Statistical Evaluation of Approximate Methods

for Estimating Maximum Deformation Demands

on Existing Structures
Sinan D. Akkar1 and Eduardo Miranda, M.ASCE2

Abstract: A statistical study is presented to evaluate the accuracy of five approximate methods that have been proposed in the past to
estimate the maximum inelastic deformation demand on existing structures. Three are based on equivalent linearization in which the
inelastic deformation is approximated by the maximum deformation of an equivalent linear elastic system having lower lateral stiffness
and larger viscous damping with respect to the preyielding properties of the inelastic system. In the equivalent linear methods evaluated
here the equivalent period and equivalent damping ratio are computed as a function of the maximum deformation through the displace-
ment ductility ratio. The other two methods estimate the maximum inelastic deformation of a system by modifying its maximum elastic
deformation through a displacement modification factor. Modification factors depend on the initial period of vibration and its lateral
strength. A relatively large number of earthquake ground motions recorded on sites having average shear wave velocities higher than
180 m / s are used to calculate error statistics. For each method mean errors and standard errors, as well as probability of underestimating
or overestimating inelastic deformations, are presented and discussed.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:1(160)
CE Database subject headings: Structural analysis; Accuracy; Approximation methods; Deformation; Nonlinear analysis;
Performance evaluation; Seismic analysis; Statistical analysis.

Introduction mation of an inelastic SDOF system is approximated as the maxi-

Performance-based seismic design methodologies aim at control-
ling earthquake damage to structural elements and many types of
nonstructural elements by limiting lateral deformations on struc-
tures. Limiting lateral deformations requires an adequate estima-
tion of peak lateral deformation demands on structures, particu-
larly when subjected to severe ground motions in which the
structure is likely to undergo inelastic deformations. Recently
published performance-based design guidelines have proposed
various simplified nonlinear procedures to approximate maximum
global deformations of structures subjected to earthquakes (ATC
1996; BSSC 1997, 2000). In these procedures the global inelastic
deformation demand on the structure is estimated from the re-
sponse of an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) sys-
tem. Furthermore, the maximum inelastic deformation of the
equivalent SDOF system is approximated from the maximum de-
formation of an elastic SDOF system.
The nonlinear static procedure (NSP) in ATC-40 (ATC 1996)
is based on equivalent linearization in which the maximum defor-
1
Postdoctoral Visiting Scholar, Dept. of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA 94305-4020.
2
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA 94305-4020.
Note. Associate Editor: Andrei M. Reinhorn. Discussion open until
June 1, 2005. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual pa-
pers. To extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be
filed with the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was
submitted for review and possible publication on December 18, 2002;
approved on June 2, 2004. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural
Engineering, Vol. 131, No. 1, January 1, 2005. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-
9445/2005/1-160–172/$25.00.
mum deformation of an elastic SDOF system with a lateral stiff-
ness smaller than that of the initial stiffness of the inelastic system
and with a damping ratio larger than that of the inelastic system.
On the other hand, in the so-called displacement coefficient
method in FEMA-356 (BSSC 2000) the maximum deformation of
the SDOF inelastic system is approximated as the maximum de-
formation of an elastic SDOF system with the same stiffness and
same damping ratio as the inelastic system times a displacement
modification factor that depends on the lateral strength and period
of vibration of the structure.
Various researchers and practicing engineers have more re-
cently found that in some cases simplified procedures in ATC-40
and FEMA-356 may yield substantially different estimates for
target displacement demands (Aschheim et al. 1998; Chopra and
Goel 1999; MacRae and Tagawa 2002). Miranda and Akkar
(2002) recently conducted a comprehensive evaluation of both
methods. The study concluded that in many cases the target dis-
placements computed with the approximate procedures depart
significantly from results of response history analyses. In particu-
lar, their study identified spectral regions and strength levels in
which these methods tend to overestimate or underestimate in-
elastic displacement demands. These studies have clearly indi-
cated the need to improve the procedures currently recommended.
In a recent study, Miranda and Ruiz-García (2002) evaluated
six possible alternative methods to estimate the maximum inelas-
tic deformations of SDOF systems. Four approximate methods
were based on equivalent linearization in which both the equiva-
lent stiffness and the equivalent damping ratio were computed as
functions of displacement ductility ratio, ␮ (peak deformation
normalized by the yield deformation) (Rosenblueth and Herrera
1964; Gülkan and Sözen 1974; Iwan 1980; Kowalsky 1994). The
other two methods they evaluated were based on displacement

