = x + + y − = (x + cos )2 + (y − sin )2
r r

= x 2 + y 2 + 2 + 2 x 2 + y 2 sin( + ) (33)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
When the term sin( + )>0 all terms in the expression (33) are positive. This is the necessary
but not sufficient condition for obtaining the maximum or peak element resultant displacement.
An upper bound to this maximum displacement would be given by (34)

max (t) = (x + y ) + ||(|| + 2 x 2 + y 2 ) = 2s + 2
2 2 2
(34)
where s is the component of resultant displacement of element k that is solely due to structure
sway. While is the component of the resultant displacement that is due to structure sway and
torsion: note that with zero torsion, i.e. = 0, this component is also zero.
So it is possible to define an upper bound to the resultant ductility demand, given by k in
Equation (35), of this resisting element k. In Equation (35) the yield deflection is defined by
considering serviceability and ultimate limit state concepts and is discussed in detail in [24]
2s 2 1
k (t) = 2s + 2 , 2s = , 2 = , y = (35)
2y 2y 4qx
4/3
5. NUMERICAL STUDIES
5.1. Linear system

In order to corroborate the above theoretical result (25) the following analysis is performed. Four
records from the database (Table I) are selected. The original records Ẍ g () and Ÿg () are used
to compute the effective torque energy spectra Teff (x ); labelled ‘amplitude + phase’ in Figure 5.
Also, as a comparison, the amplitude only components of the effective torque energy A(x )
are displayed in Figure 5; labelled ‘amplitude’. The difference between ‘amplitude + phase’ and
‘amplitude’ functions plotted describes the phase difference-dependant term P(x ). Event 1 has
the largest effective torque energy but the magnitude of P(x ) is not large hence for this record the
large torque energy is mainly as a consequence of large amplitude-dependant terms A(x ). Event 4
has a small effective torque energy and again has a very small phase difference-dependant term
P(x ). Event 12 is unlike events 1 and 4; within the band 6–10 Hz the phase difference-dependant
term contributes significantly to the effective torque energy. Event 16 shows a large peak in A(x )
at about 2 Hz that is not present in Teff (x ). The phase difference-dependant term, P(x ), has a
sign that reduces Teff (x ) significantly

¨ 2 dt = [(k
L N
S (x ) = (t) ¨ − 1)]2 (36)
0 k=1

Ẍ gm 1 x x A exp(i
T 1 )
= (37)
Ÿgm 2x y y − y A exp(i
T 2 )
The lower row of Figure 5 shows the total energy of the torsional response accelerations for a
¨
spectrum of structures; S (x ), Equation (36), is the total energy of the torsional acceleration, (t),
of system (4) . The plots labelled ‘amplitude + phase’ are obtained by exciting the system (4) with
the original ground motions. The plots labelled ‘amplitude’ are obtained by exciting the system
(4) with the modified ground motions Ẍ gm () and Ÿgm (), Equation (37). In this equation the
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1398
Copyright q
Table I. Selected corrected accelerograms from USGS database.
No. Date Earthquake name Mag. (ML) Comp. Station S Epicentre (km) Inst. Acc. (cm/s2 ) USGS
1 1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 360 12400 Imperial Highway, Norwalk F 16 SMA-1 234.9 USACA40 74
1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 90 12400 Imperial Highway, Norwalk F 16 SMA-1 89.3 USACA40 72
2 24/4/84 Morgan Hill Earthquake 6.2 250 Anderson Dam, Downstream F 17 415.9 USACA35 10
24/4/84 Morgan Hill Earthquake 6.2 340 Anderson Dam, Downstream F 17 283.4 USACA35 8
3 1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 360 Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles F 27 SMA-1 138.9 USACA39 24
1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 90 Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles F 27 SMA-1 149.6 USACA39 24
4 15/10/79 Imperial Valley Earthquake 6.6 140 El Centro Array #12, Brockman Road F 29 SMA-1 138.7 USACA24 48
15/10/79 Imperial Valley Earthquake 6.6 230 El Centro Array #12, Brockman Road F 29 SMA-1 113.4 USACA24 46
5 15/10/79 Imperial Valley Earthquake 6.6 140 El Centro Array #4, Anderson Road F 27 SMA-1 483.6 USACA23 54
15/10/79 Imperial Valley Earthquake 6.6 230 El Centro Array #4, Anderson Road F 27 SMA-1 349.6 USACA23 52
6 15/10/79 Imperial Valley Earthquake 6.6 140 El Centro Array #5, James Road F 28 SMA-1 517.2 USACA23 48
2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

