Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Evaluation of seismic performance of multistory building structures based

on the equivalent responses
Dong-Guen Lee a , Won-Ho Choi b , Myung-Chae Cheong c , Dae-Kon Kim d,∗
a Department of Architectural Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Chun-chun-dong, Jang-an-gu, Suwon, 440-746, Republic of Korea
b MIDAS Information Technology Co. Ltd., Areum B/D 258-1, Seohyeon-dong, Bundang-gu, Seongnam, 463-824, Republic of Korea
c Department of Architectural Engineering, Jeonju University, 1200 Hyoja-dong, Wansan-gu, Jeonju, 560-759, Republic of Korea
d Department of Structural Engineering, Seoul National University of Technology, Gongreung 2-dong, Nowon-gu, Seoul, 139-743, Republic of Korea

Received 31 January 2005; received in revised form 18 October 2005; accepted 19 October 2005
Available online 9 December 2005

Abstract

The prediction of inelastic seismic responses and the evaluation of seismic performance of a building structure are very important subjects in
performance-based seismic design. Currently, the inelastic time history analysis method and the pushover analysis method such as the displacement
coefficient method (FEMA-273) and the capacity spectrum method (ATC-40) can be adapted to evaluate the seismic performance of a building
structure. However, the pushover analysis methods have some drawbacks in estimating the accurate inelastic seismic responses.
In this study, an improved analytical method based on the equivalent responses of multistory building structures is proposed to estimate the
inelastic seismic responses efficiently and accurately. The proposed method can be used to accurately evaluate the seismic performance not only
for the global inelastic behavior of a building but also for its local inelastic seismic responses. In order to demonstrate the accuracy and validity
of the proposed method, inelastic seismic responses estimated by the proposed method are compared with those obtained from other existing
methods. When the proposed method is applied in the pushover analysis more improved analytical results could be obtained than those from the
conventional capacity spectrum method (CSM).
c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Equivalent responses; ESDOF system; Capacity spectrum method; System ductility demand; Pushover analysis; Inelastic time history analysis

1. Introduction By estimating the potential ductility capacity of a building

The evaluation of seismic performance and the prediction
of seismic responses caused by earthquake excitations is one
of the major concerns in the field of earthquake engineering.
A number of analytical methods on the performance-based
seismic design have been suggested in recent years to achieve
a series of performance objectives for several levels of
earthquake ground motions. In order to predict the actual
seismic responses of a building for possible earthquake
excitations, the inelastic characteristics of the structural
behaviors should be understood. Accordingly, the prediction
of both the ductility capacity and demand is very important to
understand the seismic performance and inelastic responses of
a building structure subjected to earthquake ground motions.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 970 6572; fax: +82 2 975 6002.
E-mail address: dkkim@snut.ac.kr (D.-K. Kim).
structure and then comparing the levels of ductility demand
for earthquake excitations, the seismic performance can be
evaluated precisely. In general, the ductility capacity may
be evaluated experimentally for structural members, but the
ductility demand is determined from the inelastic seismic
analysis of a building structure.
There are two methods for predicting seismic responses and
evaluating seismic performance by inelastic seismic analysis.
One is the inelastic time history analysis and the other is
the inelastic static analysis, which is the so-called pushover
analysis. The inelastic time history analysis includes two
methods; one is based on the dynamic response of an equivalent
single degree of freedom (ESDOF) system derived from a multi
degree of freedom (MDOF) system. The other is based on
the equivalent responses directly obtained from the inelastic
dynamic responses of a MDOF system. The responses of the
MDOF system may be the roof response, the response at

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 

c 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.10.011
838 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856

(a) 8-story steel moment frame. (b) Scaling of yield moment.

(c) Story displacement. (d) Interstory drift.

Fig. 1. Comparison of deformation for inelastic system with different behavior.