160 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

modification factors in which the modifying factor was a function
of period of vibration and of the displacement ductility ratio
(Newmark and Hall 1982; Miranda 2000). They used a total of
264 acceleration time histories recorded on sites with different
local site conditions corresponding to site classes A, B, C, and D
according to current building codes in the United States (ICC
2000).
All six methods evaluated by Miranda and Ruiz-García (2002)
are aimed at estimating the maximum inelastic deformation using
functions of displacement ductility ratio to compute equivalent
periods and equivalent damping ratios or to compute displace-
ment modification factors. The goal of their study was to evaluate
the accuracy of approximate methods for the preliminary design
of structures. Therefore they assumed that the displacement duc-
tility ratio was known for all six methods and they computed error
statistics for constant values of displacement ductility ratios be-
tween one and six. However, during the seismic evaluation of
existing structures or during the estimation of possible deforma-
tion demands on new structures, the displacement ductility ratio is
unknown, and therefore iteration is required to estimate the maxi-
mum deformation demands.
The nonlinear static procedure in the ATC-40 document (ATC
1996) includes various iterative methods to estimate the maxi-
mum inelastic deformation using equivalent linear methods. Stud-
ies by Chopra and Goel (1999, 2000) concluded that iterative
procedure A in ATC-40 does not always converge. More recently,
Miranda and Akkar (2003) provided reasons for this nonconver-
gence and found that lack of convergence is not unique to the
equivalent linear method implemented in ATC-40. They found
that convergence problems can occur with any equivalent linear
method in combination with fixed-point iterative procedures in
which the deformation ductility ratio computed in a given itera-
tion is used as the assumed deformation for the next iteration.
They provided various alternative iteration procedures that guar-
anteed convergence and compared their rate of convergence.
More recently, Iwan and Guyader (2002) proposed an im-
proved equivalent linearization method. Their study provided
some information on the accuracy of their proposed method, but
similarly to the study by Miranda and Ruiz-García (2002) they
assumed that the displacement ductility ratio was known. Hence
there is a need for evaluating the accuracy of equivalent linear
methods to estimate the maximum deformation of inelastic sys-
tems when the ductility ratio is unknown.
In order to avoid iteration various studies (Reinhorn 1997;
Chopra and Goel 2000; Fajfar 2000) proposed to estimate the
ductility ratio by using existing R␮-␮-T relationships and to then
estimate the maximum deformation of the inelastic system, ⌬i, as
follows
␮
˜
⌬i = ⌬e 共1兲
R Kowalsky (1994) provided the best results. In this method the
where ␮ ˜ = approximate mean displacement ductility ratio obtained
from R␮-␮-T relationships; ⌬e = maximum deformation of the
elastic system having the same period and damping ratio of the
inelastic system; and R = lateral strength ratio defined as the
strength required to maintain the system elastic divided by the
lateral yield strength.
In a recent study, Miranda (2001) showed that displacement
modification factors computed using mean R␮-␮-T relationships
could lead to underestimations of inelastic deformations. The
study concluded that more accurate inelastic deformation esti-
mates could be obtained by using displacement modification fac-
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 161
tors derived directly from statistical studies of SDOF systems
with known lateral strength. Ruiz-García and Miranda (2003) re-
cently presented a comprehensive statistical study of constant
relative strength (constant strength ratio R) displacement modifi-
cation factors. As part of that study they proposed a simplified
expression to compute displacement modification factors to esti-
mate the maximum deformation of an inelastic system without
iteration. However, they did not provide information on the accu-
racy of the proposed expression. Therefore there is also a need to
study the accuracy of noniterative methods based on displacement
modification factors.
The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of five
approximate methods to estimate the maximum deformation of
inelastic SDOF systems with known lateral strength. The methods
evaluated comprise three iterative equivalent linear methods and
two noniterative methods based on displacement modification
factors. Results from approximate methods are compared to the
results from nonlinear response history analyses and error statis-
tics are computed. Mean errors (bias factors) as well as standard
errors are presented as a function of period and as a function of
lateral strength ratio using 216 ground motions recorded on firm
sites.
Approximate Methods Considered
Iwan (1980)
Using an ensemble of 12 recorded earthquake ground motions
and a hysteretic model derived from a combination of elastic and
Coulomb slip elements, Iwan (1980) found equivalent periods and
equivalent damping ratios that minimized overall root mean
square errors for SDOF systems with known displacement ductil-
ity ratio averaged over a range of periods of vibration between 0.4
and 4.0 s. He then performed regression analyses to propose the
following empirical equations to compute the equivalent period
and equivalent damping ratio:
Teq
= 1 + 0.121共␮ − 1兲0.939 共2兲
T0
␰eq = ␰0 + 0.0587共␮ − 1兲0.371 共3兲
where Teq and ␰eq = period and damping ratio of the equivalent
linear system, respectively; and T0 and ␰0 = initial period and
damping ratio of the original system, respectively.
Kowalsky (1994)
Of the various equivalent linear methods that use the secant stiff-
ness, Miranda and Ruiz-García (2002) found that the method by
period of vibration of the equivalent system is computed using
secant stiffness at maximum deformation as
Teq = T0 冑 ␮
1 − ␣ + ␣␮
共4兲
where ␣ = postyield-to-initial stiffness ratio.
Kowalsky defined the equivalent damping ratio as the sum of
the initial damping ratio and an equivalent hysteretic damping,
␰hyst. The hysteretic damping is computed by applying Jacobsen’s
approach (1930) in which the energy dissipated by hysteresis in a
full cycle with equal maximum deformation on both sides is
 ED = 2␲k0␰hyst␮⌬2y 共1 + ␣␮ − ␣兲 共8兲
Equating Eq. (5) which represents the hysteretic energy dissipated
in the nonlinear system to Eq. (8) which is the energy dissipated
by viscous damping in the equivalent linear system, the hysteretic
damping term in Kowalsky’s equivalent linearization method is
obtained as follows:

␰hyst =
1
␲
冋
1−
1
冑␮ 共1 + ␣␮ − ␣兲 册 共9兲

The equivalent damping ratio is then given by

␰hyst =
1
␲
冋
1−
1
冑␮ 共1 + ␣␮ − ␣兲 册 共10兲

Iwan and Guyader (2002)

