Treatment of P-Δ Effects in Displacement-Based

Seismic Design for SDOF Systems

Bin Wei1; Yan Xu2; and Jianzhong Li3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 04/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The displacement-based seismic-design (DSD) methods, owing to their simplicity and efficiency, have been more and more
recognized in structural seismic-research communities during the past few years. However, the dynamic P-Δ effect, as has long been
well realized to be a key issue in structure earthquake engineering that could amplify the structure’s seismic responses or even trigger
the structure’s instability, is still not well solved practically because of the complicated nonlinear mechanism. Therefore, in aim to achieve
a practical and general purpose solution to consider the P-Δ effects in various DSD methods for single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems,
first, the existing approaches of considering P-Δ effects in current seismic analysis and design were evaluated by carrying out a large set
of nonlinear time-history analyses, and then new design formulas and recommendations on threshold of neglecting P-Δ effects and the
allowable design thresholds were promoted on the basis of the statistics data. At last, the proposed procedure was illustrated by a
seismic-design example. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)BE.1943-5592.0000275. © 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Seismic design; Regression analysis; Displacement; Bridges.
Author keywords: Seismic design; Dynamic stability; P-Δ effects; SDOF system; Displacement-based seismic design; Regression
analysis.

Introduction simple expressions to represent these amplification effects under

The action of vertical loads acting through structural lateral defor-
mations is well known as the second-order effect or P-Δ effect.
In common engineering-design practices, this second-order effect
is usually considered by an amplification factor to the responses
achieved by only first-order analysis. The simple amplification-
factor method is proved to be quite enough for the elastic static
design [e.g., European Committee for Standardization (CEN)
1992]. And influences of P-Δ effects on the elastic responses of
single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) structures to specific seismic
response spectrum inputs are proved to resemble the static situa-
tions (Bernal 1987). However, under strong ground motions, the
structure may undergo extensive inelastic responses; if the
randomness of the ground motions and P-Δ effects are taken
into account simultaneously, a stochastic vibration problem with
dual-geometric-and-material nonlinearity properties will generate,
which is too complicated to be theoretically solved.
Generally, dynamic P-Δ effects increase a structure’s displace-
ment response; therefore, the structure’s lateral strength needs to be
enhanced correspondingly if the same ductility as without P-Δ
effects is to be achieved. Great efforts have been made to acquire
1 concept. However, recent studies show that the constant yield-
Ph.D. Candidate, State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil
Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China. E-mail: 07weibin@
mail.tongji.edu.cn
2
Lecturer, State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil
Engineering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China. E-mail: yanxu@
tongji.edu.cn
3
Professor, State Key Laboratory for Disaster Reduction in Civil Engi-
neering, Tongji Univ., Shanghai 200092, China (corresponding author).
E-mail: lijianzh@tongji.edu.cn
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 4, 2010; approved
on May 24, 2011; published online on May 26, 2011. Discussion period
open until October 1, 2012; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering,
Vol. 17, No. 3, May 1, 2012. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2012/3-509–518/
$25.00.
seismic action (Rosenblueth 1965; Paulay 1978; Bernal 1987;
Mahin and Boroschek 1991; MacRae 1994; Priestley et al. 2007).
In most seismic codes [e.g., Building Seismic Safety Council
(BSSC) 2003; CEN 2001; AASHTO 2009), the considerations of
P-Δ effects are simply extended from the elastic static amplifica-
tion methods, and only by changing stability indices to involve
inelastic responses. These treatments ignore the dynamic and
inelastic nature of the problem, and hence are quite doubtful.
Through nonlinear time-history analyses, Bernal (1987) found
that using the static amplification factor expression in the seismic
design underestimated the influences of P-Δ effects in the practical
range. With the underlying force-based seismic-design concept,
i.e., the structural strength can be freely changed regardless of
the stiffness (natural period), Bernal regressed a new strength-
enhancement formula by forcing oscillators of a given period
with and without P-Δ effects to reach the same ductility under
the seismic action. Although the same ductility was kept, yield
displacements for these two cases were different (the former is
larger); therefore, the maximum displacement after the compensa-
tion was still not adequately controlled. The formula proposed by
Paulay and Priestley (1992) also adopted the force-based design
displacement assumption is more reasonable, and much facilitates
the performance-based seismic-design process (Aschheim 2002).
To fully take these benefits, various displacement-based seismic-
design (DSD) methods have been developed in structural
seismic-research communities during the past 30 years (Priestley
et al. 2007).
Treatments of the P-Δ effects are diverse in the various
DSD methods, On the basis of energy-equilibrium considerations,
Priestley et al. (2007) recommended a simple P-Δ moment term to
be directly added to structural strength. Accuracy of this theoretical
formula needs to be evaluated through nonlinear time-history
analyses. Intended for the inclusion of P-Δ effects in DSD of steel
moment resisting frames, Asimakopoulos et al. (2007) proposed a

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 509

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 509-518

 compensation procedure of amplifying the yield displacement. θe ¼ P∕ðK 0 HÞ ð4Þ
However, it will be an iterative procedure because the yield-
displacement amplification factor is a function of ductility. Differ-
ent from the “two-step” treatment, Aschheim and Montes (2003) Stability Index
directly modified the yield-point-spectra method developed by Stability index θ, whose physical interpretation is the ratio of P-Δ
them to represent the P-Δ effects in a single step. moment to the yield moment, is commonly used to evaluate the
In this paper, a practical and more accurate general-purpose am- severity of P-Δ effects by many researchers, and can be expressed
plification factor-based P-Δ effect design procedure was proposed. in Eq. (5)
With comprehensive nonlinear time-history analyses of SDOF
structures, first the existing approaches of considering P-Δ effects M PΔ PΔ
θ¼ ¼ ð5Þ
in current seismic analysis and design were evaluated, and then new My My
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 04/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

design formulas and recommendations on threshold of neglecting

P-Δ effects and the allowable design limits were proposed. The Substituting Eq. (5) with different P-Δ displacements, one can get
constant yield-displacement premise was adopted in the analyses, two stability indices. One is θe , as noted previously in Eq. (4),
so the results are applicable to all DSD methods that hold the same employing yield displacement Δy in its definition
assumption. At last, the proposed procedure was illustrated by a PΔy P P P
seismic-design example. θe ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ð6Þ
My M y ∕Δy F y0 · H∕Δy K 0 H

This index is utilized by Bernal (1987), MacRae (1994) to study the

Problem Statement, Stability Index, and Research inelastic dynamic P-Δ effects, and also by FEMA 450 regulations
Focuses (BSSC 2003). Another stability index is θΔ , which was first pro-
posed by Paulay (1978) and used the maximum inelastic displace-
Problem Statement ment Δu in its definition
For a SDOF system as shown in Fig. 1, P-Δ effects will reduce its PΔu P Δu P
effective lateral resistance F y and initial stiffness K (where sub- θΔ ¼ ¼ ¼ μ ð7Þ
My M y ∕Δy Δy K 0 H
scription 0 and p stand for without/with P-Δ effect cases, respec-
tively), and furthermore change the global lateral hysteretic where μ is the ductility factor
relationship, which can be expressed by Eq. (1) as follows:
  μ ¼ Δu ∕Δy ð8Þ
mΔ € þcΔ _ þ f ðΔ; ΔÞ_
P Δ ¼
m€ag ð1Þ
H It is obvious that θe and θΔ are in a simple relation that;
θΔ ¼ θe μ ð9Þ
where m = structural mass; c = damping coefficient; Δ and
Δ_ = relative displacement and velocity, respectively; f ðΔ; ΔÞ _ = Mahin and Boroschek (1991) used θΔ in their research, and so
restoring force inherent of the system; P = vertical load acting on do Eurocode 8 (CEN 2001) and AASHTO guide specifications
the structure; H = height of the concentrated mass; and €ag = ground (AASHTO 2009). Because stability index θΔ takes the maximum
acceleration. inelastic displacement Δu into account, it seems more reasonable
For elastoplastic (EPP) hysteretic model, when taking into to use θΔ rather than θe in the inelastic range; however, opposite
account P-Δ effects, the structural initial stiffness and postyield opinions also exist (BSSC 2003). In this study, both indices are
stiffness ratio change from K 0 and α0 ¼ 0 into reviewed by comprehensive time-history analyses.
When talking about stability index, one thing should be noted
F yp F y0
PΔy ∕H P
Kp ¼ ¼ ¼ K0
ð2Þ is the dynamic instability phenomenon attributable to P-Δ effects.
Δy Δy H Many researchers tended to separate the P-Δ amplification and
instability phenomena, however, emphases should and have been

P∕H P∕K 0 H θ placed on the determination of threshold to avoid dynamic insta-
αp ¼ ¼
¼
e ð3Þ
Kp 1
P∕K 0 H 1
θe bility attributable to P-Δ effects [Bernal 1992, 1998; Miranda and
Akkar 2003; Applied Technology Council (ATC) 2005, 2009),
in which θe is a so-called stability index or stability coefficient as where solutions are primarily based on numerical simulations.
defined by Eq. (4)
Summary of Existing Approaches to Solve the P-Δ
Problem
As discussed previously, dynamic P-Δ effects increase a structure’s
displacement response; therefore, the design lateral strength needs
to be enhanced correspondingly to achieve the target displacement.
Using the nomenclature shown in Fig. 2, displacement amplifica-
tion factor λΔ and strength increasing coefficient λF can be
defined, respectively, as follows:
Δup
λΔ ¼ ð10Þ
Δu0

F yp M yp ∕H M yp
λF ¼ ¼ ¼ ð11Þ
Fig. 1. Effects of P-Δ on a SDOF system F y0 M y0 ∕H M y0

510 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 509-518


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 04/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Consideration of P-Δ effects from the perspective of energy
conservation
where Δup and Δu0 = maximum displacement of the same structure
analyzed with/without P-Δ effects, respectively; F y0 = lateral
strength corresponding to Δu0 when not considering P-Δ effects;
and F yp = increased lateral strength for P-Δ effects.
The ambiguous usage of λΔ and λF does exist, especially in
design codes. Although both are “scaling factors,” λΔ and λF have
different implications. While λΔ depicts the physical influence of
P-Δ effects, λF is a derivative for design purpose.
The amplification factors (for both λΔ and λF ) of P-Δ effects in
static design codes are
λΔ ; λF ¼ 1∕ð1
θe Þ ð12Þ
Rosenblueth (1965) extended the applicability of Eq. (12) to the
dynamic inelastic range by changing the stability index from θe
to θΔ , yielding the following formula:
λΔ ; λF ¼ 1∕ð1
θΔ Þ ð13Þ
Although this simple extension is quite suspicious, however,
most seismic codes adopted Rosenblueth’s formula (BSSC 2003;
CEN 2001; AASHTO 2009).
Using four ground motions and 48 structure cases for nonlinear
time-history analyses, Bernal (1987) regressed the P-Δ effect
“strength amplification factor” of SDOF oscillators for different
periods and ductilities into one simple formula as the following
equation:
λF ¼ ð1 þ βθe Þ∕ð1
θe Þ; β ¼ 1:87ðμ
1Þ ð14Þ
Recall that maximum displacement of the oscillator strength-
ened according to Bernal’s formula will exceed the first-order
one for the inherent force-based seismic-design concept.
Paulay (1978) proposed a method to calculate P-Δ compensa-
tion by equaling areas covered by curves 1 and 3 as shown in
Fig. 2. Also, on the basis of the energy-balance concept,
Priestley et al. (2007) raised a P-Δ compensation method for
reinforced concrete structures to be used in DSD. Unlike curve 1,
which follows the initial stiffness of curve 3 under force-based
seismic-design concepts, curve 2 in Fig. 2 according to
Priestley’s suggestion was determined to maintain the same yield
displacement as curve 3. Formulas of strength increasing factor
proposed by Paulay and Priestley, respectively, are
ΔM 1 þ μ PΔy
λF;pa ¼ ¼ ð15Þ
M y0 2 M y0
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 511
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 509-518
ΔF 1 PΔu
λF;pr ¼ ¼ ð16Þ
F y0 2 HF y0
Using stability indices defined in Eqs. (6) and (7), λF;pa and λF;pr
can be rewritten as
1þμ
λF;pa ¼ θe ð17Þ
2
θΔ
λF;pr ¼ ð18Þ
2
The accuracy of the theoretical consideration on the basis of
energy conservation needs to be evaluated through nonlinear time-
history analyses under real earthquake ground motions.
Instead of providing formulas, MacRae (1994) summarized a
P-Δ effect calculation form that contained the ratio of structural
yield strength to the structure’s elastic response under various duc-
tilities and postyield stiffness ratios. P-Δ effect influences and de-
sign concerns could be determined or extrapolated from this form.
As can be seen that although efforts have been made on how to
consider P-Δ effects in seismic design and analysis of structures,
a simple and appropriate approach that complies with the more
reasonable constant yield-displacement premise is still in a great
need; hence, efforts are specially made in this paper to address this
problem.
Basic Structure Parameters and Ground Motions
Like the determination of some of the key design parameters in
DSD, such as the section yield curvature and equivalent viscous
damping of structures, the “accurate” influences of P-Δ effects
can also be obtained by large nonlinear time-history analyses.
The influences of P-Δ effects are represented by changing the re-
storing force relationship in the basic dynamic equation, as shown
in Eq. (1). The damping is 5% viscous damping on the basis of
initial stiffness. The simple EPP hysteretic model is adopted in
this paper for its wide application and conservatism. All numerical
simulations are performed on the OpenSees platform (Mazzoni
et al. 2006).
A total of 308 earthquake ground motions recorded from all
over the world was downloaded from the Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research Center (PEER) database (PEER 2000).
The ground motions selected in this paper were recorded on sites
with profiles corresponding to site classes B, C, and D according to
USGS classification. Single-degree-of-freedom systems were
chosen as the basic analysis structure as shown in Fig. 1. Both
structure and input parameters cover a wide range of properties,
as shown in Table 1, in an expectation to get analysis results
representative of actual situations. In addition, to make the study
reasonable, the structural drift ratio was limited to 0.05 when
determining the structure parameters. For example, from a given
structure parameter set that P ¼ 10;000 kN, M y ¼ 20;000 kN · m,
T ¼ 1 s , θΔ ¼ 0:10, and μ ¼ 4:0, on the basis of yield displace-
ment Δy ¼ 0:05 m, mass height H ¼ 9:94 m, and drift ratio ¼
0:02 < 0:05 can be derived. Thus, a structure with these parameters
is regarded appropriate in practices. In total, there are 69,230 cases
for each λΔ and λF when the structure responds elastically, and
52,630 cases when the structure responds inelastically.
In the analysis, the ground-motion intensity was first iterated to
make the mass of the SDOF system achieve the target ductility μ0
without P-Δ effects. Then, the analysis was reperformed including
P-Δ effects to get the new ductility μp. Thus, the displacement am-
plification factor λΔ was obtained as the ratio of μp to μ0 . Holding
 Table 1. Basic Analysis Parameters
Category Parameters Minimum Maximum Interval
Ground motions Earthquake magnitude 5.0 9.0 —
PGA (g) 0.1 1.0 —
Epicentral distance (km) 10 300 —
Significant duration (s)a 1.98 51.05 —
Structure Weight of mass, P (kN) 10,000 30,000 10,000
Yield moment, M y (kN · mÞ 5,000 20,000 5,000
Natural period, TðsÞ 0.25 3.0 0.25 for T ≤ 1:0, 0.5 for T > 1:0
Stability index, θΔ 0 1.0 0.025 for θΔ ≤ 0:15, 0.05 for θΔ > 0:15
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 04/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ductility factor, μ inelastic 1.5 6.0 1.0 for μ > 2:0

Elastic 0.05 1.0 Varied
Constraint Drift ratio — 0.05 —
a
Significant duration is calculated between 5 and 95% of Arias intensity.

the current ground-motion intensity and structural yield displace-

ment, iterate the structure’s yield strength until the ductility value
μ0 was again achieved with P-Δ effects. Then, the strength increas-
ing coefficient λF was obtained as the ratio of the increased struc-
tural yield strength M yp to the original M y0 (notation referring to
Fig. 2). Fig. 3 shows the flowchart of the algorithm.
Yield displacement is kept invariant in the whole analysis for
each case. For cases in which the strength of a reinforced concrete
section is changed by enlarging the section or increasing material
strength, formulas gained in this paper will no longer apply. How-
ever, the DSD methods generally do not apply to these cases
as well.

Statistical Analysis of Stability Indices

Statistical quantities of λΔ and λF , such as statistics mean mλ , stan-

dard deviation σλ , and coefficient of variation δλ , were computed
with the two stability indices θe and θΔ , respectively. When deter-
mining λΔ , structures with the P-Δ effect were considered to have
collapsed if the drift ratio exceeded 5%. Then, the collapsed cases
were excluded; however, bias of the obtained may occur (Jalayer
and Cornell 2009). A collapse ratio η, defined as the percentage of
collapsed structures in relation to the total structures with the same
θe or θΔ, was also analyzed. The applicability of different stability
indices under elastic and inelastic conditions was then evaluated
through these statistical data. For brevity, only the analysis results
of λΔ are utilized in this paper.
In practices, θe or θΔ has certain thresholds because of the
collapse-prevention requirements as will be discussed later on.
Larger values of stability indices presented in this paper are for the
purposes of data completeness and comparison.
When the structure responds elastically, the analyzed mean
displacement amplification factor mλΔ, mean plus one standard
deviation mλΔ þ σλΔ , and coefficient of variation δ λΔ are shown
in Fig. 4. It is shown that if stability index θe is utilized, the code
expression λ ¼ 1∕ð1
θe ) coincides well with mλΔ when θe ≤ 0:4,
whereas in the range θe > 0:4, it goes nearer to mλΔ þ σλΔ . Fig. 3. Flowchart of determining λΔ and λF
Coefficient of variation δ λΔ is less than 0.5 when θe ≤ 0:5 and in-
creases rapidly as θe increases beyond this range. If stability index
θΔ is utilized in the statistical analysis, large values of coefficient of
variation δλΔ exist with small θΔ levels. Conclusions can be drawn elastic range. Data are more scattered, with δλΔ around 0.50 when
from Fig. 4 that θe describes the dynamic P-Δ effects better than θΔ θΔ > 0:1. Meanwhile, instead of monotonic increasing, curves of
does in the elastic range. mλΔ and mλΔ þ σλΔ exhibit descending trends when θΔ is large.
Results when the structure responds into inelastic range are This is because to keep the structure from collapsing in the inelastic
shown in Fig. 5. It is shown that when in the inelastic range, varia- range, the secant stiffness at the maximum displacement should be
tion trends of statistical quantities differ largely from those in the positive, i.e.,

512 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 509-518

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 04/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Statistical curves of λΔ and code-specified formula in the elastic range
λΔ θΔ ¼ λΔ μθe < 1 ð19Þ
Hence, unlike the elastic situations, λΔ is bounded by 1∕ðμθe ) or
1∕θΔ in the inelastic range. The upper limit of λΔ < 1∕ðμθe ) when
using θe is variant under different structure ductilities, which maybe
is one reason why the statistical curves do not have clear trends
when adopting θe to represent the inelastic P-Δ effects.
As shown in Fig. 5, for SDOF structures with the same θe but
different ductilities, δ λΔ is very large for most of the θe values, and
the statistical curves are all somewhat jagged, i.e., no distinct rela-
tionships with stability index θe could be believed to exist. In con-
trast, for structures with the same θΔ yet different ductilities, the
statistical curves are smoother and varying trends are steadier.
A positive correlation of the amplification factor λΔ with stability
index θΔ can be expected in the practical range. Hence, conclusion
can be drawn from Fig. 5 that θΔ is better than θe to describe the
P-Δ effects in the inelastic range.
As discussed previously, researchers did not reach a consensus
about the usage of different stability indices. Reflected by Figs. 4
and 5, to select the stability index on the basis of the structure’s
real response state is more appropriate. When in the elastic range,
elastic stiffness or yield displacement Δy can represent the struc-
ture’s physical property, whereas using maximum displacement
inversely weakens the ability of the stability index to reflect the
structure’s stiffness. When in the inelastic range, secant stiffness
describes the structure’s physical property better than elastic stiff-
ness; hence, it would be more reasonable to use θΔ , which adopts
the maximum inelastic displacement Δu . Fig. 5 shows clearly the
importance of including ductility factor μ in the inelastic P-Δ effect
problem. Except for direct multiplying θe and μ to get the indicator
θΔ , other kinds of indicators that combine θe and μ properly may
also be good choices, while merely adopting θe for the P-Δ effect
depiction such as in FEMA 450 (BSSC 2003) is not acceptable.
Fig. 5. Statistical curves of λΔ and Rosenblueth’s formula in the inelastic range
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 513
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 509-518
Regression Analyses
On the basis of the previous discussion, formulas for predicting
mλΔ and mλF in the inelastic range were regressed with the pre-
ferred stability index θΔ . The ductility factor was also taken as a
separate variable because of its importance.
Displacement Amplification Factor λΔ
Shown in Fig. 6 are the statistical curves of λΔ for each ductility
factor, including statistics mean mλΔ , and collapse ratio η. It is
shown that the value of mλΔ at the same θΔ becomes larger as the
ductility factor μ increases, but differs little when μ exceeds 3. The
statistical curves of collapse ratio η resemble triple lines, which are
around zero when θΔ < 0:1, followed by a linear increase to reach
a plateau at approximately θΔ ¼ 0:5. The plateau collapse ratio in-
creases when the ductility factor gets larger, and is close to 100%
when μ is larger than 3. To regress the descending part of the mλΔ
makes no sense, in that the collapse-prevention requirement gov-
erns in this case. As shown later, the practical design limit of θΔ is
reached first before mλΔ gets its peak value (at approximately
θΔ ¼ 0:2). Therefore, only the ascending part of the mλΔ curve
(i.e., when θΔ ≤ 0:2) is considered in the regression. Taking the
statistics mean mλΔ as target, the displacement amplification factor
for inelastic P-Δ effects can be regressed as
1
λΔ ¼ ð20Þ
1
½3
2e
0:5ðμ
1Þ θΔ
When structural ductility μ equals to 1.0, Eq. (20) degrades to
λΔ ¼ 1∕ð1
θe ). It is shown from Fig. 6 that the regression accu-
racy is acceptable for all ductility factors before mλΔ gets its peak
value. Also shown in Fig. 6 is the Rosenblueth’s formula plotted
by dotted line. Recall that most of the current seismic codes adopt
Rosenblueth’s formula for the P-Δ effects calculation. It is clear
that Rosenblueth’s formula diverges largely from the statistics
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 04/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 6. Statistical curves of λΔ in the inelastic range and different prediction curves
mean of λΔ , especially in the engineering allowable stability index
range, where a serious underestimation of real P-Δ effects occurs.
Because Rosenblueth’s formula does not change with ductility fac-
tors, the underestimation gets larger as the ductility factor increases.
This implies that simply extending elastic design approaches to the
inelastic range is not authentic.
Strength Increasing Coefficient λF
Statistical results of strength increasing coefficient λF are shown in
Fig. 7. It is obvious that statistics mean curves of λΔ and λF differ
largely with one another, so the current code approach that does not
distinguish the P-Δ effect formulas for λΔ and λF is misleading.
As shown in Fig. 7, in the engineering allowable range, mλF is
basically a linear function of θΔ , with the line slope becoming
larger as ductility μ increases, but remaining constant after μ is
larger than 3. A regression analysis of statistics mean of λF is per-
formed when the structure exhibited a ductility factor within the
range 1.5 to 6, which yields
λF ¼ 1:05 þ ½2
e
0:85ðμ
1Þ θΔ ð21Þ
When θΔ equals to zero, the theoretical value of λF should be 1.0;
however, in Eq. (21) a slightly larger value 1.05 was gained for the
reason that regression weights of data in a small nonlinear zone
when θΔ is near zero were reduced to get a concise and con-
servative expression. Formulas of strength increasing coefficient
proposed in this study and by former researchers are drawn in
514 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 509-518
Fig. 7 as well. As demonstrated in this figure, formulas proposed
by Rosenblueth (1965) and Priestley et al. (2007) are independent
of ductility factor μ, whereas curves for Bernal’s (1987) and
Paulay’s (1978) formulas become lower with the increase of μ.
All these trends are not coincided with the real mean curves except
the expression of Eq. (21). It was found that Rosenblueth’s formula
lacks conservatism under all ductility values, illustrating again that
it is inappropriate to simply extend the elastic strength increasing
coefficient expression to the inelastic range.
Intended to provide a simple compensation method for P-Δ
effects to be directly used in DSD, however, Priestley’s suggestion
gives a serious underestimation of the mean statistical value.
Paulay’s formula produces the smallest prediction among all the
expressions. It can be inferred that it is inadequate to handle the
problem of P-Δ effects under seismic action in the inelastic range
only from the perspective of energy. Bernal’s formula was re-
gressed with the analysis data from four ground motions and with
underlying force-based seismic-design concept. As discussed pre-
viously, in the force-based seismic-design concept, the maximum
displacement after the P-Δ compensation will be larger than the
target value, implying that the compensation is not enough. This is
confirmed by Fig. 7. Comparatively, the formula proposed in this
study coincides well with statistical results. Because of the random-
ness of the seismic action, to take the mean strength increase λF
does not guarantee the resulted mean ductility equals to the design
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 04/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. Comparison between statistics mean of λF and different prediction formulas
one. However, as shown later in the example, even with much
parameter uncertainties, results are generally satisfactory.
Recommendations on Design Thresholds for the
P-Δ Effects
In real earthquake engineering practices, two issues are typically of
special concern: threshold of safely ignoring P-Δ effects and upper
design limit for P-Δ effects. The former limit can be determined by
restraining the amplification requirements, whereas the latter one is
governed by collapse-prevention criteria.
On the basis of analyses of multistory reinforced concrete
frames, Paulay (1978) recommended conditions when P-Δ effects
were small enough to be ignored. For SDOF systems, Pauley’s
approach indicated that P-Δ effects could be neglected if θΔ <
0:15. Bernal (1987) and Mahin and Boroschek (1991) proposed
that if the required strength amplification to achieve a specific duc-
tility was less than 10%, then P-Δ effects could be ignored. Using
this criterion, Mahin and Boroschek suggested the threshold of
θΔ < 0:20, while Bernal gave
θe < 0:1∕ðβ þ 1:1Þ; β ¼ 1:87ðμ
1Þ ð22Þ
The design tolerance for P-Δ effects given by FEMA 450
(BSSC 2003) is θe ≤ 0:10, but if the resistance to lateral forces
is determined to increase continuously in a monotonic nonlinear
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 515
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 509-518
static (pushover) analysis to the target displacement, θe is permitted
to exceed 0.10. Using the Takeda hysteretic model for reinforced
concrete structures, Priestley et al. (1996) contended that to obtain
stable structural response without producing significant P-Δ dis-
placement, the stability index θΔ should be less than 0.30.
As is shown in Fig. 7, when θΔ is relatively small, statistics
mean mλF is larger than all the predictions made by the formerly
proposed equations. Hence, if the previously discussed criterion for
neglecting P-Δ effects is employed, i.e., the required strength am-
plification to achieve a particular ductility should be less than 10%,
a more stringent limit will be obtained. Synthesizing the statistical
data of various ductility factors in Fig. 7, the threshold for neglect-
ing P-Δ effects in the seismic design is determined as
θΔ ≤ 0:025 ð23Þ
which is only 1∕6, 1∕8, and 1∕2:5 (on average) of the threshold
proposed by Paulay (1978), Mahin and Boroschek (1991), and
Bernal (1987), respectively. This implies that P-Δ effects exert
more influences on the SDOF structure than expected before;
hence, prudent judgment should be made in determining whether
the P-Δ effects can be neglected.
When the structure is designed with a ductility factor of 6, the
design limit by FEMA 450 (BSSC 2003) corresponds to θΔ ≤ 0:60.
As shown in Fig. 6 that if the ductility is 6, the structure collapse
ratio η is nearly 100% when θΔ gets close to 0.6; hence, regulations
 recommended by FEMA 450 are not suitable for use if the design
ductility is fairly large. Priestley et al. (1996) used the Takeda hys-
teretic model in their study, which is not as sensitive to the P-Δ
effects as the EPP hysteretic model used in this study, so the design
limit given by Priestley et al. would be less strict than that in this
paper. A performance target that is limiting the probability of col-
lapse at maximum considered earthquake (MCE)level to be a value
of 10% or less as promoted by FEMA P695 (ATC 2009) is thought
to be acceptable to set the P-Δ effect design tolerance. The MCE
level defined in FEMA P695 corresponds to 1.5 times the design
earthquake level. Usually, the design ductility of the whole system
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 04/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
will be above 2; thus, the structural ductility under the MCE will be
above 3. As shown in Fig. 6, the collapse ratio η is nearly invariant
when ductility is larger than 3. Therefore, on the basis of statistical
results shown in Fig. 6, it is recommended that the collapse-
prevention requirements will be satisfied if
θΔ ≤ 0:15 ð24Þ
When in the elastic situation, the FEMA 450 criterion that θe ≤
0:10 is still recommended.
Design Example
Applications of the regression formulas and design recommenda-
tions are illustrated by the design of a simple bridge pier. The direct
displacement-based seismic-design method (DDSD) (Priestley et al.
2007) is chosen in the illustration, while it is expected that the pro-
cedure will equally apply to other DSD methods. The bridge is
located in a region of high seismicity [peak ground acceleration
(PGA) = 0.7 g], and the design displacement spectrum is taken
from Eurocode 8 (CEN 2001) for firm ground condition. Key de-
sign parameters are summarized in Fig. 8. Five cases are studied to
cover a wide range of interested structures (structure period from
0.17 to 2.93 s). The design limit state is represented by the more
critical requirement of a displacement ductility of μ ¼ 4 or a drift
of 0.035. Basic procedures of standard DDSD are taken first (see
Appendix S1), following with the P-Δ effect design. For compari-
son, three P-Δ design procedures are considered: the noniterative
one on the basis of Eqs. (20), (21), (23), and (24), the one proposed
by Rosenblueth and used in current codes, and the one proposed by
Priestley et al. to be used in DDSD. Design results are listed in
Table 2.
In case (a), the stability index is calculated as θΔ0 ¼ PΔd ∕
M Base ¼ 0:012 < 0:025, within the limit for neglecting P-Δ
effects. In this paper, the design ends, with the P-Δ effects directly
neglected.
Fig. 8. Bridge pier parameters and design displacement spectrum
516 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 509-518
In cases (b)~(e), the stability indices of the original design are all
larger than 0.025, and moreover, are larger than the recommended
upper bound of θΔ ¼ 0:15 in the last two cases. Strength increasing
coefficients of P-Δ effects are calculated according to the three
procedures separately. It is obvious that the strength increasing
coefficient obtained using the formula proposed in this paper is
much larger than that gained by the other two procedures. After
the P-Δ compensation with formulas in this paper, new stability
indices are all smaller than or very close to the recommended upper
bound of θΔ ¼ 0:15. However, this criterion is not satisfied for the
other two P-Δ design procedures.
To verify the design results, inelastic time-history analyses are
performed using 20 artificial acceleration time histories, which are
compatible with the design displacement spectrum shown in Fig. 8.
Given the column design strength, reinforcement is configured for
the section, and the real section yield curvature can be obtained
from the moment-curvature analysis of the section. The EPP hys-
teretic rule is selected for consistency. The design and validation
procedure will be similar if other hysteretic rule-based formulas
are used. The average of the 20 analysis results is regarded as the
“actual” structure response. Refer to Appendix S1 for detailed
information of the design verification.
From Table 2, one can see that, except for very short period
range as in case (a), the original DDSD provides good results when
not considering the P-Δ effects. But, when considering the P-Δ
effects, it fails to comply well with the design displacement. The
displacement amplification factors as shown are seriously underes-
timated in current seismic codes (as proposed by Rosenblueth), but
relatively close to the predictions obtained using the formulas of
this paper. Among the procedures studied, the procedure proposed
in this paper produces the best compliance with the target displace-
ment when considering the P-Δ effects.
The collapse ratio of each compensation case under the MCE
level as defined in FEMA P695 is also presented in Table 2.
As shown, apart from the P-Δ design on the basis of the proce-
dure in this paper, the FEMA P695 collapse-prevention criterion
that limits the probability of collapse to 10% cannot be satisfied.
This would be the more serious consequence of underestimating
the P-Δ compensation value in previous procedures.
Conclusions
In an effort to obtain a more convenient procedure to consider P-Δ
effects in the DSD methods, comprehensive nonlinear time-history
analyses of SDOF systems with and without P-Δ effects were per-
formed in this paper, and new design formulas were regressed.
Thresholds of stability indices to neglect P-Δ effects and maximum
 Table 2. Displacement-Based Seismic Design of a Simple Bridge Pier
Step Design Parameters Symbol Unit Case (a) Case (b) Case (c) Case (d) Case (e)
1 Standard DDSD Pier height H m 2.5 5 7 12 16
Natural period T s 0.17 0.49 0.96 2.06 2.93
Yield displacement Δy m 0.007 0.029 0.057 0.169 0.300
Design displacement Δd m 0.029 0.117 0.230 0.420 0.560
Design base shear force V Base kN 4,902 2,470 1,260 803 705
Design base moment M Base kN · m 12,255 12,350 8,820 9,641 11,273
2 P-Δ check Stability index θΔ0 — 0.012 0.05 0.13 0.22 0.25
Need P-Δ designs — — No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 04/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3 P-Δ design 1 Displacement amplification factor λΔ — 1.03 1.14 1.50 1.81 1.73
(procedure in this paper) Strength increasing coefficient λF — — 1.14 1.30 1.42 1.43
New stability index θΔp — — 0.04 0.10 0.15 0.17
P-Δ design 2 Displacement or strength λΔ ðλF Þ — — 1.05 1.15 1.28 1.33
(procedure by Rosenblueth) amplification factor
New stability index θΔp — — 0.05 0.11 0.17 0.19
P-Δ design 3 Strength increasing coefficient λF — — 1.02 1.07 1.11 1.12
(procedure by Priestley et al.) New stability index θΔp — — 0.05 0.12 0.20 0.22
4 Lateral displacement verification Initial design without P-Δ Δ0 m 0.020 0.135 0.250 0.414 0.610
Initial design with P-Δ Δp0 m 0.021 0.176 0.364 0.833 0.890
P-Δ design 1 Δ0p1 m — 0.135 0.271 0.439 0.582
P-Δ design 2 Δ0p2 m — 0.145 0.315 0.510 0.650
P-Δ design 3 Δ0p3 m — 0.152 0.320 0.628 0.757
Ratio of Δ0 to Δd Δ0 ∕Δd — 0.68 1.15 1.09 0.99 1.09
Displacement amplification factor Δp0 ∕Δ0 — 1.05 1.30 1.46 2.01 1.46
Ratio of Δ0p1 to Δd Δ0p1 ∕Δd — — 1.15 1.18 1.05 1.04
Ratio of Δ0p2 to Δd Δ0p2 ∕Δd — — 1.24 1.37 1.21 1.16
Ratio of Δ0p3 to Δd Δ0p3 ∕Δd — — 1.30 1.39 1.50 1.35
Collapse ratio Initial design ηp0 % 0 0 55 95 80
P-Δ design 1 ηp1 % — 0 0 10 10
P-Δ design 2 ηp2 % — 0 25 25 20
P-Δ design 3 ηp3 % — 0 45 70 65

allowable design limits were also determined. The results were
validated by a seismic-design example. The major advantage of the
proposed procedure is that it applies to various DSD methods, and
no modification of their basic formulations is needed to include the
P-Δ effects.
Conclusions of this paper can be drawn as follows:
• The influences of P-Δ effects in the inelastic range differ much
from the elastic case, revealing that simply extending elastic
approaches to the inelastic range is inappropriate. The stability
index should be selected according to the structure’s re-
sponse state.
• The statistics mean curves of λΔ and λF differ a lot from one
another, which implies that it could be a concept confusion of
current approaches to use the same formula to deal with both the
response amplification and design compensation problems.
When θΔ ≤ 0:05, λF is larger than λΔ , and beyond this range
the opposite trend exists.
• The effects of P-Δ predicted by current approaches are all less
than the statistics mean values within practical allowances,
which indicate the P-Δ effects could be underestimated accord-
ing to current seismic codes.
• On the basis of nonlinear time-history analyses using EPP
hysteretic model, it is recommended that P-Δ effects in the
nonlinear seismic design can be neglected when θΔ is less
than 0.025, and an upper limit of 0.15 for stability index θΔ
is suggested for collapse-prevention requirements.
The researches done in this paper apply only for SDOF systems
with EPP hysteretic rule. For other hysteretic rules, design formulas
and thresholds of the P-Δ effects can be derived in a similar
manner, while the results provided in this research are expected
to be the upper bound for them. For multiple-degrees-of-freedom
(MDOF) systems, the P-Δ problems may be solved in a story-
by-story manner (CEN 2001) or by the equivalent SDOF structure
approach (Adam et al. 2004). Research efforts are encouraged to be
made on these topics in the future.
Acknowledgment
The financial support of the National Natural Science Foundation
of China (90815007) is gratefully acknowledged.
Supplemental Data
Appendix S1, “Details of the design verification,” is available
online in the ASCE Library (www.ascelibrary.org).
References
Adam, C., Ibarra, L. F., and Krawinkler, H. (2004). “Evaluation of p-delta
effects in non-deteriorating MDOF structures from equivalent SDOF
systems.” Proc., 13th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering

JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012 / 517

J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 509-518

 (CD-ROM), Canadian Association for Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 3407.
AASHTO. (2009). Guide specifications for LRFD seismic bridge design,
1st Ed., Washington, DC.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (2005). Improvement of nonlinear
static seismic analysis procedures (FEMA 440),Washington, DC.
Applied Technology Council (ATC). (2009). Quantification of building
seismic performance factors (FEMA P695), Redwood City, CA.
Aschheim, M. (2002). “Seismic design based on the yield displacement.”
Earthquake Spectra, 18(4), 581–600.
Aschheim, M., and Montes, E. H. (2003). “The representation of P-Δ
effects using yield point spectra.” Eng. Struct., 25(11), 1387–1396.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 04/13/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Asimakopoulos, A. V., Karabalis, D. L., and Beskos, D. E. (2007).
“Inclusion of P-Δ effect in displacement-based seismic design of
steel moment resisting frames.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 36(14),
2171–2188.
Bernal, D. (1987). “Amplification factors for inelastic dynamic P-Δ effects
in earthquake analysis.” Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 15(5), 635–651.
Bernal, D. (1992). “Instability of buildings subjected to earthquakes.”
J. Struct. Eng., 118(8), 2239–2260.
Bernal, D. (1998). “Instability of buildings during seismic response.”
Eng. Struct., 20(4–6), 496–502.
Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). (2003). NEHRP recommended
provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other struc-
tures, (FEMA 450), Washington, DC.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (1992). “Design of steel
structures, part 1.1: General rules and rules for buildings.” Eurocode
3, Brussels.
European Committee for Standardization (CEN). (2001). “Design of
518 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY/JUNE 2012
J. Bridge Eng., 2012, 17(3): 509-518
structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: General rules, seismic ac-
tions and rules for buildings.” Eurocode 8, Draft no. 4, Brussels.
Jalayer, F., and Cornell, C. A. (2009). “Alternative non-linear demand
estimation methods for probability-based seismic assessments.” Earth-
quake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 38(8), 951–972.
MacRae, G. A. (1994). “P-Δ effect on single-degree-of-freedom structures
in earthquakes.” Earthquake Spectra, 10(3), 539–568.
Mahin, S., and Boroschek, R. (1991). Influence of geometric nonlinearities
on the seismic response and design of bridge structures, background
report to California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Mazzoni, S., et al. (2006). Opensees command language manual,
Univ. of California, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, Berkeley,
CA.
Miranda, E., and Akkar, S. D. (2003). “Dynamic instability of simple struc-
tural systems.” J. Struct. Eng., 129(12), 1722–1726.
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. (2000). PEER strong
motion database, 〈http://peer.berkeley.edu/smcat〉.
Paulay, T. (1978). “A consideration of P-delta effects in ductile reinforced
concrete frames.” Bull. N.Z. Nat. Soc. Earthquake Eng., 11(3),
151–160.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced
concrete and masonry buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G. M. (1996). Seismic design and
retrofit of bridges, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., and Kowalsky, M. J. (2007).
Displacement-based seismic design of structures, IUSS Press, Pavia,
Italy.
Rosenblueth, E. (1965). “Slenderness effects in buildings.” J. Struct. Div.,
91(1), 229–252.