Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 752

DYNAMICS

OF
STRUCTURES
Third Edition

3.0
Yielding phase

2.0

Displacement v, in

Elastoplastic response

Static displacement
p
=
k

1.0
vi = inelastic
displacement

ve = elastic
limit

0
Elastic response

- 1.0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Time, sec
FIGURE E7-4
Comparison of elastoplastic with elastic response (frame of Fig. E7-3).

fs

fs

8k

8k
1 in.

8k

1.5 in.

1.5 in.
8k

fs = 12 [ 2 v
3

( 1.5
(a)
FIGURE P7-1

(b)

1
3

( 23v ) ]
v

1.5)

CHAPTER

GENERALIZED
SINGLEDEGREEOF-FREEDOM
SYSTEMS

a
2
L
2

L
12

j=m

a
2
m

b
2

j=m

a 2+ b 2
12

m = ab

m = mL
L
2

b
2

mass
m=
length
mass

= area

2b
3

j=m

a +b
18

m=
b
3
a
3

b
2

j=m

a 2+ b 2
16

m=
ab
2

b
2

ab
4

Ellipse
a
2

2a
3

a
2

FIGURE 8-1
Rigid-body mass and centroidal mass moment of inertia for uniform rod and uniform
plates of unit thickness.

x
p(x, t) = p a f (t)

A
B

c1

m
2a

Hinge
m2 , j2
E

k1
a

H
G
k2

c2
a

Weightless, rigid bar EH

FIGURE E8-1
Example of a rigid-body-assemblage SDOF system.

p1(t) = 8 pa f (t)

8a
3

Mj
B

fD (t)
1

C
fI (t)
1

F
Mj

D
fS (t)
1

E
fD (t)
2

FIGURE E8-2
SDOF displacements and resultant forces.

F
fI (t)
2

G
fS (t)
2

Z(t)

e1

e1

Z
E

Z(t)

H
e

4a

3a

FIGURE E8-3
Displacement components in the direction of axial force.

fS (t)

mass

= area (uniform)

k
fI (t)
1

I (t)

fI (t)

Z(t)
a
2

FIGURE E8-4
SDOF plate with dynamic forces.

p(t)

N
Z(t)

e(t)

v t (x,t)

Fixed reference axis

v(x,t)

pe ff (x,t) =

m(x) vg (t)

m(x)
EI(x)

(b)

vg (t)
(a)

FIGURE 8-2
Flexure structure treated as a SDOF
system.

2
2

(a)

v(x,t) = (x) Z(t)

v1

v2

v3
x

v4

Z (t)

L
m(x)

m1, j1

m4 , j4

(b)
x1

(c)

(d )

c(x)

k (x)

c2

a1(x)

k1

c3

EI (x)

k2

q (x)
(e)

p(x,t)

p1 (t)

p3 (t)

(f)
FIGURE 8-3
Properties of generalized SDOF system: (a) assumed shape; (b) mass properties; (c) damping
properties; (d ) elastic properties; (e) applied axial loading; ( f ) applied lateral loading.

Z (t)
b

w (x,y,t)

x
a
FIGURE 8-4
Simply supported two-dimensional slab treated as a SDOF system.

v
k

(a)
v
v0
t

.
v

(b)

v0
t

(c)

FIGURE 8-5
Free vibration of undamped SDOF
structure: (a) SDOF structure;
(b) displacement; (c) velocity.

v(x,t) =

EI(x)
m(x)
L

(x) Z(t)

FIGURE 8-6
Vibration of a nonuniform beam.

Approximate inertial loading:

p (x) = m (x) (x) [where (x) is assumed shape]


y
y

Computer deflected shape vd (x)

y (x)

FIGURE 8-7
Deflected shape resulting from
inertial load of assumed shape.

p(x) = m(x) g

p(x) = m(x) g

vd (x)
vd (x)

p(x) = m(x) g

vd (x)

p(x) = m(x) g
(c)

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 8-8
Assumed shapes resulting from dead loads.

Weight = W

L
2

L
2

Uniform beam
EI = stiffness
m = mass length
Assumed shape
x

v(x) = Z 0

3x 2L x 3
3
2L

Z0 =

pL3
3EI

FIGURE E8-5
Rayleigh method analysis of
beam vibration frequency.

m
1

kips sec 2 in
k

1.5

v1(0) = 1.0
kips in
v2(0) = 1.0

1,200

2.0

v3(0) = 1.0
1,800

(a)
Inertial loads =

(b)
2

mi vi(0)

1.0

Computed deflections

(Shear force = 1.0


1.5

va =

600

(Shear = 2.5
2.0

vb =

v2(1) =

2.5
1,200

v3(1) =

(Shear = 4.5

v1(1) =

vc =

22.5
3,600

16.5
3,600

9.0
3,600

= Z 0(1)(1.0)

= Z 0(1)(0.733)

= Z 0(1)(0.40)

4.5
1,800

(c)
FIGURE E8-6
Frame for Rayleigh method frequency analysis: (a) mass and stiffness values; (b) initial assumed
shape; (c) deflections resulting from initial inertial forces.

2L
p (t)

load
length

Z (t)
Rigid uniform bar
Total mass = m

Pulley:
Total mass = m
(uniform over area)
Inextensible
massless cable

k
FIGURE P8-2

p(t)

Rigid massless bar


Rigid uniform bar
(Total mass = m)

k
Z(t)
L

c
L
2

L
2

FIGURE P8-3

Z (t)

v(x,t) =

(x) Z(t)

p=

load
length

Uniform column
m=

mass
length

EI = flexural rigidity

FIGURE P8-4

x
2

8 ft

(x) = 1

200 ft

cos

2L

Concrete stack:
density = 150 lb/ft3
E = 3 10 6 lb/in2
wall thickness = 8 in

0
18 ft

FIGURE P8-5

m1

m = mass
length
EI

Assumed shape
L
2

v(x)

L
2

FIGURE P8-6

v1(0) = 1

m1
k1

v2(0) = 2
3

v3(0) = 1
3

m2
k2
m3
k3

kips sec2/in
kips/in
kips sec2/in
kips/in
kips sec2/in
kips/in
FIGURE P8-8

CHAPTER

FORMULATION
OF THE
MDOF
EQUATIONS
OF MOTION

p(x,t)

1
m(x)
EI(x)
v1 (t)

v 2 (t)

vi (t)

vN (t)

FIGURE 9-1
Discretization of a general
beam-type structure.

CHAPTER

EVALUATION
OF STRUCTURALPROPERTY
MATRICES

~
v 1 = f 11

~
f 21
p1 = 1

~
f 12

~
fN 1

~
f i1

~
vi = fi 2
~
f 22
p2 = 1

~
fN 2
FIGURE 10-1
Definition of flexibility influence coefficients.

p 1 = k 11
p 2 = k 21

pi 1 = k i 1

pN 1 = k N 1

pi = k i 2

pN = k N 2

v1 =1

p 2 = k 22
p 1 = k 12
v2 =1

FIGURE 10-2
Definition of stiffness influence
coefficients.

Load system a:
p1 a

Load system b:
p2 a

p1 b

p3 a

p2 b

p3 b

Deflections b:

Deflections a:

v3 b
v1 a

v2 a

v3 a

FIGURE 10-3
Two independent load systems and resulting deflections.

v1 b

v2 b

v(x)

EI(x)

b
L
x

va

v1 = 1

1 (x)

v3 = 1
3 (x)

FIGURE 10-4
Beam deflections due to unit nodal
displacements at left end.

v(x) =
va
v3

=1

v1

1 (x)

v1

3 (x)

pa = k 13

FIGURE 10-5
Beam subjected to real rotation
and virtual translation of node.

v2

v3
4EI
v1

EI

EI
2L
(a)
k 21 = 2EI (3L)
L3

k 31 = 2EI (3L)
L3
2EI

k 11 =
v1 = 1

L3

(6)(2)

(b)
k 22 =
=

2EI
L3
2EI
L3

(2L 2 ) +

2(4EI )
(2L) 3

(2)(2L) 2

k 32 =

(6L 2 )

2(4EI)
(2L) 3

k 12 =

(2L) 2 =

2EI
L3

2EI
L3

(2L 2 )

(3L)

v2 = 1

(c)

FIGURE E10-1
Analysis of frame stiffness coefficients: (a) frame properties and degrees of freedom;
(b) forces due to displacement v1 = 1; (c) forces due to rotation v2 = 1.

m0 a

m1 a

m2 c

mi k

m1 b

m2 b

mi l

m1

m2

mi

mN

FIGURE 10-6
Lumping of mass at beam nodes.

v(x)

m(x)
b

a
L
v(x) =
v1

v3

1 (x)

v1

va

=1
a

Inertial force fI (x)


pa = m 13

FIGURE 10-7
Node subjected to real angular acceleration and virtual translation.

v2

v3
1.5 m

v1

1.5 mL

m11 = 4 mL

1.5 mL

0.5 mL

0.5 mL

m
2L

0.5 mL

0.5 mL

(a)
m 21 =

(b)

mL
mL
(22L) =
(11L)
420
210

m 31 =

mL
(11L)
210

(Axial motion
of girder)

mL
(156)(2) + (1.5 m)(2L)
420
mL
=
(786)
210

m 11 =

v1 = 1

(c)
m 22 =
=

(1.5 m)(2L)
mL
(4L2) +
(4)(2L)2
420
420
mL
(26L2)
210

m 32 =

(1.5 m)(2L)
mL
( 3)(2L2)2 =
( 18L2)
420
210

m 12 =

mL
mL
(22L) =
(11L)
210
420

v2 = 1
(d)
FIGURE E10-2
Analysis of lumped- and consistent-mass matrices: (a) uniform mass in members; (b) lumping of

mass at member ends; (c) forces due to acceleration v1 = 1 (consistent); (d ) forces due to

acceleration v 2 = 1 (consistent).

