EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/eqe.1049

An equivalent SDOF system model for estimating the response of

R/C building structures with proportional hysteretic dampers
subjected to earthquake motions

Juan Andrés Oviedo A. ∗, † , Mitsumasa Midorikawa and Tetsuhiro Asari

Department of Architectural and Structural Design, Graduate School of Engineering, Hokkaido University,
Kita-13, Nishi-8, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-8628, Japan

SUMMARY
For the purpose of estimating the earthquake response, particularly the story drift demand, of reinforced
concrete (R/C) buildings with proportional hysteretic dampers, an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom
(SDOF) system model is proposed. Especially in the inelastic range, the hysteretic behavior of an R/C
main frame strongly differs from that of hysteretic dampers due to strength and stiffness degradation in
R/C members. Thus, the proposed model, unlike commonly used single-spring SDOF system models,
differentiates the restoring force characteristics of R/C main frame and hysteretic dampers to explicitly
take into account the hysteretic behavior of dampers. To confirm the validity of the proposed model,
earthquake responses of a series of frame models and their corresponding equivalent SDOF system models
were compared. 5- and 10-story frame models were studied as representative of low- and mid-rise building
structures, and different mechanical properties of dampers—yield strength and yield deformation—were
included to observe their influence on the effectiveness of the proposed model. The results of the analyses
demonstrated a good correspondence between estimated story drift demands using the proposed SDOF
system model and those of frame models. Moreover, the proposed model: (i) led to better estimates
than those given by a single-spring SDOF system model, (ii) was capable of estimating the input energy
demand and (iii) was capable of estimating the total hysteretic energy and the participation of dampers
into the total hysteretic energy dissipation, in most cases. Results, therefore, suggest that the proposed
model can be useful in structural design practice. Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 21 December 2009; Revised 17 June 2010; Accepted 21 June 2010

KEY WORDS: equivalent SDOF system; reinforced concrete structure; earthquake response prediction;
hysteretic damper

INTRODUCTION

Hysteretic dampers are one of the most prevalent energy dissipating devices used for the protection
of building structures from the damage caused by earthquake motions. These additional struc-
tural elements are to dissipate most of the vibration energy imposed by a ground motion, which
deteriorates the integrity of a structure.
Non-linear time-history analysis of an elaborate analytical model, including additional structural
elements such as hysteretic dampers, is probably one of the best options for the estimation of
deformation demands on a structure. Although this type of analysis is gaining popularity among
design practitioners in some countries such as the United States and Japan, its applicability in the

∗ Correspondence to: Juan Andrés Oviedo A., Department of Architectural and Structural Design, Graduate School
of Engineering, Hokkaido University, Kita-13, Nishi-8, Kita-ku, Sapporo 060-8628, Japan.
† E-mail: oviedo@eng.hokudai.ac.jp

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

 J. A. OVIEDO A., M. MIDORIKAWA AND T. ASARI

routine of design practice in most seismic prone countries is still considered as a procedure that
requires large computational time and effort for the preparation of an elaborate analytical model
and for the estimation of the earthquake response.
Therefore, simplified design methodologies are still of great concern in structural engineering
practice, particularly at the preliminary stage of the design of a building structure, in order to
assess how a building structure would respond under a particular loading condition.
Because of the increasing number of energy dissipating devices with different behavior and
complexity, and their extensive use worldwide [1–4], particularly in Japan, the design practice
requires more elaborate but still simplified analytical methods. To date, one simplified methodology
that has been adopted in many building codes under performance-based design frameworks is
the use of equivalent single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems. The building structure is then
converted into an equivalent SDOF system. This equivalent system represents the behavior of an
entire building structure and is used for evaluating the overall performance of the structure without
the need to perform complex and time-consuming analytical procedures. An equivalent SDOF
system has therefore become an important tool in structural design practice for the evaluation and
seismic design of building structures.
Although several approaches have been proposed for converting a building structure into an
equivalent SDOF system, they do not explicitly consider differences of hysteretic behavior among
structural elements of the building; such as in the case of reinforced concrete (R/C) buildings that
incorporate hysteretic dampers. For instance, the well-known capacity spectrum method (CSM)
was originally developed almost 40 years ago [5, 6] as a tool to evaluate the seismic performance
of existing building structures. The CSM basically determines whether an existing or new building
structure could withstand and survive a certain earthquake motion by means of an equivalent SDOF
system that represents the behavior of the whole building structure. This method was included in
the ATC-40 [7] for its significance in structural engineering practice and has served as a basis for
numerous studies e.g. [8–15].
Another method was presented in FEMA-273 [16] and FEMA-356 [17], referred to as the
Coefficient Method, which modifies the response of an elastic equivalent SDOF system by a series
of coefficients to estimate the maximum global displacement (elastic and inelastic) demand on a
building structure. Improvements on the methods presented in [7, 16, 17] have been reported in
FEMA-440 [18]. Another simplified approach was proposed by Shibata and Sozen [19], where the
inelastic response of a structure can be represented through the response of a ‘substitute structure’,
whose structural characterization is defined from the original structure but modified depending on
tolerable damage ratios. Chopra and Goel [20] showed that by using more than one equivalent
SDOF system, the story drift demand on building structures can be reliably estimated. Chou
and Uang [21] proposed a methodology to accurately estimate the distribution of seismic energy
demand along the height of multistory frames by using equivalent SDOF systems for at least the
first two elastic modes. Shakeri et al. [22] proposed a pushover method that considers higher mode
effects to estimate seismic demands of buildings.
Recently, Kuramoto et al. [23] proposed a methodology for the conversion of a building structure
into an equivalent SDOF system based on the CSM, yet it differs on the definition of the capacity
curve of the structure. They conducted non-linear time-history analyses on regular and irregular
R/C and steel buildings and their corresponding equivalent SDOF systems, and reported a good
correspondence of predicted story drift demands with those of frame models; especially for low-
and mid-rise buildings. It is worth mentioning that this procedure has been included in the current
performance-based seismic design code for buildings in Japan [24, 25]. An SDOF system has also
been used to construct the hysteretic energy demand spectrum [26] and estimate the elastic energy
[27] and input and hysteretic energy demands [28].
An equivalent SDOF system usually utilizes a single skeleton curve and a hysteresis rule to
represent the restoring force characteristics of an entire system and its structural components. This
is adequate if all structural components of the building behave similarly. But, a single skeleton
curve and a hysteresis rule may not be enough to adequately represent a structure composed of
structural members that behave very differently.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 AN EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE RESPONSE

