Response and Design Spectra - Concept and Use

RESPONSE AND DESIGN
SPECTRA
Concept and Use

Concept and Characteristics of Elastic
Response Spectra
Response spectrum is
a central concept initiated in 1932 by Biot and
highly promoted by Housner since the 1950’s
a very concise and convenient way of
summarizing peak responses of all possible SDF
systems.
forms a convenient basis for the design of
structures 
presented as a plot of the peak response against
Tn for a few selected values of .
Concept and Characteristics …
Let us consider various SDF systems with varying
period, T, such that T1 < T2 < T3 < T4 <…. For a
selected damping
Let each of them be subjected to the same ground
excitation as shown given in form of acceleration time
history
The response of each SDF can be calculated by direct
numerical integration or using Duhamel’s integral
Time variations of the total acceleration and the relative
displacement so obtained are shown below for 5%
damping and for T of 0.5s, 1.0s and 2.0s.
The peak values of the deformation, velocity and
acceleration (total) time history can be described as
follows:
These are indicated in the above time histories and defined as

the displacement, velocity and acceleration spectral values.
 The responses can be computed for as many periods as needed
and the peak values plotted against period to give the spectral
curves.
 The process is repeated for other values of damping. The

resulting curves are the acceleration and displacement spectra
for the given ground motion as shown below
Note that, regardless of damping, one can
consider the two extreme cases:
T  0 (ideally rigid), Sa  PGA and Sd  0;
T  ∞ (ideally flexible), Sa  0 and Sd  PGD.
 Slightly modified versions of the velocity and acceleration spectra
defined above are more important in studying the characteristics of
response spectra in general and convenient to devise design spectra
These spectra, known as pseudo-velocity and pseudo-
acceleration spectra, are defined as:
V and A are good approximations of the corresponding true

quantities for damping up to 20% (Note: D=Sd ). They are
selected for clear reasons
V is a direct measure of the kinetic energy of the structural mass, m;
A directly provides the base shear as a fraction of the weight as
shown below:
Note that damping in building structures is less than 10%.
The construction of these spectra is illustrated in the following

slide for El Centro ground motion:
Peak values, D, are identified from the deformation time history
V and A are calculated using above relations (Thus, they are not
independent quantities)
These steps are followed for as many periods as needed and for
selected values of damping. The set of graphs shown below gives
the curves obtained for a 2% damping.
Observe this trend

The existing interrelationship lends itself to a single
four-way log plot as shown below
log V   log 2  log D   log Tn
log V    log 2  logA   log Tn
For a serious of constant values

of D and A, the equations
represent parallel lines that
enable the introduction of the
diagonal axes in log scale
This powerful and elegant
mode of presentation enables
us to read all three quantities
(D, V, A) concurrently and
observe their trends from a
single graph!
The spectra for 0%, 2%, 5% and 10% damping drawn in this
manner for the given specific ground motion are shown below.
Such a plot is called four-way logarithmic or tripartite plot.
 Note that the peak

ground responses
recorded at the site
are also indicated.
A version in terms of the ordinates normalized with
respect to the respective peak ground motion is shown
below
 Note that the

