EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING & STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2013

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2318

Nonlinear elastic and inelastic spectra with inherent and

supplemental damping

Tathagata Ray1,*,†, Andrei M. Reinhorn2 and Satish Nagarajaiah3

1
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 224 Ketter Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, U.S.A.
2
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York, 135 Ketter Hall, Buffalo, NY 14260, U.S.A.
3
Rice University, 6100 Main St., TX 77005, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT
During severe seismic events, structures designed according to current standards yield and develop inelastic
deformations. While the acceleration responses are limited by the yielding strength, these structures develop
permanent deformations (and possible damage) due to such yielding. Spectra developed for inelastic
structures can help in determining the desired yield levels and the associated inelastic deformations. Some
structures made of special materials or equipped with innovative structural systems may yield, but can
recover the deformation upon unloading and, thus, may avoid permanent deformations. These structures
are known as nonlinear elastic. Often the post yielding excursions are very large and may exceed their
toughness (or deformability). By introducing damping in form of supplemental devices, it is possible to
control such deformations and keep them within acceptable limits. Spectra for such nonlinear elastic
structures and inelastic structures are developed herein, by considering both inherent and supplemental
damping. The difference between the two types of damping is addressed both theoretically and numerically.
Design examples of several simple structures using the newly developed spectra are presented, which
illustrate the importance of lower strength and damping in these nonlinear elastic or inelastic systems.
Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 18 January 2013; Revised 26 April 2013; Accepted 2 May 2013

KEY WORDS: smooth nonlinear elastic model; nonlinear elastic and inelastic spectra; inherent and
supplemental damping; negative stiffness device; capacity spectrum method

1. INTRODUCTION

Current design practice produces structures that yield either during maximum credible or often during
design level earthquakes. With such design, structures are expected to develop also permanent
deformations. Although this behavior helps ductile structures to survive extreme shaking, the
permanent deformations must be repaired along with the associated damage. For the design of such
structures, inelastic spectra were developed for various ductility capacities [1–4] or for various yield
strength levels (function of strength reduction factors [5–9]). Such spectra facilitate designing single
degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structures accurately and more complex structures approximately [3].
Improvement of structural performance during seismic events, by reducing their strength
(weakening) and adding supplemental damping, has been introduced recently [10]. This method
involves ‘weakening’ of the global structure by disconnecting some of the strong and stiff elements
from the lateral load-resisting system. While such weakening reduces the base shear, it also results
in earlier yielding of the structure that may produce large and permanent global deformations and

*Correspondence to: Tathagata Ray, University at Buffalo – The State University of New York, 224 Ketter Hall, Buffalo,
NY 14260, U.S.A.
†
E-mail: tray@buffalo.edu

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 T. RAY, A. M. REINHORN AND S. NAGARAJAIAH

large inter-story drifts. It is shown that supplemental damping devices can be employed to control and
reduce these large deformations and drifts [10].
In an attempt to simulate lower strength, but avoid actual yielding and permanent deformations, a
new method of ‘apparent weakening’ [11] was developed. By using a new device that produces
negative stiffness [11–13], the global elastic stiffness is reduced to almost zero, at a predetermined
displacement, without actual yielding of the main structure. Upon unloading, the device is
disengaged when it reaches the predetermined displacement, and thus returns to its original
condition. This results in an ‘apparently yielding’ structure that behaves like a nonlinear elastic
system. The device mentioned earlier consists of a pre-compressed vertical spring, connected with a
set of levers. Upon imposing lateral movement on the device, the pre-compressed spring exerts a
force that is in the same direction as that of the imposed displacement and thus creates a negative
stiffness. A gap–spring assembly is employed, which applies the negative stiffness at a desired level
of displacement, simulating an ‘apparent yield point’.
The lateral force displacement relationship of the structure equipped with negative stiffness device
(NSD), as explained earlier, can be idealized as nonlinear elastic with stiffening (i.e., exhibiting
positive stiffness) at larger displacement. Other structures may experience nonlinear elastic behavior
such as ‘rocking structures’, ‘shape-memory alloy structures’, or ‘self-centering structures’, to name
a few.
To design nonlinear elastic structures, such as those equipped with NSD and dampers, or inelastic
structures, it is necessary to develop nonlinear spectra. Such spectra can be obtained using either
nonlinear hysteretic models or models of nonlinear elastic springs, as presented later.

2. MODELING NONLINEAR STIFFNESS

Yielding elements can be modeled with smooth hysteretic models (SHMs) [14–16] or polygonal
hysteretic models (PHMs) ([17, 18] and others). The developments presented further in this paper
are carried out using SHM, which combine different analog spring elements with either of the
following: (i) basic elastic perfectly plastic hysteresis or (ii) nonlinear elastic and post elastic
behavior with stiffening or softening at larger deformations. An expanded SHM can also simulate
bond slip or pinching, and join-gap behavior, with variable slip and gap lengths, which allow the
development of spectra for deteriorating structures. Not all features are presented herein because
those are beyond the scope of the paper. For all the aforementioned features, the reader is directed
to [16].