effective height, and the equivalent response of the structure.
The equivalent response can be obtained from a deformed shape
that could represent the characteristic of inelastic behavior of a
building structure.
The pushover analysis includes the capacity spectrum
method (CSM) suggested in ATC-40 [1] and the displacement
coefficient method (DCM) suggested in FEMA-273 [2]. In
particular, by comparing the capacity and demand of a building
structure, the CSM is used frequently for the evaluation of
seismic performance in the performance-based seismic design.
However, some studies have questioned the validity of the
following assumptions made in the CSM.
First, in the CSM the inelastic displacement demands of a
building are calculated based on the responses of an ESDOF
system with equivalent linear secant stiffness. Therefore, since
the higher modes effect cannot be included in this method,
accurate local inelastic seismic responses such as inter-story
drift, story shear force, story ductility, plastic hinge formation
and so forth, of a MDOF system could not be obtained [3–5].
Especially, to evaluate the global and local inelastic responses
of a structure, the roof displacement–base shear relationship
which is used in CSM is not appropriate. Fig. 1(a) shows
an 8-story steel moment resisting frame designed by strong
column–weak beam provision. Code specified lateral load is
applied and the pushover analysis is conducted. The beam yield
moments are adjusted variously so that the example structure
can respond differently as shown in Fig. 1(b); the building
responds elastically at all stories, inelastically at upper stories,
 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856
and inelastically at lower stories. Hence, as shown in Fig. 1(c),
even if the roof displacements are the same for all different
beam strength cases, the deformed shapes of the structure can
be greatly different according to the inelastic response pattern
of the structure. It also can be observed in Fig. 1(d) that even if
the roof story displacements are the same, the inter-story drifts
can be greatly different. Therefore, it is not easy to evaluate
the lateral resistance of the structure accurately by applying the
evaluation method based on the roof story displacement.
Second, it is difficult to clearly establish the relationship
between the hysteresis energy dissipated due to the effective
damping of the structure and the hysteresis energy dissipated
by the response due to the maximum amplitude of the actual
earthquake excitation. Furthermore, some researchers have
questioned the use of highly damped elastic spectra for the
determination of the displacement demand for high levels
of inelastic deformation. And the period associated with the
intersection of the capacity curve with the highly damped
demand spectra may have nothing to do with the actual
dynamic response of the inelastic system. Especially, when the
principle of effective viscous damping is used to determine the
performance point, the procedure is more iterative and time
consuming, and there may be no or multiple solutions [6–9].
Third, the hysteresis characteristics of a building structure
are very sensitive to the natural periods of the structural system.
Therefore the presence of stiffness degradation, pinching, and
strength deterioration may have a significant influence on
estimating the inelastic seismic responses. Furthermore, the site
conditions in the state of soft soil may also result in significant
errors in estimating the inelastic seismic demands [10,11].
Recently, ATC-55 [12] pointed out the problems of
CSM listed above and introduced several improved inelastic
seismic analysis methods; adaptive pushover technique [13,
14], multimodal procedures [15], invariant lateral force
distributions [16], inelastic modal deformation analysis [17],
and modal pushover analysis [18]. In addition, variable
damping response spectrum [19], yield point spectra [20] and
direct capacity spectrum methods [21] have implemented the
idea of inelastic demand spectra to overcome the problems of
CSM suggested in ATC-40.
Moreover, research on the seismic capacity evaluation
method have been extended to building structures where some
damping systems such as linear and nonlinear viscous damping
devices, hysteretic damping devices, and yielding damping
devices are installed. Through parametric studies of effective
period, effective or secant stiffness, and added viscous damping
ratio, the reliability and the adequacy of inelastic behaviors for
the building structures with damping systems have been verified
by Ramirez et al. [22,23]. This application of the CSM which
was modified for structures with damping systems is described
in NEHRP-2000 as a simplified analysis method [24].
In this study, to evaluate the seismic performance of a
multistory building, the inelastic time history analysis and static
analysis are carried out for obtaining both global responses
such as system ductility demand and local responses such as
story ductility, inter-story drift, and plastic hinge formation.
Furthermore, an improved and effective method is proposed to
839
estimate inelastic seismic responses and to evaluate the seismic
performance based on the equivalent responses of a multistory
building. The principle of the equivalent response is applicable
to both inelastic time history analysis and pushover analysis. In
particular, the proposed method is a new approach in which the
inelastic potential capacity of a building structure is estimated
based on the equivalent responses and the inelastic system
demand level is determined by combining the inelastic demand
spectra.
Therefore, the objective of this study is to propose a
more improved analytical method than currently available
methods for the prediction of inelastic seismic responses and
the evaluation of seismic performance. The global and local
seismic responses obtained from the proposed method are
compared with those of the CSM in ATC-40 and other methods
such as modal pushover analysis by Chopra and Goel [18].
In order to demonstrate the accuracy and effectiveness of the
proposed method, seismic responses such as system ductility
demand, seismic energy components, plastic hinge formation
and inter-story drift are compared with those obtained from the
inelastic time history analysis.
2. Estimation of system ductility demand for multistory
building
When the seismic performance of a multistory building is
evaluated, the ESDOF system is widely used to estimate the
system ductility demand. In recent years, the pushover analysis
is being studied for estimating the system ductility demand.
Furthermore, some researchers have derived evaluation
methods of system response which can be obtained by
considering the equivalent responses or the response at effective
height of a building.
2.1. Estimation based on responses of ESDOF system
The estimation of the system ductility demand based on the
responses of the ESDOF system is one of the most frequently
used approaches. This method uses the principle of converting
the MDOF system into the SDOF system and various methods
to determine the structural characteristics of the ESDOF system
have been suggested. For example, Rothe and Sozen [25], Lee
[26], Qi and Moehle [27], Miranda [28], Fajfar and Gasperin
[29], Villaverde [30], Han and Wen [31], and Chopra and Goel
[32] made a contribution to this method. In their methods,
inelastic behavior of a building is generally modeled as bilinear
type and system ductility demand is computed using the
relationship between forces and displacements obtained from
inelastic time history analysis.
However, the ESDOF system approach has some limitations
as an evaluation method of seismic response because it is not
easy to determine the initial stiffness, yield displacement, yield
strength, strain hardening ratio, and so forth of the ESDOF
system. In addition, the local inelastic behavior such as plastic
hinge formation and inter-story drift of the MDOF system
cannot be obtained by this approach.
840 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856
2.2. Estimation based on responses of MDOF system
If the inelastic responses of a building structure can
be derived directly from the MDOF system, the system
ductility demand of a building structure can be evaluated
more effectively and appropriately than the method based on
ESDOF responses. Among many methods for evaluating the
system ductility demand of structures considering the dynamic
characteristics of the MDOF system, the most general method
uses the roof displacement and base shear force. However, the
system ductility demand may not be precisely evaluated by
this method due to the irregularity of the force–displacement
relationship of the structure. To evaluate the inelastic seismic
response, an alternative method which uses the displacement
at the effective height of the structure has been researched.
However, even though this method can take into account the