Iwan and Guyader (2002) used an approach similar to that previ-
ously used by Iwan (1980) to propose improved equations to
estimate maximum deformation demands in inelastic SDOF sys-
tems. The proposed equations for elastoplastic systems are given
by
for ␮ ⬍ 4.0

Teq
= 1 + 0.111共␮ − 1兲2 − 0.0167共␮ − 1兲3 共11兲
T0

␰eq = ␰0 + 0.0319共␮ − 1兲2 − 0.0066共␮ − 1兲3 共12兲

for ␮ 艌 4
Fig. 1. Equivalent damping concept for Kowalsky that is based on Teq
Takeda degrading stiffness for an unloading stiffness factor of 0.5 = 1.279 + 0.0892共␮ − 1兲 共13兲
T0

␰eq = ␰0 + 0.106 + 0.00116共␮ − 1兲 共14兲

equated to the energy dissipated by viscous damping in one cycle
of harmonic motion. This corresponds to equating the areas inside
the hysteretic loops shown in Fig. 1. Kowalsky assumed the
Takeda model (Takeda et al. 1970) for the hysteretic model. As-
suming an unloading stiffness factor of n = 0.5, the hysteretic en-
ergy, EH, dissipated in one cycle with a deformation amplitude
equal to ␮⌬y in both directions is given by
Newmark and Hall (1982)
The best known method to estimate the maximum deformation
demand of structures is the Newmark and Hall (1982) method
that was derived considering an elastoplastic behavior. In this
method the maximum deformation of an inelastic system is ap-

EH = 2k0␮⌬2y 共1 + ␣␮ − ␣兲 1 −冋 1
冑␮ 共1 + ␣␮ − ␣兲 册 共5兲
proximated as

⌬i =
␮
⌬e 共15兲
where k0 and ⌬y = initial lateral stiffness and the yield displace- RNH
ment of the original system, respectively. The energy dissipated where the displacement modification factor is given by ␮ / RNH
by viscous damping, ED, in one cycle of harmonic motion with and RNH = period dependent strength reduction factor is given by
amplitude equal to ␮⌬y and having a period equal to that of the

冦 冧
equivalent system is 1, T ⬍ Ta = 1/33s
␤
共2␮ − 1兲 , 1/33 艋 T 艋 Tb = 0.125s
ED = 2␲keq␰hyst␮2⌬2y 共6兲 冑2␮ − 1, T b 艋 T ⬍ T c⬘
RNH = 共16兲
From Eq. (4) the equivalent lateral stiffness, keq, can be expressed T
in terms of the initial stiffness of the original system as ␮ , T c⬘ 艋 T ⬍ T c
Tc
␮, T 艌 Tc
共1 + ␣␮ − ␣兲
keq = k0 共7兲 where
␮
Substituting Eq. (7) into Eq. (6), the damping energy, ED, can be log共T/Ta兲
␤= 共17兲
expressed as 2 log共Tb/Ta兲

162 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

 冑2␮ − 1
T c⬘ = Tc 共18兲
␮
The corner period Tc divides the constant acceleration spectral
region from the constant velocity spectral region. For periods of
vibration equal or longer than Tc the strength reduction factor is
equal to the displacement ductility ratio, which leads to a dis-
placement modification factor equal to one, which corresponds to
the equal displacement rule, which states that in this period range
the maximum deformation of the inelastic system is equal to the
maximum deformation of the elastic system.
Eq. (16) is a so-called R␮-␮-T relationship that permits the
estimation of the strength reduction factor as a function of the
displacement ductility ratio and the period of vibration. However,
as mentioned before, when estimating maximum deformations on
existing structures or when estimating possible deformation de-
mands on new structures, the displacement ductility ratio is not Fig. 2. Displacement modification factors for constant R according to
known. In order to avoid iteration when using the Newmark–Hall the Newmark and Hall method
method, Chopra and his collaborators (Chopra and Goel 2000;
Chopra and Chintanapakdee 2001) proposed to solve for ␮ in Eq.
(16) and substitute it with the resulting displacement ductility vibration and the lateral strength ratio R. The simplified expres-
ratio in Eq. (15). This procedure leads to the following estimates sion to estimate the displacement modification factor was ob-
of inelastic deformations: tained by conducting nonlinear regression analyses to fit statisti-

冦 冧
⬁ T ⬍ Ta = 1/33s cal results of the ratio of maximum inelastic deformation to the
maximum elastic deformation computed with SDOF elastoplastic
R1/␤ + 1 systems subjected to earthquake ground motions recorded in vari-
⌬e 1/33 艋 T 艋 Tb = 0.125s
2R ous site conditions. The expression to compute CR is given by

