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

net/publication/233782212

Response of bare and infilled rc frames under the effect of horizontal and
vertical seismic excitation

Conference Paper · September 2002

CITATIONS READS

16 322

3 authors, including:

Laura Liberatore Fabrizio Mollaioli

Sapienza University of Rome Sapienza University of Rome
42 PUBLICATIONS 1,237 CITATIONS 182 PUBLICATIONS 3,300 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Laura Liberatore on 07 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering
Paper Reference 164

RESPONSE OF BARE AND INFILLED RC FRAMES

UNDER THE EFFECT OF HORIZONTAL AND
VERTICAL SEISMIC EXCITATION

L. D. Decanini, L. Liberatore, F. Mollaioli

Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale e Geotecnica,

Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy

ABSTRACT
In this paper, non-linear dynamic analyses of RC bare and infilled frames are carried out to
investigate the effect of horizontal and vertical seismic excitation. Particularly, a comparison
with and without the vertical component was performed. Near-fault strong ground motions,
with a strong vertical peak ground acceleration, have been adopted for the analyses. The
effects on the structural behaviour are evaluated by means of displacement parameters and
dissipated energy in addiction to the conventional design parameters.

KEYWORDS
Vertical motion; RC bare and infilled frames; Dissipated Energy; Inter-storey drift.

INTRODUCTION
The interest in the use of energy-based and displacement-based parameters for the analysis of
structural response has been recently growing as it seems to give a more adequate
interpretation of the observed behaviour under severe earthquakes [1,2,3]; these methods can
lead to new design criteria.
Besides, in the recent years, a quite large data set of strong near-fault records (Northridge
1994, Kobe 1995, Turkey 1999, etc.) has showed that the effect of vertical motion on the
structural behaviour is not negligible. In fact, in the near-fault the vertical acceleration can
reach values even higher than those of the horizontal one, but with different frequency
contents. Field observation and analyses has confirmed the importance of vertical motion in
the damage evaluation [4,5]. At present, only few design codes (USA, Mexico) take vertical
motion into account [6], while many others neglect this action at all or recommend to
consider a vertical spectrum with values which are often considered 2/3 of the horizontal
spectra.
In this context, it seems important to study the effects due to the simultaneous action of
vertical and horizontal motion, evaluating the response in terms of dissipated energy, relative
displacements and stress induced on structural elements.
On these basis, a research programme, in which different type of structures and the influence
of seismic input are considered, has been developed; the first stage of this programme
regards the non-linear dynamic analysis of MDOF structures subjected to near-fault strong
ground motions.
CASE STUDY BUILDINGS AND ADOPTED MODELS
The analyses concerned two-span, four storeys reinforced concrete frames, with and without
infill panels. Two kind of frames have been studied, the first one designed considering only
static vertical loads, so as to represent many italian existing building, the second one designed
according to current seismic codes; these two kind will be indicated as “non-seismic” and
“seismic” respectively.
The design vertical static loads are those of an internal frame of a system with 5 m spaced
frames. For the design of the seismic frames, seismic equivalent static load have been applied,
considering a seismic coefficient of 0.22 and a reduction factor of 4; this situation correspond
to an effective acceleration of about 0.35g.
The span length and the inter-storey height are 5 and 3.2 m, respectively. A concrete with
fck=21 MPa and a steel Fe B38k (fyk=375 MPa) were used; cross sections dimensions and
reinforcement are the same as indicated in [7].
To investigate the influence of masonry, dynamic analyses on infilled RC frames were
performed considering three different type of masonry, whose properties are reported in Table
1, where σm0 is the compressive strength, τm0 is the shear strength, evaluated through diagonal
compressive test, and Em is the initial elastic modulus.