structural response relatively precisely; accurate evaluation of
the system ductility demand may not be obtained either.
Some researchers have suggested other evaluation methods
using the response of the MDOF system. Lee [33] suggested
an evaluation method of system ductility demand for a steel
moment resisting frame in which the system ductility demand
is calculated directly from the representative displacement
and resistant force of the MDOF system. His approach
is that displacements and resistant forces which represent
seismic response of a building structure are derived directly
from the inelastic time history analysis of a MDOF system
and the system ductility demand is estimated effectively
by the relationship between the representative displacements
and the resistant forces. Other researchers such as Priestly
and Kowalsky [34] suggested DDBD (direct displacement
based design) based on the critical drift in which the design
displacement profile of the MDOF system is computed
according to the total number of stories of RC moment resisting
frame. After the MDOF system is converted into the ESDOF
system the system design ductility is estimated from the
ESDOF system.
2.3. Estimation based on capacity spectrum method
Recently, much research of pushover analysis has been
conducted to evaluate system ductility demand of a structure.
Among them, CSM is one of the frequently used methods to
estimate inelastic maximum displacement demand of existing
building structures by pushover analysis.
In this method, dynamic characteristics of the MDOF system
is converted into those of the spectral format SDOF system
in which the 1st mode shape related parameters are used to
estimate the lateral resistant capacity of a multistory building.
After that, the capacity is compared with the demand spectrum
which represents required level due to earthquake ground
motions and then the performance point is determined and the
system ductility demand is evaluated from this performance
point. In CSM, the inelastic peak displacement is estimated by
analyzing iteratively a series of equivalent linear elastic systems
having an effective viscous damping and a secant lateral
stiffness. Both the secant lateral stiffness and the effective
viscous damping are dependent on the level of inelastic
deformation of the building. The peak displacement demand
of an inelastic system is evaluated from the intersection of
the capacity curve and the reduced elastic response spectrum
which accounts for the dissipated energy caused by the yielding
of the structure. Therefore, the underlying basis of the CSM
is the concept of an equivalent linear system, wherein a
linear system having reduced lateral stiffness and increased
damping is used to estimate the responses of the inelastic
system. The performance point, which is defined as the
intersection point of capacity spectrum with demand spectra,
implies the dynamic equilibrium condition of the system and
it also means the lateral resistant capacity equals the demand
level resulting from earthquake excitations considered. This
point may be an estimation parameter to describe quantity of
damage of a building under specific earthquake ground motion.
Collapse mechanism and deformation level of a building due
to earthquake ground motions can be predicted by using this
performance point. Therefore in CSM, the system ductility
demand is estimated by the ratio of yield displacement in
capacity spectrum to inelastic maximum displacement in the
performance point.
3. Proposed estimation method of system ductility demand
By the proposed method the equivalent displacement and
the resistant force are estimated and then the system ductility
demand is evaluated from the relationship between these two
equivalent responses [33]. The principle of equivalent responses
also can be applied on the pushover analysis to evaluate the
seismic capacity of a structure.
The equivalent responses of a building are estimated by
pushover analysis, and the capacity spectrum is evaluated
from these responses. The equivalent performance point is
estimated from the relationship between the capacity spectrum
and the inelastic demand spectra which is obtained from
the relationship among the strength reduction factor (R), the
displacement ductility ratio (µ) and the period (T ). The
proposed method can be applied in the inelastic time history
analysis to estimate the global system ductility demand and
the local inelastic seismic response effectively. When the
proposed method is applied in the pushover analysis that is
the inelastic static analysis, more improved analytical results
could be obtained than those from the conventional CSM.
The characteristics of the proposed method are outlined in the
following sections.
3.1. Estimation based on equivalent responses by inelastic time
history analysis
The elastic and inelastic equivalent responses of a MDOF
system subjected to earthquake ground motions can be
estimated as follows. The equation of motion for the linear
elastic building structure subjected to earthquake excitations
can be written as Eq. (1).
M Ẍ + C Ẋ + K X = −M1 ẍ g (1)
 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856
where X = relative displacement vector to the ground,
M = diagonal mass matrix, C = damping matrix, K = stiffness
matrix, and 1 = unit vector relating the input ground
acceleration ẍ g to the structural degrees of freedom. The
structural displacements, velocities, and accelerations of each
story are assumed to behave approximately as Eq. (2).
X = Φi u Ẋ = Φi u̇ Ẍ = Φi ü (2)
where Φi is a constant vector which describes the i -th deflected
mode shape of the multistory building, u, u̇, and ü describe
displacement, velocity, and acceleration function of the general
modal coordinates, respectively. Each term of Eq. (1) is
premultiplied by the elastic mode shape vector ΦiT and Eq.
(2) is substituted into Eq. (1). After using an orthogonality
relationship, a new SDOF equation of motion can be derived
as follows.
m ü + cu̇ + ku = −m ∗ ẍ g (3)
where m = ΦiT MΦi , c = ΦiT CΦi , k = ΦiT K Φi , and m ∗ =
ΦiT M I , respectively. In this equation, if m ∗ is equal to m, Eq.
(3) is the equation of motion for a general SDOF system and the
modal participation factor is 1.0. If the mode shape vector Φi is
normalized as Φi to satisfy that m ∗ is equal to m, the following
relationship can be satisfied.
ΦiT MΦi = −ΦiT M I (4)
In general, the behavior of a building subjected to earthquake
ground motions is dominated by the first natural mode.
Therefore, the response vectors of displacement, velocity, and
acceleration can be obtained approximately as shown in Eq. (5).
X ≈ Φ1 u Ẋ ≈ Φ1 u̇ Ẍ ≈ Φ1 ü (5)
3.1.1. Equivalent displacement
To estimate equivalent responses for an inelastic MDOF
system, the above mentioned assumptions are also applied. The
equation of motion for a general inelastic MDOF system is as
follows.
M Ẍ + C Ẋ + R(X) = −M1 ẍ g (6)
Eq. (6) is premultiplied by the normalized mode shape vector
Φ1 and the assumption of Eq. (5) can also be used in Eq.
(6). Due to the orthogonality condition, the equation of motion
(6) becomes the form of the inelastic ESDOF system such as
Eq. (7)
m ü + cu̇ + r (u) ≈ −m ∗ ẍ g (7)
where m = Φ1T MΦ1 , c = Φ1T CΦ1 , and r (u) = Φ1T R(X).
The equivalent displacement Dequi and the resistance Vequi of
a MDOF system can be estimated by using the equivalent
displacement u and the resistant force r (u) of the inelastic
ESDOF system obtained from Eq. (7). After Φ1T M is
premultiplied in the relationship of X ≈ Φ1 u and using Eq.
(4), the equivalent displacement of the building system can be
841
obtained by Eq. (8).
Φ1T M X (t)
Dequi ≈ (8)
Φ1T M1
where X (t) is the displacement response obtained from
the inelastic time history analyses. Similarly, the equivalent
velocity and acceleration of the multistory building can be
obtained by Eq. (9).
Φ1T M Ẋ (t) Φ1T M Ẍ(t)
Ḋequi ≈ D̈equi ≈ (9)
Φ1T M1 Φ1T M1
3.1.2. Equivalent force
The equivalent resistant force Vequi of a MDOF system
obtained from equivalent resistant response in the inelastic
ESDOF system can be derived as follows.
Vequi ≈ Φ1T R(X) = Φ1T K X (t) ≈ Φ1T K Φ1 Dequi = k1 Dequi
(10)
where R(X) = resistant force obtained from the inelastic
time history analysis, k1 = stiffness for the 1st natural
mode.
3.1.3. Verification of equivalent responses
In this study, the evaluation of the inelastic deformation
capacity obtained from the equivalent response of a structure
is verified. For a verification example, the previously mentioned
8-story steel moment resisting frame is selected. El Centro 1940
NS with EPA of 0.4g is selected for ground motion. Fig. 2(a)
and (b) show the displacements and forces of the example
structure. Roof displacement, displacement at effective height
and equivalent displacement are obtained from the response of
the MDOF system and these displacements are compared with
that of the ESDOF system. The effective height is calculated by
Eq. (11).