冋 册
R2 + 1
⌬i = ⌬e T b 艋 T 艋 T c⬘ 共19兲 1 1
2R CR = 1 + − 共R − 1兲 共21兲
a共T/Ts兲b c
Tc
⌬e T c⬘ 艋 T ⬍ T c where T = vibration period of the system; Ts = characteristic period
T
of the site; and a, b, and c = site dependent constants. Table 1 lists
⌬e T 艌 Tc these constants for firm site categories that have shear wave ve-
where R = strength ratio computed as the lateral strength required locities larger than 180 m / s. The site classes B, C, and D corre-
to maintain the system elastic to the yield strength of the system. spond to those used in U.S. seismic provisions (ICC 2000).
It should be noted that if R and ␮ are random variables then the
transformation proposed by these investigators is not strictly valid
and the displacement modification factor computed from Eq. (19) Statistical Study
as a function of R is only a first order approximation. For further
discussion the reader is referred to Miranda (2001). In order to evaluate the accuracy of the five approximate methods
Displacement modification factors corresponding to Eq. (19) to estimate maximum deformation demands on SDOF, the results
for an elastic spectrum based on firm soil peak ground accelera- computed with the approximate methods were compared to the
tion, velocity, and displacement values of 1.0g, 121.92 cm/ s results obtained with nonlinear response history analyses using a
共48 in./ s兲, and 91.44 cm 共36 in.兲, respectively, are shown in Fig. 5% damped elastoplastic system. Accuracy was evaluated by
2. It can be seen that for short period structures with R ⬎ 1 the using 216 earthquake ground motions recorded on firm soil sites
displacement modification factor is larger than one. during 12 California earthquakes with moment magnitudes rang-
ing between 5.8 and 7.2. All ground motions were recorded on
rock or on firm soil sites with average shear wave velocities
Ruiz-García and Miranda (2003) higher than 180 m / s 共600 ft/ s兲 in the upper 30 m 共100 ft兲 of the
Ruiz-García and Miranda (2003) also proposed a noniterative site profile. Earthquake ground motions were divided into three
method to estimate maximum deformation demands using dis- groups according to the local site conditions at the recording sta-
placement modification factors. Similarly to the Newmark and tion. The first group consisted of ground motions recorded on
Hall method, the method consists of approximating the maximum stations located on rock with average shear wave velocities be-
inelastic deformation demand as the product of the maximum tween 760 m / s 共2,500 ft/ s兲 and 1,525 m / s 共5,000 ft/ s兲 that cor-
deformation demand of a linear elastic system with period and
damping ratio equal to those of the inelastic system times a dis-
placement modification factor as follows: Table 1. Site Dependent Coefficient Used in Eq. (21)
Site class a b c Ts (s)
⌬ i = C R⌬ e 共20兲
B 42 1.60 45 0.75
where CR = displacement modification factor referred by these
C 48 1.80 50 0.85
writers as inelastic displacement ratio. These writers proposed a
D 57 1.85 60 1.05
simplified expression to estimate CR as a function of the period of