respective maximum
possible spectral
values are indicated
by lines
The curve for 5% damping (r. c. structures) is presented below
separately with trend lines in form of a chain of dashed line
segments also included:
 A number of
important period
ranges can be
observed.
For T<Ta (=0.035s), which represents very rigid structures, the spectral
acceleration A is practically the same as the PGA and D is very small
(< 0.001PGD) regardless of damping;
For T >Tf (=15s), which represents very flexible structures, the spectral
displacement for all damping is practically the same as the PGD and A
is very small (< 0.01PGA); Thus, inertia force becomes negligible.
Tb (=0.125s) ≤ T ≤ Tc (=0.5s), the ground acceleration is amplified
most by about a constant factor;
Ta (=0.035s) ≤ T ≤ Tb (=0.125s), the amplification of the spectral
acceleration increases with increasing period, T;
Td (=3s) ≤ T ≤ Te (=10s), the ground displacement is amplified most by
about a constant factor;
Te (=10s) ≤ T ≤ Tf (=15s), the amplification of the spectral
displacement decreases with increasing period, T;
Tc (=0.5s) ≤ T ≤ Td (=3s), the ground velocity is amplified
most by about a constant factor;
While Tc and Td are sensitive to damping, the rest of the
period boundaries may be considered independent of
damping;
Generally, three major period ranges can be distinguished:
An acceleration-sensitive short-period range (T ≤Tc),
A velocity-sensitive intermediate-period range (Tc ≤ T ≤ Td) and
A displacement-sensitive long-period range (T ≥ Td).
Elastic Design Spectra
Elastic design spectra are the statistical average of ensembles
of individual spectra that are representative of a given site or
area. They should have the following characteristics:
They should be statistically representative of all pertinent
recorded or historical earthquake ground motions from the site
or from other sites of similar conditions (magnitude, fault
mechanism, distance, path geology and local site conditions);
Since the jaggedness with T of any spectrum can never be

replicated by any past or future ground motion, the design
spectra should be smooth curves.
Mean and mean+1s design spectra for 5% damping
prepared from 10 records is shown below:
Note that
Each one is normalized
w. r. to its PGA
Probability distributions
are shown for selected
periods
It may be observed that
the statistical average is
much smoother than any
individual spectral curve.
The same trend observed
on the individual
earthquake can also be
observed here
Newmark & Hall (1974) worked on a much larger ensemble
of ground motions recorded on firm grounds to come up with
the following general form of design spectrum
The following were established from the statistical
analysis:
The transition periods: Ta, Tb, Te and Tf (see figure); and
The amplification factors (see table on next slide):
Tc and Td defining the velocity-sensitive region are

determined by the intersection of the constant V-line
with the constant A-line and the constant D-line,
respectively.
Tc and Td are thus dependent on damping because of the
damping dependence of the amplification factors as shown in
the table below
Typical values of and along
with are used to construct the 84.1th
percentile design spectrum below for 5% damping
The pseudo-acceleration
spectra can as well be
presented in a similar
manner (log-log scale)
The 84.1th percentile

pseudo-acceleration
spectrum so obtained is
given here together with
best-fit expressions for
the various segments
The complete 84.1th percentile
pseudo-acceleration spectra
for firm ground determined in
this manner and presented on
a natural scale for damping of
1%, 2%, 5%, 10% and 20%
are given below
These spectra form the basis

for site-dependent spectra to
be discussed later (Site Class
A in EC8 and Site Class B in
US codes)
Elastic Design spectra of local codes: Kenyan
Code (1973)
The 1973 Kenyan code provides the following as the “basic case”
seismic design spectrum:
 The “basic case” is defined as a flexible-frame building on hard ground

built in Zone VIII-IX (most seismic zone; see map)
The numerator is believed to represent the seismicity of the site and given
as a fraction of g; it is supposed to be halved for Zone VII and quartered
for Zone VI.
It is not clear if the spectrum is already reduced for structural non-linear
response
This spectrum had its origin in the first ever seismic code of USA, UBC
1961, which proposed this same seismic coefficient with an upper bound
of 0.2 (see Plot). This was later replaced by a much improved spectrum
after the work of Newmark & Hall (1974).
… Kenyan Code (1973)
The plot of this relation disregarding the site coefficient (to make it site
independent) is given below
Note that the shape is in disagreement with the Newmark-Hall standard shape in
the short-period range
Note also that an upper bound was specified by the source document, UBC 1961
….Kenyan Code (1973)
The associated
seismic hazard map is
given here
Note that the maximum
coefficient is 0.05 for
Zone VIII-IX, which is
to be halved for Zone
VII and quartered for
Zone VI
… Kenyan Code (1973)
The rather old UBC 1961 spectrum is provided below in comparison with
the relatively recent versions of UBC that adapted the Newmark & Hall
(1974) results and continued up to 1997 and later replaced by the IBC series
The deficiency of the old UBC spectrum is evident up to T=2 seconds, which
is the range for most frequently built structures (up to around 20 stories!!)
It may thus be
concluded that the
Kenyan design
spectrum is proposed
before the widely
accepted Newmark &
Hall (1974) results were
known.
Stuck in the old past?

