EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:1175–1183

Published online 15 April 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.810

Inelastic response spectrum: Early history

Rafael Riddell∗, †
Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile,
Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santiago, Chile

SUMMARY
Detailing the time period from, roughly, 1950 through 1980, this Historical Note documents the develop-
ment of the initial concept of the inelastic response spectrum and how it evolved to become the basis for
rational procedures for earthquake-resistant design, which are used even today. Copyright q 2008 John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 1 February 2008; Accepted 13 February 2008

KEY WORDS: historical note; inelastic spectrum; design spectrum

INTRODUCTION

The first paper in this series documented the gestation and the development of the elastic response
spectrum. By the 1960s, this concept was widely understood and had become an important tool
for studying the characteristics of earthquake ground motions and their effect on structures [1].
However, the seismic demands predicted by elastic spectra considerably exceeded the design forces
for buildings that had successfully withstood strong earthquakes, and designing buildings for elastic
performance was recognized as impractical because of the prohibitive cost of such designs.
By the early 1950s, a great deal of concern had already arisen about inelastic response. Subse-
quent research led to the inelastic response spectrum and to design procedures that accepted
incursions of the structure into the inelastic range during a strong earthquake.

EARLY STUDIES AND VIEWS

A key step in studying inelastic response of structures was the implementation of accurate numer-
ical methods on digital computers. In the late 1940s, Nathan M. Newmark began working on

∗ Correspondence to: Rafael Riddell, Department of Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Pontificia Universidad
Católica de Chile, Casilla 306, Correo 22, Santiago, Chile.
†
E-mail: riddell@ing.puc.cl

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1176 R. RIDDELL

computational techniques to determine the inelastic response of simple systems [2]. The first
Director of the Digital Computer Laboratory (1947–1957) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign (UIUC), Newmark, also served as the Head of the Civil Engineering Department from
1956 to 1973. Although Newmark’s method of computation for structural dynamics (or ‘
-method’
as he used to call it) was formally published in 1959 [3], it was originally presented several
years earlier [4] and later complemented by comparative evaluation of several numerical methods
vis-a-vis their accuracy, stability, and convergence properties [5, 6]. This work resulted in a signif-
icant finding: if the time step is not properly chosen, the numerical solution of an under-damped
system exhibits an over-damped response, which was a precursor to the now well-known concept
of numerical damping.
One of the first studies on inelastic response of structures to earthquakes was Pan’s Ph.D. thesis
[7] at UIUC, conducted under the supervision of Newmark and also reported by Pan et al. [8]. Pan
et al. ‘attempted to assess the influence and importance of the ductile property of steel structures in
connection with their ability to resist earthquake damage.’ Because it was, and remains, impossible
‘to guess the precise details of the motion of future earthquakes,’ they generated five artificial
motions consisting of a set of random ground displacement impulses, based in part on Housner
[9]. Analyzing single degree of freedom (SDF) elastoplastic systems with natural periods between
0.45 and 1.57 s and presenting plots of maximum deformation vs initial elastic vibration period,
responses were determined using a variant of the phase-plane graphical method adapted to include
plastic behavior. Based on these results, they concluded (1) that inelastic action generally reduced
the deformation when compared with the associated elastic system and (2) the deformation of
‘flexible enough’ systems was essentially unaffected by inelastic action. The former conclusion,
proven erroneous in subsequent studies by Veletsos and others, is mainly due to the ground motions
considered, which the authors acknowledged were ‘objectionable on a number of counts.’
At the First World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Housner [10] pointed out that
lightly damped elastic structures experienced large lateral loads when subjected to recorded ground
motions. Housner, departing from the prevailing concept that the principal effect of inelastic action
was to increase the energy dissipation capacity of the system and reduce its maximum response to
levels below those obtained under elastic conditions, suggested designing a weaker structure and
accepting permanent deformations in the event of a severe earthquake. He then proposed plastic
analysis (or limit design) so that the structure could absorb plastically the energy estimated from
elastic response, a concept that later led to the now widely known ‘equal energy rule’ [11]. Housner
also emphasized that ‘since the ability of a structure to resist earthquakes depends so largely upon
its ability to absorb energy, it is of great importance to insure it can do so,’ which could be done ‘by
designing so as to avoid the possibility of brittle failure.’ In the same conference, Tanabashi [12]
agreed with the concept of reduced strength, stating that, ‘. . . it is unnecessary for building structures
to be so resistant that no structural members of a building suffer damage.’ He also indicated that
ductile systems of elastoplastic type could absorb the energy through plastic deformations.
Following the world conference, several researchers questioned whether or not the large earth-
quake demands predicted by elastic response were tenable. Sheth [13] (in an M.S. thesis at UIUC
supervised by A. S. Veletsos) analyzed the response of bilinear and elastoplastic systems to two
horizontal components of the Vernon, 1933 and El Centro, 1940 ground motion records. Using the
ILLIAC digital computer at UIUC, he solved the equation of motion by Newmark’s
-method and
concluded that ‘if a small amount of inelastic action is tolerated, the lateral strength required for a
structure to withstand an earthquake is significantly reduced’. Bycroft et al. [14] and Penzien [15]
determined the response of elastoplastic systems to the NS and EW components of the El Centro

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:1175–1183
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 INELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM 1177

1940 ground motion, respectively. Bycroft et al., performing computations using an electrical
analog, concluded that ‘structures designed to the basis of 0.1g acceleration must yield in large
earthquakes, but its consequences were not particularly serious within certain limits.’ Penzien,
using the IBM-701 digital computer at the University of California, Berkeley, found that, generally,
inelastic deformations decreased with a reduction in lateral strength until a certain ‘optimum value’
of the strength was reached, at which point the tendency reversed. The same observation appeared
in Berg and Thomaides [16], based on computed inelastic response of SDF systems to El Centro
1940 NS and Taft 1952 N69W records.
Bycroft et al.’s paper caught the attention of John A. Blume, a structural engineer in San
Francisco, California. His firm, which was established in 1945, became a leading consulting
company in structural and earthquake engineering. Blume discussed Bycroft et al.’s findings in
[17] and in subsequent publications [18–20] introduced several concepts relating to the overall
idea that ‘a much more logical procedure than design by strength and elasticity alone is design
by inelastic procedures’; this was in close agreement with Housner [10]. Thus, the concept of
ductility was born as a decisive response–design parameter. Blume’s ‘reserve energy technique’
anticipated by several decades what is, essentially, current practice today: a structural performance
evaluation by means of a pushover analysis.
The landmark book by Blume et al. [21], Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for
Earthquake Motions, prepared at the behest of the Portland Cement Association, arrived at the same
conclusion: design ought to be based on nonlinear behavior and the capacity of structures to sustain
the corresponding ductility requirements. In the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute’s Oral
History series, Blume states: ‘About 1958, or possibly 1959, I started work with Nathan Newmark
on how to design concrete to develop ductility and energy absorption characteristics. We have to
keep in mind that concrete by itself is brittle when it fails in tension or shear. Also, when it fails
in compression, it tends to disintegrate into many pieces. This is what we should avoid in building
design, and it can be done’ [22, p. 42].
Simply put, the authors formulated the basis for rational earthquake-resistant design: ‘The
objective is to proportion a structure in such a way that it can survive without damage in a
moderate earthquake, and without major structural damage as a result of the most severe earthquake
reasonably predictable during the anticipated life of the structure. Furthermore, the structure should
not collapse even when subjected to an earthquake of abnormal intensity.’ Presented as three
damage (or demand) levels, this design philosophy was stated for the first time in the Structural
Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Code in 1967 [23, p. 33]. Although earthquake-
resistant building design in seismic regions is still based on this premise, explicit performance
evaluation has not, so far, become a requirement in building codes.
Blume et al.’s [21] book included a constant-ductility inelastic spectrum for the El Centro 1940
record in the tripartite log form, based on the data developed by Sheth [13] and Veletsos and Newmark
[11]. A significant innovation, this type of spectrum became a key factor in understanding the rela-
tionship between elastic and inelastic responses, leading to the development of design spectra.

THE CONSTANT-DUCTILITY RESPONSE SPECTRUM

Between 1959 and 1964, Anestis S. Veletsos, in collaboration with Newmark, developed concepts
related to the inelastic response spectrum that later proved to be seminal. Veletsos completed his
Ph.D. thesis in 1953 under Newmark’s supervision and subsequently joined the UIUC faculty.

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:1175–1183
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1178 R. RIDDELL

Their work led to the now classic paper on the earthquake response of elastoplastic SDF systems
[11], which presented three novel ideas. First, the ‘equal displacement’ and ‘equal energy’ rules
that relate the maximum deformation (u m ) of an elastoplastic system, its yield deformation (u y ),
and the maximum deformation (u 0 ) of the corresponding elastic system (its vibration period is the
same as the elastic vibration period of the inelastic system) through the ductility factor  = u m /u y .
According to the equal displacement rule
um = u0 and u y /u 0 = 1/ (1)
while the equal energy rule, which equates the area under the load–deformation curve up to the
maximum deformation of the inelastic system with the corresponding area for the elastic system,
gives



u m = u 0 / 2−1 and u y /u 0 = 1/ 2−1 (2)
Note that u y /u 0 = Q y /Q 0 , where Q y is the yield strength of the elastoplastic system and Q 0 is the
peak value of the earthquake-induced resisting force in the corresponding elastic system, and the
inverse ratio is now known as the strength reduction factor Ry = Q 0 /Q y . Second, the ingenious
use of a tripartite logarithmic graph paper brought out the trapezoidal shape of response spectra
and the three spectral regions that would later play a central role in constructing inelastic design
spectra. Third, it became apparent from the√first of Equations (2), valid for short-period systems,
that for such systems u m >u 0 because > 2−1, which was a significant departure from most
of the earlier studies that reported inelastic deformation of inelastic systems to be consistently
smaller than or equal to those of the corresponding elastic systems.

Nathan M. Newmark Anestis S. Veletsos

(1910–1981) (1927– )

Although implicit in the previous study, it is worthwhile to highlight the important relationship
between the normalized yield strength of an inelastic system and the ground motion intensity.
As pointed out by Veletsos and Newmark [24]: ‘The reciprocal of the reduction factor (u y /u 0 )
expresses the intensity of the ground motion in terms of that which the system can withstand
elastically,’ i.e. a value of, say, u y /u 0 = 0.5 represents a yield strength for the structure that is
one-half of that required for elastic response, or a ground motion twice as intense as that which
would cause elastic response. Jennings [25] put it more precisely: the ductility response of a

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:1175–1183
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 INELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM 1179

system with period Tn and yield deformation u y to a given earthquake record is equal to that of a
system with the same period but yield level u y when subjected to the same record scaled by the
constant . This finding permits statistical analysis of the strength reduction factor determined for
ground motions of different intensities without normalizing the ground motions.
The ranges of applicability of the aforementioned rules relating inelastic and elastic response
spectra were not defined until the Veletsos and Newmark [24] report and the Veletsos et al.’s
paper [26] (the latter included results from Chelapati’s Ph.D thesis [27] carried out under Veletsos’
supervision).
An important aspect of these studies was that the effects of inelastic actions were investigated
starting with very simple pulse-like excitations, then progressing to more involved such motions,
and finally considering realistic earthquake motions. In addition to having demonstrated the intimate
relationship that exists between the responses of systems to these different forms of excitation,
this approach helped to identify the major trends of the results for the more complex excitations,
ensuring the appropriateness of such conclusions applied to earthquakes. As in the elastic case,
they concluded that three spectral regions could be, respectively, recognized according to the
‘sensitivity’ of the systems to the ground displacement, velocity, and acceleration traces of the input
motion (the quoted term was coined by Chopra [1, 28]), a strong argument for the formulation of
design spectra on the basis of three ground motion parameters. They presented response spectra for
elastoplastic systems subjected to the mentioned ground motions, as shown in Figure 1, denoted
as ‘yield–deformation spectra’ for constant values of ductility. In this tripartite plot, with cyclic
natural frequency f n (hertz) in abscissa, the diagonal log-scale on the left is the yield deformation
u y necessary to limit the maximum deformation of the system u m to a specified ductility factor; the
vertical axis and the right-hand diagonal scale are, respectively, Vy = n u y and Ay = 2n u y = Q y /m,
where n is the undamped natural circular frequency (n = 2 f n ).
The definition of these spectral quantities was especially ingenious. First, it made explicit the
essence of inelastic response: the relationship between the strength reduction factor Q 0 /Q y and
the ductility demand. Second, u y , Vy , and Ay are related through the initial elastic frequency n ,
consistent with the definitions of D, V , and A for elastic systems [1], thus permitting a convenient
graphic display analogous to the elastic spectrum; indeed, the elastic spectrum corresponds to
the particular case of  = 1. Third, the constant-ductility response spectrum for a ground motion
summarizes the response of systems of all strength to the same ground motion scaled to any
intensity. Finally, the axes of the plot may be normalized by peak values of ground displacement,
velocity, and acceleration (u g , u̇ g , and ü g ) to illustrate amplification trends in different spectral
regions (Figure 1).
Veletsos et al. [26] presented the following approximate rules to relate the response of elasto-
plastic and elastic systems: (a) For the left-hand, low-frequency region for which the maximum
deformation of the elastic system may be taken to be equal to the maximum ground displace-
ment, the ‘equal displacement rule’ holds (Equation (1)) and u m = u 0 = u g . (b) In the extreme
right-hand part of the spectrum, even a slight reduction of u y with respect to u 0 produces a large
inelastic deformation of to the elastoplastic system, and the spectra for moderate values of 
become asymptotic to A; thus the value of A for both the elastic and the elastoplastic systems
may be considered to coincide, i.e. the maximum force for both systems is m ü g and u y = u 0 = u m .
(c) In the intermediate frequency range the situation is more complex, for frequencies extending
to the right of the range considered under ‘(a)’ above, the equal displacement rule can be applied;
however, the greater the amplification values u 0 /u g and Vy /u̇ g , the more conservative the values
determined from the equal displacement rule, and a better estimate of the maximum deformation

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:1175–1183
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1180 R. RIDDELL

Figure 1. Constant-ductility response spectra for El Centro 1940, NS component, ground motion for
elastoplastic systems with 2% damping and ductility factors from 1 (elastic) to 10. Adapted from Veletsos
and Newmark [24] with minor notation changes.

response of elastoplastic systems may be obtained from u m = u g or u y = u g /; however, this esti-
mate may not be conservative. (d) For the range of moderately high frequencies, where the elastic
spectrum presents larger amplification with respect to ü g , the concept of preservation of energies,
i.e. Equation (2), may be used.
Further studies by Veletsos, who joined Rice University in 1964 and chaired the Civil Engineering
Department until 1972, examined if the concepts developed for elastoplastic systems discussed
above carry over to systems with various load–deformation relationships [29]. He also proposed
some refinements of the design rules for ground motions induced by distant earthquakes; based
on the observation that the 1/ rule led to unconservative results in the high-frequency segment of
the velocity-sensitive region of the spectrum, similarly, the equal energy rule led to unconservative
results in the high-frequency segment of the acceleration-sensitive region [30].

INELASTIC DESIGN SPECTRA

The most significant consequence of the studies mentioned in the previous section is the Veletsos–
Newmark–Hall methodology used to derive seismic design spectra, where ‘the spectrum for the
elastoplastic system is obtained by drawing a curve similar in shape to that of the elastic system, but
displaced downward’ by the appropriate reduction factors that depend on the spectral region and,
of course, on the ductility factor [11]. Figure 2 shows schematically the elastic design spectrum
obtained applying response amplification factors to the design ground motion parameters (u d =
u̇ d = ü d ) and then completing with transition lines towards u d and ü d at both ends of the frequency
scale [31, 34], which is ‘reduced’ to obtain the inelastic design spectrum [32]. William J. Hall
obtained his Ph.D. under Newmark’s supervision in 1954; later he became a close collaborator of
Newmark and Head of the Civil Engineering Department at UIUC for the period 1984–1991.

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:1175–1183
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 INELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM 1181

Figure 2. Construction of design spectra. Based on Newmark and Hall [31, 32],
this figure is taken from Riddell and Newmark [33].

Figure 2 includes two inelastic design spectra for two ductility values, where the frequency
values for points I  , J  , M  , and N  are only illustrative and need to be adjusted according to the
seismic region and the geotechnical conditions at the site. From L to the left, the inelastic design
spectrum is obtained by dividing the elastic spectrum ordinates by √(i.e. according to the equal
displacement rule), point L is obtained dividing the ordinate at L by 2−1 (i.e. according to the
equal energy rule), and the construction is completed with transition lines. The lower spectrum,
for larger ductility, includes a slight modification of the original proposal recommended by Riddell
and Newmark [33]. This study also showed that the equal displacement rule is conservative from
K  to the left, but unconservative in the velocity-sensitive region (K  L ) for damping larger that
2% and ductility factors larger than 2 or 3; in turn, the equal energy rule applicable to the
acceleration-sensitive region (L M  ) is unconservative for damping larger than 5%.
The inelastic design spectrum was central to developing seismic regulations for buildings
proposed in the Applied Technology Council (ATC) landmark report, ATC 3-06 [35]. Initiated in
1974 under contract with the National Bureau of Standards with funding provided by the National
Science Foundation, ATC was charged with organizing a multidisciplinary team of experts to write
code provisions for building authorities across the United States. Newmark was the Chairman of
the Project Steering Group, and Chairman of the Structural Behavior Group (one of the five Task
Groups), which was organized in three technical committees chaired by Henry Degenkolb, Anil
Chopra, and Anestis Veletsos.
The design spectrum methodology has been the basis for designing special facilities that require
more rigorous design criteria than those applicable to buildings, with regard to both the definition
of the earthquake hazard and the acceptable extent of inelastic deformations, depending on the
performance requirements. The earliest applications include nuclear reactor facilities and the Trans-
Alaska pipeline system [30, 31, 36–38].

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:1175–1183
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
1182 R. RIDDELL

CLOSURE

By the mid-1960s, the Veletsos–Newmark studies had led to a clear understanding of the inelastic
response spectrum. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, the seminal concepts of elastic and inelastic
response spectra were shaped by Veletsos, Newmark, and Hall into the design spectrum concept,
which is the basis of seismic design today.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author is grateful to the Editors of the Journal EESD for the opportunity to record the early history
of the inelastic response spectrum, to William J. Hall for providing resource material and advice during
the manuscript preparation, and to Anestis S. Veletsos for his thorough review and extensive comments.
The author gratefully acknowledges Paul C. Jennings, Jose M. Roesset, and Anil K. Chopra for reading
the manuscript, especially Chopra’s review that helped shape the paper to the objectives of the early
history series of papers. N. M. Newmark’s picture courtesy of the Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, UIUC.

REFERENCES
1. Chopra AK. Elastic response spectrum: a historical note. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007;
36(1):3–12.
2. Newmark NM. Methods of Analysis for Structures Subjected to Dynamics Loading. Directorate of Intelligence,
U.S. Air Force, 1950; 95.
3. Newmark NM. A method of computation for structural dynamics. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division
(ASCE) 1959; 85:67–94.
4. Newmark NM. Computation of dynamic structural response in the range approaching failure. Proceedings of the
Symposium on Earthquake and Blast Effects of Structures, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, 1952; 114–129.
5. Newmark NM, Chan SP. A comparison of numerical methods for analyzing the dynamic response of structures.
Civil Engineering Studies. Structural Research Series, vol. 36. University of Illinois: IL, 1952; 82.
6. Tung TP, Newmark NM. A review of numerical integration methods for dynamic response of structures. Civil
Engineering Studies. Structural Research Series, vol. 69. University of Illinois: IL, 1954; 87.
7. Pan SL. Influence of ductility on the response of simple structures to earthquake motions. Ph.D. Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, 1951.
8. Pan SL, Goodman LE, Newmark NM. Influence of ductility on the response of simple structures to earthquake
motions. Civil Engineering Studies. Structural Research Series, vol. 11. University of Illinois: IL, 1951; 89.
9. Housner GW. Characteristics of strong-motion earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America
1947; 37:19–31.
10. Housner GW. Limit design of structures to resist earthquakes. First World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA, 1956; 5-1, 5-13.
11. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions.
Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Science Council of Japan, Japan,
vol. 2, 1960; 895–912.
12. Tanabashi R. Studies on the nonlinear vibrations of structures subjected to destructive earthquakes. First World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA, 1956; 6-1,
6-16.
13. Sheth RM. Effect of inelastic action on the response of simple structures to earthquake motions. Master of
Science Thesis, University of Illinois, 1959; 53.
14. Bycroft GN, Murphy MJ, Brown KJ. Electrical analog for earthquake yield spectra. Journal of the Engineering
Mechanics Division (ASCE) 1959; 85(EM4):43–63.
15. Penzien J. Dynamic response of elastoplastic frames. Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE) 1960; 86(ST7):
81–94.
16. Berg GV, Thomaides SS. Energy consumption by structures in strong motion earthquakes. Proceedings of the
Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Science Council of Japan, Japan, vol. 2, 1960; 681–697.

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:1175–1183
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 INELASTIC RESPONSE SPECTRUM 1183

17. Blume JA. Discussion of electrical analog for earthquake yield spectra. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics
Division (ASCE) 1960; 86(EM3):177–184.
18. Blume JA. Structural dynamics in earthquake resistant design. Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE) 1958;
84(ST4, Part 1):1695.
19. Blume JA. Closure to structural dynamics in earthquake resistant design. Journal of the Structural Division
(ASCE) 1959; 85(ST7, Part 1):11–21.
20. Blume JA. A reserve energy technique for earthquake design and rating of structures in the inelastic range.
Proceedings of the Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Science Council of Japan, Japan,
vol. 2, 1960; 1061–1083.
21. Blume JA, Newmark NM, Corning LH. Design of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Buildings for Earthquake
Motions. Portland Cement Association: Skokie, IL, 1961; 318.
22. EERI. Connections, The EERI Oral History Series: John A. Blume (S. Scott, interviewer). Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, CA, 1994.
23. SEAOC. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. 1967 Revision. Structural Engineers
Association of California, San Francisco, CA, 1967.
24. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. Response spectra for single-degree-of-freedom elastic and inelastic systems, vol. III of
design procedures for shock isolation systems of underground protective structures. Report No. RTD-TDR-63-3096,
Air Force Weapons Laboratory, Kirkland Air Force Base, Alburquerque, NM, 1964.
25. Jennings PC. Response of yielding structures to statistically generated ground motion. Third World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand, vol. 2, 1965; 237–257.
26. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM, Chelapati CV. Deformation spectra for elastic and elastoplastic systems subjected
to ground shock and earthquake motions. Third World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand,
vol. 2, 1965; 663–682.
27. Chelapati CV. Response of simple inelastic systems to ground motions. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois, 1962.
28. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures, Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1995.
29. Veletsos AS. Maximum deformation of certain nonlinear systems. Fourth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Santiago, Chile, vol. 2, 1969; 155–170.
30. Veletsos AS. Seismic Design Forces for Pump Stations Structures. Prepared for Michael Baker Jr., Inc., Consulting
Engineers, Rochester, PA, Jackson, MS, 1971.
31. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities. Fourth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, vol. 2. 1969; B4-37/50.
32. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Procedures and criteria for earthquake resistant design. Building Practices for Disaster
Mitigation. Building Science Series, vol. 46. National Bureau of Standards: Washington, DC, 1973; 209–236.
33. Riddell R, Newmark NM. Statistical analysis of the response of nonlinear systems subjected to earthquakes. Civil
Engineering Studies. Structural Research Series, vol. 468. University of Illinois: IL, 1979; 291.
34. Newmark NM, Hall WJ, Mohraz B. A study of vertical and horizontal earthquake spectra. Report WASH-1255,
Directorate of Licensing, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC, 1973.
35. ATC. Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. Applied Technology Council
ATC 3-06 Report, National Bureau of Standards: National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, 1978.
36. Newmark NM, Blume JA, Kapur KK. Seismic design spectra for nuclear power plants. Journal of the Power
Division (ASCE) 1973; 99(PO2):287–303.
37. Hall WJ, Newmark NM. Seismic design criteria for pipelines and facilities. Proceedings of the Technical Council
on Lifelines Earthquake Engineering Specialty Conference, ASCE, Los Angeles, CA, 1977; 18–34.
38. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Development of criteria for seismic review of selected nuclear power plants. Report
NUREG/CR-0098 Prepared for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, N. M. Newmark Consulting Engineering
Services, 1978; 49.

Copyright q 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2008; 37:1175–1183
DOI: 10.1002/eqe