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 163

respond to site class B in accordance to current U.S. seismic
provisions (BSSC 1997, 2000; ICC 2000). The second group con-
sisted of records obtained on stations on very dense soil or soft
rock with average shear wave velocities between 360 m / s
共1,200 ft/ s兲 and 760 m / s (site class C) while the third group con-
sisted of ground motions recorded on stations on stiff soil with
average shear wave velocities between 180 m / s 共600 ft/ s兲 and
360 m / s (site class D). Seventy-two ground motions in each
group were considered. Detailed information of the ground mo-
tions can be found in Ruiz-García and Miranda (2003).
For each ground motion and each approximate method the
following error measure was computed:
ET,R = 冋 册
⌬ap
⌬ex T,R
共22兲
where ET,R corresponds to the ratio of approximate, ⌬ap, to exact,
⌬ex, maximum inelastic deformation at the period of vibration T
for a lateral strength ratio, R. This error measure was computed
for 50 periods of vibration ranging from 0.05 to 3.0 s and for six
levels of relative strength corresponding to lateral strength ratios
R = 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. A total number of 64,800 nonlinear
response history analyses and 324,000 individual errors were
computed in this study.
The effects of site conditions were considered in the
Newmark–Hall method by computing a different corner period Tc
in Eq. (19) for each of the three site classes. The corner periods
were determined by fitting an idealized Newmark–Hall spectrum
to the mean spectrum of each ensemble as suggested by Chopra
and Chintanapakdee (2001). The corner periods computed for site
classes B, C, and D are 0.39, 0.59, and 0.64 s, respectively.
The approximate inelastic deformations computed with the
two methods based on displacement modification factors can be
computed directly without iteration. However, in the case of
equivalent linear methods, iteration was required because the
maximum displacement ductility ratio cannot be determined in
advance. Iterative schemes in an equivalent linear method basi-
cally consist of the following steps: (1) assume a displacement
demand, Da; (2) compute the displacement ductility demand by
normalizing the assumed displacement by the yield displacement;
(3) compute the equivalent period of vibration and equivalent
damping ratio using the displacement ductility ratio computed in
the previous step; (4) compute the maximum deformation of the
equivalent linear elastic system; and (5) verify if the computed
displacement is within a tolerance equal to the assumed displace-
ment Da. If not, then steps (1)–(4) are repeated until convergence
is obtained. In this study, a secant iteration scheme is used. Unlike
other iteration schemes, such as procedure A in ATC-40, this one
is guaranteed to converge, provided that an initial displacement
range that bounds the approximate displacement is selected. It
should be noted that regardless of the equivalent linear method
that is used iterative equivalent linear methods may lead to mul-
tiple solutions (Miranda and Akkar 2003). In this investigation an
initial interval estimated by 0.2⌬e and 3.0⌬e is used in combina-
tion with the secant iteration scheme and the first assumed defor-
mation found to be within 1% of the computed deformation is
taken as the approximate inelastic deformation without verifying
further whether this is the only approximate solution. For an in-
depth discussion of iterative procedures used in combination with
equivalent linearization methods, the reader is referred to Miranda
and Akkar (2003).
In order to determine whether the approximate methods tend
to underestimate or overestimate inelastic deformations, for each
164 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
method, each period and each lateral strength ratio mean errors
were computed as follows:
n
1
ĒT,R = 兺
n i=1
共ET,R兲i 共23兲
where n = number of ground motions, which in this case is 72 for
each site category. This mean error is a measure of the bias of
each method towards underestimating or overestimating. Values
larger than one represent a tendency to overestimate maximum
deformations and values smaller than one correspond to a ten-
dency to underestimate the maximum deformation.
Fig. 3 presents mean errors for each of the five methods com-
puted with ground motions recorded on site class B. It can be seen
that Iwan’s (1980) method leads to relatively good results for
periods of vibration longer than about 0.5 s. In this period range
small tendencies to underestimate (of approximately 10%) are
produced for lateral strength ratios smaller than 3 and small ten-
dencies to overestimate deformations are produced for strength
ratios larger than four. For periods smaller than 0.5 s, Iwan’s
method tends to underestimate inelastic deformations for R ⬍ 3
and produces very large overestimations for R 艌 4. Kowalsky’s
method leads to adequate results for periods longer than 1.5 s.
However, it tends to overestimate deformations for systems with
periods between 0.5 and 1.5 s when R 艌 4. For short periods of
vibration 共T ⬍ 0.5 s兲 Kowalsky’s method produces very large
overestimations of deformation demands. In many cases the ap-
proximate deformations are on average 50% larger than the exact
deformations. Mean errors computed with the method proposed
by Iwan and Guyader are relatively small for periods longer than
0.5 s with a tendency to overestimate deformations for all values
of R studied here. The bias towards overestimation of deforma-
tion demands observed in equivalent linear methods for short pe-
riods systems is produced because these methods have been de-
veloped based on a limited range of constant ductility ratios,
while weak systems with short periods of vibration may undergo
very large levels of nonlinearity. It can be observed that in general
overestimation increases as the lateral strength ratio increases.
Mean errors computed for the Newmark and Hall method in-
dicate than the equal displacement rule leads to small overestima-
tions (smaller than 15%) for periods longer than 0.9 s. For peri-
ods between 0.3 and 0.9 s this method tends on average to
produce small underestimations of inelastic deformations while
for periods smaller than 0.3 s tends to overestimate maximum
deformations. Mean errors in the latter two spectral regions in-
crease as the lateral strength ratio increases. Displacement modi-
fication factors proposed by Ruiz-García and Miranda produce
more uniform mean errors. It can be seen that for practically all
periods, the errors are smaller than 15%. For periods longer than
1.0 s mean errors are approximately similar to those of other
methods but leads to smaller mean errors in the short period re-
gion.
Figs. 4 and 5 show mean errors for each method computed
with ground motions recorded on site classes C and D. The same
trends and very similar mean errors are observed for these site
classes. Again it is observed that, in general, all five methods lead
to relatively good results for periods longer than 1.0 s, but in the
short period region displacement modification factors lead to
smaller mean errors.
In order to further assess the accuracy of the five approximate
methods, standard errors were computed for each period of vibra-
tion and each lateral strength ratio as follows:
 Fig. 3. Mean errors for all approximate methods computed with ground motions recorded on site class B

␴SE = 冑 1 n

兺 共Ei − 1兲2 =
n − 1 i=1
冑 1
兺
n

n − 1 i=1
冉 ⌬ap − ⌬ex
⌬ex
冊 2
共24兲
the standard error computed for each approximate method as a
function of period of vibration and lateral strength ratio, R. It can
be seen that in general errors increase as the lateral strength ratio
The standard error corresponds to an average error over all increases and that errors are significantly larger in the short period
records in each group. For a large n the standard error is approxi- region 共T ⬍ 0.5 s兲 than for other spectral regions. For periods
mately equal to the root mean square relative error. Fig. 6 presents longer than 0.5 s noniterative methods proposed by Ruiz-García

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 165

 Fig. 4. Mean error statistics of all approximate methods for ground motions recorded on site class C

and Miranda and by Newmark and Hall yield the smallest errors
followed by Iwan’s method (1980). For periods smaller than 0.5 s
the smallest errors are those of the Ruiz-García and Miranda
method followed by those of Newmark and Hall and Iwan’s
method (1980). In general, the largest errors are produced by
Kowalsky’s method.
As mentioned previously, Kowalsky’s method was developed
based on the Takeda hysteretic behavior (Takeda et al. 1970)
while Figs. 3–6 evaluate this method using an elastoplastic be-
havior. In order to examine if errors would decrease when using
the same hysteretic behavior for which the method was devel-
oped, mean errors and standard errors were computed with maxi-
mum deformations obtained from response history analyses using
the Takeda hysteretic model. Results for site class D are shown in

166 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005

 Fig. 5. Mean error statistics of all approximate methods for ground motions recorded on site class D