15/10/79 Imperial Valley Earthquake 6.6 230 El Centro Array #5, James Road F 28 SMA-1 367.2 USACA23 46
7 15/10/79 Imperial Valley Earthquake 6.6 180 El Centro Differential Array 1 F 27 SMA-1 371.9 USACA20 6
15/10/79 Imperial Valley Earthquake 6.6 90 El Centro Differential Array 1 F 27 SMA-1 284.5 USACA20 6
10 1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 360 Hollywood Storage Building, Los Angeles F 24 SMA-1 200.9 USACA39 21
1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 90 Hollywood Storage Building, Los Angeles F 24 SMA-1 103.3 USACA39 21
11 1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 360 Rancho Los Cerritos, Long Beach F 27 SMA-1 143.8 USACA39 23
1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 90 Rancho Los Cerritos, Long Beach F 27 SMA-1 233.1 USACA39 23
12 1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 360 Union Oil Yard, Inglewood F 25 SMA-1 246.1 USACA39 22
N. A. ALEXANDER
1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 90 Union Oil Yard, Inglewood F 25 SMA-1 219.3 USACA39 22
13 1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 360 12400 Imperial Highway, Norwalk B 16 SMA-1 201.5 USACA40 59
1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 90 12400 Imperial Highway, Norwalk B 16 SMA-1 104.6 USACA40 57
14 9/2/71 San Fernando Earthquake 6.5 N11E 15250 Ventura Blvd Los Angeles B 28 SMA-1 220.6 USACA13 28
9/2/71 San Fernando Earthquake 6.5 N79W 15250 Ventura Blvd Los Angeles B 28 SMA-1 146.0 USACA13 29
15 9/2/71 San Fernando Earthquake 6.5 S09W 15910 Ventura Blvd Los Angeles B 28 SMA-1 128.9 USACA13 92
9/2/71 San Fernando Earthquake 6.5 S81E 15910 Ventura Blvd Los Angeles B 28 SMA-1 140.2 USACA13 91
16 1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 180 7215 Bright Avenue, Whittier B 10 SMA-1 381.9 USACA40 32
1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 90 7215 Bright Avenue, Whittier B 10 SMA-1 606.7 USACA40 34
17 5/9/55 San Jose Earthquake 5.8 N31W Bank of America, SAN Jose B 10 S-M 100.2 USACA01 28
5/9/55 San Jose Earthquake 5.8 N59E Bank of America, SAN Jose B 10 S-M 105.8 USACA01 29
18 1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 277 CMD Terminal Bldg, Vernon B 14 SMA-1 239.9 USACA40 54
1/10/87 Whittier Narrows Earthquake 5.9 7 CMD Terminal Bldg, Vernon B 14 SMA-1 267.3 USACA40 52
19 1/7/41 Santa Barbara Earthquake 5.9 N45E Courthouse, Santa Barbara B 13 S-M 233.8 USACA02 199
1/7/41 Santa Barbara Earthquake 5.9 S45E Courthouse, Santa Barbara B 13 S-M 172.3 USACA02 200
20 24/1/80 Mt. Diablo Earthquake 5.8 128 Livermore, VA Hospital B 23 121.0 USACA21 34
24/1/80 Mt. Diablo Earthquake 5.8 38 Livermore, VA Hospital B 23 179.8 USACA21 36
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:1385–1406
Effective torque energy, spectra

Event 1 Event 4 Event 12 Event 16
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 amplitude

Teff ( ωx)
amplitude + phase
amplitude + phase
amplitude + phase amplitude
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
+ phase
amplitude amplitude amplitude

0 0 0 0
0 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10
ωx /2π [Hz] ωx /2π [Hz] ωx /2π [Hz] ωx /2π [Hz]
Total energy of torsional response accelerations, spectra