When installing hysteretic dampers (damper system) to an R/C main frame, the restoring force
of the entire system (R/C main frame + damper system) is formed by the combined action of the
dampers and the structural components of the R/C main frame. Especially in the inelastic range,
the hysteretic behavior of the R/C main frame strongly differs from that of the damper system,
due to strength and stiffness degradation in R/C members. Therefore, an equivalent SDOF system,
which differentiates the restoring force characteristics of the damper system and those of the R/C
main frame, would provide better treatment of the overall hysteretic behavior of the entire system.
In this study, an equivalent SDOF system model for estimating the earthquake response, partic-
ularly the story drift demand, of R/C buildings with hysteretic dampers is proposed. The proposed
model, unlike commonly used single-spring SDOF system models, takes into account the difference
of hysteretic behavior between the R/C main frame and the damper system. The conversion of the
whole building into an equivalent SDOF system is based on the methodology proposed by Kuramoto
et al. [23], but is further extended to include additional steps for defining the skeleton curve of
the damper system for the proposed equivalent SDOF system model. The validity of the proposed
model is confirmed through parametric analyses on a series of 5- and 10-story R/C main frames
with hysteretic dampers and their corresponding equivalent SDOF systems. The methodology
herein presented is applicable to first-mode dominant R/C buildings into which a damper system
has been installed whose strength and stiffness are proportional to those of the R/C main frame.

CONVERSION OF THE STRUCTURE INTO AN EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM

In this section, the methodology for converting the building structure into an equivalent SDOF
system is summarized.

Converting the structure into an equivalent SDOF system

As mentioned in the previous section, the base methodology for this conversion is that proposed
by Kuramoto et al. [23] and included in the current performance-based seismic design code for
buildings in Japan. Figure 1 shows the basic flow chart of the analytical procedure proposed in
[23] and Figure 2 shows the equivalent SDOF system model.
In Figure 1, 1 stands for the representative displacement. The representative displacement is
the displacement in a multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system at which the participation function
1 i1 is equal to 1.0. Here, 1 is given by [29]:

{}T1 [M]{1}
1 = (1)
{}T1 [M]{}1

where [M] is the mass matrix and {1} is unit vector. 1 and {}1 are the modal participation factor
and mode shape vector for the first mode.
Assuming that the maximum response under dynamic vibration can be represented by that in
static analysis, and that the vertical distribution of lateral forces for pushover analysis is proportional
to the first mode shape, the following relationships are given at each loading step of the pushover
curve [23]:

Vb1 = M1 Sa1 (2)

1 = 1 i1 Sd1 = Sd1 (3)

where Vb1 , M1 and Sa1 are the base shear, effective modal mass and spectral acceleration for the
first mode, respectively. Sd1 is the spectral displacement equal to the representative displacement
1 (1 i1 = 1.0).

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 J. A. OVIEDO A., M. MIDORIKAWA AND T. ASARI

Equivalent SDOF system

Perform pushover analysis of the structure

(a) (distribution of lateral forces proportional to the first mode shape)

(b)

(c)

Define the skeleton curve of the equivalent SDOF system by tracing the S a-Sd curve
of the structure using an appropriate curve for constitutive materials of the structure
(d) (e.g., tri-linear back-bone curve for R/C or bi-linear back-bone curve for steel)

Convert the skeleton curve of the equivalent SDOF system into force-displacement format
(e)

Define an appropriate hysteresis rule for the equivalent SDOF system model
(f)

Perform non-linear time-history analysis using the equivalent SDOF system model
(g) with elastic modal mass Me1

Seek a loading step on the Sa-Sd curve of the structure which is the nearest to the maximum
response of the equivalent SDOF system. Seek the story drift at the i-th story on the story
shear versus story drift relationship of the i-th story at the loading step previously defined
(h)

Figure 1. Analytical procedure for an equivalent SDOF system.

Sa1
Spectral Acceleration

Me1

Sa-Sd curve Entire system

of the building
Shear spring
Assumed skeleton
curve for the equivalent
SDOF system model

Spectral Displacement Sd1

(a) (b)

Figure 2. Equivalent SDOF system: (a) Sa − Sd curve and (b) equivalent model.

Assuming that the mode shape vector for the first mode is equal to the displacement vector in
the pushover analysis {}1 , the effective modal mass can be expressed by [23]:

( ni=1 m i i1 )2
M1 = n 2
(4)
i=1 m i i1

where m i is the mass at the ith story. From Equations (2)–(4), the spectral acceleration Sa1
and displacement Sd1 at each loading step of pushover analysis are determined and the capacity

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 AN EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE RESPONSE

curve (Sa − Sd curve) of the building for the first mode can be plotted. The restoring force of
the equivalent SDOF system is determined by an approximated skeleton curve matching the
Sa − Sd curve previously defined; this skeleton curve is converted into force–displacement format
by multiplying Sa by the effective modal mass Me1 for to the elastic first mode [23]. Although the
value of M1 in Equation (4) changes once a portion of the building yields, Me1 is used instead
because the variation of M1 with respect to Me1 is small, as confirmed by the authors. Here, it is
important to highlight that an appropriate hysteresis rule for non-linear time-history analysis using
the equivalent SDOF system should be defined so as to more accurately simulate the response of
the structure under earthquake loading.
From Figures 1 and 2, it is evident that this methodology does not explicitly take into account
the case when structural members of a structure behave differently; such as in the case of R/C
buildings with hysteretic dampers. Moreover, the selection of an adequate hysteresis rule (including
effects such as stiffness and strength deterioration, isotropic hardening and/or kinematic hardening)
for the equivalent SDOF system, as representative of the structural response of the whole structure
under cyclic loading imposed by earthquake motions, is a key-point in this procedure.
For building structures, which are not composed of different material behavior, a single hysteresis
rule for the equivalent SDOF system could be selected according to the constitutive material
behavior. In an R/C building structure that incorporates hysteretic dampers, the trace of its pushover
curve is the result of the combined action of the R/C main frame and the damper system.
Thus, to define the hysteresis rule of the equivalent SDOF system, two cases are applicable:
(1) either the hysteresis rule is made up from the combined action of the behavior of the R/C
main frame and that of the damper system, or (2) two hysteresis rules are introduced separately,
one for the R/C main frame and another for the damper system. If one hysteresis rule is defined
to represent the entire system (as in case (1)), two different paths arise: (i) the hysteresis rule is
defined from the skeleton curve of the entire system plus some additional definitions for inner
loops; however, this could result in a cumbersome task to perform; (ii) the hysteresis rule is defined
from a commonly used model for representing the behavior of R/C main frames. The path (ii)
would be more practical but would not explicitly consider the hysteretic behavior of dampers.

ADDITIONAL ANALYTICAL STEPS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE

HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOR OF DAMPERS

Additional steps into the methodology proposed in [23] regard the definition of two skeleton curves
that are to represent the hysteretic behavior of the main frame and the damper system separately.
From Figure 3, the restoring force of the entire system (R/C main frame + damper system) is
assumed to be the combination of two springs connected in parallel so that the main frame and
the damper system share the same deformation.

Q
QS Entire system QS = QFy + QDy
Story Shear

Main frame KF QFy Main frame

QDy Damper system

Damper system KD
QFc Keq
(Hysteretic dampers)

(a) (b) Story Drift

Figure 3. Model of an R/C main frame with a damper system: (a) schematic configuration
and (b) restoring force characteristics.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 J. A. OVIEDO A., M. MIDORIKAWA AND T. ASARI

Sa1 Sa1 Sa-Sd curve Sa1

Sa-Sd curve Me1
of R/C main frame

Spectral Acc.

Spectral Acc.

Spectral Acc.
of damper system R/C main frame
Sa-Sd curve
of entire system
Damper system
R/C main frame Assumed tri-linear Assumed bi-linear
+
damper system skeleton curve skeleton curve
Spectral Disp. Sd1 Spectral Disp. Sd1 Spectral Disp. Sd1
(a) (b)

Figure 4. Scheme of additional steps: (a) definition of the Sa − Sd curve of the damper system and
(b) proposed equivalent SDOF system model.

In Figure 3(b), Q S , Q Fy and Q Dy are the yield shear strength of the entire system, main frame
and damper system, respectively. Fc , Fy , Dy , max , F , D are the cracking story drift, the
yield story drift of the main frame, the yield story drift of the damper system, the maximum story
drift, the ductility of the main frame and the ductility of the damper system, respectively.  and
 define the shear at the cracking point Q Fc and the equivalent stiffness K eq for the main frame,
respectively. The factors  and  will be discussed in the following section.

Modeling the force–displacement relationships for the R/C main frame and the damper system
As previously mentioned, additional steps aim to define the force-displacement relationships for
the R/C main frame and the damper system. For this purpose, three main steps are introduced as
shown in Figure 4(a): (1) prior to installing dampers to the building, the Sa − Sd curve of the R/C
main frame is determined according to the methodology shown in Figure 1 (the capacity of the
R/C main frame is known). (2) The Sa − Sd curve of the entire system is determined according to
Figure 1 after installing hysteretic dampers. And (3), based on the assumed interaction between the
R/C main frame and the damper system shown in Figure 3(b), the Sa − Sd curve of the R/C main
frame is subtracted from that of the entire system. As a result, the Sa − Sd curve for the damper
system can be obtained. Figure 4(b) shows the proposed SDOF system model.
Figure 5 shows the detailed step-by-step analytical procedure, incorporated from the steps (d)
to (g) in Figure 1, for defining the skeleton curves of the R/C main frame and the damper system.
Here, it should be noted that: (i) the subtraction in step (d5) is performed at the same displacement
1 of the Sa − Sd curve of the R/C main frame at each loading step; interpolation might be needed.
This operation might result in an approximate bi-linear Sa − Sd curve if the entire system comprises
a tri-linear model for R/C members and a bi-linear model for dampers. (ii) In step (d6), there
should be an appropriate balance between the area under the obtained Sa − Sd curve of the damper
system and that of its assumed skeleton curve.
It should be noted that subtracting the Sa − Sd curve of the R/C main frame from that of the
entire system is a superposition operation generally applicable to linear systems. Yet, this operation
can be reasonably assumed to be valid for the case of a damper system whose strength and stiffness
are proportional to those of the R/C main frame. In this study, a straightforward proportionality
condition is thus considered, as explained in the following section.

EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE ANALYSIS

The validity of the proposed equivalent SDOF system model for estimating the story drift demand
on R/C buildings with hysteretic dampers is investigated through parametric analyses on a series
of frame models and their corresponding equivalent SDOF systems. Building models with 5 and 10
stories are studied as representative of low- and mid-rise building structures. Moreover, different
mechanical properties of dampers—yield strength and yield deformation—are also included to
observe their influence on the effectiveness of the proposed model. Thus, a series of non-linear

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 AN EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE RESPONSE

Additional steps for the proposed equivalent SDOF system

Having defined the S a-Sd curve of the entire system (R/C main frame + damper system)
(d0)
according to the steps (a) to (c) of Figure 1, then:

Perform pushover analysis of the R/C main frame (without dampers)

(d1)
(distribution of lateral forces proportional to the first mode shape)

(d2)

(d3)

Define the skeleton curve of the R/C main frame by tracing the S a-Sd curve in step (d3)
(d4) using an appropriate curve for R/C, such as a tri-linear back-bone curve

Subtract the Sa-Sd curve of the R/C main frame obtained in step (d3) from the
(d5)
Sa-Sd curve of the entire system of step (d0)

Define the skeleton curve of the damper system by tracing the resulting S a-Sd curve
(d6)
in step (d5) using an appropriate curve for dampers, such as a bi-linear back-bone curve

(e0) Convert both skeleton curves given in steps (d4) and (d6) into force-displacement format

(f0) Define appropriate histeresis rules for the R/C main frame and the damper system
(e.g., Takeda model for R/C and a bi-linear model for steel)

Perform non-linear time-history analysis by using the proposed equivalent SDOF system
(g0)
model with both skeleton curves and hysteresis rules, and elastic modal mass Me1

Figure 5. Proposed additional analytical steps for defining the skeleton curves of the
R/C main frame and the damper system.

time-history analyses were conducted on all frame models and equivalent SDOF system models
to compare the story drift demands on frame models with those estimated by using the proposed
equivalent model.

Description of analyzed building structures

This study considers two R/C main frames as shown in Figure 6. Figure 6(a) shows the symmetric
plan view consisting of 3 by 4 bays each of 7 m and Figure 6(b) shows an elevation of the
building models with a typical story height of 3.5 m. The gravitational load per unit area is
assumed to be the same for all stories with a typical floor load of 10.02 kN/m2 . To observe the
influence of the mechanical properties of dampers on the effectiveness of the proposed model,
both R/C main frames shown in Figure 6(b) were intentionally kept unchanged. Thus, prior to
the installation of hysteretic dampers, structural designs of the R/C main frames were established
based on the Building Standard Law of Japan (BSLJ) [30] for a story drift angle limit of 1/200,

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 J. A. OVIEDO A., M. MIDORIKAWA AND T. ASARI

10-story
R/C main frame

5-story
R/C main frame

4@7.0m

10@3.5m
5@3.5m
X
3@7.0m
(a) (b)

Figure 6. R/C building models: (a) typical plan view and (b) R/C main frame models.

Table I. Structural properties of studied R/C main frames.

Section Concrete Reinforcement
Element geometry (m) strength (MPa) ratio (%)
5-Story R/C main frame
1st story columns 0.80×0.80 28 2.06 Natural period
2nd story columns 0.80×0.80 28 1.09 To = 0.70 s
3rd and 4th story columns 0.80×0.80 28 1.05
5th story columns 0.80×0.80 21 1.05 Total weight
All floor beams 0.40×0.50 21 — W = 29 449 kN
10-Story R/C main frame
1st story columns 0.80×0.80 35 3.13 Natural period
2nd story columns 0.80×0.80 35 1.63 To = 0.92 s
3rd story columns 0.80×0.80 28 1.26
4th–10th story columns 0.80×0.80 28 1.04 Total weight
All floor beams 0.40×0.75 28 — W = 58 898 kN

originating two reference building structures into which hysteretic dampers are installed afterwards.
Structural designs represent the strong-column and weak-beam collapse mechanism, typical for
ductile moment-resisting frame buildings. Table I summarizes the structural properties of the R/C
main frames used in this study.
Hysteretic dampers were then incorporated to the two R/C main frames shown in Figure 6.
Dampers were installed at each frame and at each story in X -direction as shown in Figure 7. Figures
7(a) and (b) show the typical plan view and elevation of the R/C main frames with hysteretic
dampers, respectively.
In general, hysteretic dampers link the story shear Q and the story drift  of the story at which
they are installed. Thus, hysteretic dampers are modeled by a line element with a non-linear shear
spring whose deformation is linked to the nodal displacements of the frame to which the damper
is connected, as shown in Figure 7(c). Details of this damper model can be found elsewhere [31].
The hysteresis model for dampers is assumed to be of bi-linear type with kinematic hardening.

Definition of mechanical properties for the damper system

As mentioned in the previous section, structural characteristics (yield strength and stiffness) of the
damper system are assumed to be proportional to those of the R/C main frame. To determine the
yield strength and stiffness of the damper system, the damper strength ratio  (ratio of the yield
strength of the damper system to the yield strength of the entire system, hereafter the strength
ratio) and the yield story drift ratio  (ratio of the yield story drift of the damper system to the
yield story drift of the R/C main frame, hereafter the drift ratio) were used, respectively. Referring

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 AN EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE RESPONSE

Hysteretic damper Non-linear

d1 shear spring d2

(5, 10) @3.5m

4@7.0m
d’1 d’2

Bi-linear
model

X X
3@7.0m 3@7.0m
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 7. R/C main frame with hysteretic dampers: (a) typical plan view; (b) typical elevation;
and (c) analytical model for dampers.

to Figure 3(b), the yield strengths of the R/C main frame, damper system and entire system at
each story are related by:
Q S = Q Fy + Q Dy (5)
Q Dy = Q S (6)
Q Fy = (1−)Q S (7)
As mentioned earlier, the strength and stiffness of the R/C main frame are kept unchanged
while the strength and stiffness of the damper system change. The yield shear strength Q iFy and
yield story drift iFy at the ith story of each R/C main frame were determined by pushover analysis
with a vertical distribution of lateral load proportional to the first mode shape.
The value of  varied by an interval of 0.1 (ranging from 0.2 to 0.8) to define the yield shear
strength of the damper system Q Dy . Thus, for each value of , the yield shear strength of the
damper system at the ith story Q iDy is determined by:


Q iDy = Qi (8)
1− Fy
The yield deformation of the damper system was determined using the ‘constant yield story-drift
ratio’ scheme previously introduced by the authors [32, 33]. This scheme uses the drift ratio  to
define the yield story drift of the damper system from the structural characteristics of the primary
structure (R/C main frame). The value of  varied by an interval of 0.2 (ranging from 0.2 to 1.0)
to define the yield story drift iDy and lateral stiffness K Di of the damper system at the ith story.
This is:
iDy = iFy (9)

K Di = Q iDy /iDy (10)

At each value of , the yield shear strength Q iDy is equally distributed to each damper at the
ith story. The yield story drift iDy of the damper system is the same for all dampers at the ith
story. As shown from Equations (5)–(10), the proportionality conditions are perfectly satisfied.
Figure 8 shows the variation of natural period T of analyzed buildings after installing hysteretic
dampers. In general, the natural period shortens with increasing values of  and decreasing values
of . However, this change in the natural period is more noticeable when  changes. It can be seen
that the analyzed building models comprise a wide range of natural periods.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 J. A. OVIEDO A., M. MIDORIKAWA AND T. ASARI

1.0 1.0

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

T / To

T / To
0.4 0.4
T0 = 0.70 s T0 = 0.92 s
0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
(a) (b)

Figure 8. Variation of natural period of analyzed buildings with respect to  and : (a) 5-story
model and (b) 10-story model.

Table II. Input ground motions.

Earthquake source Input motion PGA (m/s/s) PGV (m/s) Td (s)
El Centro NS (1940) ElCentro50 5.05 0.51 54
El Centro NS (1940) ElCentro100 9.87 0.98 54
BCJ-L2 (synthesized) BCJ50 3.55 0.50 96
BCJ-L2 (synthesized) BCJ100 6.45 1.00 96
JMA-Kobe NS (1995) Kobe50 4.50 0.50 60
JMA-Kobe NS (1995) Kobe100 9.00 1.00 60
Taft NS (1952) Taft50 4.84 0.50 54
Taft NS (1952) Taft100 9.70 1.00 54
Hachinohe EW (1968) Hachinohe50 2.51 0.50 80
Hachinohe EW (1968) Hachinohe100 4.96 0.98 80
Td: duration.

Earthquake ground motions

The input ground motions used for non-linear time-history analyses are summarized in Table II. Five
different source acceleration records were selected: four well-known earthquake ground motions,
El Centro NS (1940), JMA-Kobe NS (1995), Hachinohe EW (1968) and Taft NS (1952), and
a synthesized record widely used in Japan, BCJ-L2, to check and ensure safety in the building
design against earthquakes of Level-2 [34]. In Table II, all source acceleration records have been
scaled to a peak ground velocity (PGV) of 0.50 m/s (hereafter PGV50), which is specified as a
Level-2 motion by the Japanese seismic design practice, and to a higher PGV of 1.0 m/s (hereafter
PGV100).

Parametric study
Non-linear time-history analysis was performed on a series of frame models and on their corre-
sponding equivalent SDOF systems by using the proposed model (hereafter 2-spring model). In the
numerical analyses of 2-spring models, the degrading tri-linear Takeda [35] and bi-linear models
are used to represent the hysteretic behavior of the R/C main frame and the damper system, respec-
tively. For comparison, non-liner time-history analyses were also performed on two equivalent
single-spring SDOF system models: one SDOF system model with the tri-linear Takeda hysteresis
rule (hereafter 1-springTA model) and another SDOF system model with bi-linear hysteresis rule
(hereafter 1-springBI model). Here, the two equivalent single-spring SDOF systems were defined
according to the procedure shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Numerical analyses were conducted over a range of earthquake motion and structural parameters.
The series of analyses correspond to the following cases: (1) two numbers of stories (n = 5 and
10), (2) seven strength ratios ( = 0.2 to 0.8), (3) five drift ratios ( = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0),

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 AN EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE RESPONSE

and (4) the input ground motions listed in Table II. The numerical analyses of frame models were
carried out using the computer program STERA-3D [31]. The hysteresis rule for columns and
beams is the Takeda model.
For all numerical analyses, initial stiffness proportional damping was assumed with a damping
ratio of 3% of the critical for the first mode, integration time step of 0.005 s, and a post-elastic
stiffness ratio of 0.01. In total, 2800 non-linear time-history analyses were performed: 700 on
frame models and 2100 on SDOF system models.

ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Capacity curves of analyzed building models

According to Figures 4 and 5, the capacity curves of the entire system and R/C main frame are
to be determined. Thus, Figure 9 shows the Sa − Sd curves obtained from pushover analysis for
each R/C main frame. The two Sa − Sd curves show tri-linear behavior, typical of R/C structures.
It is clearly noticed that the assumed tri-linear skeleton curves agree very well with the Sa − Sd
curves.
Figure 10 shows the Sa − Sd curves obtained from pushover analysis after installing hysteretic
dampers into the two R/C main frames. It can be observed that Sa − Sd curves behave following a
bi- or tri- or quad-linear curve. In general, for 0.6, Sa − Sd curves tend to draw a bi- or tri-linear
curve, while for <0.6, a tri- or quad-linear curve. A bi-linear curve appears to be more common
for a damper system having yield shear strength larger than that of the R/C main frame whereas
a tri-linear curve appears to be more common for an R/C main frame stronger than the damper
system.
Having determined the Sa − Sd curves of the R/C main frames and all entire systems, the Sa − Sd
curve of each damper system was obtained according to the proposed analytical steps shown in
Figures 4 and 5, and modeled with a bi-linear skeleton curve.

Estimation of story drift demand

Figures 11–13 show the comparison of estimated story drift demands obtained using the equivalent
SDOF system models with those of frame models. Hereafter, results are divided into two groups of
seismic intensity: PGV50 and PGV100. In Figures 11 and 12, the vertical axis denotes the mean
value and standard deviation (SD) of the ratio of estimated story drift demand using the equivalent
SDOF system models SDOF to the story drift demand of the frame models FRAME . The mean
and SD values are computed from the response of all stories for each number of stories and under
input motions corresponding to the two groups of seismic intensity. For the 5-story building model

5 5
5-story 10-story
Sa1 (m/s/s)

Sa1 (m/s/s)

2.5 2.5

Sa-Sd curve
Assumed tri-linear
skeleton curve

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
(a) Sd1 (m) (b) Sd1 (m)

Figure 9. Sa − Sd curves of analyzed R/C main frames: (a) 5-story model and (b) 10-story model.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 J. A. OVIEDO A., M. MIDORIKAWA AND T. ASARI

20
5-story 5-story 5-story 5-story 5-story
Sa1 (m/s/s)
10

0
(a) 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
10
10-story 10-story 10-story 10-story 10-story
Sa1 (m/s/s)

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
(b) Sd1 (m) Sd1 (m) Sd1 (m) Sd1 (m) Sd1 (m)

Figure 10. Sa − Sd curves of analyzed R/C main frames with hysteretic dampers:
(a) 5-story model and (b) 10-story model.

2.0 5-story 2-spring 5-story 1-springTA 5-story 1-springBI

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
2.0
10-story 2-spring 10-story 1-springTA 10-story 1-springBI

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(a) (b) (c)

Mean
SD

Figure 11. Comparison of story drift demand between frame and equivalent SDOF system models, PGV50:
(a) 2-spring model; (b) 1-springTA model; and (c) 1-springBI model.

in Figures 12(b) and (c), it should be noted that the lack of data for some values of  and  is
due to the responses of the equivalent SDOF system model that fell out of the obtained Sa − Sd
curves.
General trends for the value of  and  that lead the proposed SDOF system model to provide
more accurate and stable estimates of the story drift demand than those from the two single-spring
SDOF system models can be observed in Figures 11 and 12. From these two figures, the following
aspects are identified: (1) analysis results show good agreement between estimated story drift

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 AN EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE RESPONSE

2.0
5-story 2-spring 5-story 1-springTA 5-story 1-springBI

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
2.0
10-story 2-spring 10-story 1-springTA 10-story 1-springBI

1.5

1.0

0.5

0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(a) (b) (c)

Mean
SD

Figure 12. Comparison of story drift demand between frame and equivalent SDOF system models,
PGV100: (a) 2-spring model; (b) 1-springTA model; and (c) 1-springBI model.

demands using the 2-spring model and those of frame models. This is evident from mean values
ranging from 0.90 to 1.10 and values of SD lower than 0.15 for a seismic intensity of PGV50, and
mean values ranging from 0.80 to 1.10 and values of SD lower than 0.20 for a seismic intensity
of PGV100, for all values of  and . This clearly demonstrates that the proposed model can
accurately estimate the story drift demand on R/C buildings with hysteretic dampers, regardless
of the value of  and . (2) The story drift demand is highly overestimated when using either
single-spring model, especially for the 5-story building model. Here, as the behavior of the R/C
main frame and the damper system are highly inelastic, the single-spring SDOF system models
cannot appropriately model the difference of hysteretic behavior between the R/C main frame
and the damper system. This clearly indicates that the 2-spring model is more suitable for R/C
buildings with hysteretic dampers. (3) The 1-springTA model shows better estimates than those
from the 1-springBI model, which is to be expected as the main structural system is of R/C
material. (4) Particularly for the 10-story building model with large values of , it can be seen that
the three equivalent models produced similar estimates. Here, since the extent of inelasticity is
small, the hysteresis rule was almost not relevant in the response. (5) It can be seen that the 2-spring
model almost always produced estimates on the conservative side (SDOF /FRAME >1.0). On the
other hand, some non-conservative estimates can be observed in the case of mid-rise building
models. Here, mean values tend to decrease as a SDOF system model does not consider the higher
mode effects, which increase the displacement response in middle and upper stories. It is worth
mentioning that the mode shape of an equivalent SDOF system model remains constant. And (6),
it can be observed that the mean value and SD of the SDOF /FRAME ratio obtained using the
2-spring model are slightly affected by the intensity of the ground motions; however, the influence
may increase when a large extent of plastification occurs. This can be attributed to the fact that
the response of a SDOF system is highly sensitive to the number of loading/unloading inelastic
cycles that deteriorate the restoring force of the system.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 J. A. OVIEDO A., M. MIDORIKAWA AND T. ASARI

Figure 13. Comparison of vertical distribution of the story drift demand between frame and 2-spring
models: (a) PGV50 and (b) PGV100.

Moreover, although not shown here, the hysteresis loops of the 2-spring and 1-springBI models
behaved similarly for large values of , whereas the hysteresis loops of the 2-spring and 1-springTA
models behaved similarly for low values of .
The difference in the vertical distribution of estimated story drift demands for the three SDOF
system models considered in this study can be observed in Figure 13 for a few analysis cases.
In Figure 13, the horizontal axis denotes the mean and SD values of the SDOF /FRAME ratio.
The mean and SD values are computed from the response under input motions corresponding to
the two groups of seismic intensity. The vertical axis denotes the story number. By comparing the
response shown in Figure 13, it is noted that the 2-spring model tends to provide better estimates
than those given by the two single-spring models. Especially, the 2-spring model produces stable
estimates regardless of the mechanical characteristics of the damper system.
However, for the 5-story building model under a PGV100 ground motion with  = 0.3 and
 = 0.6, the SDOF system models underestimate the story drift demand, especially in the upper
stories. This unsatisfactory estimation is due to a very large extent of inelasticity in both the frame

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 AN EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE RESPONSE

2.0 2.0
5-story PGV50 10-story PGV50 Mean SD
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0
2.0 2.0
5-story PGV100 10-story PGV100

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
(a) (b)

Figure 14. Comparison of input energy demand per unit mass between frame and 2-spring models:
(a) 5-story model and (b) 10-story model.

and SDOF system models as a result of high intensity ground motions. Thus, for the case of low
values of  accompanied by low values of , it is expected that none of the equivalent SDOF
system models considered in this study produces adequate estimates of story drift demands under
an arbitrary severe ground motion if estimated story drift demands fall far beyond the elastic range
of the R/C main frame in the pushover curve.
As previously mentioned, the higher modes tend to increase the story drifts in the upper stories.
This behavior is observed in Figure 13, especially for the 10-story building model where mean
values tend to decrease in the upper stories. Another behavior to point out for the 10-story building
model is that the SDOF /FRAME ratio tends to increase in the lower and middle stories under
high intensity ground motions. A similar behavior was reported in [36]. This is attributed to the
concentration of inelasticity within this part of the building whose effect cannot be considered in
a SDOF system model. Despite this increase in the SDOF /FRAME ratio, the estimates tend to
fall on the conservative side and could be used in engineering practice.

Estimation of input energy demand

Analysis results obtained using 2-spring models are presented hereafter as the 2-spring model was
demonstrated to be more suitable for R/C buildings with hysteretic dampers. Figure 14 shows the
comparison between the input energy per unit mass EISDOF obtained using the 2-spring model
and that of frame models EIFRAME . The vertical axis denotes the mean value and SD of the
EISDOF /EIFRAME ratio. The mean and SD values are computed from the response of all stories
for each number of stories and under input motions corresponding to the two groups of seismic
intensity. The average is depicted by a bold line.
It can be seen that the mean value of the EISDOF /EIFRAME ratio increases with increasing values
of  and that it is not remarkably influenced by the value of . It can also be observed that estimates
of input energy are more stable for a seismic intensity of PGV100; this is attributed to the smooth
fluctuation of the input energy when large plastic deformations occur [27]. Moreover, the 2-spring
model demonstrated to be capable of providing conservative estimates for the 5-story building
model and most cases of the 10-story building model. The slightly non-conservative estimates seen
for some cases of the 10-story building models are mainly attributed to the higher mode effect.
A similar situation was reported by Chou and Uang [21] for estimates of energy demand.
From Figure 14 it should be highlighted that the 2-spring model provided stable estimates of
input energy regardless of the value of . This stable behavior suggests that the trends observed

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 J. A. OVIEDO A., M. MIDORIKAWA AND T. ASARI

10 10
5-story 10-story

EHTFRAME (MN-m)
8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2
PGV50 PGV50
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
50 50
5-story 10-story
EHTFRAME (MN-m)

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10
PGV100 PGV100
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
(a) EHTSDOF (MN-m) (b) EHTSDOF (MN-m)

Figure 15. One-to-one comparison of hysteretic energy demand between frame and 2-spring models:
(a) 5-story model and (b) 10-story model.

from the analyses would be observed for other values of . Especially, for values of  lower than
0.6, the correspondence of predicted input energy demands with those of frame models is very
good, and the accuracy of estimates may suffice for practical use.

Estimation of hysteretic energy demand

Figure 15 shows the one-to-one comparison of the hysteretic energy demand between frame
models EHTFRAME and 2-spring models EHTSDOF . It can be seen that there is a reasonably good
correspondence between EHTFRAME and EHTSDOF for 0.6, especially for the 5-story building
model. On the other hand, a large dispersion is seen for large values of . Regardless of the number
of stories, the dispersion in the correspondence of EHTFRAME with EHTSDOF softens for a seismic
intensity of PGV100. Here, the frame models and the 2-spring models behave similarly, undergoing
large plastic deformations. But when either model is elastic or within low inelastic response (such
as in the case of PGV50), the difference between EHTFRAME and EHTSDOF becomes remarkable.
Thus, the relatively large dispersion seen for the 10-story building model under a seismic intensity
of PGV50 is attributed not only to the difference in the response of the R/C main frame and the
damper system between the frame model and the 2-spring model but also to the influence of higher
modes and overall bending deformation.
Although not shown in Figure 15, analysis results showed that the dispersion in the correspon-
dence of EHTFRAME with EHTSDOF tends to increase with increasing values of . Here, the larger
the value of , the larger the yield deformation in the equivalent SDOF system and, as a result, the
equivalent SDOF system is not capable of adequately representing the hysteric energy dissipation
presented in frame models.
When installing hysteretic dampers into a main structure, it is important to quantify the partic-
ipation of the damper system into the total hysteretic energy dissipation. Thus, Figure 16 shows
good agreement of the damper system’s hysteretic energy demand between frame and 2-spring
models when the damper system in the 2-spring model behaves inelastically with values of ductility
larger than two (D 2.0, see Figure 3(b)). On the other hand, for values of ductility between one
and two, it is evident that the dispersion of the EHDSDOF /EHDFRAME ratio increases remarkably
as the amount of hysteretic energy is very sensitive to the extent of plastification within this range

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 AN EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE RESPONSE

100 100
5-story 10-story

EHDSDOF / EHDFRAME
PGV50 PGV50

10 10

EHDSDOF / EHDFRAME= 1.5 EHDSDOF / EHDFRAME= 1.5

1 1

0.1 0.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
100 100
5-story 10-story
PGV100
EHDSDOF / EHDFRAME

PGV100

10 10

EHDSDOF / EHDFRAME= 1.5 EHDSDOF / EHDFRAME= 1.5

1 1

0.1 0.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(a) (b)

Figure 16. Influence of 2-spring model’s damper system’s maximum ductility  D :

(a) 5-story model and (b) 10-story model.

of ductility. The results demonstrate that the proposed model provides valuable information on the
participation of the damper system into the total hysteretic energy dissipation for low- and mid-rise
buildings with low values of  accompanied by low values of , and suggest that this information
could be useful for design practice. Here, it is worth mentioning that by using low values of 
and , the damper system is ensured to start to dissipate hysteretic energy before the main frame
yields, as previously discussed by the authors [32, 33].

CONCLUSIONS

An equivalent SDOF system model (2-spring model) for R/C buildings that incorporate hysteretic
dampers (damper system) is proposed to more accurately estimate the story drift demands on
this type of building structures. The proposed procedure is applicable to first-mode dominant
R/C buildings into which a damper system has been installed, whose strength and stiffness are
proportional to those of the R/C main frame. The proposed model takes into account the difference
of hysteretic behavior between the R/C main frame and the damper system, to appropriately
represent the restoring force characteristics of the entire system (R/C main frame + damper
system). Thus, the restoring force characteristics of the R/C main frame and the damper system
for the proposed 2-spring model are defined separately from the overall structural behavior of both
systems.
Earthquake response analyses were performed on a series of 5- and 10-story R/C main frames
with hysteretic dampers and their corresponding 2-spring models. The series of building models also
includes different mechanical properties of hysteretic dampers in order to observe their influence
on the effectiveness of the proposed model. For comparison purposes, additional analyses were
also performed using single-spring SDOF system models used in the design practice. Through
comparison of the results, the proposed model is shown to provide accurate and stable estimates of
the story drift demand on R/C buildings with hysteretic dampers for a large variety of mechanical
properties—yield strength and yield deformation—of dampers. Moreover, the results demonstrated

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 J. A. OVIEDO A., M. MIDORIKAWA AND T. ASARI

that the proposed model provides more accurate estimates than those obtained from equivalent
single-spring SDOF system models commonly used in structural engineering practice.
The numerical analyses also indicate that the proposed model can provide reasonably good
estimates of the input energy regardless of the building height. Furthermore, the proposed model
is shown to be capable of estimating not only the total hysteretic energy demand but also the
participation of the damper system into the total hysteretic energy dissipation for low- and mid-rise
building structures in which the yield strength of the R/C main frame is larger than that of the
damper system and in which the yield story drift of the damper system is less than about 60% of
that of the R/C main frame.
The additional analytical steps herein introduced into the methodology proposed by Kuramoto
et al. [23] and the 2-spring SDOF system model are significant advances toward a more accurate
estimation of the response of R/C buildings with hysteretic dampers subjected to earthquake
motions. Results herein presented suggest that the proposed model can provide the structural
design practice with valuable information on the demand of story drift, input energy and hysteretic
energy on R/C buildings with hysteretic dampers. However, further study on different structural
configurations of R/C main structures and damper systems is needed to gain more insight into the
efficiency of the proposed model. Also, consideration of the higher mode effect should be given
in the case of mid- and high-rise building structures. Finally, the methodology herein proposed is
expected to contribute to ongoing efforts for the seismic response control of building structures
with hysteretic dampers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors express their thanks to Dr T. Saito, Chief Research Engineer, International Institute of
Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Tsukuba, Japan, for his support with the computer program
STERA-3D used in this study. The authors would also acknowledge the financial support given by the
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan. This support is greatly appre-
ciated.

REFERENCES
1. Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV. Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-based
Engineering. The International Code Council and CRC Press: Florida, 2004.
2. Higashino M, Okamoto S. Response Control and Seismic Isolation of Buildings. Taylor & Francis: London and
New York, 2006.
3. Soong TT, Spencer Jr BF. Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. Engineering
Structures 2004; 24:243–259.
4. Spencer Jr BF, Nagarajaiah S. State of the art of structural control. Journal of Structural Engineering (ASCE)
2003; July:Forum.
5. Freeman SA, Nicoletti JP, Tyrell JV. Evaluation of existing buildings for seismic risk—a case study of Puget
Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. Proceedings of the 1st U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineers, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, 1975; 113–122.
6. Freeman SA. Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake motions. Douglas McHenry
International Symposium on Concrete and Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute, Sp-55, Detroit, MI,
1978; 589–605.
7. ATC-40. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Structures. Products 1.2 and 1.3 of the Preposition 122
Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program, California Safety Commission, Report No. SSC 96-01, ATC-40.
Applied Technology Council: Redwood City, CA, 1996.
8. Freeman SA. Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology
2004; 41(1):1–13.
9. Fajfar P. Capacity-spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 1999; 28:979–993.
10. Fajfar P, Gaspersic P. The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC buildings. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 1996; 25(1):31–46.
11. Fajfar P. A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra 2000; 16(3):
573–592.
12. Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity-demand-diagram methods for estimating seismic deformation of inelastic
structures: SDF systems. Report No. PEER-1999/02, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University
of California, Berkeley, 1999.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe
 AN EQUIVALENT SDOF SYSTEM MODEL FOR ESTIMATING THE RESPONSE

13. Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthquake Spectra
1999; 15(4):637–656.
14. Albanesi T, Nuti C, Vanzi I. A simplified procedure to assess the seismic response of nonlinear structures.
Earthquake Spectra 2000; 16(4):715–734.
15. Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation.
Engineering Structures 1998 20(4–6):452–464.
16. FEMA-273. HEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management
Agency: Washington, DC, 1997.
17. FEMA-356. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency
Management Agency: Washington, DC, 2000.
18. FEMA-440. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures. Federal Emergency Management
Agency: Washington, DC, 2005.
19. Shibata A, Sozen MA. Substitute-structure method for seismic design in R/C. Journal of the Structural Division
(ASCE) 1976; 102:1–18.
20. Chopra AK, Goel RK. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2002; 31(3):561–582.
21. Chou CC, Uang CM. Evaluating distribution of seismic energy in multistory frames. Proceedings of the 13th
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2004. Paper No. 24.
22. Shakeri K, Shayanfar MA, Kabeyasawa T. A story shear-based adaptive pushover procedure for estimating seismic
demands of buildings. Engineering Structures 2010; 32(1):174–183.
23. Kuramoto H, Teshigawara M, Okuzono T, Koshika N, Takayama M, Hori T. Predicting the earthquake response of
buildings using equivalent single degree of freedom system. Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, 2000. Paper No. 1039.
24. Midorikawa M, Hiraishi H, Okawa I, Iiba M, Teshigawara M, Isoda H. Development of seismic performance
evaluation procedures in building code of Japan. Proceedings of 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand, 2000. Paper No. 2215.
25. Midorikawa M, Okawa I, Iiba M, Teshigawara M. Performance-based seismic design code for buildings in Japan.
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology 2003; 4(1):15–25.
26. Riddell R, Garcia JE. Hysteretic energy spectrum and damage control. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2001; 30(12):1791–1816.
27. Akiyama H. Earthquake-Resistant Limit-State Design for Buildings. University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo, 1985.
28. Jinkoo K, Hyunhoon C, Lan C. Energy-based seismic design of structures with buckling-restrained braces. Steel
and Composite Structures 2004; 4(6):437–456.
29. Chopra AK. Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering (2nd edn). Prentice-Hall:
New Jersey, 2001.
30. The Building Center of Japan. The Building Standard Law of Japan, 2000.
31. Saito T. Structural earthquake response analysis 3D (STERA-3D) software. Building Research Institute, Tsukuba,
Japan.
32. Oviedo AJA, Midorikawa M, Asari T. Optimum strength ratio of hysteretic energy dissipating devices in R/C
frames. Journal of Structural Engineering AIJ 2008; 54B:571–580.
33. Oviedo AJA, Midorikawa M, Asari T. Earthquake response of ten-story story-drift-controlled reinforced concrete
frames with hysteretic dampers. Engineering Structures 2010; 32(6):1735–1746.
34. The Building Center of Japan. Input Ground Motion for Dynamic Analysis of High-Rise Buildings. Building
Letter 1986.6, 1986 (in Japanese).
35. Takeda T, Sozen MA, Nielsen NN. Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes. Journal of Structural
Division (ASCE) 1970; 96:2557–2573.
36. Gupta A, Krawinkler H. Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame structures. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 2000; 29:1287–1305.

Copyright 䉷 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/eqe