Fig. 7. When using the Takeda model, mean errors for periods
smaller than about 0.3 s decrease relative to those computed with
the elastoplastic behavior. However, for periods longer than 0.7
when using the Takeda model, Kowalsky’s method tends to over-
estimate inelastic displacement demands. In this period range, the
results are clearly better for the elastoplastic behavior even when
this hysteretic behavior is not the one used in the development of
the method. This increase in mean error for intermediate and long
periods is due to the fact that, as documented in several studies
(Clough and Johnston 1966; Riddell and Newmark 1979; Foutch
and Shi 1998), the maximum deformation of stiffness degrading
models, is on average, slightly smaller than that of elastoplastic
systems.
Another way to assess the accuracy of approximate methods is

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 167

 Fig. 6. Standard errors for each approximate method computed with ground motions recorded on site class B
by computing errors associated with specific percentiles. A per-
centile corresponds to an error that has a specific probability of
nonexceedance. Fig. 8 presents 10 and 90% percentiles for all
periods when R = 6 corresponding to both equivalent methods pro-
posed by Iwan and the two methods based on displacement modi-
fication factors. Ninety percent of the individual errors (errors
computed for individual records) are above the 10% percentile
error, while 90% of the individual errors are below the 90% per-
centile error. Similarly, 80% of the errors lie between these two
lines. Hence the closer these lines are from each other the smaller
168 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
the dispersion is, and the closer to 1.0 the better the method is.
From this figure it is clear that error dispersion with any of these
methods is significantly larger in the short periods range. For
periods longer than 0.5 s, the method proposed by Ruiz-García
and Miranda exhibits a smaller dispersion. Nevertheless, consid-
erable scatter exists for all methods. It can be seen that for periods
larger than about 0.6 s the error associated with 10% probability
of nonexceedance is practically the same for all four methods.
However, for periods smaller than 0.4 s the errors associated with
p = 10% in methods based on displacement modification factors
 Fig. 7. Mean and standard errors computed for Kowalsky’s method when using the Takeda hysteretic model

are smaller than 0.5, indicating that with these methods there is a
probability larger than 10% of estimating deformation demands
that are half of the deformation computed with nonlinear response
history analyses. These results indicate that for periods longer
than 0.5 s there is a 10% probability that these methods will over-
estimate the maximum deformation by 50% or more. In the short
period range there is a 10% probability that the maximum defor-
mations will be significantly overestimated, particularly with the
Newmark and Hall’s method.
In order to assess the accuracy of approximate methods to
estimate maximum deformation demands of SDOF systems, Iwan
and Guyader (2002) computed probabilities of underestimating

Fig. 8. 10 and 90% percentile curves of the approximate methods evaluated for R = 6 and site class B