30 30 30 30
amplitude
20 20 20 amplitude + phase 20
amplitude + phase
Sθ (ωx)
amplitude + phase amplitude

+ phase
10 10 10 10
amplitude amplitude amplitude

0 0 0 0
0 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10 0 5 10
ωx /2π [Hz] ωx /2π [Hz] ωx /2π [Hz] ωx /2π [Hz]
Figure 5. Effective torque energy spectra and energy of torsional response acceleration spectra:
(q = 0, y = 1.0, x = 0.1, x = 0.2, = 1.2, = 0.05).
influence of phase difference, between records Ẍ g () and Ÿg (), on the amplitude of the applied
torques T1 and T2 is zero: i.e. P () = 0 and hence P(x ) = 0. Note that P () = 0 implies that
the difference in phase content between the pair of ground motions is
x () −
y () = ± /2.
The original phase spectra of applied torques T1 and T2 are
T 1 and
T 2 , respectively.
An alternative way of viewing these modified ground motions Ẍ gm () and Ÿgm () is in terms of
the complex-valued coherency function x y [25], Equation (38). The phase difference-dependant
terms of the applied torque power P () can be written in terms of x y , Equation (39). The
cosine of the phase difference cos(
x () −
y ()) = cos(arg( x y )) is set to zero. This results
in ground motions Ẍ gm () and Ÿgm () that have a phase difference of ±/2. The coherence
remains significantly unchanged. As an example, Figure 6 displays a comparison of coherence
(magnitude-squared coherency | x y |2 ) between the original records and the coherence between the
modified ones. There is no loss of coherence at the frequencies of significant cross-power content.
It is worth pointing out that the estimates of auto-power and cross-power spectral densities
(respectively Sx x , S yy and Sx y ) should be computed using Welch’s averaging over overlapping
windows approach [26]. Welch’s approach is designed to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio in
the case of a stationary signal and noise, i.e. one with time-invariant statistics. When Welch’s
approach is used on non-stationary signals, i.e. earthquake accelerograms, it has the effect of
averaging out the lack of stationarity as if it were a kind of noise. This is why it has not been used
in any computation in this paper thus far. This approximately equals in Equation (39) because
the right-hand side is necessarily computed using Welch’s averaging approach and the left-hand
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Magnitude of Cross-Power Spectral Density [Event 16]

0.12
Original
0.1
Modified
0.08
| Sxy |
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
[Hz]
Coherence [Event 16]

1
0.8
| γxy | 2
0.6 Original
0.4 Modified
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
[Hz]
Figure 6. Comparison of original records with modified records, for event 16, Welch’s averaged
periodogram method is used for both cross-power and coherence plots.
side is computed using one rectangular window over the entire signal (i.e. without any averaging).
Thus, coherence plots in Figure 6 of the original and modified records are at best only a first
approximation and small differences should not normally be interpreted as significant
|Sx y |
x y = exp(−i arg(Sx y )) (38)
Sx x S yy

P () = 2x y |Sx y | cos(arg(Sx y )) ≈ 2x y Sx x S yy | x y | cos(arg( x y )) (39)
Note that there is a good correlation between the effective torque energy (input) and the total
energy of torsion response (output). Scatter plot Figure 7 displays the correlation of Teff (x )
versus S (x ) for a spectrum of structures (x /2 = 0–10 Hz) and the entire database of records
(Table I). Results are displayed for a range of torsional to lateral frequency ratios, . This includes
structures that are relatively torsionally stiff and ones that are relatively torsionally flexible.
Events 12 and 16 show that the phase difference-dependant term P(x ) can have a significant
influence on the torsional response acceleration of the structure. Thus, for these types of records,
a change in sign of the eccentricity product, x y , will produce significantly different torsional
response energy spectra S (x ). This significant change in torsional response can also be seen by
changing the direction of ẍg or ÿg by radians.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
102
λθ = 1.0
R2 = 0.96
λθ =1.4
101
R2= 0.94
λθ = 1.8
Sθ ( ω x )
R2 = 0 .93
100
10-1
10-2
10-3 10-2 10-1
Teff ( ωx )
Figure 7. Effective torque energy versus total power of torsional acceleration responses (linear)
(q = 0, y = 1.0, x = 0.1, x = 0.2, = 0.05).
5.2. Nonlinear system

The study in the previous section is extended to the nonlinear regime, using Equations (30)–
(32). Consider Figure 8(a), this is a scatter plot displaying the correlation of Teff (x ) versus
S (x ) for a spectrum of structures and the entire database of records (Table I) when inelastic
behaviour is allowed. As expected the slope and intercept of this line is smaller than in the linear
case, Figure 7. The correlation coefficient squared, R 2 , is fractionally lower and the variance is
larger than the linear case; however, there is still ample evidence to suggest that there is a strong
relationship, in the population statistics, between effective torque energy and torsional response
acceleration. Consider Figure 8(b), this is a scatter plot displaying the correlation of Teff (x ) versus
k (x ) for the entire database of records. This element ductility demand, k (x ), is composed of
both torsional and sway influences, Equation (35). Nevertheless, there is a significant correlation
between effective torque energy and element ductility demand. It is worth noting that the variance
about this population mean is large, hence for an individual pair of accelerograms and a small
set of system parameters the evidence that effective torque energy correlates well with element
ductility demand may appear weak. However, for an entire database of records and a spectrum
of structures the correlation coefficient squared is large enough to show that the correlation is
statistically significant. The element ductility demand is composed of sway (translational) and
torsional components hence the torsional/phase difference effect influences only one component.
It has been shown that effective torque energy is well correlated with torsional response accelera-
tion and element ductility demand for an entire population of records and structural configurations.
Effective torque energy, Equation (29), is a function of amplitude A(z ) and phase difference-
dependant term P(x ) components. Consequently, the question is how much does the phase
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
102 101
Torsional response acc. energy, Sθ ( ωx )
Element ductility demand, µk ( ωx )

101
100
100
R2= 0.92 R2=0.71

10-1 10-1
10-3 10-2 10-1 10-3 10-2 10-1
(a) Effective torque energy, Teff ( ωx ) (b) Effective torque energy, Teff ( ωx )
Figure 8. (a) Effective torque energy versus total energy of torsional response acceleration
(nonlinear) and (b) effective torque energy versus element k ductility demand (q = 0.25,
y = 1.0, x = 0.1, x = 0.2, = 1.2, = 0.05).
difference-dependant term influence these responses?
S (ẍg , ÿg ; x ) − S (ẍgm , ÿgm ; x )

S = 100
S (ẍg , ÿg ; x )
(40)
(ẍg , ÿg ; x ) − k (ẍgm , ÿgm ; x )
k = 100 k
k (ẍg , ÿg ; x )
Consider Equations (40), these represent the percentage difference in torsional response energy and
element ductility demand. The difference is obtained by analyses with original ground motions,
ẍg (t) and ÿg (t), and the modified (zero phase difference-dependant term) ground motions, ẍ gm (t)
and ÿgm (t), Equation (37). Thus, s represents the influence of the phase difference-dependant
terms (input) on the torsional (response) energy and k represents the influence of the phase
difference-dependant terms (input) on the element ductility demand. Figure 9(a) displays s for
a spectrum of structures and the entire database of records. The mean s is indicated by the
bold black line labelled , is in the region of zero. Note at low frequency this is not quite true,
however, the error in computing s at low frequency is likely to be largely due to the ‘correction
techniques’ applied to the accelerograms by [15]. This approximately zero mean, suggests that for
the entire database of records, the positive and negative differences, s , in torsional response due
to the phase difference-dependant term, P(x ), cancel each other out. This is expected as there
should be no correlation between phase difference-dependant terms of any arbitrary two events.
The lines labelled ± are mean ±1 sample standard deviation. This demonstrates clearly that
while the effect of the phase difference-dependant term, P(x ), on the population mean may be
negligible for a large database of records there is considerable spread of differences s about the
mean. As a result in two-thirds of all analyses a difference s of up to ±25% should be expected,
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
50 50
difference in torsional response ξ Sθ [%]
difference in ductility demand ξ µk [%]

