Dimensional Estimation of Residual-Drift Demands for

Bilinear Bridges under Near-Fault Ground Motions

Zhan Shu1 and Jian Zhang, A.M.ASCE2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Residual drift of bridge columns is an important performance measure for structural damage and postearthquake repair decisions.
Yet there are very limited models available for estimating the residual drifts accurately. This paper presents an innovative method to realisti-
cally predict the residual drifts (including their trend and upper bound) of bilinear bridge deck-column systems directly from their inelastic me-
chanical properties and ground motion characteristics. The proposed estimation originated from the rigorous dimensional analysis of
nonlinear time-history responses of various bilinear bridge deck-column systems under near-fault ground motions. Under this framework, the
peak inelastic drifts and residual drifts were presented in dimensionless forms and showed remarkable order and correlation with structure-to-
pulse frequency and the dimensionless nonlinearity index that accounts for the preyielding strength, ground motion amplitude, and softening
or hardening postyielding behavior. Regressive equations for maximum displacement and residual-drift demands were proposed and vali-
dated. The corresponding error of this approach was shown to be lower than those of the existing codified methods. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0001298. © 2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Residual drift; Peak drift; Seismic response estimation; Bilinear bridges; Near-fault ground motions.

Introduction To predict the PD demand, two methods are most commonly

Bridges are critical components in transportation systems and are
particularly susceptible to damages and interruptions throughout
earthquake events due to their distributed nature (Tatano and
Tsuchiya 2008). The permanent residual drifts (RDs) particularly
impact their structural integrity and functionality after major earth-
quakes. Over the decades, studies have proved the RD as an impor-
tant consideration in judging a structure’s postearthquake safety
and the economic feasibility of repair (Macrae et al. 1994; Ruiz-
García and Miranda 2005). For some extreme cases, RDs may be
too large hence seriously jeopardize structural stability during
earthquake aftershocks and make repairs uneconomical, indicat-
ing that the repair is on par with a complete structural replacement
(Bazzurro et al. 2004; Mackie et al. 2011; Ruiz-García and
Aguilar 2015).
For the displacement-based or more advanced performance-
based design and evaluation methods that consider the robustness
of bridge systems, it is desirable to explicitly evaluate the likely
magnitude of RDs. Shaking table tests (Kawashima et al. 1992;
Macrae et al. 1994) revealed that the magnitude of RDs was influ-
enced by factors such as the material type, structural configuration,
and peak drifts (PDs). Consequently, various works have been done
to estimate the PD and RD demands, trying to avoid tedious labora-
tory tests or time-consuming numerical analyses (Zhang et al. 2011;
Ruiz-García and Chora 2015).
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Structural Engineering, Tongji Univ.,
Shanghai 200092, China.
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Univ. of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095 (corresponding author).
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1214-5808. Email: zhangj@ucla.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 22, 2017; approved on
May 8, 2018; published online on August 31, 2018. Discussion period
open until January 31, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702.
used, the displacement coefficient method by FEMA documents
(FEMA 1997a, b, 2000, 2005) and the capacity spectrum method
(ATC 1996, 2011), which combine the nonlinear static analysis pro-
cedures with results from linear dynamic analysis (Makris and
Psychogios 2006). More studies have been presented to modify and
improve these methods (Vidic et al. 1994; Erduran and Kunnath
2010; Chopra and Goel 2000). Zhang et al. (2011) further elabo-
rated the estimation of the peak displacement for bridge columns by
introducing a dimensionless nonlinearity index that better captured
the nonlinear shear–flexure interaction behavior.
The earlier studies calculating residual demands were conducted
by Riddell and Newmark (1979) and Mahin and Bertero (1981),
who identified some of the key behavioral aspects associated with
RDs. In current practice, a commonly used method to estimate the
residual demands is to assume that the RDs are equal to a certain
percentage of the PDs, depending on factors such as the hysteretic
model (MacRae and Kawashima 1997). Such an approach has been
used to estimate the RDs for building structures (Christopoulos
et al. 2003; Pampanin et al. 2003; Ruiz-García and Miranda 2005,
2006a, b, c, 2010). In 2012, the ATC-58 documentation (FEMA
2012) was finalized, in which a set of equations was proposed to
relate residual story drift to peak transient story drift for generalized
building systems. Bojórquez and Ruiz-García (2013) presented the
RD demands for steel moment-resisting frames against narrow-
band earthquake ground motions in Mexico. Their work also related
the RDs with the PDs, suggesting that limit residual demands be
limited to 0.5 or 1% and limit peak interstory drift demands be lim-
ited to within 2 or 3%. Erochko et al. (2011) performed a series of
numerical tests for steel buildings, establishing an upper bound of
RDs related to peak story displacements and yield displacements.
For bridges, as the deck-column systems can usually be simpli-
fied to a Single-Degree-of-Freedom (SDOF) system, most existing
studies have focused on grasping the nonlinearity features and seis-
mic damage–preventing techniques. For example, the earthquake-
resistant design code in Japan provides a RD estimation for the
bridge-column system as a function of the PD value, the yield drift,

© ASCE 04018087-1 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

 and the postyield stiffness ratio (JSCE 2000). Tirasit and
Kawashima (2007) proposed an empirical hysteretic model based
on the observed column RDs and damages. Brown and Saiidi
(2011) investigated a bridge pier against the near-fault ground
motions where RDs were evaluated. Kawashima et al. (2011) dem-
onstrated the bridge-pier responses and the RD values against im-
pulsive ground motions. Motaref et al. (2014) evaluated the RDs
considering connection details and various seismic protective
designs, such as the application of rubber pads, the engineered ce-
mentitious components, and the carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer
jacketing of column segments.
The objective of this study was to offer a new way to realistically
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
predict the trend and the upper bound of RDs directly from the char-
acteristics of a bridge and ground motion, where a mathematically
sound approach based on physics was adopted, namely, the dimen-
sional analysis. The methodology was first used by Makris and
Black (2004a, b, c) on elastic fixed-base structures and was later
extended to inelastic systems (Makris and Psychogios 2006), inelas-
tic soil-structure systems (Zhang and Tang 2009), bridge columns
(Zhang et al. 2011), nonlinear damping systems (Zhang and Xi
2012), and adaptive stiffness and damping devices (Shu et al.
2017). Guided by such a concept, the estimation of PDs and RDs
for SDOF bilinear systems representing generalized bridge systems
is proposed and validated in this paper. The proposed equations
relate the inelastic drift demands with the structure-to-pulse fre-
quency ratio, normalized yield displacement, postyield stiffness,
and normalized strength. In comparison to existing codified predic-
tions, the method is efficient in reducing the scatter in the engineer-
ing demands and can directly estimate the drift demands without
resorting to the linear time-history responses and spectrum.
Dimensional Analysis and Simulation Scheme
This study estimated the inelastic drift demands (i.e., PD and RD
demands) based on a set of dimensionless parameters to describe
the normalized structural responses of a SDOF bilinear system.
Seventy-five near-fault ground motions were selected due to their
distinct impulsive features and their devastating effects on
structures.
Dimensional Analysis Framework
The comprehensive nonlinear seismic responses of bridges are eval-
uated under the framework of dimensional analysis, which provides
an effective way of interpreting the otherwise largely scattered
inelastic structural responses from time-history analysis using
recorded ground motions. By normalizing the inelastic drift
demands with respect to the energetic length scale of ground
motions, similar responses (i.e., independent of the intensity of
ground motions) can be obtained. In this section, the dimensional
analysis of a bilinear SDOF bridge model is introduced to provide
the logical and mathematic background behind the proposed
equations.
The dimensional analysis framework is based on the existence
of a distinct time scale and length scale that characterize the most
energetic component of the ground shaking. Such time and length
scales emerge naturally from the distinguishable pulses and pulse-
like near-fault ground motions [e.g., the acceleration amplitude (ag)
and duration of the ground motion (Tp)], which dominate a wide
class of strong earthquake records. For a bilinear SDOF system sub-
ject to a pulse-type ground motion that can be generally character-
ized by its pulse amplitude (ap) and frequency (v p, or equivalently,
Tp = 2p /v p), its equation of motion can be expressed by Eq. (1)
© ASCE 04018087-2
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087
u þ 2 j s v s u_ þ v s uy~f s ðu; u_ Þ ¼ ap gðv p tÞ
€ (1)
where uy = yield displacement; v s = (ke/ms)1/2 = circular frequency
computed using the initial stiffness (ke) and structural mass (ms);
and the function f~s ðu; u_ Þ = nonlinear resisting force-displacement
relationship that depends on the yield displacement (uy) and post-
yield stiffness hardening ratio (« = kp/ke). Given a specific wave-
form [g(t)] of input ground acceleration, the peak displacement and
the residual displacement of a bilinear SDOF system [characterized
by the postyield stiffness ratio (« ), the natural frequency (v s), and
the yield displacement (uy), or equivalently, the characteristic
strength (Qy)] become functions of six variables expressed in Eqs.
(2a) and (2b)
umax ¼ f ðv s ; j s ; uy ; ɛ; ap ; v p Þ (2a)
uend ¼ f ðv s ; j s ; uy ; ɛ; ap ; v p Þ (2b)
The variables appearing in Eqs. (2a) and (2b) involve only
two reference dimensions, length and time. According to
Buckingham’s P-theorem (Barenblatt 1996), the number of in-
dependent dimensionless P-parameters is determined as fol-
lows: (6 variables) – (2 reference dimensions) = 4 P-parameters.
By normalizing the response to the characteristic length scale of
ground motion, the normalized PD (PPD  umaxv 2p /ap) and the
normalized RD (PRD  uendv 2p /ap) become functions of the nor-
malized frequency (Pv  v s/v p); the structural damping
ratio (P j  j s); the normalized structural yield displacement
(Puy  uyv 2p /ap); or equivalently, the normalized strength
(PQ  Qy/msap) and the postyield stiffness ratio (P«  « ), which
is formulated as Eqs. (3a) and (3b)
PPD  umax v 2p =ap ¼ f PD ðPv ; P j ; Puy ; Pɛ Þ (3a)
PRD  uend v 2p =ap ¼ f RD ðPv ; P j ; Puy ; Pɛ Þ (3b)
From Eqs. (3a) and (3b), the PD and RD demands are normal-
ized with pulse acceleration amplitude (ap) and frequency (v p). For
velocity pulse-type ground motions that demonstrate distinguish-
able pulses in their velocity time histories, the inelastic drift
demands could be normalized with pulse velocity amplitude (vp)
and frequency (v p), shown in Eqs. (4a) and (4b)
PPD  umax v p =vp (4a)
PRD  uend v p =vp (4b)
To better estimate the inelastic drift demands, appropriate
dimensionless quantities need to be derived and then evaluated in
terms of their influence on the dimensionless drift demands. In addi-
tional to the previously defined P terms, Zhang et al. (2011) intro-
duced a dimensionless measure PNL to capture the complex hyste-
retic nonlinear behavior of a bilinear oscillating system with the
understanding of the direct impact of the energy dissipation mecha-
nism, which is expressed by Eq. (5)



ms ag 1 ms ag 1
PNL  ¼ (5)
Qy 1 þ kp =ke Qy 1 þ ɛ
where ag = input peak ground acceleration. The first term [(ms ag)/
Qy] in Eq. (5) is similar to the inverse of the normalized strength
J. Bridge Eng.
 (PQ) identified previously in the dimensional analysis except the
pulse amplitude (ap) is replaced by the peak ground acceleration
(ag). This term indicates that smaller strength relative to the struc-
tural mass or larger input ground motion will result in larger nonli-
nearity in the structure. The second term [1/(1þ« )] represents ei-
ther reduced or increased energy dissipation capability due to
softening (kp < 0) or hardening (kp > 0) behavior with reference to
the elastoplastic system. Therefore, the parameter PNL essentially
combines the effect of PQ and postyielding stiffness ratio (P« ).
Subsequently, Eqs. (3a) and (3b) can be further simplified to
 PD ðPv ; P j ; PNL Þ
PPD  umax v 2p =ap ¼ f
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for this study (including 25 acceleration pulse motions and 50 ve-
locity pulse motions). The pulse-type motions were identified based
on improved methods to derive the pulse representations using dif-
ferent pulse models (Tang and Zhang 2011). Detailed characteris-
tics are provided in Tables 1 and 2 for these selected ground
motions.
Out of the 75 earthquake records, 20 acceleration pulse motions
and 40 velocity pulse motions were used to compute the nonlinear
responses and to generate the estimation formula for PD and RD. In
addition, the last five acceleration pulse–type motions and 10 veloc-
ity pulse-type motions (shown as Earthquakes 21–25 in Table 1 and

(6a) Earthquakes 46–50 and 71–75 in Table 2) were reserved as the

 RD ðPv ; P j ; PNL Þ
PRD  uend v 2p =ap ¼ f (6b)
Pulse-Type Ground Motions
Near-fault ground motions often show impulsive characteristics
exhibiting distinguishable pulses in their velocity and displacement
time histories, also occasionally in acceleration time histories, sig-
nificantly imposing higher demands on structures (Bertero et al.
1978; Hall et al. 1995; Malhotra 1999). The relatively long period
pulses in near-fault ground motions are closely related to the seis-
mological aspects of earthquakes, such as source mechanism, fault
slip, and rupture directivity (Somerville 2003).
The pulses are directly related to the rise time and slip velocity
of faulting and can be formally extracted with various established
methods (Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou 2003; Baker 2007; He and
Agrawal 2008). The inelastic drifts are found to correlate well with
the structure-to-pulse period ratio (Ts/Tp) (Cuesta and Aschheim
2001; Alavi and Krawinkler 2004; Mavroeidis et al. 2004; Gillie
et al. 2010). A total of 75 pulse-like ground motions were selected
ground motion inputs to validate the estimated results.
Sample Bridge Model
The proposed estimations were provided based on simple SDOF
bilinear systems. The mechanical properties of a SDOF bilinear sys-
tem could be sampled from structural pushover analyses (Chopra
and Goel 2002; Chopra and Chintanapakdee 2004). In addition to
the basic nonlinear features of a bilinear oscillating system, some
existing studies incorporated other features, such as different struc-
tural types, site conditions [ATC-40 (ATC 1996) and ATC-58
(FEMA 2012)], and shear–flexure interactions (Zhang et al. 2011).
Nevertheless, to keep the estimation simple and applicable, this
study did not include these features in the inelastic drift demand
estimations.
As an example, a simplified bridge deck-column model was
selected, representing the typical highway bridges that exist in the
current bridge inventory in the United States. The primary curve
of the selected bridge model was close to a bilinear SDOF system
(Zhang et al. 2011). The bridge model had a total deck mass of
926.4 t, the initial elastic stiffness (ke) equaled 65 MN/m, and the
natural frequency was 8.38 rad/s, which corresponded to a

Table 1. Acceleration pulse-type motions

Number Earthquake Year Magnitude (Mw) Station name Distance to fault (km) PGA (g) ap (g) v p (rad/s)
1 COYOTELK/CYC 1979 5.7 Coyote Lake Dam (SW abutment) 6.13 0.28 0.26 12.08
2 LIVERMOR/B-LFA 1980 5.4 Livermore—Fagundas Ranch 14.88 0.22 0.18 15.71
3 COALINGA/A-ATC 1983 5.1 Anticline Ridge Free-Field 12.47 0.86 0.23 22.44
4 COALINGA/A-ATP 1983 5.1 Anticline Ridge Pad 12.47 0.56 0.32 24.17
5 COALINGA/E-CHP 1983 4.9 Coalinga-14th and Elm (Old CHP) 12.18 0.20 0.19 34.91
6 COALINGA/F-CHP 1983 5.2 Coalinga-14th and Elm (Old CHP) 12.74 0.73 0.73 17.95
7 MORGAN/G06 1984 6.2 Gilroy Array #6 9.86 0.32 0.24 29.92
8 PALMSPR/HCP 1986 6.1 Hurkey Creek Park 29.83 0.23 0.20 22.44
9 LOMAP/LEX 1989 6.9 Los Gatos—Lexington Dam 5.02 0.52 0.57 5.32
10 WHITTIER/B-ALH 1987 5.3 Alhambra—Fremont School 14.02 0.21 0.18 18.48
11 WHITTIER/B-OBR 1987 5.3 LA—Obregon Park 15.19 0.34 0.23 24.17
12 CAPEMEND/PET 1992 7 Petrolia 8.18 0.63 0.60 7.95
13 NORTH392/GLB 1994 5.3 Sun Valley—Sunland 16.49 0.35 0.27 20.94
14 NORTHR/PAC 1994 6.7 Pacoima Dam (downstream) 7.01 0.50 0.53 12.82
15 NORTHR/SCS 1994 6.7 Sylmar—Converter Station 5.35 0.80 0.63 5.42
16 NORTHR/SYL 1994 6.7 Sylmar—Olive View Med FF 5.3 0.73 0.61 16.53
17 CHICHI03/CHY080 1999 6.2 CHY 080 22.37 0.47 0.39 5.61
18 SMADRE/altde 1991 5.6 Altadena—Eaton Canyon 13.17 0.36 0.31 16.11
19 SMADRE/opark 1991 5.6 LA—Obregon Park 27.4 0.21 0.18 20.27
20 SMADRE/4734A 1991 5.6 Pasadena—USGS/NSMP Office 17.13 0.33 0.24 16.98
21 WHITTIER/A-NOR 1987 6 Norwalk—Imp Hwy, SGrnd 20.42 0.24 0.20 8.61
22 NORTHR/LOS 1994 6.7 Canyon Country—W Lost Canyon 12.44 0.47 0.38 9.97
23 KOBE/KJM 1995 6.9 KJMA 0.96 0.85 0.68 6.90
24 NORTH392/STC 1994 5.3 Northridge—17645 Saticoy Station 13.87 0.22 0.18 20.94
25 CHICHI06/TCU080 1999 6.3 TCU 080 10.2 0.532 0.46 44.88

© ASCE 04018087-3 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

 Table 2. Velocity pulse-type motions

Number Earthquake Year Magnitude (Mw) Station name Distance to fault (km) PGA (g) vp (m/s) v p (rad/s)
26 SFERN/PUL 1971 6.6 Pacoima Dam (upper-left abutment) 1.81 1.43 1.02 4.59
27 IMPVALL/H-AEP 1979 6.5 Aeropuerto Mexicali 0.34 0.36 0.31 2.80
28 IMPVALL/H-AGR 1979 6.5 Agrarias 0.65 0.31 0.43 2.99
29 IMPVALL/H-EMO 1979 6.5 EC Meloland Overpass FF 0.07 0.38 0.86 2.09
30 IMPVALL/H-E03 1979 6.5 El Centro Array #3 12.85 0.27 0.27 1.23
31 IMPVALL/H-E04 1979 6.5 El Centro Array #4 7.05 0.47 0.70 1.43
32 IMPVALL/H-E05 1979 6.5 El Centro Array #5 3.95 0.53 0.84 1.70
33 IMPVALL/H-E06 1979 6.5 El Centro Array #6 1.35 0.44 1.02 1.65
34 IMPVALL/H-E07 1979 6.5 El Centro Array #7 0.56 0.46 0.81 1.73
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

35 IMPVALL/H-HVP 1979 6.5 Holtville Post Office 7.65 0.26 0.42 1.36
36 MAMMOTH/L-LUL 1980 5.9 Long Valley Dam (Upr L Abut) 19.83 0.99 0.28 6.16
37 COALINGA/H-Z14 1983 6.4 Parkfield—Fault Zone14 29.98 0.26 0.47 5.61
38 COALINGA/D-TSM 1983 5.8 Transmitter Hill 9.52 1.03 0.62 8.27
39 COALINGA/F-CHP 1983 5.2 Coalinga-14th and Elm (Old CHP) 12.74 0.73 0.40 17.95
40 MORGAN/G06 1984 6.2 Gilroy Array #6 9.86 0.32 0.39 5.76
41 PALMSPR/NPS 1986 6.1 North Palm Springs 4.04 0.67 0.55 4.95
42 SANSALV/GIC 1986 5.8 Geotech Investig Center 6.3 0.85 0.71 8.38
43 SANSALV/NGI 1986 5.8 National Geografical Inst 6.99 0.61 0.35 7.85
44 WHITTIER/A-DWN 1987 6 Downey—Co MaintBldg 20.82 0.23 0.26 7.85
45 WHITTIER/A-OR2 1987 6 LB—Orange Ave. 24.54 0.26 0.27 7.76
46 SUPERST/B-PTS 1987 6.5 Parachute Test Site 0.95 0.42 1.08 2.99
47 LOMAP/G02 1989 6.9 Gilroy Array #2 11.07 0.41 0.40 4.22
48 LOMAP/LEX 1989 6.9 Los Gatos—Lexington Dam 5.02 0.52 1.05 5.32
49 ERZIKAN/ERZ 1992 6.7 Erzincan 4.38 0.49 0.79 2.63
50 CAPEMEND/PET 1992 7 Petrolia 8.18 0.63 0.48 2.44
51 LANDERS/YER_225 1992 7.3 Yermo Fire Station 23.62 0.22 0.40 0.90
52 NORTHR/LOS_032 1994 6.7 Canyon Country—W Lost Cany 12.44 0.47 0.37 2.95
53 NORTHR/KAT_032 1994 6.7 Simi Valley—Katherine Rd. 13.42 1.07 0.43 6.83
54 NORTHR/SCS_032 1994 6.7 Sylmar-Converter Station 5.35 0.59 0.84 2.20
55 NORTHR/SCE_032 1994 6.7 Sylmer-Converter Sta East 5.19 0.84 0.75 2.07
56 KOBE/KJM_140 1995 6.9 KJMA 0.96 0.85 0.97 6.90
57 KOBE/TAZ_140 1995 6.9 Takarazuka 0.27 0.65 0.63 3.81
58 KOBE/TAK_140 1995 6.9 Takatori 1.47 0.68 1.08 3.05
59 KOCAELI/GBZ_184 1999 7.5 Gebze 10.92 0.24 0.41 1.28
60 CHICHI/CHY006_292 1999 7.6 CHY 006 9.77 0.31 0.58 2.63
61 CHICHI/CHY035_292 1999 7.6 CHY 035 12.65 0.26 0.33 4.19
62 CHICHI/CHY101_289 1999 7.6 CHY 101 9.96 0.45 0.61 1.09
63 CHICHI/TCU029_306 1999 7.6 TCU 029 28.05 0.22 0.61 1.14
64 CHICHI/TCU036_277 1999 7.6 TCU 036 19.84 0.13 0.61 1.14
65 CHICHI/TCU040_277 1999 7.6 TCU 040 22.08 0.15 0.42 1.14
66 CHICHI/TCU065_272 1999 7.6 TCU 065 0.59 0.82 0.99 1.30
67 CHICHI/TCU075_271 1999 7.6 TCU 075 0.91 0.33 0.75 1.26
68 CHICHI/TCU103_277 1999 7.6 TCU 103 6.1 0.13 0.58 0.81
69 CHICHI/TCU128_306 1999 7.6 TCU 128 13.15 0.19 0.77 1.00
70 CHICHI/TCU136_278 1999 7.6 TCU 136 8.29 0.17 0.39 0.69
71 CHICHI/TCU141_275 1999 7.6 TCU 141 24.21 0.10 0.51 1.30
72 STELIAS/059v2_160 1979 7.5 Icy Bay 26.46 0.16 0.37 2.90
73 YOUNTVL/2016a_061 2000 5 Napa Fire Station #3 14.15 0.60 0.40 9.24
74 CHICHI03/CHY024_270 1999 6.2 CHY 024 19.65 0.19 0.32 2.28
75 CHICHI03/CHY080_270 1999 6.2 CHY 080 22.37 0.06 0.69 5.61

structural period of approximately 0.75 s. The yield displacement
(uy) of the sample bridge was 0.013 m, the postyield stiffness ratio
was 5%, and the structural damping was assumed at 5% for the
bridge model.
To demonstrate the PDs and the RDs, the sample bridge
model was first excited with two pulse-type ground motions
(Number 23 from the 1995 Kobe earthquake and Number 26
from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake) selected from Tables 1
and 2. The nonlinear time-history responses of the two ground
excitations are presented in Figs. 1(a and c), showing permanent
RDs occurring toward the same directions as the PDs after both
ground motions. The hysteretic behavior of the bilinear system
is illustrated by Figs. 1(b and d), where the circles show the posi-
tions where the motion of the system stopped. The Kobe record
pushed the system to a PD of 3.66%. Furthermore, the motion of
the SDOF system rested with a permanent drift of 0.45%. In
addition, the PD and RD for the San Fernando record were 5.41
and 0.76%.

© ASCE 04018087-4 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

 Drift time history
2

Drift (%)
0

-2
Record #23 Kobe KJM 1995
-4
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec)
Total acceleration time history
Acceleration (g)

0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

-0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time (sec) Drift (%)
(a) (b)

Drift time history

4
2
Drift (%)

0
-2
-4
-6 Record #26 Pacoima dam San Fernando, 1971
-8
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
Total acceleration time history
Acceleration (g)

0.2

-0.2
0 10 20 30 40
Time (sec)
(c) (d)

Fig. 1. Nonlinear responses from two presented motions (system properties: Qy/W = 8.77%, « = 5%, j = 5%): (a) PD and acceleration time history
against EQ #23 KOBE/KJM in Table 1; (b) system acceleration-drift behavior against EQ #23 KOBE/KJM; (c) PD and acceleration time history
against EQ #26 Pacoima Dam in Table 2; and (d) system acceleration-drift behavior against EQ #26 Pacoima Dam.

Prediction of Peak Transient Drifts and RDs Table 3. Nonlinear parameters for the six bilinear configurations

Purpose System « (%) Qy/W (%)

In addition to the prototype bridge-column model, nine more SDOF
bridge models with the same elastic stiffness (ke) but different post- To predict SYS1 5 8.8
yield stiffnesses (kp) and yield strengths (Qy) are presented and SYS2 0 8.8
were simulated to represent a wider range of bridge structures. The SYS3 −5 8.8
first six bilinear systems were used to generate the nonlinear drift- SYS4 8 8.8
estimating formula, whose configurations were as follows: (1) the SYS5 5 17.6
sample column model with intermediate postyield stiffness of kp = SYS6 5 35.2
5%ke and yield strength Qy (SYS1), (2) system with zero postyield To validate SYS7 0 17.6
stiffness of kp = 0%ke and yield strength Qy (SYS2), (3) system with SYS8 2 8.8
SYS9 −2 8.8
negative postyield stiffness of kp = –5%ke and yield strength Qy
SYS10 8 17.6
(SYS3), (4) system with larger postyield stiffness of kp = 8%ke and
yield strength Qy (SYS4), (5) system with intermediate postyield
stiffness of kp = 5%ke and yield strength 2Qy (SYS5), and (6) system for all the prediction and validation cases. Therefore, the presented
with intermediate postyield stiffness of kp = 5%ke and yield strength formula in the study cannot be applied to all generalized bilinear
4Qy (SYS6). In addition, four more configurations were selected to systems before further validations are made.
validate the estimated results. The detailed features for each system
are summarized in Table 3. Finally, because the study was limited
Estimation of Peak Transient Drifts
to the bridge systems, the bilinear systems were all modified from
the prototype bridge-column system presented earlier. Specifically, The estimation of the PD demand was presented first before the esti-
the elastic stiffnesses and the damping ratios remained unchanged mation of the RD demands. Zhang et al. (2011) proposed an

© ASCE 04018087-5 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

 equation to estimate inelastic displacement of bridge columns under
the dimensional analysis framework. The estimation assumed a
fixed damping ratio at 5%. Then, the dimensional PD was written as
Eq. (7)
umax v 2p
PPD ¼ ¼ 1:35jPv  1:0j1:25 SMF1  2:4SMF1
ap
where the spectral modification factor (SMF1) is a function of the
nonlinearity index and aspect ratio given by Eq. (8)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
estimation was relatively small, the damping ratio was also assumed
to be fixed at 5%, similar to the work by Zhang et al. (2011).
Therefore, Eq. (9) closely follows Eqs. (6a) and (6b) with constant
P j and indicates that the normalized PDs were related to the struc-
ture-to-pulse frequency (Pv ) and nonlinear index (PNL ) mainly.
The constant a4 in Eq. (9) is the upper bound for the first term (|Pv –
(7)
a1|a2 ) in the cases when the term (Pv – a1) approaches zero.
This study refined the aforementioned coefficients by minimizing
the error between the prediction and the numerically computed
results. For a simplified bilinear system, the estimation formula
for the PD ratio under the dimensional framework was expressed

H by Eq. (10)
SMF1  ðPNL ÞCNL where CNL ¼ 0:8a2 and a ¼ 0:4
D
where H:D = aspect ratio of the bridge columns. When the aspect ra-
tio was less than 3.0, column behaviors were dominated by shear–
flexure interaction. For taller columns (i.e., higher aspect ratios), the
behaviors were dominated mainly by flexure. Eqs. (7) and (8) physi-
cally reflect the fact that a larger nonlinearity index (PNL) will
result in larger normalized peak displacement (PPD), and its effect
is more significant for columns with smaller aspect ratios.
Motivated by Eqs. (7) and (8), this study recommends the following
format to estimate the PDs for a bilinear system:
PPD ¼ jPv  a1 ja2 PNL a3 < a4 PNL a3
where a1, a2, and a3 = constants to be determined from regression
analysis aiming to minimize errors compared with numerical analy-
ses. Because the influence of the damping ratio on the drift
(8)
PPD ¼ 1:5Pv 1 P0:15
NL < 2:5PNL
0:15
(10)
Fig. 2 shows the normalized PD demands (PPD) of the six bilin-
ear systems against the structure-to-pulse frequency ratio (Pv ). The
pluses correspond to the simulated values, and the circles are the
predicted results from Eq. (10). The prediction errors are defined in
subsequent sections. For the six bridge systems, the errors between
the simulated and predicted PD values are also shown in Fig. 2 for
each case. The errors were approximately 45% for all cases. Further
evaluation of the presented formula is presented in the validation
part of the subsequent section.
(9)
Estimation of RDs
For a SDOF bridge model, the RDs were sensitive to a set of param-
eters, including the nonlinear system configurations and the input

Fig. 2. PPD–Pv relations for the six bilinear systems: (a) SYS1; (b) SYS2; (c) SYS3; (d) SYS4; (e) SYS5; and (f) SYS6.

© ASCE 04018087-6 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

 ground motion characteristics. For a bilinear system, RDs were a
function of the lateral strength of the structure (Qy) relative to the
earthquake demand and the inelastic postyield stiffness (« ). For the
nonlinear behaviors other than the bilinear behavior, the cyclic
unloading configuration of the system also mattered. For exam-
ple, the self-centering devices could significantly reduce the RD
demands due to their recentering capabilities during system
unloading.
In addition, features of earthquake inputs, which include the
identification of pulses in the ground motions, the duration of
ground shaking, and the magnitude of PDs, will also impact the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
RDs. Specifically, the duration of ground shaking for a pulse motion
added some randomness to the RD. The system would stop at a cer-
tain point somewhere randomly located between zero and its maxi-
mum plastic deformation (determined by the PD minus uy for a
bilinear system).
The RDs were not only sensitive to Pv , but were also highly
sensitive to the ductility demand (i.e., PD/uy) and postyield stiffness
ratio (« ). A set of regressive models are proposed here to predict
RD demands. The regression procedure adopts the Weibull function
to identify the relation between PRD and Pv , as the Weibull func-
tion comprehends different variations for nonlinear curve fitting.
The result of the mathematical approach finally suggested a slightly
better linear correlation between log(PRD) and log(Pv ). However,
the fit between log(PRD) and log(Pv ) was still rather scattered,
indicating that the RD values were not merely correlated with Pv .
Therefore, the study systematically chose different formats of func-
tions with values of « , PNL, PRD, and Pv that had physical mean-
ings as well as produced a minimal overall error. Based on the anal-
ysis, the RD could first be estimated in a format close to the PD
formula, which is expressed by Eq. (11)
PRD ¼ c1 PcNL
2
 Pcv3 (11)
where c1, c2, and c3 = constants to be determined. However, such
expression could not emphasize the postyield stiffness ratio, which
had a large impact on RD demands. In addition, by setting c1, c2,
and c3 constants, the influence of the nonlinearity was ignored,
which was undesirable. To minimize the overall error from the 60
earthquake cases, a finalized formula estimating the RD demands
was presented by Eq. (12)
8 Correlations between PD and RD
>
> P ðɛ < 5%Þ
< PD
PRD ¼ ð0:9  9ɛÞPNL  Pv NL
0:15 P 0:1
2:5 ð5%  ɛ  10%Þ
>
> formula for more accurate results. For example, the Japan Society
:
0 ðɛ > 10%Þ
(12)
 
and PRD  min PPD ; 0:8PNL 0:15
.
Eq. (12) first suggested that the RDs were the same as the PDs
for the systems with postyield stiffness ratios smaller than –5%.
Then, the RD-estimation formula was provided for the more gener-
alized cases when the postyield stiffness ratios were between –5 and
10%. Moreover, for those special nonlinear systems when the post-
yield stiffness ratios were larger than 10%, the proposed formula
gave a zero RD estimation. It was also noticed that when «
approached 10%, estimation from the main RD-estimation formula
also provided a result close to zero. Comparing the main RD-
estimation formula with Eq. (11), c1 and c3 were no longer con-
stants, and the updated coefficients involved the postyield stiffness
ratio and the nonlinearity term. It was noted that PRD increased
with PNL, which means that larger nonlinearity led to larger esti-
mated RD values. In addition, PRD decreased when « increased.
© ASCE 04018087-7
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087
Fig. 3 plots the normalized residual PRD of two different bilinear
SDOF systems versus Pv . The pluses represent the calculated PRD
from nonlinear analyses, and the circles show the estimation by Eq.
(12). It was noticed that larger RDs occurred when the postyield
stiffness ratios were smaller (i.e., SYS2 and SYS3). The SYS3 with
a negative postyield stiffness ratio was the highly nonlinear system,
which corresponded to larger RDs with more scattered distribution.
Then, comparing Fig. 3(a) with Figs. 3(e and f), one could notice
that when Qy increased, the RD distribution became less scattered,
and the errors for the prediction were consequently reduced.
Reviewing all six cases, it can be concluded that the proposed RD
prediction was reasonable compared with the simulated data.
Furthermore, a detailed study was performed to evaluate the
influences of different types of pulse waveforms on RDs. There
are a few pulse models available in the literature. For example,
Makris and Chang (2000) classified the pulse excitations into
three distinctive types: Type A (one sine acceleration pulse),
Type B (one cosine acceleration pulse), and Type Cn (n main
cycles in the displacement time history). In addition, the
Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou (2003) pulse model was essen-
tially an amplitude-modulated sinusoidal function where five
parameters (namely A, fp, , g , and t0) control the amplitude,
frequency, phase, oscillatory character, and envelope, respec-
tively. Fig. 4(a) shows the pulses defined by Mavroeidis and
Papageorgiou (2003) corresponding to different values of the os-
cillatory variable g = 1.01, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, with a ve-
locity amplitude of A = 0.5 m/s and frequency of fp = 2 Hz. The
corresponding PD and RD spectra are also provided in Fig. 4,
where the solid lines represent the calculated values and the
dash-dotted lines represent the estimations provided earlier.
Fig. 4 shows that the proposed estimations generally captured
the trend of both PDs and RDs. The peak values of PDs shifted
toward larger frequencies when the oscillation cycles increased
(e.g., g = 3 and 4 cases). In addition, the peak values of RDs
occurred around the peak values of PDs. As cycles of the motion
increased, the RDs generally diminished. In the validation sec-
tion, it is further shown through the spectra of two real earth-
quake motions that the difference in waveforms disappeared in
the real earthquake motions, and the proposed predictions of
PDs and RDs were reliable for distinctive waveforms.
Many existing studies incorporated the PD into the RD-estimation
of Civil Engineers (JSCE) code defines an estimation of residual
displacement after system yields with Eq. (13) (JSCE 2000)
uend ¼ CR ð m R  1Þð1  ɛÞuy ¼ CR ðumax  uy Þð1  ɛÞ (13)
where m R = response ductility factor of a bilinear system (i.e., col-
umns) ( m R = umax/uy); « = postyield stiffness ratio; and CR = RD
modification factor decided by the postyield stiffness ratio (« ).
Then, CR = 0.5 is recommended for RC bridge piers based on the re-
sidual displacement response spectrum (Kawashima et al. 1998).
JSCE is a pioneering codified approach to estimating RD
demands with a focus on the bridge designs. However, two prob-
lems exist for the estimation. First, the JSCE code offers limited PD
estimation, which is needed to predict the RD demands. Second,
setting CR at a constant value turns out to be inaccurate. In fact,
when the system yields (i.e., umax > uy), CR can be back-calculated
from Eq. (14) with the RDs and PDs calculated from nonlinear
analyses
J. Bridge Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 3. PRD–Pv relations for the six bilinear systems: (a) SYS1; (b) SYS2; (c) SYS3; (d) SYS4; (e) SYS5; and (f) SYS6.

uend PRD
CR ¼ ¼ (14)
ð
ðumax  uy Þ 1  ɛ Þ ðPPD  Puy Þð1  ɛÞ
The proposed PRD formula from Eq. (12) represents signifi-
cant improvements over the JSCE RD-estimating models. First,
the proposed estimation does not simply depend on a coefficient
that could be multiplied by PD. Instead, RDs are directly eval-
uated by the normalized drift demands without running nonlin-
ear time-history analyses. Second, the prediction does not rely
on a provided PD estimation. Third, the proposed formula is in
an ordered form under the framework of dimensional analysis.
The estimation is more reliable and meaningful than the existing
approaches because it not only incorporates the features of dif-
ferent bilinear systems but also considers the variations from the
ground motion characteristics.
Fig. 5 shows the correlations among PRD, CR, and (PPD – Puy)
(1 – « ) for the six bilinear systems. The circles show the back-
calculated CR values from Eq. (14) based on the nonlinear analyses.
The JSCE-defined coefficient CR consequently became the tangent
for each dot. Two typical CR values (i.e., 0.5 and 1.0) are marked as
the slopes in Fig. 5. The CR = 0.5 line is the recommended value for
RC bridge piers. It could then be noticed that CR values were greater
with the work by Erochko et al. (2011), who established a similar
RD upper bound expressed by (umax – uy) for nonlinear building
structures yet not under the dimensional analysis framework. For
the rest of the cases, the distributions for CR were highly scattered,
which indicated some more dynamic PRD–PPD correlations rather
than a fixed CR value.
Subsequently, the study defined a more robust relationship
(namely, CR|P) between PRD and PPD. Similar to the RD- and PD-
estimation formula, a logarithmic interdependency between CR|P
and Pv is expressed by Eq. (15)
CRjP ¼ t 1 Ptv2 (15)
where t 1 and t 2 = coefficients to be determined. Similar to the RD-
estimation formula, the study recommended that the CR|P formula
also involve the nonlinearity configurations of the bilinear systems.
Moreover, this study established the PRD–PPD correlation under
the dimensional analysis framework, and the CR|P formula was
defined by dividing PRD by PPD. For a system with a postyield
stiffness between –5 and 10%, the updated expression is presented
in Eq. (16)
uend PRD ð0:9  9ɛÞP0:15 PNL 2:50:1

than 0.5 after many earthquakes. In addition, CR could approach 1, NL  Pv

CRjP ¼ ¼ ¼
indicating that the maximum RD values were represented by the umax PPD 1:5Pv 1 P0:15
NL
plastic displacement term [(umax – uy)(1 – « )]. It could be further
¼ ð0:6  6ɛÞPv PNL 1:5  1
0:1
noticed that the majority of the cases approached the 1:1 line for (16)
SYS3 with a negative postyield stiffness ratio. Such an observation
indicated that the upper bound of the PRD was defined by (PPD – Compared with Eq. (15), the coefficients t 1 = 0.6 – 6« and t 2 =
Puy)(1 – « ). Such an upper bound of RDs agrees to some extent PNL
0:1
–1.5 were associated with the bilinear system configurations.

© ASCE 04018087-8 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Predictedand calculatednormalized PDsand RDsofabilinear bridge(ɛ ¼ 0:05, j ¼ 0:05,and Q=W ¼ 0:088) when subject to different pulsesdefined
by Mavroeidis and Papageorgiou (2003): (a) Acceleration waveform; (b) Dimensionless peak displacement; and (c) Dimensionless residual displacement.

Fig. 5. Correlations between PRD and (PPD – Puy)(1 – « ): (a) SYS1; (b) SYS2; (c) SYS3; (d) SYS4; (e) SYS5; and (f) SYS6.

© ASCE 04018087-9 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Correlations between CR|P and Pv : (a) SYS1; (b) SYS2; (c) SYS3; (d) SYS4; (e) SYS5; and (f) SYS6.

Instead of a constant value, this proposed CR|P formula estab- Table 4. CQ/W coefficient and f « factor
lished a dynamic relation between PD and RD that also captured
Q/W (%) CQ/W « (%) f« « (%) f«
the system nonlinearity and the ground motion characteristics.
Fig. 6 shows the RD–PD correlations for the six bilinear sys- 5 1.2 ≤–4 1.000 6 0.443
tems. The triangles in Fig. 6 were computed by dividing the RDs 10 1.2 −3 0.980 7 0.415
by PDs obtained from the nonlinear analyses, and the circles are 15 1.3 −2 0.960 8 0.388
the estimated CR|P values according to the proposed formula. It 20 1.3 −1 0.940 9 0.360
was observed that the triangles were rather scattered, indicating 25 1.4 0 0.920 10 0.333
that the RD–PD correlation was complicated. Especially for 30 1.1 1 0.580 11 0.305
SYS2 and SYS3 when the postyield stiffness ratios were small, 35 0.95 2 0.553 12 0.278
the RDs may have varied from 0 to near 100% of the PDs. In 40 0.95 3 0.525 13 0.250
addition, the estimated formula could capture different bilinear 45 0.95 4 0.498 14 0.223
features from the system, and the CR|P values generally grasped ≥50 0.95 5 0.470 ≥15 0.200
the trends of the RD-to-PD correlations.
values of the CQ/W coefficient and the f « factor are provided in
Maximum Possible RD Table 4. Notice that the discrete data are provided in the table,
Due to the fact that randomness was involved in the RD distribu- which means that the other values in between need to be
tions, the study further explored the possible upper-bound index interpolated.
(CR|Pmax) of the RDs in addition to the PRD–PPD correlation pre- In addition, the data presented in Table 4 are also illustrated in
sented earlier. For example, from Fig. 6, it was noticed that the Figs. 7 and 8. For example, the CR|Pmax values for the six bilinear
CR|Pmax was approximately 0.55 for SYS1 with a 5% postyield stiff- systems were 1.2  0.47 = 0.56, 1.2  0.92 = 1.1, 1.2  1.0 = 1.2,
ness ratio and 8.8% Qy/W. For the typical bridge systems that could 1.2  0.388 = 0.47, 1.3  0.47 = 0.61, and 0.95  0.47 = 0.45. As
be simplified to a bilinear SDOF system, the study recommended an the CR|Pmax values were always smaller than 1.0, the updated RD
upper bound of RD-to-PD ratio (i.e., CR|Pmax) expressed by Eq. (17) upper-bound indices for the six systems were 0.56, 1.0, 1.0, 0.47,
0.61, and 0.45, which generally matched the obtained results from
CRjPmax ¼ CQ=W  f ɛ  1 (17) Fig. 6.

where CQ/W = coefficient considering the influences from the char-

Application of Suggested Equations
acteristic strength; and f « = factor considering the influences from
the postyield stiffness ratio. The study sampled the data from 10 The application of the suggested equations was simple. For exam-
Q/W values from 5 to 50% and 20 « values from –4 to 15%. The ple, for SYS1 excited by an impulsive excitation with ag = 0.4g and

© ASCE 04018087-10 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. CQ/W coefficient of CR|Pmax.

Fig. 8. f « factor of CR|Pmax.

v p = 15 rad/s, the PNL term could be computed as PNL = (ms ag)/
[Qy (1 þ « )] = 4.11. Then, Pv = v s/v p = 0.56. The PPD = min[1.5 
(0.56)−1, 2.5]  4.110.15 = 3.09, which was directly computed
from Eq. (10). Then, umax could be further computed based on the
impulsive features of an individual ground motion record, which
was umax = PPD/v 2p  ap = 3.09/225  3.92 m = 0.0538 m. Notice
that the yield point of the sample bridge was 0.013 m.
Similarly, PRD = min[(0.9 – 9  0.05)  (0.56)−1.35, 0.8] 
4.11°0.1 5 = 0.99, which was computed from Eq. (12). Consequently,
uend = PRD/v 2p  ap = 0.99/225  3.92 m = 0.0172 m, which was
calculated based on the impulsive features of the ground motion re-
cord. As the estimation of the residual displacement might be less
accurate, the more meaningful upper bound of the RD was provided
as 0.56  0.0538 m = 0.301 m.
Validations of the Proposed Estimation
This section describes testing of the accuracy of the proposed PD
and RD demand models provided in the previous sections. The last
four bilinear configurations listed in Table 3 and 15 near-fault
pulse-type ground motions (i.e., the last five records from Table 1
and the last 10 records from Table 2) were used for the validations.
First, the PD and RD spectra were provided for two of the selected
ground motions. Second, the inelastic drifts were estimated from
two existing codified methods as well as the proposed method.
Then, the errors of these methods were defined and calculated to
verify the prediction accuracies. All results are presented in
Tables 5–8.
Spectra Validations with Two Earthquakes
Two earthquakes were selected for this section: acceleration pulse-
type Earthquake 21 (i.e., Whittier/A-NOR in Table 1) and velocity
pulse–type Earthquake 71 (i.e., Chichi/TCU141_275 from Table 2).
Fig. 9 shows the results for Earthquake 21, with the acceleration
time history of the record and its pulse representation [Fig.
9(a)], the normalized PDs [Fig. 9(b)], and the normalized RDs
[Fig. 9(c)] obtained from simulations using earthquake record
(solid line, EQ), the pulse representation (dotted line, MP), and
the predictions proposed in this study (dash-dotted line). It was
demonstrated that the predictions using the proposed formulas
captured the general trend and upper bound for both PDs and
RDs. Although there was a noticeable difference between the
simulation results using the real earthquake motion and its pulse
representation at some frequencies, they generally agreed with

© ASCE 04018087-11 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

 Table 5. Validation data from SYS7 against the 15 ground motions

Computed ATC prediction JSCE prediction Proposed prediction

EQ number PD (%) RD (%) PD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%) PD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%)
21 0.92 0.34 1.02 10.87 0.15 20.13 0.26 8.92 0.70 23.54 0.43 9.50
22 1.70 0.64 2.15 26.81 0.49 9.01 0.65 0.40 1.28 24.82 0.82 10.63
23 7.28 4.18 5.49 24.50 6.07 25.95 3.44 10.18 3.60 50.57 2.03 29.57
24 0.49 0.09 0.64 30.89 0.03 12.38 0.04 8.84 0.17 64.90 0.12 7.59
25 0.99 0.57 1.92 94.31 0.17 40.34 0.29 28.53 0.11 89.01 0.08 50.15
46 5.59 2.19 2.14 61.65 4.38 39.17 2.59 7.21 4.10 26.76 2.09 1.75
47 4.38 1.22 2.46 43.89 3.17 44.62 1.99 17.66 2.75 37.15 0.88 7.62
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

48 5.45 3.36 2.07 62.06 4.24 16.01 2.52 15.46 3.62 33.49 1.43 35.58
49 2.61 2.22 1.57 39.84 1.40 31.44 1.10 42.73 1.35 48.41 0.61 61.68
50 3.67 0.72 2.99 18.58 2.46 47.25 1.63 24.78 1.69 53.83 0.65 2.05
71 7.28 4.18 5.49 24.50 6.07 25.95 3.44 10.18 3.60 50.58 2.02 29.58
72 1.87 0.74 2.37 26.47 0.66 4.21 0.73 0.27 2.25 20.17 1.01 14.74
73 2.33 0.87 1.83 21.48 1.12 10.62 0.96 3.94 1.84 21.04 0.66 8.99
74 1.83 0.28 0.71 60.91 0.62 18.49 0.71 23.72 2.41 31.94 0.63 19.51
75 0.80 0.30 0.63 20.82 0.12 22.33 0.20 12.44 1.08 35.06 0.38 9.94
Average 37.84 24.53 14.35 40.75 19.93
Note: SYS7: Qy/W = 17.6%; Dy = 0.4%; « = 0; and CR|Pmax = 1.

Table 6. Validation data from SYS8 against the 15 ground motions

Computed ATC prediction JSCE prediction Proposed prediction

EQ number PD (%) RD (%) PD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%) PD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%)
21 0.64 0.21 1.03 60.75 0.13 19.49 0.21 0.09 0.78 21.67 0.38 38.83
22 2.11 0.05 2.18 3.39 1.49 102.85 0.93 62.91 1.41 33.06 0.72 47.48
23 4.54 0.34 5.55 22.39 3.92 118.77 2.12 59.08 3.98 12.32 1.82 49.05
24 0.50 0.29 0.65 29.84 0.09 60.01 0.14 43.24 0.19 61.69 0.14 44.92
25 1.44 0.60 1.94 35.12 0.82 22.63 0.60 0.03 0.12 91.65 0.09 54.16
46 5.87 1.80 2.17 62.97 5.25 88.48 2.77 24.90 4.53 22.77 1.95 3.75
47 5.86 0.17 2.49 57.47 5.24 130.43 2.77 66.88 3.05 48.01 0.88 18.27
48 5.99 0.59 2.09 65.04 5.37 120.22 2.83 56.38 4.01 33.05 1.36 19.43
49 2.69 1.55 1.59 41.03 2.07 29.37 1.22 18.51 1.49 44.66 0.57 54.93
50 4.86 0.03 3.03 37.70 4.24 130.69 2.28 69.86 1.87 61.48 0.63 18.75
71 4.54 0.34 5.55 22.39 3.92 118.77 2.12 59.08 3.98 12.34 1.82 49.04
72 1.82 0.87 2.40 31.70 1.20 27.48 0.79 6.60 2.49 36.58 0.96 7.01
73 2.84 0.43 1.85 34.70 2.22 95.09 1.29 45.71 2.04 28.22 0.64 11.15
74 4.39 0.16 0.72 83.63 3.77 123.99 2.05 64.88 2.67 39.26 0.65 16.70
75 1.04 0.19 0.64 39.07 0.42 33.73 0.41 31.58 1.19 14.35 0.36 24.05
Average 41.81 81.47 40.65 37.41 30.50
Note: SYS8: Qy/W = 8.8%; Dy = 0.2%; « = 2%; and CR|Pmax = 0.66.

each other at most frequency ranges, which indicated that the
high frequency contents overriding the pulses had a limited
impact on PDs and RDs.
Similarly, Fig. 10 shows the results for Earthquake 71, which
was a velocity pulse-type motion. The velocity time histories were
compared between the earthquake motion and its pulse representa-
tion in Fig. 10(a). It was shown that the proposed PD and RD esti-
mations again captured well the general trend and upper bound of
the simulated responses from the real earthquake record and its
pulse representation. The differences in responses between the real
earthquake motion and its pulse representation were moderate. The
results from these two earthquake motions gave a glimpse of the
complex yet promising nature of the proposed simplified methods
to predict PDs and RDs for nonlinear systems. Although the inten-
tion was not to replace the nonlinear time-history analyses with
these simplified predictions, the study demonstrated the underlying
physics involved with the nonlinear structural responses and the fi-
delity of the proposed methods (see the error analysis in the next
section). They can be used as an efficient assessment and predesign
tool.
Comparison of the Proposed Model with
Existing Methods
The JSCE prediction and the ATC-58 prediction were selected as a
reference to the presented formula. The two codified predictions
and the proposed estimation model were comparable because that
they were all developed using the nondegrading bilinear SDOF
models subject to ground motions.
The ATC-58 estimation of the PD demand was designed for the
building system. Consequently, a SDOF one-story building was
designed with similar nonlinear features to estimate the PD based

© ASCE 04018087-12 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

 Table 7. Validation data from SYS9 against the 15 ground motions

Computed ATC prediction JSCE prediction Proposed prediction

EQ number PD (%) RD (%) PD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%) PD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%)
21 0.63 0.28 1.03 62.10 0.13 23.40 0.22 8.95 0.78 23.36 0.57 45.73
22 3.78 3.65 2.18 42.14 3.18 12.38 1.82 48.33 1.42 62.35 1.08 68.01
23 11.02 3.20 5.56 49.59 10.42 65.53 5.52 21.01 4.00 63.67 2.75 4.12
24 0.54 0.35 0.65 19.64 0.10 45.60 0.17 32.30 0.19 64.50 0.14 39.04
25 2.18 2.03 1.94 11.07 1.59 19.93 1.01 46.37 0.12 94.47 0.09 88.77
46 10.72 4.72 2.17 79.71 10.13 50.42 5.37 6.02 4.56 57.47 2.95 16.49
47 9.02 4.12 2.49 72.35 8.43 47.70 4.50 4.16 3.06 66.02 1.34 30.88
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

48 11.56 5.94 2.09 81.88 10.97 43.52 5.80 1.22 4.03 65.13 2.07 33.45
49 10.19 2.65 1.59 84.42 9.60 68.12 5.10 23.96 1.50 85.30 0.86 17.63
50 11.36 3.12 3.03 73.32 10.77 67.34 5.69 22.68 1.88 83.42 0.96 18.99
71 8.79 3.10 5.56 36.78 8.19 57.91 4.38 14.52 4.00 54.45 2.75 4.03
72 3.13 2.99 2.40 23.17 2.53 14.54 1.49 47.77 2.50 19.92 1.45 49.20
73 4.71 4.60 1.85 60.66 4.12 10.32 2.30 48.86 2.05 56.53 0.97 77.17
74 11.67 3.24 0.72 93.84 11.08 67.12 5.85 22.34 2.68 77.00 0.98 19.36
75 1.86 1.70 0.64 65.82 1.27 23.07 0.85 45.57 1.20 35.50 0.54 61.97
Average 57.10 41.13 26.27 60.61 38.32
Note: SYS9: Qy/W = 8.8%; Dy = 0.2%; « = –2%; and CR|Pmax = 1.00.

Table 8. Validation data from SYS10 against the 15 ground motions

Computed ATC prediction JSCE prediction Proposed prediction

EQ number PD (%) RD (%) PD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%) PD (%) Error (%) RD (%) Error (%)
21 0.90 0.17 1.02 13.74 0.14 6.65 0.21 9.67 0.70 22.41 0.08 18.39
22 1.67 0.05 2.15 28.70 0.37 37.88 0.57 61.48 1.26 24.48 0.16 13.08
23 3.72 0.20 5.48 47.57 2.40 118.13 1.51 70.12 3.56 4.32 0.40 10.50
24 0.49 0.04 0.64 32.20 0.01 11.62 0.02 8.55 0.17 64.94 0.05 2.35
25 0.91 0.27 1.91 110.15 0.14 28.93 0.22 12.34 0.11 88.23 0.08 43.09
46 4.51 0.46 2.14 52.53 3.20 121.22 1.87 62.62 4.05 10.27 0.41 2.20
47 3.38 0.88 2.45 27.36 2.06 69.77 1.35 27.75 2.72 19.44 0.17 42.13
48 4.98 0.15 2.06 58.52 3.66 140.99 2.09 77.80 3.58 28.04 0.28 5.14
49 1.96 1.04 1.57 20.02 0.64 40.24 0.70 34.47 1.33 32.13 0.12 93.67
50 3.02 0.26 2.98 1.33 1.70 95.73 1.19 61.54 1.67 44.60 0.13 8.70
71 3.72 0.20 5.48 47.57 2.40 118.13 1.51 70.12 3.56 4.33 0.40 10.50
72 1.90 0.36 2.36 24.09 0.59 23.81 0.67 32.87 2.22 16.71 0.20 17.01
73 2.14 0.07 1.83 14.50 0.82 70.43 0.78 66.73 1.82 14.91 0.13 5.75
74 1.23 0.31 0.71 41.76 0.24 12.68 0.36 7.86 2.38 94.41 0.12 31.05
75 0.68 0.11 0.63 7.19 0.07 12.27 0.11 0.90 1.07 56.56 0.07 11.92
Average 35.15 60.57 40.32 35.05 21.03
Note: SYS10: Qy/W = 17.6%; Dy = 0.4%; « = 8%; and CR|Pmax = 0.50.

on the equations provided in the study. The details of the ATC-58 (18), no residual shall occur when the system stays within its elastic
PD-estimation formula were not provided in the study. Moreover, the range. The second phase and the third phase were calibrated such
ATC-58 estimation of the RD demand is highlighted in this section that, for ductility ratios near 2, 4, and 6, the ratios of RD to PD were
because it could also be applied to the SDOF systems. Then, the three 0.15, 0.225, and 0.5, respectively. Ultimately, when the collapse
drift demand estimation approaches were compared with the simu- point was reached, the RD approached the PD. Such drift-to-inten-
lated results to show their accuracies. The ATC-58 prediction of resid- sity relation is illustrated in Fig. 11.
ual displacement is a piecewise estimation, which categorizes the re- However, the ATC-58 formula comes with shortcomings.
sidual displacement into three expressions according to different First, the ATC equations only predict RDs for a narrow range of
ductility ratios, which are shown in Eq. (18) structural systems considering limited nonlinearity, which was
8 shown to significantly influence the RDs. For example, the ATC-
>
> 0 umax  uy
< 58 equation contains no postyield stiffness (« ), and its influence
uend ¼ 0:3ðumax  uy Þ uy < umax < 4uy (18) on the RD estimation was not reflected except insofar as the post-
>
>
: yield stiffness affected the PD ratio. The equations were pre-
ðumax  3uy Þ umax  4uy
sented in this simple format owing to the lack of physical data to
The advantage of the ATC-58 approach is the dynamic cali- validate modeling of residual deformations and due to the com-
brated coefficient that links the RD with the PD. According to Eq. plexity of obtaining significant improvements in the RD estimates.

© ASCE 04018087-13 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 9. Predicted and calculated normalized PD and RD spectra of a bilinear bridge (ɛ ¼ 0:05, j ¼ 0:05, and Q=W ¼ 0:088) when subject to the
motion recorded at the Norwalk station during the 1987 Whittier earthquake: (a) Earthquake (EQ) motion and its M&P pulse representation (MP); (b)
Normalized peak displacements simulated using EQ motion and MP pulse, compared with estimated values; and (c) Normalized residual displace-
ments simulated using EQ motion and MP pulse, compared with estimated values.

Fig. 10. Predicted and calculated normalized PD and RD spectra of a bilinear bridge (ɛ ¼ 0:05, j ¼ 0:05, and Q=W ¼ 0:088) when subject to the
motion recorded at the TCU 141 station during the 1999 Chichi earthquake: (a) Earthquake (EQ) motion and its M&P pulse representation (MP); (b)
Normalized peak displacements simulated using EQ motion and MP pulse, compared with estimated values; and (c) Normalized residual displace-
ments simulated using EQ motion and MP pulse, compared with estimated values.

© ASCE 04018087-14 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

 In addition, similar to the JSCE formula, the ATC-58 estimation
µ=inf could not be functional without the estimated PD. ATC-58 has its
Ground Motion Intensity Residual own PD-estimation model for building structures, and its accuracy
was validated in the subsequent validation section. Results show that
the ATC-58 estimations of PDs slightly underestimated the PD
Transient demands. These deficiencies were eliminated by the proposed
method, which fully captured the bilinear behavior under the dimen-
sional analysis framework.
µ=4 Fig. 12 illustrates the normalized PDs (PPD) for the four bilinear
systems. Because PD was not estimated by JSCE, the pluses, dotted
lines, and squares represent the results from nonlinear analyses, the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

proposed PD estimation, and the ATC-58 estimation, respectively.

µ=1 Fig. 13 shows the normalized RDs (PRD) for the four bilinear sys-
tems. The pluses, dotted lines, squares, and triangles represent the
results from nonlinear analyses, the proposed estimation, the ATC-
58 estimation, and the JSCE estimation, respectively. The results
Peak Inter-story Drift Ratio from the nonlinear analyses showed that the bilinear systems with
smaller postyield stiffness ratios (e.g., SYS9) triggered more nonli-
Fig. 11. Idealized model to estimate residual story drift from
nearity, increasing the RDs and their dispersions. For SYS10, as the
peak transient drift as a function of ground motion intensity
postyield stiffness ratio increased to 8%, the RDs and their disper-
(ATC-58).
sions became smaller. Comparing the proposed equation with the

Fig. 12. Validation of the PD estimations/through comparisons of the numerical simulations with the ATC-58 (FEMA 2012) estimations: (a) SYS7;
(b) SYS8; (c) SYS9; and (d) SYS10.

© ASCE 04018087-15 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 13. Validation of the RD estimations/through comparisons of the numerical simulations with the two codified methods of ATC-58 (FEMA
2012) and JSCE (2000): (a) SYS7; (b) SYS8; (c) SYS9; and (d) SYS10.

two codified approaches, it could be seen that the proposed formula preferred in this study. There were cases in which large PDs
and the JSCE formula provided better RD estimations, whereas the occurred while the structures finally rested at their original loca-
ATC-58 approach had larger errors. The detailed error percentages tions. In other words, for such cases, the RDi might be extremely
are listed in the subsequent section. In addition, when structure fre- small and negligible, creating huge errors following such error defi-
quency was smaller or closer to the pulse frequency (i.e., 0 < Pv ≤ nition. Consequently, a modified error equation was given by Eq.
1), the dispersion of the simulated data became relatively large, (20) to produce a more reasonable error estimation
N  
such that the errors increased in the neighborhood of the normalized
frequency, Pv = 1. 1X  RDie  RDi 
~e ¼ (20)
N i¼1  RDimax 

Error Estimation for the Proposed Model

The updated formula calculated the error of a RD prediction nor-
The accuracy of the proposed method was further validated by an malized by the maximum possible RD instead of the RD, where
error analysis. Conventionally, the overall normalized error is com- RDimax is the estimated maximum RD from the product of PDi and
puted by Eq. (19) CR|Pmax [defined by Eq. (17)]. The updated formula is applied to
N   evaluate the RD estimation errors in the study.
1X  RDe  RD 
i i
e¼ (19) Similar to the aforementioned studies, estimations of RDs for
N i¼1  RDi 
all four bilinear systems were performed. The results for the four
configurations of the bilinear systems are summarized in Tables
where N = number of cases computed; RDi = simulated RD for the 5–8. The footnote in each of Tables 5–8 shows the bilinear struc-
ith ground motion; and RDie = estimated result. However, the errors tural properties. The first column is the earthquake number. The
of the RD estimation calculated from such an equation were not second and third columns are the numerically simulated PDs and