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 169

 Fig. 9. Probabilities of 20% underestimation and 20% overestimation for the methods evaluated
and of overestimating deformation demands by specific values.
Fig. 9 presents the probability of underestimating the maximum
deformation by 20% and of overestimating the maximum defor-
mation by an equal amount. This figure corresponds to systems
with a lateral strength ratio of three when subjected to ground
motions recorded on site class B. It can be seen for periods longer
than 0.8 s the smallest probabilities of underestimating the maxi-
mum deformation by 20% are produced by methods based on
displacement modification factors, which exhibit probabilities be-
tween 10 and 25%. In the same period range equivalent linear
methods proposed by Kowalsky and by Iwan (1980) have prob-
abilities between 20 and 40% of underestimating the maximum
deformation by 20%. Relatively large probabilities of underesti-
mating the maximum deformation by 20% are observed for
Iwan’s method for periods smaller than 0.6 s and for Ruiz-García
and Miranda’s method for periods smaller than 0.3 s. In general,
methods that exhibit smaller probabilities of underestimating de-
formations show larger probabilities of overestimating and vice
versa. This trend is clearly visible for periods longer than 0.8 s.
The probability of underestimating the maximum deformation
by 40% and of overestimating the maximum deformation by 40%
Fig. 10. Probabilities of 40% underestimation and 40% overestimation for the methods evaluated
170 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
are shown in Fig. 10. This figure corresponds to systems with a
lateral strength ratio of three when subjected to ground motions
recorded on site class D. It can be seen that for periods longer
than 1.0 s all methods have relatively small probabilities of un-
derestimating deformation demands by 40%, with probabilities
varying between 5 and 15% depending on the method used. The
smallest probabilities of underestimating deformation demands by
40% correspond to the method proposed by Iwan and Guyader
that in this period range has probabilities smaller than 8%. For
periods smaller than 0.2 s, methods based on displacement modi-
fication factors exhibit relatively large probabilities of underesti-
mating deformation demands by 40%. Similarly, for periods of
vibration longer than 1.0 s these methods exhibit larger probabili-
ties of overestimating the deformation demands by 40%. The
large bias of Kowalsky’s method towards overestimating defor-
mation demands in the short period region leads this method to
have the smallest probabilities of underestimating the maximum
deformation by 40%, but at the same time produces very large
probabilities of overestimating deformation demands by 40% for
systems with periods smaller than 0.7 s.
Summary and Conclusions
The accuracy of five approximate methods in estimating the
maximum inelastic deformation demand of single-degree-of-
freedom systems with known lateral strengths was evaluated. In
all methods the maximum inelastic deformation is approximated
from the maximum deformation of linear systems. Three of the
methods evaluated use equivalent linearization in which the maxi-
mum deformation of a nonlinear oscillator is approximated as the
maximum deformation of a linear oscillator that has a period of
vibration and damping ratio that are larger than those of the non-
linear oscillator. In these methods, the equivalent period and the
equivalent damping ratio are computed as a function of the maxi-
mum displacement ductility demand, hence iteration is required to
obtain the approximate maximum deformation. The other two
methods are based on displacement modification factors in which
the maximum deformation of inelastic systems is approximated
by multiplying the maximum lateral deformation of an elastic
system having a period and damping ratio equal to those of the
nonlinear system by a modification factor. The modification factor
is a function of the period of vibration of the system and of the
lateral strength of the system. Thus no iteration is required.
In order to evaluate the accuracy of the approximate methods,
deformation demand estimates computed by each procedure were
compared to results computed from nonlinear response history
analyses using an elastoplastic behavior. For this purpose 216
earthquake ground motions recorded in various firm site condi-
tions during 12 California earthquakes were considered. For each
method, each period of vibration, and each level of lateral
strength, ratios of approximate to exact displacement were com-
puted. Results computed as part of this investigation include:
mean errors, standard errors, errors associated with specific prob-
abilities of nonexceedance, as well as probabilities of underesti-
mating and of overestimating maximum inelastic deformation de-
mands. The following conclusions can be drawn from this study.
For periods longer than 1.0 s all methods produce on average
relatively good results. In this period range bias towards underes-
timating or toward overestimating maximum deformation de-
mands are typically smaller than 15%. However, when using the
Takeda model, Kowalsky’s equivalent linear method produced
overestimations, that on average are between 20 and 30%. In the
short period range the method proposed by Ruiz-García and
Miranda leads to mean errors that are closer to one than those of
the other approximate methods evaluated here. Equivalent linear
methods proposed by Iwan and Guyader and the one proposed by
Kowalsky tend to overestimate deformation demands for systems
with a period of vibration smaller than 0.5 s. Tendencies to over-
estimate are particularly large when using Kowalsky’s method for
predicting maximum deformation of systems with elastoplastic or
Takeda hysteretic behaviors. In the short period range the method
proposed by Iwan in 1980 has a slight tendency to underestimate
deformation demands for lateral strength ratios smaller than three,
but has a tendency to overestimate deformation demands for lat-
eral strength ratios equal to or larger than four. Mean errors are
not significantly affected by the site conditions. An estimate of
inelastic deformations are significantly easier to obtain with meth-
ods based on displacement modification factors since no iteration
is required.
Standard errors increase as the lateral strength ratio increases.
The smallest standard errors were computed with the noniterative
displacement modification factor method proposed by Ruiz-
García and Miranda regardless of the period of vibration. This
method also exhibits slightly smaller dispersion than the other
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005 / 171
methods. Nevertheless, the errors produced by any of these meth-
ods can be relatively large, particularly for lateral strength ratios
larger than four. In the short period region, all methods can lead to
relatively large errors in the estimation of inelastic deformation
demands. In general, methods that have small probabilities of
underestimating inelastic deformations exhibit larger probabilities
of overestimating maximum deformations and vice versa.
The results presented in this study suggest that caution should
be exercised when employing approximate procedures that esti-
mate maximum inelastic displacement demands of systems with
known lateral strength from the maximum deformation of linear
systems. Users of nonlinear static procedures in which target dis-
placements are computed using equivalent linear methods or dis-
placement modification factors should be aware of the limited