25 25
ν+σ ν+σ
ν ν
0 0
ν-σ
ν-σ
-25 -25
-50 -50
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
(a) ωx /2π [Hz] (b) ωx /2π [Hz]
Figure 9. Percentage differences between original ground motion and zero phase difference ground
motion for entire database: (a) energy of torsional response acceleration and (b) element k ductility
demand (q = 0.25, y = 1.0, x = 0.1, x = 0.2, = 1.2, = 0.05).
for this parameter and data set. Figure 9(b) shows k similar results for the ductility demand, in
this case, in two-thirds of all analyses, a difference k of up to ±10% should be expected.
6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
To summarize, in the case of linear structures (Sections 3.2–3.3) the torsional response in the
frequency domain is directly proportional to the applied torque for a broad class of structural
systems, defined in Equation (21). The torsional response acceleration energy is dependant on
the band-limited effective applied torque energy, Equation (29). The definition of the bandwidths
employed in calculating the effective applied torque energy, Equation (29) is based on a simplified
linear system, (Section 3.4). Even so, numerical simulations confirm that the effective applied
torque energy is very well correlated to the torsional response acceleration energy for both linear,
Figure 5, and nonlinear structural systems, Figures 7 and 8. Note that the total applied torque energy
(not band-limited) is not well correlated to torsional response acceleration energy. However, the
correlation between the effective torque energy (band-limited) and torsional response acceleration
energy is good and is valid for a broad class of structural systems that include ones that are relatively
(with respect to flexural stiffness) torsionally flexible and ones that are relatively torsionally stiff,
Figure 7. The relationship between effective applied torque energy (input) and element ductility
demand is not as strongly correlated, however, it still shows a statistically significant correlation,
Figure 8(b).
The effective torque energy is shown to be composed of two terms, an amplitude-dependant
term and a phase difference-dependant term. Thus, the difference in phase content between
two orthogonal ground motions (inputs) has been shown to directly influence the torsional re-
sponse accelerations and element ductility demands in a multistorey asymmetric structure (of the
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
class consider in this paper). This is a feature of a system that is excited by two inputs rather
than one.
It has also been demonstrated that within the sample of 20 pairs of real ground motions, even
when they have been normalized to a uniform mean energy level, there is still large variation in
the effective torque energy. The size of the phase difference-dependant term P(x ) also varies
greatly with different accelerogram pairs. For example, in event 4 the phase difference-dependant
term P(x ) is very small and unimportant, while in event 12 it significantly increases the effective
torque energy at certain frequencies. In contrast event 16 shows decreased effective torque energy
at certain frequencies due to the phase difference-dependant term P(x ). This phase difference-
dependant term is large when, within the important structural bandwidths, the records show: (i)
little difference in phase content between the pair of records (phase tuning) and (ii) similar large
power levels, Equation (22).
Accelerogram pairs that have large phase difference-dependant terms can only be selected by
numerically evaluating term P(x ) in Equation (29) which uses structurally dependant bandwidths
given by Equation (27). Note that the phase difference-dependant terms P(x ) cannot be evaluated
independently of the structural system. This is for two reasons; firstly, the sign change in the
product of eccentricity ratios or a sign change in the direction of one accelerogram will result
in a sign change in P(x ). Secondly, only the band-limited phase differences are important and
these bandwidths are governed by the structural system. Hence, analysis of an accelerogram pair
without reference to the structural system does not yield the required information about the role
of phase difference components.
In order to quantify the magnitude of the influence of the phase content on the building responses
a set of artificial records are derived from the original records. These artificial records are similar
to the original records in that they produce identical amplitude-dependent applied torque terms
A () but are designed to have a phase difference-dependant term, P () = 0, Equation (22). The
difference in response quantities (that is, torsional response accelerations and element ductility
demands) when analyses are performed with: (i) the original records and (ii) the zero phase
difference-dependant term records quantifies the influence of the phase difference content in the
original records. In Figure 9 it is demonstrated that the mean difference in analyses of structures
with (i) and (ii) is approximately zero. Thus, if a large enough sample of records is taken, and the
mean structural response quantities are calculated, the influence of the phase difference content
in the original records is probably negligible. Thus, on average, the role of phase difference was
is less significant than the author originally thought. However, an engineering analyst is often
interested in a worst case rather than the mean. That is, to say, in a typical nonlinear finite-element
analysis the worst displacements, ductility demands and internal actions are sought rather than the
mean. Note that the variances in Figure 9 have been shown to be large.
Hence, it is possible to overestimate or underestimate both the torsional response energy and
element ductility demand levels by employing a small sample of records due to the influence
of the phase difference-dependant term. This is particularly the case when selecting records and
structures that result in a large phase difference-dependant term P(x ), e.g. event 12 in Figure 5.
With the parameter and accelerogram data sets presented, in Figure 9, it should be expected