TABLE 1
MASONRY DESCRIPTION AND MECHANICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Infills type Bricks Mortar Masonry

σm0 (MPa) τm0 (MPa) Em (MPa)
Weak (m1) Hollow bricks Cement +sand + lime 1.20 0.20 1050
thickness 120 mm
Intermediate (m2) Hollow bricks Cement +sand 2.10 0.40 1880
thickness 145 mm
Strong (m3) Semi-solid bricks UNI Cement +sand 11.50 0.84 6000
thickness 120 mm

300
250 strong
200 intermediate
150
weak
100
50
Force (kN)

0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

horizontal displacement (mm)

Figure 1: Typical force-displacement envelopes and weak masonry hysteretic loops

The analyses were performed with a modified version of the computer program BRIE.
Columns and beams were modelled throughout non-linear fiber elements: the concrete force-
deformation relationship is defined by a linear envelope, and includes the deterioration of
mechanical properties; the steel envelope of assumed force-deformation relationship is
trilinear.
The infill panels were modelled by equivalent diagonal struts, with only compressive
strength. The Decanini et al. model [8] has been adopted for the determination of infills
mechanical properties. This model take the reversible cyclic nature of seismic loads into
account. For the dynamic analyses degrading cyclic behaviour has been included; the adopted
hysteretic rules take the stiffness and strength degradation into account by means of two
parameters: α and β, the parameter α controls the stiffness of the unloading branch as a
function of the reached deformation, the parameter β enables the control of reloading stiffness
degradation as a function of the dissipated energy according to the Park model [9]. The
determination of hysteretic parameters and the validation of the adopted model of the infills
was made through the comparison between numerical and test results. The typical envelope of
force-displacement relationship and typical hysteretic loops are shown in Figure 1.

SEISMIC INPUT
At present, study has been focused on the analysis of ground motion effects in near-fault
condition. From the available data set, a horizontal component and the corresponding vertical
component has been selected for each of the recording station considered, excited during the
seismic events of Kocaeli 1999, Imperial Valley 1979 and Northridge 1994. For each record
two analyses were performed, one with only the horizontal component, and the other one with
the horizontal and vertical components acting simultaneously.
In Table 2 the records utilised for the dynamic analyses are reported, together with the main
characteristics of the corresponding earthquakes. Df is the closest distance from the surface
projection of rupture.

TABLE 2
RECORDS UTILISED FOR THE DYNAMIC ANALYSES

Earthquake Ms Mw Mechanism Records Df (km) Soil type

Kocaeli 7.8 7.4 Strike-slip Yarimca YPT330 2.6 S3
17/08/99 Yarimca YPT-UP (Soft)
Imperial Valley 6.9 6.5 Strike-slip El Centro #8 CRU230 3.5 S2
15/10/1979 El Centro #8 CRU-UP (Intermediate)
Northridge 6.8 6.7 Reverse Rinaldi Receiving Station RRS318 2.3 S2
17/01/1994 Rinaldi Receiving Station RRS-UP (Intermediate)

TABLE 3
HORIZONTAL COMPONENTS

Record PGA EPA PGV IH 0.1-2.5s tD AEI(0-4) EImax TEImax EHmax µ=2 TEHmax
(g) (g) (cm/s) (cm) (s) (cm2/s) (cm2/s2) (s) (cm2/s2) (s)
YPT330 0.35 0.21 62 177 15.61 59500 24500 1.45 8500 1.40
40000 3.50 12600 3.40
CRU230 0.45 0.33 50 126 5.81 20200 13700 4.50 4200 4.00
RRS318 0.47 0.47 84 298 8.20 59200 32000 1.30 13500 1.20
30000 2.25 11200 2.20
 TABLE 4
VERTICAL COMPONENTS

Record PGA PGAV/ PGV IH 0.1-2.5 S tD

(g) PGAH (cm/s) (cm) (s)
YPT-UP 0.24 0.69 31 124 22.26
CRU-UP 0.44 0.98 22 72 5.41
RRS-UP 0.85 1.82 51 117 6.19

The conventional and energy parameters which characterise the horizontal and vertical
components are listed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively.
The effective acceleration EPA is the average pseudo-acceleration in the range of period 0.1-
0.5 s, divided by 2.5. The Housner Spectral Intensity IH is a parameter often used for the
characterisation of the ground motion damage potential and is given by the integral of the 5%
damped spectral pseudo-velocity in the range of periods 0.1÷2.5 s. The parameter td is the
effective duration by Trifunac-Brady. AEI(0-4) is the Elastic Seismic Hazard Energy Factor
[10] and is given by Eq (1):

