Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Inelastic spectra for displacement-based seismic design

B. Borzi a,1, G.M. Calvi b, A.S. Elnashai a,*, E. Faccioli c, J.J. Bommer a
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London SW7 2BU, UK
b
Dipartimento di Meccanica Strutturale, Universita degli Studi di Pavia, Via Ferrata 1, 27100 Pavia, Italy
c
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Politecnico di Milano, Piazza Leonardo da Vinci 32, 20133 Milan, Italy
Accepted 6 September 2000

Abstract
In recognition of the emergence of displacement-based seismic design as a potentially more rational approach than force-based techniques,
this paper addresses derivation of inelastic displacement spectra and associated topics. A well-constrained earthquake strong-motion dataset
is used to derive inelastic displacement spectra, displacement reduction factors and ductility±damping relationships. These are in a format
amenable for use in design and assessment of structures with a wide range of response characteristics. q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All
rights reserved.
Keywords: Attenuation relationship; Displacement spectrum; Displacement-based approach; Ductility; Damping; Displacement modi®cation factor

1. Introduction work mentioned above. However, it was in the 1990s that

Force-based seismic design remains, in spite of its short-
comings, the method widely used in codes. However, defor-
mation-based (Calvi and Kingsley [1], Kowalsky et al. [2],
Priestley et al. [3]) or deformation-controlled (Panagiotakos
and Fardis [4]) procedures have recently been proposed. The
new approach utilises displacement spectra expressed as
spectral ordinates versus effective period (period at maxi-
mum displacement) to quantify the demand imposed on
structural systems.
The origins of displacement-based design may be traced
to work published as early as the 1960s, where comments on
the displacements of inelastic systems and their relationship
to their elastic counterparts were made (e.g. Muto et al.,
1960, as reported by Moehle [5]). However, it was the
work of Sozen and his associates (Gulkan and Sozen [6],
Shibata and Sozen [7]) that developed the concept of a
substitute structure. The substitute structure is a single
degree of freedom elastic system, the characteristics of
which represent the inelastic system. This concept enables
the use of an elastic displacement spectrum in design, while
using the displacement capacity of an inelastic system.
Various contributions were made towards the develop-
ment of displacement-based seismic design since the early
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 144-20-7594-6058; fax: 144-20-7225-
2716.
E-mail address: a.elnashai@ic.ac.uk (A.S. Elnashai).
1
Present address: EQE International Ltd, Warrington WA3 6WJ, UK.
0267-7261/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0267-726 1(00)00075-0
formal proposals were made to implement the emerging
ideas into a design procedure. The earliest is that by Moehle
and his co-workers (Moehle [5], Qi and Moehle [8]). There-
after, a complete and workable procedure for seismic design
of structures that sets aside forces and relies on displace-
ment as a primary design quantity was proposed by
Kowalsky et al. [2] for single degree of freedom systems
(such as bridge piers). A parallel paper on multi-degree of
freedom systems is due to Calvi and Kingsley [1]. The steps
comprising the design process for SDOF systems are given
below for simplicity:
a. A target displacement for the structure is selected, based
on the type of structure and the governing limit state.
b. Knowing the yield displacement, and the material and
structural system, a value of equivalent damping is deter-
mined.
c. Displacement spectra representative of the seismo-
tectonic environment are used. The inputs are the target
displacement and the equivalent damping. The output is
an effective period of vibration.
d. The structure is dimensioned to give an effective period,
taking into account reduced stiffness consistent with the
level of deformation, equal to that obtained from the displa-
cement spectra.
e. If the effective period is not suf®ciently close to the
required period, go to step b. above and repeat until
convergence.
48 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61

It is clear from the above that whereas displacement-

based design is the logical framework for seismic
design, since the primary source of seismic energy
dissipation is inelastic deformation, it imposes new
requirements for veri®able design. Primarily, accurate,
representative and parametrically described displace-
ment spectra are essential ingredients that have only
very recently become available (Bommer et al. [9],
Bommer and Elnashai [10], Tolis and Faccioli [11]).
In the study by Bommer et al. [9], it was shown that
a well-balanced catalogue for acceleration studies may
be unsuitable for displacement purposes. The ordinates
of acceleration response spectra are insensitive to the
processing applied to the accelerograms, whereas the
in¯uence of the ®lter parameters on the displacement
spectra is pronounced.
In this paper attenuation coef®cients for inelastic displa-
cement constant ductility spectra are calculated. Attenuation
coef®cients for residual displacements were also taken into
account. This is of great importance in the assessment of
displacement-based design situations, hence the spectra are
presented as ratio of maximum response displacement. By
means of a comparison between elastic and inelastic displa-
cement spectral ordinates a reduction coef®cient taking into
account the effects of real inelastic behaviour in a simpli®ed
method of design based on displacement is calculated. For
this coef®cient, herein denoted h -factor, regression coef®-
cients were evaluated (Borzi et al. [12], Borzi [13]) for all
magnitudes, distances and site conditions. Further, average
values obtained constitute a valid reference for new code
implementations for simpli®ed methods based on displace-
ments.

2. Input motion

2.1. Strong-motion dataset selection and processing

The dataset employed for the de®nition of inelastic

constant ductility spectra was presented by Bommer et al.
[9] and used for the derivation of frequency-dependent
attenuation equations for ordinates of displacement
response spectra. All records were ®ltered individually at
Imperial College (London, UK) and used to derive displa-
cement spectra for different levels of damping, from 5 to
30%. Each record was individually processed using an ellip-
tical ®lter and a long-period cut-off that resulted in a physi-
cally reasonable displacement time-history (Bommer and
Elnashai [10]). This ®ltering process removes permanent
displacements, caused by ground deformation or fault slip,
in order not to mix these phenomena with transitory ground
vibrations. The dataset has been adapted from that
employed by Ambraseys et al. [14,15] to derive attenuation
relationships for ordinates of acceleration response spectra.
This is a high-quality dataset in terms of both accelerograms
that have been individually corrected, and information
regarding the recording stations and earthquake character-
Fig. 1. Distribution of records for: (a) rock; (b) stiff; and (c) soft soil.
istics. The original dataset of Ambraseys et al. [14,15] has
been modi®ed in the following ways:
1. records for small magnitude earthquakes have been
removed;
2. some site classi®cations have been corrected in the light
of new information;
3. two new strong-motion records have been added;
4. all of the original records have been ®ltered with indivi-
dually selected cut-offs.
The necessity of eliminating all the records generated by
earthquakes of magnitude less than Ms 5.5 is due to the
particular interest in long-period radiation. In Fig. 1 the
distribution of records comprising the dataset with regard
to magnitude, distance and site classi®cation are
 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61
demonstrated to emphasise credentials of this set of natural
records.
While the source distance and the surface-wave magni-
tude are available for all the accelerograms, for three
records the local site geology is unknown. For the remaining
180, the percentages of distribution in the three site group-
ings of rock, stiff and soft soil are 25.0, 51.1 and 23.9%,
respectively. These percentages are close to the distribution
of the original dataset, being 25.5, 54.3 and 20.2%, respec-
tively. For two records only one component of the motion is
known. Therefore a total of 364 accelerograms were
processed.
It is acknowledged that site intensity could be used for the
selection of strong-motion datasets. However, this has its
own problems, and is not considered to be superior to the
selection based on magnitude, distance and site condition.
2.2. Attenuation model and regression analysis
Studies concerning the evaluation of seismic hazard
related to earthquakes utilise predictive models commonly
referred to as attenuation relationships. These models gener-
ally express values of strong-motion parameters as a func-
tion of source characteristics, propagation path and local site
geology.
In order to de®ne elastic spectra, a common approach to
perform a hazard analysis is to de®ne the hazard in terms of
the peak ground acceleration (PGA), which anchors the
zero-period ordinate for a standard spectral shape. A criti-
cism of this approach is that the resulting spectra do not
correspond to the same seismic hazard for all periods (i.e.
non-uniform hazard spectra). To obtain spectra charac-
terised according to the same seismic hazard for every spec-
tral ordinate (uniform hazard spectra) the de®nition of
period-dependent attenuation relationships are proposed.
The attenuation model used in this work is that of Ambra-
seys et al. [14,15] employed to de®ne elastic acceleration
spectra. The formulation of the attenuation relationship is:
log…y† ˆ C1 1 C2 Ms 1 C4 log…r† 1 Ca Sa 1 Cs Ss 1 sP …1†
where y is the strong-motion parameter to be predicted, Ms is
the surface wave magnitude and:
q
r ˆ d 2 1 h20 …2†
in which d is the shortest distance from the station to the
surface projection of the fault rupture in km and h0 is a
regression constant. The h0 coef®cient takes into account
that the fault projection is not necessarily the source of
the peak motion, but it does not represent explicitly the
effect of the focal depth on the motion. The coef®cients
C1, C2, C4, Ca, Cs and h0 are determined by regression. In
this attenuation model three soil conditions are distin-
guished by the average shear wave velocity. When the
shear wave velocity is higher than 750 m/s the soil is clas-
si®ed as rock. Soft soil has a shear wave velocity is less than
360 m/s, whilst stiff soil is assumed in the intermediate
49
range of shear wave velocity. In the regression model Sa
takes the value of 1 for soft soil conditions and 0 otherwise,
while Ss takes the value of 1 for stiff soil conditions and 0
otherwise. Finally, P is a parameter that is multiplied by the
standard deviation s and takes the value of 0 when the mean
value of log(y) is calculated and 1 for the 84-percentile
value of log(y).
3. Structural models
3.1. Elastic perfectly-plastic model
In order to determine the in¯uence of magnitude, distance
and soil condition on inelastic response spectra, attenuation
relationships have been de®ned using an elastic perfectly-
plastic (EPP) response model. The EPP model was
employed since it is the simplest form of inelastic force-
resistance as well as being the basis for early relationships
between seismic motion and response modi®cation factors.
Moreover, by virtue of its two parameters de®nition: level of
force-resistance and stiffness, few structural characteristics
are included, hence the in¯uence of strong-motion records
may be better visualised. The stiffness corresponds to the
period of vibration for which the spectral ordinate has to be
calculated and the resistance is derived iteratively. In this
work inelastic constant ductility spectra were obtained.
Therefore the resistance of the system corresponds to the
resistance for which the system has a required ductility
equal to the target ductility. The ensuing inelastic spectra
would re¯ect solely the characteristics of the input motion.
3.2. Hysteretic hardening±softening model
In order to investigate the in¯uence of the response char-
acteristics of structures on inelastic displacement spectra, a
hysteretic hardening-softening model (HHS) was used
(Ozcebe and Saatcioglu [16]). The structural model is char-
acterised by the de®nition of a primary curve, unloading and
reloading rules. The primary curve for a hysteretic force±
displacement relationship is de®ned as the envelope curve
under cyclic load reversals. For non-degrading models the
primary curve is taken as the response curve under mono-
tonic loading. In this model the primary curve is used to
de®ne the limits for member strength. Two points on the
primary curve have to be de®ned. It is essential to de®ne
cracking and yield loads (Vcr and Vy) and the corresponding
displacements (D cr and D y), as shown in Fig. 2. If, for exam-
ple, this model was used to describe the hysteretic behaviour
of reinforced concrete members, the cracking load would
correspond to the spreading of cracks in the concrete and the
yielding load would be related with the load at which the
strain in bars is equal to the yield strain of steel or some
other criterion can be selected by the user. Unloading and
reloading branches of the HHS model have been established
through a statistical analysis of experimental data
50 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61
Fig. 2. HHS model for structural members.
(Saatcioglu and co-workers [17,18]). The load reversal rules
are brie¯y described below.
Structural members exhibit stiffness degradation under
cyclic loading. When the number of cycles or the amplitude
of inelastic deformation increases, the system becomes
softer. Furthermore, the hysteretic behaviour is affected by
pinching. The axial load is an important parameter in
predicting pinching effects (due to the onset of crack
closure). The slope of reloading branches increases beyond
the crack load.
The slopes of the lines connecting the origin to the crack-
ing point (K1 in Fig. 2) and the yield point to the cracking
point in the opposite quadrant (K2 in Fig. 2) are used to
de®ne the unloading branches under cyclic loads. The latter
slope depends on deformation and force levels attained at
the beginning of unloading. Experimental results indicate
that if unloading starts between the cracking and the yield
load, and the yield load has not been exceeded in the rele-
vant quadrant, then unloading stiffness is bounded by K1 and
K2. In this model a linear variation between these limits was
proposed as a function of displacement ductility. If the
unloading load exceeds the yield load, the unloading
curve changes the slope to a value close to the cracking load.
4. Procedural considerations
In order to de®ne inelastic displacement spectra and
displacement modi®cation (h ?, displacement ductilities of
2, 3, 4 and 6 are considered. Ductility levels higher than 6
are not included because they constitute global displace-
ment ductility and structures very rarely have a local ducti-
lity supply commensurate with global ductility above 6. The
inelastic spectra have been de®ned between 0.05 and 3 s.
For the HHS model the initial elastic period can be consid-
ered either as the stiffness before Vcr or the secant stiffness.
In the current work period corresponding to the secant stiff-
ness was considered. This is because the stiffness before Vcr
is not representative of the structural behaviour. A low
damping value of 1% was included. This viscous damping
is representative of the non-hysteretic dissipation, since
hysteretic damping is already included. Sensitivity analyses
were undertaken and have indicated that further precision of
this assumption is unwarranted.
The input parameters for the HHS model described above
are the monotonic curve and the relationship between axial
compressive force and nominal concentric axial capacity. In
order to de®ne the inelastic constant ductility spectra the
magnitude of the monotonic curve is not an input parameter.
It is de®ned in an iterative way forcing the relationship
between maximum and yield displacements to satisfy the
target ductility. To obtain the inelastic spectra and displace-
ment modi®cation factor (h ) an approximation of the
primary curve with three linear branches has been assumed
(Fig. 3). Consequently, the input parameters de®ning the
shape of the primary curve are:
1. the relationship between the cracking and the yielding
load (Vcr/Vy);
2. the relationship between the stiffness before the cracking
load and the secant stiffness (Kcr/Ky);
3. the slope of the post yield branch.
Fig. 3. Shape of primary curve used in this work.
 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61
To select the values of parameters to be employed, exten-
sive analysis of the in¯uence of each parameter on the
inelastic spectra was undertaken. The results of a parametric
investigation indicate that the parameter with the strongest
in¯uence on inelastic spectra is the slope of the post yield
branch. Hence ®xed ratios between Vcr and Vy and between
Kcr and Ky were considered. Although the aforementioned
ratios have a large variability, constant values are assumed,
since the results of preliminary parametric investigations
using a ®ne mesh of variation show that they do not have
a signi®cant in¯uence in terms of the inelastic displacement
spectra. From the experimental results of Paulay and Priest-
ley [19], Priestley et al. [20], Calvi and Pinto [21] and Pinto
[22], it is reasonable to consider the secant stiffness at the
yield point equal to 50% of the stiffness before Vcr; The
latter is taken equal to 30% of Vy. The ratio between the
cracking and yield loads in¯uences the pinching behaviour
that does not occur often for structures with loads higher
than approximately 30% of the yielding load Vy. The consid-
ered representative slopes of the structural behaviour are:
² K 3 ˆ 0 : (elastic perfect plastic behaviour)
² K3 ˆ 10%Ky : (hardening behaviour)
² K3 ˆ 220%Ky : (softening behaviour)
² K3 ˆ 230%Ky : (softening behaviour)
An axial load equal to 10% of the nominal axial load is
assumed, since the model does not account for second-order
effects. The above characteristics have been veri®ed to
cover both new structures with seismic detailing, and exist-
ing poorly detailed structures (Borzi et al. [12], Borzi [13]).
An iterative procedure was utilised for the de®nition of
spectral ordinates corresponding to target ductility. In rare
cases it has not been possible to obtain a convergent solution
with the HHS model. The percentage of spectral ordinates
that have not been considered in the regression analyses are
reported in Table 1.
It is observed that the number of spectral ordinates to be
excluded from parametric analysis for the slope of the third
branch equal to 230%Ky and ductility equal to 4, is very
high. The attenuation relationship for this combination of
parameters was therefore not considered. The above obser-
vations (non-convergence) are fully justi®ed by noting that
highly degrading systems are inherently of low ductility.
This was further investigated by comparison with a different
program for inelastic spectra available to the authors
(program inspect). The lack of convergence was observed
Table 1
Percentage of ordinates excluded from regression analysis
K3 m ˆ 2 (%) m ˆ 3 (%) m ˆ 4 (%) m ˆ 6 (%)
0 0.16 0.58 1.23 3.16
10%Ky 0.03 0.13 0.27 0.80
220%Ky 1.67 5.12 12.00 ±
230%Ky 2.45 8.16 30.98 ±
51
for the same range of degrading stiffness and high ductility,
thus con®rming that these situations correspond to structural
collapse.
5. Inelastic displacement spectra
The cut-off period of every accelerogram is associated
with an initial elastic period TI, which corresponds to the
secant stiffness at yield. This is less than the cut-off periods
employed in order to ®lter the records. For inelastic systems
there is doubt as to whether spectral ordinates should corre-
spond to the equivalent elastic period TE rather than the
initial elastic period TI, both of which are less than the
cut-off period. However, it was observed that even if
equivalent elastic periods are somewhat higher than the
cut-off period of 3 s, the inelastic spectral ordinates are
still valid. This was con®rmed by comparison to selected
digital records Borzi [13].
In order to study the in¯uence of input motion para-
meters on inelastic displacement spectra, attenuation coef-
®cients were calculated for the EPP model. Fig. 4a±c
show the in¯uence of magnitude, distance and soil condi-
tions on inelastic displacement spectra. They con®rm the
strong in¯uence of input motion parameters on inelastic
displacement spectra, as already demonstrated in previous
studies for elastic displacement spectra by Bommer et al.
[9] (Fig. 5).
To compare the elastic and inelastic spectra, attenuation
coef®cients were de®ned for elastic spectra. Fig. 6 shows the
in¯uence of ductility on inelastic displacement spectra. In
this representation the initial elastic period of vibration
corresponding to the secant stiffness at the yield point is
assumed. Thus the elastic and inelastic systems with differ-
ent ductility requirements are characterised by the same
initial stiffness. The results con®rm the established observa-
tion that elastic and inelastic systems with the same initial
stiffness reach similar maximum displacements. However,
the difference between elastic and inelastic spectral ordi-
nates calculated in this work is larger than in previous
ones. This is due to the fact that the damping value used
herein is small (1% of critical). Therefore, the elastic spec-
tral ordinates for periods corresponding to the soil frequency
tend to be higher than the inelastic ones. As an example, in
the work of Miranda [23] a damping of 5% of critical was
employed. In comparing elastic and inelastic displacements,
small damping values should be employed, because the
damping must represent only the dissipation of energy not
related with inelastic behaviour. However the ratio between
inelastic and elastic displacements tend to be equal to 1 only
in the long period range, as already observed in previous
studies (Miranda [23], Gupta and Sashi [24], Whittaker et al.
[25], Rahnama and Krawinkler [26]). In the short period
range the inelastic demand exceeds the elastic one as
shown in Fig. 6b. In this work the ratio between inelastic
and elastic displacement demand of a system characterised
52 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61

Fig. 4. In¯uence of: (a) magnitude; (b) distance; and (c) site condition on inelastic displacement spectra evaluated for the EPP model.

Fig. 5. In¯uence of: (a) magnitude; and (b) distance on elastic displacement spectra obtained by Bommer et al. (1996).

by the same initial elastic period of vibration TI is not further work and in the current one are shown in Fig. 7a and b,
investigated, because in the direct displacement-based respectively. Attention is drawn to the comparison of displa-
approach an equivalent elastic period of vibration TE is cement reached by the system shown in Fig. 7b, as discussed
assumed. The substitute elastic systems used in previous hereafter.
 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61 53

Fig. 6. In¯uence ductility on: (a) displacement spectra; and (b) ratio between inelastic and elastic displacement spectra (EPP model, Ms ˆ 4; d ˆ 10 km; rock
site).

Fig. 7. Elastic and inelastic systems compared in: (a) previous work; and in (b) current work.

Fig. 8. In¯uence of: (a) ductility and; (b) hysteretic behaviour on inelastic displacement spectra …Ms ˆ 6; d ˆ 10 km; soft soil).

Inelastic displacement spectra were also obtained for the
HHS model. In the case of softening behaviour high levels
of ductility were not considered. This must be done because
from a practical point of view high ductilities are not signif-
icant for softening systems. In the case of post elastic stiff-
ness equal to 220 and 230% the secant stiffness for the
yield point ductility up to 4 and 3, respectively, were
assumed.
Fig. 8 shows the in¯uence of ductility and hysteretic
behaviour on inelastic displacement spectra. For these
54 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61

Fig. 9. Standard deviation of the calculated displacement spectra.

graphs an equivalent elastic period of vibration was
assumed. This representation renders it possible to observe
that there is an appreciable difference between elastic and
inelastic spectral ordinates, but both the ductility and the
hysteretic characteristics have negligible in¯uence. Conse-
quently, a displacement spectra derived for a certain level of
ductility and hysteretic model characterisation will be an
acceptable approximation for different values of the latter
parameters.
The standard deviations s (Eq. (1)) of the logarithm of
the calculated elastic and inelastic displacement spectra
are reported in Fig. 9. From the aforementioned ®gure it
is observed that the standard deviations are almost
constant in the whole period range. Furthermore, the
uncertainties in terms of elastic and inelastic
displacement spectral ordinates are similar. As a conse-
quence, the calculated ratios between elastic and inelastic
spectral ordinates are characterised by a lower level of
uncertainty.
Veri®cation of the derived spectra is non-trivial, due to
the dearth of information in the literature on inelastic displa-
cement spectra. However, the models and methods were
veri®ed, alongside the dataset, by comparing a sub-set of
results of this study with previously published work for
force spectra and response modi®cation factors (R or q).
Details are give elsewhere [27], where comparisons have
con®rmed the validity of the results obtained for inelastic
acceleration spectra by comparison with published ones
(Vidic et al. [28], Miranda and Bertero [29], Krawinkler
and Nassar [30], Newmark and Hall [31]).
 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61
Fig. 10. Relation between TE and TI.
6. h -factor determination
6.1. De®nition of h -factor
The displacement-based design approach herein
considered is based on an idealisation of an equivalent elas-
tic SDOF system representing the structure. Two basic char-
acteristics of structure play an important role in determining
the response to strong-ground motion: change in period of
vibration and energy dissipation capacity. Therefore the
maximum inelastic response can be interpreted in terms of
linear elastic analysis by means of a hypothetical elastic
structure (substitute structure). The substitute structure has
to be equivalent to the original system in terms of period of
vibration and amount of dissipated energy. This is achieved
by de®ning an equivalent or effective period TE and an
equivalent damping value j E. The latter may be related to
a reduction coef®cient (h ) of the elastic spectral ordinates. It
was observed that the most representative period of vibra-
tion for the global response is the period corresponding to
the secant stiffness at maximum displacement (Gulkan and
Sozen [6]). As a consequence, the relationship between the
initial elastic period TI and the equivalent elastic period TE
is:
r
m
T E ˆ TI …3†
1 1 am 2 a
as shown in Fig. 10.
A modi®cation of the spectral ordinates is necessary to
include a measure of the energy dissipation capacity of the
structure. The equivalent elastic period TE is used to deter-
mine spectra in terms of periods of the substitute structure.
The relationship between the elastic and inelastic spectral
ordinates is shown in Fig. 11. In order to de®ne a reduction
coef®cient to transform the elastic displacement spectral
ordinates the following relationship is utilised:
SDEL …TE †
hˆ …
SDIN …TE †
where SD EL and SD IN are, respectively, elastic and inelastic
55
Fig. 11. Relation between SD EL(TE) and SD IN(TE).
spectral displacement ordinates corresponding to the
equivalent elastic period.
In the context of displacement-based design, h is the
coef®cient equivalent to the behaviour factor, q, in force-
based design. Deformation beyond the elastic range princi-
pally has the effect of increasing both the vibration period
and the energy dissipation. While both the stiffness degra-
dation and the dissipation of energy are considered in the
behaviour factor, the factor h is only a function of dissipa-
tion of energy. This is due to the fact that the increase of
vibration period is already taken into account in the de®ni-
tion of an equivalent elastic period of vibration TE. The
coef®cient h may be expressed as a function of damping
using for example the relationship given in Eurocode 8:
s
21j
hˆ …5†
7
where h is equal to 1 when j is equal to 5%. In this work the
elastic displacement spectra are for j equal to 1%. Thus the
Eq. (5) above must be modi®ed as:
sr s
21j 7 21j
hˆ ˆ …6†
7 211 3
The damping coef®cient may now be expressed as:
j ˆ 3h 2 2 2 …7†
In this study, coef®cients for the de®nition of h as a
function of magnitude, distance, soil condition and period
are obtained. Mean values for all ductility levels and both
response models (EPP and HHS) are also calculated in order
to obtain damping values pertaining to displacement-based
design of inelastically responding structures.
6.2. Attenuation relationships
Attenuation coef®cients for the displacement modi®ca-
4† tion factor (h ) for EPP and HHS models were calculated.
Fig. 12 demonstrates the in¯uence of magnitude and
distance on h . The in¯uence of the above-listed parameters
56 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61

Fig. 12. In¯uence of: (a) magnitude; and (b) distance on h -factor evaluated for the EPP model.

on h can be neglected. This is a consequence of having the
same dependence from input motion parameters that was
observed for elastic and inelastic spectra. Displacement
modi®cation factor is obtained as the ratio between elastic
and inelastic displacement spectra, the in¯uence of input
motion parameters on h -factor is therefore eliminated.
6.3. Average values
The mean values of h -factor for different periods, magni-
tudes, distance and soil conditions were evaluated. The
input motion parameters employed in this analysis are:
² magnitude in the range [5.5,7] with magnitude step of
0.5;
² distance less than 150 km and distance step 2 km;
² soil characteristics considered in the attenuation model.
spectral ordinates obtained for the HHS model in the case of
elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour and the elastic spectral
ordinates for damping equal to j E are compared. In this
representation the inelastic spectral ordinates are those at
equivalent elastic periods TE. When elastic and inelastic
response displacements correspond to the same equivalent
elastic vibration period TE, different ductility requirements
correspond to different maximum displacements. Thus,
comparing the inelastic displacements mentioned above
with the elastic ones, different equivalent damping values
are obtained for various levels of ductility. The equivalent
damping value, which accounts for energy dissipation, is
obtained for post-yield cycles of a given amplitude through
the equation:
EH
jE ˆ …8†
4pEEL

Not all the combinations of the above parameters have where EH is the energy dissipated in a full cycle of load
been used, because for earthquakes of low magnitude there reversals and EEL the elastic strain energy. Eq. (8) can be
is no need to consider long distances. In order to select written for the EPP model as:
 
magnitude and distance pairs of engineering signi®cance, 1
the following limits have been set: jE ˆ a 1 2 …9†
m
² for magnitude less than 5.5 distances over 50 km are where a is 0.64 for the EPP hysteretic model when all the
excluded; cycles of load reversals have the same amplitude up to the
² for magnitude less than 6 distances over 75 km are target ductility. Using the results obtained from the above
excluded; procedure, values of a can be re-evaluated for a more realis-
² for magnitude less than 6.5 distances over 100 km are tic de®nition of j E. Eq. (9) which relates the equivalent
excluded.
Table 2
Average (kxl) and standard deviation (s ) values of h -factor
The mean values and the standard deviation of h obtained
above are calculated considering the de®nition of the reduc- mˆ2 mˆ3 mˆ4 mˆ6
tion coef®cient given in Eq. (4). The standard deviations
kxl s kxl s kxl s kxl s
calculated herein represent the dispersion of the average
values of h on the period, when magnitude, distance and EPP 1.83 0.07 2.23 0.13 2.45 0.18 2.65 0.23
soil condition have changed. These values are presented in K3 ˆ 0 2.07 0.13 2.39 0.19 2.55 0.23 2.70 0.28
Table 2. K3 ˆ 10%Ky 1.97 0.11 2.25 0.17 2.39 0.21 2.51 0.26
K3 ˆ 220%Ky 2.27 0.18 2.73 0.31 3.15 0.44 ± ±
Using Eq. (7) damping coef®cients j E corresponding to
K3 ˆ 230%Ky 2.41 0.21 3.12 0.42 ± ± ± ±
the same parameters were evaluated. In Fig. 13 the inelastic
 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61 57

Fig. 13. (a) Inelastic displacement spectra for different ductilities; and (b) elastic displacement spectra for equivalent viscous dampings (HHS model for K3 ˆ
0; Ms ˆ 6; d ˆ 10 km; soft soil).

damping value and the ductility factor is assumed for the
HHS model too. Therefore, differences in hysteretic beha-
viour are represented by variations in a . The equivalent
damping values j E and the corresponding a coef®cients
are reported in Table 3.
Assessment of the mean values of h lead to the following
observations:
1. Lower h is obtained with the EPP model than with the
HHS when applied to a perfectly plastic case. This is due
to the higher initial stiffness of the HHS model that uses a
secant stiffness of 50% of the initial stiffness. Therefore,
for the same maximum displacement the ductility
demand for the EPP case is twice that of HHS case,
provided the same initial stiffness is used.
2. In the hardening case lower h was obtained than in the
elasto-plastic case, because the equivalent system corre-
sponding to hardening is stiffer than that corresponding
to the elasto-plastic case.
3. In the softening case the average h value is higher than in
both the EPP and the hardening cases. This is due to the
high values of the displacement modi®cation factor for
stiff systems with softening behaviour. In terms of dissi-
pation of energy, high h values correspond to high
energy dissipation. Stiff systems tend to have a large
number of load reversals. Therefore, for softening
systems a large number of cycles of loading and reload-
ing reach the limit curve, leading to a greater dissipation
of energy.
For long period systems the mean values of h -factor
obtained above are unconservative, since they are in¯u-
enced by the high values characteristic of the response
modi®cation factor of stiff systems. In order to improve
the estimation of h -factor for long period systems, mean
values were evaluated comparing the energy of inelastic
and elastic displacement spectra, both considered for an
equivalent period TE. The displacement modi®cation factor
is thus given by the following expression:
ZT EMax
SDEL
hˆ 0
…10†
ZTEMax
IN
SD
0
Long period ordinates become of greater importance than
short period ordinates, since the area under both the elastic
and inelastic spectra in the short period range is only a small
percentage of the total area. The results of this investigation
for the range of ductilities taken into account are given in
Tables 4 and 5.
The mean values of h found from Eq. (10) are lower than
those reported in Table 2. Therefore, the latter values are

Table 3
Equivalent damping j E and a values

mˆ2 mˆ3 mˆ4 mˆ6

j E (%) a j E (%) a j E (%) a j E (%) a

EPP 8 0.16 13 0.19 16 0.21 19 0.23

K3 ˆ 0 11 0.22 15 0.23 18 0.23 20 0.24
K3 ˆ 10%Ky 10 0.19 13 0.20 15 0.20 17 0.20
K3 ˆ 220%Ky 13 0.27 20 0.31 28 0.37 ± ±
K3 ˆ 230%Ky 15 0.31 27 0.41 ± ± ± ±
58 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61

Table 4 The formulation of displacement modi®cation factor

Average (kxl) and standard deviation (s ) values of h -factor calculated with proposed is:
Eq. (10) (
h ˆ h if TE # T
mˆ2 mˆ3 mˆ4 mˆ6 …11†

h ˆ 1 1 …h 2 1†…T=T† if TE . T
kxl s kxl s kxl s kxl s
where T is the equivalent elastic period at the border of the
EPP 1.53 0.11 1.66 0.15 1.72 0.17 1.74 0.18
increasing branch of the inelastic displacement spectra and
K3 ˆ 0 1.81 0.19 2.04 0.29 2.12 0.33 2.21 0.39
K3 ˆ 10%Ky 1.78 0.18 2.05 0.28 2.17 0.33 2.30 0.40 h is a constant value which de®nes the displacement modi-
K3 ˆ 220%Ky 1.84 0.21 1.98 0.27 1.98 0.29 ± ± ®cation factor up to T:  Considering the inelastic displace-
K3 ˆ 230%Ky 1.85 0.21 1.93 0.27 ± ± ± ± ment spectra calculated in this work, an adequate value of T;
for all the levels of ductilities and hysteretic behaviours
used, seems to be 2 s. Therefore the constant branch of
conservative as they are not in¯uenced by the behaviour of
the functions de®ning h is operative for most practical
systems in the short period range.
applications. The assumed values of h are the mean values
calculated via Eq. (10) and reported in Table 4. As a conse-
6.4. Period-dependent response modi®cation functions quence of this choice the functions are conservative in the
short period range. However, this is reasonable because in
Period-dependent h functions were evaluated. The aver-
the short period range the displacements are small and there-
age and the standard deviation values of h -factor obtained
fore the accuracy of the estimates is not crucial. Neverthe-
changing input motion parameters, were calculated for all
less, h must be more conservative in the short period range
periods and ductilities considered in this study. The results
because the displacement spectra present an increasing
of these analyses are represented in Fig. 14. The hysteretic
branch. Erroneous evaluation of the period of vibration
behaviour and the ductility have a strong in¯uence on the
can lead to an under-estimation of the required displacement
value of h -factor, but this is evident only in the short period
capacity. This cannot occur in the long period range that is
range. For these periods h is higher for softening systems
characterised by practically horizontal line of the displace-
than for perfectly elastic and hardening ones. This is due to
ment spectrum. Fig. 15 shows the approximate curves repre-
the fact that short period systems tend to have an increased
senting Eq. (11). It is evident that the approximate curves do
number of load reversals. Therefore, for softening system
not vary signi®cantly as a function of ductility and hystere-
hysteresis cycles reaching the post-elastic branch of the
tic behaviour.
force-displacement primary curve occur more after, thus
increasing the energy dissipation. The displacements of
both elastic and inelastic systems tend to the ground displa- 7. Residual inelastic displacements
cement in the long period range, independently of the
hysteretic behaviour. In order to obtain usable values of h Perfectly feasible designs may undergo large irreversible
in the whole period range, they are expressed as a function displacements leading to a permanent off-set. This would
of period as follows: impair the function of the structure. It is therefore of prac-
tical signi®cance to derive relationships between various
1. a horizontal portion in the period range limited by the inputs and response parameters and the permanent irrecov-
equivalent elastic period in which the inelastic displace- erable displacement of structures. This has been undertaken
ment spectra reach the peak value; and the results are herein discussed. The response charac-
2. a decaying branch in the long period range. This function teristics chosen are for softening behaviour with stiffness K3
must tend to 1 when the period increases. This is reason- of 220 and 230%. This is because in hardening and
able because both the elastic and inelastic displacements perfectly plastic cases the residual displacements are less
converge to the peak ground displacement if the SDOF signi®cant than in the case of softening behaviour (Kawa-
system is in®nitely ¯exible. shima et al. [32], MacRae and Kawashima [33]). The

Table 5
Equivalent damping j E and a values corresponding to h -factor reported in Table 4

mˆ2 mˆ3 mˆ4 mˆ6

j E (%) a j E (%) a j E (%) a j E (%) a

EPP 5 0.10 6 0.09 7 0.09 7 0.08

K3 ˆ 0 8 0.16 10 0.16 11 0.15 13 0.15
K3 ˆ 10%Ky 8 0.15 11 0.16 12 0.16 14 0.17
K3 ˆ 220%Ky 8 0.16 10 0.15 10 0.13 ± ±
K3 ˆ 230%Ky 8 0.17 9% 0.14 ± ± ± ±
 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61 59

Fig. 14. (a) In¯uence of ductility; and (b) hysteretic behaviour on h -factor.

Fig. 15. (a) In¯uence of ductility; and (b) hysteretic behaviour on period-dependent h -factor functions.

Fig. 16. Ratio between inelastic and residual displacement spectra for softening behaviour …Ms ˆ 6; d ˆ 10 km; soft site).

regression coef®cients for the de®nition of residual displa-
cement spectra were calculated. Fig. 16 shows the ratio
between maximum inelastic displacement and residual
displacement. The residual displacements are a high percen-
tage of the maximum displacements reached by the systems.
In the aforementioned ®gure they are strongly dependent on
the ductility requirements and the post-elastic stiffness, as
observed in previous work (Kawashima et al. [32], MacRae
and Kawashima [33]). If the designer considers that such
permanent displacements are unacceptable, another itera-
tion in the displacement design cycle, described in
Section 1 above, is necessary.
60 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61
8. Conclusions
Seismic assessment and design based on displacements
provides a conceptually appealing alternative to conven-
tional force-based design. Since one of the commonly
used deformational quantities employed to assess the satis-
faction of limit states are displacements, the only question
that arises from considering displacement-based design is
why was it not adopted earlier. Seismic design displacement
spectra are three-parameter demand representations, the
three parameters being effective period, relative response
displacement and equivalent damping ratio. In three
recently published works (Bommer and co-workers [9,10],
Tolis and Faccioli [11]) displacement spectra (as a function
of magnitude, distance and site condition) and modi®cations
to Eurocode 8 spectrum were proposed. However, the
derived spectra would not be used unless robust and veri®-
able relationships between global ductility factor and corre-
sponding equivalent damping are derived. Also, in the latter
papers, elastic highly damped spectra were derived to repre-
sent inelastic response.
The paper introduces a new form of inelastic displace-
ment spectra and displacement reduction factor, as well as
residual displacement spectra. The results of non-linear
analyses undertaken have been employed for the de®nition
of an equivalent elastic system (substitute structure). The
equivalence between elastic and inelastic systems is inter-
preted in terms of period of vibration and dissipation capa-
city. There is a simple relation between the initial period and
equivalent elastic period of vibration, which is a function of
required ductility and primary curve shape, while for the
energy dissipation a reduction factor h has been proposed.
This may be related to equivalent elastic damping, which
can conveniently describe the energy dissipation. The
displacement modi®cation factor h for displacement-
based approaches is the reduction coef®cient corresponding
to the behaviour factor (R or q) in force-based methods. The
advantage of h over the behaviour factor is that for the
de®nition of the former a correct identi®cation of ductility
capacity and hysteretic behaviour of the structure is not
important, because their in¯uence is already taken into
account via an equivalent elastic vibration period. On the
other hand, for the behaviour factor that takes into account
the effects of plasticity for a force-based design or assess-
ment method, a strong in¯uence from the ductility has been
demonstrated. This is because the behaviour factor consid-
ers both the increase in vibration periods and the dissipation
of energy due to inelastic behaviour. The evaluation of h is
therefore an indispensable ingredient in the displacement-
based design approach that was hitherto unavailable.
Acknowledgements
The writers would like to express their gratitude to Mr
G.O. Chlimintzas for his help with the strong-motion
dataset. The regression program was kindly provided by
Dr S.K. Sarma, whilst support was given by Mr D. Lee
during the implementation of the hysteretic model. All the
above are from Imperial College. Funding for the stay of the
primary author at Imperial College was provided by the EU
network programs ICONS and NODISASTR.
References
[1] Calvi GM, Kingsley GR. Displacement-based seismic design of
multi-degree-of-freedom bridge structures. Earthquake Engng Struct
Dyn 1995;24:1247±66.
[2] Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN, MacRae GA. Displacement-based
design of RC bridge columns in seismic regions. Earthquake Engng
Struct Dyn 1995;24:1623±43.
[3] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retro®t of
bridges. New York: Wiley, 1996.
[4] Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Deformation-controlled earthquake-
resistant design of RC buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering
1999;3(4):495±518.
[5] Moehle JP. Displacement-based design of RC structures subjected to
earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 1992;8(3):403±28.
[6] Gulkan P, Sozen M. Inelastic response of reinforced concrete struc-
tures to earthquake motions. ACI J 1974;71:604±10.
[7] Shibata A, Sozen M. Substitute-structure method for seismic design in
R/C. J Struct Div, ASCE 1976;102:1±18.
[8] Qi X, Moehle JP. Displacement design approach for reinforced
concrete structures subjected to earthquakes. Report No. UCB/
EERC-91/02, 1991, p. 186.
[9] Bommer JJ, Elnashai AS, Chlimintzas GO, Lee D. Review and devel-
opment of response spectra for displacement-based seismic design.
ESEE Research Report No. 98-3, ICONS, Imperial College, London,
1998.
[10] Bommer JJ, Elnashai AS. Displacement spectra for seismic design. J
Earthquake Engng 1999:1±32.
[11] Tolis SV, Faccioli E. Displacement design spectra. J Earthquake
Engng 1999:107±25.
[12] Borzi B, Elnashai AS, Faccioli E, Calvi GM, Bommer JJ. Inelastic
spectra and ductility±damping relationships for displacement-based
seismic design. ESEE Research Report No. 98-4, ICONS, Imperial
College, London, 1998.
[13] Borzi B. Design spectra based on inelastic response. PhD thesis,
Politecnico di Milano, Italy, 1999.
[14] Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA. Prediction of vertical response spectra
in Europe. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1996;25:401±12.
[15] Ambraseys NN, Simpson KA, Bommer JJ. Prediction of horizontal
response spectra in Europe. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn
1996;25:371±400.
[16] Ozcebe G, Saatcioglu M. Hysteretic shear model for reinforced
concrete members. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1989;115:133±48.
[17] Saatcioglu M, Ozcebe G, Lee BCK. Tests of reinforced concrete
columns under uniaxial and beaxial load reversals. Department of
Civil Engineering, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1988.
[18] Saatcioglu M, Ozcebe G. Response of reinforced concrete columns to
simulated seismic loading. ACI Struct J 1989:3±12.
[19] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic design of reinforced concrete and
masonry buildings. New York: Wiley, 1992.
[20] Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GM. Seismic design and retro®t of
bridges. New York: Wiley, 1996.
[21] Calvi GM, Pinto PE. Experimental and numerical investigations on
the seismic response of bridges and recommendations for code provi-
sions. ECOEST/PREC8 Report No. 4, Laboratorio Nacionale de
Engenharia Civil, Portugal, 1996, p. 137.
 B. Borzi et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 47±61
[22] Pinto AV. Pseudodynamic and shaking table tests on R.C. Bridges.
ECOEST & PREC8, 1996, p. 5.
[23] Miranda E. Evaluation of site dependent inelastic seismic design
spectra. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1993;119:1319±38.
[24] Gupta B, Sashi KK. Effect of hysteretic model parameters on inelastic
seismic demand. In: Proceedings of the Sixth US National Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Oakland, California, 1998.
[25] Whittaker A, Constantinou M, Tsopelas P. Displacement estimates
for performance-based seismic design. J Struct Engng, ASCE
1998;124:905±12.
[26] Rahnama M, Krawinkler H. Effects of soft soil and hysteretic model
on seismic demands. Report No. 108, The John A. Blume Earthquake
Engineering Center, Stafford University, Stanford, California, 1993.
[27] Borzi B, Elnashai AS. Re®ned force reduction factor for seismic
design. J Engng Struct 2000 (in press).
61
[28] Vidic T, Fajfar P, Fischinger M. Consistent inelastic design spectra:
strength and displacement. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn
1994;23:507±21.
[29] Miranda E, Bertero VV. Evaluation of strength reduction factor for
earthquake-resistance design. Earthquake Spectra 1994;10:357±79.
[30] Krawinkler H, Nassar AA. Seismic design based on ductility and
cumulative damage demand and capacities. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler
H, editors. Nonlinear seismic analysis and design of reinforced
concrete buildings. New York: Elsevier, 1992.
[31] Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake spectra and design. EERI mono-
graph series, EERI, Oakland, 1982.
[32] Kawashima K, MacRae G, Hoshikuma J, Nagaya K. Residual displa-
cement response spectra. J Struct Engng, ASCE 1998;124:523±50.
[33] MacRae G, Kawashima K. Post-earthquake residual displacement of
bilinear oscillators. Earthquake Engng Struct Dyn 1997;26:701±16.