( , )

( )=

1(

3.0
Yielding phase

2.0

Displacement v, in

Elastoplastic response

Static displacement
p
=
k

1.0
vi = inelastic
displacement

ve = elastic
limit

0
Elastic response

- 1.0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Time, sec
FIGURE E7-4
Comparison of elastoplastic with elastic response (frame of Fig. E7-3).

fs

fs

8k

8k
1 in.

8k

1.5 in.

1.5 in.
8k

fs = 12 [ 2 v
3

( 1.5
(a)
FIGURE P7-1

(b)

1
3

( 23v ) ]
v

1.5)

CHAPTER

GENERALIZED
SINGLEDEGREEOF-FREEDOM
SYSTEMS

a
2
L
2

L
12

j=m

a
2
m

b
2

j=m

a 2+ b 2
12

m = ab

m = mL
L
2

b
2

mass
m=
length
mass

= area

2b
3

j=m

a +b
18

m=
b
3
a
3

b
2

j=m

a 2+ b 2
16

m=
ab
2

b
2

ab
4

Ellipse
a
2

2a
3

a
2

FIGURE 8-1
Rigid-body mass and centroidal mass moment of inertia for uniform rod and uniform
plates of unit thickness.

x
p(x, t) = p a f (t)

A
B

c1

m
2a

Hinge
m2 , j2
E

k1
a

H
G
k2

c2
a

Weightless, rigid bar EH

FIGURE E8-1
Example of a rigid-body-assemblage SDOF system.

p1(t) = 8 pa f (t)

8a
3

Mj
B

fD (t)
1

C
fI (t)
1

F
Mj

D
fS (t)
1

E
fD (t)
2

FIGURE E8-2
SDOF displacements and resultant forces.

F
fI (t)
2

G
fS (t)
2

Z(t)

e1

e1

Z
E

Z(t)

H
e

4a

3a

FIGURE E8-3
Displacement components in the direction of axial force.

fS (t)

mass

= area (uniform)

k
fI (t)
1

I (t)

fI (t)

Z(t)
a
2

FIGURE E8-4
SDOF plate with dynamic forces.

p(t)

N
Z(t)

e(t)

v t (x,t)

Fixed reference axis

v(x,t)

pe ff (x,t) =

m(x) vg (t)

m(x)
EI(x)

(b)

vg (t)
(a)

FIGURE 8-2
Flexure structure treated as a SDOF
system.

2
2

(a)

v(x,t) = (x) Z(t)

v1

v2

v3
x

v4

Z (t)

L
m(x)

m1, j1

m4 , j4

(b)
x1

(c)

(d )

c(x)

k (x)

c2

a1(x)

k1

c3

EI (x)

k2

q (x)
(e)

p(x,t)

p1 (t)

p3 (t)

(f)
FIGURE 8-3
Properties of generalized SDOF system: (a) assumed shape; (b) mass properties; (c) damping
properties; (d ) elastic properties; (e) applied axial loading; ( f ) applied lateral loading.

Z (t)
b

w (x,y,t)

x
a
FIGURE 8-4
Simply supported two-dimensional slab treated as a SDOF system.

v
k

(a)
v
v0
t

.
v

(b)

v0
t

(c)

FIGURE 8-5
Free vibration of undamped SDOF
structure: (a) SDOF structure;
(b) displacement; (c) velocity.

v(x,t) =

EI(x)
m(x)
L

(x) Z(t)

FIGURE 8-6
Vibration of a nonuniform beam.

Approximate inertial loading:

p (x) = m (x) (x) [where (x) is assumed shape]


y
y

Computer deflected shape vd (x)

y (x)

FIGURE 8-7
Deflected shape resulting from
inertial load of assumed shape.

p(x) = m(x) g

p(x) = m(x) g

vd (x)
vd (x)

p(x) = m(x) g

vd (x)

p(x) = m(x) g
(c)

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 8-8
Assumed shapes resulting from dead loads.

Weight = W

L
2

L
2

Uniform beam
EI = stiffness
m = mass length
Assumed shape
x

v(x) = Z 0

3x 2L x 3
3
2L

Z0 =

pL3
3EI

FIGURE E8-5
Rayleigh method analysis of
beam vibration frequency.

m
1

kips sec 2 in
k

1.5

v1(0) = 1.0
kips in
v2(0) = 1.0

1,200

2.0

v3(0) = 1.0
1,800

(a)
Inertial loads =

(b)
2

mi vi(0)

1.0

Computed deflections

(Shear force = 1.0


1.5

va =

600

(Shear = 2.5
2.0

vb =

v2(1) =

2.5
1,200

v3(1) =

(Shear = 4.5

v1(1) =

vc =

22.5
3,600

16.5
3,600

9.0
3,600

= Z 0(1)(1.0)

= Z 0(1)(0.733)

= Z 0(1)(0.40)

4.5
1,800

(c)
FIGURE E8-6
Frame for Rayleigh method frequency analysis: (a) mass and stiffness values; (b) initial assumed
shape; (c) deflections resulting from initial inertial forces.

2L
p (t)

load
length

Z (t)
Rigid uniform bar
Total mass = m

Pulley:
Total mass = m
(uniform over area)
Inextensible
massless cable

k
FIGURE P8-2

p(t)

Rigid massless bar


Rigid uniform bar
(Total mass = m)

k
Z(t)
L

c
L
2

L
2

FIGURE P8-3

Z (t)

v(x,t) =

(x) Z(t)

p=

load
length

Uniform column
m=

mass
length

EI = flexural rigidity

FIGURE P8-4

x
2

8 ft

(x) = 1

200 ft

cos

2L

Concrete stack:
density = 150 lb/ft3
E = 3 10 6 lb/in2
wall thickness = 8 in

0
18 ft

FIGURE P8-5

m1

m = mass
length
EI

Assumed shape
L
2

v(x)

L
2

FIGURE P8-6

v1(0) = 1

m1
k1

v2(0) = 2
3

v3(0) = 1
3

m2
k2
m3
k3

kips sec2/in
kips/in
kips sec2/in
kips/in
kips sec2/in
kips/in
FIGURE P8-8

CHAPTER

FORMULATION
OF THE
MDOF
EQUATIONS
OF MOTION

p(x,t)

1
m(x)
EI(x)
v1 (t)

v 2 (t)

vi (t)

vN (t)

FIGURE 9-1
Discretization of a general
beam-type structure.

CHAPTER

EVALUATION
OF STRUCTURALPROPERTY
MATRICES

~
v 1 = f 11

~
f 21
p1 = 1

~
f 12

~
fN 1

~
f i1

~
vi = fi 2
~
f 22
p2 = 1

~
fN 2
FIGURE 10-1
Definition of flexibility influence coefficients.

p 1 = k 11
p 2 = k 21

pi 1 = k i 1

pN 1 = k N 1

pi = k i 2

pN = k N 2

v1 =1

p 2 = k 22
p 1 = k 12
v2 =1

FIGURE 10-2
Definition of stiffness influence
coefficients.

Load system a:
p1 a

Load system b:
p2 a

p1 b

p3 a

p2 b

p3 b

Deflections b:

Deflections a:

v3 b
v1 a

v2 a

v3 a

FIGURE 10-3
Two independent load systems and resulting deflections.

v1 b

v2 b

v(x)

EI(x)

b
L
x

va

v1 = 1

1 (x)

v3 = 1
3 (x)

FIGURE 10-4
Beam deflections due to unit nodal
displacements at left end.

v(x) =
va
v3

=1

v1

1 (x)

v1

3 (x)

pa = k 13

FIGURE 10-5
Beam subjected to real rotation
and virtual translation of node.

v2

v3
4EI
v1

EI

EI
2L
(a)
k 21 = 2EI (3L)
L3

k 31 = 2EI (3L)
L3
2EI

k 11 =
v1 = 1

L3

(6)(2)

(b)
k 22 =
=

2EI
L3
2EI
L3

(2L 2 ) +

2(4EI )
(2L) 3

(2)(2L) 2

k 32 =

(6L 2 )

2(4EI)
(2L) 3

k 12 =

(2L) 2 =

2EI
L3

2EI
L3

(2L 2 )

(3L)

v2 = 1

(c)

FIGURE E10-1
Analysis of frame stiffness coefficients: (a) frame properties and degrees of freedom;
(b) forces due to displacement v1 = 1; (c) forces due to rotation v2 = 1.

m0 a

m1 a

m2 c

mi k

m1 b

m2 b

mi l

m1

m2

mi

mN

FIGURE 10-6
Lumping of mass at beam nodes.

v(x)

m(x)
b

a
L
v(x) =
v1

v3

1 (x)

v1

va

=1
a

Inertial force fI (x)


pa = m 13

FIGURE 10-7
Node subjected to real angular acceleration and virtual translation.

v2

v3
1.5 m

v1

1.5 mL

m11 = 4 mL

1.5 mL

0.5 mL

0.5 mL

m
2L

0.5 mL

0.5 mL

(a)
m 21 =

(b)

mL
mL
(22L) =
(11L)
420
210

m 31 =

mL
(11L)
210

(Axial motion
of girder)

mL
(156)(2) + (1.5 m)(2L)
420
mL
=
(786)
210

m 11 =

v1 = 1

(c)
m 22 =
=

(1.5 m)(2L)
mL
(4L2) +
(4)(2L)2
420
420
mL
(26L2)
210

m 32 =

(1.5 m)(2L)
mL
( 3)(2L2)2 =
( 18L2)
420
210

m 12 =

mL
mL
(22L) =
(11L)
210
420

v2 = 1
(d)
FIGURE E10-2
Analysis of lumped- and consistent-mass matrices: (a) uniform mass in members; (b) lumping of

mass at member ends; (c) forces due to acceleration v1 = 1 (consistent); (d ) forces due to

acceleration v 2 = 1 (consistent).