(based on Gaussian statistical assumptions) that in two-thirds of all analyses the phase difference
content will account for up to ±25% of the torsional response energy and up to ±10% element
ductility demand. In one-third of all analyses the phase difference content will account for more
than ±25% of the torsional response energy and more than ±10% element ductility demand. These
quantitative results are subject to the numerous modelling assumptions made in this paper.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
Consequently, the results in this paper suggest that analyses with a small sample of records
can easily be biased, even when these records are scaled to achieve identical total input energies,
i.e. Arias intensities. This possible positive or negative bias can be introduced by the influence of
the phase difference between orthogonal ground motions. It is possible for nonlinear time-history
analyses of a building excited by only a few accelerogram pairs, as recommended by some codes
of practice, to produce misleading results.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the efforts of Dr K. Javid, and Mr N. Goorvadoo in the very early
stages of this work. The author would also like to thank the support of the University of East London
and the University of Bristol. Deo gratias.
REFERENCES
1. Priestley MJN. Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering, revisited. The 9th Mallet Milne Lecture, The
Institution of Civil Engineers, U.K. IUSS Press, ISBN 88-7358-00902, 2003.
2. CEN European Standard. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Part 1: General Rules,
Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. CEN PrDRAFT No. 3, May 2001. Section 3.2.3.2, 21.
3. Bonett R, Pujades L, Hurado J. Generation of seismic ground motion signal from response spectrum. Application
to recent seismic events in Spain and Colombia. Revista Internacional de Metodos Numericos para Caiculo u
Diseno en Ingenieria 2002; 18(2):297–308.
4. Westermo N. The synthesis of strong ground motion accelerograms from existing records. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1992; 21(9):743–756.
5. Lam N, Wilson J, Hutchinson G. Building ductility demand: interplate versus intraplate. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1996; 25(9):965–985.
6. Rizzo PC, Shaw DE, Jarecki SJ. Development of real/synthetic time histories to match smooth design spectra.
Nuclear Engineering and Design 1975; 32(1):148–155.
7. Dussom B, Hadj-Hamou T, Bakeer RM. Quake: an expert system for the selection of design earthquake
accelerogram. Computers and Structures 1991; 40(1):161–167.
8. Ohsaki Y. On the significance of phase content in earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1979; 7:427–439.
9. Kubo T. The importance of phase properties in generation of synthetic earthquake strong motions. Transactions
of the 9th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology 1987; K1:49–64.
10. Matsukawa K, Watabe M, Theofanopulos NA, Tohdo M. Phase characteristics of earthquake ground motions and
those applications to synthetic ones. Transactions of the 9th International Conference on Structural Mechanics
in Reactor Technology 1987; K1:43–48.
11. Naraoka K, Watanabe T. Generation of nonstationary earthquake ground motions using phase characteristics.
Transactions of the 9th International Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology 1987; K1:37–42.
12. Thrainsson H, Kiremidjian AS. Simulation of digital earthquake accelerograms using the inverse discrete Fourier
transform. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(12):2023–2048.
13. Penzien J, Watabe M. Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motions. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1975; 3:365–373.
14. Alexander NA, Chanerley AA, Goorvadoo N. A review of procedures used for the correction of seismic data.
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Civil and Structural Engineering, Eisenstadt-Vienna, Austria,
2001. ISBN 0-948749-75-X
15. Earthquake Strong Motion CD. National Geophysical Data Center. Boulder, CO, U.S.A., NOAA, 1996.
16. Arias A. A measure of earthquake intensity. In Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants, Hansen RJ (ed.). MIT
Press: Cambridge, MA, 1970; 438–483.
17. Thambiratnam DP, Corderoy HJB. Effect of asymmetry on response of multi-storey building to earthquakes.
Engineering Structures 1994; 16(3):210–221.
18. Hejal R, Chopra AK. Earthquake Response of Torsionally Coupled Buildings. Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California, Berkeley, UCB/EERC-87/20: Berkeley, CA, 1987.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
19. Bendat JS, Peirsol AG. Random Data Analysis and Measurement Procedures (3rd edn). Wiley: New York, 2000.
20. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures, Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering (2nd edn). Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2001.
21. Kilar V, Fajfar P. Simple push-over analysis of asymmetric buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1997; 26(2):233–249.
22. Alexander NA, Goorvadoo N. Inelastic models and ductility demand of asymmetric buildings. Twelfth European
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 2002; 516.
23. Alexander NA, Goorvadoo N, Noor FA, Chanerley AA. A comparative study of a storey vs element hysteretic
non-linear model for seismic analysis of buildings. The International Conference on Structural Engineering,
Mechanics and Computation, vol. 2, Cape Town, South Africa, 2001; 919–926.
24. Alexander NA, Goorvadoo N, Noor FA, Chanerley AA. A new parametric storey non-linearity including hysteretic
behaviour in the dynamic analysis of buildings under bi-directional seismic action. The 5th International
Conference on Computational Civil and Structural Engineering, vol. 2, Belgium, 2000; 169–176.
25. Bendat JS, Peirsol AG. Random Data Analysis and Measurement Procedures (3rd edn). Wiley: New York, 2000.
26. Welch PD. The use of fast fourier transform for the estimation of power spectra: a method based on time averaging
over short, modified periodograms. IEEE Transactions on Audio and Electroacoustics 1967; AU-15:70–73.
DOI: 10.1002/eqe