… Ethiopian Code (EBCS 1995)
The 1995 EBCS provides the following firm-ground
seismic design spectra for dynamic and ESF analyses:
The shapes are similar to the Newmark-Hall spectra
… Ugandan Code (UNBS 2003)
The inelastic design spectrum is provided after applying a reduction
factor of 4 for nonlinear response and ductility for the reference site in
Zone 1 (most seismic zone on map below). This implies that the
plateau of the elastic design spectrum has the ordinate of 0.32 and the
PGA is estimated at 0.13g for Zone 1, though these values are not
explicitly provided.
… IBC 2009
The MCE mapped spectral values are multiplied by
2/3 to obtain the spectral values for the MDE (475-
year return period)
… EC8 2004
The ECB 2004 basic design spectrum for a rock/firm
site is as given below:
Site-Dependent Elastic Design Spectra
If the site is other than a firm ground/rock, studies show that
spectra are generally larger than at rock sites for all periods,
but may depend on
Period;
Intensity of shaking/seismicity
Such site effect can be studied empirically or analytically:

Empirical studies demand the availability of a good size of
recorded ground motion data to handle them statistically;
Analytical studies demand knowledge of dynamic soil behavior
and some ground motion records
Site-Dependent Elastic Design Spectra –
Early empirical studies (Seed et al 1976)
Seed et al (1976) statistically analyzed a limited size of
ground motion records (104) of different site-soil
conditions from the San Fernando earthquake of 1971.
They obtained the spectral curves shown below
Data were meager for the
softest soil group
The spectrum for rock is
similar to those we saw
earlier
Compared to rock sites,
soils sites showed
significant amplification in
the intermediate period
region and over a wider
range
3.1 Site-Dependent Elastic Design Spectra –
ATC 3 1978
ATC 3 (1978) adapted three of the Seed et al spectra
The shapes of the soil-site spectra remained similar to the
rock-site spectra with the same plateau
Suggested RRS were 1.5 and 2.2
The fourth spectrum for the
softest site soil was included
in 1988 after data from the
1985 Mexico earthquake
were analyzed
Note that amplifications are
recommended for the
intermediate period range
only
The four spectral curves were
in use in the US up until 1997
EC8 1994
The first EC spectra were released in 1994 and are shown below
The shapes are basically similar to the ATC 3 spectra
The Class C-spectra are suspect of incomplete data (RRS is much
smaller than those in ATC 3)
Kenyan Code (1973)
There are only two site classes: hard ground and soft ground
The soft-ground spectrum is obtained by merely raising the hard-ground
spectrum by 30% over the entire period range
This is yet another shortcoming, for all types of soils are lumped as one.
Ethiopian Code, EBCS8 1995
Shapes and RRS are basically similar to ATC 3 spectra
The site factors are unequal for ESF and dynamic analysis
Ugandan Code, UNBS 2003
The site factor for Type I (1.25) is too small and for Type II (2.5) too large.
Basis for deviation is unknown.
Note that ordinates are reduced by a factor of 4 for ductility and non-linear
response
Recent empirical studies
The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake provided a good size of ground
motion records from a variety of geological deposits.
The average trend of the spectra of ground motions from the same
neighborhood (Bay area of San Francisco and Oakland) is as shown
Some important observations include
Unlike in the old Seed et al (1976) spectra, the soil-site spectra
are amplified over the entire range of periods, though to a
varying degree;
The ground acceleration at soil sites is amplified about 2 to 2.5-
fold;
The spectral amplification is highest in the velocity-sensitive
period range (up to more than 3-fold), minimum in the
displacement-sensitive range and intermediate in the acceleration
sensitive range (around 2.5-fold).
The trend is similar for sites of larger stiffness, but smaller
This preliminary observation suggested the need for a more
thorough study of site amplification.
Based on the above observation of the period

dependence of site soil amplification, average
amplification factors were derived from Loma
Prieta ground motion records for different site soil
classes and for four period ranges:
Short period (0.1s to 0.5s);
Intermediate period (0.5s to 1.5s);
Mid period (0.4s to 2.0s);
Long period (1.5s to 5.0s)
The results showed that the short-period and the mid-period
factors, Fa and Fv, applied to the rock spectral accelerations as
shown schematically below are sufficient to characterize the
amplification potential of sites:
Site Classification
The different soil classes are characterized by the average
shear wave velocity of the upper 30m (Vs,30) formation
defined as
hi: thickness of each soil layer from the surface down to 30m depth;
Vi: Shear wave velocity of each layer obtained from seismic methods;
Note: denominator is the time needed for the wave to travel the 30m
height upper soil formation
Alternatively: average SPT or Su may be used
This is a big improvement of site soil characterization
NEHRP 1994 Provisions
Accordingly, the following distinct site soil classes were identified in
NEHRP 1994
Borcherdt (1994) showed that Fa and Fv are dependent on
Vs,30, and
the ground shaking intensity (seismicity) as shown
The plots show that
The mid-period amplification by soil sites is always
larger than the short-period amplification (Fv>Fa).
The short-period amplification factor, Fa, is significant
for softer soil formations (Vs,30 up to around 500m/s)
under low to intermediate level of intensity shaking
(PGA of up to 0.2g);
The mid-period amplification factor, Fv, is significant for
even larger ranges of formations and shaking intensity;
It is evident that the Seed et al data lacked representation
from small intensity shaking
The following distinct RRS values (amplification factors)
were proposed
The following are noteworthy:
The new site characterization is more rational and based on: Vs,30 or
SPT or Su.
The new site soil classes are larger in number
Amplification of spectral accelerations by soils occurs over the
entire period range and non-uniformly.
Amplifications by soil formations are more significant in low-
seismic regions like ours!! (Compare with the corresponding
Kenyan provision for contras)
Research conducted on a larger size of data from the 1994
Northridge earthquake did not alter the above outcomes; it
rather confirmed them. Hence, no major changes has been made to
these factors ever since (over 20 years compared to the rather
frequent revision of the codes at an interval of three years).
The site-dependent design spectra for a PGA of 0.1g prepared in
accordance with the above findings for NEHRP 1994 are provided
below in comparison with the older version of ATC 3:
The significant differences are to be noted especially in the short-
period range: a difference of up to 2.5-fold (!!) can be observed
The spectra could be directly applicable to many
cities and major towns in the East African region
(eg: Addis Ababa, Bujmbura, Kampala, Nakuru,
Kisumu, etc) with a PGA of 0.1g for a 475years
return period according to GSHAP.
The basic design spectrum has meanwhile undergone some
changes
NEHRP 2009, for example, has proposed the following basic form:
The amplification factors remain unchanged since 1997
The design spectra are prepared and presented below:
Examples
Example 1:
A building of period 1s (commonly built medium-height
building) founded on a non-rock formation in the seismic
zone of PGA 0.1g would be designed for a spectral
acceleration of 0.15g to 0.22g according to ATC 3, whereas it
would be designed for 0.17g to 0.33g according to NEHRP
2009. This difference is attributed solely to the improved
knowledge of soil amplification potential. (According to the
Kenyan code, the design spectral value for a soft ground in
the most seismic zone would be a maximum of 0.065g only!!!
This can be as low as 20% to 38% of the NEHRP 2009
demand, though this includes the impact of the return period
of the design earthquake in addition to the site soil effect)
Examples
Example 2:
A building of period 0.5s (about 3 to 6 story r.c. buildings)
founded on a non-rock formation in the seismic zone of PGA
0.1g would be designed for a spectral acceleration of 0.25g
regardless of the soil type according to ATC 3, whereas it
would be designed for 0.3g to 0.53g according to NEHRP
2009. This difference is solely attributed to the improved
knowledge of soil amplification potential (According to the
Kenyan code, the design spectral value for a soft ground in
the most seismic zone would be a maximum of 0.085g
only!!! This is 16 % to 28% of the NEHRP 2009 demand,
though this includes the impact of the return period of the
design earthquake in addition to the site soil effect)
Examples
Therefore, commonly built structures (up to 15
stories and even higher) founded on soils in areas
of moderate seismicity like our region would
be severely under-designed by local codes
provisions!!
Obviously, old seismic loading approaches could
lead to a great risk of collapse under the action of
future earthquakes!!
Time to wake up and discard the old stuff!!!
We need to update them asap!!!
EC8 2004 Provisions
EC8 2004 provides the following site-dependent
design spectra:
where
S stands for the site factor;
n stands for damping factor;
ag is the seismic coefficient as a fraction of g.
EC8 2004 Provisions
The basic shape of the spectra is as shown below for
5% damping
EC8 2004 Provisions
The site amplification factors together with the transition
period are as given below
Note that
S is not period
dependent
(Unlike Fa and
Fv);
Values of S are
much smaller
than those in
NEHRP 1994
EC8 2004 Provisions
The two types of spectra are plotted for 5% damping and shown
below; for comparison the 1994 version is also presented
Comparison of NEHRP 2009 v EC8 2004
Booth & Lubkowski (2012), in a recent paper entitled
“Creating a vision for the future of Eurocode 8,” have
compared the EC8 and NEHRP 2009 site coefficients for the
velocity-sensitive period region as follows:
Comparison of NEHRP 2009 v EC8 2004
The Comparison shows EC8 site coefficients are
significantly lower than the corresponding NEHRP
coefficients, especially for the C and D site classes of
EC8.
Appreciating the significant discrepancy, the authors