( , )

( )=

1(

A. Der Kiureghian, Structural Response to Stationary Excitation, loc. cit.

A. Der Kiureghian, Structural Response to Stationary Excitation, loc. cit.

v1
m

v3
L
x

2
JG = EI each member
3

L
m=
v2
x = 0.05

z
Fixed

1
0
0

0
1
0
4.59
4.83
14.56

y
FIGURE E26-7
3-DOF system subjected to rigid-base translation.

0
0 m
1

13
3

3
25

12

f=

-3

12
L 3
- 3
6EI
19

0.731 0.271 1.000


- 0.232 1.000 - 0.242
1.000 0.036

- 0.787

1.3

z (t)
z x (t)

1.2
max
max

Eq. (26-129)

1.1
Eq. (26-127)

1.0

0.2

0.4
B=

0.6
z y (t)

max

z x (t)

max

0.8

1.0

FIGURE 26-13
Statistical approach versus 30% rule
in combining two components of
horizontal response.

Story mass:
mi = 24 kips sec 2 ft
Total column stiffness:
EI = 4 10 6 kips ft2
L = 480 ft

Story height:
h = 12 ft

FIGURE P26-1
Uniform shear building.

z
L
m

EI

m
va
vb

2L

EI
w = 0.377
1.25

EI
mL3

EI
= 100 1/sec 2
mL3
z

F = 1.00 1.00
0.85 - 2.35

FIGURE P26-2
2-DOF plane frame.

CHAPTER

DETERMINISTIC
EARTHQUAKE
RESPONSE:
INCLUDING
SOIL-STRUCTURE
INTERACTION

x
L

FIGURE 27-1
Rigid rectangular basemat of a large structure.

(1985) and
(1988), both published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J.

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

3
4

5
4

3
2

7
4

D 2 D
=
Va
FIGURE 27-2
factor as a function of frequency and apparent wave velocity.

9
4

5
2

Structure
Structure and soil response
degrees of freedom
v(t)

Interface

Free soil boundary

Foundation medium

Rigid base, input


degrees of freedom

vg (t)
FIGURE 27-3
Finite-element model of combined structure and supporting soil.

, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1975), pp. 584588.

v(t)

k
2

k
2

m 0 , J0

Fixed reference

m, J
h

k
2

vg (t)

Elastic half-space

v0 (t)
M0 (t)

v(t)

M0 (t)

Rigid massless plate


Elastic half-space

(a)
(b)
FIGURE 27-4
Lumped SDOF elastic system on rigid mat foundation.

Substructure
No. 1

k
2

vz

m, J

(t)
I

(t)

Substructure
No. 2

A. S. Veletsos and Y. T. Wei, Lateral and Rocking Vibrations of Footings,


, ASCE, Vol. 97, 1971.
J. E. Luco and R. A. Westman, Dynamic Response of Circular Footings,
, ASCE, Vol. 97, (EM5), 1971.

p(t) = exp (i t)
T(t) = exp (i t)
M(t) = exp (i t)
v(t) = exp (i t)
2R
Half-space
p, G, v

FIGURE 27-5
Rigid massless circular plate on half-space.

1.0

v=0

= 3 G R(a 0 ) 16GR 3

v) G R(a 0 ) 4GR

1.0

1 3

0.5

= (1

v =1 2

1 3
1 2

(a)
2

4
a0 = R

1 3

1 2
1 3

1 2

0.5

(c)
0

0.7
0.6

Torsion

0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

(b)
0

Torsion

4
a0 = R

Vs

v=0

1.0

0.8

= 3 (1 v) G I (a 0 ) 8GR 3a 0

= 3 (1 v) G R(a 0 ) 8GR 3

= (2 v) G (a 0 ) 8 GR a 0

0.5

Vertical translation

= 3 G I (a 0 ) 16GR 3a 0

v=0
1.0

= (2 v) G R(a 0 ) 8GR

= (1 v) G I (a 0 ) 4GR a 0

Vertical translation

0.9

Lateral translation

4
a0 = R

1.0

Rocking

v=0
0.5

(d)

1 3

1 3

Vs

1 2

1 2

4
a0 = R

= (2 v) G I (a 0 ) 8 GR 2a 0

= (2 v) G R(a 0 ) 8 GR 2

0.3
v=0

0.2

1 3

0.1

1 2

v=0

0
0.1
0.2

(e)

1 2

1 3

Coupled lateral translation and rocking

FIGURE 27-6
Rigid massless circular plate impedances.

4
a0 = R

Vs

6
Vs

6
Vs

FIGURE 27-7
Example structures for soil-structure interaction analysis.

(a)

(b)

(d)

(c)

FIGURE 27-8
Substructures Nos. 1 and 2 for the systems shown in Fig. 26-7.

nA

nb

nc

Soil

Near field

nd

nd
Far field
Half-space with
surface cavity

FIGURE 27-9
Modeling of foundation full
half-space.

H. B. Seed, R. T. Wong, I. M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu, Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
Analysis for Cohesionless Soils, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Report No. EERC 84-14, 1984.
B. O. Hardin and V. P. Drnevich, Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils: Design Equations and Curves,
, Vol. 98, No. SM7, July, 1972.
J. Lysmer, T. Udaka, C. F. Tsai, and H. B. Seed, Flush A Computer Program for Approximate
3-D Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction Problem, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 7530, 1975.
I. Katayama, C. H. Chen, and J. Penzien, Near-Field Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Using Nonlinear
Hybrid Modeling, Proc. SMIRT Conference, Anaheim, Ca., 1989.

(0, t)
(0, t)

(0, t)
(0, t)

y, v

v(0, t)

w (0, t)

z, w

cp =

Column
Foundation
half-space

cs =

(b)

(a)
FIGURE 27-10
Substructure No. 2 as a uniform half-space having viscous boundary elements as its equivalent.

(0, t)
Layer
H1

vs 1 ,

(0, t)

(0, t)
1,

vs 2 ,

y1, v1
z 1, w 1

1
2,

v1 (0, t)

(0, t)

y2, v2
z 2, w2

cs

w1 (0, t)
Half-space
Shear-beam column

kp

ks

cp

(b)

(a)
FIGURE 27-11
Substructure No. 2 as a uniform layer on a uniform half-space having viscous and spring boundary
elements as its equivalent.

mg
Rigid hammer

vh
m

m
wm (t)

wm (t)

w(0, t)

Cushion
spring: k

m wm (t)

w(0, t)

k
cz =

z, w(z,t)
Vp =

AE
Vp

Pile: A, E,
N (0, t)
(a)

FIGURE E27-1
Hammer-cushion-pile system.

(b)

Axial force, kips


0

200

400

600

N (z, 0.005067)

Distance from top of pile, ft

10
Vp = (1.15)(10 5)
20
in sec

30

40
48.6

50
z

FIGURE E27-2
Axial-force distribution in concrete pile
0.00507 sec after initial hammer impact
with cushion.

T. J. Tzong, S. Gupta, and J. Penzien, Two-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Soil-Structure Interaction, Report No. UC-EERC 81/11, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, August, 1981.
T. J. Tzong and J. Penzien, Hybrid-Modeling of a Single Layer Half-Space System in Soil-Structure
Interaction,
, Vol. 14, 1986.

1.00

iIt

Cn n = R n iIn

1 exp (i t)

0.75
Ct t = Rt

1 exp (i t)

1.00

0.50

a a
t

= (Ct t G)exp(i t)
It

0.25

0.75
0.50

a a
un = (Cn n G)exp(i t)

0.25

1.00

2.00
a0

3.00

iIr

a a
ull = (Cll G )exp(i t)

1.0
a0

a a

0.20

Ir

0.10

Rl
0

Vs

Rr

0.30

Il

3.00

u rr = (Cr r a 2G)exp(i t)

0.40

Crr = Rr

iIl
Cll = Rl

1.5

0.5

2.00
a0

Vs

0.50

1.00

2.0

1.0

In

Rn

Rt

2.0

3.0

1.00
a0

Vs

2.00

3.00

Vs

FIGURE 27-12
Compliances of infinite rigid massless strip of width 2a; G = shear modulus, Vs = shear-wave velocity.

