Inelastic Displacement Spectra for Bridges Using the

Substitute-Structure Method
Tim Huff, Ph.D., P.E.1; and Shahram Pezeshk, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE2

Abstract: The design of bridge structures for seismic loading by displacement-based procedures has become preferred over force-based pro-
cedures in modern specifications. One key step in displacement-based design (DBD) is the estimation of inelastic displacement. Current
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

AASHTO specifications rely on a linear response spectrum analysis with an amplification factor, Rd, for conventionally designed bridges and
on the substitute structure method (SSM) for analysis of isolated bridges to estimate inelastic displacements. Both methods are used in this
study for a selected site and target acceleration response spectrum. The procedures for both are outlined in detail. Displacement spectra from
nonlinear response history analyses (NLRHA) are generated for seven ground-motion sets and compared to results from the two simplified
methods. The SSM is shown to produce inelastic displacement estimates that more closely match NLRHA results than do results from the
AASHTO Rd method over a wide range of periods for the specific conditions of (1) a large modal magnitude earthquake, (2) a class D subsur-
face profile, (3) accelerations characteristic of the selected site, and (4) reduced initial damping to mimic tangent-stiffness-damping. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000279. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Earthquakes; Seismic analysis; Ground motion; Inelastic; Displacement spectra.

Introduction
Current AASHTO (2011) estimates of inelastic displacement for
bridges of conventional design (nonisolated) rely on the equal dis-
placement rule (EDR). EDR states that the inelastic displacement of
a structure is equal to the displacement that the structure would
have experienced if all elements remained in the elastic range, and
is complemented in AASHTO with a short-period amplification
factor, Rd. For isolated bridges, AASHTO (2010) adopts the substi-
tute structure method (SSM) of analysis. SSM uses the secant stiff-
ness to determine an effective period. Hysteretic behavior is treated
as added viscous damping.
Other methods have been proposed for estimating the inelastic
displacement without resorting to nonlinear response history analy-
sis (NLRHA). Among these are methods that propose rules for a
displacement amplification factor, Cm , to be applied to the elastic
displacement as an estimate for inelastic displacement. More
recently, Bozorgnia et al. (2010) proposed a ground-motion predic-
tion model to estimate the inelastic displacement. Parameters Cm
and Rd are directly analogous, simply different terminology.
In a recent study, Khose and Singh (2014) reported that the
equivalent linearization methods for inelastic displacement, in the
displacement-controlled spectral range, may underestimate response
results. Further research will be helpful in developing tools to esti-
mate inelastic response through simplified analytical methods in the
design office.
1
Civil Engineering Manager, Tennessee DOT, 505 Deaderick St.,
Suite 1100, Nashville, TN 37243 (corresponding author). E-mail: tim
.huff@tn.gov
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Memphis, Memphis,
TN 38152. E-mail: spezeshk@memphis.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on June 8, 2015; approved on
October 13, 2015; published online on December 30, 2015. Discussion pe-
riod open until May 30, 2016; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Practice Periodical on
Structural Design and Construction, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0680.
The purposes of this study are to (1) demonstrate that the
AASHOT Rd method may underestimate inelastic response over a
wide range of periods for large magnitude ground motions on Site
Class D profiles, and (2) propose alternative methods for estimating
inelastic displacement spectra.
To accomplish these objectives, a detailed discussion of the
AASHTO Rd method is provided. The SSM is fully described and
other methods proposed in the literature are discussed. Important
issues related to damping levels for both SSM and NLRHA are
highlighted.
Seven ground-motion sets were scaled to a target response spec-
trum for a hypothetical bridge site on an AASHTO Class D subsur-
face profile. NLRHA analyses were performed on each set to
develop the mean inelastic displacement spectra. The Rd- and
SSM-based inelastic spectra were generated from the same target
spectrum and compared to the results from NLRHA.
AASHTO Rd Method for Conventional Design
Given the complexity of performing NLRHA and the potential dif-
ficulty in interpreting the results, it is certainly desirable to have a
simplified, yet accurate, method of estimating inelastic displace-
ment. Response spectrum techniques are the method of choice in
most engineering offices. This is not likely to change soon.
Nonlinear behavior results in energy dissipation, which histori-
cally has been treated as added equivalent viscous damping. The
stiffness is not constant during loading for nonlinear systems. The
issue then becomes determining which values for effective damping
and effective stiffness, when used in a response spectrum analysis,
will produce results similar to those obtained in NLRHA.
One option for engineers is to use the initial stiffness and the
elastic, initial-stiffness-based viscous damping in a linear response
spectrum analysis to estimate nonlinear response. In this case, the
assumption implies that for a given initial stiffness and a given
ground motion, a yielding structure will experience the same dis-
placement as a nonyielding structure. This equal displacement rule
(EDR) assumption has been used in practice extensively and has

© ASCE 04015020-1 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020

 been shown to be valid, though not across the entire range of periods
(Bozorgnia et al. 2010). The AASHTO Rd method is based on the
added assumption that the EDR is applicable only at periods longer
than a characteristic site period, T*. Therefore, an amplification fac-
tor, Rd, is applied to displacements at periods shorter than T*. The
characteristic site period, T*, is given by Eq. (1).
T* ¼ 1:25TS ¼ 1:25
SD1
(1)
SDS
where TS = period defining the onset of the constant spectral veloc-
ity region for the design spectrum; SD1 = spectral acceleration at a
period of 1 s; and SDS = short-period spectral acceleration.
The amplification factor, Rd, according to AASHTO (2011), is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
determined by Eq. (2).


1 T* 1
Rd ¼ 1  þ (2)
m T m
where m = displacement ductility, defined as the ratio of maximum
displacement to yield displacement.
Given the elastic response spectrum acceleration, (SAEL)T, the
inelastic displacement demand, (SDINEL)T, follows as shown in
Eq. (3).

2
T The total system damping ( j EFF) for SSM analysis is taken as
ðSDINEL ÞT ¼ Rd ðSDEL ÞT ¼ Rd  g  ðSAEL ÞT (3)
2p
(SAEL)T is the elastic spectral acceleration for 5% damping at
the initial period, T. The process may be repeated at many different
periods to obtain the inelastic displacement spectrum as generated
using the AASHTO Rd method.
Substitute-Structure Method for Isolated Bridges
The SSM has been incorporated into Guide Specifications for
Seismic Isolation Design (AASHTO 2010). The method was
first proposed by Gulkan and Sozen (1974) and further devel-
oped by Priestley et al. (2007) and others. For a single-degree-
of-freedom (SDOF) oscillator, the secant stiffness, KEFF, at
maximum displacement with effective viscous damping, is used
Fig. 1. Effective stiffness parameters
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020
to establish inelastic displacement demands (see Fig. 1).
Damping includes an initial elastic component (historically
taken as 0.05 times the critical value) plus a hysteretic compo-
nent. Various hysteretic rules are available for inelastic response
(Priestley et al. 2007). For this study, the bilinear model was
selected. According to Priestley and Grant (2005), the initial
elastic component of damping ( j o) for the substitute structure
analysis should be reduced from the typical 5% ( j el) by apply-
ing factors l 1 and l 2 to mimic a tangent-stiffness-based damp-
ing solution, as opposed to an initial-stiffness-based damping
solution, as presented in Eqs. (4)–(6).
j o ¼ j el  λ1 λ2 (4)
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m
λ1 ¼ (5)
1 þ am  a

"
 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi#
1a 1 m  2 2ð m  2Þ m  1
λ2 ¼ a þ cos 
p m m2
(6)
The parameter a is the ratio of postyield (Kd) to initial (Ki) stiff-
ness values for a bilinear system, as seen in Fig. 1.
the reduced elastic component, j o, added to the hysteretic compo-
nent ( j hys).
j EFF ¼ j o þ j hys (7)
The reduction applied to the elastic component is related to the
belief that solutions for which the damping formulation is tangent-
stiffness-based predict the true inelastic response of structures more
accurately than do solutions for which the damping formulation is
initial-stiffness-based (Priestley et al. 2007). Many computer solu-
tions for inelastic response update the stiffness at each time step, but
not the damping coefficient. It seems logical that the damping
should be updated at each time step as well.
For the hysteretic component in Eq. (7), two options are consid-
ered here. Dwairi et al. (2007) proposed the model given by Eqs.
(8a) and (8b) for the hysteretic damping component.
04015020-2 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.


CEP m  1 to BL = 1.70, equivalent to Rj = 0.59. This is equivalent to limiting
j hys ¼ (8a)
100 p m the total effective damping to 30% of critical and is adopted for the
present study as well. Even at a small ductility, for example, m = 2,
the hysteretic damping for an elastic-perfectly-plastic oscillator is

85 þ 60 ð1  TEFF Þ; TEFF < 1 31.8%; thus, the 30% limit is recommended for use with the SSM
CEP ¼
85; TEFF  1 (8b) analysis. Table 1 lists the theoretical effective damping values
( j EFF), but in computing Rj , j EFF was limited to 0.30 in this study.
Once the response modifier, BL or Rj , has been determined, the
where TEFF = the secant-stiffness-based effective period of a bilin-
inelastic displacement computation is straightforward and given by
ear oscillator [see Eq. (15), presented later].
Eqs. (15) and (16).
Dwairi’s model is based on elastic-perfectly-plastic hysteresis
combined with the analysis of a large set of ground-motion records. rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m m
The model presented by Priestley et al. (2007) is the second TEFF ¼ 2p ¼T ¼ λ1 T (15)
KEFF 1 þ am  a
model used in this study for the hysteretic component.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2ð m  1Þð1  aÞ
2
j hys ¼ (9) ðSAEL ÞTEFF TEFF
p m ð1 þ am  aÞ ðSDINEL ÞT ¼ g
BL 2p

2
Eq. (9) is based on a single cycle at maximum displacement. TEFF
¼ Rj  ðSAEL ÞTEFF  g  (16)
However, during a large portion of ground shaking, structures 2p
respond at much less than the maximum displacement, so the effec-
tive hysteretic component may logically need to be taken as some- where (SAEL)TEFF = elastic spectral acceleration at period TEFF.
thing less than that given by a theoretical expression [Eq. (9) for this Note that for TEFF, Eq. (15) is valid only in the case of a bilinear
model]. Typically, the Dwairi model results in a lower damping oscillator.
value than the bilinear model. Table 1 lists the m and a combina- For either the AASHTO Rd method or the SSM, an inelastic dis-
tions used in this study, along with the calculated damping values placement spectrum may be generated given an elastic acceleration
for the SSM analysis. Other parameters in Table 1 will be discussed spectrum. This elastic acceleration spectrum could be the mean of a
later. suite of records or the code-based design response spectrum for a
Once the effective damping has been established, a model for given site.
response modification due to the increased damping is needed. A curious aspect of the SSM is the predicted solution at low duc-
AASHTO has its own models and several others have been pro- tility values. The method predicts inelastic displacements smaller
posed (Priestley et al. 2007). Three of the models are given here, than elastic displacements over a wide range of periods when the
along with the AASHTO models, in Eqs. (10)−(14). Eq. (10) is the ductility is reduced to a value dependent on the postyield stiffness
AASHTO model for bridges with isolation devices, which are typi- ratio, a. When the effective period is within the constant velocity
cally characterized by a classic bilinear load-deflection hysteretic region of the target spectrum (i.e., when SAEL is proportional to
curve. Eq. (11) is the AASHTO model for conventionally designed 1/T), the inelastic response displacement can be obtained as given
bridges, such as those relying on plastic hinging in columns. Eq. by Eq. (17).
(12) is the EC8 model for far-field conditions and Eq. (13) has
2
2
been proposed for sites where pulse-type ground motions are SD1 λ1 T SD1 T
ðSDINEL ÞT ¼ g  Rj ¼ g  λ1  R j
expected. Eq. (14) is an early model based on work by two of λ1 T 2p T 2p
the pioneers in the field of earthquake engineering, Professors (17)
Nathan M. Newmark and William J. Hall.

0:30 Eq. (17) can be simplified to Eq. (18).
j EFF
BL ¼  1:70; AASHTO ð2010Þ (10)
0:05 ðSDINEL ÞT ¼ ðSDEL ÞT  λ1  Rj (18)

0:40 where (SDEL)T = elastic response spectral displacement at 5% vis-

0:05 cous damping and at the initial period, T.
Rj ¼ ; AASHTO ð2011Þ (11)
j EFF Therefore, whenever the product of l 1 and Rj is 1.00 and the
effective period is within the constant velocity region of the target

0:50 spectrum, the SSM predicts inelastic displacements exactly equal to
0:10
Rj ¼ ; Eurocode 8 (12) the elastic displacement (i.e., the EDR is exactly satisfied). Using
0:05 þ j EFF

0:25 Table 1. Damping for Various a, m Combinations

0:07
Rj ¼ ; Pulse-type (13)
0:02 þ j EFF a m j o (%) j hys (%) j EFF (%) m LIMIT j NLRHA (%)
0.00 6 1.3 53.1 54.4 2.93 1
R j ¼ 1:31  0:191lnð100 j EFF Þ; Newmark–Hall (14) 0.05 6 1.7 40.3 42.0 3.60 1
0.00 12 0.7 58.4 59.1 2.93 0
0.05 12 1.2 35.8 37.0 3.60 0
Some codes specify a factor, BL, by which the response is di-
0.00 2 3.5 31.8 35.3 2.93 3
vided, while other models adopt a factor, Rj , by which the response
0.00 4 2.0 47.7 49.7 2.93 2
is multiplied. For isolated structures, AASHTO limits the reduction

© ASCE 04015020-3 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020

 the 30% cap on effective damping along with the AASHTO method
[Eq. (10)] for computing Rj , the ductility values ( m LIMIT) that
make the product of l 1 and Rj equal to 1.00 are given in Table 1.
So, in a sense, the SSM confirms the EDR within certain period
ranges. However, as previously noted, the damping equations [Eqs.
(4)–(9)] are based on maximum ductility, while response to ground
shaking is at levels smaller than the maximum for much of the load
duration (with the effect more pronounced the lower the ductility).
It seems logical that the theoretical effective damping may need to
be reduced to obtain accurate results with SSM at low levels of
ductility.
Before proceeding to the nonlinear response history analysis and
comparison among methods, two other alternatives for inelastic
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
response spectra generation are discussed briefly.
Other Methods for Inelastic Displacement Spectra
Two additional methods for estimating inelastic displacements
are summarized here. First, several studies have proposed dis-
placement amplification factors to be applied to elastic displace-
ments as an estimate for inelastic displacement. Among these is
the model proposed by Watanabe and Kawashima (2014) in Eqs.
(19) and (20).
SDINEL ¼ C m  SDEL (19)


T a
C m ¼ 1  ðc  1Þ (20)
aebT
where Cm = ratio of inelastic displacement to elastic displacement
(analogous to Rd); c = value of C m when T = 0; a = period at which
C m becomes 1 (i.e., the EDR is exactly satisfied); and the quantity
(a þ 1/b), as defined by Watanabe and Kawashima (2014), repre-
sents the period at which Cm takes on its minimum value. Values
for the constants (a, b, c) for ductility values of 2, 4, 6, and 8 were
developed by Watanabe and Kawashima (2014). The study also
provided estimation of the period at which the displacement ampli-
fication factor follows, not the EDR, but the EER (equal energy
rule), i.e., the period at which:
m analysis solution is taken as that given by Eq. (7). For NLRHA
C m ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (21)
2m  1
Another detailed analysis of proposed C m factors is presented in
an Earthquake Engineering Research Center report (Chopra and
Chintanapakdee 2003).
As an alternative means of developing inelastic spectra for
shallow crustal earthquakes on active tectonic regions,
Bozorgnia et al. (2010) developed a ground-motion prediction
equation for inelastic displacement of a bilinear, elastic-per-
fectly-plastic (EPP; a = 0) system using a logarithmic model
given by Eq. (22).


Fy
ln ¼ fmag þ fdis þ fflt þ fhng þ fsite þ fsed (22)
W and 3. The purpose of this study is not to suggest a record set appro-
where fmag is a magnitude term, fdis is a distance term, fflt is a style-
of-faulting term, fhng is a hanging-wall term, fsite is a shallow site
response term, and fsed is a sediment depth term. The dependent
variable was taken as Fy /W for the ground motion prediction equa-
tion (GMPE) development. This may be converted to a constant
© ASCE
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020
ductility inelastic displacement spectrum. Recognizing that Fy /Ki =
Dy = DMAX/ m , Eq. (23) may be derived.
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffi sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi




W Fy W 1
T ¼ 2p ¼ 2p
gKi Ki Fy g
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi




DMAX W 1
¼ 2p
m Fy g

2

T Fy
;ðSDINEL ÞT ¼ DMAX ¼ ð m gÞ (23)
2p W
The model requires definition of several seismological parame-
ters including moment magnitude (MW), rupture distance (RRUP),
Joyner-Boore distance (Rjb), depth to top of rupture (ZTOR), depth to
attain a shear wave velocity of 2.5 km/s (Z2.5), fault dip and rake,
peak ground acceleration (PGA), and average shear wave velocity
in the upper 30 m (VS30).
Bozorgnia et al. (2010) discuss the range of periods over which
inelastic displacements are similar to elastic displacements, con-
firming the EDR, but for restricted period ranges.
NLRHA
The inelastic spectra generation algorithm used for this study is an
initial-stiffness-based damping algorithm (Hachem 2000). Hence,
for NLRHA generation of spectra, the elastic damping is reduced in
accordance with the approximate rule given by Priestley et al.
(2007) and reproduced here as Eq. (24).
 
j 1  0:1ð m  1Þð1  aÞ
j NLRHA ¼ el (24)
λ1
By definition, j NLRHA is the elastic component of damping, in
an initial-stiffness-damping-based NLRHA, which will approxi-
mate tangent-stiffness-damping-based results. To be clear, the elas-
tic damping in initial-stiffness-based damping NLRHA is taken as
that given by Eq. (24). The effective damping in a simplified SSM
using an algorithm incorporating tangent-stiffness-damping, no
reduction of the damping percentage would be required in the
NLRHA. For the m and a combinations used in this study, Table 1
lists the damping values used for NLRHA.
Ground Motion Records for Nonlinear Analysis
For developing a target elastic acceleration response spectrum, a hy-
pothetical bridge site is selected, characterized by a modal earth-
quake magnitude, MW = 7.7, Site Class D (VS30 between 180–360
m/s) subsurface conditions, and with a target spectrum based on
three control points: AS = 0.445, SDS = 0.906, and SD1 = 0.392.
These values form the basis for the target spectrum shown in Figs. 2
priate for the hypothetical site, but to evaluate differences among
the AASHTO Rd method, NLRHA, and the SSM in estimating non-
linear response.
Seven sets of 10 ground-motion pairs were used for this study. All
records were obtained from PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center 2011). The records are described in Table 2.
04015020-4 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Single event 10-record-pair mean spectra

Fig. 3. Mixed event 10-record-pair mean spectra

While the purpose of this paper is not to synthesize a set of
design ground motions for the hypothetical site, either of the last
two sets might arguably be interpreted as such, given that match
to spectral shape was identified in a recent study (NEHRP
Consultants Joint Venture 2011) as the single most important fac-
tor in ground-motion selection at far-field sites. Other important
factors include moment magnitude (MW), source-to-site distance
(R), tectonic setting (active tectonic versus stable continent), and
site conditions (VS30, profile depth, etc.). The NEHRP report is an
excellent reference for engineers who need to select and scale
ground motions for design. Further assistance in obtaining infor-
mation for a site may be found with (1) hazard deaggregations
(USGS 2015) to establish MW, R, and SAEL data; and (2) the
OpenSHA platform at OpenSHA.org (Field et al. 2003) for
inferred VS30 values.
For each selected record pair, scaling was performed on the
geometric mean of as-recorded, horizontal components to mini-
mize the mean-square-error (MSE) at periods between 0.09 and
10.0 s. This is a much wider range than would normally be used in
practical ground-motion selection and scaling. With 10 record

© ASCE 04015020-5 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020

 Table 2. Ground Motion Set Descriptions Table 5. Imperial Valley Record Pairs

Set Earthquake MW NGA Rjb Rrup VS30

number Station (km) (km) (m/s) SF
1 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan 7.62
169 Delta 22 22 274.5 1.2269
2 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey 7.51
175 El Centro Array #12 17.9 17.9 196.9 2.4725
3 1979 Imperial Valley 6.53
187 Parachute Test Site 12.7 12.7 348.7 2.9009
4 1992 Landers 7.28
176 El Centro Array #13 22 22 249.9 3.2860
5 1989 Loma Prieta 6.93
172 El Centro Array #1 19.8 21.7 237.3 3.6141
6 Various (best fit to target, no restrictions on MW) 6.53–7.62
163 Calipatria Fire Station 23.2 24.6 205.8 3.8057
7 Various (best fit to target, restrictions on MW) 7.36–7.62
186 Niland Fire Station 35.6 36.9 207.5 4.4226
162 Calexico Fire Station 10.4 10.4 231.2 2.1650
188 Plaster City 30.3 30.3 345.4 9.7439
Table 3. Chi-Chi, Taiwan Record Pairs 164 Cerro Prieto 15.2 15.2 659.6 2.4764
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

NGA Rrup VS30

number Station Rjb (km) (km) (m/s) SF
Table 6. Landers Record Pairs
1190 CHY019 50 50.5 478.3 6.2271
1521 TCU089 0 8.9 680 1.3418 NGA Rjb Rrup VS30
1284 HWA035 44 48.4 500.8 5.4097 number Station (km) (km) (m/s) SF
1214 CHY057 56.7 56.9 411.5 6.7623 880 Mission Creek Fault 27 27 345.4 3.7383
1325 ILA031 80.9 83.3 649.2 6.3971 836 Baker Fire Station 87.9 87.9 271.4 3.9811
1518 TCU085 55.1 58.1 999.7 6.2824 832 Amboy 69.2 69.2 271.4 2.3619
1290 HWA043 54.5 58 228.6 5.4442 855 Fort Irwin 63 63 345.4 3.3851
1259 HWA006 43.5 47.9 490.8 5.0695 891 Silent Valley−Poppet Flat 50.9 50.9 684.9 10.1805
1191 CHY022 63.2 64.2 486.5 6.5781 862 Indio−Coachella Canal 54.2 54.2 345.4 3.3334
1338 ILA050 63.8 66.9 497.2 6.3375 895 Tarzana−Cedar Hill 175.7 175.7 257.2 7.3241
850 Desert Hot Springs 21.8 21.8 345.4 2.7050
854 Featherly Park−Maint 121.8 121.8 308.6 6.7496
Table 4. Kocaeli, Turkey Record Pairs 882 North Palm Springs 26.8 26.8 345.4 2.8756

NGA number Station Rjb (km) Rrup (km) VS30 (m/s) SF

1153 Botas 126 127 274.5 4.6694
1149 Atakoy 56.5 58.3 274.5 3.0919 Table 7. Loma Prieta Record Pairs
1177 Zeytinburnu 52 53.9 274.5 3.2370 NGA Rjb Rrup VS30
1170 Mecidiyekoy 51.2 53.4 424.8 7.5856 number Station (km) (km) (m/s) SF
1165 Izmit 3.6 7.2 811 1.8094
1158 Duzce 13.6 15.4 276 0.9681 761 Fremont−Emerson Court 39.7 39.9 284.8 3.1174
1164 Istanbul 49.7 52 424.8 7.3900 804 So. SF−Sierra Pt. 63 63.1 1020.6 5.8674
1172 Tekirdag 164.2 165 659.6 12.3572 746 BV #5−Callens Ranch 53.5 53.6 391.0 4.7812
1169 Maslak 53 55.3 659.6 8.9857 798 SF−Telegraph Hill 76.4 76.5 712.8 8.4452
1159 Eregli 141.4 142.3 659.6 4.4806 800 Salinas–John & Work 28.7 32.8 271.4 3.4929
788 Piedmont Jr. High 72.9 73 895.4 6.1910
807 Sunol−Forest Fire Station 47.4 47.6 400.6 4.6593
pairs, this results in 20 accelerograms per set. Each component 762 Fremont−Mission San Jose 39.3 39.5 367.6 3.7214
for a given record received the same scale factor. The former 735 APEEL 7−Pulgas 41.7 41.9 415.3 3.3172
online ground-motion database at PEER (Pacific Earthquake 737 Agnews State Hospital 24.3 24.6 239.7 2.1461
Engineering Research Center 2011) was used for the scaling and
selection process. An updated version of the PEER ground-
motion database is now available and contains many more records the target spectrum in Figs. 2 and 3. Included in the tables are the
and scaling options (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research scale factors (SF) used for each record.
Center 2014). The mixed-event set without restrictions (Set 6) For the target spectrum chosen, note that T* = 1.25(SD1/SDS) =
includes the records with best fit to the target spectral shape with- 0.54 s. So, according to the AASHTO Rd method, for periods
out regard to earthquake magnitude, site conditions, source-to- greater than 0.54 s, the estimate of inelastic displacement is equal to
site distance, or pulse characteristics. For the mixed-event set the elastic displacement (i.e., the EDR applies).
with restrictions (Set 7) the records with best fit to target spectral Application of the SSM requires a determination of the long-
shape, with moment magnitude between 7.3 and 7.9, with VS30 period transition period, TL. This is the period at which the displace-
between 0 and 760 m/s, with source-to-site distance less than 90 ment spectrum becomes a maximum. While AASHTO does not
km, and with no pulse-type characteristics were selected. The provide a means of determining TL, FEMA includes maps for TL
choice of 760 m/s as the upper limit on VS30 is a liberty taken to (FEMA 2009). For Imperial Valley, Loma Prieta, and Landers,
more closely match spectral shape, given that the upper limit for TL = 8 − 12 s. The value of TL selected for SSM analysis is critical,
Class D sites is 360 m/s. as this is the effective period at which the inelastic displacement
The data for each of the record sets is presented in Tables 3–9, spectrum reaches a plateau that will be apparent in the plots subse-
and the mean elastic acceleration spectra for the sets are shown over quently presented in this study. For this study, a value of TL = 12 s

