EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499

Evaluation of seismic energy demand

Gaetano Manfredi∗;†
Dipartimento di Analisi e Progettazione Strutturale; FacoltÂa di Ingegneria, UniversitÂa di Napoli Federico II;
Via Claudio 21; Napoli 80125; Italy

SUMMARY
In this paper, a method is proposed in order to obtain a simplied representation of hysteretic and input
energy spectra. The method is based on the evaluation of the equivalent number of cycles correlated to
the earthquake characteristics by the proposed seismic index ID . This procedure allows us to obtain peak
values of the hysteretic and input energy that depend on the demanded ductility, on the seismic index
ID and on the peak pseudo-velocity. The assessment of the input energy represents a rst step towards
the denition of a damage potential index capable of taking into account the eect of the duration of
the ground motions. Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: input energy; hysteretic energy; damage potential

INTRODUCTION

New trends in the seismic design methodologies are oriented to the denition of performance-
based methods for the design of new facilities and for the assessment of the seismic capacity of
existing facilities. In this eld using the energy concept and the energy balance equation allows
to optimize the design and detailing and to select strategies and techniques for innovative
control or protective systems such as base isolation and passive energy dissipation devices
in the earthquake-resistant design of new structures or in the seismic retrotting of existing
buildings [1].
Referring to the earthquake demand, dierent authors consider the input energy EI as an
eective tool in the seismic design pointing out that EI represents a very stable parameter of
the structural response and it hardly depends on the hysteretic properties of the structure [2; 3].
However, it is necessary to observe that a part of the input energy an earthquake transmits to
a structure is dissipated by means of the damping, while another is dissipated by means of the
hysteretic energy; only the amount of the dissipated energy due to the inelastic deformation
is considered to damage a structure subjected to the seismic action. In the years 50, Housner
already understated the possibility to develop a seismic design methodology based on energy
∗ Correspondence to: Gaetano Manfredi, Dipartimento di Analisi e Progettazione Strutturale, Facolta di Ingegneria,
Universita di Napoli Federico II, Via Claudio 21, Napoli 80125, Italy.
† E-mail: gamanfre@unina.it

Received 22 December 1998

Revised 2 December 1999 and 22 June 2000
Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 11 July 2000
486 G. MANFREDI

criteria; in the last few years this approach has been largely accepted [2–4] and it has been
introduced in advanced seismic codes like the Japanese one [5].
In particular, the energy criterion postulates that the structure collapses when it is demanded
to dissipate, through inelastic deformations, an amount of energy larger than that supplied.
Surely, this criterion has a conceptual clearness, but it has the limitation to treat the energy
dissipated in all the plastic cycles independent of the amplitude of each cycle; on the contrary,
it is experimentally demonstrated that in many situations plastic cycles with a low amplitude
do not in uence the damage. Therefore, only a fraction of the plastic energy must be taken
into account to induce damage. For this reason other more advanced cyclic collapse criteria
have been developed [6–8]. However, in spite of this limitation, the energy approach remains a
powerful tool, because it is simple to use and has a large experimental background; moreover,
if the allowable energy is assumed to be equal to the energy dissipated under monotonic loads,
the energy criterion represents a lower limit of the response capacity of the structure [6] and,
therefore, its application is on safe side leading to a conservative design.
Another key issue in the performance-based design is a reliable assessment of the seismic
activities and hazards, but, in the evaluation of seismic actions, it is important to take into
account the eect of the duration on the damage potential of the earthquake; therefore, the EI
demand can be assumed as a reliable tool to predict the seismic hazard and to classify the
seismic input in the time-history analysis.
However, the energy method is based on a reliable assessment of the demand of the dis-
sipated energy that, is well known, is very dependent on earthquake characteristics. Many
researchers implemented this assessment by means of the evaluation of the input energy [2; 3].
Hence, in this paper a consistent method for the direct assessment of the energy demand of
an SDOF system is proposed and the results can be easily extended to multi-storey buildings as
shown in Reference [5]. The procedure is based on a more extensive research concerning the
full characterization of the seismic response of the elasto-plastic oscillator [9]. The assessment
of the energy dissipated by plastic deformations also allows to have a good evaluation of the
peak input energy and interesting comparisons can be obtained with the relations proposed by
other authors.
The evaluation of the energy demand by the proposed methods represents an eective tool
in the earthquake-resistant design of new structures and in the seismic assessment of the
existing structures. Details on the use of the method in practice for the design are provided in
Reference [9].

HYSTERETIC ENERGY AND EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF CYCLES

The cyclic collapse of structures that show a degrading behaviour is surely in uenced by the
amount of the hysteretic energy Eh . Therefore, it is possible to dene a damage functional,
based on the assumption that the structural collapse occurs when the hysteretic energy dis-
sipated under seismic actions is equal to the energy dissipated under monotonic load. The
allowable hysteretic energy could be evaluated by means of a theoretical or experimental
analysis of monotonic tests [10]; a statistical study on the experimentally allowable hysteretic
energy in reinforced concrete elements, obtained by dierent researchers for cyclic loads, is re-
ported in Reference [11]. Denoting then with Eh;u the allowable plastic energy of the analysed

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
 EVALUATION OF SEISMIC ENERGY DEMAND 487

Figure 1. Number of equivalent cycles neq for dierent ground motions.

structure, the seismic check is represented by the relation:

Eh 6 Eh;u (1)
However, the energy criterion has the limitation to consider all the plastic cycles in the same
way, adding the dissipated energy independently on the amplitude of each cycle. Thus, a
measure of the distribution of cycles amplitude is the equivalent number of cycles neq [4]
representing the number of cycles at the maximum plastic displacement that the structure can
develop in order to dissipate the total amount of the hysteretic energy Eh :
Eh
neq = (2)
Fy (xmax − xy )
where Eh is the total dissipated energy, Fy the maximum force of the structure, xmax the
maximum displacement and xy the displacement at the elastic limit.
Moreover, in order to characterize the non-linear behaviour of an SDOF system, the reduc-
tion factor R can be dened with reference to the elastic spectral acceleration Sa(T ) as
M Sa(T ) 1
R= = (3)
Fy 
where M is the mass of the structure.
Values of neq close to 1 show the presence of a large plastic cycle in the non-linear response,
while high values of neq are indicative of the presence of many plastic cycles. Figure 1 shows
the values of neq versus the elastic period T of the oscillator for dierent reduction factor R
and for four earthquakes, which are very dierent for duration, shape of spectrum and released
energy. The analysis of the gures shows that neq generally decreases with the period in the
short period range and increases with the Reduction factor.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
488 G. MANFREDI

Figure 2. Computation of n and m.

In addition, it is possible to notice, above all, that neq varies largely depending on the char-
acteristics of the earthquakes, from values close to 1 for impulsive earthquakes as the ground
motion of Bucharest (Bucharest NS) to values of about 40 for long-duration earthquakes as
the ground motion of Chile (Llolleo N). This remark underlines the high correlation between
the values of neq and the seismic characteristics of the earthquake (see Figure 1).

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF CYCLES

The non-linear response of an elasto-plastic SDOF system subjected to an earthquake could

be described by the number of the reversal plastic cycles n, with an amplitude of the generic
cycle equal to
xi , by the maximum amplitude
xmax , and by the dimensionless average
amplitude of the n − 1 cycles cutting o the plastic cycle of maximum amplitude
1 X
m=
xi =
xmax
(n − 1) i=1; n−1
Therefore, the number of equivalent cycles could be expressed also as
neq = 1 + (n − 1)m (4)
and, the assessment of neq can be related to the evaluation of n and m.
In Figure 2, the computation of these quantities is illustrated considering a simple case.
In order to obtain a reliable assessment of n and m, an extensive statistical study has been
conducted using the two components of 122 records that are representative of a wide range of
earthquakes characteristics (see Table I). Details of the analyses are reported in Reference [9];
however, they are summarized in the following remarks on dening the analytical formulations.
The analytical formulations that allow to evaluate n and m have been obtained performing
the following steps:
• a set of possible structural (i.e. stiness, yielding level, damping, etc.) and earthquake
(i.e. PGA, PGV, duration, etc.) parameters, correlated with n and m, has been introduced;

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
 EVALUATION OF SEISMIC ENERGY DEMAND 489

Table I. Records used in the analyses.

Earthquake Date Mg Records

Ancona 08.02.72 3.9 Palombina
14.06.72 4.4 Palombina, Rocca
21.06.72 4.4 Palombina, Rocca
Friuli 06.05.76 6.5 Asiago, Tolmezzo
11.05.76 5.3 Forgaria
11.09.76 5.4 Forgaria, Buia
11.09.76 5.5 Forgaria
15.09.76 6.0 Forgaria, Buia
15.09.76 5.9 Forgaria, San Rocco, Tarcento
16.09.77 5.4 Forgaria
Basso Tirreno 15.04.78 5.9 Patti, Naso
Norcia 19.09.79 5.8 Cascia
Campano Lucano 23.11.80 6.9 Bagnoli Irpino., Brienza, Calitri, Mercato S. Severino, Torre del
Greco
16.01.81 5.3 Cairano (1, 2 and 3), Teora
01.12.80 4.5 Teora, Morra
Umbria 29.04.84 5.3 Nocera Umbra, Pietralunga
Lazio–Abruzzo 07.05.84 5.8 Scafa
11.05.84 5.2 Villetta Barrea, Atina, Cassino
Montenegro–YU 04.15.79 6.9 IMS, BK-2, BK-9
Banja Luka–YU 13.08.81 5.4 Petrovac, Ulcinj (Albatros e Olympia), Bar, Hercegnovi
Mexico 19.09.85 8.1 SCT, Abastos, Viveros, Ciudad Universitaria
Chile 03.03.85 7.8 Llolleo, Vina del Mar, Valparaiso (El Almendral e UTFSM)
Nahanni–Canada 23.12.85 6.8 S1, S2, S3
Bucharest–Romania 04.03.77 7.2 INCERC

• an exponential-type formulation has been chosen for n and m:

n = 1 + Ape; i pp; i ps; i ; m = + Bpe; i pp; i ps; i

where pe , pp and ps are the possible earthquake and structural parameters;
• a statistical regression was performed comparing the values of n and m, obtained from
a non-linear step-by-step integration of SDOF equation, and the values provided by the
proposed formulations;
• the optimum parameters were dened choosing the parameters with the higher partial
correlation factor;
• the optimum coecients A; B; ; ; ; ;  and  were chosen minimizing the standard error.
After these steps it was obtained that the elastic behaviour is well described in the relations
by the ratio  = =0 , between the percentage of proportional damping  and the reference
value 0 = 5 per cent, and by the ratio  = T=T1 (for T ¡T1 ), where T is the elastic period of

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
490 G. MANFREDI

the system and T1 is the initial period of the medium periods range in the Newmark and Hall
spectral representation [12]. The plastic response is fully represented by (R − 1), where R is
the reduction factor.
The identication of the seismic parameters to be introduced in the expression of n and
m was more complex and it represents a key issue in the identication procedure. For this
purpose, dierent parameters, functions of one or more seismic indicies, were used among
which is the ID dimensionless index
IE PGA IE
ID = 2 PGV
= (5)
PGA PGA PGV
in which PGA and PGV are the peak ground acceleration and the peak ground velocity,
respectively, while IE is equal to:
Z tE
IE = a(t)2 d t (6)
0
where a(t) is the ground acceleration and tE is the earthquake duration. IE is proportional to
the Arias Intensity [13].
The statistical analysis underlined the parameter that is absolutely characterized by the high-
est partial correlation factor (pcf=0.848) as the ID index; among the other analysed parameters,
the eective duration td [14; 15] and the zero crossing number nzc [16] show a consistent cor-
relation, as also observed by other researchers in relation to the assessment of the seismic
damage potential.
The statistical analysis allows to numerically determine n and m:
n = 1 + 1:05 −1=3 −2=3 (R − 1)4=5 ID4=5 (7)

m = 0:17 1=6 1=6 (R − 1)−1=5 ID1=5 (8)

with
 = T=T1 T 6 T1 ;  = 1 T ¿T1
 = =0  ¿ 0 ;  = 1 ¡0
The average and standard errors are, respectively, 0.110 and 0.460 in the application of
Equation (7) and 1.051 and 0.474 in Equation (8) with reference to the set of earthquakes
used in the analyses.
Introducing the expressions of n and m in Equation (4) it is possible to obtain the following
relation for neq (average error (AE) = 0.103; standard error (SE) = 0.583):
neq = 1 + 0:18(R − 1)3=5 ID −1=6 −1=2 (9)
In the case of damping equal to 5 per cent and in the medium and long periods ranges
Equation (9) becomes
neq = 1 + 0:18(R − 1)3=5 ID (10)
Equations (9) and (10) show that neq linearly depends on the earthquake characteristics by
means of the seismic index ID ; therefore, this index can be assumed as an indicator of the cyclic
demand of the earthquake. Impulsive records show low values of ID (Bucharest), whereas
records with large duration eect show high values of ID (Mexico, Llolleo). A general overview
of ID values for dierent strong motions is summarized in Table II.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
 EVALUATION OF SEISMIC ENERGY DEMAND 491

Table II. Input energy demand for dierent records.

Records Earthquake ID 1 + 0:23 ID AV2 PGV2 (EI =M )max

(cm2 = s2 ) (cm2 = s2 )
IMS Banja Luka 6.86 2.58 1.44 576 963
Incerc Bucharest 3.37 1.78 5.29 4761 20173
Llolleo Chile 36.17 9.32 7.29 1689 51640
SCT Mexico 14.98 4.44 11.56 3660 84535
Petrovac Montenegro 15.73 4.62 9.00 1705 31915
S1L Nahanni 5.79 2.33 2.59 2134 5729
Rocca Ancona 6.15 2.41 6.76 119 872
Tolmezzo Friuli 7.34 2.69 4.84 1050 6152
Calitri Irpinia 19.25 5.43 3.24 778 6159
JMA Kobe Hyogoken–Nambu 6.91 2.59 7.84 8464 77340

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE HYSTERETIC ENERGY

The denition of the number of equivalent cycles neq (Equation (2)) and the denition of R
(Equation (3)) allows to obtain an expression of the dissipated energy depending on the cyclic
ductility c
 2   2
Eh Sa(T ) 1
= (c − 1)neq (11)
M ! R
where c is the cyclic ductility, equal to 1 +
xmax =xy , and ! is the angular frequency of the
oscillator.
The hysteretic energy spectra could be found out in an approximate way by Equation (11)
introducing appropriate expressions of R, which are available in literature on the basis of
extensive studies [17], and starting from the knowledge of the elastic spectrum Sa.
Acceptable results (AE = 0:085; SE = 0:400) could be got using the simple relation for R,
proposed in Reference [9], valid in the case of rock and low-depth grounds, that is equal to
R = 1 + 1:5( − 1)4=5 −3=4 (12)
For example, the spectra of the dissipated energy for unit of mass are drawn in Figure 3; they
were obtained by a step-by-step integration and in approximate way using Equations (10) and
(12) with reference to the record of Tolmezzo (Friuli, 1975).
In this case, it could be noticed that the approximate energy spectrum is similar to the exact
one; moreover, with reference to all the used records the proposed formulation is accurate
enough, although the amplitude of the spectrum can be overestimated. In fact, the use of
Equations (10) and (12) causes that neq is hardly dependent on T for a xed value of ductility
c in the medium–long period range: therefore, the approximate spectra have the same shape
of the pseudo-velocity spectra. For this reason, the approximate spectra are not able to t the
shift of the period of the peak value between the pseudo-velocity spectrum and the hysteretic
energy spectrum shown by some earthquakes.
The assessment of the peak demand of hysteretic energy is another crucial topic to discuss.
The period of peak demand belongs generally to the eld of the mediums periods; therefore,
the peak demand is coincident with the peak value of pseudo-velocity Sa=! and the amount

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
492 G. MANFREDI

Figure 3. Hysteretic energy spectra: (a) exact, (b) approximate.

Figure 4. Assessment of the peak dissipated energy (c = 4).

of the maximum energy for a proportional damping  equal to 0.05, combining Equations (9),
(11) and (12), is equal to
   2
Eh (c − 1) p Sa(T )
= (1 + 0:23ID c − 1) (13)
M max [1 + 1:5(c − 1)4=5 ]2 ! max

In Figure 4, the peak demand of hysteretic energy for unity of mass Eh =M is drawn for a
ductility c equal to 4. This demand is evaluated using both the proposed relation and the
exact integration with reference to the 122 used records in the two components: it could be

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
 EVALUATION OF SEISMIC ENERGY DEMAND 493

Figure 5. Dependence of hysteretic energy on ductility and ID index in the range of medium periods.

noticed that Equation (13) allows a good assessment of the peak demand of hysteretic energy
(AE = 0:226; SE = 0:503).
A simplied formulation of Equation (13) can be obtained
  p ! 2
Eh c − 1 c − 1 Sa(T )
= 0:32 + 0:23ID (14)
M max c c ! max

with the addition of a very low error (SE = 0:011).

In terms of dependence of Eh =M on the demanded ductility, analysing p Equation (14), it is
worth underlining how the rst member in the brackets depends on ( c − 1)=c , while the
second member depends on (c − 1)=c .
Concerning the dependence of the peak dissipated energy on the cyclic ductility, Figure
5 reports the ratio between dissipated energy for unity of mass and pseudo-velocity versus
the seismic index ID with reference to the range of the medium periods. Moreover, varying
the ductility makes it possible to observe that the demand of dissipated energy increases with
the demanded ductility [18].

THE ASSESSMENT OF INPUT ENERGY

The input energy due to a ground motion depends mainly on the elastic period of the structure
and on the seismic record, while it is hardly dependent on the viscous damping and above
all on the characteristics of the plastic response like the hysteresis and the ductility [3–5; 19].
Because of these reasons, the assessment of the input energy represents a good point of starting,
used by dierent researchers, in order to develop a seismic design method based on energy
criteria. However, it is needed to consider that only the dissipated energy, which represents
a percentage of the input energy, is related to the seismic structural damage; therefore, the
formulations proposed above could be considered satisfactory for an energy approach.
However, the input energy will be estimated starting from the assessment of the hysteretic
energy.
The study of the seismic response of the SDOF shows that the relation between the hysteretic
energy Eh and the input energy Ei is dependent only on the demanded ductility and it is not
signicantly in uenced by the seismic characteristics of the considered records. The statistical
analysis carried out on all the used records provided the following expression of this ratio for

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
494 G. MANFREDI

Figure 6. Dependence of input energy on ductility and on ID in the range of medium periods.

a damping  equal to 0.05:

Eh c − 1 Ei c Eh
= 0:72 ⇒ = 1:4 (15)
Ei c M c − 1 M
This expression, with reference to the functional dependence, is similar to the formulation
proposed in Reference [2] and provides values of Eh =Ei included in the range [0.36, 0.60] for
ductility values in the range [2, 6]; dierent formulations suggested in [4; 5; 20; 21] provide
values of Eh =Ei in the range [0.40, 0.70] for ductility values in the range [2, 6], conrming
the reliability of Equation (15), also conrmed by the detailed comparison with Decanini and
Mollaioli [22].
Starting from the knowledge of the Eh =Ei ratio it is possible to obtain by Equation (13) an
expression of the input energy as a function of the cyclic ductility c
  2  2
Ei Sa(T ) 1
= 1:4c neq (16)
M ! R
that allows to obtain the spectra of input energy from the spectrum of pseudo-velocity through
an approximate method.
In addition, the maximum value of the input energy can be assessed in the same way as
made for the dissipated energy; in fact, also in this case the peak period is generally in the
range of the medium periods, and the peak value of input energy is given for a damping 
equal to 0.05 by
   2
Ei c p Sa(T )
= 1:4 (1 + 0:23ID c − 1) (17)
M max [1 + 1:5(c − 1)4=5 ]2 ! max

Concerning the dependence of the maximum input energy on the cyclic ductility, Figure 6
shows the ratio between input energy for unity of mass and square of pseudo-velocity versus
the seismic index ID with reference to the range of the medium periods varying the ductility.
It is worth mentioning that the input energy correctly is hardly dependent on the demanded
ductility [3; 19] with a low tendency to increase, when the ductility decreases.
In Figure 7, the peak value of the input energy Ei =M calculated by means of Equation
(19) is drawn for all the records used in the analysis in comparison with the exact values:
generally, the results appear good (AE = 0:107; SE = 0:362).

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
 EVALUATION OF SEISMIC ENERGY DEMAND 495

Figure 7. Assessment of the peak input energy (c = 2).

Finally, using the approximate formulation proposed for Eh it is possible to obtain the
following simplied expression:
  ! 2
Ei 1 Sa(T )
= 0:45 p + 0:23ID (18)
M max c − 1 ! max

In this formulation, it is clear that the dependence of EI on the available ductility is very low.
However, the negligible dependence of Ei on the ductility, illustrated in Figure 6, allows to
assume that like peak value the value relative to a ductility c is equal to 2, which is the
minimum ductility value considered in the statistical analysis. Therefore, in this case Equation
(18) becomes
   2
Ei Sa(T )
= 0:45(1 + 0:23ID ) (19)
M max ! max

A COMPARISON WITH DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS FOR THE INPUT

ENERGY DEMAND

Relation (19) suggested for the evaluation of the peak value of the input energy could be
written in the form
   2  2
Ei Sa(T ) Sa(T )
= 0:45 + 0:10ID (20)
M max ! max ! max

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
496 G. MANFREDI

in which the rst term represents the quota of energy relative to the maximum impulse of the
earthquake and is similar to the well-known assumption of Housner valid for the undamped
system [23; 24]:
   2
Ei 1 Sa(T )
= (21)
M max 2 ! max

while the second term represents the in uence of the duration of the earthquake and it depends
on the seismic index ID ; therefore, Equation (20) conrms the validity of the intuition of
Housner in the case of earthquakes characterized by a single impulse, like the earthquake
of Bucharest (that it is characterized by a very low value of ID ); however, Equation (20)
underlines the necessity of a modication of the formula introducing a seismic parameter
signicant for the cyclic demand of the earthquake in the case of earthquakes with higher
energy demand as also observed by Fajfar et al. [19].
Another very interesting comparison with formulations proposed by other authors could take
place using the representation of Newmark–Hall [12] considering constant values of the pseudo-
acceleration Ae , of the pseudo-velocity Ve and of the displacement spectrum De respectively
in the range of the low, medium and long periods. In fact, it could be assumed in the range
of the medium periods [2]:
 
Sa(T )
= AV PGV ≈ 2:5PGV (22)
! max

where AV is the amplication spectral factor; for which Equation (20) becomes
 
Ei
= 2:81PGV2 + 0:63ID PGV2 (23)
M max
Replacing the expression of ID in Equation (23), one obtains:
 
Ei PGV
= 2:81PGV2 + 0:63IE (24)
M max PGA
in which the second term is similar to the formulation suggested by Kuwamura and Galambos
[20]. In fact, Kuwamura and Galambos provided the following formula:
 
Ei ∼ 0:54 PGV IE
= 1 T g IE =
M max 8 PGA
where the predominant period of earthquake Tg , assumed as equal to T1 , limit period between
the short and the medium period range, is placed equal to 4.3 (PGV=PGA) [19]. However,
Equation (24) provides results greater than the formula of Kuwamura and Galambos that has
been already demonstrated to be generally unsafe as underlined in Reference [19], where a
correction of the numeric coecient equal to 0.85 is proposed. It is interesting to point out
that in the case of an earthquake characterized by an index ID equal to 15 (typical value
of earthquakes characterized by a medium cyclic demand) and, considering then 2:81 = 0:19 ·
15 = 0:19 · ID , Equation (24) could be implemented in the form
 
Ei PGV
= 0:19ID PGV2 + 0:63ID PGV2 = 0:82IE (25)
M max PGA

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
 EVALUATION OF SEISMIC ENERGY DEMAND 497

that is similar to the previously discussed revision of the formula suggested in Reference [19].
Moreover, some formulations proposed by dierent authors [14; 3; 25; 21] correlate the peak
energy demand to the eective duration of the earthquake.
It is interesting to observe that the seismic index ID can be expressed in a dierent form,
considering the denition of eective duration by Trifunac and Brady [26] and introducing the
dimensionless time variable t=td
R 2 R1
PGA 1 td a (t) d t PGA 0 a2 (t)d (t=td )
ID = ≈ 1:1td (26)
PGV 0:9 PGA2 PGV PGA2
thus, substituting Equation (26) into Equation (20), the input energy demand can be expressed
as
   2 R1  2
Ei Sa PGA 0 a2 (t)d (t=td ) Sa
= 0:45 + 0:11td (27)
M max ! max PGV PGA2 ! max
Therefore, the energy demand really depends on the eective duration, but the functional
dependence is also related to the product between the dimensionless Arias intensity and the
ratio PGA=PGV. The necessity of a more complex functional dependence of the input energy
demand on the eective duration was also proposed by Teran Gilmore [21]; in fact, in his
proposed formula the input energy depends on td and on the predominant period of earthquake
Tg , that can be assumed proportional to PGV=PGA, as previously shown.

INPUT ENERGY DEMAND FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF EARTHQUAKES

The input energy demand can be considered a good indicator of the damage potential of the
earthquake as suggested by dierent authors [27; 28]; obviously, only the part of hysteretic
energy is directly related with the structural damage.
Considering Equations (19) and (22)
 
Ei
= 0:45(1 + 0:23ID )AV2 PGV2 (28)
M max
the amount of energy is due to the product of three factors: the square of the peak ground
velocity PGV, the square of the spectral amplication factor of the velocity AV and (1 +
0:23ID ), that represents the eect of the duration of the earthquake.
Hence, assuming for AV the amplication factor in the medium periods range, the estimated
value of Ei =M could be considered as the average value of the input energy in this period
range, which is characterized by the maximum energy content.
In Table II the values of these parameters for dierent destructive earthquakes are summa-
rized. The analysis of the table suggests that dierent earthquakes provide the same amount
of input energy with dierent values of the previous three factors. In fact, the Calitri record
(Irpinia earthquake) and the Tolmezzo record (Friuli earthquake) show the same input energy,
but the former shows a lower PGV and a greater ID (due to the longer duration). Similar
considerations can be performed comparing the record of SCT (Mexico earthquake) and the
record of Kobe (Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake).
Therefore, considering the structural response, for non-degrading structures (insensitive to
the duration eects) the most dangerous records are Friuli and Kobe because of a higher

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
498 G. MANFREDI

PGV, while, for degrading structures (sensitive to duration eects), the most dangerous ones
are Calitri and Mexico with higher values of ID .
The second term of Equation (28) can be rewritten considering the expression of ID sug-
gested in Equation (26):
Z 1
PGV
0:23ID AV2 PGV2 ≈ 0:25td AV2 a2 (t) d (t=td ) (29)
PGA 0

In addition, it is worth noticing that the damage potential of the earthquake increases with the
eective duration td and decreases with the ratio PGA=PGV as suggested by Meskouris et al.
[29] in their proposed classication of ground motions.

CONCLUSIVE REMARKS

The proposed procedure allows to obtain the spectra of hysteretic energy and of input energy
starting from the knowledge of the pseudo-velocity spectrum and from the characterization of
the seismic input by means of the ID index. The suggested relations result from the development
of a full analysis of the response of the SDOF with the consequent denition of the number
of plastic cycles and of their medium value. The large number of records used in this study
generalizes the obtained results.
With regard to the assessment of the peak value of the hysteretic energy and of the input
energy it is possible to make some nal remarks:
• the proposed relations for Eh and for Ei provide results generally in good agreement with
the exact values and their dependence on the demanded ductility seems correct in relation
with the results also found by other researchers;
• the proposed relation for Ei allows to nd again, in special cases, expressions similar to the
formulations suggested by Housner, Galambos and Fajfar that have been obtained through
dierent methods and using dierent records;
• the most important parameter in order to estimate the cyclic work required by an earthquake
is the seismic index ID that has been introduced in the present research and in Reference [9];
therefore, the assessment of its value represents a basic step in the denition of a reliable
index of the seismic potential of damage.

REFERENCES

1. Bertero VV. Performance-based seismic engineering: a critical review of proposed guidelines. In Seismic Design
Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H. (eds). Balkema: Rotterdam, 1997;
pp. 1–32.
2. Fajfar P, Fischinger M. A seismic procedure including energy concept. Proceedings of IX ECEE, Moscow,
September, vol. 2, 1990; 312–321.
3. Uang CM, Bertero VV. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1990; 19:77–90.
4. Zahrah T, Hall J. Earthquake energy absorption in SDOF structures. Journal of Structural Engineering 1984;
110(8):1757–1772.
5. Akiyama H. Earthquake Resistant Limit-State Design for Buildings. University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo, 1985.
6. Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Ramasco R. The use of damage functionals in earthquake engineering: a comparison
between dierent methods. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993; 22:855–868.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499
 EVALUATION OF SEISMIC ENERGY DEMAND 499

7. Krawinkler H, Zohrei M. Cumulative damage in steel structures subjected to earthquake ground motion.
Computers and Structures 1983; 16:531–541.
8. Park YJ, Ang AHS. Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. Journal of the Structural
Engineering, ASCE, 1985; 111:722–739.
9. Cosenza E, Manfredi G. The improvement of the seismic-resistant design for existing and new structures using
damage criteria. In Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H.
(eds). Balkema: Rotterdam, 1997.
10. Powell GH, Allahabadi R. Seismic damage prediction by deterministic methods: concepts and procedures.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1988; 16:719–734.
11. Darwin D, Nmai CK. Energy dissipation in RC beams under cyclic load. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 1986; 112(8):1829–1846.
12. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and design, EERI, Berkeley, CA, 1982.
13. Arias A. A Measure of the Earthquake Intensity in Seismic Design for Nuclear Power Plants. MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA, 1970; pp. 438–468.
14. Fajfar P, Vidic T, Fischinger M. Seismic demand in medium- and long-period structures. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1989; 18:1133–1144.
15. Jeong GD, Iwan WD. The eect of earthquake duration on the damage of structures. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1988; 16:1201–1211.
16. Saragoni GR. Response spectra and earthquake destructiveness. In Proceedings 4th U.S. National Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs, USA. EERI, 1990; 35–43.
17. Miranda E, Bertero VV. Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthquake
Spectra 1994; 10(2):357–359.
18. Fajfar P, Vidic T. Consistent inelastic design spectra: hysteretic and input energy. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1994; 23:523–532.
19. Fajfar P, Vidic T, Fischinger M. On energy demand and supply in SDOF systems. In Nonlinear Seismic Analysis
of RC Buildings, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H. (eds). Elsevier: Amsterdam, 1992; 41–61.
20. Kuwamura H, Galambos TV. Earthquake load for structural reliability. Journal of the Structural Engineering,
ASCE, 1989; 115:1446–1462.
21. Teran Gilmore A. Performance based earthquake resistant design of framed building using energy concept. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1996; 421.
22. Decanini LD, Mollaioli F. Toward the denition of the relation between hysteretic and input energy. Proceeding
of 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Oakland, California, 1998; 12.
23. Housner GW. Limit design of structures to resist earthquake. Proceedings of the 1WCEE, EERI, Berkeley,
California, 1956.
24. Housner GW. Behaviour of structures during earthquake. Journal of the Mechanics Engineering, ASCE, 1959;
85:109–129.
25. Sucuoglu H, Nurtug A. Earthquake ground motion characteristics and seismic energy dissipation. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1995; 24:1195–1213.
26. Trifunac MD, Brady AG. A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion. Bulletin of Seismological
Society of America 1975; 65(3):581–626.
27. Bertero VV, Uang CM. Issues and future directions in the use of an energy approach for the seismic-resistant
of design structures. In Fajfar P, Krawinkler H. (eds). Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and Design of Reinforced
Concrete Buildings, Elsevier Applied Science: Amsterdam, 1992; pp. 3–22.
28. Conte JP, Pister KS, Mahin SA. In uence of the earthquake ground motion process and structural properties
on response characteristics of simple structures, UBC-EERC Report 90=09, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Berkeley, 1990; 341.
29. Meskouris K, Kratzig WB, Hanskotter U. Seismic motion damage potential for R=C wall-stiened buildings.
In Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H. (eds).
Elsevier Applied Science: Amsterdam, 1992; 125–136.

Copyright ? 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2001; 30:485–499