N
H jm j φ j1
j =1
Heff = (11)


N
m j φ j1
j =1
where H j = height of the j -th story from the base, m j = mass
of the j -th story and, φ j 1 = 1st mode shape. Base shear force
and equivalent force are obtained from the MDOF system and
these resisting forces are compared with that of the ESDOF
system. From Fig. 2, some differences of displacements and
resisting forces can be observed according to the analytical
methods. Especially, displacement at effective height and
equivalent displacement are somewhat smaller than the roof
displacement. The displacement of the ESDOF system is
smallest.
The exact evaluation of inelastic seismic response of a
structure could be obtained by applying the energy principle.
In general, the accuracy of inelastic seismic responses of
a building subjected to earthquake ground motions can be
842 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856
(a) Displacement.
Fig. 2. Evaluation of seismic displacement and force by inelastic time history analysis.
obtained effectively from the seismic energy equation. In this
study, to verify the accuracy and validity of the equivalent
response, the seismic energy components of the equivalent
responses are compared with those of the MDOF system. The
absolute energy equation suggested by Uang and Bertero [35]
is used in this study. Seismic energy components of a
building due to earthquake ground motions are composed as
follows.
EK + E D + ES + E H = EI
where E K = kinetic energy, E D = damping energy,
E S = strain energy, E H = dissipated hysteretic energy, and
E I = input energy due to the earthquake excitations. The
absolute energy equations of a SDOF and a MDOF system
based on the seismic energy components are as follows.
  
m(ẋ a )2
+ c ẋ dx + r (x) dx = m ẍ a dx g (13)
2
 t  t  t
Ẍ T M Ẍ a dt + Ẋ T C Ẋ dt + Ẋ T R(X) dt
0 0 0
 t
= 1T M Ẍ a dx g (14)
0 variant distributions of inertia forces [13,14,36]. These adaptive
where x a and X a denote the absolute displacements of the
SDOF and MDOF system, respectively.
Fig. 3 shows the comparison of the seismic energy compo-
nents by three different methods: the equivalent responses of
the MDOF system, ESDOF system, and the time history anal-
ysis of the MDOF system. From this figure it can be observed
that the results of the equivalent responses have a good agree-
ment with that of the MDOF system. Especially, the hysteretic
energy and the damping energy obtained from the equivalent
responses show slightly better agreement with those of the in-
elastic time history analysis of the MDOF system than those of
the ESDOF system.
3.2. Estimation based on equivalent responses by pushover
analysis
The proposed method also can be applied to the pushover
analysis. Recently, Chopra and Goel [18] derived an uncoupled
(b) Force.
inelastic dynamic equation of motion with several assumptions
for the pushover analysis. By using this approach, the pushover
analysis for each mode is carried out and the modal pushover
analysis (MPA) method which can consider higher mode effects
of the building was suggested.
In this study, the inelastic seismic responses of a multistory
building by the proposed method are estimated and compared
with those of the CSM in ATC-40 and the MPA method.
(12)
3.2.1. Lateral load patterns
In the existing pushover analysis, it is assumed that the
behaviors of buildings are dominated by the first mode
shape and lateral load distribution over the building height is
determined by considering only the first mode. However, the
single predominant mode cannot account for the contributions
of higher modes and the redistribution of inertia forces of
a building structure. To overcome these limitations, much
research has been carried out to consider higher modes
in the lateral load distribution pattern for the pushover
analysis. Several researchers have proposed adaptive force
distributions that attempt to follow more closely the time-
force distribution patterns may provide better estimates of
seismic demands, especially for the reinforced concrete
structures. However, they are conceptually complicated and
computationally demanding for routine application in structural
engineering practice. The use of these load patterns is not
adopted in the guidelines and codes [2,18].
Lee [37] suggested an effective lateral load distribution
pattern which can reflect the story shear force of a building
structure. Lee also verified that this lateral load pattern can
accurately estimate the inelastic seismic responses such as
plastic hinge formation, inter-story drifts, and so forth in the
pushover analysis with various earthquake excitations [38]. The
concept of this lateral load pattern is mentioned in FEMA-
273 guidelines that a lateral load pattern proportional to the
story inertia forces must be consistent with the story shear
distribution calculated by combination of modal responses
using response spectrum analysis. The seismic lateral load
distribution equation considering the system shear force is
 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856 843

(a) Input energy. (b) Kinetic + strain energy.

(c) Damping energy. (d) Hysteretic energy.

Fig. 3. Evaluation of seismic energy components by inelastic time history analysis.