© ASCE 04015020-6 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020

 Table 8. Best Fit Record Pairs 1 (No Restrictions on MW)

NGA number Event Station Rjb (km) Rrup (km) VS30 (m/s) SF
1190 Chi-Chi, Taiwan CHY019 50 50.5 478.3 6.2271
1838 Hector Mine Whitewater Trout Farm 62.9 62.9 345.4 7.1297
1521 Chi-Chi, Taiwan TCU089 0 8.9 680.0 1.3418
1284 Chi-Chi, Taiwan HWA035 44 48.4 500.8 5.4097
1153 Kocaeli, Turkey Botas 126 127 274.5 4.6694
719 Superstition Hills-02 Brawley Airport 17 17 208.7 3.4581
2112 Denali, Alaska TAPS Pump Station #08 104.2 104.9 424.8 9.1359
880 Landers Mission Creek Fault 27 27 345.4 3.7383
1214 Chi-Chi, Taiwan CHY057 56.7 56.9 411.5 6.7623
169 Imperial Valley-06 Delta 22 22 274.5 1.2269
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 9. Best Fit Record Pairs 2 (Restrictions on MW)

NGA number EQ Name Station name Rjb (km) Rrup (km) VS30 (m/s) SF
5 Kern Co Taft Lincoln 38.42 38.89 385.4 2.5013
1149 Kocaeli Atakoy 56.49 58.28 310.0 3.0919
1158 Kocaeli Duzce 13.6 15.37 281.9 0.9681
1177 Kocaeli Zeytinburnu 51.98 53.88 341.6 3.2370
1211 Chi-Chi CHY052 38.7 39.02 573.0 3.4082
1236 Chi-Chi CHY088 37.48 37.48 318.5 1.9942
1495 Chi-Chi TCU055 6.34 6.34 359.1 1.2668
1521 Chi-Chi TCU089 0 9 671.5 1.3418
1546 Chi-Chi TCU122 9.34 9.34 475.5 1.2615
1549 Chi-Chi TCU129 1.83 1.83 511.2 0.8290

Table 10. (SDINEL)MAX, T versus a and m Analysis of Selected Ground Motions

a m T (SDINEL)MAX [cm (in.)]
SeismoSpect 1.3.0 was used to generate ground-motion parameters
0.00 6 4.90 68 (26.9) for the records used in the analysis. Table 11 summarizes the mean
0.05 6 5.48 68 (26.9) ground-motion parameters for each record set. The most glaring dif-
0.00 12 3.46 68 (26.9) ferences among the various record sets are the values for peak
0.05 12 4.31 68 (26.9) ground displacement (PGD) and for the ratio of PGD to peak
0.00 2 8.48 68 (26.9) ground velocity (PGV), each of which is smaller for the Loma
0.00 4 6.00 68 (26.9) Prieta, Imperial Valley, and Landers record sets. The Arias
Intensity and the cumulative absolute velocity are larger for the
Landers record set than for any other. Finally, the significant dura-
was adopted. Inelastic spectra in this study have been based on ini- tion is significantly lower for Loma Prieta than for any of the other
tial period (i.e., when the initial period is T, find the inelastic dis- record sets. PGD, PGD/PGV, Arias Intensity, and significant dura-
placement, SDINEL). Initial period, rather than effective period, was tion have each been proposed as measures of damage potential from
selected because the analysis used for bridge structures in strong ground shaking.
AASHTO currently leads the engineer to estimate initial periods of
the structure, not effective periods. Hence, when the effective pe-
riod is TL, the initial period is given by Eq. (25).
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Inelastic Displacement Spectra Estimation
1 þ am  a
T ¼ TL (25) Inelastic displacement spectra were initially computed for two post-
m
yield stiffness values, a = 0.00 (EPP) and a = 0.05, and for two dis-
placement ductility values, m = 6 and m = 12. Subsequent to the ini-
The corresponding inelastic displacement—the maximum over tial parameter sets, EPP analyses were run at m = 2 and m = 4.
all periods—is given by Eq. (26). Three methods were used to compute the inelastic displacement

2 spectra:
SD1 TL 1. NLRHA using Bispec 1.1.2 (Hachem 2000). An updated ver-
ðSDINEL ÞMAX ¼ g  Rj (26)
TL 2p sion of Bispec, with many more features than the version used
here, is now available
The periods at which the maximum inelastic displacement 2. The AASHTO Rd method
occurs, and the maximum inelastic displacements, are presented in 3. SSM
Table 10. The inelastic displacement is the same for all cases Ductility values chosen for this work include the maximum per-
because the effective damping for SSM analysis was limited to 30% mitted in AASHTO for conventionally designed bridges ( m = 6)
( j EFF = 0.30) for each case. and a much higher value ( m = 12), taken to be representative of a

© ASCE 04015020-7 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020

 Table 11. Ground Motion Parameters

Parameter Chi-Chi Kocaeli Imperial Valley Landers Loma Prieta Best Fit 1 Best Fit 2
PGA (g) 0.379 0.393 0.418 0.397 0.409 0.400 0.387
PGV (in./s) 18.13 21.17 17.36 17.37 17.70 18.72 19.05
PGD (in.) 18.93 16.88 9.39 9.91 9.33 15.67 13.72
PGV/PGA (s) 0.124 0.142 0.110 0.114 0.115 0.122 0.135
PGD/PGV (s) 1.044 0.797 0.541 0.571 0.527 0.837 0.720
Acceleration RMS (g) 0.053 0.050 0.071 0.073 0.065 0.059 0.049
Velocity RMS (in./s) 3.76 3.98 4.41 4.44 4.43 4.01 3.53
Displacement RMS (in.) 5.79 4.30 3.29 3.36 3.18 4.71 3.35
Arias intensity (m/s) 3.774 2.343 3.409 4.563 2.328 3.719 3.027
Cumulative absolute velocity (in./s) 977 676 766 1059 559 978 843
Significant duration (s) 27.04 24.47 23.00 30.00 15.76 31.28 28.93
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Inelastic displacement spectra; a = 0.00, m = 6

bridge on very stiff substructures isolated with lead-rubber-bearings
(LRB).
The C m method was not considered further in this study as the
intent was to bypass the need to compute an amplification factor
to be applied to elastic displacements, and instead to directly gen-
erate inelastic displacement spectra. The PEER GMPE was not
pursued further in this study, since the goal was to generate
inelastic spectra directly from a target elastic acceleration spec-
trum without detailed knowledge of the seismological parameters
needed in the GMPE.
For ductility values of 6 and 12, no reduction in the idealized
hysteretic damping given by Eq. (9) was incorporated. For a ductil-
ity value of 4, the Dwairi hysteretic damping model of Eq. (8) was
adopted. For a ductility value of 2, the idealized model of Eq. (9)
was initially used, and a reduced value for effective damping equal
to 20% of that indicated by the idealized value was used.
For a large range of periods, underestimated response results,
relative to NLRHA results, were generated by the AASHTO Rd
method. Figs. 4–7 illustrate the results for ductility values of 6 and
12, in terms of inelastic spectral displacement versus initial period.
Recall that the AASHTO Rd method uses the EDR for periods larger
than T*, which is equal to 0.54 s in the present study. Hence, for
periods beyond 0.54 s in each of the plots, the AASHTO Rd method
and the elastic spectrum coincide. Clearly, for each of the record
sets adopted in this study, the SSM provides more severe and more
accurate results (assuming that NLRHA provides the correct an-
swer) at these high ductility values of 6 and 12. Displacement
amplification at periods much longer than 0.54 s is indicated in the
plots for both NLRHA and SSM results.
Fig. 8 depicts the results for the case in which m = 2, a = 0.00,
and no reduction in idealized effective damping is taken. Using
the rationale developed in an earlier section (“The Substitute-
Structure Method for Isolated Bridges”), the limit ductility for
this condition is m LIMIT = 2.93. As indicated in Fig. 8, the SSM,
in fact, predicts inelastic displacements below the elastic dis-
placements (since m = 2 < 2.93) when the full theoretical effective
damping is used. It is also evident in Fig. 8 that the NLRHA
results do not support the decrease in inelastic displacement
below elastic displacement. Fig. 9 was obtained by reducing the
effective damping to 20% of the calculated value and provides
one means of estimating inelastic displacements for low ductility
values. Fig. 10 represents results for the case of a = 0.00, m = 4,
and the Dwairi damping rule, which produced results more
closely matching NLRHA for this case.

© ASCE 04015020-8 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 5. Inelastic displacement spectra; a = 0.00, m = 12

Fig. 6. Inelastic displacement spectra; a = 0.05, m = 6

The prediction of lower inelastic displacements compared to
elastic displacements for low ductility values is an issue which
requires more study.
Summary and Conclusions
Seven sets of ground-motion record pairs (10 record pairs per set)
were selected and scaled to the target response spectrum for a site.
NLRHA on bilinear single-degree-of-freedom systems of varying
postyield to initial stiffness ratios (a values) were carried out for
each of the seven record sets and inelastic displacement spectra
were generated.
Two simplified analysis methods—SSM and the AASHTO Rd
method—were used to generate inelastic displacement spectra from
the target acceleration spectrum for comparison to NLRHA results.
Methods from the literature were proposed by which appropriate
effective viscous damping levels may be computed for both the
SSM ( j EFF) and for NLRHA ( j NLRHA).
No near-field effects were assessed in this study. For near-field
sites, a response modifier for increased effective damping that
incorporates pulse behavior, such as that from previous research by

© ASCE 04015020-9 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Inelastic displacement spectra; a = 0.05, m = 12

Fig. 8. Inelastic displacement spectra; a = 0.00, m = 2


others [Eq. (13)], could be adopted. For nonisolated structures, the 0:378 1
j EFF ¼ m j el þ 0:215 1 
use of a modified rule for effective damping could be employed m 0:642
with all other aspects of the procedure identical to that presented !
here. For example, Priestley et al. (2007) include a model given by 1
Eq. (27) for thin Takeda hysteresis (with other models included as  1þ (27)
ðTEFF þ 0:824Þ6:444
well). Thin Takeda hysteresis has been proposed as applicable to
bridge columns experiencing plastic hinging. The cited reference
would prove most helpful in developing inelastic displacement The substitute-structure method for estimating inelastic dis-
spectra for hysteretic rules other than the bilinear rule used in this placement in bilinear oscillators provided more accurate results
study. compared to the AASHTO Rd method for the record sets used in

© ASCE 04015020-10 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Inelastic displacement spectra; a = 0.00, m = 2, reduced j EFF

Fig. 10. Inelastic displacement spectra; a = 0.00, m = 4, Dwairi rule for j EFF

this study. For this reason, the substitute structure method is pro-
posed as a potential alternative for estimating inelastic displace-
ments in bridge structures, isolated or otherwise. Specifically, the
following conclusions are made:
• For ductility values of 6 and 12, and for postyield stiffness val-
ues of 0.00 and 0.05, SSM inelastic displacement results com-
puted by the guidelines presented in this study closely
matched NLRHA results over a wide range of periods.
• SSM-based inelastic displacement spectra generally followed
the NLRHA-based spectra more closely than did the Rd-based
spectra for the specific conditions of (1) a large modal
magnitude earthquake, (2) a Class D subsurface profile, (3)
accelerations characteristic of the selected site, and (4) reduced
initial damping to mimic a tangent-stiffness-based damping
solution.
• AASHTO Rd method analytical results underestimated
NLRHA inelastic displacements over a significant period
range for the ground-motion sets used in this study. The Rd
method is currently used in AASHTO for ductility levels of
m = 6 and less.
• The SSM does, in fact, confirm the EDR, though over a limited
period range. The range over which the EDR applies,

© ASCE 04015020-11 Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.

Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020

 according to SSM theory, is a function of m , a, j EFF, Rj , and
shape of the elastic acceleration spectrum.
• For low levels of ductility, damping from idealized, theoretical
expressions may need to be reduced in order to obtain accurate
estimates of inelastic displacement using SSM.
• The critical factors that determine the spectral shape for inelas-
tic displacement are SD1, SDS, TL, and Rj . The selection of a
value for TL determines the maximum inelastic displacement
and the period at which that displacement occurs.
Three alternatives to the AASHTO Rd method are proposed for
consideration in estimating inelastic displacements in bridge struc-
tures, as follows:
1. Inelastic displacement spectra derived from the SSM with se-
cant stiffness, KEFF; appropriate effective damping, j EFF; and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
appropriate response modification, Rj ;
2. Inelastic displacement spectra derived from NLRHA on appro-
priately selected and scaled ground-motion records using either
(1) an initial-stiffness-damping-based algorithm with reduced
initial elastic damping intended to mimic a tangent-stiffness-
damping-based solution, or (2) a tangent-stiffness-damping-
based algorithm; and
3. The GMPE from the literature (Bozorgnia et al. 2010) for shal-
low crustal earthquakes on active tectonic regions when it is
possible to define the required seismological parameters (MW,
Rjb, ZTOR, etc.).
Both SSM and NLRHA analyses for this study incorporated
damping values intended to mimic a solution corresponding to tan-
gent-stiffness-based damping as opposed to a solution correspond-
ing to initial-stiffness-based damping.
Suggestions for Practical Application
The SSM may prove useful to engineers needing inelastic displace-
ment spectra for the design of bridge structures. The method appa-
rently provides reasonable estimates of inelastic displacement spec-
tra when appropriate damping rules, dependent upon the type of
hysteretic response expected during strong ground shaking, are
applied. To apply the SSM in developing inelastic displacement
spectra in the design office, the engineer needs each of the
following:
1. A design basis elastic acceleration response spectrum for 5%
damping, which provides the starting point. This data is typi-
cally available in the design specification (AASHTO). In some
cases, the engineer may need design response spectra for differ-
ent return periods. In such cases, one of the online USGS deag-
gregation tools (USGS 2015) will prove useful. The 2008
deaggregation tool provides data (spectral accelerations, mag-
nitude, and distance) based on rotated geometric mean spectra,
while the 2002 deaggregation tool provides as-recorded geo-
metric mean spectra. Current bridge design practice is appa-
rently based on as-recorded geometric mean spectra, so the use
of the 2002 data may be preferred over the 2008 data, though
the differences between the two may be small. For further dis-
cussion on these issues, consult the literature (Watson-
Lamprey and Boore 2007; Baker and Cornell 2006). Note, as
well, that the nature of the ground motion in terms of geomet-
ric-mean versus maximum-direction spectra is important and
varies among design codes (Ghosh 2014; Stewart et al. 2011).
Current AASHTO design ground motions for bridges are geo-
metric-mean based while current ASCE7 ground motions for
buildings are maximum-direction based.
2. For the type of hysteretic behavior expected in the structure, a
rule for effective viscous damping, j EFF, is required. Priestley
© ASCE 04015020-12
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020
et al. (2007) or Priestley and Grant (2005) are both excellent
references for estimation of this parameter for various hyste-
retic rules.
3. A model for response modification, Rj , due to damping in
excess of 5% of critical is required. Several of these models
were discussed in the paper [Eqs. (10)−(14)]. Another model
(Stafford et al. 2008), which includes duration effects, may
prove useful when the duration of strong ground shaking is an
explicitly defined or known value.
4. A method for computing the effective period, TEFF, is needed.
It would seem that in most cases, the expression used here
[Eq. (15)] is adequate. For situations in which this is judged
inadequate, alternative expressions may be found in the litera-
ture (Blandon 2004).
5. The long-period transition period, TL, is needed to determine
where the design spectrum transitions from constant velocity to
constant displacement and, hence, the period at which the dis-
placement spectrum is capped. Values for TL may be deter-
mined from FEMA maps (FEMA 2009).
With these five tools in hand, the engineer may construct an
inelastic displacement spectrum using the SSM outlined in this
paper.
When properly selected and scaled ground motions (NEHRP
Consultants Joint Venture 2011) are available, inelastic spectra may
be generated using NLRHA. One of the more important criteria for
ground-motion selection is match to spectral shape. Eq. (28)
(Katsanos et al. 2010) is useful in assessing the shape match
between record and target spectra.
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u N
2
1u
t
X ðSAGM Þ ðSATAR ÞTi
DRMS ¼ Ti
 (28)
N i¼1 PGAGM PGATAR
The smaller DRMS, the more closely the record spectrum shape
matches the target spectrum shape. N is the number of periods defin-
ing the period range over which match to spectral shape is to be
evaluated.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
BL ¼ factor by which displacement response is di-
vided to estimate inelastic effects due to
increased effective damping;
C m ¼ factor by which elastic displacement is multi-
plied to estimate inelastic displacement for a
given ductility;
DMAX ¼ maximum inelastic displacement;
DRMS ¼ measure of spectral shape match;
Dy ¼ yield displacement;
Kd ¼ postyield stiffness of a bilinear system;
Ki ¼ initial stiffness of a bilinear system;
N ¼ number of periods defining a range for spec-
trum match evaluation;
PGAGM ¼ PGA for a ground motion record;
PGATAR ¼ PGA for a target response spectrum;
Rj ¼ factor by which displacement response is multi-
plied to estimate inelastic effects due to increased
effective damping;
SA ¼ spectral acceleration, g;
(SAEL)T ¼ elastic response spectrum acceleration (g) at