2.1. Inelastic model

A generalized inelastic hysteretic model can be formulated by adding springs, with nonlinear behavior,
in parallel [16]. Figure 1(a) shows the simplified general schematic representation of parallel
combination of hysteretic and nonlinear elastic springs. Using the notation in Figure 1(a), the
tangent stiffness of the hysteretic (elastic ideal-plastic) spring can be written as follows [16]:
n

N    o
Khys ¼ ð1  a1 ÞKo 1 
Fhys =Fhy
 sign Fhys du þ ð1  Þ (1)

Equation (1) defines the tangent stiffness of the hysteretic spring, Khys, as a function of overall
elastic stiffness Ko, post-elastic stiffness ratio a1, ratio of current hysteretic force (Fhys) and the yield
force (Fhy), a smoothness factor N, the unloading pattern parameter  (defined in the range of
1 ⩾  ⩾ 0), and the signum function (sign()) of the product of Fhys by the incremental displacement
du. Note that the term du is the displacement increment (not velocity) that enables the use of the
aforementioned equation for both time-dependent dynamic and time-independent quasi-static
analyses. Note also that although the functions in the aforementioned formulations have smooth
transitions, the functions in Figure 1 show sharp transitions (for N > 10), to distinguish between
various stiffness regimes.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 NLE AND IN SPECTRA

Figure 1. Springs for nonlinear elastic and inelastic model (smooth hysteretic model).

The tangent stiffness of the added nonlinear elastic spring, which controls the post-yielding
behavior, can be expressed as follows:

   
Kne ¼ a1 Ko þ a2 Ko juj  fmulfac uy = juj  fmulfac uy (2)

where < > is the Macaulay Bracket, which is defined as x = (x + |x|)/2, and a2 is the coefficient for
stiffening, or softening, when the displacement exceeds a certain displacement, f mulfacuy. At the limit,
when |u| ! Φmulfacuy, the term h|u|  Φmulfac  uyi/(|u|  Φmulfac  uy) ! 1. In this case, Equation (2)
gives Kne = (a1 + a2)Ko, which is the objective of the model.
The instantaneous stiffness for the combined inelastic system, with hardening or softening, is
obtained as follows:

Ktangent ¼ Khys þ Kne (3)

A structure that experiences only bilinear inelastic behavior can be modeled by the tangent stiffness
obtained from Equation (3) with a2 = 0 in Equation (2).

2.2. Nonlinear elastic model

A structure that experiences nonlinear elastic behavior (as shown in Figure 1(b)), with loading or
unloading on the same path, can be obtained from Equation (3), defined for the inelastic system.
However, the stiffness of the hysteretic spring, Khys, is replaced by the stiffness of a nonlinear
elastic ideal-plastic spring, Knon-els, modeled by the same Equation (1), but using  = 0.

 
Knon-els ¼ ð1  a1 ÞKo 1  Z N (4)

Here, Z = |Fhys/Fhy| ⩽ 1 is a non-dimensional ratio used for shorter notation.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 T. RAY, A. M. REINHORN AND S. NAGARAJAIAH

The stiffness of the combined nonlinear elastic system becomes therefore

Ktangent ¼ Knon-els þ Kne (5)

Equation (5) is used further for the development of nonlinear elastic spectra. As material behavior in
the real world always exhibits smooth response (except for sudden failures), the nonlinear elastic
behavior, obtained by the combined action of elastic structure and the nonlinear elastic devices, is
also smooth, as evidenced from experimental results. Hence, simulating such behavior numerically
with idealized smooth models does not violate the reality.
The aforementioned models are combined in a software platform NSPECTRA [19], publicly
available. Note that the simplicity of computational model of nonlinear elastic spring allows using
same model of inelastic spring, by changing one parameter, .

3. MODELING OF DAMPING IN NONLINEAR STRUCTURES

It is well recognized that damping plays a key role in evaluation of nonlinear response, more so than in
linear elastic structures. In simple nonlinear analysis, damping can be modeled using either constant
damping coefficient C or constant critical damping ratio x. The former can account for quantifiable
sources of damping, such as linear supplemental damping devices or other mechanisms. The second
can account for the ‘unquantifiable’ damping (that arises from unaccountable sources, such as micro-
fractures, imperfect connections, and aerodynamic influences) and is defined here as inherent damping.
Newmark and Hall [20] and Ashour [21] analyzed elastic SDOF structures with critical damping
ratios x > 5% using constant inherent x for all ranges of displacement. As their analysis was limited
to elastic behavior, it is of no consequence whether constant C or constant x is being considered.
Wu and Hanson [22] developed inelastic response spectra for large damping ratios (x = 10% to 50%) by
assuming constant inherent damping x. They determined the peak response for structures with a particular
initial period by developing corresponding spectra. Bejar and Ganapathi [23] computed inelastic response
spectrum, for various post-elastic stiffness ratios and equi-ductility ratios (umax/uy), also by using constant
damping ratio x = 5% throughout the analysis. Ramirez et al. [24] proposed a damping coefficient B, for
conversion of response spectrum for x = 5% to spectra for higher x’s, for a suit of far-field and stiff-soil
earthquakes and their recommendations are adopted in [25]. Pavlou and Constantinou [26] verified the
recommendations of Ramirez et al. [24], for a suit of near-field and soft-soil earthquakes. Both these
sets of analyses were carried out by assuming constant damping ratio x greater than 5% in both elastic
and inelastic ranges.
Charney [27] showed numerically that using Rayleigh damping, with the damping matrix [C]
proportional to the initial stiffness matrix [kin] of the structure, and proportionality constants based
on [kin], result in spurious damping forces when the structure yields, producing effective damping
ratios x reaching 100%, while the initial x was set to 5%. He recommended the following: (i) to
provide zero multiplier to those diagonal element of [kin], which corresponds to yielding degrees of
freedom, when creating [C] proportional to [kin]; (ii) to model auxiliary damping structure adjacent
to the original yielding structure; (iii) to use instantaneous (tangent) stiffness matrix [kt] in lieu of
[kin] to formulate both [C] and the proportionality constants; and (iv) to avoid viscous damping
completely and to model energy dissipation through hysteretic or frictional actions. With numerical
studies, Priestley et al. [28] also recommended using tangent stiffness proportional damping for
structures with high ductility and low hysteretic energy dissipation, by citing shake table results of
an experimental bridge pier. They also found that the experimental data can be best simulated when
no elastic damping is assumed, thus validating recommendation (iv) of Charney [27]; Zareian and
Medina [29] reported that the spurious damping force discussed earlier increases as the initial x
increases and becomes more pronounced as the inelasticity (indicated by the reduction in tangent
stiffness). They proposed a method to model [C] by modifying Rayleigh damping, by assigning
non-zero proportionality constants only to the elastic degree of freedoms in [kin], and found that the

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 NLE AND IN SPECTRA

results thus obtained are comparable with tangent stiffness proportional damping (which is
computationally more demanding).
From the numerical studies in [27–29], it can be inferred that structural damping, including the
inherent damping, should be modeled proportional to tangent stiffness when analyzing inelastic
structures, and if Rayleigh damping is adopted, [C] also must be proportional to instantaneous
stiffness matrix, which changes in the post yielding range.
The situation changes when supplemental damping devices, such as visco-elastic dampers [24, 26]
or fluid dampers [30], are used for enhanced initial damping ratio (x > 10%). These devices are
manufactured with constant damping coefficients (C), which are independent of the critical damping
of the structure. The coefficient C for nonlinear dampers may be somewhat variable but still
independent of the structure stiffness. Hence, while modeling damping originating from the
supplemental dampers, it is imperative to keep C independent of the changing stiffness in both
elastic and inelastic ranges. Shake table experiments, for nonlinear structures with supplemental
damping, also support this observation [13, 31]. Additionally, in the presence of supplemental
dampers, the inherent damping (mentioned in the previous paragraphs) accounts for a very small
portion of the overall damping. While formulating the global damping matrix [C], the contribution
of the inherent damping can be reduced to a minimum or can be ignored totally without producing
major effects on the global response.
The rationale behind such recommendations can be related to simple dynamics. For a constant
damping coefficient C (in case of supplemental damping devices), the ‘effective instantaneous
critical damping ratio’ xinst will vary during the inelastic excursions, as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  pffiffiffiffi
xinst ¼ C=2 ktangent m or xinst ¼ Tinst C= 4p m (6)

Here, m is the mass of the system, and Tinst is the instantaneous period of vibration. Because the
instantaneous stiffness ktangent (or the instantaneous period Tinst) is variable in nonlinear structures,
as shown by Equations (1)–(3), the instantaneous damping ratio xinst, which is inversely proportional
to the square root of tangent stiffness ktangent (or proportional with the instantaneous period Tinst),
varies accordingly. Note that, in nonlinear elastic or inelastic structures during the post-elastic
excursions, the tangent stiffness decreases and the instantaneous critical damping ratio increases,
making the supplemental damping very effective in terms of reducing displacement response in the
post ‘yielding’ or post ‘apparent yielding’ excursions. This is compatible with the observation of
Charney [27] for the inelastic structures.
However, if only inherent damping is present in the structure, then the instantaneous critical
damping ratio x should remain constant during the post-elastic excursions in the non-linear elastic
and inelastic systems. In such case, the damping coefficient C should vary and should be updated
according to the square root of the instantaneous stiffness ktangent, as follows:
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
C ¼ 2x ktangent m (7)

It can be verified from Equation (7) that when the structure enters the post-elastic range, the coefficient
C will decrease as ktangent also decreases. This is also consistent with the observations of Charney [27].
However, the proportionality is related to the square root of the stiffness in Equation (7) or inversely
proportional to it in Equation (6), whereas Rayleigh damping formulations suggest (erroneously for the
inelastic excursions) direct proportionality.
The two damping expressions are meant for two distinct types of damping sources. When damping
from both sets is present in the structure, the analysis would include a combination of the two. Note
that the presentation herein is made for a single-story structure. However, the same formulations will
apply to nonlinear structures with multiple degrees of freedom, in which the [C] matrix should be
formulated as either constant or variable dependent on the type of damping (supplemental or
inherent, respectively) and on the changes in the tangent stiffness matrix [Ktangent] during the
analysis, as discussed earlier. It is worth mentioning that, for multiple degrees of freedom nonlinear

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 T. RAY, A. M. REINHORN AND S. NAGARAJAIAH

system with constant mass [M] and constant inherent damping z, the instantaneous [C] matrix could be
formulated approximately as follows [18]:

½C inst ¼ 2z½M ½Φinst ½oinst ½ΦT inst ½M  (8)

Here, [o]inst and [Φ]inst are the instantaneous eigen-value (diagonal) and mass normalized eigen-vector
matrices of the structure, respectively, which vary when the structure yields or unloads. The choice of
inherent or supplemental damping is not important while analyzing linear elastic structures, because
both are constant. However, the two types of damping should always be recognized and treated
distinctively in nonlinear elastic or inelastic structures, as discussed earlier; otherwise, their effect
might be either overestimated or underestimated. The distinct formulations are used further in the
estimations of nonlinear elastic and inelastic spectra.

4. SPECTRA FOR NONLINEAR ELASTIC AND INELASTIC STRUCTURES

To illustrate the suggested formulation, displacement and acceleration spectra are generated herein
using 1940 El Centro earthquake (PGA = 0.32 g) accelerogram, for both inelastic and nonlinear
elastic models presented earlier, with both inherent and supplemental damping. The SHM
parameters chosen for the inelastic spectra are N = 20, a1 = 0.01, a2 = 0,  = 0.5, with a maximum
displacement ductility ratio umax/uy = 10. For the nonlinear elastic spectra, N is adopted as 2, as
structures exhibit smoother transition from elastic state while reaching ‘apparent yielding’. The
toughness ratio, umax/uy, is assumed here as 25, because the displacement capacities of these structures
should be larger than that of inelastic structures for similar strength and damping (as explained later).
The modified software NSPECTRA Version 3.0 [19] is used for the analyses and generation of spectra.
Each of the acceleration and displacement spectra are generated for various initial damping ratios xo
and yield strengths. The initial damping ratio refers to the elastic range. The individual reduced
strengths of the inelastic and nonlinear elastic structures are calculated from the maximum response
force of the elastic structure divided by a strength reduction factor (R). A minimum damping ratio
xmin = 1%, either inherent or supplemental, is considered for all structures. The inelastic and
nonlinear elastic spectra are generated for initial damping of 1%, 2%, 5%, and 8% for inherent
damping, and of 1%, 2%, 5%, 8%, 20%, 30%, and 60% for supplemental damping. The strength
reduction factors used are R = 1, 0.75, 0.50, 0.33, and 0.10. The full range of spectra for nonlinear
elastic structures is shown in the Appendix A. Interested readers are referred to [32] for a more
comprehensive illustration of nonlinear elastic and inelastic spectra. From the sample spectra, a few
comments are warranted:
(1) Reductions of strength result in decrease in acceleration response, for inelastic spectra (Figure 2)
depending on the post-yield behavior. Increase of initial inherent damping is additionally
effective in reduced strength structures, although beyond 8% initial inherent damping, the
contribution seems to be less significant. These trends are already well known and originate
from basic theory of nonlinear dynamic analysis with viscous damping.
(2) Comparing inelastic and nonlinear elastic acceleration spectra for equal strength structures
(Figure 3), a marginal difference is noticed. Such minor difference indicates that both inelastic
structures and nonlinear elastic structures with same strength maintain the same level of
response and are almost equally efficient, because the maximum acceleration is dictated by
the strength (yield or ‘apparent yield’), as postulated. However, the displacement spectra of
inelastic structures are smaller than those of nonlinear elastic structures, particularly for the lower
strength and for more flexible structures (initial periods higher than 1.0 s). The smaller displace-
ments in inelastic structures are attributed to the energy dissipation through post-elastic hysteretic
action, although the differences are not large for stiffer and stronger (higher yield) structures. This
smaller displacement in inelastic structures further gives rise to very little lower acceleration
response than that of the nonlinear elastic structures of equal strength. Also, note that the

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 NLE AND IN SPECTRA

Figure 2. Inelastic acceleration response spectra sensitivity to strength and damping.