The Role of Phase Difference Components of Ground Motions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Role of Phase Difference Components of Ground Motions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2007; 36:1385–1406

The role of phase difference components of ground motions

Nicholas Andrew Alexander∗, †, ‡

Received 21 June 2006; Revised 8 January 2007; Accepted 2 March 2007

KEY WORDS: phase difference component; asymmetric building torsion

Contract/grant sponsor: University of East London

Copyright q 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2. THE SELECTION OF ACCELEROGRAM INPUT DATA

3.1. Equations of motion

Figure 1. Building idealization.

ü + 2x Du = −ü g (5)

3.2. Frequency domain analysis

= (2 − 21 )(2 − 22 )(2 − 23 ) (11)

ln| h31 | , ln| h32 |

ln| h31 | , ln| h32 |

|T1 |2 = 2x 2y + 2y 2x + 2x  y  y x cos(

= (2x S yy + 2y Sx x ) + (2x  y Re(Sx y ))

= A () + P () (22)

3.4. Band-limited applied torque energy

= A(x ) − P(x ) (29)

Figure 3. Example of bandwidths employed in the calculation of effective torque energy.

4. NONLINEAR STRUCTURAL MODEL

4.1. Estimating element ductility demand

5.1. Linear system

2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Effective torque energy, spectra

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 amplitude

amplitude amplitude amplitude

Total energy of torsional response accelerations, spectra

amplitude + phase amplitude

amplitude amplitude amplitude

Magnitude of Cross-Power Spectral Density [Event 16]

Coherence [Event 16]

5.2. Nonlinear system

Element ductility demand, µk ( ωx )

R2= 0.92 R2=0.71

difference-dependant term influence these responses?

S (ẍg , ÿg ; x ) − S (ẍgm , ÿgm ; x )

difference in ductility demand ξ µk [%]

6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

You might also like

|T1 |2 = 2x 2y + 2y 2x + 2x y y x cos(

= (2x S yy + 2y Sx x ) + (2x y Re(Sx y ))

S (ẍg , ÿg ; x ) − S (ẍgm , ÿgm ; x )