Cavity
R

Surface layer
of depth H

H
SR

vs 1 = G 1
1 , G1

C
L
Sym.

Half-space
vs 2 = G 2
2, G2

FIGURE 27-13
Continuous far-field impedance
functions Sp and SR along halfcylindrical cavity surface.

30

Real part
constant form

R G1)

14
0

R0

25

44

12
4

15

Imaginary part
freq. form

30

(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 3.0
10.0

45
0

(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 1.0
3.0
10.0

28

15

Imaginary part
constant form

R G1)

R G1)

60

R1

20

10

R1

10

Real part
freq. form

19

R0

R G1)

20

60

b0

b0

Vs1

FIGURE 27-14
Parameters defining impedance SR along half-cylindrical cavity surface.

1
1

Vs1

10

R G1)

0
5

(Vs 2 Vs 1) =
1.0
3.0
10.0

10

R G1)
(

(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 3.0
10.0

20

6
1
8

4
3

Imaginary part
constant form

13

11

Imaginary part
freq. form

13
6

R G1)

20

10
15

Real part
freq. form

18

R G1)

25

Real part
constant form

1
8

6
b0

15

Vs1

6
b0

Vs1

FIGURE 27-15
Parameters defining impedance S along half-cylindrical cavity surface.

A. S. Veletsos and Y. T. Wei, Lateral and Rocking Vibrations of Footings, loc. cit.
J. E. Luco and R. A. Westman, Dynamic Response of Circular Footings, loc. cit.
A. S. Veletsos and V. V. D. Nair, Torsional Vibration of Foundations, Structural Research at Rice,
Report No. 19, Department of Civil Engineering, Rice University, June, 1973.

Mode i

S
SR

Tributary area i

FIGURE 27-16
Far-field impedances over the hemispherical
cavity surface in spherical co-ordinates.

E. Kausel, Forced Vibrations of Circular Footings on Layered Media, MIT Research Report R74-11,
Mass. Inst. of Tech., Cambridge, Mass., 1974.
J. E. Luco, Impedance Functions for a Rigid Foundation on a Layered Medium,
, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1979.
S. Gupta, T. W. Lin, J. Penzien, and C. S. Yeh, Three-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Soil-Structure
Interaction,
., Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. Feb., 1982.

Real part

Imaginary part

R G)

20

R G)

30

10

0
9
0
Normal component

10

R G)

15

R G)

0
0

0
9
0
Tangential component

8
15
R G)

10

R G)

2
0

6
p0 =

Vs

0
9
0
Circumferential component

FIGURE 27-17
Far-field impedance functions over the hemispherical cavity surface.

3
p0 =

Vs

4
1

(a) Free-field deformations


FIGURE 27-18
Modeling for cross-section racking analyses.

(b) SSI deformations

J. Penzien, C. H. Chen, W. Y. Jean, and Y. J. Lee, Seismic Analysis of Rectangular Tunnels in Soft
Ground, Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, July,
1992.

X, U

Y, V y, v
Vf f

V( X,

t)

Direction of wave
propagation

x
Axis of tunnel

V(X, t)

u(x, t) = V(X, t) sin

x, u

v(x, t) = V(X, t) cos

FIGURE 27-19
Shear wave moving in the X direction at velocity Vf f .

S. Gupta, T. W. Lin, J. Penzien, and C. S. Yeh, Three-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Soil-Structure


Interaction, loc. cit.

Tunnel

no joints

a
a max
x

Tunnel

with joints

mp

x
FIGURE 27-20
Tunnel axial strains with and without
joints.

CHAPTER

STOCHASTIC
STRUCTURAL
RESPONSE

G. W. Housner, Behavior of Structures During Earthquakes,


1959.

, Vol. 85, No. EM-4, October,

G. N. Bycroft, White Noise Representation of Earthquakes, Proc. Paper 2434,


, Vol. 86, EM2, April, 1960.

Sv , ft /sec

1.5

Housners design velocity spectra


Bycrotts velocity spectra for
S 0 = 0.0063 ft 2 sec3
( and freq.)
=0

1.0

= 0.02
= 0.05

0.5
= 0.10

0.5

1.0

Multiplication factors
given by Housner

1.5
Period

2.0

El Centro
El Centro
Olympia
Taft

1940
1934
1949
1952

2.5

2.7
1.9
1.9
1.6

3.0

T, sec

FIGURE 28-1
Mean extreme values of pseudo-relative velocity for linear SDOF systems
(stationary white-noise excitation).

J. Penzien and S. C. Liu, Nondeterministic Analysis of Nonlinear Structures Subjected to Earthquake


Excitations, Proc. 4th World Conf. Earthquake Eng., Santiago, Chile, Vol. I, Sec. A-1, January, 1969.

Average of 50 artificial earthquakes

=0

= .02
= .05
= .10

Sv , ft /sec

Sv , ft /sec

G. Housners design spectra

=0
= .02
= .05
= .10

Period T , sec

1
2
Period T , sec

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 28-2
Mean extreme values of pseudo-relative velocity for linear SDOF systems (filtered stationary
white-noise excitation).

B = Vy W = 4
vt

m= W
g

vmax

V
V
y

= v max vy V
ve
max
Vy

vy

Vy

E
(a)

(b)

vy

D
(c)

FIGURE 28-3
Nonlinear SDOF models.

TABLE 28-1
Case
No.

Structural
type *

Period
T
sec

Damping
ratio,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10

Elastic-plastic

SD

*E

Elastic

EP

Strength
ratio, B

Yield displ.
vy
in

0.10
0.10

0.088
0.088

0.10
0.10

0.088
0.088

0.048
0.048

3.42
3.42

0.048
0.048

3.42

Stiffness degrading

B
k

Vy

vg

vy gT 2

Displacement v
max,

in

FIGURE 28-4
Probability distributions for extreme values of relative displacement.
0

2.5

0.001

2.0
3.0 4.0 5.0

0.300 0.500 0.700 0.800

0.001

1.001
1.40
2.0

3.0 4.0 5.0

10

0.300 0.500 0.700 0.800 0.900

0.0

1.0

2.0

Probability distribution P( v)

0.100

P( v) = exp [ exp ( v)]


where
v = ( v max u)

1.10

(a)

3.0

0.5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Return period, no. of earthquakes

(b)

2.0

0.950

Reduced variate, v

1.0

0.900

20

in

Reduced variate, v

0.0

Probability distribution P( v)

0.100

10

Ductility demand

5.0

1.40

P( v) = exp [ exp ( v)]


where
v = ( v max u)

1.10

max,

7.5

1.001

Displacement v

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

Return period, no. of earthquakes

3.0

0.950

10

20

30

40

50

20

Ductility demand
d

E. J. Gumbel and P. G. Carlson,

, op. cit.; E. J. Gumbel,


, op. cit.

(1)

(4)
(3)

0.5

0.5

E [vmax ] , 30

(6)

1.0

(5)

T = 0.3 sec

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

E,
E,
EP,
EP,
SD,
SD,

= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10

E [vmax ] , T0

(2)

E [vmax ] , T0

E [vmax ] , 30

1.0

1.0

(2)
(6)
(1)

(5)

0.5

(4)

(3)

T = 2.7 sec

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

E,
E,
EP,
EP,
SD,
SD,

= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10

0.5

T0
30

T0
30

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 28-5
Duration effect of stationary process on mean peak response of linear and nonlinear structures.

1.0

M. Murakami and J. Penzien, Nonlinear Response Spectra for Probabilistic Seismic Design and Damage
Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Report No. 7538, 1975.
H. Umemura et. al.,
, Giko-do, Tokyo, Japan, 1973 (in Japanese).

pB y

Original skeleton
curve

k1
ky
1 1

pB y
pB c = 3

pB c
O

vBy
= vmin

vBc

(a)

vBc

k2

ky
1

1
D

k2

vBy

vm ax
2 vB y
=
vmax vmin

pB c

pB y
pB y

1
pB c
O

vBy
S

(b)

k1

A 1

O
vB c

vB c

k1
k2

ky

1
D

vB y

Skeleton curve after


first yielding
R

FIGURE 28-6
Trilinear stiffness-degrading hysteretic
model.

P. C. Jennings, G. W. Housner, and N. C. Tsai, Simulated Earthquake Motions, loc. cit.

EI(x)
m(x)
L

x,

FIGURE P23-2
Cantilever member of Prob. 23-3.

CHAPTER

SEISMOLOGICAL
BACKGROUND

N. M. Newmark and E. Rosenblueth,


Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1971.

, Prentice-Hall Inc.,

N
Strike

Strike-slip fault
(left-lateral)

Dip

Reverse
fault
Normal fault

FIGURE 24-2
Definition of fault orientation, and of the basic types of fault displacement.
[Adapted from Earthquake by Bruce A. Bolt, W. H. Freeman and Company 1988.]

P-wave

(a)

Compressions

Dilatations

S-wave

Double amplitude

(b)

Wavelength

Love wave

(c)
Rayleigh wave

(d)
FIGURE 24-3
Diagram illustrating the forms of ground motion near the ground surface in
four types of earthquake waves. [From Bruce A. Bolt, Nuclear Explosions
and Earthquakes: The Parted Veil (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and
Company. Copyright 1976).]

Earthquake focus
Reflection at
the surface
Mantle
Core

Seismograph
station

Refraction
at the core
FIGURE 24-4
Paths of some P-type earthquake waves
from the focus.

Crust
Mantle
Outer core (liquid)

Inner core (solid)

FIGURE 24-5
Zonation of the earths interior. The crust, which includes continents at the surface
of the earth, rests on the mantle. The mantle, in turn, rests on the core. The outer
core is liquid, but the inner core is solid. [After W. J. Kauffman, Planets and Moons,
W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1979.]

Asiatic
Plate

Juan De Fuca
Plate
San Andreas
Fault
Philippine
Sea Plate
Cocos
Pacific Plate Plate
Australian
Plate

European
Plate

North
American
Plate

Caribbean
Plate

Nazca
Plate

Antarctic Plate

FIGURE 24-6
Simplified map of the Earths crustal plates.

South
American
Plate

African
Plate

Greenland
Iceland
British
Isles
M

i d-

Kilometers

tla

T IC

ntic R idge

AT L A
N

OCEA

Axis of ridge

100 150

50

30
60
Miles

90

FIGURE 24-7
Magnetic-anomaly pattern of the North Atlantic sea floor. Symmetrical striping is revealed
by measurement of the strength of the magnetic field at many locations from a ship.
The position of the area represented in the lower diagram is shown in the map above.
[From A. Cox et al., "Reversals of the Earths Magnetic Field." Copyright 1967 by
Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved.]

0.3

Acceleration
Acceleration of gravity

0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0

10

15

20

Time, sec
FIGURE 24-15
Accelerogram from El Centro earthquake, May 18, 1940 (NS component).

25

940 W

930 W

VI
Tarhazout
VII
VIII

Tamarhout

3030 N

Ait Lamine

Kasbah

Anza

Agadir
Atlantic
Ocean

Scale of Miles
3

Sous

VI

Ben
Sergao
Inezgane
ve

Epicenter
VIII
Yachech
Talbordit
New City
VII
Industrial Zone
(South)

Ri

IX

Ait Melloul

3020 N

FIGURE 24-16
Isoseismal map of Agadir
earthquake, 1960 (Modified
Mercalli intensity scale).

CHAPTER

FREE-FIELD
SURFACE
GROUND
MOTIONS

v t (t)
v(t)

Reference axis

m
k
2

vg (t)

k
2

FIGURE 25-1
Basic SDOF dynamic system.

D. E. Hudson, Response Spectrum Techniques in Engineering Seismology,


, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA, 1956.
D. E. Hudson, Some Problems in the Application of Spectrum Techniques to Strong Motion Earthquake
Analysis,
, Vol. 52, No. 2, April, 1962.

10

S p v ( , T ), ft /sec

8
=0

6
4
2
0

= 0.2

= 0.02
= 0.4

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Undamped natural period, T


FIGURE 25-2
Pseudo-velocity response spectra, El Centro, California earthquake, May 18, 1940
(NS component).

250.0

Sp v ( , T ), cm sec

100.0
50.0
25.0

10.0
5.0
2.5
0.05

0.1

0.5

10

Undamped natural period, T


FIGURE 25-3
Pseudo-velocity response spectra for El Centro, California earthquake, May 18, 1940
(NS component).

G. W. Housner, Spectrum Intensities of Strong Motion Earthquakes,


, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Los Angeles,
1952.

H. B. Seed and I. M. Idriss, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Monograph
published by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1982.
N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Monograph published by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute 1982.
G. W. Housner, Design Spectrum,
Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1970.

, Chapter 5, Ed. R. L. Wiegel, Prentice-Hall,

G. W. Housner, Properties of Strong Ground Motion Earthquakes,


, Vol. 45, No. 3, July, 1955.

ad (t)

Ground surface

Shear
beam
model

Soil

Bedrock
b

a b (t)

a c (t)

FIGURE 25-4
The shear beam model used for soil response analyses.

H. B. Seed, C. Ugas, and J. Lysmer, Site-Dependent Spectra for Earthquake Resistant Design,
, Vol. 66, No. 1, February, 1976.
J. Penzien, Statistical Nature of Earthquake Ground Motions and Structural Response, Proc. U.S.Southeast Asia Symposium on Engineering for Natural Hazards Protection, Manila, Philippines, September, 1977.

Spectral acceleration
Maximum ground acceleration

Total number of records analysed: 104

Spectra for 5% damping

3
Soft to medium clay and sand

15 records

Deep cohesionless soils (> 250 ft)

Stiff soil conditions (< 150 ft)


Rock

30 records
31 records

28 records

0.5

1.0

1.5
Period T

2.0

2.5

3.0

seconds

FIGURE 25-5
Average pseudo-acceleration spectra for different site conditions (by Seed et al.).

4
Total number of records analysed: 104

Spectral acceleration
Maximum ground acceleration

Spectra for 5% damping

Soft to medium clay and sand

15 records

Deep cohesionless soils (> 250 ft)

30 records

Stiff soil conditions (< 150 ft)

31 records

Rock

28 records

0.5

1.0

1.5
Period T

2.0

2.5

seconds

FIGURE 25-6
84 percentile pseudo-acceleration spectra for different site conditions (by Seed et al.).

3.0

1.0
R = 1.60 T = 1.0 sec
= 0.05
R = 0.73
Deep
cohesionless
soils

P (R)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

R
1.0
R = 0.61 T = 1.0 sec
= 0.05
R = 0.40
Rock

P (R)

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

0.5

1.0

1.5
R

G. W. Housner, Design Spectrum,


Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1970.

2.0

2.5

FIGURE 25-7
Gumbel Type I probability
distribution functions for
response ratio R for two soil
types.

, Chapter 5, Ed. R. L. Weigel, Prentice-Hall,

C. H. Loh, J. Penzien, and Y. B. Tsai, Engineering Analysis of SMART-1 Array Accelerograms,


, Vol. 10, 1982.

K. W. Campbell, Near-Source Attenuation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration,


, Vol. 76, No. 6, December, 1981.
C. A. Cornell, Engineering Seismic Risk Analysis,
Vol. 58, No. 5, October, 1968.
A. Der Kiureghian and A. H-S. Ang, A Fault-Rupture Model for Seismic Risk Analysis,
, Vol. 67, No. 4, August, 1977.

M. G. Bonilla, A Review of Recently Active Faults in Taiwan, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, Open-File Report 75-41, 1975.

N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall, Earthquake Spectra and Design, loc. cit.

al

Lo

sc

Lo
a

Sv Log scale

vv

sc

al

v
a

f2 = 4 f1
f3 = 10 f1
0.1

f1
f=

Log scale

f2 f3

60

FIGURE 25-8
Design response spectrum.

W. J. Hall, Observations on Some Current Issues Pertaining to Nuclear Power Plant Seismic Design,
, North-Holland Publishing Co., Vol. 69, 1982.
B. Mohraz, A Study of Earthquake Response Spectra for Different Geological Conditions,
, Vol. 66, No. 3, June, 1976.

Spectral acceleration
Maximum ground acceleration

Soil profile type S 3 (soft)

Soil profile type S 2 (medium)


Soil profile type S 1 (hard)

2.35

Spectra for 5% damping

1.62

0.92
0.77

0.5

1.0

2.056

1.370

1.147

0.64

0.43

0.47

1.5
Period T

2.0

2.5

3.0

seconds

FIGURE 25-9
ATC-3 normalized response spectra recommended for use in building code.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations
for Buildings, ATC Publication ATC3-06, NBS Special Publication 510, and NSF Publication 78-8,
1978.

t(
el

isp

la

cc
at

er
)

10

(g

10

io

= 0.05
2

10 0

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

en
m
ce

Velocity (m/sec)

10 1

cm

10 2

10 0

10

Period (sec)

10 1

10 2

FIGURE 25-10
Normalized response spectrum
curves for = 0.05 using eight
accelerograms recorded in
Taipei, Taiwan during the
earthquake of November 14,
1986.

t(
en

10

m
ce
la

le

Di

ce

sp

Ac

10

n(

10

tio

ra
g)

= 0.05
2

10 0

10

10

10

10

10

10

Velocity (m/sec)

10 1

cm

10 2

10 0

10

Period (sec)

10 1

10 2

FIGURE 25-11
Normalized design response
spectrum curve for = 0.05
representing Taipei, Taiwan,
soft soil conditions.

N. M. Newmark, J. A. Blume, and K. K. Kapur, Seismic Design Spectra for Nuclear Power Plants,
, Vol. 99, No. PO2, November, 1973.
U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.60, Design Response Spectra for Seismic Design
of Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, December, 1973.

HORIZONTAL

100

10

1.

10

0.

01

(in

t
10 n
0 . e me
lac

Ac

sp

ce

10

Di

le
0. rati
10 on

(g

1.

Velocity (in/sec)

0.5

10

10

Percent critical
damping

10

1000

0.
01
0

0.1

1.0

0.1

10

100

Frequency (cps)
VERTICAL

10

(g

10 n
0 . e me
lac

Ac

sp

ce

Di

le
0. rati
10 on

10

1.

1.

10

in

01

t(
)

0.

Velocity (in/sec)

0.5

100

10

10

Percent critical
damping
10

1000

0.
01
0

0.1

0.1

1.0

10

Frequency (cps)

100

FIGURE 25-12
NRC smooth design response spectrum
curves (mean 1 levels) normalized
to 1g peak ground acceleration.

H. B. Seed, C. Ugas, and J. Lysmer, Site-Dependent Spectra for Earthquake Resistant Design, loc. cit.
R. K. McGuire, A Simple Model for Estimating Fourier Amplitude Spectra of Horizontal Ground
Acceleration,
, Vol. 68, No. 3, June, 1978.
M. D. Trifunac, Preliminary Empirical Model for Scaling Fourier Amplitude Spectra of Strong Ground
Acceleration in Terms of Earthquake Magnitude, Source-to-Site Distance, and Recording Site Conditions,
, Vol. 66, No. 4, August, 1976.
D. M. Boore, Stochastic Simulation of High-Frequency Ground Motions Based on Seismological Models
of the Radiated Spectra,
, Vol. 73, No. 6, December, 1983.

f (t)
1
t
t1
t1

c (t

t 2)

t2

FIGURE 25-13
Intensity function f (t) for nonstationary
process a(t).

P. Ruiz and J. Penzien, Probabilistic Study of Behavior of Structures during Earthquakes, University
of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Rept. 69-3, 1969.
P. C. Jennings, G. W. Housner, and N. C. Tsai, Simulated Earthquake Motions, Rept., Earthquake
Engineering Research Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, April, 1968.
G. W. Housner, Design Spectrum, loc. cit.

1
2
2
1

2
2
2
2

J. L. Bogdanoff, J. E. Goldberg, and M. C. Bernard, Response of a Simple Structure to a Random


Earthquake-Type Disturbance,
, Vol. 51, No. 2, April,
1961.
T. Kubo and J. Penzien, Time and Frequency Domain Analyses of Three-Dimensional Ground Motions,
San Fernando Earthquake, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
Report No. 76-6, March, 1976.
K. Kanai, Semi-empirical Formula for the Seismic Characteristics of the Ground, University of Tokyo,
Bull., Earthquake Research Institute, Vol. 35, pp. 309-325, 1957; H. Tajimi, A Statistical Method of
Determining the Maximum Response of a Building Structure during an Earthquake, Proc. 2nd World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo and Kyoto, Vol. II, pp. 781-798, July, 1960.

H(i )

H1 (i ) H2 (i )

FIGURE 25-14
Absolute value of combined filter function.

1.5

Acceleration, g

1.0
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5

12

18

24

30

Time, sec
FIGURE 25-15
Synthetic accelerogram adjusted to be compatible with smooth design spectrum.

K. Lilhanand and W. S. Tseng, Development and Application of Realistic Earthquake Time Histories
Compatible with Multiple-Damping Design Spectra, Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo/Kyoto Japan (Vol. II), August 29, 1988.
M. Watabe, Characteristics and Synthetic Generation of Earthquake Ground Motions, Proc., Canadian
Earthquake Engineering Conference, July, 1987.

200
100
80
60

Velocity, in sec

40
20
10
8
6
4

.2
.1

.06 .08 .1

.2

.4

.6 .8 1

6 8 10

20

Period, sec
FIGURE 25-16
Smooth design response spectrum and response spectrum for adjusted synthetic
accelerogram; = 0.05.

1.5
1g peak acceleration

Acceleration, g

1.0
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5

12

18

24

30

18

24

30

Time, sec
FIGURE 25-17
Normalized accelerogram

Taft California N21 1952.


E,

1.5

Acceleration, g

1.0
0.5
0
0.5
1.0
1.5

12
Time, sec

FIGURE 25-18
Taft accelerogram adjusted to be compatible with smooth design spectrum.

200

Spectrum compatible
Taft accelerogram

100
80
60

Velocity, in sec

40
20
Normalized
Taft accelerogram

10
8
6
4
2
1
.04 .06 .08 .1

.2

.4

.6 .8 1

6 8 10

20

Period, sec
FIGURE 25-19
Smooth design response spectrum and response spectra for normalized Taft
accelerogram and adjusted Taft accelerogram; = 0.05.

J. Penzien and M. Watabe, Simulation of 3-Dimensional Earthquake Ground Motions,


, Vol. (1974), and
, Vol. 3, No. 4, April-June, 1975.

North

Acceleration
cm sec2
100
80
60
40

20
Interval t1-sec t2-sec
1
2
3
4
5
6

2
6
10
14
18
22

6
10
14
18
22
26

E
East

Tokachi-Oki, Japan
(Hachinoe Station)
May 16, 1968.

FIGURE 25-20
Directions of major principal axis of ground
motion Tokachi-Oki, Japan, earthquake
(Hachinoe Station) May 16, 1968.

C. H. Loh and J. Penzien, Identication of Wave-Types, Directions, and Velocities Using SMART-1
Strong Motion Array Data, Proc., 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco,
Ca., July 21-28, 1984.
T. Harada, Probabilistic Modeling of Spatial Variation of Strong Earthquake Ground Displacements,
Proc., 8th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, San Francisco, Ca., July 21-28, 1984.
N. A. Abrahamson and B. A. Bolt, The Spatial Variation of the Phasing of Seismic Strong Ground
Motion,
, Vol. 75, No. 5, October, 1985.
R. S. Harichandran and E. H. Vanmarke, Stochastic Variation of Earthquake Ground Motion in Space
and Time,
, February, 1986.

H. Hao, C. S. Oliveira, and J. Penzien, Multiple-Station Ground Motion Processing and Simulation
Based on SMART-1 Array Data,
, North-Holland, Amsterdam,
1989.
E. Samaras, M. Shinozuka, and A. Tsurui, Time Series Generation Using the Auto-Regressive MovingAverage Model, Technical Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Columbia University, New York,
May, 1983.

CHAPTER

DETERMINISTIC
EARTHQUAKE
RESPONSE:
SYSTEMS
ON RIGID
FOUNDATIONS

v t (t)
v(t)

Reference axis

c
k
2

fS
2

vg (t)

k
2

fS
2

FIGURE 26-1
Lumped SDOF system subjected to rigid-base translation.

Z(t)

Reference axis

v t (x, t)

v(x, t) =

(x) Z (t)

EI(x)
m(x)

vg (t)

FIGURE 26-2
Generalized SDOF system with rigid-base translation.

f S (x)
L

f S (x) =
h

m(x) v(x)
h

Vh

Mh
(b)

V0

M0
(a)

FIGURE 26-3
Elastic-force response of generalized SDOF system: (a) base forces; (b) section forces.

Z (t)
Assumed shape:
v(x, t) = (1

cos

2L

) Z (t)

m = 0.02 kips sec 2 / ft 2


L = 100 ft

EI = 14

10 5 kips ft 2

= 5%

vg (t)

FIGURE E26-1
SDOF idealization of uniform
cantilever column.

t
v1
x

Reference axis

m1
m2
m3

vit

mi

vi

mN

vg ( t )

FIGURE 26-4
Discretized MDOF system with rigid-base translation.

fS 1

m1
m2

fS 2

fS 3

m3
mi

mN
v0

fS i

fS N
M0

FIGURE 26-5
Elastic forces in lumped MDOF system.

kip sec2/in

kips /in
kips sec2/in

kips /in

kips sec2/in

kips /in

1.000
0.644
0.300
4.58
9.83
14.57

1.000
0.601
0.676

1.00
2.57 ;
2.47

sec 1; Tn =

2.566
1.254
2.08

FIGURE E26-2
Building frame and its vibration properties.

kips sec2/in

1.37
0.639
0.431

21.0
0
0

0
96.6
0

sec ; M n =

0
0
212.4

1.801
2.455
23.10

= 0.05

sec

kips sec2/in ;

max

max

max

max

m3

Reference axis

m2

m1

vg (t)

v1

m4

v3

v4

v2

FIGURE 26-6
General lumped MDOF system with rigid-base
translation.

2m

EI

v1

L
EI
L

v2
m = 0.01 kips sec /ft
2

EI
= 1 kip/ft
L3

= 0.05
vg (t)

m=

3
0

0
2

0.431
1.000

FIGURE E26-3
Two-DOF frame and its vibration properties.

10

1.000
0.646

kips sec2/ft

k=

6
7

8
3

0.302 0
0
2.84

3
2

kips/ft

10 2 sec

y
v2
v
v3 1

FIGURE 26-7
Rigid slab subjected to base translation.

Direction of
ground motion

Rigid slab
Total mass m = 0.5 kips sec2/ft

v3

v2
L

k=
v1

EI
= 5 kips/ft
L3

(each column)

L
ke
ua
hq ion
a rt ita t
E xc
e

FIGURE E26-4
Slab supported by three
columns.

k 31 = 2 k
1

k 21 =

2k

k
k

k
1

k 11 = 4 k

(a)

(b)

FIGURE E26-5
Evaluation of stiffness coefficients for v1 = 1: (a) displacement v1 = 1 and resisting
column forces; (b) column forces and equilibrating stiffness coefficients.

v2 = 1
mL

6
1

m 32 = - m
2

m 22 = 2 m

mL

m 12 = - 1 m

1
(a)

(b)

FIGURE E26-6

Evaluation of mass coefficients for v2 = 1. (a) Acceleration v2 = 1 and resisting


M
inertial forces; (b) slab inertial forces and equilibrating mass coefficients.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations
for Buildings, loc. cit.

x3
m2

v2

x4
m3

m4
v3

v1
h2

v4

m1
h1
=1
Reference axis

FIGURE 26-8
Lumped MDOF system with rigid-base rotation.

v1s

v3s

Reference axis

m1, J1
v2s

v4s

v3

v1

m2, J2
v2
v4

h1
h2

FIGURE 26-9
Tower with lumped masses having rotational inertias subjected to
rigid-base rotation.

Nodal response
degrees of freedom
vt

Support input
degrees of freedom
vg

FIGURE 26-10
General finite element earthquake
response model.

fs (v)
fs y

1
k
fs y

vy

v
FIGURE 26-11
Elastic-plastic force-displacement
relation.

N. M. Newmark and W. J. Hall, Earthquake Spectra and Design, loc. cit.

fs
fs, el

fs
fs, el

0 < f < 0.3 Hz


k

fs y = fs, elpl

fs y = fs, elpl
v
vel = velpl = vg

vy

(a)

max

0.3 < f < 2 Hz


1
k
v
vel = velpl

vy

(b)

FIGURE 26-12
Elastic and elastic-plastic force-displacement relations.

fs
fs, el

fs ,y = fs, elpl
vg

max

2 < f < 8 Hz
1
k
vy

vel velpl

(c)

2
2

A. Der Kiureghian, Structural Response to Stationary Excitation, loc. cit.

A. Der Kiureghian, Structural Response to Stationary Excitation, loc. cit.

v1
m

v3
L
x

2
JG = EI each member
3

L
m=
v2
x = 0.05

z
Fixed

1
0
0

0
1
0
4.59
4.83
14.56

y
FIGURE E26-7
3-DOF system subjected to rigid-base translation.

0
0 m
1

13
3

3
25

12

f=

-3

12
L 3
- 3
6EI
19

0.731 0.271 1.000


- 0.232 1.000 - 0.242
1.000 0.036

- 0.787

1.3

z (t)
z x (t)

1.2
max
max

Eq. (26-129)

1.1
Eq. (26-127)

1.0

0.2

0.4
B=

0.6
z y (t)

max

z x (t)

max

0.8

1.0

FIGURE 26-13
Statistical approach versus 30% rule
in combining two components of
horizontal response.

Story mass:
mi = 24 kips sec 2 ft
Total column stiffness:
EI = 4 10 6 kips ft2
L = 480 ft

Story height:
h = 12 ft

FIGURE P26-1
Uniform shear building.

z
L
m

EI

m
va
vb

2L

EI
w = 0.377
1.25

EI
mL3

EI
= 100 1/sec 2
mL3
z

F = 1.00 1.00
0.85 - 2.35

FIGURE P26-2
2-DOF plane frame.

CHAPTER

DETERMINISTIC
EARTHQUAKE
RESPONSE:
INCLUDING
SOIL-STRUCTURE
INTERACTION

x
L

FIGURE 27-1
Rigid rectangular basemat of a large structure.

(1985) and
(1988), both published by Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J.

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

3
4

5
4

3
2

7
4

D 2 D
=
Va
FIGURE 27-2
factor as a function of frequency and apparent wave velocity.

9
4

5
2

Structure
Structure and soil response
degrees of freedom
v(t)

Interface

Free soil boundary

Foundation medium

Rigid base, input


degrees of freedom

vg (t)
FIGURE 27-3
Finite-element model of combined structure and supporting soil.

, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1975), pp. 584588.

v(t)

k
2

k
2

m 0 , J0

Fixed reference

m, J
h

k
2

vg (t)

Elastic half-space

v0 (t)
M0 (t)

v(t)

M0 (t)

Rigid massless plate


Elastic half-space

(a)
(b)
FIGURE 27-4
Lumped SDOF elastic system on rigid mat foundation.

Substructure
No. 1

k
2

vz

m, J

(t)
I

(t)

Substructure
No. 2

A. S. Veletsos and Y. T. Wei, Lateral and Rocking Vibrations of Footings,


, ASCE, Vol. 97, 1971.
J. E. Luco and R. A. Westman, Dynamic Response of Circular Footings,
, ASCE, Vol. 97, (EM5), 1971.

p(t) = exp (i t)
T(t) = exp (i t)
M(t) = exp (i t)
v(t) = exp (i t)
2R
Half-space
p, G, v

FIGURE 27-5
Rigid massless circular plate on half-space.

1.0

v=0

= 3 G R(a 0 ) 16GR 3

v) G R(a 0 ) 4GR

1.0

1 3

0.5

= (1

v =1 2

1 3
1 2

(a)
2

4
a0 = R

1 3

1 2
1 3

1 2

0.5

(c)
0

0.7
0.6

Torsion

0.5
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

(b)
0

Torsion

4
a0 = R

Vs

v=0

1.0

0.8

= 3 (1 v) G I (a 0 ) 8GR 3a 0

= 3 (1 v) G R(a 0 ) 8GR 3

= (2 v) G (a 0 ) 8 GR a 0

0.5

Vertical translation

= 3 G I (a 0 ) 16GR 3a 0

v=0
1.0

= (2 v) G R(a 0 ) 8GR

= (1 v) G I (a 0 ) 4GR a 0

Vertical translation

0.9

Lateral translation

4
a0 = R

1.0

Rocking

v=0
0.5

(d)

1 3

1 3

Vs

1 2

1 2

4
a0 = R

= (2 v) G I (a 0 ) 8 GR 2a 0

= (2 v) G R(a 0 ) 8 GR 2

0.3
v=0

0.2

1 3

0.1

1 2

v=0

0
0.1
0.2

(e)

1 2

1 3

Coupled lateral translation and rocking

FIGURE 27-6
Rigid massless circular plate impedances.

4
a0 = R

Vs

6
Vs

6
Vs

FIGURE 27-7
Example structures for soil-structure interaction analysis.

(a)

(b)

(d)

(c)

FIGURE 27-8
Substructures Nos. 1 and 2 for the systems shown in Fig. 26-7.

nA

nb

nc

Soil

Near field

nd

nd
Far field
Half-space with
surface cavity

FIGURE 27-9
Modeling of foundation full
half-space.

H. B. Seed, R. T. Wong, I. M. Idriss, and K. Tokimatsu, Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
Analysis for Cohesionless Soils, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Report No. EERC 84-14, 1984.
B. O. Hardin and V. P. Drnevich, Shear Modulus and Damping in Soils: Design Equations and Curves,
, Vol. 98, No. SM7, July, 1972.
J. Lysmer, T. Udaka, C. F. Tsai, and H. B. Seed, Flush A Computer Program for Approximate
3-D Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction Problem, University of California, Berkeley, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 7530, 1975.
I. Katayama, C. H. Chen, and J. Penzien, Near-Field Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Using Nonlinear
Hybrid Modeling, Proc. SMIRT Conference, Anaheim, Ca., 1989.

(0, t)
(0, t)

(0, t)
(0, t)

y, v

v(0, t)

w (0, t)

z, w

cp =

Column
Foundation
half-space

cs =

(b)

(a)
FIGURE 27-10
Substructure No. 2 as a uniform half-space having viscous boundary elements as its equivalent.

(0, t)
Layer
H1

vs 1 ,

(0, t)

(0, t)
1,

vs 2 ,

y1, v1
z 1, w 1

1
2,

v1 (0, t)

(0, t)

y2, v2
z 2, w2

cs

w1 (0, t)
Half-space
Shear-beam column

kp

ks

cp

(b)

(a)
FIGURE 27-11
Substructure No. 2 as a uniform layer on a uniform half-space having viscous and spring boundary
elements as its equivalent.

mg
Rigid hammer

vh
m

m
wm (t)

wm (t)

w(0, t)

Cushion
spring: k

m wm (t)

w(0, t)

k
cz =

z, w(z,t)
Vp =

AE
Vp

Pile: A, E,
N (0, t)
(a)

FIGURE E27-1
Hammer-cushion-pile system.

(b)

Axial force, kips


0

200

400

600

N (z, 0.005067)

Distance from top of pile, ft

10
Vp = (1.15)(10 5)
20
in sec

30

40
48.6

50
z

FIGURE E27-2
Axial-force distribution in concrete pile
0.00507 sec after initial hammer impact
with cushion.

T. J. Tzong, S. Gupta, and J. Penzien, Two-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Soil-Structure Interaction, Report No. UC-EERC 81/11, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, August, 1981.
T. J. Tzong and J. Penzien, Hybrid-Modeling of a Single Layer Half-Space System in Soil-Structure
Interaction,
, Vol. 14, 1986.

1.00

iIt

Cn n = R n iIn

1 exp (i t)

0.75
Ct t = Rt

1 exp (i t)

1.00

0.50

a a
t

= (Ct t G)exp(i t)
It

0.25

0.75
0.50

a a
un = (Cn n G)exp(i t)

0.25

1.00

2.00
a0

3.00

iIr

a a
ull = (Cll G )exp(i t)

1.0
a0

a a

0.20

Ir

0.10

Rl
0

Vs

Rr

0.30

Il

3.00

u rr = (Cr r a 2G)exp(i t)

0.40

Crr = Rr

iIl
Cll = Rl

1.5

0.5

2.00
a0

Vs

0.50

1.00

2.0

1.0

In

Rn

Rt

2.0

3.0

1.00
a0

Vs

2.00

3.00

Vs

FIGURE 27-12
Compliances of infinite rigid massless strip of width 2a; G = shear modulus, Vs = shear-wave velocity.

Cavity
R

Surface layer
of depth H

H
SR

vs 1 = G 1
1 , G1

C
L
Sym.

Half-space
vs 2 = G 2
2, G2

FIGURE 27-13
Continuous far-field impedance
functions Sp and SR along halfcylindrical cavity surface.

30

Real part
constant form

R G1)

14
0

R0

25

44

12
4

15

Imaginary part
freq. form

30

(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 3.0
10.0

45
0

(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 1.0
3.0
10.0

28

15

Imaginary part
constant form

R G1)

R G1)

60

R1

20

10

R1

10

Real part
freq. form

19

R0

R G1)

20

60

b0

b0

Vs1

FIGURE 27-14
Parameters defining impedance SR along half-cylindrical cavity surface.

1
1

Vs1

10

R G1)

0
5

(Vs 2 Vs 1) =
1.0
3.0
10.0

10

R G1)
(

(Vs 2 Vs 1) 2 = 3.0
10.0

20

6
1
8

4
3

Imaginary part
constant form

13

11

Imaginary part
freq. form

13
6

R G1)

20

10
15

Real part
freq. form

18

R G1)

25

Real part
constant form

1
8

6
b0

15

Vs1

6
b0

Vs1

FIGURE 27-15
Parameters defining impedance S along half-cylindrical cavity surface.

A. S. Veletsos and Y. T. Wei, Lateral and Rocking Vibrations of Footings, loc. cit.
J. E. Luco and R. A. Westman, Dynamic Response of Circular Footings, loc. cit.
A. S. Veletsos and V. V. D. Nair, Torsional Vibration of Foundations, Structural Research at Rice,
Report No. 19, Department of Civil Engineering, Rice University, June, 1973.

Mode i

S
SR

Tributary area i

FIGURE 27-16
Far-field impedances over the hemispherical
cavity surface in spherical co-ordinates.

E. Kausel, Forced Vibrations of Circular Footings on Layered Media, MIT Research Report R74-11,
Mass. Inst. of Tech., Cambridge, Mass., 1974.
J. E. Luco, Impedance Functions for a Rigid Foundation on a Layered Medium,
, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1979.
S. Gupta, T. W. Lin, J. Penzien, and C. S. Yeh, Three-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Soil-Structure
Interaction,
., Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan. Feb., 1982.

Real part

Imaginary part

R G)

20

R G)

30

10

0
9
0
Normal component

10

R G)

15

R G)

0
0

0
9
0
Tangential component

8
15
R G)

10

R G)

2
0

6
p0 =

Vs

0
9
0
Circumferential component

FIGURE 27-17
Far-field impedance functions over the hemispherical cavity surface.

3
p0 =

Vs

4
1

(a) Free-field deformations


FIGURE 27-18
Modeling for cross-section racking analyses.

(b) SSI deformations

J. Penzien, C. H. Chen, W. Y. Jean, and Y. J. Lee, Seismic Analysis of Rectangular Tunnels in Soft
Ground, Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Madrid, Spain, July,
1992.

X, U

Y, V y, v
Vf f

V( X,

t)

Direction of wave
propagation

x
Axis of tunnel

V(X, t)

u(x, t) = V(X, t) sin

x, u

v(x, t) = V(X, t) cos

FIGURE 27-19
Shear wave moving in the X direction at velocity Vf f .

S. Gupta, T. W. Lin, J. Penzien, and C. S. Yeh, Three-Dimensional Hybrid Modeling of Soil-Structure


Interaction, loc. cit.

Tunnel

no joints

a
a max
x

Tunnel

with joints

mp

x
FIGURE 27-20
Tunnel axial strains with and without
joints.

CHAPTER

STOCHASTIC
STRUCTURAL
RESPONSE

G. W. Housner, Behavior of Structures During Earthquakes,


1959.

, Vol. 85, No. EM-4, October,

G. N. Bycroft, White Noise Representation of Earthquakes, Proc. Paper 2434,


, Vol. 86, EM2, April, 1960.

Sv , ft /sec

1.5

Housners design velocity spectra


Bycrotts velocity spectra for
S 0 = 0.0063 ft 2 sec3
( and freq.)
=0

1.0

= 0.02
= 0.05

0.5
= 0.10

0.5

1.0

Multiplication factors
given by Housner

1.5
Period

2.0

El Centro
El Centro
Olympia
Taft

1940
1934
1949
1952

2.5

2.7
1.9
1.9
1.6

3.0

T, sec

FIGURE 28-1
Mean extreme values of pseudo-relative velocity for linear SDOF systems
(stationary white-noise excitation).

J. Penzien and S. C. Liu, Nondeterministic Analysis of Nonlinear Structures Subjected to Earthquake


Excitations, Proc. 4th World Conf. Earthquake Eng., Santiago, Chile, Vol. I, Sec. A-1, January, 1969.

Average of 50 artificial earthquakes

=0

= .02
= .05
= .10

Sv , ft /sec

Sv , ft /sec

G. Housners design spectra

=0
= .02
= .05
= .10

Period T , sec

1
2
Period T , sec

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 28-2
Mean extreme values of pseudo-relative velocity for linear SDOF systems (filtered stationary
white-noise excitation).

B = Vy W = 4
vt

m= W
g

vmax

V
V
y

= v max vy V
ve
max
Vy

vy

Vy

E
(a)

(b)

vy

D
(c)

FIGURE 28-3
Nonlinear SDOF models.

TABLE 28-1
Case
No.

Structural
type *

Period
T
sec

Damping
ratio,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD
E
EP
SD

0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7

0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.10

Elastic-plastic

SD

*E

Elastic

EP

Strength
ratio, B

Yield displ.
vy
in

0.10
0.10

0.088
0.088

0.10
0.10

0.088
0.088

0.048
0.048

3.42
3.42

0.048
0.048

3.42

Stiffness degrading

B
k

Vy

vg

vy gT 2

Displacement v
max,

in

FIGURE 28-4
Probability distributions for extreme values of relative displacement.
0

2.5

0.001

2.0
3.0 4.0 5.0

0.300 0.500 0.700 0.800

0.001

1.001
1.40
2.0

3.0 4.0 5.0

10

0.300 0.500 0.700 0.800 0.900

0.0

1.0

2.0

Probability distribution P( v)

0.100

P( v) = exp [ exp ( v)]


where
v = ( v max u)

1.10

(a)

3.0

0.5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Return period, no. of earthquakes

(b)

2.0

0.950

Reduced variate, v

1.0

0.900

20

in

Reduced variate, v

0.0

Probability distribution P( v)

0.100

10

Ductility demand

5.0

1.40

P( v) = exp [ exp ( v)]


where
v = ( v max u)

1.10

max,

7.5

1.001

Displacement v

10.0

12.5

15.0

17.5

20.0

22.5

25.0

Return period, no. of earthquakes

3.0

0.950

10

20

30

40

50

20

Ductility demand
d

E. J. Gumbel and P. G. Carlson,

, op. cit.; E. J. Gumbel,


, op. cit.

(1)

(4)
(3)

0.5

0.5

E [vmax ] , 30

(6)

1.0

(5)

T = 0.3 sec

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

E,
E,
EP,
EP,
SD,
SD,

= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10

E [vmax ] , T0

(2)

E [vmax ] , T0

E [vmax ] , 30

1.0

1.0

(2)
(6)
(1)

(5)

0.5

(4)

(3)

T = 2.7 sec

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

E,
E,
EP,
EP,
SD,
SD,

= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10
= 0.02
= 0.10

0.5

T0
30

T0
30

(a)

(b)

FIGURE 28-5
Duration effect of stationary process on mean peak response of linear and nonlinear structures.

1.0

M. Murakami and J. Penzien, Nonlinear Response Spectra for Probabilistic Seismic Design and Damage
Assessment of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley, Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, Report No. 7538, 1975.
H. Umemura et. al.,
, Giko-do, Tokyo, Japan, 1973 (in Japanese).

pB y

Original skeleton
curve

k1
ky
1 1

pB y
pB c = 3

pB c
O

vBy
= vmin

vBc

(a)

vBc

k2

ky
1

1
D

k2

vBy

vm ax
2 vB y
=
vmax vmin

pB c

pB y
pB y

1
pB c
O

vBy
S

(b)

k1

A 1

O
vB c

vB c

k1
k2

ky

1
D

vB y

Skeleton curve after


first yielding
R

FIGURE 28-6
Trilinear stiffness-degrading hysteretic
model.

P. C. Jennings, G. W. Housner, and N. C. Tsai, Simulated Earthquake Motions, loc. cit.