A measure of earthquake motion capacity to damage

medium-period structures

Peter Fajfar, Toma~ Vidic and Matej Fischinger

Deparonent of Civil Enghwerhlg, UniversiO' hz Ljubljana, Slorenia, Yugoslavia

The expression

I = vglOD"25

is proposed as an instrumental measure of earthquake ground motion capacity to damage

structures with fundamental periods in the medium-period (velocity-controlled) region. Only two
of the basic ground motion parameters which can be routinely predicted in the design procedure
(peak ground velocity and the duration of strong shaking) are included in the formula. Expressions
for determining the bounds of the medium-period region are also proposed as a function of the
basic ground motion parameters. A total of 40 records having very different characteristics,
including extremely short and long duration, were used in the statistical study. The new intensity
parameter has been evaluated by using inelastic and elastic relative displacement and input energy
spectra.

Key Words: earthquake ground motion, intensity, structures, response spectra.

INTRODUCTION however, do represent potential alternative scaling

A fundamental question in the earthquake-resistant
design of structures is how to assess the strength of ground
motion. What is the capacity of ground motion to damage
structures, and how can this capacity (or 'intensity') be
related to the quantitative measures of earthquake
motion?
Traditionally, the intensity of a ground motion has, for
structural analysis purposes, been defined in terms of the
peak ground acceleration, which is still widely used as the
scaling parameter for ground motion. However, there is
increasing evidence that this quantity is a poor measure of
the damage potential of earthquake ground motion. A
number of other parameters have been proposed and
investigated, e.g. Housner's and Arias' intensity.
However, no single-parameter characterization has
proved satisfactory. According to Housner and Jennings ~,
'it is inherently impossible to describe a complex
phenomenon by a single number, and a great deal of
information is inevitably lost when this is attempted'.
Consequently, three-parameter characterizations have
been introduced, which provide different intensity
measures in the short-period (acceleration-controlled),
medium-period (velocity-controlled), and long-period
(displacement-controlled) regions.
In current practice, the earthquake hazard at a site is
usually assessed by estimating the expected peak values of
ground acceleration (ag), velocity (vg), and displacement
(d~). Nau and Hall 2 have concluded that none of the
other, more sophisticated scaling parameters derived
from ground motion data constitute a promising
alternative to the peak motions (spectrum intensities,
Paper acceptedJune 1988. Discussioncloses October 1990.
9 1990Computational Mechanics Publications
factors). A relatively small group of accelerograms (the
majority from California) was used in the above-
mentioned study. Different parameters were evaluated
statistically, using elastic and inelastic response spectra.
In the medium-period range (0.5 s-5.0s) mean coeffi-
cients of variation of the spectral ordinates, amounting to
0.30-0.45, were observed in the case when peak ground
velocity was used for scaling.
The current methods for scaling are widely accepted as
satisfactory for 'standard' ground motions. However,
they do not satisfactorily take into account such
important ground motion characteristic as the duration
of strong shaking. The objective of the study reported in
this paper was to find an intensity parameter which would
(1) be applicable to ground motions of different duration
and of different frequency content and to different soil
conditions, and yet (2) be as simple as possible, and
predictable in design procedure. -
The study was restricted to the medium-period region.
This region is considered to be very important for two
reasons: (1) the fundamental periods of the majority of
modern building structures are usually in this region; (2)
the dynamic amplification of the relevant structural
response parameters is the largest in this region, so that
the structural damage caused is usually the severest.
Five different groups of earthquakes, including a total
of 40 accelerograms, were used in the statistical study. In
addition to records which are representative of more or
less 'standard' ground motions, some records with
extremely long or extremely short duration of strong
shaking were also'included.
The scaling parameters were evaluated by using
inelastic relative displacement and input energy spectra.

236 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1990, Vol. 9, No. 5

 A measure o f earthquake motion capacity to damage medium-period structures: P. Fajfar et al.

Relative d i s p l a c e m e n t has been chosen as the representa- also calculated for purposes of c o m p a r i s o n . As a result o f
tive p a r a m e t e r manifesting d a m a g e due to large the study, a new intensity p a r a m e t e r is p r o p o s e d , which
d e f o r m a t i o n s , an d input energy (defined as the w o r k of represents a q u a n t i t a t i v e m e a s u r e of the e a r t h q u a k e
the e q u i v a l e n t l o a d i n g on relative displacements) as the g r o u n d m o t i o n capacity to d a m a g e structures with
representative p a r a m e t e r with respect to c u m u l a t i v e f u n d a m e n t a l periods in the m e d i u m - p e r i o d range. It can
fatigue d a m a g e . The a u t h o r s of this p a p e r have s h o w n 3 be used for scaling g r o u n d m o t i o n s .
that, in the m e d i u m - p e r i o d range, these two response
p a r a m e t e r s are, to a great extent, i n d e p e n d e n t of the m o s t
EARTHQUAKE RECORDS
i m p o r t a n t structural p a r a m e t e r s . Elastic spectra were
A g r o u p of s t a n d a r d Cal i f o r n i an a c e e l e r o g r a m s , represen-
tative o f s t r o n g g r o u n d m o t i o n at m o d e r a t e epicentral
Table 1. Earthquakes studied
distances, a g r o u p o f records o b t a i n e d d u r i n g the 1985
Earth Depth M e x i c o City e a r t h q u a k e , and three different g r o u p s of
Group No. Earthquake Date Magnitude [km] s t r o n g - m o t i o n records o b t a i n e d in S o u t h e r n E u r o p e
(Friuli, N o r t h e r n Italy, 1976; M o n t e n e g r o , Y ugos l a vi a ,
1 Lower Calif. 1934 6.5
2 Imp. Valley 1940 6.6 1979; Banja L u k a , Yugoslavia, 1981) were used in the
USA 3 West.Wash. 1949 7.1 study. T h e two h o r i z o n t a l c o m p o n e n t s of each record
4 Kern County 1952 7.6 were considered. Details of the e a r t h q u a k e s studied and o f
5 San Fernando 1971 6.6 the c o r r e s p o n d i n g records are presented in Tables I a nd 2.
6 Friuli 05/11/76 ML=6.3 7 T h e a b o v e - m e n t i o n e d e a r t h q u a k e s were chosen in o r d e r
Friuli
7 Friuli 09/15/76 ML=5.9 12 to take into a c c o u n t records of very different types
8 Montenegro 04/15/79 ML=6"7-6"9 10 (Fig. 1). T h e records from M o n t e n e g r o an d from
Montenegro
AIs = 6.9-7.3 California are representative of ' s t a n d a r d ' g r o u n d
Banja Luka 9 Banja Luka 08/13/81 Ms=5.4 9 m o t i o n . T h e m a i n characteristic of the Friuli and B a nj a
Mexico" I0 Mexico 09/19/85 Ms=8.1 33 L u k a records is the short d u r a t i o n of their s t r o n g g r o u n d
m o t i o n . T h e p r e d o m i n a n t p er i o d s of all these records are

Table 2. Records used hz the study

High-pass
Earth. Record E. Dist ag vg dg to T2 filter t
No. Station ident. [km] Comp. [cm/s 2] [cm/s] [cm] [s] 1 "/'1 (equation (4a)) [Hz] [s]

1 El Centro B024 58 S00W 157 20.9 4.2 16.6 42.2 0.57 1.29 0.05-0.07 25
S90W 179 11.6 3.7 16.1 23.2 0.28 2.07 0.05-0.07 25
2 El Centro A001 8 S00E 342 33.5 10.9 24.0 74.1 0.42 1.91 0.05-0.07 30
S90W 210 36.9 19.8 23.8 81.5 0.76 3.16 0.05-0.07 30
3 Olympia B029 20 N04W 162 21.4 8.6 18.7 44.5 0.57 2.51 0.05-0.07 25
N86E 275 17.1 10.4 15.8 34.1 0.27 3.97 0.05-0.07 25
4 Taft A004 56 N21E 153 15.7 6.7 29.4 36.6 0.44 2.38 0.05-0.07 50
$69E 176 17.7 9.0 27.4 50.5 0.43 2.89 0.05-0.07 50
5 Castaic D056 21 N21E 310 16.8 3.4 14.5 32.8 0.23 1.35 0.05-0.125 25
(EERL) N69W 264 27.9 6.2 15.1 55.0 0.45 1.47 0.05-0.125 25
6 Tolmezzo 038 24 NS 342 20.2 3.3 4.1 28.7 0.25 1.49 0.10-0.33 15
EW 310 32.2 3.9 4.8 47.8 0.45 1.06 0.10~.33 15
7 Forgaria 168 16 NS 299 23.3 2.6 3.6 32.1 0.34 1.05 0.104).33 15
EW 323 22.0 3.6 2.8 28.5 0.29 1.64 0.10-0.33 15
7 San Rocco 169 16 NS 136 12.1 2.5 4.7 17.8 0.38 1.82 0.10-0.33 15
(ENEL) EW 228 17.2 3.3 2.7 22.0 0.33 1.95 0.104).33 15
8 Petrovac E58 29 NS 429 41.3 8.2 9.3 72.1 0.41 1.48 0.05-0.22 20
EW 299 24.6 3.2 10.2 44.0 0.35 0.95 0.05-0.22 25
8 Ulcinj 1 E59 13 NS 279 39.6 10.4 13.9 76.5 0.61 1.77 0.10-0.30 25
EW 235 47.4 12.7 13.9 91.5 0.87 1.80 0.10-O.30 25
8 Ulcinj 2 E60 13 NS 168 19.2 6.4 11.I 35.0 0.49 2.37 0.05-0.22 25
EW 218 27.8 9.7 10.8 50.4 0.55 2.50 0.05-0.22 25
8 Bar E61 11 NS 357 41.2 9.8 15.1 81.2 0.50 1.57 0.05-0.22 25
EW 353 52.0 15.1 15.2 102.7 0.63 1.91 0.05-0.22 25
8 Hercegnovi E62 65 NS 209 14.7 2.6 9.4 25.7 0.30 1.31 0.05-0.22 25
(IZIIS) EW 226 I 1.5 2.6 10.1 20.5 0.22 1.65 0.05-0.22 25
9 IMB H99 2 NS 506 24.0 4.4 2.3 29.6 0.20 1.94 0.15-0.55 15
EW 387 8.0 1.2 3.7 I 1.1 0.09 1.37 0.15-0.55 15
9 BK-2 H101 2 NS 307 19.5 2.4 1.9 22.9 0.27 1.36 0.10-0.40 15
EW 269 10.4 1.0 5.4 15.9 0.17 0.82 0.10-0.40 15
9 BK-9 HI04 2 NS 369 23.0 2.3 2.3 28.3 0.27 1.06 0.104).40 15
(IZIIS) EW 225 11.2 1.0 4.8 16.6 0.21 0.76 0.104).40 15
10 SCT SCTI 400 S00E 98 38.7 19.1 42.2 98.6 1.70 2.52 0.05-0.055 70
N90W 168 60.5 21.9 29.1 140.5 1.55 2.03 0.05-0.055 70
l0 Abastos CDAF 400 S00E 81 24.8 15.0 48.6 65.5 1.33 2.98 0.07-0.10 60
N90W 95 37.6 18.9 43.0 96.3 1.71 2.55 0.07-0.10 60
10 C. Univers. CUIP 400 N00E 32 10.3 6.2 45.1 26.7 1.40 3.02 0.07-0.10 60
N90W 35 9.4 7.7 37.4 23.2 1.17 4.31 0.07-0.10 60
10 Viveros SXVI 400 N00E 44 11.5 9.1 42.5 29.4 1.12 4.03 0.07-0.10 60
(UNAM) N90E 42 12.1 7.5 36.1 29.9 1.24 3.26 0.07-0.10 60

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1990, Vol. 9, No. 5 237

A measure o f earthquake motion capacity to damage medium-period structures: P. Faffar et al.

PETROVAC E-W MONTENE6RO 04/15/79 MAX. ACC. = 299 CM/S/S

t _
C)

0
W
N
o ...... J$,,
_1
<
:E
nz
CO -1
Z I I I I I I
2O 30 40 50 60 70
TIHE (S]

FOR6AR I A E-W FR I UL I 09/15/76 MAX. ACC. = 323 CH/S/S

I _

r
t.d 0 .aul,, Jh ll~.J . . . . . . I_

z . I I I I I I I
0 t0 20 30 40 50 60 70
TIME IS]

S C T N-S MEXICO 09/t9/85 MAX, ACC. = 98 CM/S/S

t
J
t,)
.<

r'~
ta 0
N

d
.<
"r"
rr
0 --|
I vv fv
Z I I I I I i I
|0 20 30 40 50 60 70
TIHE IS]

Fig. 1. Examples o f "standard' orotmd motion, and 9round motions o f very short and very long duration

short and fairly narrow-banded, and their v9 to a o ratios comparison, the usual scaling parameter
are low. The 1985 Mexico City records represent ground
motions of very long duration, with long predominant I z = vo = 50 cm/s- (2)
periods and high vo to ag ratios. Throughout the ensemble,
different kinds of local soil conditions are included. was also used in the calculations.
The standard Calteeh procedure was used to correct the
records. The frequency ranges for the high-pass filter are
shown in Table 2. The frequency range for the low-pass
filter was 25-27 Hz, with the exception of the Mexico City DEFINITION OF THE MEDIUM-PERIOD
records, where the range 23-25 Hz was used. The REGION
duration of strong shaking to was defined according to According to a usual definition, the medium-period
Trifunac and Brady 4. The duration of ground motions region is that region where the smoothed pseudo-velocity
used in the analysis (t) are listed in Table 2. spectrum has its maximum values. In a spectrum of the
All records were scaled to the same intensity Newmark-Hall s type, this region is characterized by
constant pseudo-velocity. During an earthquake,
I = Vot~ "2S = I00 (1) maximum input endrgy per unit mass is imparted
to structures with fundamental periods in this region.
where centimetres and seconds are used. For purposes of The medium-period region has a lower and upper

238 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1990, Vol. 9, No. 5

 A measure of earthquake motion capaci O, to damage medium-period structures: P. Fajfar et al.

bound defined by the periods 7"1 and 7"2, respectively. 7"1 The relative displacement spectra are presented in the
and 7"2 vary for different ground motions. They depend form of a mean spectrum for the whole ensemble of
mainly on the magnitude of the earthquake, on the records, and the mean plus one standard deviation
distance from the epicentre, and on the local soil spectrum for the whole ensemble is also indicated. The
conditions. Both periods can be expressed as a function of mean spectra for the five chosen groups of records are also
the basic ground motion characteristics. The following plotted. It should be noted that, for each record, only the
empirical relations have been obtained portion of the spectrum in the relevant range between T 1
and T2 was taken into account.
The input energy spectra, too, are presented separately
7"1=4.3 v~ (3)
t'/g for each group of records (mean values). Only the region
T< T2 is plotted. The mean and the mean + a values of the
and maximum input energy of all the records are also shown.
Maximum input energy was defined as the average value
of the peak value and the values at the periods which are
T z= 13 do (4a) 0.1 seconds larger and smaller than the period
rot o.25
corresponding to the peak value. In this way the influence
when scaling t o Vgt~ or of sharp peaks in energy spectra was reduced.

Tz=7 d~ (4b)
/)o
when scaling to Vg.
Seconds should be used for t o in equation (4a).
The.relation (3) was proposed by Heidebrecht 6. It
corresponds to the assumption that spectral amplification
in the acceleration-controlled region of the Newmark-
Hall type spectrum is 1.46 times the spectral amplification
in the velocity-controlled region. This relation is adequate
in the case of elastic structural behaviour, but in the case
of inelastic structural behaviour smaller values of T1
apply. These values depend on the details of the inelastic
structural behaviour 3. Consequently, the intensity
measure proposed in this paper may be relevant in the
case of structures with fundamental periods shorter than
7"I, too. At the other bound, a very smooth transition
from the velocity- to the displacement-controlled region
has been observed. The proposed intensity measure may
therefore be used as an approximation beyond the upper
bound of the medium-period region. The period T2,
which depends on the rather uncertain value of the peak
ground displacement, is thus a parameter of lesser
importance.
' RESPONSE SPECTRA
The scaling factors were evaluated statistically using
relative displacement and input energy response spectra.
These spectra were calculated for an average inelastic
system, representative of reinforced concrete structures
behaving flexuraUy. The yield strength of the chosen
inelastic system Fr was defined by the relation
Fr = 0.6ma9
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
The results of the study are presented in Figs 2-5 and in
Table 3. It can be observed that, within individual groups
of records, the two scaling parameters (I and It) yield a
similar scatter in both the relative displacement and the
input energy spectra. This result was expected, because
the variation in the duration of strong shaking for the
records in the individual groups is small. If all the records
are included in the ensemble, then the new scaling factor,
which includes the influence of the duration of strong
shaking, reduces the scatter. This reduction is much more
pronounced in the case of the input energy spectra. The
improvement can be especially appreciated when
comparing the mean spectra for different groups of
records. A large reduction in the differences between the
spectra corresponding to different types ofground motion
can be observed.
The smoothing effect of inelastic behaviour can be
observed from a comparison of the elastic and inelastic
response spectra. The coefficients of variation are smaller
in the case of the inelastic spectra.
Relative displacement depends linearly on ground
motion intensity (if the strength parameter is kept
constant), whereas input energy is proportional to the
square of ground motion intensity (equations (1) and (2)).
As might be expected, the coefficients of variation
Table3. Coefficients o f variation (mean CO V f o r relative displacements
are calculated h~ the range T I < T < T2)
glean COV for rel. disp. COV for input energy

where m is the mass of the system. Hysteretic behaviour Inelastic Elastic Inelastic Elastic
was assumed to follow the Q-model 7, and strain-
hardening stiffness to amount to 10% of the stiffness ,~caling t,g I t,g I t,9 1 v~ I
before yielding. Five per cent mass proportional damping Group ~
was taken into account. Having in mind that the influence
of the most important structural parameters on the USA 0.148 0.164 0.207 0.219 0.420 0.467 0.402 0.422
relative displacement and input energy response spectra Friuli 0.252 0.232 0.305 0.270 0.357 0.371 0.471 0.524
Montenegro 0.253 0.234 0.279 0.287 0.376 0.408 0.515 0.550
in the medium-period range is small 3, the adequacy of the Banja Luka 0.195 0.18~ 0.207 0.195 0.364 0.266 0.454 0.361
proposed scaling parameter can be sufficiently argued by Mexico 0.126 0.113 0.248 0.239 0.358 0.346 0.525 0.530
the response spectra given here. Elastic spectra (assuming All accel. 0.307 0.274 0.335 0.318 0.680 0.434 0.830 0.628
5% damping) were also calculated for comparison.

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1990, Vol. 9, No. 5 239

A measure of earthquake motion capacio' to damage medium-period structures: P. Faffar e t aI.

F--
Z
/
lal
~E
ELI
(j,
<
J
FI It I ",, ," \ ", .
U~ /.~,~ ....
r-I
./-,t-'L,' ,.',
r ,'-~ l'Zl
/ ~ - ~ / _ _ MEAN I-- MEAN OF MAX.
Ii _ _ ,EAN +o ~ ~__ MEAN OF MAX. + 6
/ .... MEX I CO z . . . . MEXICO
9/ " _ ..... U.S.A. -- _ _ U . S . A .
........... HONTENEGRO MONTENEGRO
FRIULI FRlULI
.......... B A N 3 A LUKA .......... BAN3A LUKA

I I I I I I I. I I
0.5 I I .5 2 2.5 0.5 I I .5 2 2.5
PERIOD IS] PERIOD IS]

Fi9. 2. hlelastic spectra. Ground motions scaled to vo = 5 0 cm/s

~r J ~------
/
!
). !
&x... /
Z
hl
~7.
L'!>"-~. ..-'---_.._. //
Ld
C3
.<
.J ,~,] ," .......... ", 2,, /r . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13-
U) r "..
s (~ I I
/
Z
U
#~z~ _ _ MEAN _ _ MEAN OF MAX.
1#y/ MEAN + 6 = _ _ MEAN OF MAX. + 6
's .... MEx,co ~ _w_
.... HEX ICO
.o . . . . U.S.A. _ _ U.S.A.
..... MONTENEGRO ....... M O N T E N E G R O
FRlULI FRIULI
.......... BAN3A LUKA .......... B A N 3 A LUKA

-- I I I I I 8 I I I
0 0.5 I I .5 2 2.5 .5 1,5 2 2,5
PERIOD IS] PERIOD [S]

Fig. 3. Elastic spectra. Ground motions scaled to vo = 50 cm/s

240 Soil D),namics and Earthquake Engineering, 1990, Vol. 9, No. 5

 A measure of earthquake motion capacity to damage medium-period structures: P. Fajfar et al.

Q._
o-
(~

to L~
:E
(J

2
--.f;"_"r-,'--/,L' " -----_
o /; ....-.. ,___... --
f / "~,d:..x.. ...;~-- _ ..
...- , ._....0.. ; /
/
!
/
t
I
/t" MEAN I- l - - MEAN OF MAX.
9"/" - - MEAN + 6 I
l - - MEAN OF MAX. + 6
.... MEX i CO I .... MEXICO
.... U.S.A. I --U,S.A.
.... MONTENEGRO I
I - - MONTENEGRO
FRIULI I FRIULI
.......... B A N J A LUKA | .......... BAN3A LUKA

l i i 1 I I I I
0.5 I I .5 2 2.5 0.5 l.5- 2 2.5
PERIOD [S] PERIOD [S]

Fig. 4. hielastic spectra. Ground motions scaled t o vet ~ = 100

(3_
(3-

0
{'~1, / "-.___
0
~.- t, "i~-. /
z :E
, ; ,f ..,,%., t .. /
w
:E i ",,,,#--;-" .......... .../.
W
to
" )~I" :"~,,"'--]"~"<c-- - -z I/
#;
~c
_J t'~ " ....... / " ~
"If "'-~ .............
O_
U)

(:3 9- - #~" (9
r , /
Ld l
/
X/~/ MEAN z t _ _ MEAN OF MAX.
// MEAN + 6 _ _ MEAN OF MAX. + 6
;' MExIco ~: I .... MEXICO
____ U.S.A. ....... U.S,A.
MONTENEGRO .......... M O N T E N E G R O
FRlULI I i FRIULI
.......... BAN3A LUKA
I
.......... B A N 3 A LUKA
I
I
I
I
I
I I I I I I I i I 1
0.5 I I .5 2 2.5 0.5 I 1 .5 2 2.5
PERIOD IS] P E R I OD [S I

Fi9. 5. Elastic spectra. Ground motions scaled t o p ot~ "25 --- 100

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1990, Vol. 9, No. # 241

A measure o f earthquake motion capaci O, to damaqe mediunt-period structures: P. Faffar et al.
corresponding to the maximum values of input energy are
larger than those in the case of relative displacements.
CONCLUSIONS
Peak ground velocity multiplied by the fourth root of the
strong ground motion duration has been shown to be an
adequate instrumental measure of the ground motion
intensity relevant for structures in the medium-period
range. If this intensity is used for scaling ground motions
then even records having the most extreme duration of
strong shaking result in comParable relative displacement
of, and m a x i m u m energy input into, a structure. Both
response parameters are very important for structural
damage.
The proposed intensity measure, as well as the
proposed bounds of the medium-period region, depend
on the basic ground motion characteristics, which can be
predicted in the design process by using standard
procedures for the analysis of earthquake hazard, taking
into account the magnitude of the expected earthquake,
epicentral distance, local soil conditions and other
relevant parameters.
242 Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 1990, Vol. 9, No. 5
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The results presented in this paper are based on work
supported by the Research C o m m u n i t y of Slovenia and
by the U.S.-Yugoslav Joint Fund for Scientific and
Technological Cooperation, in cooperation with the N S F
and University of California, Berkeley, under G r a n t No.
NSF/JFP-525.
REFERENCES
1 Housner, G. W. and Jennings, P. C. The capacity of extreme
earthquake motions to damage structures, Structural and
Geotechnical Mechanics, A volume honoring N. M. Newmark,
Prentice-Hall, 1977, 102-116
2 Nau, J. M. and Hall, W. J. Scalingmethods for earthquake response
spectra, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE, 1984, 110, 1533-1548
3 Fajfar, P., Vidic, T. and Fischinger, M. Seismic demand in
medium- and long-period structures, hu. J. Earthquake Enq. and
Struct. Dynamics, 1989, 18, 1133-1144
4 Trifunac, M. D. and Brady, A. G. A study of the duration of strong
earthquake ground motion, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am., 1975,65, 581-626
5 Newmark,N. M. and Hall, W. J. Earthquake Spectra and Design,
EERI, Berkeley,CA, 1982
6 Heidebrecht, A. C. Private communication, 1987
7 Saiidi, M. and Sozen, M. A. Simplenonlinear seismicanalysisof RC
structures, J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 1981, 107(ST5), 937-952