calculated as follows: This method may be uncertain and approximate. However,

by applying the proposed method the capacity spectrum is
Fi = Vi − Vi+1 where,
  directly evaluated by the relationship between the equivalent
  n  n 2
 n   displacement and force of a multistory building without
Vi =  (Vi j ) =
2  m i Γ j φi j Sa (T j ) (15) converting the MDOF system into the ESDOF system.
j =1 j =1 j =1 Therefore, it is clearer and more straightforward than the
where Vi = story shear at the i -th level, n = number of modes, existing CSM. The static equivalent displacement and the
N = number of stories, m i = story mass, Γ j = j -th modal resistant force obtained from the pushover analysis of the
participation factor, φi j = mode shape vector for the j -th mode, proposed method are expressed in Eq. (16).
and Sa (T j ) = pseudo-acceleration for the j -th mode.
Φ1T M X static Vequi Φ T Rstatic
Sd = Dequi ≈ Sa = ≈ 1 (16)
3.2.2. Capacity spectrum based on equivalent responses Φ1T M1 Meff Meff
In the general procedure of CSM in ATC-40, the capacity
curve is estimated from the relationship between the roof where X static and Rstatic are displacement and resistant force
displacement and the base shear, and then the capacity spectrum for each story from the pushover analysis, respectively. Meff is
which is the form of the SDOF system is estimated considering the effective mass of the first mode of the building, Sd and Sa
the dynamic parameters such as modal participation factor are equivalent spectral displacement and spectral acceleration
and effective mass coefficient for the first natural mode. estimated by the inelastic static response, respectively.
844 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856
(a) Based on the effective damping.
Fig. 4. Inelastic design response spectra (El Centro NS, 1940 EPA = 0.4g).
3.2.3. Improvement in evaluation of seismic performance
In the proposed method, the demand spectra are evaluated by
an inelastic design spectrum which is suggested by Newmark
and Hall [39] using direct R–µ–T relationship with bilinear
characteristics. Fig. 4(a) and (b) show the inelastic design
response spectra obtained from the effective damping and
the displacement ductility, respectively. Evaluation of the
inelastic design spectrum based on the effective damping is
estimated from the sum of the viscous damping and equivalent
damping caused by the hysteretic energy of the structure.
Most design codes including ATC-40 adopt this approach.
Since the evaluation of the inelastic design spectrum based on
the effective damping is an indirect and ambiguous method,
this approach has some problems as an evaluation method of
seismic capacity of a structure. Recently, several researchers
have implemented the concept of direct R–µ–T relationship for
the evaluation of a demand spectrum and have shown that the
use of inelastic demand spectra leads to much better estimations
of the inelastic displacement demands than those from the
elastic demand spectra based on the effective viscous damping
in the existing CSM.
4. Application of the proposed method to example
structures
To illustrate the validity of the proposed method, an 8-
story and a 20-story steel moment resisting frames which are
designed applying the concept of strong column–weak beam
are selected. Each structure has three bays and the story height
is 18 ft (5.49 m) for the first story and 12 ft (3.66 m) for all
the others as illustrated in Fig. 5. Lumped mass on each floor is
assumed to be 0.8953 kips-s2 /in. Damping is assumed to be the
Rayleigh damping type with the modal damping ratios of 0.02
and 0.05 for the first two vibration modes.
The example structures are designed based on the UBC
seismic code [33]. The general-purpose computer program
DRAIN-2D+ [40] is used to perform the pushover and the
inelastic time history analyses. It is assumed that plastic
(b) Based on the displacement ductility.
hinges formed at beams and columns are concentrated at the
ends of members and the hysteric behavior of members are
bilinear curves with effectiveness of 2% strain hardening after
yielding in the inelastic seismic analysis. Also, connection
joints between beams and columns are modeled considering
the center line of beams and columns proposed by Krawinkler
and Gupta [41]. The strength, dimension, and shear distortion
of panel zones as well as P–∆ effects by gravity load are
not considered in the analysis. The simple model adopted
here would be sufficient for the objectives of this study. The
El Centro (NS, 1940) earthquake record, which is scaled to
be the effective peak acceleration (EPA) of 0.4g, is used for
the inelastic time history analysis. The member sizes of the
example buildings are listed in Table 1.
4.1. Estimation of elastic seismic responses by different lateral
load patterns
In order to determine the lateral load pattern for the pushover
analysis, the seismic responses obtained from the different
lateral load patterns are compared within linear elastic range.
The ATC-40 load pattern is based on the first mode while the
load pattern proposed by Lee is derived from the story shear
distributions [37]. The story shear and the story force from
these two load patterns are also compared with the results from
the time history analysis and the response spectrum analysis in
Figs. 6 and 7, respectively. The lateral load pattern proposed
by Lee provides story shear forces exactly the same as those
from the response spectrum analysis and closer to those from
the time history analysis than those from the ATC-40 lateral
load pattern.
4.2. Evaluation of seismic responses by inelastic time history
analysis
Response spectrum analyses of the example buildings
are performed and the natural vibration periods, modal
participation factors, and effective mass coefficients are listed
in Table 2 for the first three modes.
 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856 845

(a) Plan. (b) 8-story example building.

(c) 20-story example building.

Fig. 5. Plan and sections of two example buildings [33].

Displacement responses of the first three vibration modes for
the 8-story building are shown in Fig. 8. As expected, the first
modal component is dominant. Therefore, equivalent responses
of the example buildings can be estimated by Eqs. (8) and (10).
By inelastic time history analysis, the equivalent displacement
and force are compared with the roof displacement and the
base shear force for the 8-story and 20-story building in Figs. 9
and 10, respectively. It can be observed that the equivalent
displacement and force has a good agreement with the roof
displacement and base shear force, respectively.
The system ductility demand of building structures can
be estimated by various methods. Figs. 11 and 12 show the
846 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856

Table 1
Member sizes of the example buildings

Column id. Interior column Exterior column Girder id. 8-story 20-story
8-story 20-story 8-story 20-story
C10 – W27 × 84 – W18 × 86 B10 – W24 × 62
C9 – W27 × 102 – W18 × 97 B9 – W24 × 68
C8 – W30 × 116 – W18 × 106 B8 – W24 × 76
C7 – W30 × 132 – W18 × 119 B7 – W24 × 76
C6 – W36 × 135 – W18 × 130 B6 – W27 × 84
C5 – W36 × 150 – W18 × 143 B5 – W27 × 84
C4 W24 × 55 W36 × 160 W14 × 48 W18 × 158 B4 W18 × 40 W27 × 94
C3 W24 × 84 W36 × 170 W14 × 74 W18 × 175 B3 W21 × 50 W27 × 94
C2 W24 × 94 W36 × 182 W14 × 90 W18 × 192 B2 W24 × 55 W27 × 102
C1 W24 × 131 W36 × 232 W14 × 99 W18 × 211 B1 W24 × 68 W27 × 102

(a) Story shear. (b) Story force.

Fig. 6. Seismic response for 8-story building.

(a) Story shear. (b) Story force.

Fig. 7. Seismic response for 20-story building.

 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856 847

Table 2
Results of the response spectrum analysis for example buildings

Mode Natural period (s) Modal participation Effective mass

factor (PF) coefficient (α)
1 1.168 1.348 0.829
8-story 2 0.420 0.508 0.115
3 0.238 0.239 0.033
1 2.786 1.379 0.778
20-story 2 0.961 0.566 0.126
3 0.549 0.312 0.042

(a) The 1st modal displacement. (b) The 2nd modal displacement.

(c) The 3rd modal displacement.

Fig. 8. Seismic response for 8-story building.

(a) Comparison of roof displacement and equivalent displacement. (b) Comparison of base shear force and equivalent resistant force.

Fig. 9. Equivalent responses for 8-story building.

848 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856

(a) Comparison of roof displacement and equivalent displacement. (b) Comparison of base shear force and equivalent resistant force.

Fig. 10. Equivalent responses for 20-story building.

(a) Roof displacement–base shear relationship. (b) Effective height responses.

(c) Equivalent responses. (d) ESDOF system responses.

Fig. 11. System ductility demand of 8-story building.

force–displacement relationships of the MDOF system based For the 8-story building, the system ductility demand can be
on the roof displacement, displacement at effective height, and evaluated approximately based on the roof displacement and/or
equivalent displacement. The force–displacement relationships the displacement at effective height but it cannot be evaluated
of the ESDOF system are also included in Figs. 11 and 12. for the 20-story building. The relationship of responses of
 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856 849

(a) Roof displacement–base shear relationship. (b) Effective height responses.

(c) Equivalent responses. (d) ESDOF system responses.