© ASCE 04018087-16 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087

 RDs for the bilinear systems. The fourth to seventh columns are
the ATC estimations of PDs and RDs and their corresponding
errors. The eighth column is the JSCE estimation of RDs, and
the errors are provided in the ninth column. The last four col-
umns are the proposed estimations of PDs and RDs and their cor-
responding errors.
In terms of the PD estimation, the ATC-58 formula based on the
elastic spectra was acceptable yet slightly underestimated over a
wide range of periods, which also matched the conclusion made by
Chopra and Goel (2000). The ATC-58 estimations had maximum
errors of 47% compared with the results from numerical analyses.
The proposed PD estimation was better than the ATC estimation
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
with a slight reduction of overall estimation errors.
For the RD estimation, the JSCE formula was more accurate for
the cases with 0 or negative postyield stiffness ratios (i.e., SYS7 and
SYS9). The proposed RD formula outperformed the JSCE formula
for SYS8 and SYS10. The overall errors of the proposed RD estima-
tion formula were between 20 and 30% except for SYS9, with a neg-
ative postyield stiffness ratio. However, the ATC-58 estimations
produced huge errors (e.g., 81% for SYS8), which made the estima-
tion meaningless for real applications. Therefore, it could be con-
cluded that the JSCE formula and the proposed formula provided
better RD estimations. However, the JSCE formula required PD as
an input. For this study, the PD values input into the JSCE formula
were the exact results obtained from the nonlinear time-history anal-
yses. In fact, the exact PD values were usually not available for the
RD estimations, and using the estimated PD values as inputs might
have created larger errors for the JSCE estimation. Comparatively,
the proposed PDs and RDs were estimated directly from structural
and ground motion characteristics without running nonlinear analy-
ses. Finally, the estimated RD trends were reliable, which well fol-
lowed the calculated RD demands. Of the four bilinear cases, the
estimated RDs will increase if PNL increases and/or « decreases.
Conclusions
Estimating the residual deformation of bridge structures has
always been a challenging task. This paper aimed to develop a
reliable demand model under the framework of dimensional anal-
ysis for estimating the RD trend and the maximum RD of general-
ized nondegrading SDOF bridge models. Two regressive equa-
tions were proposed to directly estimate the PD and RD demands
imposed by earthquake motions. The RD–PD correlation CR|P
was also explored, and the maximum possible RD values were
provided for a wide range of bilinear bridge-deck systems.
Additionally, two existing estimations of RD demands [i.e., the
ATC-58 approach and the JSCE (2000) approach] were also stud-
ied and compared with the proposed methods in this study.
The simulation results showed that the normalized PD and RD
demands were strongly correlated to the postyield stiffness ratio,
the structure-to-pulse frequency ratio, and the dimensionless nonli-
nearity index. Therefore, the estimations of PDs and RDs were pro-
posed to be computed directly from structural and ground motion
characteristics, including the realistic features for the nonlinear sys-
tems. Compared with the simulated results, the proposed model pro-
vided RD estimations with acceptable errors for typical bridge sys-
tems with moderate hardening, and they were more accurate than
the existing methods (e.g., ATC-58 and JSCE). However, larger
errors were experienced for bilinear systems with 0 or negative
postyield stiffness ratios. Furthermore, for a given bilinear configu-
ration, the errors became larger for the cases in which the structure
frequencies were smaller or near the neighborhood of the pulse
frequencies.
© ASCE 04018087-17
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087
Finally, it was recognized that the proposed RD estimations
hinged largely on the dependence of residual displacement on the
peak displacement (i.e., larger peak displacement likely resulted in
bigger residual displacement). Although the predictions of PDs and
RDs in this study were easier and more accurate than the existing
approaches, the method still could not fully account for the record-
specific waveforms, the ground motion duration, more complex
hysteretic behavior, and the complete dynamic nature of the
responses. It is not intended to replace the nonlinear time-history
analyses. Instead, the proposed method can be used as an efficient
assessment and predesign tool.
Acknowledgments
This research was partially funded by the National Science
Foundation under Grant CMMI-0830391, Joy Pauschke, program
manager. The idea of this paper originated during a study about
self-centering devices. The authors also thank other scholars for
their help and intellectual exchange, in particular, Yuchuan Tang
from Southeast University (China) for providing a collection of
near-fault ground motions and their pulse representations.
References
Alavi, B., and H. Krawinkler. 2004. “Behavior of moment-resisting frame
structures subjected to near-fault ground motions.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 33 (6): 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.369.
ATC (Applied Technology Council). 1996. Seismic evaluation and retrofit
of concrete building. ATC-40. Redwood City, CA: ATC.
Baker, J. W. 2007. “Quantitative classification of near-fault ground motions
using wavelet analysis.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 97 (5): 1486–1501.
https://doi.org/10.1785/0120060255.
Barenblatt, G. I. 1996. Scaling, self-similarity, and intermediate asymp-
totics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bazzurro, P., C. A. Cornell, C. A. Menun, and M. Motahari. 2004.
“Guidelines for seismic assessment of damaged buildings.” In Proc.,
13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 1708.
Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Bertero, V. V., S. A. Mahin, and R. A. Herrera. 1978. “Aseismic design
implications of near-fault San Fernando earthquake records.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 6 (1): 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe
.4290060105.
Bojórquez, E., and J. Ruiz-García. 2013. “Residual drift demands in
moment-resisting steel frames subjected to narrow-band earthquake
ground motions.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42 (11): 1583–1598.
https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2288.
Brown, A., and M. Saiidi. 2011. “Investigation of effect of near-fault
motions on substandard bridge structures.” Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vib.
10 (1): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-011-0042-8.
Chopra, A. K., and C. Chintanapakdee. 2004. “Inelastic deformation ratios
for design and evaluation of structures: Single-degree-of-freedom bilin-
ear systems.” J. Struct. Eng. 130 (9): 1309–1319. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:9(1309).
Chopra, A. K., and R. K. Goel. 2000. “Evaluation of NSP to estimate seis-
mic deformation: SDF systems.” J. Struct. Eng. 126 (4): 482–490.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:4(482).
Chopra, A. K., and R. K. Goel. 2002. “A modal pushover analysis procedure
for estimating seismic demands for buildings.” Earthquake Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 31 (3): 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.144.
Christopoulos, C., S. Pampanin, and M. J. N. Priestley. 2003. “Performance-
based seismic response of frame structures including residual deforma-
tions. Part I: Single-degree of freedom systems.” J. Earthquake Eng. 7
(1): 97–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460309350443.
Cuesta, I., and M. A. Aschheim. 2001. “Inelastic response spectra using
conventional and pulse R-factors.” J. Struct. Eng. 127 (9): 1013–1020.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2001)127:9(1013).
J. Bridge Eng.
 Erduran, E., and S. K. Kunnath. 2010. “Enhanced displacement coefficient
method for degrading multi-degree-of-freedom systems.” Earthquake
Spectra 26 (2): 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3381157.
Erochko, J., C. Christopoulos, R. Tremblay, and H. Choi. 2011. “Residual
drift response of SMRFs and BRB frames in steel buildings designed
according to ASCE 7-05.” J. Struct. Eng. 137 (5): 589–599. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000296.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1997a. NEHRP com-
mentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.
Rep. No. FEMA-274. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 1997b. NEHRP guide-
lines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Rep. No. FEMA-273.
Washington, DC: FEMA.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2000. Pre-standard
and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Rep. No.
FEMA-356. Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2005. Improvement of
nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures. Rep. No. FEMA 440.
Washington, DC: FEMA.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2012. Seismic perform-
ance assessment of buildings. FEMA P-58. Washington, DC: FEMA.
Gillie, J. L., A. Rodriguez-Marek, and C. McDaniel. 2010. “Strength reduc-
tion factors for near-fault forward directivity ground motions.” Eng.
Struct. 32 (1): 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.09
.014.
Hall, J. F., T. H. Heaton, M. W. Halling, and D. J. Wald. 1995. “Near-source
ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings.” Earthquake
Spectra 11 (4): 569–605. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585828.
He, W. L., and A. K. Agrawal. 2008. “Analytical model of ground motion
pulses for the design and assessment of seismic protective systems.” J.
Struct. Eng. 134 (7): 1177–1188. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9445(2008)134:7(1177).
JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers). 2000. Earthquake resistant design
codes in Japan. Tokyo: Earthquake Engineering Committee.
Kawashima, K., G. A. MacRae, K. Hasegawa, T. Ikeuchi, and K. Oshima.
1992. “Ductility of steel bridge piers from dynamic loading tests.” In
Stability and ductility of steel structures under cyclic loading, edited by
Y. Fukumoto and G. Lee. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Kawashima, K., G. A. MacRae, J. Hoshikuma, and K. Nagaya. 1998.
“Residual displacement response spectrum.” J. Struct. Eng. 124 (5): 523–
530. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1998)124:5(523).
Kawashima, K., R. Zafra, T. Sasaki, K. Kajiwara, and M. Nakayama. 2011.
“Effect of polypropylene fiber reinforced cement composite and steel
fiber reinforced concrete for enhancing the seismic performance of
bridge columns.” J. Earthquake Eng. 15 (8): 1194–1211. https://doi.org
/10.1080/13632469.2011.569051.
Mackie, K. R., J. Wong, and B. Stojadinovic. 2011. “Bridge damage and
loss scenarios calibrated by schematic design and cost estimation of
repairs.” Earthquake Spectra 27 (4): 1127–1145. https://doi.org/10
.1193/1.3651362.
MacRae, G. A., C. Hodge, M. J. N. Priestley, and F. Seible. 1994. Route
5/405 separation. Shake table tests of as-built and retrofitted configura-
tion. SSRP Rep. No. 94/16, p. 246. San Diego: Structural Systems
Research Project, Dept. of Applied Mechanics and Engineering
Sciences, Univ. of California.
MacRae, G. A., and K. Kawashima. 1997. “Post-earthquake residual dis-
placements of bilinear oscillators.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 26 (7):
701–719. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199707)26:7<701::
AID-EQE671>3.3.CO;2-9.
Mahin, S. A., and V. V. Bertero. 1981. “An evaluation of inelastic seismic
design spectra.” J. Struct. Div. 107 (9): 1777–1795.
Makris, N., and C. J. Black. 2004a. “Dimensional analysis of bilinear oscil-
lators under pulse-type excitations.” J. Eng. Mech. 130 (9): 1019–1031.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2004)130:9(1019).
Makris, N., and C. J. Black. 2004b. “Dimensional analysis of rigid-
plastic and elasto-plastic structures under pulse-type excitations.” J.
Eng. Mech. 130 (9): 1006–1018. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9399(2004)130:9(1006).
Makris, N., and C. J. Black. 2004c. “Evaluation of peak ground velocity
as a ‘good’ intensity measure for near-source ground motions.” J.
© ASCE 04018087-18
J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087
Eng. Mech. 130 (9): 1032–1044. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9399(2004)130:9(1032).
Makris, N., and S. Chang. 2000. “Effect of viscous, visco-plastic and fric-
tion damping on the response of seismic isolated structures.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 29 (1): 85–107. https://doi.org/10.1002
/(SICI)1096-9845(200001)29:1<85::AID-EQE902>3.0.CO;2-N.
Makris, N., and T. Psychogios. 2006. “Dimensional response analysis
of yielding structures with first-mode dominated response.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35 (10): 1203–1224. https://doi.org
/10.1002/eqe.578.
Malhotra, P. K. 1999. “Response of buildings to near-field pulse-like
ground motions.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 28 (11): 1309–1326.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199911)28:11<1309::AID
-EQE868>3.0.CO;2-U.
Mavroeidis, G. P., G. Dong, and A. S. Papageorgiou. 2004. “Near-fault
ground motions, and the response of elastic and inelastic single-degree-
of-freedom (SDOF) systems.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 33 (9):
1023–1049. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.391.
Mavroeidis, G. P., and A. S. Papageorgiou. 2003. “A mathematical repre-
sentation of near-fault ground motions.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93 (3):
1099–1131. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120020100.
Motaref, S., M. Saiidi, and D. Sanders. 2014. “Shake table studies of
energy-dissipating segmental bridge columns.” J. Bridge Eng. 19 (2):
186–199. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000518.
Pampanin, S., C. Christopoulos, and M. J. N. Priestley. 2003.
“Performance-based seismic response of frame structures includ-
ing residual deformations. Part II: Multi-degree of freedom sys-
tems.” J. Earthquake Eng. 7 (1): 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13632460309350444.
Riddell, R., and N. M. Newmark. 1979. Statistic analysis of the response of
nonlinear systems subjected to earthquakes. Structural Rep. Series 468.
Champaign, IL: Civil Engineering, Univ. of Illinois.
Ruiz-García, J., and J. D. Aguilar. 2015. “Aftershock seismic assess-
ment taking into account postmainshock residual drifts.” Earthquake
Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44 (9): 1391–1407. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe
.2523.
Ruiz-García, J., and C. Chora. 2015. “Evaluation of approximate methods
to estimate residual drift demands in steel framed buildings.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 44 (15): 2837–2854. https://doi.org/10
.1002/eqe.2611.
Ruiz-García, J., and E. Miranda. 2005. Performance-based assessment of
existing structures accounting for residual displacements.” Technical
Rep. No. 153. Stanford, CA: John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering
Center, Stanford Univ.
Ruiz-García, J., and E. Miranda. 2006a. “Direct estimation of residual dis-
placement from displacement spectral ordinates.” In Proc., 8NCEE,
Paper No. 1101. San Francisco, CA.
Ruiz-García, J., and E. Miranda. 2006b. “Evaluation of residual drift
demands in regular multi-storey frames for performance-based seismic
assessment.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35 (13): 1609–1629. https://
doi.org/10.1002/eqe.593.
Ruiz-García, J., and E. Miranda. 2006c. “Residual displacement ratios for
assessment of existing structures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 35 (3):
315–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.523.
Ruiz-García, J., and E. Miranda. 2010. “Probabilistic estimation of residual
drift demands for seismic assessment of multi-story framed buildings.”
Eng. Struct. 32 (1): 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.08
.010.
Shu, Z., J. Zhang, and S. Nagarajaiah. 2017. “Dimensional analysis of
inelastic structures with negative stiffness and supplemental damping
devices.” J. Struct. Eng. 143 (3): 04016184. https://doi.org/10.1061
/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001658.
Somerville, P. G. 2003. “Magnitude scaling of the near fault rupture direc-
tivity pulse.” Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 137 (1–4): 201–212. https://doi
.org/10.1016/S0031-9201(03)00015-3.
Tang, Y., and J. Zhang. 2011. “Response spectrum-oriented pulse iden-
tification and magnitude scaling of forward directivity pulses in
near-fault ground motions.” Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 29 (10):
1330–1346.
J. Bridge Eng.
 Tatano, H., and S. Tsuchiya. 2008. “A framework for economic loss estima-
tion due to seismic transportation network disruption: A spatial comput-
able general equilibrium approach.” Nat. Hazards 44 (2): 253–256.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-007-9151-0.
Tirasit, P., and K. Kawashima. 2007. “Seismic performance of square rein-
forced concrete columns under combined cyclic flexural and torsional
loadings.” J. Earthquake Eng. 11 (3): 425–452. https://doi.org/10.1080
/13632460601031813.
Vidic, T., P. Fajfar, and M. Fischinger. 1994. “Consistent inelastic design
spectra: Strength and displacement.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 23
(5): 507–521. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290230504.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Universidad De Las Americas Puebla on 05/04/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Zhang, J., and Y. Tang. 2009. “Dimensional analysis of structures with
translating and rocking foundations under near-fault ground motions.”
Soil Dyn. Earthquake Eng. 29 (10): 1330–1346. https://doi.org/10.1016
/j.soildyn.2009.04.002.
Zhang, J., and W. Xi. 2012. “Optimal nonlinear damping for inelastic
structures using dimensional analysis.” In Proc., Structures
Congress, 20th Analysis and Computation Specialty Conf. Reston,
VA: ASCE.
Zhang, J., S. Xu, and Y. Tang. 2011. “Inelastic displacement demand of
bridge columns considering shear-flexure interaction.” Earthquake Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 40 (7): 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1056.

© ASCE 04018087-19 J. Bridge Eng.

J. Bridge Eng., 2018, 23(11): 04018087