accuracy offered by these approximate methods, particularly for
weak systems relative to the strength required to remain elastic
and/or for systems with periods of vibration shorter than 0.6 s.
Acknowledgments
Jorge Ruiz-García is greatly acknowledged for supplying the re-
sults of nonlinear response history analysis that are used here to
evaluate the accuracy of approximate methods. Some of the
analyses reported here were conducted as part of the ATC-55
Project: “Evaluation and Improvement of Inelastic Analysis Pro-
cedures” of the Applied Technology Council with funding from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The Scientific Re-
search and Technical Council of Turkey provided partial financial
support to the first writer during his postdoctoral stay at Stanford.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
a,b,c ⫽ site dependent constants for R dependent
displacement modification factor;
CR ⫽ displacement modification factor for constant
relative strength;
ED ⫽ energy dissipated by viscous damping in one
cycle of harmonic motion;
EH ⫽ energy dissipated in one cycle of a hysteretic
loop;
ET,R ⫽ maximum approximate to exact inelastic
displacement ratio (error term);
ĒT,R ⫽ mean error for a given vibration period and
normalized strength;
keq ⫽ equivalent lateral stiffness;
k0 ⫽ initial lateral stiffness of the system;
R ⫽ lateral strength ratio;
R␮ ⫽ normalized strength value for a given displacement
ductility ratio;
T ⫽ periods of vibration;
Ta,Tb,Tc ⫽ corner periods for Newmark–Hall design
procedure;
Teq ⫽ equivalent period of the equivalent linear system;
T0 ⫽ initial period of vibration of the system;
Ts ⫽ characteristic period of the site;
␣ ⫽ postyield-to-initial stiffness ratio;
⌬e ⫽ maximum lateral displacement of an elastic
single-degree-of-freedom system;
 ⌬i ⫽ maximum inelastic displacement of a nonlinear
single-degree-of-freedom system;
共⌬i兲ap ⫽ approximate maximum inelastic
single-degree-of-freedom displacement;
共⌬i兲ex ⫽ exact maximum inelastic single-degree-of-freedom
displacement;
␮ ⫽ displacement ductility ratio;
␰eq ⫽ equivalent viscous damping of the equivalent
linear system;
␰hyst ⫽ hysteretic damping due to nonlinear behavior;
␰0 ⫽ initial viscous damping ratio of the system; and
␴SE ⫽ standard error for a given vibration period and
normalized strength.
References
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (1996). “Seismic evaluation and ret-
rofit of concrete buildings.” Rep. ATC-40, Applied Technology Coun-
cil, Redwood City, Calif.
Aschheim, M. A., Maffei, J., and Black, E. F. (1998). “Nonlinear static
procedures and earthquake displacement demands.” Proc., 6th U.S.
National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Wash., Earth-
quake Engineering Research Institute, CD-ROM, Paper 167.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). (1997). “NEHRP guidelines for
the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” Rep. FEMA-273 (Guidelines)
and Rep. FEMA-274 (Commentary), Washington, D.C.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). (2000). “Prestandard and com-
mentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings.” Rep. FEMA-356,
Washington, D.C.
Chopra, A. K., and Chintanapakdee, C. (2001). “Comparing response of
SDF systems to near-fault and far-fault earthquake motions in the
context of spectral regions.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 30(10),
375–388.
Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K. (1999). “Capacity-demand-diagram meth-
ods for estimating seismic deformation of inelastic structures: SDF
systems.” Rep. PEER-1999/02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Chopra, A. K., and Goel, R. K. (2000). “Evaluation of NSP to estimate
seismic deformation: SDF systems.” J. Struct. Eng., 126(4), 482–490.
Clough, R. W., and Johnston, S. B. (1966). “Effects of stiffness-
degradation on earthquake ductility requirements.” Proc., Japan
Earthquake Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, 227–232.
Fajfar, P. (2000). “A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based
seismic design.” Earthquake Spectra, 16(3), 573–592.
Foutch, D. A., and Shi, S. (1998). “Effects of hysteresis type on the
seismic response of buildings.” Proc., 6th U.S. National Conf. on
Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Wash., Earthquake Engineering Re-
search Institute, CD-ROM, Paper 409.
Gülkan, P., and Sözen, M. (1974). “Inelastic response of reinforced con-
crete structures to earthquake motions.” ACI J., 71(12), 604–610.
172 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / JANUARY 2005
International Code Council (ICC). (2000). International building code,
Birmingham, Ala.
Iwan, W. D. (1980). “Estimating inelastic spectra from elastic spectra.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 8(4), 375–388.
Iwan, W. D., and Guyader, A. C. (2002). “A study of the accuracy of the
capacity spectrum method in engineering analysis.” Proc., 3rd U.S.-
Japan Workshop on Performace-Based Earthquake Engineering
Methodology for Reinforced Concrete Building Structures, Pacific
Earthquake Eng. Research Center, 16–18 August 2001, Seattle,
Washington, 86–102.
Jacobsen, L. S. (1930). “Steady forced vibrations as influenced by damp-
ing.” ASME Trans., 52, 169–181.
Kowalsky, M. J. (1994). “Displacement-based design-a methodology for
seismic design applied to RC bridge columns.” Master’s thesis, Uni-
versity of California at San Diego, La Jolla, Calif.
MacRae, G., and Tagawa, H. (2002). “Methods to estimate displacements
of PG&E structures.” Rep. PGE/PEER Task No. 505, University of
Washington, Seattle, Wash.
Miranda, E. (2000). “Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm
sites.” J. Struct. Eng., 126(10), 1150–1159.
Miranda, E. (2001). “Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of
SDOF systems.” J. Struct. Eng., 127(9), 1005–1012.
Miranda, E., and Akkar, S. (2002). “Evaluation of approximate methods
to estimate target displacements in nonlinear static procedures.” Rep.
PEER-2002/21; Proc., 4th U.S.-Japan Workshop on Performance-
Based Earthquake Engineering Methodology for Reinforced Concrete
Building Structures, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, 75–86.
Miranda, E., and Akkar, S. D. (2003). “Evaluation of iterative schemes in
equivalent linear methods.” Earthquake Engineering Research Insti-
tute.
Miranda, E., and Ruiz-García, J. (2002). “Evaluation of approximate
methods to estimate maximum inelastic displacement demands.”
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(3), 539–560.
Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. (1982). Earthquake spectra and design,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.
Reinhorn, A. M. (1997). “Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evalu-
ations.” Seismic design methodologies for the next generation of
codes, P. Fajfar and H. Krawinkler, eds., Balkema, Rotterdam, The
Netherlands, 277–287.
Riddell, R., and Newmark, N. M. (1979). “Statistical analysis of the
response of nonlinear systems subjected to earthquakes.” Rep. No.
UILI-ENG79-2016, Structural Research Series, Dept. of Civil Engi-
neering, University of Illinois, Urbana.
Rosenblueth, E., and Herrera, I. (1964). “On a kind of hysteretic damp-
ing.” J. Eng. Mech., 90(4), 37–48.
Ruiz-García, J., and Miranda, E. (2003). “Inelastic displacement ratios for
evaluation of existing structures.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31,
1237–1258.
Takeda, T., Sozen, M. A., and Nielsen, N. N. (1970). “Reinforced con-
crete response to simulated earthquakes.” J. Struct. Div. ASCE,
96(12), 2557–2573.