suggested a proper investigation of EC8 provisions for
site amplification potential.
Future Design Spectra Proposed for EC8
A recent study of over 3000 ground motion records
from 536 sites of Europe, USA and Japan, was
reported by Anastasiadis and Riga (2014) aimed at
deriving new amplification factors for the future EC8.
The form of the existing design spectrum is

maintained, but the following major changes are
proposed:
Site soil is characterized by the
 Fundamental period, T0, of the site soil deposit down to the depth,
H, of the “seismic bedrock” defined as having Vs>800m/s:
 Average shear wave velocity of the entire soil formation
The proposed site classes are as given below
The proposed site classes …
The single-factor approach is still maintained
The amplification factors are also proposed as below
A comparison with the current EC8 2004 factors is given below
An increase in the values up to over 50% is noted, especially in Classes C
and D, but still less than NEHRP factors!
The newly proposed spectral curves are as shown below
The increased number of site-soil classes and the modest increase in
the factors are visible
Whether they will be adopted by the future EC8 is yet to be seen
Thank You

Response and Design Spectra - Concept and Use

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Response and Design Spectra - Concept and Use

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESPONSE AND DESIGN

Concept and Use

These are indicated in the above time histories and defined as

 The process is repeated for other values of damping. The

V and A are good approximations of the corresponding true

The construction of these spectra is illustrated in the following

Observe this trend

For a serious of constant values

 Note that the peak

 Note that the

Since the jaggedness with T of any spectrum can never be

Tc and Td defining the velocity-sensitive region are

The 84.1th percentile

These spectra form the basis

 The “basic case” is defined as a flexible-frame building on hard ground

Stuck in the old past?

Such site effect can be studied empirically or analytically:

Based on the above observation of the period

Appreciating the significant discrepancy, the authors

The form of the existing design spectrum is

You might also like