Figure 3. Inelastic and nonlinear elastic spectra sensitivity to strength reduction (xo = 5%).

marginal difference between inelastic and nonlinear elastic acceleration spectra for equal
strength structures may be influenced by the nature of ground motion.
(3) While the acceleration spectra in inelastic structures remain unaffected by the type of damping,
inherent or supplemental, in SDOF models, the displacement spectra show increasing differ-
ences for low (yield) strength structures (see Figure 4 developed for xo = 8%.). However, the type
of damping has important influences on the displacement spectra of nonlinear elastic structures.
Even for lower damping ratios (xo = 5%), the displacement spectra shows large decrease in ampli-
tudes when inherent damping (constant x) is replaced by supplemental damping (constant C) as
shown in Figure 5 (left) for lower strength structure. The reason for the reduction in displacement

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 T. RAY, A. M. REINHORN AND S. NAGARAJAIAH

Figure 4. Inherent vs supplemental damping sensitivity in inelastic spectra (xo = 8%).

Figure 5. Effect of inherent and supplemental damping in nonlinear elastic structure (xo = 5%).

response for nonlinear elastic and low strength inelastic structures in case of supplemental damping
is explained by the higher efficiency of this type of damping during yield excursions, as discussed
in Section 3.

5. RESPONSE OF NONLINEAR ELASTIC STRUCTURE WITH SUPPLEMENTAL DAMPING

To illustrate the nonlinear elastic behavior of structures, an example is presented herein. The example
is also used to verify the implementation of the new NSD model in the software IDARC2D [18].
A three-story experimental structure, constructed with two side frames, equipped with two NSDs
and with one viscous damper, which behaves like a nonlinear elastic structure, was tested in
University at Buffalo [33]. The structural assembly is shown Figure 6. The assembly was analyzed
in the modified IDARC2D prior to the testing. The NSD is modeled as a brace element between two
story levels. Only the lateral stiffness of the NSD, as defined in [13], is considered, whereas the
vertical stiffness is assumed as null. A 40-kN translational mass is lumped in each floor of the

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 NLE AND IN SPECTRA

Figure 6. Experimental structure and responses for 30% Northridge Earthquake. NSD, negative stiffness
device.

structure. The supplemental damping in the system is generated by a viscous damper of constant
C = 0.175 kN-s/mm, modeled as a standard Maxwell element (including a spring and a dashpot in
series). The axial stiffness of the spring in the Maxwell model is considered as ten times as that of
the mounting brace element (C3x4.1). The inherent damping in the structure is assumed as 1% of
the critical damping and is considered constant in elastic and inelastic range.
The bare structure (without NSD and damper) and the total assembly (structure with NSD and
damper) were subjected to the 1994 Northridge earthquake recorded at Newhall Fire Station, scaled
to maximum acceleration of 0.22 g, which is approximately 30% of the original PGA. The structure
is analyzed and compared with the experimental records. The force deformation response of the
assembly and several additional responses are shown in Figure 6. The maximum force response
of the assembly is underpredicted by 15%, as can be observed from Figure 6. However, noticeable
is the fact that the presence of NSD reduces the maximum base shear by almost 50%, which
illustrates the efficacy of the NSD.

6. DESIGN OF NONLINEAR ELASTIC STRUCTURES USING SPECTRA

Nonlinear elastic spectra may allow engineers to design nonlinear elastic structures, such as those with
‘apparent weakening’ provided by negative stiffness (as obtained with a supplemental NSD), and also
may help with the selection of supplemental damping to limit the excessive displacement beyond the
‘apparent yield’ of the structure. Two design examples are presented herein to illustrate the effects and
the use of the nonlinear elastic spectra.

7. EXAMPLE 1

The first example illustrates the selection of ‘apparent weakening’ and supplemental damping in an
elastic structure, to reach a minimum acceleration response and to avoid actual yielding of the
structure. A single-story stiff portal frame (Figure 7(a)) with an initial period of 0.4 s and yield
displacement of 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) is used for the example. An NSD can be connected as a brace in
parallel with the structure, to reduce the strength and the peak acceleration response of the combined
system. The apparent (yield) strength is proportional to the displacement at which the NSD engages.
If the NSD engages at smaller displacements, the apparent strength of the system will be lower.
However, the ‘apparent post-elastic’ displacement, when the strength is lowered, may be large
enough to exceed the yielding of the structure, eventually leading to collapse. To reduce the
‘apparent post-elastic’ displacement and completely prevent actual yielding of the structure,

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 T. RAY, A. M. REINHORN AND S. NAGARAJAIAH

(a) Structure with NSD and damper (b) System behavior with NSD

Figure 7. Inelastic structure equipped with negative stiffness device (NSD) and damper.

supplemental damping devices are needed. As the ‘apparent post-elastic’ displacement is larger for
structures with lower strengths (Figure 4), larger damping is needed to keep the peak displacement
below the actual yield displacement (Figure 7(b)). The example intends to determine a relation
between the required reduction in strength (and peak accelerations) versus the initial damping ratio
of supplemental dampers required, such that the deformation will not exceed the actual yield
deflection (i.e., does not reach the undesired region shown in Figure 7(b)).
To develop the desired relation, the following procedure is suggested: (a) For an initial period 0.4 s
and for a given initial damping (to be provided by the supplemental dampers), the minimum strength,
as % of elastic, that limits the peak displacement to 1.5 in. (38.1 mm) is estimated from nonlinear
elastic displacement spectrum (Figure A2 in the Appendix A). (b) For the same damping, initial
period, and strength estimated in step (a), the peak acceleration is estimated from nonlinear elastic
acceleration spectrum (Figure A1 in the Appendix A). Steps (a) and (b) are repeated for several
damping ratios and strengths. The resulting relations are shown in Figure 8.
From Figure 8(a), it is observed that for a low strength of 10% of the elastic structure and a
supplemental damping of x = 20%, a desired solution can be obtained, in which the acceleration is
reduced to 0.30 g (Figure 8(b)).
It can be observed from Table I below that by installing the NSD only, the acceleration response
reduces from 1.20 g to 0.15 g, but with an increase in the displacement from 2.0 in. to 3.5 in.
(50.8 mm to 88.9 mm), which is larger than the actual yield of the structure. Introducing
supplemental damping (xo = 20% in elastic range, constant C throughout) reduces the peak
displacement to 1.0 in. (25.4 mm), and the acceleration is increased to 0.30 g, as a result of coupled
damping force. The maximum displacement of the elastic structure without NSD (row 4 in Table I)
equipped with the same damper alone decreases to 0.8 in. (20.3 mm), but the acceleration
increases to 0.50 g because of the elastic effects. The displacement at which the NSD should
engage (the ‘apparent yield displacement’), 0.15 in. (3.8 mm), is 10% of the actual yield displacement.

(a) Strength (% elastic) and required damping (b) Peak acceleration (g) and required damping

Figure 8. Desired strength and peak acceleration versus required damping for maximum displacement below
yield displacement (1.5 in.).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 NLE AND IN SPECTRA

Table I. Displacement and acceleration responses for structure with/without negative stiffness device (NSD)
and damper.
Description Damping ratio in elastic range Peak acceleration Peak displacement

Unit (%) (g) (in.)*

Sl. No. (1) (2) (3) (4)

1 Elastic structure 1.0 1.20 2.0

2 Structure with NSD 1.0 0.15 3.5
3 Structure with NSD 20.0 0.30 1.0
4 Elastic structure 20.0 0.50 0.8
*1 in. = 25.4 mm.

8. EXAMPLE 2

The generation of locus of maximum response for a selected level of supplemental damping, using the
spectral capacities and demands, is presented for the design of a structure. This locus helps to select the
level of apparent weakening, to minimize structural restoring force and to avoid actual yield.
A single-story flexible structure (similar to the one in Figure 7(a)) with an initial period of 1.0 s,
natural yield displacement of 3.0 in. (76.2 mm), and with post-elastic hardening stiffness of 1% of
the initial stiffness, is equipped with an NSD and supplemental dampers (estimated to have an initial
damping ratio of xo = 20% in the elastic range). The structure should be designed to resist
earthquakes similar to the 1940 El Centro earthquake. The objective of this example is to determine
the desired reduction in strength of the system, such that the maximum displacement response will
be minimized when the supplemental damping is equivalent to the damping ratio of x = 20%. The
original structure with the devices may be in danger to deform beyond the natural yield
displacement, and possibly leading to collapse of the system, unless an NSD with stiffening [13] is
used. Alternatively, a search for an optimal design may help avoid such occurrence as outlined in
the following.
To address this problem, a composite nonlinear elastic spectra [9, 34] is used. The composite spectra
are expressed in terms of normalized restoring force (i.e., restoring force/weight) versus displacement.
It may be noted that instead of normalized restoring force (normalized by weight), the spectral
acceleration could also be used directly. However, when damping is considerably high (as in this
case), normalized spectral acceleration is greater than the normalized restoring force, and the latter is
a more appropriate indicator of structural force demand. The fact that the restoring force is the true
response that the structure experiences makes it a suitable indicator of the structural force demand.
As shown in Figure 9, the composite nonlinear elastic spectra are generated for the ‘combined
system’ for different levels of ‘apparent strength’ (100%, 75%, 50%, 30%, and 10% of elastic
strength). Each of the demand spectrum curves in Figure 9 is generated by performing nonlinear

Figure 9. Locus of maximum response for modified strengths (supplemental damping xo = 20%) (1 in. = 25.4 mm).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 T. RAY, A. M. REINHORN AND S. NAGARAJAIAH

elastic time analyses for respective levels of apparent strengths and given supplemental damping, and
represents the composite demand (normalized restoring force and displacement) for structures with
various initial periods. To find the maximum response, these demand spectrum curves are used
together with the capacity curves, as described in the following.
The slope of any straight line passing through the origin represents the initial stiffness/weight of the
single-story structure. The slope of initial stiffness per weight corresponding to the initial period of
1.0 s is found to be 0.102 per in. (per 25.4 mm), as shown in Figure 9. The parallel straight lines in
Figure 9, originating from the initial slope line, represent post-yielding branches for various
‘apparent strength’ levels. Each of these parallel lines along with the initial slope represents the
capacity curve for the structure with NSD (responsible for producing the reduced ‘apparent strength’
at the ‘apparent yielding’). The intersection point, between (i) the capacity curve for a particular
apparent strength and (ii) the composite demand spectrum curve developed for same apparent
strength (corresponding to % of elastic strength), represents the expected maximum response, that is,
the normalized maximum restoring force and displacement for the given initial period and apparent
strength. These intersection points form the locus of maximum response, as indicated in Figure 9.
From the locus of maximum response, it is possible to select the smallest strength that does not
exceed the natural yield displacement, thus avoiding permanent deformations in the structure. For
the present example, the ‘apparent strength level’ of 30% gives a desired small restoring force and
displacement for the ‘combined system’ and ensures that the main structure remains elastic.

9. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Nonlinear elastic and inelastic spectra can be generated using a unified smooth nonlinear model
derived from the more traditional SHM. Modeling of damping plays a significant role in generation
of these spectra and in predicting the peak displacement of a nonlinear elastic structure and an
inelastic structure. When energy dissipation is expected mainly because of hysteretic action and
damping is expected to be generated from incidental friction, aerodynamics, or other unknown
sources, inherent damping ratio x should be kept low and constant during nonlinear analysis. When
supplemental damping is generated through viscous or fluid dampers, damping constant C (not
damping ratio) should be kept constant. During post-elastic excursions in low-strength structures,
supplemental damping (constant C) results in larger reduction of peak displacement as compared to
the cases with inherent damping (constant x) for same initial damping. At the same time, the peak
accelerations show minimal sensitivity to the aforementioned types of damping in either nonlinear
elastic or inelastic structures.
Applications of nonlinear spectra in the selection of strength reduction level and of amount of
supplemental damping necessary to obtain a stable system are illustrated through two examples.
These examples are compiled for the 1940 El Centro Earthquake, which is characterized by near
field and stiff-soil ground motion. However, the design methods are generic for models with
arbitrary parameters and other type of ground motions. The corresponding spectra will modify with
various model parameters and various ground motions. Moreover, because the strength reduction is
at the base of the current seismic design practice, the same procedures as outlined in both examples
can be used for design of conventional structures. The software platform NSPECTRA [19], publicly
available, combines the aforementioned formulations and can develop spectra for single, or suits of,
ground motions to be used in the design.

APPENDIX A

Figures A1 and A2 describe the acceleration and displacement response spectra [9, 34] generated by
using the nonlinear elastic model. These spectra are developed for various strength reduction levels
(or percentages of elastic strengths) as shown in the legend of the figures, and initial damping ratio
(x) as noted in each figure. The first row in each figure represents spectra for inherent damping,
whereas the next two rows show spectra for supplemental damping.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 NLE AND IN SPECTRA

Figure A1. Nonlinear elastic acceleration response spectra for various strength reductions and damping (x).

Figure A2. Nonlinear elastic displacement response spectra for various strength reductions and damping (x).

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 T. RAY, A. M. REINHORN AND S. NAGARAJAIAH

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Funding by National Science Foundation grant NSF-NEESR-CMMI-0830391 for this project, with
Dr. Joy Pauschke as program director, is gratefully acknowledged. The authors acknowledge the cooperation
of Dr. D. T. R. Pasala and Mr. A. A. Sarlis for providing experimental data and evaluating the information.

REFERENCES
1. Veletsos AS, Newmark NM. Effects of inelastic behavior on the response of simple system to earthquake motions
Proc., Proceedings of the 2nd World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 1960; 895–912.
2. Fajfar P, Vidic T. Consistent inelastic design spectra: hysteretic and input energy. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 1994; 23(5):523-537.
3. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures. Pearson Education, Inc.: New Jersey, U.S.A., 2007.
4. Borzi B, Calvi GM, Elnashai AS, Faccioli E, Bommer JJ. Inelastic spectra for displacement-based seismic design.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2001; 21(1):47–61.
5. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Seismic design criteria for nuclear reactor facilities. Report No. 46, Building Practice for
Disaster Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973; 209–236.
6. Nassar AA, Krawinkler H. Seismic demands for SDOD and MDOF systems Report No.95, The John A. Blume
Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University, California, USA, 1991.
7. Miranda E. Site-dependent strength reduction factors. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE 1993; 119(2):3503–3519.
8. Berrill JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Future comments on seismic design loads for buildings. Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 1981; 14(1):3–11.
9. Reinhorn, A M. Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evaluations. Seismic Design Methodologies for Next Generation
Code, Krawinkler H, Fajfar P, (eds.), 1997, 277–287.
10. Viti S, Cimellaro GP, Reinhorn AM. Retrofit of a hospital through strength reduction and enhanced damping. Smart
Structures and Systems 2006; 2(4):339–355.
11. Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn AM, Constantinou MC, Taylor D, Pasala DTR, Sarlis AA. True adaptive negative stiffness:
a new structural modification approach for seismic protection. Proc., 5th World Conference on Structural Control
and Monitoring, 2010.
12. Pasala DTR, Sarlis AA, Nagarajaiah S, Reinhorn AM, Constantinou MC, Taylor D. Adaptive negative stiffness: a
new structural modification approach for seismic protection. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000615, 2012.
13. Sarlis AA, Pasala DTR, Constantinou MC, Reinhorn AM, Nagarajaiah Satish, Taylor Douglas. Negative stiffness
device for seismic protection of structures. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
ST.1943-541X.0000616, 2012.
14. Bouc R. Forced vibration of mechanical system with hysteresis. Proc., 4-th Conf. on Non-Linear Oscillations, 1967.
15. Wen YK. Method for random vibration of hysteretic systems. Journal of Engineering Mechanics Division ASCE
1976; 102(2):249–263.
16. Ray T, Reinhorn AM. Enhanced smooth hysteretic model with degrading properties. ASCE Journal of Structural
Engineering (accepted), 2012. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000798.
17. Takeda T, Sozen MA, Neilsen NN. Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquake. Journal of Structural
Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers 1970; 96(12):2557–2573.
18. Reinhorn AM, Roh HS, Sivaselvan MV, Kunnath SK, Valles RE, Madan A, Li C, Lobo R, Park YJ. IDARC2D
Version 7.0: a program for the inelastic damage analysis of structures Technical Report MCEER, University at
Buffalo, SUNY, 2009.
19. Reinhorn AM, Barron R, Sivaselan MV, Ray T. NSPECTRA Ver 3.0. http://civil.eng.buffalo.edu/nspectra, 2012.
20. Newmark NM, Hall WJ. Earthquake Spectra and Design. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute: Oakland, CA,
1982.
21. Ashour SA. Elastic seismic response of buildings with supplemental damping. PhD Dissertation, University of
Michigan, 1987.
22. Wu JP, Hanson RD. Study of inelastic spectra with high damping. Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE) 1989;
115(6):1412–1431.
23. de Bejar LA, Ganapathi K. A note on inelastic response spectra for systems with bilinear spring force and kinematic
strain-hardening. Earthquake Spectra 1992; 8(2):181–200.
24. Ramirez OM, Constantinou MC, Whittaker AS, Kircher CA, Chrysostomou CZ. Elastic and inelastic seismic
response of buildings with damping systems. Earthquake Spectra 2002; 18(3):531–547.
25. NEHRP. NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, report nos.
FEMA 368 and 369 Bulding Seismic Safety Council, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington,
DC,2000.
26. Pavlou EA Constantinou MC. Response of elastic and inelastic structures with damping systems to near-field and
soft-soil ground motions. Engineering Structures 2004); 26:1217–1230.
27. Charney FA. Consequences of using rayleigh damping in inelastic response history analysis Proc., 17th Analysis and
Computation Speciality Conference, ASCE, 2006.
28. Priestley N, Calvi M, Petrini L, Maggi C. Effects of damping modelling on results of time-history analysis of bridges
1st U.S.–Italy Seismic Bridge Workshop Pavia, Italy, 2007.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 NLE AND IN SPECTRA

29. Zareian F, Medina RA. A practical method for proper modeling of structural damping in inelastic plane structural
systems. Computers and Structures 2010; 88:45–53.
30. Constantinou MC, Symans MD. Seismic response of structures with supplemental damping. The Structural Design
of Tall Buildings 1993; 2:77–92.
31. Reinhorn AM, Li C, Constantinou MC. Experimental and analytical investigation of seismic retrofit of structures
with supplemental damping, Part I Fluid viscous damping devices Technical Report NCEER 95-0001, University
at Buffalo, SUNY, 1995.
32. Ray T. Modeling of multidimensional nonlinear elastic and inelastic structural systems. PhD, University at Buffalo,
SUNY, 2013.
33. Pasala DTR, Sarlis AA, Reinhorn AM, Nagarajaiah S, Constantinuo MC, Taylor D. Simulated bilinear-elastic behavior
in a SDOF elastic structure using negative stiffness device: experimental and analytical study. ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering (accepted. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000830), 2012.
34. Freeman SA. The capacity spectrum method for determining the demand displacement Proc., Technical Session:
Displacement Considerations in Design of Earthquake-Resisting Buildings, ACI 1994 Spring Convention, 1994.

Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2013)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe