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

net/publication/272493416

Earthquake Resistant Design and Energy Concepts

Article  in  Teknik Dergi · January 2003

CITATIONS READS

32 1,816

2 authors:

Bulent Akbas Jay Shen

Gebze Technical University Iowa State University
123 PUBLICATIONS   941 CITATIONS    81 PUBLICATIONS   869 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Statistical analysis of crash data View project

Safeguarding Cultural Heritage through Technical and Organisational Resources Management (STORM) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bulent Akbas on 19 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN AND

ENERGY CONCEPTS

Bülent AKBAŞ

Earthquake and Structural Science Department

Gebze Institute of Technology
41400 Gebze – Kocaeli TURKEY
e-mail: akbasb@penta.gyte.edu.tr

and

Jay SHEN

Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering

Illiniois Institute of Technology
60616-3793 Chicago, IL USA
e-mail: shen@iit.edu
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

ABSTRACT

Earthquake-Resistant Design (EQRD) and Energy Concepts

An ideal EQRD should provide the needed stiffness, strength, and energy dissipation
capacity. The problems in EQRD of structures are (1) establishing the critical earthquake
(EQ) input; (2) determining the demands on the building by the critical EQ; (3) predicting
supplies to the building in case of a seismic excitation. An alternative design method was
proposed by Housner which uses the energy input to a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF)
system and is called energy-based earthquake-resistant design. The design method is based
on the idea that the energy demand during the duration of an EQ ground motion can be
predicted, and that the energy supply of the structure or structural element can be
established. In this study, energy parameters, which govern the energy input to a SDOF
system, are given and an analytic study is carried out to better understand these parameters.

1. INTRODUCTION

Structures are often designed and constructed to behave inelastically when subjected to
severe earthquake ground motions (EQGMs), which may rarely occur during their service
life. When this is done properly, the structures will only have repairable level of damage,
but not collapse, under severe EQGMs. [2,3].
The severity of an EQGM has been widely characterized by its peak ground acceleration.
Observations from previous studies have shown that damage does not correlate very well
with peak ground acceleration [4]. However, energy and energy-based parameters are
considered to be the most rational parameters to design a structure subjected to moderate or
severe EQGMs [5]. Energy-based earthquake resistant design was first proposed by
Housner [1]. The structure must dissipate all the energy imparted to it during an EQGM to
survive. Part of this energy is stored in the structure as strain energy and kinetic energy and
the balance must be dissipated by damping and inelastic deformation in both structural and
nonstructural elements [6]. Despite high irregularity of EQGMs, the energy input to a
structure is considered to be a stable quantity. The energy input is a function of the
characteristics of the EQGM (effective strong motion duration, amplitude, frequency
content, etc.) and structural properties (mass, fundamental natural period, etc.) and scarcely
affected by the type and restoring force [7]. Energy-based earthquake resistant design has
gained great attention in recent years. Energy input and other energy-based parameters are
considered to be important contributions for a more reliable design method.
[8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16].
The main objective of this study is to introduce the energy parameters in energy-based
earthquake resistant design and to show the variance of these parameters in single-degree-
of-freedom (SDOF) systems.

2. USE OF ENERGY CONCEPTS IN EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN

The minimum required strength (or capacity for lateral force) is based on the inelastic
design response spectra for the earthquake resistant design of structures. As an alternative
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

to this approach, an energy-based parameter was proposed by Housner [1]. As mentioned

before, despite high irregularity of EQGMs, the energy input to a structure is a stable
quantity and mainly based on the mass (m) and fundamental natural period of the structure
(T) and and scarcely affected by the strength of he structure [7]. So, the energy-based
earthquake resistant design method proposed by Housner [1] may form a basis in
earthquake resistant design. To be able to predict the energy input to inelastic systems in a
reliable way, it is required to determine the cumulative values of inelastic deformations, not
maximum inelastic deformations [17,18,19]. An earthquake resistant design methodology
based on the energy concepts may be expressed by equating the energy input into a
structure due to design earhtquake (demand) to the energy absorption capacity of the
structure (supply). The demand should be equal or smaller than the supply for a proper
design. In another words, the energy input during an EQGM must be predicted and the
structures must be designed to dissipate this energy. If the energy dissipation capacity is
bigger then the energy input, the earthquake resistant design criteria is satisfied.
Intensive researches have been made to predict the energy input into SDOF systems and
even to multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems. Housner [1] made a quantitative
evaluation of the total amount of energy input that contributes to the structure’s responses
with the use of the velocity response spectra in the elastic system and assumed that the
energy input responsible for the damage in the elasto-plastic system is identical to that in
the elastic system. This limit design approach was based on the amount of energy input to
a structure and the ability of the structure to dissipate energy. Housner [1] estimated the
amount of energy imparted to a structure to be equal to the product of one half mass and
relative velocity. Relative velocity can be obtained from the velocity spectrum with the
appropriate damping value for the design ground motion. Akiyama [7] has further
developed Housner’s [1] method and devised an earthquake-resistant design method which
can be applied in a uniform manner to one-story buildings through high-rise buildings.
Veletsos and Newmark [20] conducted a response analysis for a SDOF inelastic system and
obtained the ratio of the maximum response deformation in the inelastic system to the
maximum response deformation in the elastic system. They also suggested the possibility
of making an estimate of this ratio’s upper bound value by assuming the apparent
equivalance in strain energy. Penzien [19] drew a similar conclusion through the response
of a SDOF and a MDOF system.
Tso et al. [21] studied equivalent SDOF systems to estimate the input and hysteretic energy
demands on low-rise ductile moment-resisting buildings. They have concluded that that for
high-rise ductile moment-resisting buildings, higher modal responses become significant
and the use of equivalent SDOF systems may underestimate the enregy demands on
buildings. This is particularly true for earthquake ground motions having relatively high
frequency content, which increases the higher modal contributions.
Nurtuğ and Sucuoğlu [22] proposed an analytical procedure for calculating the seismic
energy dissipated by an elastic SDOF structure based on the ground motion’s spectral
velocity, effective response duration and distribution of response displacement amplitudes.
Kuvamura and Galambos [23] developed an ultimate limit-state criterion considering the
maximum energy input based on the seismic hazard potential and dynamic characteristics
of the structure and ground motion. Fajfar et al. [24] studied the energy input into SDOF
systems and proposed a formula to predict the maximum energy input. They also modified
Kuvamura ve Galambos’ [23] formula and made comparisons with other studies. They
found out that energy input is closely related to the intensity of the ground motion.
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

Kuvamura et al. [25] studied the prediction of earthquake energy input of damped elastic
SDOF systems from smoothed fourier amplitude spectrum. Their study has shown that the
increase in damping factor results in a more smoothed spectrum in SDOF systems, but
smoothing effects due to higher mode participation is less significant that the smoothing
effect due to damping in MDOF systems due to the predominant first mode participation.
Fajfar and Vidic [26] proposed an inelastic design spectra considering hysteretic energy and
input energy.
Shen and Akbas [9] predicted the energy input in low-, medium-, and high-rise steel
moment resisting frames (SMRFs) and proposed an energy-based earthquake resisting
design method for SMRFs. In their study, they made comparisons of the energy input with
the formulas proposed for mainly SDOF systems and conluded that there is a clear
difference between the SDOF systems and MDOF systems in terms of energy input.Akbas
and Shen [27] proposed an Enerji Spectrum based on the nonlinear time history analysis on
SDOf systems within the period range of 0-3.0 sec subject to seven different EQGMs.
They also defined a damage parameter and studied how to use this parameter in
performance-based earthquake resistant design.
The following three questions need to be clearly solved to use the energy concepts in
earthquake resistiant design as a design criterion[7].
1. The energy input into a structure during an EQGM,
2. The distribution of the energy input throughout the structure,
3. The energy absorption capacity of structural elements.
Finding answers to the above problems will make it possible to compare the energy input
into a structure by an earthquake and the energy absorption capacity of the structure, and
therefore enable the seismic resistance of the resistance of the structure to be computed.

3. EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION CHARACTERİSTİCS

3.1 Basic Form of Equation of Motion

The equation of motion for a viscous damped SDOf system subjected to a horizontal
earthquake ground motion can be written as (Figure 1) [28]:

.. .
m u t  c u f s  0 (1)

where m is the mass; c is the viscous damping coefficient, fs is the restoring force (for a
linear elastic system fs = ku, k = rijidity), u is the relative displacement of the mass relative
to the ground, ug is the earthquake ground motion displacement, ut is the total displacement
of the mass ( u + ug ). So, Eq. (1) can ve rewritten as

.. . . ..
m u  c u  f s ( u , u )  m u g ( t ) (2)
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

u (t)
t

u u
m .. m
m ug (t)

c c
k/2 k/2 k/2 k/2

..
u g (t) u g (t)

a. Moving base system b. Equivalent fixed-base system

Figure 1. Mathematical model of a SDOF system subjected to an EQGM

Therefore the structural system in Figure 1a can be conveniently treated as the equivalent
system in Figure 1b with a fixed base and subjected to an effective horizontal dynamic
..
force of magnitude peff =  m u g ( t ) .

3.2 Normalized Form of Equation of Motion For Inelastic Systems

Equation (2) can be reorganized in a normalized form for inelastic systems in order to
introduce some parameters that influence inelastic response [29]. The normalization can be
made as follows:

u( t )
( t ) 
uy
(3)
R( t )
( t ) 
Ry

where uy is the yield displacement, Ry is the yield force, (t) is the displacement ductility of
the system. The maximum value of max should be considered in earthquake resistant
design.
Dividing equation (2) by uy, we get
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

.. . ..
u( t ) u( t ) R( t ) ug(t )
 2   (4)
uy uy mu y uy

where is the natural frequency. Defining the following substitions

R( t ) k R( t ) R( t )
 2   2 ( t )
mu y m ku y Ry
(5)
.. .. ..
u g ( t ) k u g ( t )  mu g ( t )
2
 
uy k uy Ry

Equation (4) becomes

.. .  
 m 
( t )  2 ( t )   2  ( t )    2  ug ( t ) (6)
 Ry 
 

To simplify the right side of equaiton (6), a parameter, , can be defined as follows:

R
   y (7)
mug ,max

which expresses a system’s yield strength relative to the maximum inertia force of a rigid
system or in terms of the structure’s yielding seismic resistant coefficient, Cy,

R y  C yW  C y mg (8)

Cy
 (9)
..
u g ,max / g

where W is the seismic weight of the structure, g is the accelaration due to gravity.
Rewriting equation (6) by using equations (7) and (9), we get
..
.. .  2 ug(t )
( t )  2 ( t )   2  ( t )   (10)
 ..
u g ,max
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

3.3 Derivation of Energy Equations

To develop reliable design methods based on an energy approach, it is necessary to derive

the energy equations. Even though the real structures are MDOF systems, the energy
equations will be derived for SDOF systems to better understant the energy concept.
The input energy into an inelastic SDIF system due to an EQGM is dissipated by both
viscous damping and yielding. The following energy terms can be defined by integrating
the equation of motion (equation 2)as follows: [28]:

u .. u . u . u ..
 m u( t )du   c u( t )du   f s ( u , u )du    m u g ( t )du (11)
0 0 0 0

The right side of equation (11) represents the total energy input, EI, to the structure.

u ..
E I ( t )    m u g ( t )du (12)
0

The first term on the left side of equation (11) is the kinetic energy, EK, and can be found by
producting half of the mass with its motion relative to the ground.

.2
u .. u . . mu
E K ( t )   m u( t )du   m u( t )d u  (13)
0 0 2

The second term on the left side of equation (11) is the energy dissipated by damping, ED.

u u .
E D ( t )   f D ( t )du   c u( t )du (14)
0 0

The third term on the left side of equation (11) is the sum of the hysteretic energy, Ey, and
the elastic strain energy, ES, which is

 f S ( t )2
ES ( t )  (15)
2k

where k is the initial stiffnes of the system. And the hysteretic energy, Ey, is

u .
E y ( t )   f S ( u ,u )du  ES ( t ) (16)
0
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

Based on the above-defined energy quantities, the energy balance of a SDOF system can be
written as

E I ( t )  E K ( t )  E D ( t )  ES ( t )  E y ( t ) (17)

Viscous damping energy, ED, and histeretik energy, Ey, can be rewritten by expressing the
integrals with respect to time.

2
t . 
E D ( t )   c u(  ) d (18)
0  

t . 
E y ( t )    u f S (  )  E S ( t ) (19)
0 

At any instant time t, the kinetic energy, EK, and elastic strain energy, ES, can conveniently
computed from equations (13) and (15), respectively.
Energy terms in this section are defined for a structure whose mass is acted upon by a force
..
peff =  m u g ( t ) . Therefore, the energy terms in equation (17) represent the energy values
obtained from the motion of the system relative to the base rather than the due to the total
motion. The energy input, EI, can also be defined as the work done by the base shear at the
foundation of the system due to EQGM [30]. Considering that the relative displacements
and velocities cause forces in a structure, expressing the energy terms in terms of the
relative motion is much more meaningful. [28].

3.4 Energy Input Rate

As the structure moves through an increment of displacement du, the energy input to the
..
structure by peff =  m u g ( t ) defined as

..
dE I  m u g ( t )du (20)

Energy input rate (EIR) equation can be obtained by differentiating euation (17) with
respect to time [31].

dE K ( t ) dE D ( t ) dE S ( t ) dE I ( t )
   (21)
dt dt dt dt

So, the various EIR terms can be derived using the energy terms.
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

dE K ( t ) . ..
Kinetic energy rate ( KER )   m u( t ) u( t ) (22)
dt

dE D ( t )
Damping energy rate ( DER )   cu 2 ( t ) (23)
dt

dE S ( t )
Elastic + Hysteretic energy rate ( SER )   f s ( t )u( t ) (24)
dt

3.5 Input Energy Spectra

The input energy spectra can be expressed by converting the input energy in terms of
equivalent velocity (Ve) [7].

2EI
Ve  (28)
m

The above equation shows that the energy per unit mass is unique for a given EQGM. Bu
ifade, belirli bir deprem için birim kütle enerjisinin tek olduğunu gösterir. Since the peak
ground acceleration is not constant for any EQGM, it is better to derive the equivalent
velocity for a standardized value of peak ground acceleration [30]. The input energy
spectra can be generated for different earthquakes with varying ductility and strength
indices.

4. ANALYTICAL STUDY

To investigate the energy terms givin in the previous section, an analytical study is carried
out by using NONSPEC program [29]. NONSPEC program has been widely used for
constructing the inelastic response spectra and obtaining the energy terms of damped
inelastic SDOF systems. Three different period values (T = 0.2, 0.5, 1.0 s), three
displacement ductilities (= 1, 5, 10) and five inertia force indices (= 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8,
1.0) are used to carry out nonlinear dynamic time history analyses in SDOF systems by
using equation (10). T = 0.2 s represents the rigid structures with short-period, while, T =
0.5 s does the mid-rise structures with mid-period and T = 1.0 s does the high-rise structures
with long-period. Two different EQGMs with different characteristics are used in the
study; 18 May 1940, El Centro and 21 July 1952, Taft. Figure 2 shows the time histories
and normalized response spectrum of the both EQGMS. These two EQGMs are recorded
on different soils, have long-duration and are symmetric type cyclic excitations. Damping
ratio () is assumed to be constant as %5. Bi-linear stiffness model is used for nonlinear
analysis without any strain-hardening. The results are presented in the form of energy input
time history, equivalent velocity (Ve), energy input rate (EIR) for varying values of inertia
force index () and displacement ductility ().
 İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

Equivalent velocity (Ve) time histories are given in Figures 3, 4, and 5 for Taft EQGM for
different values of . It may be concluded that for short-period structures, equivalent
velocity demand is the smallest for = 1, while it is the largest for long-period structures.
Equivalent velocity (Ve) time histories are given in Figures 6, 7, and 9 for Taft EQGM and
in Figure 8 for El Centro EQGM for different values of  It is observed that euqivalent
velocity demand is the lowest for short-period structures for = 1.0, while it is the largest
for long-period structures and decreases as increases.

Spa/PGA
3.5 0.4
0.4

El Centro S00E Taft S69

0.3 0.3
Yalancı İvme / Maksimum Yer İvmesi

0.2 0.2

3
yer ivmesi, g

yer ivmesi, g
0.1 0.1

0 0

-0.1 -0.1

2.5 -0.2 -0.2

-0.3 -0.3

-0.4 -0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
2 zaman (t), s
0 5 10 15 20
zaman (t), s
25 30 35 40

1.5

0.5
El Centro S00E
Taft S69
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Periyot (T), s
Period, sec

Figure 2. Normalized response spectra ( = %5 ) and time histories

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

1250 =1
=5
=10

1000

750
Ve, mm/s

500

250

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t),(t),
s s

Figure 3. Equivalent velocity vs. time for Taft, T = 0.2 s

1250
=1
=5
=10

1000

750
Ve, mm/s

500

250

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

time (t),(t),
zaman s s

Figure 4. Equivalent veloctiy vs. time for Taft, T = 0.5 s

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

1250
=1
=5
=10

1000

750
Ve, mm/s

500

250

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t),(t),
s s

Figure 5. Equivalent velocity vs. time for Taft, T = 1.0 s

1250

1000

750
Ve, mm/s

500

=0.2
=0.4
250 =0.6
=0.8
=1.0

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (t),(t),
zaman s s

Figure 6. Equivalent veloctiy vs. time for Taft, T = 0.2 s

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

1250

1000

750
Ve, mm/s

500

=0.2
=0.4
250 =0.6
=0.8
=1.0

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t),(t),
s s

Figure 7. Equivalent velocity vs. time for Taft, T = 0.5 s

1250

1000

750
Ve, mm/s

500
=0.2
=0.4
=0.6
=0.8
250
=1.0

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (t),(t),
zaman s s

Figure 8. Equivalent velocity vs. time for El Centro, T = 1.0 s

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

1250

1000

750
Ve, mm/s

500

=0.2
=0.4
=0.6
250
=0.8
=1.0

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t),(t),
s s

Figure 9. Equivalent velocity vs. time for El Centro, T = 1.0 s

Ve spectrum for T = 0-3 s is given in Figures 11 and 12 for El Centro and Taft EQGMs,
respectively, with respect to . Equivalent velocity demand for T = 0.5-3 is almost the
same for both EQGMs for  = 0.2. For increasing , equivalent veloctiy vs. period curves
are very close to each other.
Time histories of various energy terms per unit mass are given in Figures 12, 13, 14, and 15
for mid-period structures and in Figures 16 and 17 for long-period structures for both
EQGMs. As can be clearly seen from the figures, the amount of energy dissipated through
damping is significant in all cases (20-30%) and increases with increasing . The amount
of energy dissipated through hysteretic behavior increases with decreasing in all cases.
This is an expected result because smaller  means lower strength. Therefore, the structure
yields earlier and enters into the inelastic region in general. It should also be kept in mind
that the lower strength requires longer capacity of deformation. The amount of kinetic +
elastic strain energy is negligible for  = 0.2. For short-period structures, the amount of
energy dissipated decreases with increasing , while it increases for long-period structures.
The amount of energy dissipated for Taft EQGM is larger that that for El Centro for short-
period structures, while the opposite is true for long-period structures. This can be
explained by the characteristics of the two EQGM; El Centro has relatively low-frequency,
long-period, while Taft has high-frequency, short-period. The amount of damping energy
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

1750

1500

1250
Ve, mm/s

1000

750

=0.2
500
=0.4
=0.6
250 =0.8
=1.0

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

periyot
Period (T), ss

Figure 10. Equivalent veloctiy vs. period spectrum for El Centro

1750

1500

1250
Ve, mm/s

1000

750

500 =0.2
=0.4
=0.6
250 =0.8
=1.0

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (T),(T),
periyot s s

Figure 11. Equivalent velocity vs. period spectrum for Taft

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

750

600 kinetic+ +birim

kinetik elastic strain
şekil energyenerjisi
değiştirme
EI/m, (mm/s)2x1000

450

hysteretic energy
histeretik enerji

300

150
damping energy
sönüm enerjisi

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t),(t),
s s

Figure 12. EI / m vs. time for El Centro; T = 0.5 s,  = 0.4

750

600
kinetik
kinetic+ +
birim şekilstrain
elastic değiştirme
energyenerjisi
EI/m, (mm/s)2x1000

450

histeretik energy
hysteretic enerji

300

150
sönüm enerjisi
damping energy

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman (t), s
time (t), s

Figure 13. EI / m vs. time for Taft; T = 0.5 s,  = 0.4

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

750

kinetic + elastic strain energy

kinetik + birim şekil değiştirme enerjisi
600
EI/m, (mm/s)2x1000

450 histeretik enerji

hysteretic energy

300

150
sönüm enerjisi
damping energy

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t),(t),
s s

Figure 14. EI / m vs. time for El Centro; T = 0.5 s,  = 0.6

750

600
kinetik + birim
kinetic şekilstrain
+ elastic değiştirme enerjisi
energy
EI/m, (mm/s)2x1000

hysteretic energy
histeretik enerji
450

300

150 sönüm enerjisi

damping energy

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time
zaman(t),(t),
s s

Figure 15. EI / m vs. time for Taft; T = 0.5 s,  = 0.6

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

500

kinetic+ +birim
kinetik elatic strain
şekil energy enerjisi
değiştirme
400
EI/m, (mm/s)2x1000

300
histeretik
hystereticenerji
energy

200

100
sönüm enerjisi
damping energy

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman (t),s s
time (t),

Figure 16. EI / m vs. time for El Centro; T = 1.0 s,  = 0.2

500

kinetik
kinetic++birim şekil
elastic değiştirme
strain energyenerjisi
400
EI/m, (mm/s)2x1000

300 hysteretic
histeretik energy
enerji

200

100
sönüm enerjisi
damping energy

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (t),
zaman (t),t s

Figure 17. EI / m vs. time for Taft; T = 1.0 s,  = 0.2

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

energy for Taft is relatively larger than that for El Centro in all cases. And the amount of
hysteretic energy for El Centro is relatively larger that that for Taft in all cases. The
damping and hysteretic energies show very smooth variation with respect to time, while the
kinetic + elastic strain energyhas lots of peaks during the ground motion and becomes zero
at the end of the ground motion.
EIRs are given for short-period structures in Figures 18 and 19 for Taft, in Figures 20 and
21 for mid-period structures, in Figures 22, 23,24, and 25 for long-period structures for El
Centro and Taft EQGMs. Damping energy input rate is always positive. However, kinetic,
elastic, and hysteretic energy input rates may be either positive or negative. Maximum
kinetic, damping, elastic strain, and hysteretic energy input rates occur around the
maximum peak ground acceleration for both EQGMs. EIR is maximum around peak
ground acceleration for El Centro while for Taft it is maximum a few seconds after the peak
ground acceleration around the high-frequency region. Energy input rate tends o be zero 15
sec. After the ground motion strated for  = 0.2 for short-period structures, while it has a
few peaks towards the end of the ground motion for El Centro. EIR decreases for short-
period structures with increasing  while it increases for long-period structures. For short-
period structures, damping energy rate tends to be zero 15 sec. After the ground motion
started. Among the four energy input rate terms (kinetic, damping, elastic strain,
hysteretic), kinetic energy rate is dominant. Due to the probability of having opposite signs
of kinetic and elastic strain + hysteretic energies, both terms tend to cancel out each other
and decrease the energy input rate during the ground motion.

135

90
EGH, Nmm/sx10 6

45

EIR
0

-45

-90

-135
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t), s(t), s

Figure 18. EIR vs. time for Taft; T = 0.2 s,  = 0.2

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

135

90

45
EGH, Nmm/s x106

EIR
0

-45

-90

-135
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t),(t),s s

Figure 19. EIR vs. time for Taft; T = 0.2 s,  = 1.0

200

150

100
EGH, Nmm/sx106

50

EIR
0

-50

-100

-150

-200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (t),(t),s s
zaman

Figure 20. EGH vs. time for El Centro; T = 0.5 s,  = 1.0

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

200

150

100
EGH, Nmm/sx106

50
EIR
0

-50

-100

-150

-200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t),(t),s s

Figure 21. EIR vs. time for Taft; T = 0.5 s,  = 1.0

200

150

100
EGH, Nmm/s x106

50

EIR 0

-50

-100

-150

-200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (t),(t),s s
zaman

Figure 22. EIR vs. time for El Centro; T = 1.0 s,  = 0.2

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

200

150

100
EGH, Nmm/sx106

50

EIR
0

-50

-100

-150

-200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t),(t),s s

Figure 23.EIR vs. time for Taft; T = 1.0 s,  = 0.2

300

250

200

150

100
EGH, Nmm/sx106

50
EIR
0

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time (t),(t),s s
zaman

Figure 24. EIR vs. time for El Centro; T = 1.0 s,  = 1.0

İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

300

250

200

150

100
EGH, Nmm/sx106

50
EIR
0

-50

-100

-150

-200

-250

-300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

zaman
time (t), s(t), s

Figure 25. EIR vs. time for Taft; T = 1.0 s,  = 1.0

4. RESULTS

Diffrerent parameters used in the current seismic codes to define the earthquake damage
potential (peak ground acceleration, maximum displacement, ductilitiy, etc.) are considered
to be inadequate. However, energy and energy-based paramteters are very promising for a
more reliable earthquake resistant design. Most of the studies have been conducted in
SDOF systems and the applicability of the results obtained from SDOF systems to MDOF
systems should be further studied. It is necessary that the results of the research be used to
develop practical methods for applying the energy concepts in seismic design codes and
this requires a lot of analytical as well as experimental studies.

NOMENCLATURE

Cy : Yielding seismic resistance coefficient

ED : Damping energy
EI : Energy input
EK : Kinetic energy
ES : Elastic strain energy
EY : Hysteretic energy
RY : Yield force
T : Period
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

Ve : Equivalent velocity
W : Total weight of the structure
C : Vsicous damping coefficient
fD : Damping force
fS : Restoring force
g : Gravity
k : Initial stiffness
m : Mass
t : Time
u : Relative displacement of the mass relative to the ground
ug : Earthquake ground displacement
umax : Maximum displacement
ut : Total displacement of the mass
uy : Yield displacement
 : Natural frequency
  Damping ratio
 : Inertia force index
 : Displacement ductility ratio
max : Maximum displacement ductility ratio

References

[1] Housner, G.W., Limit Design of Structures to Resist Earthquakes, Proc. of the First
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, California, 5-1 to 5-3, 1956.
[2] Jennings, P.C., Earthquake Response of a Yielding Structure, Journal of the
Engineering Mechanics Division, Proc. of the Anerican Society of Civil Engineering,
91, No. EM4, 41-68, 1965.
[3] Ohi, K. and Kondo, H., Energy Input Rate Spectra of Earthquake Ground Motions,
Proc. of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain,
641-644, 1992.
[4] Zahrah, T.F., Seismic Energy Absorbtion in Simple Structures, Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, 1982.
[5] Bertero, V.V. and Teran-Gilmore, A., Use of Energy Concepts in Earthquake-
Resistant Analysis and Design: Issues and Future Directions, Advances in Earthquake
Engineering Practice: Series 2, University of California, Berkeley, 1994.
[6] Berg, G.V. and Thomaides, S.S., Energy Consumption by Structures in Strong-
Motion Earthquakes, Proc. of the Second World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, 681-697, 1960.
[7] Akiyama, H., Earthquake-Resistant Limit-State Design for Buildings, University of
Tokyo Press, 1985.
[8] Akbas, B. and Shen, J., Energy-Based Earthquake Resistant Design, Report No: IIT-
CAE-96/005, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Illinios Institute of
Technology, 1996.
[9] Shen, J. and Akbas, B., Seismic Energy Demand in Steel Moment Frames, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, 3, 4, 519-559, 1999.
İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

[10] Carpinteri, A., Energy Dissipation in R.C. Beams Under Cyclic Loadings,
Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 39, No.2, 177-184, 1991.
[11] Fajfar, P., Vidic, T., and Fischinger, M., On the Energy Input into Structures, Proc. of
the Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 1, 81-
92, 1991.
[12] Hino, Y. and Kitajima, K., Elasto-Plastic Response Characteristics of Reinforced
Concrete Structures Based on Energy Balance, Proc. of the Eleventh World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 485, 1996.
[13] Nori, N., Inoue, N., and Shibata, A., Inelastic Seismic Design Procedure Based on
Energy Response Behavior of R/C Structures, Proc. of the Eleventh World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, Paper No. 1107, 1996.
[14] Pierre, L. And Dussault, S., Seismic-Energy Dissipation in MDOF Structures, Journal
of Structural Engineering, 118, 5, 1251-1269, 1992.
[15] Tembulkar, J.M. and Nau, J.M., Inelastic Modeling and Seismic Energy Dissipation,
Journal of Structural Engineering, 113, 6, 1373-1377, 1987.
[16] Tso, W.K., Zhu, T.J., and Heidebracht, A.C., Seismic Energy Demands on Reinforced
Concrete Moment-Resisting Frames, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 22, 533-545, 1993.
[17] Sucuoğlu, H., Dicleli, M., and Nurtuğ, A., An Analytical Assessment of Elastic and
Inelastic Response Spectra, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 21, 386-395,
1994.
[18] Hadjian, A.H., A Re-Evaluation of Equivalent Linear Models for Simple Yielding
Systems, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 10, 759-767,
1982.
[19] Penzien, P., Elasto-Plastic Response of Idealized Multi-Story Structures Subjected to
a Strong Motion Earthquake, Proc. of the Second World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, 1960.
[20] Veletsos, A.S. and Newmark, N.M., Effect of Inelastic Behavior on the Response of
Simple Systems to Earthquake Engineering, Proc. of the Second World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, 895-912, 1960.
[21] Tso, W.K., Zhu, T.J., and Heidebrecht, A.C., Seismic Energy Demands on Reinforced
Concrete Moment-Resisting Frames,Journal of Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, 22, 533-545, 1993.
[22] Nurtuğ, A. And Sucuoğlu, H., Prediction of Seismic Enerfy Dissipation in SDOF
Systems, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 24, 1215-1223,
1995.
[23] Kuwamura, H. And Galambos, T.V., Earthquake Load for Structural Reliability,
Jornal of Structural Engineering, 115, 6, 1989.
[24] Fajfar, P., Vidic, T., and Fischinger, M., On the Energy Input Into Structures, Proc. of
the Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 1, 81-
92, 1991.
[25] Kuwamura, H., Akiyama, H., and Kirino, Y., Prediction of Earthquake Energy Input
from Smoothed Fourier Amplitude Spectrum, Journal of Construction Engineering:
Transaction of AIJ, No. 442, 53-60, 1992.
[26] Fajfar, P. and Vidic, T., Consistent Inelastic Design Spectra: Hysteretic and Input
Energy, Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 23, 523-537,
1994.
 İMO Teknik Dergi, paper no. 192, pp. 2877-2901, 2003

[27] Akbas, B. and Shen, J., Energy Approach in Performance-Based Earthquake-Resistant

Design, accepted for publication at Twelweth European Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, London, England, 2002.
[28] Chopra, A.K., Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey, 1995.
[29] Mahin, S.A. and Lin, J., Construction of Inelastic Response Spectra for Single-
Degree-of-Freedom Systems, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley, Report No. UCB/EERC-83/17, 1983.
[30] Uang, C.M. and Bertero, V.V., Use of Energy as a Design Criterion in Earthquake-
Resistant Design, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, Report No. UCB/EERC-88/18, 1988.
[31] Conte, J.P., Pister, K.S., and Mahin, S.A., Influence of the Earthquake Ground
Motion Process and Structural Properties on Response Characteristics of Simple
Structures, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, Report No. UCB/EERC-90/09, 1990.

View publication stats