First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology

(a joint event of the 13th ECEE & 30th General Assembly of the ESC)
Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September 2006
Paper Number: 1183

PSEUDO-ENERGY RESPONSE SPECTRA FOR THE EVALUATION OF THE

SEISMIC RESPONSE FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Marco MEZZI1, Fabrizio COMODINI1, Matteo LUCARELLI1, Alberto PARDUCCI 1 and Enrico
TOMASSOLI1

SUMMARY

The application of non linear static analysis method through the energy approach is based on the
idea that the energy of the seismic input transferred to the structure is dissipated by the controlled
damage of its members. The pushover curve is computed considering that, in each step, the work
of the floor forces is equal to the structure internal work and is expressed in terms of energy
capacity. It can be compared with energy response spectra representative of the seismic input to
find the performance point defining the structural response to the design earthquake. The use of
pseudo-energy spectra is proposed, alternative to the conventional reduced design spectra.
Solutions are carried out for a case of study. The results are compared with those coming from non
linear static analyses based on reduced spectra with controlled damping or ductility and from non
linear dynamic analyses. The potential evolutions of the methodology are outlined.

1. INTRODUCTION

The pushover analysis is a simplified method for the seismic design of structures taking into account their post-
elastic behavior: a nonlinear model of the building is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral forces up to
the attainment of a target displacement at a predefined point of the structure. The global and local status should
correspond to the maximum response obtained from a dynamic analysis under the design earthquake. The use of
nonlinear static analysis procedures is continuously increasing in seismic design of structures and it is provided
by the most advanced codes. It was introduced about ten years ago in ATC-40 [ATC, 1996] and in FEMA-273
[FEMA, 1997] and it is now included in the last revision of [Eurocode 8, 2003] (EC8) and in the new Italian
guidelines [Ordinanza 3431, 2005] (O3431).

Different methodologies have been developed and are reported in the various codes, generally based on the
comparison of a capacity curve of the structure with a demand curve of the earthquake, both plotted in ADRS
format. One of the most widespread method is the Capacity Spectrum Method, that can be applied following
different procedures. The base shear, Vbase, vs. top displacement, dtop, pushover curve of the whole structure is
computed as response to increasing lateral floor loads. The capacity diagram of an equivalent SDOF system in
ADRS format is computed by dividing the base shear by the effective modal mass M1 of the fundamental
vibration mode and the top displacement by the factor Γ1⋅φN1, being Γ1 the modal participation factor and φN1 the
roof modal deformation for the fundamental mode. The curve can then be converted in an EPP relationship
throughout an energetic equivalence, so a conventional yielding value dy of the control displacement dtop is
defined. The performance point is then evaluated as intersection between the capacity diagram and a demand
curve of the considered earthquake, consisting of a response spectrum reduced according to en equivalent
damping or ductility value. The computed value is then converted into the structure target displacement at roof
level. ATC-40 details three procedures to estimate the intersection of the capacity and demand diagram. While,

1
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Civile ed Ambientale, Università di Perugia - Via G.Duranti 93 - 06125 Perugia (Italia)
Email : m.mezzi@unipg.it

1
according to EC8 and O3431, a modified value of the displacement computed as the intersection of the capacity
diagram with the elastic response spectrum of earthquake can be assumed.

Reliability of pushover analysis depends on several parameters concerning the loading process: the choice of the
control point, the distribution of loading forces, the conversion to SDOF response in ADRS format, the
assumption of reduced spectra. A critical review of this aspects is reported in (Chopra, 1999) and (FEMA 440,
2006).

Other problematical questions are involved by the application of the pushover analysis: influence of higher
modes in the response, influence of plasticization in the evolution of the load distribution, influence of torsion in
3D response. All these aspects have already been investigated and special methodology variants have been
developed and suggested. They are not referred here because are out of the present interest. In any case it has to
be reminded that the pushover analysis must not give an answer to all the questions because it is, and must be
considered, only a "design" methodology and not a methods for evaluate the "true" dynamic response of a
structure. Within this objective, this paper mainly focuses the assessment of the equivalent SDOF system and the
performance point based on the use of energy concepts with the aim of simplifying the choosing procedures.