Fig. 12. System ductility demand of 20-story building.

the ESDOF system exhibits a strict bilinear curve because Table 3

the inelastic properties of the ESDOF systems have been Comparison of system ductility demand by inelastic time history analysis
modeled as bilinear. The relationship of equivalent responses Frames Responses D y (in.) Dmax (in.) µsys
of the MDOF system also follow a bilinear curve but it
Roof 1.69 8.08 4.78
is somewhat fluctuating because it reflects the time varying Effective height 1.71 6.74 3.94
inelastic behavior of the actual MDOF systems. However, the 8-story
Equivalent 1.74 6.99 4.02
maximum displacements and the yield displacements obtained ESDOF system 1.75 6.46 3.69
from the two methods are found to be comparable. The system Roof – – –
ductility demands estimated by various methods are shown in 20-story
Effective height – – –
Table 3. Equivalent 6.63 10.94 1.65
Since the determination of the system ductility demand by ESDOF system 6.48 11.74 1.81
the ESDOF responses is very sensitive to the parameters such
as yield displacement, strength, and strain hardening ratio,
the results could be highly dependent on the bilinear rule 4.3. Evaluation of seismic responses by pushover analysis
selected. On the other hand, the system ductility demand using
the equivalent responses can be directly obtained from the The system ductility demand by the CSM in ATC-40 and
inelastic dynamic responses of the MDOF systems. Therefore, the proposed method for the example buildings is obtained by
the system ductility demand by the equivalent response for the the pushover analysis. For analytical simplicity, the structural
MDOF system may be more efficient and accurate than that of behavior type of example buildings is assumed as the type A of
the ESDOF system. ATC-40 [1].
850 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856
Fig. 13. Capacity curve and bilinear representation for 8-story building.
Fig. 14. Capacity curve and bilinear representation for 20-story building.
4.3.1. Estimation of capacity curve
The capacity curve and the idealized bilinear curve by the
CSM in ATC-40 and the proposed method are compared as
shown in Figs. 13 and 14. In order to define the strain hardening
ratio after yielding, the capacity curves are idealized as a
bilinear curve based on the concept of equal energy area. For
the 8-story building, two capacity curves make no difference.
However, for the 20-story building, it can be observed that
the difference of capacity curves is large because the inelastic
behaviors are affected by the higher modes.
4.3.2. Estimation of performance point by CSM in ATC-40
method
In the CSM in ATC-40 method, the capacity curves of
the example buildings are converted into spectrum format
using parameters related to only the first mode. In Figs. 15
and 16 the performance points for example structures are
obtained by comparing the capacity spectrum with the inelastic
design demand spectra estimated by effective viscous damping.
The procedure of determining the performance points through
iterative processes of the example buildings are shown in
Tables 4 and 5. For the 20-story building, the performance
point by the CSM in ATC-40 cannot be obtained because of
divergence error. It indicates that the peak deformation of the
inelastic systems by the CSM in ATC-40 can be estimated
Fig. 15. 8-story performance point by CSM (ATC-40).
Fig. 16. 20-story performance point by CSM (ATC-40).
inaccurately for the low and medium rise structure such as
the 8-story example building. Furthermore, this method may
diverge in determining the performance point for a high-
rise building such as the 20-story example building. Chopra
and Goel also demonstrated that CSM in ATC-40 has some
convergence problems and even if it converges, the results may
significantly underestimate the displacement demand for a wide
range of periods of structure [9].
4.3.3. Estimation of performance point by proposed method
The process of obtaining the performance point by the
proposed method for the example buildings are shown in
Figs. 17 and 18 and Tables 6 and 7. For the 20-story building,
the performance point by the CSM in ATC-40 is not obtained
due to divergence error. However, as shown in Table 8, the
performance point for the 20-story building can be obtained
without divergence error if the inelastic design spectrum is
used.
4.3.4. Comparison of system ductility demand with inelastic
time history analysis
The hysteresis curves obtained from the inelastic time
history analysis and the pushover analysis based on CSM in
 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856 851

Table 4
Evaluation of system ductility demand by ATC-40 method for the 8-story building

Iteration no. Sdi (in.) Sai (g) µsys ςeff (%) Sd j (in.) Sa j (g) Difference (%)
1 8.083 0.1374 4.811 45.0 4.760 0.1305 −69.80
2 4.760 0.1305 2.833 42.7 5.255 0.1319 9.42
3 5.255 0.1319 3.128 44.3 4.849 0.1307 −8.37
4 4.849 0.1307 2.886 43.0 5.067 0.1316 4.30
5 5.067 0.1316 3.016 43.7 4.982 0.1312 −1.71
6 4.982 0.1312 2.965 43.4 5.029 0.1315 0.94
7 5.029 0.1315 2.993 43.6 5.018 0.1313 −0.22
8 5.018 0.1313 2.987 43.5 5.023 0.1314 0.10

Table 5
Evaluation of system ductility demand by ATC-40 method for the 20-story building

Iteration no. Sdi (in.) Sai (g) µsys ςeff (%) Sd j (in.) Sa j (g) Difference (%)
1 19.128 0.0975 2.698 40.3 7.948 0.0934 −140.66
2 7.948 0.0934 1.121 11.5 27.987 0.1029 71.60
3 21.987 0.1029 3.974 44.6 6.931 0.0878 −303.795
4 6.931 0.0878 1.000 5.0 41.981 0.1125 83.49
5 41.981 0.1125 5.921 45.0 6.647 0.0812 −531.58
6 6.647 0.0812 1.000 5.0 41.981 0.1125 84.17
7 41.981 0.1125 5.921 45.0 6.647 0.0812 −531.578

Table 6
System ductility demand by the proposed method for the 8-story building

Point Spectral response Equivalent response System ductility (µsys ) Effective period (Teff )
Sd (in.) Sa (g) Dequi (in.) Vequi (kips)
A (µ = 6.0) 5.913 0.134 5.913 307.211 3.815 2.129
B (µ = 5.0) 7.095 0.139 7.095 318.674 4.577 2.291
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . .
P.Pµ = 4.70 7.288 0.140 7.288 320.966 4.702 2.313
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . .
C (µ = 4.0) 8.605 0.141 8.605 323.259 5.552 2.505
D (µ = 3.0) 11.105 0.145 11.105 332.430 7.165 2.806
E (µ = 2.0) 15.610 0.156 15.610 357.648 10.071 3.207

Table 7
System ductility demand by the proposed method for the 20-story building

Point Spectral response Equivalent response System ductility (µsys ) Effective period (Teff )
Sd (in.) Sa (g) Dequi (in.) Vequi (kips)
A (µ = 6.0) 8.413 0.095 8.413 511.000 1.198 3.009
B (µ = 5.0) 10.035 0.096 10.035 516.379 1.429 3.269
C (µ = 4.0) 12.315 0.097 12.315 521.758 1.753 3.603
D (µ = 3.0) 15.967 0.098 15.967 527.137 2.274 4.081
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . .
P.Pµ = 2.47 17.408 0.099 17.408 532.518 2.479 4.252
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..
. . . . . . .
E (µ = 2.0) 22.645 0.101 22.645 543.274 3.225 4.788

Table 8
System ductility demand by ATC-40 method using displacement ductility ratio for the 20-story building

Point Spectral response MDOF response System ductility (µsys ) Effective period (Teff )
Sd (in.) Sa (g) D (in.) V (kips)
P.Pµ = 2.61 18.512 0.098 24.954 532.516 2.611 4.407
852 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856

Table 9
Comparison of system ductility by inelastic time history and pushover analysis

Example structure Inelastic time history analysis Pushover analysis

ESDOF system MDOF system (equivalent) CSM(ATC-40) Proposed method
Damping Ductility Damping Ductility
8-story 3.69 4.01 2.98 – – 4.70
20-story 1.81 1.65 × 2.61 – 2.48

Fig. 17. 8-story performance point by proposed method.

Fig. 19. Comparison of system ductility for 8-story building.

Fig. 18. 20-story performance point by proposed method.

ATC-40 and the proposed method for the 8-story building and
20-story building are compared in Figs. 19 and 20, respectively.
In these figures, the points C and P represent the performance
points of the MDOF system obtained from CSM in ATC-40
and the proposed method, respectively and both points can be
compared with the performance point “o” obtained from the
inelastic time history analysis using the equivalent response.
Table 9 shows that the system ductility demand by the pushover
analysis is slightly larger than that of the time history analysis
because the design response spectrum is used for the CSM.
For the 8-story building, the system ductility demand obtained
from each analytical method looks similar in Fig. 19. For the
20-story building, the system ductility demand obtained from
the proposed method gives a good agreement with that of the
inelastic time history analysis, however rather large differences
Fig. 20. Comparison of system ductility for 20-story building.
between CSM in ATC-40 and the inelastic time history analysis
method can be observed in Fig. 20.
4.4. Evaluation of performance level
In the performance-based seismic design, the most important
responses in determining the seismic performance level are
plastic hinge formations and the inter-story drifts. In this study,
inelastic local seismic responses such as plastic hinge formation
and inter-story drift by the CSM in ATC-40 method, the
proposed method, and the MPA method are compared with the
results of inelastic time history analysis. Figs. 21 and 22 show
that the plastic hinge formation by the CSM in ATC-40 method
 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856 853

(a) Inelastic time history. (b) CSM (ATC-40). (c) MPA (Chopra). (d) Proposed method.

Fig. 21. Comparison of plastic hinge formation for 8-story building. Reference rotation angle = 0.02 (rad).

(a) Inelastic time history. (b) CSM (ATC-40). (c) MPA (Chopra). (d) Proposed method.

Fig. 22. Comparison of plastic hinge formation for 20-story building. Reference rotation angle = 0.02 (rad).

for the 8-story building is underestimated in all floors and
seismic responses in lower floors of the 20-story building are
overestimated. The rotational angle and the location of plastic
hinges by the MPA method for the 8-story building have a good
agreement with those from the inelastic time history analysis.
However, even though the 20-story building can reflects higher
mode effects, it somewhat underestimates the plastic hinge
rotation angles in the upper floors. Chopra also pointed out
these observations [18].
For the proposed method case, the location of plastic hinges
and rotational angles are similar to those of the inelastic time
history analysis in the lower and upper floors of buildings.
The similar trend can be observed in the inelastic inter-story
drifts as shown in Fig. 23. Unlike Chopra’s results [18], the
inelastic inter-story drifts obtained from the MPA method are
underestimated in the upper floors. Fig. 24 shows the story
ductility demand obtained from various analytical methods
considering the inter-story drifts and yield inter-story drifts.
854 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856

(a) 8-story. (b) 20-story.

Fig. 23. Comparison of inter-story drift of two buildings.

(a) 8-story. (b) 20-story.

Fig. 24. Comparison of story ductility of two buildings.

The yield inter-story drifts for the inelastic time history analysis
are obtained by averaging the yield inter-story drifts of each
analytical method. For the 8-story building, the story ductility
demand obtained from the CSM in ATC-40 is underestimated
in all floors. For the 20-story building, a similar trend of the
inter-story drift can be observed, and the proposed method
can predict the inelastic response at the upper floors most
precisely.
5. Conclusions
In this study, an improved and effective seismic evaluation
method based on the equivalent responses of a multistory
building is proposed. The principle of the equivalent response is
applicable to both inelastic time history analysis and pushover
analysis. The inelastic seismic responses for multistory
buildings obtained from the proposed method are compared
with those of the existing seismic evaluation methods. From the
analytical results of this study, the following conclusions can be
made.
(1) The validity and accuracy for the proposed equivalent
responses were verified by comparing the seismic energy
components of the proposed equivalent responses with
those of the MDOF system. Therefore, the equivalent
responses of buildings would be effective in estimating the
seismic performance of a building structure.
(2) Since the system level ductility demand by the capacity
spectrum method (CSM) in ATC-40 and the proposed
 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856
method turned out to be similar to those obtained from
the inelastic time history analysis of the ESDOF and
MDOF systems, a relatively accurate system level ductility
demand could be obtained by the CSM in ATC-40 and
the proposed method. The equivalent responses obtained
from the inelastic time history analysis might be a basis for
estimating the system ductility demand at the performance
point which is determined by the pushover analysis.
(3) The proposed method can evaluate the seismic performance
directly by the relationship between the equivalent
displacement and force of a multistory building without
converting MDOF responses into ESDOF responses.
Therefore, the proposed method is more straightforward,
clearer and more consistent than the CSM in ATC-40.
(4) The proposed method might be better than the CSM in
ATC-40 in evaluating the local inelastic seismic responses
such as plastic hinge formation and inter-story drift.
(5) Since the inelastic seismic response characteristics and
seismic performance can be changed, it will be interesting
to consider the effects of panel zone of the connection
joints. In the pushover analysis for flexible steel buildings,
the P–∆ effect can make the seismic performance
deteriorate because stiffness is changed after yielding.
Therefore, for future research, inelastic dynamic and static
behavior considering the P–∆ effect and characteristics of
connection joint in the steel moment resisting frame have to
be examined.
Acknowledgements
The Brain Korea 21 Project supported this work. This
work was also partially supported by the Korea Science
and Engineering Foundation (KOSEF) through the Korea
Earthquake Engineering Research Center (KEERC) at Seoul
National University (SNU). A special thanks goes to Professor
K.C. Tsai of National Taiwan University, who provided the
computer software DRAIN-2D+.
References
[1] ATC. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. ATC-40 report.
Redwood City (CA): Applied Technology Council; 1996.
[2] FEMA. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Washington, DC: FEMA273, Federal Emergency Management Agency;
October 1997.
[3] Freeman SA. Development and use of capacity spectrum method. In: 6th
U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 1998.
[4] Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame
structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2000;29:
1287–305.
[5] Naeim F, Skliros K, Reinhorn AM. Influence of hysteretic deteriorations
in seismic response of multistory steel frame buildings. In: Proceedings of
the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. Upper Hutt (New
Zealand): New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering; 2000.
[6] Fajfar P. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1999;28:970–93.
[7] Tagawa H, MacRae G. Capacity spectra method for estimating SDOF
oscillator demands. In: Proceedings of the 2001 structures congress &
exposition. Washington, DC: American Society of Civil Engineers; 2001.
[8] Miranda E. Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF
systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil
Engineers 2001;127(9):1005–12.
855
[9] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity-demand-diagram methods for estimating
seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDF systems. Report No.
PEER-1999/02. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California; 1999.
[10] Song JK, Pincheira JA. Spectral displacement demands of stiffness and
strength degrading systems. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(4):817–51.
[11] Iwan WD, Huang CT, Guyader AC. Important features of the response
of inelastic structures to near-field ground motion. In: Proceedings of
the 12th world conference on earthquake engineering. Upper Hutt (New
Zealand): New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering; 2000.
[12] ATC. Evaluation and improvement of inelastic seismic analysis
procedures. ATC-55 report. Redwood City (CA): Applied Technology
Council; 2002.
[13] Bracci JM, Kunnath SK, Reinhorn AM. Seismic performance and retrofit
evaluation of reinforced concrete structures. Journal of the Structural
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York 1997;
123(1):3–10.
[14] Gupta B, Kunnath SK. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for
seismic evaluation of structures. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(2):367–91.
[15] Reinhorn AM. Inelastic techniques in seismic evaluations. In: Fajfar
P, Krawinkler H, editors. Seismic design methodologies for the next
generation of codes. 1997.
[16] Sasaki KK, Freeman SA, Paret TF. Multi-mode pushover procedure
(MMP)—a method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover
analysis. In: Proceedings, 6th US national conference on earthquake
engineering. Seattle (WA): Earthquake Engineering Research Institute;
1998.
[17] Saitoh M. Inelastic quasistatic analysis to simulate dynamic behavior of
multi-degree-of-freedom system. In: 10th international conference on soil
dynamics and earthquake engineering. 2001.
[18] Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate
seismic demands for buildings: theory and preliminary evaluation. Report
no.PEER2001/03. Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California; January 2001.
[19] Albanesi T, Nuti C, Vanzi I. A simplified procedure to assess the seismic
response of nonlinear structures. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(4):715–34.
[20] Aschheim M, Black EF. Yield point spectra for seismic design and
rehabilitation. Earthquake Spectra 2000;16(2):317–35.
[21] MacRae G, Tagawa H. Methods to estimate displacements of PG&E
structures. Draft report on research conducted under PGE/PEER Task no.
505. University of Washington; August 29, 2001.
[22] Ramirez OM, Constantinou MC, Gomez JD, Whittaker AS, Chrysosto-
mou CZ. Evaluation of simplified methods of analysis of yielding struc-
tures with damping systems. Earthquake Spectra 2002;18(3):501–30.
[23] Ramirez OM, Constantinou MC, Whittaker AS, Kircher CA, Chrysosto-
mou CZ. Elastic and inelastic seismic response of buildings with damping
systems. Earthquake Spectra 2002;18(3):531–47.
[24] BSSC. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new
buildings and other structures. Washington, DC: FEMA 368 and 369,
Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2000.
[25] Rothe D, Sozen MA. A SDOF model to study nonlinear dynamic response
of large- and small-scale R/C test structures. Structural Research Series
no. 512, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, Urbana; 1983.
[26] Lee DG. Accurate and simplified models for seismic response prediction
of steel frame structure. Ph.D. dissertation. Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Stanford University; 1984.
[27] Qi X, Moehle JP. Displacement design approach for reinforced
concrete structures subjected to earthquakes. Report no. UCB/EERC-
91/02. Berkeley: Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California; January 1991.
[28] Miranda E. Seismic evaluation and upgrading of existing buildings, Ph.D.
thesis, Berkeley: University of California; 1991.
[29] Fajfar P, Gaspersic P. The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis
of RC buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1996;
25(1):31–46.
856 D.-G. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 837–856
[30] Villaverde R. Simplified response spectrum analysis of nonlinear
structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, American Society of Civil
Engineers 1996;122:282–5.
[31] Han SW, Wen YK. Method of reliability-based seismic design. I:
equivalent nonlinear system. Journal of Structural Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers 1997;123:256–65.
[32] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Evaluation of NSP to estimate seismic
deformation: SDF systems. Journal of Structural Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers 2000;126(4):482–90.
[33] Lee DG, Song JK, Yun CB. Estimation of system-level ductility demands
for multi-story structures. Engineering Structures 1997;19(12):1025–35.
[34] Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ. Direct displacement–based seismic design
of concrete buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering 2000;33(4):421–44.
[35] Uang CM, Bertero VV. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1990;19:77–90.
[36] Elnashai AS. Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for seismic
design and assessment. In: G. Penelis international symposium on
concrete and masonry structures. Thessaloniki (Greece): Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki; 2000.
[37] Lee DG, Kim HC. Efficient seismic analysis of multi-story buildings.
Structural Engineering and Mechanics 1996;4(5):497–511.
[38] Lee DG, Choi WH, Lee JW. Determination of inelastic seismic response
and evaluation of seismic performance for building structures using
pseudo dynamic analysis method. In: NZSEE 2001 technical conference.
2001 [paper No.4.10.01].
[39] Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake Spectra and Design. Berkeley (CA):
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute; 1982.
[40] Tsai KC, Li JW. DRAIN2D+—a general purpose computer program
for static and dynamic analyses of inelastic 2D structures supplemented
with a graphic processor. Report, No. CEER/R86-07. National Taiwan
University; July 1997.
[41] Krawinkler H, Gupta B. Story drift demands for steel moment frame
structures in different seismic regions. In: 6th US national conference on
earthquake engineering. Seattle (WA): Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute; 1998.