initial period, T;
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.
 (SAEL)TEFF ¼ elastic response spectrum acceleration (g) at
effective period, TEFF;
(SAGM)Ti ¼ ground motion spectral acceleration (g) at
period Ti;
(SATAR)Ti ¼ target spectral acceleration (g) at period Ti;
SD ¼ spectral displacement;
(SDEL)T ¼ elastic response spectrum displacement at
initial period, T;
(SDINEL)T ¼ inelastic response spectrum displacement at
initial period, T;
SDS ¼ design spectral acceleration at a period of 0.2 s
for a site;
SD1 ¼ design spectral acceleration at a period of 1 s
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITE LAVAL on 05/13/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for a site;
SF ¼ scale factor by which a ground motion record
is multiplied;
T ¼ initial period of a bilinear oscillator;
TEFF ¼ secant-stiffness-based, effective period of a
bilinear oscillator;
TL ¼ period at which spectral displacement reaches
a maximum;
VS30 ¼ average shear wave velocity in the upper 30 m
of a soil profile;
ZTOR ¼ depth to top of rupture;
Z2.5 ¼ depth to VS30 = 2.5 km/s;
a ¼ ratio of postyield to initial stiffness values for a
bilinear system;
l 1 ¼ ratio of effective period to initial period;
l 2 ¼ factor used in determining the appropriate value
for initial viscous damping;
m ¼ displacement ductility = DMAX/Dy;
m LIMIT ¼ displacement ductility at which SSM predicts
inelastic displacements exactly equal to elastic
displacements in the constant velocity region of
the target spectrum;
j el ¼ initial, elastic damping; historically taken as 0.05;
j o ¼ initial, elastic component of viscous damping
used in the SSM to mimic a tangent-stiffness-
based solution;
j hys ¼ added viscous damping from hysteretic behavior;
j EFF ¼ total, effective, equivalent viscous damping
used in the SSM; and
j NLRHA ¼ initial, elastic component of viscous damping
used in an initial-stiffness-based NLRHA algo-
rithm to mimic a tangent-stiffness-based solution.
References
AASHTO. (2010). Guide specifications for seismic isolation design, 3rd
Ed., Washington, DC.
AASHTO. (2011). Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design,
2nd Ed., Washington, DC.
Baker, J., and Cornell, C. A. (2006). Which spectral acceleration are you
using? Earthquake Spectra, 22(2), 293–312.
Bispec 1.1.2 [Computer software]. Earthquake Solutions, Monrovia, CA.
Blandon, C. (2004). Equivalent viscous damping equations for direct dis-
placement based design. European School of Advanced Studies in
Reduction of Seismic Risk−ROSE School, Pavia, Italy.
© ASCE 04015020-13
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr., 2016, 21(2): 04015020
Bozorgnia, Y., Hachem, M. M., and Campbell, K. W. (2010). Deterministic
and probabilistic predictions of yield strength and inelastic displacement
spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 26(1), 25–40.
Bozorgnia, Y., Hachem, M. M., and Campbell, K. W. (2010).
Ground motion prediction equation (“attenuation relationship”)
for inelastic response spectra. Earthquake Spectra, 26(1),
1–23.
Chopra, A. K., and Chintanapakdee, C. (2003). Inelastic deformation ratios
for design and evaluation of structures: single degree of freedom bi-lin-
ear systems. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, CA.
Dwairi, H. M., Kowalsky, M. J., and Nau, J. M. (2007). Equivalent damping
in support of direct displacement based design. J. Earthquake Eng.,
11(4), 512–530.
FEMA. (2009). NEHRP recommended seismic provisions for new
buildings and other structures (FEMA P-750), FEMA,
Washington, DC.
Field, E. H., Jordan, T. H., and Cornell, C. A. (2003). OpenSHA: A devel-
oping community - modeling environment for seismic hazard analysis.
Seismol. Res. Lett., 74(4), 406–419.
Ghosh, S. K. (2014). Significant changes from ASCE 7-05 to ASCE 7-10,
Part 1: Seismic design provisions. PCI J., 59(1), 60–82.
Gulkan, P., and Sozen, M. A. (1974). Inelastic response of reinforced con-
crete structures to earthquake ground motions. J. Am. Concr. Inst.,
71(12), 604–610.
Katsanos, E. I., Sextos, A. G., and Manolis, G. D. (2010). “Selection of
earthquake ground motion records: A state-of-the-art review from a
structural engineering perspective.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng., 30(4),
157–169.
Khose, V. N., and Singh, Y. (2014). “An anomaly in the equivalent lineari-
zation approach for the estimation of inelastic response.” Earthquake
Spectra, 30(2), 965–972.
NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture. (2011). “Selecting and scaling earth-
quake ground motions.” Rep. NIST GCR 11-917-15, NIST, Redwood
City, CA.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. (2011). “PEER
ground motion database.”hhttp://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground
_motion_databasei.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. (2014). “PEER ground
motion database.”hhttp://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/i.
Priestley, M. J., and Grant, D. N. (2005). “Viscous damping in seismic
design and analysis.” J. Earthquake Eng., 9(2), 229–255.
Priestley, M. J., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Displacement-
based seismic design of structures, 1st Ed., IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
SeismoSpect 1.3.0 [Computer software]. SeismoSoft, Chalkida, Greece.
Stafford, P. J., Mendis, R., and Bommer, J. J. (2008). “Dependence of
damping correction factors for response spectra on duration and number
of cycles.” J. Struct. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:
8(1364), 1364–1373.
Stewart, J. P., Abrahamson, N. A., Atkinson, G. M., Baker, J. W., Boore,
D. M., Bozorgnia, Y., et al. (2011). “Representation of bidirectional
ground motions for design spectra in building codes.” Earthquake
Spectra, 27(3), 927–937.
USGS. (2015). “2008 interactive deaggregations.”hhttps://geohazards.usgs
.gov/deaggint/2008/i.
Watanabe, G., and Kawashima, K. (2014). “An evaluation of the displace-
ment amplification factors for seismic design of bridges.” hhttp://www
.cuee.titech.ac.jp/21coe/English/Events/Data/Papers/89watanabegakuho
.pdfi (Nov. 23, 2015).
Watson-Lamprey, J., and Boore, D. M. (2007). Beyond SA-GMRotI:
Conversion to SA-Arb, SA-SN, and SA-MaxRot. Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am., 97(5), 1511–1524.
Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr.