Previous | Next | Contents

ESDEP WG 17
SEISMIC DESIGN

Lecture 17.4: Structural Analysis for

Seismic Actions
OBJECTIVE/SCOPE
To give an overview of the methods used for the analysis of structures under seismic actions.
PREREQUISITES
Basic knowledge of structural analysis and structural dynamics
RELATED LECTURES
Lecture 17.2: Introduction to Seismic Design - Seismic Hazard and Seismic Risk
Lecture 17.3: The Cyclic Behaviour of Steel Elements and Connections
SUMMARY
The lecture briefly presents the methods stipulated by modern design codes for the analysis of
structures under seismic actions. Time-domain methods are briefly described and the scope of
their application is specified. Emphasis is given to the response spectrum method as the standard
procedure proposed by, for example, Eurocode 8 [1]. In addition, a simplified response spectrum
method for regular buildings is presented. Finally inelastic behaviour and its role in design under
seismic actions is discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION
Several methods are available for the structural analysis of buildings and other civil engineering
works under seismic actions. The differences between the methods lie (a) in the way they
incorporate the seismic input and (b) in the idealization of the structure. All methods of analysis
must serve the current design philosophy for seismic actions which requires that a structure must
not collapse and must retain its structural integrity under the so-called "strong" earthquake. The
structure also must be protected against damage and limitations of use under the so-called
"moderate" earthquake. To avoid collapse, the structure is allowed to develop plastic zones in
which seismic energy is dissipated.

Details of the basic requirements of seismic behaviour of structures, and the criteria needed for
ensuring compliance with these requirements, can be found in all modern seismic design codes,
e.g. Eurocode 8 [1].

2. DIRECT METHODS OF DYNAMIC ANALYSIS (TIME

INTEGRATION)
Due to the dynamic nature of seismic excitation, the actual displacements and stresses developed
in a structure are time dependent, i.e. they are functions of time (t). To analyze a structure under
dynamic loads, efficient methods have been developed that discretize and solve the model of the
structure on the basis of the Finite Element Method. Within this framework there exist methods
that can perform a linear or non-linear analysis, i.e. elastic, small deformation, or inelastic, large
deformation analysis for a given seismic excitation, expressed in the form of an accelerogram
a(t). The cost of such analysis is generally high, while the results correspond to a particular
excitation and, as such do not offer a reliable basis for design. To increase the reliability of the
method, a set of artificial accelerograms that represent the seismicity of a particular region is
usually generated. This procedure, however, renders the method very expensive.
Eurocode 8 [1] considers the use of time domain dynamic analysis, i.e. a direct dynamic analysis
performed by numerical integration of the differential equations of motion. It stipulates
conditions for the use of artificially generated accelerograms and discusses the overall reliability
of the method. The reliability must be at least the same as that obtained by the standard
procedure of the Code which is the response spectrum method. Although the direct dynamic
methods can perform a close-to-reality analysis, this approach is justified and can be employed
effectively only for large and complex structures. It is used where no previous experience of the
structural behaviour exists, or for detailed evaluation of the response of existing structures under
specific earthquakes.
The cost of an analysis based on the finite element method can be kept reasonable by using only
line elements and by avoiding the use of surface elements. The mass of the structure of buildings
is mainly concentrated at the floor levels. This distribution permits the treatment of all the
masses of the structure as lumped at the floor levels in dynamic analysis. The dynamic degrees
of freedom for which inertia forces are developed can then be reduced to a reasonable number.
All the remaining kinematical degrees of freedom control the statics of the structure, and can
then be expressed in terms of the dynamic degrees of freedom. In this way the number of
differential equations that express the dynamic response of the system can be reduced to a small
number, leading to reasonable and acceptable solutions.

3. RESPONSE SPECTRUM METHOD OF ANALYSIS

The time dependent solutions discussed above express the dynamic response of the structure due
to a particular earthquake given in the form of an accelerogram. They do not offer the required
information for design however, because one particular earthquake cannot be representative of
the seismicity of the area under consideration.

In order to define an envelope of different earthquakes and also to eliminate the factor of time,
the concept of the response spectrum was developed. The response spectrum provides the
required information for design purposes and, at the same time, simplifies the analysis by
reducing the problem to a static problem of the estimated maximum responses. The response
spectrum is defined, on a single degree of freedom system of varying frequency excited by a
specific earthquake, as the maximum response of the system, ignoring the particular time of its
occurrence. If the response is the displacement of the system then the displacement spectrum is
formed. If the response is the velocity or the acceleration, the velocity or acceleration spectra are
developed. The acceleration response spectrum is of primary interest in earthquake engineering.
More details about earthquake response spectra are given in Lecture 17.2.
The response spectrum method of analysis is the standard design procedure of modern seismic
design codes, e.g. Eurocode 8. It aims to give directly the maximum effects of the earthquake in
the various elements of the structure.
The general method, called also the multi-modal method, consists of computing the various
modes of vibration of the structure and the magnitude of the maximum response in each mode
with reference to a response spectrum. A rule is then used to combine the responses of the
different modes. For this reason the method is also known as the superposition of modal
responses method, although the same name is used for linear dynamic analysis where the mode
shapes are used to decouple the differential equations of motion and convert the n-degree of
freedom coupled system to n-single degree of freedom systems. The combination rule will
generally be a square root of the sum of squares (SRSS) of the various modal responses. This
combination rule must be applied to all computed quantities, i.e. bending moments, shear forces,
normal forces and displacements. As a consequence, the resulting internal forces do not represent
an equilibrated set. Where the frequencies of a structure do not differ by more than 10%,
different combination rules need to be employed. In Figure 1 the steps of such an analysis by
means of the response spectrum are briefly summarised.

The response spectrum method is valid only for linear behaviour of a structure, i.e. only for an
elastic analysis with small deformations. For this reason the term elastic response spectrum is
generally used. However an equivalent method can be developed which results from comparative
linear and non-linear analyses. It uses a modified response spectrum such that the output internal
forces from a linear analysis will be correlated with the non-linear ones. This modified spectrum
is referred to as the design response spectrum. It is derived from the elastic spectrum modified by
factors that take into account the influence of the non-linearity of the structural material, the soil
and other damping characteristics. In Figure 2 the design response spectra to be used in the
analysis of structures, as given in Eurocode 8 [1], are shown schematically.

The main advantage of using the design response spectrum is that the analysis is linear while the
results represent the non-linear response of the structure.
A more simplified procedure than the multi-modal method, is the so-called equivalent static
force analysis, sometimes also called, e.g. in Eurocode 8 [1], the simplified dynamic analysis.
This method is a particular application of the design response spectrum method where one
particular mode of vibration is predominant as compared to others. This is the case for regular
buildings (regular stiffness and mass distribution over the height of the building according to
Eurocode rules, see Lecture 17.5). The system is accurately modelled by a single degree of
freedom system. In essence the design spectrum method is reduced to one mode of vibration to
express the dynamic behaviour of the system. Usually the first flexural mode shape is considered
as a primary mode of vibration which can be simplified further into a simple line. The equivalent
static forces are computed as shown in Figure 3. A classical static analysis can then be performed
under the action of these equivalent static forces. The only prerequisite of the method is the
fundamental period of vibration T of the structure. It needs to be calculated in order to find the
appropriate design spectrum value (T), necessary to compute the base shear V. Alternatively, if
an accurate value of the period T is not available, the value of the fundamental period can be
calculated approximately by using one of the recommended formulae.

The equivalent static force method is an approximate method which is adequate for certain types
of structures and for the preliminary design of other structures. There may be cases where this
method is not conservative because the contribution from higher modes of vibration may be
significant. For these cases a complete dynamic response spectrum analysis is advisable for the
final design stage.

In Table 1 a summary of the possible methods of structural analysis under seismic actions is
presented. Moreover the following remarks can be made:

The effects of earthquake on a structure depend upon its stiffness and mass
characteristics. The forces induced in flexible structures (high fundamental period T) are
generally lower than those in stiffer structures.
The effects of earthquake on a structure depend upon the distribution of the mass and the
stiffness of the structure. Non-regular distribution involves the influence of more
vibration modes on the response.
Simplified analysis methods, such as static equivalent force analysis, generally can be
applied to regular structures, but in some cases may give unsafe results.
Non-regular structures require more sophisticated analysis, such as the response spectrum
or modal superposition method.
Large complex structures with special features of behaviour should be analysed by more
elaborate methods such as non-linear dynamic analysis.
The designer should always keep in mind that in all the above-mentioned methods of
analysis, many uncertainties have been rationalized. The control of the uncertainties
requires compliance with the rules of "good practice" mentioned in Lecture 17.5. The
uncertainties relate to behaviour of the structural material under cycling loading,
discrepancy of the earthquake characteristics, real damping factor, effects of soilstructure interaction etc.

It is clear from the above discussion that the design of an earthquake resistant structure is a
complex task which requires engineering judgement. It must be performed by experienced
engineers. The blind use of computer software as blackboxes may result in inadequate design.

4. INELASTIC BEHAVIOUR AND ITS ROLE IN DESIGN

The elastic design of an earthquake resistant structure leads to very expensive structures.
Moreover it is not consistent with the current design philosophy which seeks to establish
controlled dissipative zones in the structure where seismic energy can be dissipated by means of
ductile hysteretic behaviour. The principal dissipative zones in steel structures are plastic hinges
(in bending), sheared web panels and members under plastic tension (Figure 4).

In Figure 5 the difference in energy dissipation between the elastic and inelastic concept is
presented. The energy input Ei of an earthquake is counterbalanced inside the structure by the
following sum of terms:
Ei = Ee + Ed + Eye + Ekin
where
Ee is the energy of elastic strain
Ed is the energy dissipated in a viscoelastic way
Eye is the energy dissipated by yielding
Ekin is the kinetic energy.

To obtain a stable earthquake resistant structure, either the energy input is minimized by means
of special techniques, such as base isolation of the building, or the dissipative terms in the right
hand side of the equation are increased. The term E ye must be increased as much as possible. It
should be noted that by taking into account elastoplastic energy dissipation, a considerable
weight reduction of the structure is achieved. In Figure 6 the moment rotation diagram of two
equivalent beam elements is considered from the point of view of energy dissipation. The
resisting moment M1 required to resist an earthquake elastically, is 3 times greater than the
resisting moment M2 of the elastoplastic element with a ductility of 2. Expressed in terms of
weight, beam 2 is only equivalent to 0,6 of beam 1. Thus the ductile behaviour allows for
substantial economy in the size of the elements of a structure. This economy is even more
substantial since the local ductility can be higher than 2. In steel structures the value of local
ductility can be as high as 10.

In order to design structures with dissipative behaviour by employing an elastic analysis which is
easy for the design office, certain rules have to be followed. They assure the safe formation of as
many as possible local dissipative zones, avoiding local failure mechanisms.
To approximate the results of a non-linear dynamic analysis by performing an elastic analysis,
the conventional response spectrum method is modified by reducing the spectrum in some way
to account for the inelastic energy dissipation of the real structure under the earthquake action.

This reduction is accomplished by using the structural behaviour factor q. It can generally be
defined as the ratio between the maximum accelerogram that a structure can withstand without
failure and the accelerogram for which yielding appears somewhere in the structure. The
definition is general and can be applied to different quantities of interest. In steel structures, one
way to establish the correlation between a conventional elastic analysis and the real inelastic
behaviour is as follows:
For a given structure under a specific earthquake action a(t), a series of computations of the nonlinear dynamic response is performed by applying actions (t), where is a multiplier. By
increasing the value of the following successive situations emerge (Figure 7) [2, 3]:

values are such that all sections of the structure remain elastic. In these cases, if d is a
displacement that characterizes the deformation of the structure, e.g. storey drift, then d
will be proportional to .

The particular value of which corresponds to the phase where yield stress is reached in
one section of the structure is called e.
In the next phase, the values are such that the real d's are smaller than the d's calculated
by the elastic analysis, i.e. supposing unlimited elastic behaviour, because of the energy
dissipation by yielding.
By increasing the values further, a max value is computed which corresponds to the
same elastic and inelastic displacement. This coincidence is due to the increasing role of
P- effects, which increase the displacements.

The behaviour factor q, is then defined as:

q = max /e
Thus the existence of a meeting point between the two forms of behaviour, allows a direct link
between the linear and non-linear computations. The equivalence states that, for a given
accelerogram a(t) and a known value of q, the usual linear analysis under the action a(t)/q and the
usual checks on stresses, give the same safety level as the dynamic non-linear calculations under
the action of a(t). This equivalent is due to the counteraction of the yielding effect which reduces
the displacements, and the P- effect on the structure which increases the displacements.
The real displacements of the structure ds are given as q times the elastic displacements d e
calculated by using the reduced forces, i.e.
ds = q de
The values of the factor q for various types of steel buildings are given in Lecture 17.5. All
recent design codes use a similar approach with slightly different values for the q factor. These
discrepancies are justified by the fact that q factors are not only functions of the shape of the
structure, but they depend also on the accelerograms a(t) considered. The accelerograms differ
from one part of the world to the other. Other points of difference may be due to the selected
parameter characterizing the behaviour, which may be the equal energy dissipation rather than
the displacements, and due to the safety factors used for the elastic analysis, which usually are
higher than those used for the inelastic analysis. Thus the appropriate q factors involve a
theoretical approach but also an engineering judgement.
It should be noted also that the analysis using a q reduction factor for an earthquake action is
conventional. Safety in the various structural elements is assured by requiring the computed
comparison stresses to be less than or equal to the yield stress. For the design of connections,
under a real earthquake, the real comparison stresses are equal to f y in dissipative zones. It is for
this reason that connections close to dissipative zones must be designed to transmit the plastic
design resistance of elements and not the elastic internal forces computed on the basis of an
elastic analysis using a q reduction factor.

5. CONCLUDING SUMMARY

The design philosophy for structures to resist seismic actions requires that the
structure must not collapse and must retain its structural integrity under a "strong"
earthquake. The structure must also not be damaged or limited in use under a
"moderate" earthquake. To avoid collapse, the structure is allowed to develop
plastic zones in which seismic energy is dissipated.
Methods given by modern design codes for the analysis of structures under
seismic actions assess their behaviour against these performance requirements.
Time-domain methods are used but their application is expensive.
The response spectrum method is the standard procedure of modern seismic
design codes, e.g. Eurocode 8. A simplified response spectrum method for regular
buildings is available.
The elastic design of an earthquake resistant structure leads to very expensive
structures. Consequently the current design philosophy uses controlled dissipative
zones in the structure where seismic energy can be dissipated by means of ductile
hysteretic behaviour.

6. REFERENCES
[1] Eurocode 8: "Structures in Seismic Regions - Design", CEN, (in preparation).
[2] Ballio, G. (1985) ECCS Approach for the Design of Steel Structures to Resist Earthquakes.
Symposium on Steel in Buildings, Luxembourg. IASE-AIPC-IVBH Report Volume 48 pp 313380.
[3] Ballio, G. (1990) European Approach to Design of Steel Structures. 1990, Proc of Hong
Kong Fourth World Congress - Tall Buildings: 2000 and Beyond, pp 935-946.
Table 1: Methods of analysis for structures under seismic actions
Data needed

Type of analysis

DIRECT DYNAMIC ANALYSIS Linear or non-linear

(Time domain)
Accelerogram a(t)
(real or artificial)
Characteristics of the structure,
elastic & inelastic (e.g. M- curves
for connections)

Direct Integration

Use - Design Codes

procedure permitted by
Codes but not for design
Use only for large and
complex structures
Use for evaluation of
response of existing
structures under a specific
earthquake

RESPONSE SPECTRUM
ANALYSIS
Design Response Spectrum

Modal analysis (linear)

Mode shape superposition

Standard design procedure

in Seismic Codes
No limitations of use

Characteristics of the structure,

elastic only
EQUIVALENT STATIC
FORCE ANALYSIS
Design Response Spectrum

Static analysis
First vibration mode is
predominant

Characteristics of the structure,

elastic only
Previous | Next | Contents

Procedure permitted by
Codes for buildings with
specific limitations of
regularity