2. ENERGY-BASED NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

Since the beginning of the modern earthquake engineering, the energy concept has guided the interpretation of
the seismic resistant mechanisms of the structures [Housner, 1956]. In the following development many
researchers investigated this subject and a spread review of these studies is reported in [Anderson and Bertero,
2006]. Nowadays, the energy concept returns to earn a great attention because of the use of the Performance
Based Seismic Design (PBSD) in the assessment of earthquake resistant structures.

One of the tools of the PBSD is the non linear static analysis based on the use of the pushover capacity curve of a
simplified equivalent SDOF, giving a synthetic representation of the global seismic performance of the MDOF
structural system. The capacity curve can be used in the PBSD for comparison with coherent acceleration
demand spectra, reduced according to the actual dissipation capacity of the system. The comparison can be
easily made if both the capacity and the demand are drawn in an ADRS representation. Since the PBSD
fundamentally depends on energy concepts, methods for the evaluation of both the capacity and demand curve
using only energy concepts are suitable.

An application of non linear static analysis method through energy approach is based on the idea that the energy
of seismic input transferred to the structure is dissipated by the controlled damage of its members. The energy-
based pushover analysis is founded on the definition of the equivalent SDOF system by means of an energy
equivalence. The pushover curve, as shown in Figure 1, is defined considering that, in each load step, the work
of the floor forces, ΣEi(k), is equal to the structure internal work, E(k). The equivalent displacement δ does not
correspond to any actual point on the MDOF model, it is a virtual value equalizing the work done under the total
shear force F=Σ(Fi). Expressing the shear in terms of acceleration f=F/m, the capacity curve can be drawn in the
ADRS representation, and the method proceeds by comparing it with the energy demand spectra as usual
[Parducci et al., 2006].

Capacity curve of
the equivalent SDOF E Energy-based
Work done by the system based on energy capacity curve
floor force Fi in the F
equivalence Em
Fi MDOF model
F( k+1)
Fi ( k+1) F(k)
Fi ( k)
Em

Σ Ei(k) = E(k)
E(k)

di(k) di(k+1) δ(k) δ(k+1)

di δm δ δ(k+1) δm δ
Figure 1: Energy-based definition of the capacity curve

2
As a consequence of the construction procedure of the pushover curve above illustrated, it can be easily
expressed in terms of energy capacity vs. displacement (Figure 1) and could be compared with energy response
spectra representative of the seismic input to find the performance point defining the structural response to the
design earthquake, so outlining a seismic design procedure completely based on energy criteria. This approach is
useful for a variety of aspects: the arbitrary choice of displacement control point is eliminated; the equal-energy
capacity curve has physical meaning since its integral is the actual elastic-plastic energy dissipated by the
structure; the ductility coefficient computed through the capacity curve is the global ductility of the actual
system; the evaluation of the performance point does not require iterative procedure for equalizing the ductility
or damping of the reduced spectra conventionally derived from the elastic one.

Figure 2 shows a sample application of the methodology [Parducci et al., 2005]. In this case the spectrum of the
input energy, EI, was derived from the pseudo-velocity spectrum, Sv, and then from the pseudo-acceleration
spectrum, Sa, defined by the code

2
1 1 T
EI = m Sv2 = m S a2 (1)
2 2 2π

Finally, the input energy was expressed as a function of displacement on an Energy Displacement Response
Spectra (EDRS) plane. The solution can be found, starting from the elastic capacity curve in terms of "equal
energy" or "equal displacement", because the above defined spectrum is elastic and has not information on the
ductility demand.

E elastic capacity nonlinear capacity

demand PP EE δ ED="Equal-Displacement" displ.
δ EE ="Equal-Energy" displ.
PP ED PED="Equal-Displacement" PP
PEE="Equal-Energy" PP

δ ED δ EE δ
Figure 2: Performance point identification on the EDRS plane

The energy-based capacity curve can be computed directly [Parducci et al., 2006], but the assumption of seismic
response spectra in terms of energy needs some considerations. The evaluation of energy spectra in terms of
pseudo-velocity can lead to results that are not in good agreement with the actual input energy computed from
direct evaluations using the ground motions. The argument requires more investigations because the PBSD of
high dissipating systems founds its validity on energy-based correlations, keeping away from any analytical step
based on elastic concepts used in traditional design methods, and evaluations derived from the direct comparison
of the energy capacity and demand could have more significance than those based on the use of elastic pseudo-
acceleration spectra empirically reduced for taking into account the energy dissipation. Moreover, the capacity
curves of the ductile structures, extended in the field of the plastic deformations, can be easily modelled with a
bi-linear representation on which a significant value of ductility can be read.

3. ENERGY SPECTRA

The energy demand of an earthquake is an easy intuitive concept, but it is a practical hard one. The input energy,
EI, can be expressed as a sum of contributions defined by the energy balance equation [Uang and Bertero, 1988]:

E I = E s + Ek + Eh + E (2)

Es is the recoverable elastic strain energy, Ek is the kinetic energy, Eh is the irrecoverable plastic hysteretic
energy, and Eξ is the irrecoverable damping energy.

3
A first problem is that of defining the type of input energy, absolute or relative, to be considered for the design
evaluations. [Uang and Bertero, 1988] suggest to assume the absolute input energy, other authors [Faifar et al.,
1992] use the relative energy formulation. In this paper the relative energy is used, considering that significant
differences between the absolute and relative demand can be found only for extreme values of the system natural
period, out of the interval 0.3 - 5.0 s, that lie outside the objectives of the applications.

A second problematic aspect concerns the correlation between the energy absorbed by the structure and its
response in terms of maximum displacements and forces, which are the parameters interesting the design. The
energy-based pushover curve should allow the correspondence.

The influence of the external factors - magnitude, focal mechanism, distance from the source, local soil
characteristics - on the input energy, can be significant and is discussed in [Decanini and Mollaioli, 1998]. In the
following, the energy considerations have been derived making reference to a seismic input consisting of
synthetic spectrum-fitting accelerograms. Nine accelerograms were generated using the code SIMQKE
[Gasparini and Vanmarcke, 1976]. The spectrum type S1 provided by EC8 for subsoil class A (stiff soil) was
assumed as target elastic response spectra in the generation with spectrum-fitting rules according to those
provided by EC8. Accelerograms are characterised by a peak acceleration of 0.35 g, by a duration of 25 s with a
growing range of 2.5 s and an intense phase of 15 s.

The average response spectra of the nine generated accelerograms have been calculated for the single energy
components EI, EE, EK, EH, ED. Constant ductility spectra of relative input energy have been computed, for six
values of displacement Ductility Ratio (DR), going from 1 to 6 in step of 1, assuming an elastic-perfectly plastic
non linear behaviour. The input energy spectra are reported in Figure 3a and show that the total energy
transmitted by the earthquake to the structure strongly depends on the ductility ratio, that is on the design factor
R, in the range of periods greater than TB. The most variable factors are the hysteretic and damping contributes.
Also the kinetic and elastic contributes show strong variation. As a consequence the "equal displacement"
criterion, among nonlinear solutions differing in plastic threshold, appears more adequate than that of the "equal
energy" in the range of periods greater than TB. This is confirmed by the observation of the constant ductility
response spectra in terms of displacement reported in Figure 3b.

1.40 1.40

(a) (b)
1.20 1.20
Relative Input Energy (m /s )
Relative Input Energy (m2/s2)

2 2

DR = 1 DR = 2 DR = 1 DR = 2
1.00 DR = 3 DR = 4 1.00 DR = 3 DR = 4
DR = 5 DR = 6
DR = 5 DR = 6
0.80 0.80

0.60 0.60

0.40 0.40

0.20 0.20

0.00 0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

Period (s) Displacement (m)

Figure 3: Constant ductility spectra of relative input energy vs. periods (a) and vs. displacements (b)

4. PSEUDO-ENERGY SPECTRA

The greatest problem in using energy demand spectra in a static non linear analysis consists of the fact that the
most representative value of the energy transferred by the earthquake to the structure is the input energy, but this
value is not related to the maximum responses of the structure and, deriving from a cyclic behaviour, cannot be
correlated to a monotonically growing pushover curve. At the same time the kinetic energy cannot be correlated
with the ductility value and, using these spectra, a response can be computed only under the hypothesis of "equal
displacement" or "equal energy" for different ductility ratios, as shown previously.

In this research a proposal has been advanced of using a new parameter for representing the energy demand of an
earthquake, that derives from both the maximum force and displacement of the response and that can be
compared with the energy associated to a monotonic pushover curve. This parameter has been defined "pseudo-

4
energy" and has computed, from the cyclic response of the EP oscillator, as the area of the curve consisting of
the positive or negative envelope, whichever includes the maximum displacement, of the cyclic behaviour, and
then formed by the first elastic branch and by the plastic branch until the maximum inelastic displacement, as
illustrated by the hatched area in Figure 4.

Y U

Figure 4: Pseudo-energy definition for an EP response

Spectra of the above defined pseudo-energy have been calculated for the nine accelerograms: the average spectra
for the six considered ductility ratio are reported in Figure 5. The pseudo-energy is a consistent parameter for the
comparison with the energy values of the capacity curve derived by a pushover analysis. It is an energy
parameter allowing for accounting at the same time for the displacement, ductility, and resistance parameters of
the response. The use of the pseudo-energy spectra, together with the energy capacity spectrum of the structure,
for the evaluation of the performance point is illustrated in the following chapter.
0.18

0.16

DR = 1 DR = 2
0.14
DR = 3 DR = 4
DR = 5 DR = 6
Pseudo-Energy (m2/s2)

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180

Displacement (m)

Figure 5: Constant ductility pseudo-energy spectra vs. displacement

5. SOLVING PROCEDURES

The first step of the solution procedure consists of the evaluation of the performance point, represented by a
reliable, consistent, compatible intersection between a demand and capacity curve. The energy consistency of the
intersection is automatically assured, and must not to be searched for through iterative procedures like in other
methods, thanks to the representation of demand and capacity in true terms of energy. Two procedures have been
pointed out for directly finding the performance point.

The first solution provides for a ductility consistent solution that can be directly found if the energy capacity
curve is expressed as a function of the ductility, instead of the maximum displacement, after a transformation of
the continuous force-displacement capacity curve in a bilateral curve as shown in Figure 6 (on the left). The bi-
linearization can be carried out under the hypothesis of conserving the same dissipated energy, or, what is the
same, maintaining the same integral of the force-displacement curve. Therefore, an elastic limit displacement, δy,
can be computed

5
δ y = 2 (δ m − Π m / f m ) (3)

as a function of the maximum displacement, δm, and the corresponding force, fm, and energy , Πm.
The ductility corresponding to the displacement δm can then be computed, in terms of energies, as

µ = 1 / 2 (1 + Π m / Π e ) (4)

where Πe = 1/2 δy × fm, is the elastic contribute of energy, that is the energy corresponding to the elastic branch.
The only ductility-consistent intersection of the capacity curve with a constant ductility demand spectrum, is the
performance point for which the ductility of the reduced spectrum corresponds to the abscissa of the intersection
point, as shown by Figure 6.

E
elastic-plastic
equal-energy DR=1 pushover curve
F/m elastic-plastic capacity curve
DR=2
fy
DR=3 PP
capacity curve or
the structure DR=4

δy δm DR=1 DR=2 DR=3 DR=4 δ,DR

Figure 6: Elastic-plastic force-displacement capacity curve (left) and first procedure for detecting the
performance point on the EDRS plane (right)

The second procedure does not require the modification of the capacity curve and avoids the arbitrary choice of
the equivalent elastic-perfectly-plastic assumption connected with the bi-linearization. It requires the evaluation
of both a linear and non linear energy capacity curve, therefore both a linear and non linear pushover analysis
must be performed preliminarily. The graphical representation of the solution procedure is shown in Figure 7.
The intersection between the elastic capacity curve (curve CE) and the constant ductility pseudo-energy demand
spectrum corresponding to a ductility ratio 1 (curve D1), represents the elastic solution of the structure, that is
the response of the structure performing elastically and characterized by its fundamental period. Assuming that
the non linear performing structure is characterized by the same period, in its elastic performance range, the
actual performance point, represented by an intersection of the non linear capacity curve with a constant ductility
demand spectrum, must result to be associated to this period. All the possible solutions characterized by the same
period are represented by the constant period energy-displacement curve starting from the elastic performance
point (curve DT). The intersection between the constant period curve (curve DT) and the non linear capacity
curve (curve CN) represents the performance point which individuate the solution of the current problem. The
ductility associated to the solution can be estimated from the constant ductility demand spectrum fixed out by the
performance point.

E
CE
CN

D1 Legenda:
D2 PP D1, D2, D3, D4 Constant ductility demand spectra
for DR = 1, 2, 3, 4
CE = Elastic capacity curve
D3
D4
CN = Nonlinear capacity curve
DT
DT = Constant period demand curve

δ
Figure 7: Second procedure for detecting the performance point on the EDRS plane

6
 6. SAMPLE APPLICATION

A six story reinforced concrete plane frame, shown in Figure 8, is considered as sample structure. The span of
the bays is 5.80 m for the lateral ones, and 2.40 m for the central ones. The story height is 3.60 m. The columns
have dimensions 400x700 mm for the first three storeys and 400x600mm in the successive storeys. All the
beams have section 300x600 mm. The frame is designed according to the specification of EC8 for high ductility
class (DCH). The design is performed by a modal response spectrum analysis with reference to the importance
category I=1.0, assuming a peak ground acceleration equal to 0.35 g and the parameters shaping a soil profile A
spectrum. Dead loads of 6.5 kN/m2 (due to self weight, finishes and permanent partitions) and live loads of 3.0
kN/m2 are assumed at the intermediate floors. At the top floor, dead and live loads are 4,0 kN/m2 and 1.5 kN/m2
respectively. A concrete type C25/30 and a steel with yield strength of 430 MPa are considered. For both
columns and beams the required different strength levels are obtained by varying the amount of reinforcement.
The reinforcement percentage is 1.1 % for the columns 400x700, 1.3% for the columns 400x600 and varies from
1.5% and 1.9% for the beams. T1 = 0.754 s and T2 = 0.244 s are the periods of the first two modes. Their mass
participating factors are 0.79 and 0.12 respectively.

300x600 300x600 300x600

400x600

400x600

400x600

400x600

3,60 m
300x600 300x600 300x600
400x600

400x600

400x600

400x600

3,60
300x600 300x600 300x600
400x600

400x600

400x600

400x600

3,60
21,60 m

300x600 300x600 300x600

400x700

400x700

400x700

400x700

3,60
300x600 300x600 300x600
400x700

400x700

400x700

400x700

3,60

300x600 300x600 300x600

400x700

400x700

400x700

400x700

3,60

5,80 2,40 5,80 m

Figure 8: Sample r/c frame

The seismic response of the frame is computed with both nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. The previously
defined nine spectrum-fitted accelerograms are used as input in the dynamic analyses. All the analyses - both
linear and non linear, both static and dynamic - were carried out by the code SAP2000 [SAP2000, 2005] which
is able to reproduce the inelastic behaviours of the structure through the definitions, for the beams and columns,
of the moment-rotation relationships of the potential plastic hinges at the elements ends, derived assuming the
usual nonlinear relationship for the stress-strain curves of concrete and steel defined in [Eurocode 2, 1993].

The nonlinear static analyses have been carried out by means of the energy-based method previously illustrated
applying the second procedure based on the use of constant period curves. Two distributions of the lateral loads
have been assumed for carrying out the pushover analyses: in the first one the force at each floor is proportional
to the floor mass multiplied by the floor lateral displacement in the first mode, in the second one the forces are
proportional to the masses. The average pseudo-energy response spectra of the generated accelerograms,
reported in Figure 5, are used as constant ductility demand curves. A comparison is made with the solution
resulting from the application of the N2 method provided by EC8 and O3431. Figure 9 reports, for the two load
distributions, the lateral story displacements computed using the energy-based method (green bars), the code
method (blue bars), the red bars represent the "exact" solution, that is the average of the solutions from the nine
dynamic analyses under the nine generated accelerograms. It is evident that the energy-based method gives
values in good accord with the code method, both the methods well approximate the "exact" dynamic solution.
Also the story drift ratios, ratios between the inter-story displacements and the story heights, are quite similar for
the two analysis methods, as results in Figure 10, where the values from the energy-based method (green bars)
and the code method (blue bars) are reported.

7
 6 6

5 5

4 4

Story
Story

3 3 Dynamic
Dynamic
2 Energy push 2 Energy push

1 Code push Code push

1

0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100
Lateral displacement (m) Lateral displacement (m)
Figure 9: Floor displacements for modal (left) and mass proportional (right) force distribution

6 6 Energy push
Energy push
5 Code push 5 Code push

4 4
Story

Story
3 3

2 2

1 1

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Drift ratio Drift ratio

Figure 10: Story drift ratios from pushover analysis for modal (left) and mass proportional (right) force
distribution

The agreement of the computed drift ratios with the exact dynamic solution is assured only at the lower stories,
as shown by the Figure 11, where the values from the energy-based method (green bars) and the dynamic
analysis (red bars) are reported. The values at the higher stories do not cover the dynamic results, but this fact
depends on some limitations of the static pushover analysis and on the characteristics of the sample structure
examined. The drift at the higher stories is exalted, in dynamic analyses, by the contribution given to the lateral
deformation by the higher modes. The maximum values of drifts do not occur when the lateral displacements are
maximum and therefore cannot be correctly reproduced by a static pushover load, nor proportional to masses,
neither to the first modal shape. The inaccuracy in the evaluation of the drifts is not so relevant for design aims
because the deformations at the higher stories do not involve plastic deformations of the structural elements.

6 6

5 5

4 4
Story

Story

3 3

2 2

1 1

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
Drift ratio Drift ratio

Figure 11: Story drift from dynamic (red bars) and pushover analysis (green bars) for modal (left) and
mass proportional (right) force distribution

8
 7. CONCLUSIONS

An energy-based method for static nonlinear analysis is outlined using both capacity and demand curves
expressed in terms of energy. Constant ductility pseudo-energy spectra are proposed as demand design spectra
alternative to the conventional reduced spectra for the direct evaluation of the performance point by means of
two application procedures, both leading to the estimation of the global ductility demand. Sample solutions are
carried out for a r/c frame. The results are in good agreement with those coming from non linear static analyses
based on reduced spectra with controlled damping or ductility and from non linear dynamic analyses.

The potential application of the outlined method can be extended, providing for the use of standard pseudo-
energy demand spectra derived by the ordinary pseudo-acceleration design spectra, instead that using the energy
demand spectra derived by the actual dynamic response of accelerograms. These standard constant ductility
pseudo-energy spectra could be derived by means of transformation rules, already developed and reported in
literature, of plastic thresholds and maximum displacement as a function of the ductility ratio.

8. REFERENCES

Anderson, J.C., Bertero, V.V. (2006), Use of Energy Concepts in Earthquake Engineering: A Historical Review,
Proceedings of the 8th National Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Paper 908, San Francisco, California.
ATC-40 (1996) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied Technology Council, Report
No. ATC 40.
Chopra, A.K., and R.K. Goel (1999) 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, USA.
Decanini, L.D., Mollaioli, F. (1998) Formulation of Elastic Earthquake Input Energy Spectra, Earthquake
Engineering Structural Dynamics, 27, 1503-1522.
Eurocode 2 (1993) ENV 1992-1-1 Design of concrete structure. Part. 1-1 General rules and rules for buildings,
CEN European Committee for Standardisation, Bruxelles.
Eurocode 8 (2003) FINAL DRAFT prEN 1998-1. Design of structures for earthquake resistance. CEN European
Committee for Standardisation, Bruxelles.
Fajfar, P., Vidic, T., Fishinger, M. (1992), On Energy Demand and Supply in SDOF System, in Nonlinear
Seismic Analysis and Design of RC Buildings, Elsevier Applied Science.
FEMA-273 (1997) NEERP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
FEMA-440 (2005) Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures (ATC-55), Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
Gasparini, D.A, Vanmarcke, E.H. (1976) Simulated earthquake motions compatible with prescribed response
spectra. R76-4, Dept. of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Housner, G.W. (1956), Limit Design of Structures to Resist Earthquakes, Proceedings of the 1st World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Berkeley, California.
Ordinanza PCM 3431/05 (2005) Ulteriori modifiche ed integrazioni alla Ordinanza PCM 3274 Primi Elementi in
Materia di Criteri Generali per la Classificazione Sismica del Territorio Nazionale e di Normative
Tecniche per le Costruzioni in Zona Sismica (in Italian).
Parducci, A., Comodini, F., Mezzi, M. (2004) Approccio Energetico per le Analisi Pushover, 11° Congr.Naz.
"L'Ingegneria Sismica in Italia", Genova, Italia (in Italian).
Parducci, A., Comodini, F., Lucarelli, M., Mezzi, M., Tomassoli E. (2006) Energy-Based Non Linear Static
Analysis, 1st European Conf. on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Paper 1178, Geneve, Switzerland.
SAP2000 NonLinear v.10.0.3 (2005). Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, CA.
Uang, C.M., Bertero, V.V. (1988) Use of Energy as a Design Criterion in Earthquake-Resistant Design, Report
No. UCB/EERC-88/18, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.