4
AEI ( 0−4 ) = ∫E
0
I ( T ) dT (1)

where EI is the absolute elastic input energy per unit mass (5% damped). EImax is the
maximum elastic input energy and EHmax µ=2 is the maximum hysteretic energy required to an
EPP oscillator with ductility equal to 2; TEImax and TEHmax are the periods in which the above
mentioned maximum values occur.
In Figures 2, 3 the elastic input energy spectra and the hysteretic energy spectra (5% damped)
are shown for the three horizontal components.
In Figures 4, 5 the pseudo-acceleration spectra are reported for the horizontal and vertical
components, respectively.

50000 RRS318 20000 RRS318

ξ =5% µ=2
YPT330 YPT330 ξ =5%
40000 16000
CRU230 CRU230
30000 12000
EH (cm /s )
EI (cm /s )

2
2

2
2

20000 8000

10000 4000

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (s) T (s)

Figure 2: Input Energy Spectra Figure 3: Hysteretic Energy Spectra

 2.5 2.5
RRS318 RRS-UP
2.0 YPT330 2.0 YPT-UP
CRU230 CRU-UP
1.5 1.5

Sa (g)
Sa (g)

1.0 ξ =5% 1.0 ξ =5%

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
T (s) T (s)

Figure 4: Pseudo-acceleration Response Figure 5: Pseudo-acceleration Response

Spectra. Horizontal Components. Spectra. Vertical Components.

It seems worthwhile to highlight that the input energy, so as the energy dissipation demand, is
not well correlated with the PGA. Moreover, the maximum values of input energy occur at
periods which are significantly different from the corresponding pseudo-acceleration peaks.

RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

Effect of horizontal motion

The structural response under the effect of horizontal seismic excitation highlighted the
important role of infills and seismic input characteristics.
In Table 5 the maximum inter-storey drifts are reported together with the drift limits, which
are considered associated to a high level of structural damage. In the same table the
development of ground columns plastic hinges is indicated. An incipient state of yielding,
associated to a very small energy dissipation, is indicated with “I”. Throughout the analysis of
the yielding state and the comparison between the maximum inter-storey drifts and the drift
limits is possible to define a state of structural collapse, in Table 5 the cases in which the
structures collapse are also reported.

TABLE 5
INTER-STOREY DRIFT AND BASE COLUMNS PLASTIC HINGES. HORIZONTAL MOTION.

Inter-storey drift (%) Drift Base columns plastic Structural collapse

limits hinges
YPT CRU RRS YPT CRU RRS YPT CRU RRS
Non-seismic frames
Bare 5.0 3.7 6.9 2.5 Yes Yes Yes Collapse Collapse Collapse
Infilled m1 3.8 1.5 5.8 1.8 Yes No Yes Collapse ---- Collapse
Infilled m2 0.9 0.7 4.5 1.5 No No Yes ---- ---- Collapse
Infilled m3 0.7 0.4 1.7 1.2 No No I ---- ---- Near coll.
Seismic frames
Bare 3.1 1.8 3.8 2.5 Yes I Yes Near coll. ---- Collapse
Infilled m1 1.2 1.0 4.1 1.8 I No Yes ---- ---- Collapse
Infilled m2 0.3 0.3 1.1 1.5 No No I ---- ---- ----
Infilled m3 0.2 0.2 0.8 1.2 No No No ---- ---- ----
The deformations of the structures are significantly affected by the presence of the infills,
which strongly reduces the horizontal displacements (Fig. 6, 7) and can prevent the
development of plastic hinges in the columns. The maximum inter-storey drifts obtained for
the infilled frames m3 are only from 6 to 25% of those found for the bare frames; for infilled
frame m2 the percentage ranges between 10 and 65. For the infilled frames m1 and for the
Northridge record the infills has a negative effect due to the development of a soft storey, in
the other cases the infills m1 reduce the maximum inter-storey drifts, which range between 39
and 84% of those of the bare frames.
An important role of masonry is that of dissipating a great amount of energy, reducing the
energy dissipation demand in the structural element or even preventing the development of
plastic hinges. Therefore the contribution of masonry is of great importance especially for
non-seismic frames, which have a lower capacity of dissipating energy than the seismic ones.

4 4 4 bare H
bare H+V
3 3 3 m1 H
No. storey

m1 H+V
2 2 2 m2 H
m2 H+V
1 1 1 m3 H
m3 H+V
0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
drift (%) drift (%) drift (%)
Northridge Kocaeli Imperial Valley

Figure 6: Maximum inter-storey drift. Non-seismic frames.

top displacement (mm) top displacement (mm) top displacement (mm)

800 800 800
600 600 600
400 400 400
200 200 200
0 0 0
-200 -200 -200
-400 bare -400 bare -400 bare
-600 -600 m2 -600 m2
m2
-800 -800 -800
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
t (s) t (s) t (s)
Northridge (RRS318) Kocaeli (YPT330) Imperial Valley (CRU230)

Figure 7: Top displacements. Non-seismic frames: bare and infilled m2.

It is evident the great difference, in terms of structural global response, obtained with
different records: RRS record produces the greater damage, followed by YPT record, while
CRU leads to structural collapse only for the non-seismic bare frame. In this context the
seismic behaviour is well correlated with the energy parameters of the ground motion and less
with the correspondent PGA and EPA (see Tab 3).

Effect of vertical motion

It is commonly recognised that the main effect of the vertical motion consists of the variation
of axial force in the columns. The high values of compression, or even tension, induced by the
vertical excitation could produce a damage in the structure which leads to a decrease of
structural capacity to withstand the horizontal seismic motion, resulting in an increase of
horizontal displacements. In order to investigate the structural behaviour under the effect of
horizontal and vertical seismic excitation several parameters, such as axial force in the
columns, base shear, horizontal displacements and dissipated energy, were analysed.

In Table 6 the effect of vertical motion on the variation of the axial force in the columns is
reported as the minimum and the maximum values of the ratio (NH+V-NH)/N0, where NH+V and
NH are the maximum or minimum axial force due to the horizontal and vertical motion and to
the horizontal motion respectively, while N0 is the initial axial force associated with the static
vertical loads. In the examined cases, generally, N0 is only a small fraction of the ultimate
axial strength. Negative values of the ratio (NH+V-NH)/N0 are associated to tensile axial forces.
The values reported in Table 6 refer to the maximum and minimum normalised axial force
variation, that are generally found at the roof level, anyway significant axial force variation
have been found at the ground floor as well [10].

TABLE 6
EFFECT OF VERTICAL MOTION ON THE AXIAL FORCE VARIATION: (NH+V-NH)/N0

Non-seismic Seismic
YPT CRU RRS YPT CRU RRS
min max min max min max min max min max min max
External columns
Bare frame -0.9 1.2 -2.0 3.4 -2.8 3.5 -0.5 1.8 -3.9 8.3 -3.5 7.1
Infilled m1 -0.7 0.8 -2.6 6.1 -2.2 4.0 -0.5 1.1 -2.4 4.6 -1.2 5.0
Infilled m2 -0.2 1.1 -2.1 3.0 -0.9 4.9 -0.5 1.0 -0.6 1.6 -2.2 5.1
Infilled m3 -0.2 0.8 -1.4 1.8 -1.5 5.3 -1.3 0.4 -0.8 1.7 -2.2 4.7
Internal columns
Bare frame -1.4 2.1 -1.6 2.3 -2.5 8.5 -1.2 2.5 -1.8 2.3 -2.8 6.5
Infilled m1 -0.8 1.2 -1.5 3.9 -2.2 4.9 -0.7 1.1 -1.8 4.2 -2.5 7.3
Infilled m2 -0.5 0.6 -0.9 1.4 -1.5 4.3 -0.4 0.6 -1.4 3.4 -2.2 6.2
Infilled m3 -0.9 2.0 -0.9 2.0 -2.6 3.6 -0.3 0.2 -0.8 1.7 -2.7 5.5

From Table 6 it results that for the internal columns the greater variation of the axial forces
due to the vertical motion is obtained for the RRS records, while for the external ones the
greater effects is sometimes found for the CRU records. It is worthwhile to observe that the
variation of the axial load in the external columns, due to the vertical component, can be more
or less important depending on the intensity of horizontal component. If the horizontal
component alone produce a high axial deformation the vertical component could give a lower
contribution to the increment, or decrement, of the axial forces.

Figures 8, 9, 10 show the influence of vertical excitation on maximum base shear, top
displacement and dissipated energy.
In Figure 8 the ratio between the maximum shear demand in case of horizontal and vertical
motion acting simultaneously, Cy(H+V), and that in case of horizontal motion, Cy(H), is reported.
In the case of bare frame or infilled frame with weak masonry (m1) the shear demand
associated to horizontal and vertical motions is generally smaller or equal of that associated to
the horizontal component alone. For infilled frames m2 and m3 (intermediate and strong
masonry) an increase or decrease of the shear demand have been found. Anyway, the
maximum shear demand ratio Cy(H+V)/Cy(H) ranges between 0.87 and 1.13, showing that the
base shear is slightly affected by the vertical component of the ground motions. Nevertheless,
even though the vertical motion do not induce a significant variation in the total base shear
and in the bending moment in the columns, the greater compression or tensile forces affect the
bending and shear strength of the elements, and can lead to fragile failure.

1.4 RRS n-s CRU n-s YPT n-s

1.3 RRS seis. CRU seis. YPT seis.
1.2
Cy(H+V)/Cy(H)

1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
m3 m2 m1 bare

Figure 8: Influence of vertical excitation on base shear

In Figure 9 the ratio between top displacements obtained in case of horizontal and vertical
motion and those associated to the only horizontal one is shown as a function of initial period
T0. This figure highlights the great influence of the vertical component in case of infilled
frames m2 and m3 (T0<0.16 s). In case of infilled frame the axial deformation in the columns
leads to a variation in the compressive stress in the diagonal struts, with a greater damage in
the infills, and a decrease in their capacity of reducing horizontal displacements. In case of
bare frames and infilled frames m1 the influence of vertical component is somewhat
negligible, the ratio δtop(H+V)/ δtop(H) ranging between 0.91 and 1.10. However, nevertheless the
infilled frames seem to be more affected than the bare ones by the vertical motion, the
horizontal deformations are significantly smaller of those obtained for the bare frames as
shown in Table 7 for top relative displacements.

TABLE 7
TOP RELATIVE DISPLACEMENT: δTOP/TOTAL HEIGHT (%)

Non-seismic frames Seismic frames

YPT CRU RRS YPT CRU RRS
H H+V H H+V H H+V H H+V H H+V H H+V
Bare 4.2 4.2 2.8 3.0 5.1 4.8 2.4 2.3 1.4 1.2 2.5 2.5
Infilled m1 2.4 2.3 0.9 0.9 3.6 3.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 2.4 2.3
Infilled m2 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 1.9 2.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.7 1.0
Infilled m3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.7 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5

The ratio between the total dissipated energy at the end of the time histories for horizontal and
vertical motions and that dissipated in case of only horizontal excitation is reported in Figure
10. A similar trend of that observed for the displacement demand has been found for the
dissipated energy. When T0 is less than 0.16 s (infilled frames m2 and m3) the ratio
EH(H+V)/EH(H) varies from 0.67 up to 1.63. The energy that a structure may dissipate depends
on the loading and unloading path, which is strongly affected by the accelerogram and by the
peaks temporal sequence of horizontal and vertical excitation. Therefore the presence of the
vertical motion can lead to a smaller or greater energy demand, even though, for the infilled
frames m2 and m3 the ratio EH(H+V)/EH(H) is mostly greater than one. However, generally the
infilled frames dissipation capacity is high. In case of bare frames or infilled frames m1 the
ratio ranges between 0.92 and 1.05.

2.2 1.8
RRS n-s CRU n-s YPT n-s RRS n-s CRU n-s YPT n-s
2.0 1.6
RRS seis. CRU seis. YPT seis. RRS seis. CRU seis. YPT seis.
1.8 1.4
δ top(H+V) /δ top(H)

EH(H+V)/EH(H)
1.6 1.2
1.4 1.0
1.2 0.8
1.0 0.6
0.8 0.4
0.6 0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
T0 (s) T0 (s)

Figure 9: Influence of vertical motion on top Figure 10: Influence of vertical component
displacements on dissipated energy

Finally, the presence of the vertical excitation can produce a variation in the distribution of
the dissipated energy among the elements of the frames, with a possible greater demand in the
columns as shown in Figure 11, where the dissipated energy are reported for the non-seismic
frames excited by Northridge records.

12000 RRS318 RRS318 + RRS-UP

12000
bare bare
10000 10000
m1 m1
8000 8000
EH (cm /s )

EH (cm /s )

m2
2

m2
2

6000 m3 6000 m3
4000 4000

2000 2000

0 0
beams columns infills beams columns infills

Figure 11: Dissipated Energy. Non-seismic frames. Northridge

CONCLUSIONS
The performed analyses have confirmed the strong influence of infills on the dynamic
response of RC frames. Infills, if present in all storeys, give a significant contribution to the
energy dissipation capacity, reducing the dissipation energy demands in columns and beams
and decreasing significantly the maximum displacements.
 As expected, the energy characteristics of the seismic input strongly influence the structural
response. The near-fault records utilised, even in case of very similar PGA values, have
produced very different effects on the examined structures. The damage levels present a good
agreement with the energy parameters.
The presence of vertical motion does not significantly influence the horizontal displacements
of bare frames, but can produce some effects for the infilled ones. For what regards the
influence of vertical component on dissipated energy, there is not a clear trend but it is
possible to note that greater variations can occur for infilled frames.
The presence of the seismic vertical component has a great influence on the axial forces in the
columns with strong variation both in internal and in external columns.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study is part of the research activity supported by MURST.
The authors would like to acknowledge Professor D. Liberatore for the program utilized in the
present study and for his support in the development of model implementation.

REFERENCES
1. Uang, C. M. & Bertero V. V. Use of Energy as a Design Criterion in Earthquake
Resistant Design. Report No. UCB/EERC-88/18, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, University of California at Berkeley, 1988.
2. Bommer J. J. & Elnashai A. S. Displacement Spectra for Seismic Design, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1999.
3. Miranda, E. Inelastic Displacement Ratios for Structure on Firm Sites, Journal of
Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 10, October, 2000.
4. Kusunoki, K. Nakano, Y., Okada T. 1999. The effect of Vertical Excitation on Seismic
Response Characteristics of Structures, U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-Based
Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures: 255-
266. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre.
5. Papazoglou, A. J. & Elnashai, A. S. 1996. Analytical and field evidence of the damaging
effect of vertical earthquake ground motion, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics vol.25: 1109-1137.
6. Salazar, A. R. & Haldar, A. 2000. Structural responses considering the vertical
component of earthquakes, Computers and Structures 74: 131-145.
7. Decanini, L. D., Liberatore, L., Mollaioli, F. Effetti delle azioni sismiche orizzontali e
verticali sulla risposta di telai piani nudi e tamponati, Atti del 10° Convegno Nazionale
L’ingegneria sismica in Italia. Potenza-Matera 2001.
8. Decanini, L. D., Gavarini C., Bertoldi, S. Telai tamponati soggetti ad azioni sismiche un
modello semplificato confronto sperimentale e numerico, Atti del 6° Convegno Nazionale
L’ingegneria sismica in Italia: 815-824. Perugia 1993.
9. Park, Y. J., Reinhorn, A. M., and Kunnath, S. K. 1987. IDARC: Inelastic Damage
Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame – Shear-Wall Structures, Technical Report
NCEER-87-0008, State University of New York at Buffalo.
10. Decanini, L. D. & Mollaioli, F. 1998. Formulation of Elastic Earthquake Input Energy
Spectra, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics vol.27: 1503-1522.

View publication stats