1 s2.0 S0029549314002829 Main

Nuclear Engineering and Design 276 (2014) 277–294
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Nuclear Engineering and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/nucengdes
Seismic design by the response spectrum method: A new

interpretation of elliptical response envelopes and a novel equivalent
static method based on probable linear combinations of modes
Silvano Erlicher ∗ , Quang Sang Nguyen, François Martin
Egis Industries, 4 rue Dolorès Ibarruri, TSA 50012, 93188 Montreuil Cedex, France
h i g h l i g h t s
• Proposal of the notion of ellipsoid of the coefficients of linear combinations of modes (˛-ellipsoid).
• Proposal of a new interpretation of the so-called “elliptical response envelopes”.
• Proposal of a variant of the classical approach for the “elliptical response envelope” discretization.
• Proposal of a new “equivalent static method”, taking into account all the structural modes.
• Case study: design of a nuclear building using the seismic analysis methods described in the article.
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: At the design calculation phase, the seismic analysis of a nuclear building is usually based on the assump-
Received 29 November 2013 tion of structural linearity. Moreover, design codes impose to consider three-component ground motions.
Received in revised form 29 April 2014 In this context, the response spectrum method is likely the most used seismic design approach. Different
Accepted 12 May 2014
variants of the response spectrum method exist, the main differences among them being related to the
way of superposing the contributions of the three ground motion components and to the treatment of the
simultaneity of physically distinct responses. A set of nr ≥ 2 simultaneous values of distinct responses can
be called response vector. The basic variants of the response spectrum method provide the peak value of
each distinct response, allowing the definition of a parallelepiped envelope for the response vectors: this
envelope is conservative since the peaks of distinct responses, in general, do not occur simultaneously.
Conversely, the so-called elliptical response envelopes, which are hyper-ellipsoids of dimension nr , cor-
rectly take into account response simultaneity. In the first part of this paper, a new interpretation of the
response envelopes is presented, based on the notion of probable linear combinations of modes. The practi-
cal use of response envelopes is not straightforward when nr > 3, like e.g. in the case of shell finite elements
with three membrane forces and three moments. A standard procedure consists in approximating the
response envelope by an enveloping polyhedron, whose vertices define a set of response vectors. The
definition of a refined polyhedron, closer to the surface of the response envelope, is proposed in the
second part of the paper.
Another commonly used approach for the seismic structural design is the so-called equivalent static
method, where the seismic action is represented by a static force field applied to the structure. The main
difficulty in the practical application of this method is the definition of a static force field taking into
account all the ground motion components and the contribution of all the structural modes. A novel
procedure for the definition of equivalent static loads is described in the third part of this article, based
on the use of pseudo-inertia forces and on the notion of probable linear combinations of modes.
In the last part of the paper, both the response envelope approach and the proposed procedure for
the equivalent static load definition are applied to the seismic design of a representative reinforced
concrete nuclear building. The results are compared with those obtained by several classical variants of
the response spectrum method.
© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 1 73 13 19 14.

E-mail addresses: silvano.erlicher@egis.fr (S. Erlicher), quang-sang.nguyen@egis.fr (Q.S. Nguyen), francois.martin@egis.fr (F. Martin).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2014.05.011
0029-5493/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
278 S. Erlicher et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 276 (2014) 277–294
1. Introduction
Seismic design of nuclear building structures is commonly based on the assumption of linearity. Among seismic analysis approaches for
linear structures, the response spectrum method is likely the most used. According to this method, a multi-degree-of-freedom linear struc-
ture is decomposed in a number of eigenmodes, each one corresponding to a single-degree-of-freedom oscillator. For each modal oscillator,
the peak response for each ground motion component is determined by using the response spectrum; these peak modal responses are
then suitably combined, in order to find the maximum values of the response for each single-component ground motion. The simplest
modal combination method is the modal-SRSS (Square Root of the Sum of Squares) rule. In order to take into account the correlation
between eigenmodes, the CQC – Complete Quadratic Combination (Der Kiureghian, 1979), is often preferred to the modal-SRSS rule.
Other modal combination rules are also allowed by design codes (ASCE, 2009; Morante et al., 1999; Gupta et al., 1996; Rosenblueth and
Elorduy, 1969). These peak responses, obtained by the combination of modal peaks for a given seismic input direction, are named here
“directional Modal Combination (MC) responses”. Then, the maximum response value due to a three-component seismic input is calcu-
lated by combining the three directional MC responses. The most common combination rules are the SRSS-rule, the 40%-rule (Newmark,
1975) and the 30%-rule (Rosenblueth and Contreras, 1977). We recall that the 40%-rule is preferred to the 30%-rule for nuclear appli-
cations (Miranda et al., 2011). In general, the peak response due to a multi-component seismic input, called here “modal combination
– direction combination (MC-DC) peak response”, depends on the angle between the structure axes and the ground motion principal
directions (Smeby and Der Kiureghian, 1985; Menun and Der Kiureghian, 1998; Hernández and López, 2003; López et al., 2001). However,
the SRSS-rule, the 40%-rule and the 30%-rule are usually applied assuming that both horizontal ground motions have the same inten-
sity. In this case, the combined response obtained by the SRSS-rule does not depend on the relative orientation between the structure
axes and the principal axes of the ground motion (Anastassiadis, 1993) and is equal to the so-called critical response, see e.g. (López
et al., 2001). More in detail, translational components of the ground motion are, in general, correlated processes. However, for a given
structure location, there exist three principal orthogonal directions, such that the corresponding ground motions are uncorrelated, i.e.
the covariance between each pair of ground accelerations is nil (Penzien and Watabe, 1975). As said before, it is commonly assumed for
design applications that one principal direction is vertical and that the other two principal directions, which are horizontal, are char-
acterized by the same ground motion intensity. This implies that any pair of orthogonal horizontal axes is a pair of principal ground
motion axes (Rosenblueth and Contreras, 1977): it is usual to suppose that they coincide with the orthogonal directions of the building
walls.
According to the response spectrum methodology, an individual response (case nr = 1, where nr is the number of distinct responses) is
expected to have at any time an amplitude less or equal to the MC-DC peak value. Actually, due to the statistical basis of the notions of
response spectrum and of modal-direction peak combination formulas, the MC-DC peak value has the meaning of expected value of the
peak response. As a consequence, there is a small, but not zero, probability that the actual response at a given time exceeds the MC-DC
peak value. Complementarily, there is a large non-exceedance probability. Hence, with a little abuse of terminology, one can say that a
response is probable if and only if its amplitude is less or equal to the MC-DC peak response.
When nr ≥ 2, the distinct responses are handled together by using response vectors with nr components. In this case, the MC-DC peak
values for the nr individual responses define a parallelepiped envelope for the response vectors in the nr -dimensional response space.
This envelope is conservative, since, in general, individual peaks will not occur simultaneously. Several authors, e.g. Chu et al. (1972),
Gupta and Singh (1977), Leblond (1980), Der Kiureghian (1981), Gupta (1990), Anastassiadis (1993), and Menun and Der Kiureghian
(2000a,b), analyzed this problem and showed that the response vectors rather belong to an elliptical response envelope (or interaction
ellipsoid) of dimension nr , which is bounded by (and tangent in some points to) the parallelepiped defined by individual peak responses.
If the terminology used in the case nr = 1 is extended to the case nr ≥ 2, it can be said that a response vector is probable if and only if it lies
inside or on the boundary of the elliptical envelope. Notice that the nr components of a response vector often are the efforts of a given finite
element of a structural model: hence, one can say that the response envelope allows the local (element by element) response simultaneity
to be suitably taken into account.
In the case of a multi-component seismic input with ground motions of equal intensity along the two horizontal principal direc-
tions, it can be proven that the elliptical response envelope is independent from the orientation of the ground motion axes (e.g.
Anastassiadis, 1993). Under this assumption, a new interpretation of the elliptical response envelopes will be proposed in Section
2, based on the notion of probable linear combinations of modes (viz. linear combinations of modes leading to probable response
vectors).
Even though the response envelope method deals with simultaneity of multiple responses in a rigorous manner, it is still not commonly
used for practical nuclear seismic engineering applications (Miranda et al., 2011). In alternative, other simpler approaches are used. In
detail, a first well-known method consists in calculating, for the three ground motion directions, the nr directional MC responses by a
certain rule of combination of modal peaks. This gives nr triplets of directional MC peak responses. The responses of each triplet are then
superposed by the SRSS-rule and this leads to nr positive MC-DC peak responses. Since the “true” sign of these responses, which depends
on the structural configuration, is not known, all the possible sign combinations (2nr ) are considered (ASCE, 2009). A second method is
based on the use of the Newmark’s 40%-rule (instead of the SRSS-rule) to combine the directional MC responses, after having attributed a
sign to each of them. The signs are usually chosen equal to those associated with the fundamental mode for each seismic input direction. In
some situations, this sign definition is questionable, especially for structures where a single dominant mode per direction does not exist.
Actually, the use of the response envelopes allows this problem to be overcome.
The seismic design is based on the comparison between the structural capacity and the structural (static plus seismic) response. When
the elliptical response envelope is used, the seismic response is represented by response vectors (points) belonging to a hyper-ellipsoid
of dimension nr , whose center is the vector of the static responses. Then, the design verification consists in checking that the capacity
domain entirely encompasses this hyper-ellipsoid. Menun and Der Kiureghian (2000b) and Menun (2004) have discussed several case
studies of structural design with the response envelopes. In particular, they analyzed the problem of the research of the tangency point
between the response envelope and the capacity domain. We use here a different approach: instead of finding the tangency point, an
approximate (discrete) description of the response envelope is defined. According to this approach, the continuous elliptical response
envelope is “represented” by a finite number of points in the nr -dimensional response space. Then, one checks whether these points
S. Erlicher et al. / Nuclear Engineering and Design 276 (2014) 277–294 279
belong or not to the capacity domain. A classical discretization procedure has been proposed at the end of the seventies by Gupta and
co-workers (Gupta and Chu, 1977a; Gupta et al., 1977; Gupta, 1978, 1980; Leblond, 1980). This discretization is based on the definition
of a polyhedron enveloping the hyper-ellipsoid. The considered response vectors are the polyhedron vertices. A variant of this method is
discussed in the paper (Section 3) and compared with the Gupta–Leblond approach.
An alternative to the response spectrum method for the structural seismic analysis, mentioned in many nuclear design standards (e.g.
ASCE, 2009), is the so-called equivalent static method. It consists in defining one or several static force fields representing, in an approximate
way, the seismic action. For instance, a load field can be applied to the structure such that the rocking moment at the building basis is
maximized: the horizontal forces at the basis obtained by the same load field are not the maximum ones, but they are simultaneous to the
maximum rocking moment. All the other responses anywhere into the structure (efforts in the structural elements, displacements, etc.)
are simultaneous too. This shows one of the most interesting properties of the equivalent static load approach: it allows simultaneity of
all the responses on the whole structure (global simultaneity) to be obtained. For this reason, although approximated, this method is very
often used in engineering practice. In ASCE (2009) it is proposed to compute the total seismic horizontal load from the structural mass, the
peak value of the pseudo-acceleration spectrum in each direction and from a “multi-mode” factor. Then, some indications are provided to
define the spatial distribution of the total seismic force to the lateral-force-resisting elements. This procedure is directly applicable only for
simple structures, where a dominant mode exists per each seismic input direction. In a more general situation, the main difficulty in the
practical application of this method is the definition of a suitable static force field representing the seismic action, which takes into account
the three ground motion components and the contribution of all the structural modes. A new approach for the definition of equivalent
static load fields is proposed here (Section 4), suggesting a solution to this problem. The proposed approach is based on the notions of
elliptical response envelope and of probable linear combinations of modes as well as on the use of pseudo-inertia forces (Martin, 2004;
Nguyen et al., 2012, 2013a).
After the Introduction, Section 2 deals with the definition of elliptical response envelopes. The classical expressions are presented
together with a new interpretation based on the notion of hyper-ellipsoid of the linear combinations of modes (˛-ellipsoid). Section
3 concerns the methods of discretization of a nr -dimensional hyper-ellipsoid. A variant of the classical method is discussed. A novel
equivalent static load definition is described in Section 4. Finally, the seismic design approaches presented in the paper are discussed and
compared in Section 5, with reference to the case study of a reinforced concrete nuclear building.
2. Hyper-ellipsoids of the coefficients of linear combinations of modes and elliptical response envelopes
Let us consider an N-degree-of-freedom linear and classically damped structure, for which N real eigenmodes can be calculated. For
seismic design applications, two main groups of modes can be distinguished (Morante et al., 1999). The first group collects the so-called
low and mid-frequency modes, fi < fZPA (ZPA: zero-period acceleration, equal to the peak ground acceleration, PGA, for ground motion
accelerograms), characterized by a modal response not in-phase with the input acceleration s̈g,k (t), for any ground motion translation
component k. We suppose that there are n − 1 modes of this type. All the other modes, such that fi ≥ fZPA , are accelerated in phase and
with the same acceleration magnitude as s̈g,k (t). They are accounted for in the calculations by introducing a suitably defined “residual rigid
response” (e.g. ASCE, 2009).
The seismic responses are estimated by considering three ground motion translational components (k = x, y, z). According to Penzien
and Watabe (1975), three principal orthogonal directions exist such that the associated ground motion components are non-correlated.
A common assumption for design applications is that one of the principal ground motion directions is vertical. Therefore, the remaining
principal directions are horizontal and we suppose here that their ground motion intensities are identical. As a result, a unique response
spectrum suffices to define both horizontal ground motions and any pair of orthogonal horizontal directions is a pair of principal ground
motion directions (Rosenblueth and Contreras, 1977). Usually, these principal ground motion directions are chosen parallel to the structure
axes.
n
For a single-component ground motion along direction k = x, y or z, the time-varying displacement vector u - k (t) ∈ R , R being the set of
real numbers, reads:

n
- k (t) =
u ˛i,k (t)U
- i,k (1)
i=1
where for i = 1, . . ., n − 1, U
- i,k = Ri,k i,k is the peak modal displacement vector for the mode i and the earthquake component k, i is
-i T T
-
the eigenvector for the mode i, i,k = (ii M - k )/( M ) is the participation factor for the mode i and the earthquake component k;
- - ii - ii
the superscript T denotes the transpose; M is the N by N structure mass matrix; - k is the influence vector associated with direction k.
Moreover, ˛i,k (t) is the linear modal combination coefficient defined as follows: −1 ≤ ˛i,k (t) = ri,k (t)/Ri,k ≤ 1 for i = 1, . . ., n − 1; see also
Gupta and Chu (1977b) and Martin (2004). The time-function ri,k (t) is the solution of the dynamics equation of the single-degree-of-freedom

oscillator representing the mode i = 1, . . ., n − 1 undergoing the ground acceleration s̈g,k (t). The response Ri,k = maxt ri,k (t) = Sd,k (ωi , i )
is the ordinate of the displacement response spectrum associated with the ground acceleration s̈g,k (t) for the modal pulsation ωi and the
damping ratio i . The last term of the summation in Eq. (1), viz. ˛n,k (t)U - n,k , is the residual rigid response due to the missing mass, calculated
assuming that the dynamic amplification of all the modes with frequency greater than fZPA is negligible, i.e. ṙi,k (t) ≈ 0 and r̈i,k (t) ≈ 0 for all
i > n − 1. The coefficient ˛n,k (t) = s̈g,k (t)/ZPAk is the ratio between the ground acceleration and its peak value ZPAk = maxt s̈g,k (t) = PGAk
−1
(zero period acceleration for the earthquake direction k): hence, −1 ≤ ˛n,k (t) ≤ 1. The vector U - n,k = −K M ZPAk is the peak residual
n−1 - R,k
rigid response, where K is the stiffness matrix, the vector R,k = -k −
i=1 i,k - i
is the so-called “residual mode” or “rigid mode” or
-
“pseudo-mode”, (MR,k ) is the vector of the missing masses at each degree-of-freedom.
-
By the double time-differentiation of Eq. (1), and using the assumptions ṙi,k (t) ≈ 0 and r̈i,k (t) ≈ 0 for i > n − 1, one obtains the relative
n−1
- k (t) ≈
acceleration: ü r̈ (t)i,k i . Moreover, assuming that damping is small and using the definition of ˛i,k (t) given above, the
i=1 i,k -
absolute acceleration reads:

n−1
n
abs
- k (t) = ü
ü - k (t) + s̈g,k (t)
-k ≈− ωi2 ri,k (t)i,k i + s̈g,k (t)iR,k = ˛i,k (t)A
- i,k :=a- k (t) (2)
- -
i=1 i=1
2
with A- i,k = −ωi U
- i,k for i = 1, . . ., n − 1 and A
- n,k = ZPAk
- R,k
. Eq. (2) defines the pseudo-acceleration a- k (t) for a seismic input along the
direction k.
By virtue of structural linearity, and using Eqs. (1) and (2), the displacement and the pseudo-acceleration due to a three-component
ground motion read:

n
- (t) =
u - k (t) =
u ˛i,k (t)U
- i,k (3)
k=x,y,z k=x,y,z i=1

n
a- (t) = a- k (t) = ˛i,k (t)A
- i,k (4)
k=x,y,z k=x,y,z i=1
Hereinafter, for the sake of simplicity, the maximum and minimum values of the indices i and k in the summations will be omitted.
2.1. Case of a single seismic response (nr = 1): hyper-ellipsoids of the coefficients of linear combinations of modes (˛k - and ˛-ellipsoids)
2.1.1. Case of a single component ground motion (˛k -ellipsoid)

Let us first consider a single ground motion component, along the direction k (=x, y or z). Under this seismic input, let fk (t) be a generic
seismic response, e.g. a nodal displacement, a membrane force in a slab, a bending moment in a section or element of the structure, etc.
Then, due to the assumed structural linearity, one can always find a vector d- ∈ RN such that:
T T
T
fk (t) = d- u
- k (t) = d- - i,k =
˛i,k (t)U ˛i,k (t)Fi,k = F- Tk ˛
- k (t) with Fi,k = d- U
- i,k (5)
i i
where Fi,k is the value of the seismic response fk (t) associated with the peak displacement vector U - i,k for the mode i and the ground motion
T n
direction k; ˛-k (t) = [˛1,k (t), ˛2,k (t), . . ., ˛n,k (t)] ∈ R is vector of the linear combination coefficients for all modes and for the ground
motion direction k; F- k = [F1,k , F2,k , . . ., Fn,k ]T is the vector of the peak modal responses for the earthquake direction k. Observe that an
T T
identical formalism can be used when fk (t) depends on the pseudo-acceleration, i.e. fk (t) = d- a- k (t) = ˛ (t)Fi,k , with Fi,k = d- A
i i,k - i,k .
When the response spectrum method is applied, the peak or maximum value of a time-varying response like fk (t) is defined as a suitable
combination of the peak modal responses Fi,k (e.g. Der Kiureghian, 1979):

fk (t) = ˛i,k (t)Fi,k ≤ F MC = F F
ij i,k j,k = ˆ ij Fi,k Fj,k + (Fn,k )2
(6)
k ij ij
i
This inequality must hold for any response, i.e. for any vector d- in Eq. (5), and therefore for any set of peak modal responses Fi,k . We
recall that, due to the statistical basis of the notions of response spectrum and of modal peaks combination, the peak value FkMC (MC: mode
combination), has the meaning of expected value of the peak response. Notice that Gupta and Chu (1977b) used the term of probable peak
value to indicate the same quantity. As a consequence, there is a small probability that the actual response at a given time exceeds the FkMC
peak value (complementarily, there is a large non-exceedance probability). Hence, we will say that a response fk (t) is probable if and only
it fulfills Eq. (6) (i.e. when its amplitude is less than the expected peak value FkMC ). The modal correlation coefficients ˆ ij (i, j = 1, . . ., n − 1)
define a positive definite quadratic form. The same holds for ij (i, j = 1, . . ., n). The generic coefficient ˆ ij between modes i and j is often
calculated according to the so-called complete quadratic combination (CQC) (Der Kiureghian, 1979). However, any other definition of ˆ ij
leading to a positive definite quadratic form and admitted by the regulatory guides, like e.g. ASCE (2009), can be used into Eq. (6). Moreover,
T
observe that the last term of Eq. (6) postulates a quadratic sum of the residual rigid response Fn,k = d- U - n,k and the combined response
of the other modes, all supposed fully non-rigid. Other combination formulas, more complex than Eq. (6), exist in the literature (Morante
et al., 1999). They are not reported here for brevity. Eq. (6) can be rewritten, using a more compact form, as follows:
T
F k ˛k (t) ≤ F Tk HF k for any F k ∈ Rn (7)
- - - - -
where H = [ij ] is the n × n matrix of the modal correlation coefficients, which, by definition, is symmetric. Moreover, we have assumed
that it is positive definite, hence invertible. In the particular case where the CQC is used to define the coefficients ˆ ij , H is an “almost
identity” matrix (unit diagonal elements and small off-diagonal elements) and the positive definiteness is ensured when the off-diagonal
elements are small enough. Since the condition in Eq. (7) must hold for any vector F- k , one can prove that (Appendix A):
T −1
˛
-kH ˛ -k ≤ 1 (8)
n
This result shows that when the vector ˛ - k ∈ R of the coefficients of the modal linear combination fulfills the condition in Eq. (6) (or (7)),
it necessarily belongs to an n-dimensional hyper-ellipsoid, named here ˛k -ellipsoid. Vice versa, if ˛ - k belong the hyper-ellipsoid defined by
Eq. (8), then ˛
- k also fulfills the condition in Eq. (6) (or (7)) for any vector F- k (see Appendix A). Hence, the term “probable” can also be used
for any vector ˛

- k fulfilling Eq. (8), because each one of such vectors defines a linear combination of modes leading to probable responses,
in the sense defined after Eq. (6).
2.1.2. Case of a three-component ground motion (˛-ellipsoid)

By virtue of linearity, the seismic response under a three-component ground motion is computed as the sum of the three single-
component responses:
T
T
T
f (t) = d- u
- (t) = fk (t) = - k (t) =
d- u ˛i,k (t)Fi,k = F- T ˛
- (t) with Fi,k = d- U
- i,k (9)
k k k i
T T T 3n T
where ˛ - = [˛ -x,˛ - z ] ∈ R is the vector of the combination coefficients for all the modes and the three seismic input directions; F- =
-y,˛
T T T T 3n
[F- x , F- y , F- z ] ∈ R is the vector of the peak responses for all the modes and the three seismic input directions.
Due to the assumption of uncorrelation between ground motion components along directions x, y and z, introduced at the beginning
of Section 2, the inequalities in Eqs. (6) and (7) can be extended to the case of a three-component seismic input using the SRSS-rule to
combine the peak directional responses FkMC ; see e.g. Menun and Der Kiureghian (2000a). This leads to the following definition of the peak
response F MC–DC (MC: mode combination, DC: direction combination) under a three-component ground motion:

f (t) = ˛i,k (t)Fi,k ≤ F MC−DC =
2
(FkMC ) = ij Fi,k Fj,k (10)
k k ij
k i
Like Eq. (6), this condition must hold for any Fi,k . The corresponding matrix form reads:

|F T ˛(t)| ≤ F
FT H for any F ∈ 3n (11)

= diag H, H, H is the block-diagonal 3n × 3n matrix of the modal correlation coefficients for the three seismic input directions.
where H
If H is invertible and positive definite, then H has the same properties. According to the previously introduced terminology, the response
f(t) is probable if and only if it fulfills the inequality in Eq. (10) or (11). From Eq. (11), a result analogous to Eq. (8) can be proven (Appendix
A):
−1

˛T H ˛≤1 (12)
A vector ˛ fulfilling Eq. (12) represents a probable linear combination of modes, because any response f (t) associated with it by Eq. (9)
is probable too. Observe that all the responses f (e.g. the nodal displacements, pseudo-accelerations, element efforts, etc.) calculated by
means of Eq. (9) using a single vector ˛ are simultaneous, because they are associated with the same linear combination of modes. This
is analogous to the simultaneity that characterizes the responses computed at a given time by a transient analysis. The same holds in the
case of a single-component ground motion treated in the previous subsection.
2.2. General case (nr ≥ 1 distinct seismic responses): hyper-ellipsoids of the coefficients of the linear combinations of modes (˛k - and
˛-ellipsoids) and elliptical response envelopes (xk - and x-ellipsoids)
2.2.1. Case of a single-component ground motion (˛k - and xk -ellipsoids)

Let xk (t) ∈ nr be a response vector, whose elements are nr distinct seismic responses (e.g. normal force and moments in a beam section,
membrane forces and out-of-plane moments in a shell element, etc.) due to a ground motion along the direction k. Then, by virtue of the
structural linearity, one has:
T

xk (t) = [f1,k (t), f2,k (t), ..., fnr ,k (t)] = ˛i,k (t)X i,k = RT ˛k (t) (13)
k
i
T T
where X i,k = [F1,i,k , F2,i,k , . . ., Fnr ,i,k ]T ∈ nr is the vector of the peak values Fr,i,k = dr U i,k (or, alternatively, Fr,i,k = dr Ai,k ) of the responses
fr,k (t) for the mode i and the ground motion direction k, while ˛k has been defined in Section 2.1.1. The rows of the n × nr matrix R are
k
the vectors X i,k for i = 1,. . ., n, whilst the nr columns F r,k = [Fr,1,k , Fr,2,k , . . ., Fr,n,k ]T (with r=1,...,nr ) are the vectors of the peak modal values
Fr,i,k :
R :=[X 1,k , X 2,k , . . ., X n,k ]T = [F 1,k , F 2,k , . . ., F nr ,k ] (14)

k
When nr ≤ n and the nr columns of R are linearly independent, the response vector xk computed by Eq. (13) for a given vector ˛k is
k
unique, but the opposite is not true. Let us now define the nr × nr matrix
X = RT H R (15)
k k k
Under the assumptions on H and R given above, it can be proven that X is symmetric and positive definite, hence invertible (Appendix
k k
B). Moreover, by using Eqs. (14) and (15), one can easily show that the rth diagonal element of X is the squared maximum value of the rth
k
element fr,k (t) of the response vector xk (t):

T
|fr,k (t)| = ˛i,k (t)Fr,i,k = F r,k ˛k (t) ≤ Fr,k =
MC
ij Fr,i,k Fr,j,k = F Tr,k H F r,k = X (16)
ij k rr
i
Fig. 1. Graphical interpretation of Eq. (18) (1 > c3 > c2 > c1 > 0).
Notice that each vector F- r,k in Eq. (16) plays the same role as F- k in Eq. (7). The off-diagonal elements of X represent the correlation
k
between distinct responses:

X = ij Fr,i,k Fs,j,k = F- Tr,k HF- s,k (17)
k rs
ij
When nr = 1, R becomes a column vector, x- k (t) becomes a scalar and Eq. (13) reduces to Eq. (5). Moreover, the matrix X becomes a
k k
positive scalar and Eq. (16) reduces to Eq. (6) or (7); the cross terms of Eq. (17) no longer exist.
T
Let x- k = [f1,k , f2,k , . . ., fnr ,k ] be a given response vector. We look for a condition generalizing to the case nr ≥ 2 the inequality in Eq.
T
(6), which concerns a single response fk . In order to do this, we will use the ˛ - k -ellipsoid defined by Eq. (8) and the relationship Rk ˛ - k = x- k
(Eq. (13)). First, observe that Eq. (6) separately holds for each one of the responses fr,k , with r = 1, . . ., nr (see also Eq. (16)). Therefore, the
inequality in Eq. (8) holds, independently from the number of responses nr . Moreover, recall that due to the assumption nr ≤ n adopted at
the beginning of this section, the vector ˛ - k fulfilling Eq. (13) for a given x- k is not unique (in the scheme of Fig. 1, all the points along the line
RT ˛k = xk fulfill Eq. (13)). Hence, Eqs. (8) and (13) cannot directly provide a unique vector ˛ - k for the given x- k vector (all the points along
k
the line RT ˛k = xk and inside the biggest ellipse in Fig. 1 fulfill both Eqs. (8) and (13)). However, among all the vectors ˛
- k fulfilling Eq. (13),
k
it is possible to find the one that minimizes the quadratic form ˛T −1
-kH ˛ - K (Appendix C):
˛k = H R X −1 xk (18)
k k
The proof of the uniqueness of ˛ - k defined by Eq. (18) is based on the properties of H and on the linearity of Eq. (13) (see Appendix C).
This ensures that the transformation ˛ - k ↔ x- k according to Eqs. (13) and (18) is a bijection. Eq. (18) provides, among the vectors ˛
- k such
T H −1 ˛ . Hence, if ˛ defined by Eq. (18) does not fulfill the condition in Eq.
that x- k = RT ˛
- k , the one with the minimum squared norm ˛
-k - k - k
k
T T −1
- k such that x- k = R ˛
(8), then no other vector ˛ - k can fulfill Eq. (8). Notice that by replacing Eq. (18) into the quadratic form ˛
k -kH ˛ - k , one
T −1 T −1
obtains ˛
-kH ˛ - k = x- k X k x- k (see also Appendix B). Then, the condition in Eq. (8) holds if and only if:
x- Tx X −1 x- k ≤ 1 (19)
k
Eq. (19) defines a hyper-ellipsoid of dimension nr , that we name here xk -ellipsoid. Using the same terminology introduced above, each
response vector inside or on the boundary of the xk -ellipsoid is probable, i.e. it defines a probable realization of the nr simultaneous seismic
responses f1 (t), . . ., fnr (t) under a single-component seismic input. Eq. (19) generalizes Eq. (6) for the case nr ≥ 2.
2.2.2. Case of a three-component ground motion (˛- and x-ellipsoids)

Using the structural linearity assumption, the seismic response vector x- associated with a three-component ground motion is the sum
of the three response vectors for each single-component ground motion:
T

x- (t) = [f1 (t), f2 (t), . . ., fnr (t)] = x- k (t) = ˛i,k (t)X- i,k = RT ˛ T
- k (t) = R ˛- (t) (20)
k
k k i k
T
where R = RT , RT , RT is a 3n × nr matrix defined from the matrices R (Eq. (14)), with k = x, y, z. If nr ≤ n and the nr columns of R are
x y z k k
linearly independent, then it can be shown that the nr columns of R also are linearly independent, with nr ≤ 3n (Appendix B). Let us now
introduce the nr × nr matrix

X= X = RT HR = RT H̃R (21)
k k k
k k
where H̃ has been defined in Eq. (11). It can be proven that X is symmetric positive definite, therefore invertible (Appendix B). The diagonal
and off-diagonal elements of X have a physical meaning analogous to the one of the elements of X , the only difference being related to
k
the presence of three ground motion components instead of only one. In this case, Eq. (16) becomes:

fr (t) = fr,k (t) = ˛i,k (t)Fr,i,k ≤ {X} = ij Fr,i,k Fr,j,k =
2
(F MC ) =Fr MC−DC (22)
rr k ij k r,k
k k i
The corresponding matrix form reads:

fr (t) = F Tr ˛(t) ≤ F Tr H̃ F r = FrMC –DC (23)
T
with F r = F Tr,x , F Tr,y , F Tr,z . Notice that each vector Fr in Eq. (23) plays the same role as F in Eq. (11). Eq. (17) becomes

{X} = ij Fr,i,k Fs,j,k = F Tr H̃F- s (24)
rs
k ij
Like in the case of a single-component ground motion presented above, it is possible to find a unique vector ˛ fulfilling Eq. (20) for a
−1
given x. It is the one that minimizes the quadratic form ˛T H̃ ˛:
˛ = H̃ R X −1 x (25)
This ensures that the transformation ˛ ↔ x according to Eqs. (20) and (25) is a bijection. Eq. (25) generalizes a similar expression given
by Gupta and Chu (1977b), and independently found by Martin (2004), dealing with the particular case where nr = 1 and x=FMC-DC . By
−1 −1
replacing Eq. (25) into the quadratic form ˛T H̃ ˛, one obtains ˛T H̃ ˛ = xT X −1 x. Then, the condition in Eq. (12) holds if and only if:
xT X −1 x ≤ 1 (26)
Eq. (26) defines a hyper-ellipsoid of dimension nr , that we name here x-ellipsoid. It is the well-known response envelope (e.g. Menun
and Der Kiureghian, 2000a), sometimes called interaction ellipsoid (Gupta and Singh, 1977). Each vector x inside or on the boundary of the
x-ellipsoid defines a probable realization of the nr simultaneous seismic responses f1 (t), . . ., fnr (t) under a three-component earthquake.
3. Discretization of elliptical response envelopes
The seismic design is based on the comparison between the structural response and the structural capacity. The structural capacity is
represented by a capacity domain, which is assumed here to be convex. For instance, the normal effort N and the bending moment M in a
reinforced concrete column, computed by summing the static and seismic contributions, must be compared with the N–M capacity domain:
in order to have a safe design, the vector (or point) N–M must be inside the capacity domain. When the elliptical response envelopes are
used, the static plus seismic responses can be represented as vectors x = (N0 + Ns , M0 + Ms ) belonging to an ellipse whose center is the
static response x0 = (N0 , M0 ). Then, the design verification consists in checking that the capacity domain entirely encompasses this ellipse.
Menun and Der Kiureghian (2000b) have presented a case study dealing with this problem. Menun (2004) has proposed a detailed analysis
for the more general case where there are nr ≥2 responses, distinguishing two situations: (i) the elliptical response envelope is supposed
known and the capacity domain is scaled using a single design parameter, up to the evaluation of the “critical” value of this parameter,
such that the capacity domain has the smallest possible size, i.e. it encompasses the response envelope, but also has a tangency point with
it; (ii) the capacity domain is supposed known and the response envelope is scaled by changing the seismic input amplitude, up to the
determination of the critical scaling factor, such that response envelope and capacity domain become tangent.
We consider here the same problem, but using a slightly different approach: instead of determining the “critical point” where capacity
and response domains are tangent, we are rather interested in an approximate (discrete) description of the response envelope, where
the continuous elliptical response envelope is “represented” by a finite number of points in the nr -dimensional response space. Then, it is
checked whether these points, suitably translated in order to take into account the response under static loads, belong or not to the capacity
domain. If the discretization is sufficiently refined, a complete, though discrete, description of the response envelopes can be obtained.
Moreover, the coupling between the calculation of the capacity domain and of the response envelope (necessary to compute the “critical
point”) is avoided.
An interesting discretization procedure has been proposed by Gupta and co-workers through several papers (Gupta and Chu, 1977a;
Gupta et al., 1977; Gupta, 1978, 1980). In detail, Gupta (1980) proposed (i) a methodology to define some points on the hyper-ellipsoid
surface; (ii) a second method to define the vertices of a polyhedron enveloping the hyper-ellipsoid. The second method has been named
“approximate” by Gupta, because the vertices are outside the hyper-ellipsoid and this leads to a conservative design.
The original procedure of type (ii) proposed by Gupta and Chu (1977a) and reviewed by Leblond (1980) is recalled hereinafter (case
A). Then, a modified, more accurate, version (case B) is proposed, leading to a reduction of the distance between the hyper-ellipsoid and
the vertices and facets of the enveloping polyhedron for nr ≥3. A schematic illustration of the main steps of the discretization algorithm is
given in Fig. 2. For the details, see Appendix D.
Step 1: Diagonalize the nr × nr matrix X defining the x-ellipsoid (Eq. (21)), i.e. find the diagonal matrix = diag( 1 , . . ., nr ) of the
eigenvalues of X and the matrix V such that X = V V T , where V = v1 , . . ., vnr is the nr × nr matrix whose columns are the orthonormal
eigenvectors of X.
Step 2: Define the vertices of a polyhedron enveloping a hyper-sphere of dimension nr with unit radius, following approaches A or B
(Fig. 3). The coordinates of these points are associated with a reference system whose origin O is the center of the hyper-sphere:
Fig. 2. Discretization of a hyper-ellipsoid by an enveloping polyhedron (case nr = 2).
Fig. 3. Definition of a polyhedron enveloping a sphere with unit radius (case nr = 3). (a) Approach A, three vertices in the first octant and (b) Approach B, six vertices in the
first octant.
(A) nr × 2nr polyhedron vertices:
All element arrangements and all sign permutations of x̂ = [±1, ±a, ±a, . . ., ±a]T (27)
√
where a = 2 − 1. The possible arrangements associated with the position of the unit are nr . The possible sign permutations are 2nr .
Hence, this enveloping polyhedron has nr 2nr vertices (Table 1).
(B) (nr − 1) × nr × 2nr polyhedron vertices:
T
All element arrangements and all sign permutations of x̂- = [±1, ±a, ±b, ±b, . . ., ±b] (28)
√ √ √
where a = 2 − 1 ≈ 0.4142 and b = 3 − 2 ≈ 0.3178. The possible arrangements, associated with the position of the unit and of the
coefficient equal to a are (nr – 1) × nr . Moreover, the possible sign permutations are 2nr . As a result, this enveloping polyhedron has
(nr − 1)nr 2nr vertices (Table 1).
Step 3: Transform the polyhedron enveloping the hyper-sphere defined at Step 2 into a polyhedron enveloping a hyper-ellipsoid, by
scaling the reference system axes:
1/2
s= x̂
Table 1
Number of discretization points for the discretization approaches A and B.
nr 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A nr × 2nr 8 24 64 160 384 896 2048

B (nr − 1)nr × 2nr 8 48 192 640 1920 5376 14336
Table 2
- ); ␹Eqs. (D.19) and (D.22) (Appendix D).
Distance of the polyhedron vertices from the reference point (the origin O
nr 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A ␹ 1.0824 1.1589 1.2307 1.2986 1.3630 1.4246 1.4836

B ␹ 1.0824 1.1281 1.1720 1.2143 1.2552 1.2949 1.3333
Table 3
Distance of the polyhedron facets of the “Group 0” from the reference point (the origin O
- ); Eqs. (D.20) and (D.23) (Appendix D).
nr 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A dnr ,0 1 1.0556 1.1213 1.1881 1.2538 1.3173 1.3787

B dnr ,0 1 1 1.0249 1.0589 1.0964 1.1352 1.1742
Step 4: Transform the polyhedron defined at Step 3 into a polyhedron enveloping the hyper-ellipsoid in the original reference:

nr
1/2
x = Vs = V x̂ = x̂ r vr (29)
r
r=1
Eq. (29) shows that in the procedure proposed here the so-called “equivalent modal responses” (see e.g. Gupta,
1980) are chosen equal
to r vr , i.e. they are the eigenvectors of the hyper-ellipsoid scaled in order to get vectors with norms equal to r , which correspond
to the lengths of the hyper-ellipsoid semi-axes; see also Leblond (1980) and Vezin et al. (2007). The difference between approaches A and
nr
B can be appreciated by comparing the distances between the origin O - ∈ and the vertices of the polyhedron for cases A and B (Table 2).
Moreover, Table 3 gives the distances between the origin and the polyhedron facets of the so-called “Group 0” (see also Appendix D). As
expected, these distances are less in case B than in case A. This means that the discretization of the hyper-ellipsoid is more accurate.
4. Definition of equivalent static loads using the ˛-ellipsoid of the coefficients of linear combinations of modes
As an alternative to the response spectrum method, the so-called equivalent static method (ASCE, 2009) is sometimes used in the
engineering practice. This method consists in computing the seismic response by a static structural analysis under one or several static
force fields representing the seismic action. The main difficulty in the practical use of this approach is the definition of suitable static force
fields, taking into account the contribution of all the structural modes and ground motion components.
In order to define such “accurate” equivalent static force fields, we propose here to use the notion of ˛-ellipsoid, which allows simul-
taneous pseudo-accelerations first and pseudo-inertia forces then to be easily computed. In more detail, Eq. (4) can be used to define the
vector a- , whose elements are the pseudo-accelerations in the directions x, y and z of all the nodes of the structural model. Then, a field of
pseudo-inertia forces associated with a three-component ground motion can be defined as follows:

q(t) = qk (t) = ˛i,k (t)Q i,k (30)
- - -
k k i
T
where qk (t) = [q1,k (t), . . ., qnr ,k (t)]T = [m1 a1x,k (t), m1 a1y,k (t), m1 a1z,k (t), . . ., mM aM
x,k
(t), mM aM
y,k
(t), mM aM
z,k
(t)] ∈ Rnr , nr = 3M is the field of
-
the forces associated with the component k of the ground motion; M is the number of nodes; Q i,k = [Q1,i,k , . . ., Qnr i,k ]T =
-
T
[m1 A1x,i,k , m1 A1y,i,k , m1 A1z,i,k , . . ., mM AM
x,i,k
, mM AM
y,i,k
, mM AM
z,i,k
] ∈ Rnr is the vector of the peak values of the forces qr,k (t) for the mode i and
T
the ground motion direction k. The definition of these peak values can also be formulated as follows: Qr,i,k = d- r A - i,k , where d- r is a suitable
vector depending on the nodal masses and A - i,k has been defined in Eq. (2). The nodal forces of the response vector q are simultaneous,
because they are all defined using the same set of coefficients ˛i,k and they are probable if and only if the coefficients ˛i,k belong to the
˛-ellipsoid (Eq. (12)).
In general, the coefficients ˛i,k are not known. An interesting particular situation, where ˛i,k can be easily found, is the case of structures
characterized by one dominant mode for each ground motion direction k; we may indicate these three modes with the indices (1,x), (1,y)
and (1,z). It follows that for the component k of the ground motion, the force field qk (t) is proportional to Q 1,k : therefore ˛i,k (t) ≈ 0 for all
-
i≥2, all t and all k. Moreover, one has ˛1,k ≈ 1 when the peak response occurs in direction k. Then, the Newmark 40%-rule can be used to
define the force field q for the three-component seismic input: this corresponds to choose ˛1,k = ±1 and ˛1,k = ±0.4 for k = / k in Eq. (30).
-
It appears that this definition of the equivalent static force field q is approximated, above all for structures without a dominant mode for
-
each ground motion direction.
In order to deal with the general case of “multi-modal” structures and multi-component ground motions, a novel procedure is proposed
in this section, where the ˛i,k coefficients are computed by using the notions of ␣-ellipsoid and x-ellipsoid. First, observe that a static load
field is completely defined when the vector ˛ - in Eq. (30) is assigned. Moreover, it has been previously proven that the locus of the probable
vectors ˛ (12). For n modes, the ˛-ellipsoid has dimension 3n. Its polyhedral envelope has either 3n × 23n
- is the ˛-ellipsoid defined by Eq. 3n
vertices (approach A) or (3n − 1) × 3n × 2 vertices (approach B); see Section 3. These numbers are too large for practical calculations.
Actually, instead of looking for all the vectors ˛ - approximating the ˛-ellipsoid, a selection of the most important ones, according to
some engineering criteria, should be made. For instance, it is possible to look for the 6 points ˛ - belonging to the ˛-ellipsoid and each
one maximizing one of the total shear seismic forces Fx (t), Fy (t), Fz (t) or moments Mxx (t), Myy (t), Mzz (t) at the basis of the building. The
maximization of the forces and moments at the building basis is a common engineering criterion for the choice of critical seismic load
cases. More in general, a complete description of the probable vectors of seismic generalized forces at the basis of the building is provided by the
corresponding 6D hyper-ellipsoid:
T −1 f,base
(xf,base ) (X f,base ) x ≤1 (31)
The hyper-ellipsoid defined by Eq. (31) is a particular case of the x-ellipsoid of Eq. (26). Moreover,
T
f,base
x- f,base (t) = [Fxbase (t), Fybase (t), Fzbase (t), Mxx
base base
(t), Myy base
(t), Mzz (t)] = ˛i,k (t)X- i,k
k i
f,base f,base f,base f,base f,base f,base f,base f,base f,base f,base T
= [X- 1,x , X- 2,x , . . ., X- n,x , X- 1,y , X- 2,y , . . ., X- n,y , . . ., X- 1,z , X- 2,z , . . ., X- n,z ]˛
- (t):=(R ) ˛
- (t) (32)
f,base T
base , F base , F base , M base , M base , M base ] is the vector of the peak forces and moments at the building basis associated with
where X- i,k = [Fx,i,k y,i,k z,i,k xx,i,k yy,i,k zz,i,k
f,base
the mode i and the ground motion direction k. The 3n × 6 matrix Rf,base is a particular case of matrix R (Eq. (20)) and X- i,k is a particular
f,base f,base T f,base
case of vector X- i,k (Eq. (13)). Moreover, X- = (R ) H̃-R- , according to Eq. (21).
-
Accounting for the above discussion, the definition of an equivalent static load will be based on the calculation of a vector ˛ - to be
f,base T f,base f,base
used in Eq. (30) and such that (R ) ˛=x , with x chosen a priori and satisfying Eq. (31). In practice, the ellipsoid of Eq. (31) is
approximated by a 6D-polyhedron with either 384 vertices (approach A) or 1920 vertices (approach B); Section 3. A unique vector ˛ - can
be computed for each vertex xf,base of these polyhedrons by using Eq. (25), rewritten here by adapting the notation:
−1 f,base
˛ = H̃Rf,base (X f,base ) x (33)
The pseudo-inertia force field associated with (simultaneous to) x- f,base is computed by replacing Eq. (33) into Eq. (30). For each one of the
384 (or 1920) vertices of the polyhedron enveloping the hyper-ellipsoid of Eq. (31), this procedure is repeated. This leads to a set of 384 (or
1920) static load fields, each one equivalent to the seismic action associated with a given vector x- f,base . In this way, a complete description
of the seismic action in terms of global forces and moments at the building basis is ensured. The same procedure may be applied at other
levels of the building or in other parts or sections of the structure.
5. Application: seismic design of a reinforced concrete nuclear building
In this section, the structural seismic analysis of a reinforced concrete nuclear building is presented. The structure description is given
in Section 5.2. After the structural analysis with the static loads, several seismic analysis approaches are applied (Section 5.1), in order to
compute the efforts in all the elements of the structural model. Then, the steel reinforcement demands are evaluated for each shell element,
using the method proposed by Capra and Maury (1978), and finally they are summed, to get the steel demand for the whole structure.
Each seismic analysis approach provides a different result. The comparison is briefly discussed in Sections 5.3 and 5.4.
For each shell element of the structural model, three membrane forces and three moments are computed (static plus seismic contrib-
utions) and used to determine the steel demand. The seismic response vector reads:
T
x- sh = [Nxx
sh sh
, Nyy sh
, Nxy sh
, Mxx sh
, Myy sh
, Mxy ] = [X- sh
1,x , . . ., X
sh sh sh sh sh
- n,x , X- 1,y , . . ., X- n,y , X- 1,z , . . ., X- n,z , ]˛
sh
- :=(R )˛- (34)
T T
where X- sh sh sh sh sh sh sh
i,k = [Nxx,i,k , Nyy,i,k , Nxy,i,k , Mxx,i,k , Myy,i,k , Mxy,i,k ] :=[F1,i,k , F2,i,k , F3,i,k , F4,i,k , F5,i,k , F6,i,k ] is the vector of the peak membrane
forces and moments of a shell element associated with the mode i and the ground motion direction k. Notice that the indices xx, yy and
xy are associated with the local axes of each shell element. For brevity, the two out-of-plane shear efforts are not considered and shear
reinforcement design is not performed.
5.1. Four methods of seismic analysis
The structural model of Fig. 4a is analyzed according to four different seismic calculation approaches. The directional MC responses
MC are computed in all the cases using Eq. (16), with the modal correlation coefficients calculated according to the so-called complete
Fr,k ij
quadratic combination – CQC (Der Kiureghian, 1979, ASCE, 2009). The detailed description of each seismic analysis method follows:
(1) “CQC-signs-40%” method. For a given ground motion direction k, the modal peak values of each individual response, namely Fr,i,k
MC (Eq. (16)). Then, a sign is attributed to each one of the six responses F MC ,
(r = 1,. . .,6), are combined by the CQC-rule, leading to Fr,k r,k
according to the usual criterion consisting in imposing to Fr,k MC , for each r, the same sign as the one of the force F
r,1,k associated with
the fundamental mode for the ground motion direction k. Sometimes, the signs are rather associated with three static reference
configurations (one per each ground motion direction), e.g. the configurations obtained by applying to the structural model a unit
acceleration parallel to each seismic input direction. Finally, the responses Fr,k MC with the chosen sign are combined by the Newmark’s
40%-rule. This leads to 24 different seismic load cases, i.e. 24 vectors in the 6D space of the shell generalized forces.
(2) “CQC-SRSS-parallelepiped” method. As in the previous case, the directional MC responses Fr,k MC are computed according to Eq. (16).
Then, these directional MC responses are combined by the SRSS-rule according to Eq. (22), in order to obtain FrMC−DC for r = 1, . . ., 6.
Finally, several six-component vectors are defined by taking all possible sign permutations of the six components FrMC−DC : this leads
to 26 = 64 response vectors, defining the vertices of a parallelepiped in the 6D space of the shell generalized forces.
(3) “Elliptical response envelope” method. The theoretical envelope is the hyper-ellipsoid defined as follows:
T −1 sh
(xsh ) (X sh ) x ≤1 (35)
Fig. 4. (a) Finite element model of the analyzed nuclear building. (b) Response spectrum for the horizontal directions; pseudo-acceleration (m/s2 ) vs. frequency (Hz). (c)
Finite element considered in Fig. 5.
T
The matrix X sh is computed according to Eq. (21): X sh = (Rsh ) H̃ Rsh . Then, as it has been discussed in Section 3, this hyper-ellipsoid is
approximated by an enveloping polyhedron whose vertices define a set of points in the 6D space of the shell generalized forces. Two
different enveloping polyhedrons are considered: (a) Approach A (“Ellipsoid-384 points”); (b) Approach B (“Ellipsoid-1920 points”).
(4) “Equivalent static load” method (Section 4). Three variants are considered: (a) the 6D-ellipsoid of the total forces and moments at the
building basis (Eq. (31)) is discretized with 384 points: Approach A of Section 3. This leads to 384 equivalent static load fields (“384
points, forces at the basis”); (b) the ellipsoid of Eq. (31) is discretized with 1920 points: Approach B of Section 3 (“1920 points, forces at
the basis”); (c) several ellipsoids analogous to the one of Eq. (31) are considered, one per each main floor of the building. There are six
main levels in the analyzed structure. Each one of these ellipsoids is discretized according to the Approach A of Section 3 (“384 points,
forces at 6 levels”).
Observe that in the “CQC-SRSS-parallelepiped” and “CQC-signs-40%” methods, the simultaneity of distinct generalized forces is con-
sidered in an approximated way. Conversely, the response envelope approach properly takes into accounts simultaneity of generalized
forces of each element of the structure and can be considered as the reference solution. The accuracy of this method increases when the
discretization of the response envelope is finer. Therefore, the “Ellipsoid-1920 points” method is taken as reference.
5.2. Structure description and modal analysis
The reinforced concrete nuclear building of Fig. 4a has the following dimensions: width 16.5 m, length 27.5 m, height 31.94 m. The finite
element software used for the structural analysis is HERCULE (2000). The number of nodes and (thin) shell elements of the finite element
model is 14400 and 16900, respectively. The total mass of the model is 15015 tons. The soil under the foundation raft is modeled by a set
of vertical and horizontal linear elastic springs. Reinforced concrete is modeled by a linear elastic constitutive rule, with Young modulus
of 34000 MPa and Poisson ratio 0.2. After the modal analysis (Table 4), 35 modes plus the residual rigid response due to the missing mass
are retained (n = 36), the cutoff frequency being fZPA = 40 Hz. A response spectrum analysis is then carried out using the horizontal pseudo-
acceleration spectrum of Fig. 4b, characterized by a PGA of 0.175 g. For the vertical ground motion, the horizontal spectrum is scaled by a
factor equal to 2/3.
5.3. Comparison of the seismic analysis methods of section 5.1 in terms of forces and moments in a single shell element
The differences between the seismic analysis methods listed in Section 5.1 can be illustrated by plotting the points representing the
response vectors of the shell forces and moments of a single element of the structure. For the finite element indicated in Fig. 4c, the
Table 4
Main structural modes of the model of Fig. 4a.
No. mode Frequency (Hz) Period (s) Damping coefficient (%) Percentage of effective mass (%)
x y z
1 4.41 0.2268 6.6 55.9 0.4 0

2 6.18 0.1618 6.7 0.2 59.7 0
3 9.35 0.107 6.9 1.6 0.3 0.3
4 11.39 0.0878 7.2 19.1 0.2 2.9
5 13.56 0.0738 9.2 1.1 0.2 35.1
6 16.14 0.062 7.4 0.5 17.1 1.4
7 16.54 0.0605 10.2 0.1 1.8 34.1
... ... ... ... ... ... ...
35 39.18 0.0255 7.1 0.2 0.3 1.5
Total of considered modes 82.4 84.4 82.7
Fig. 5. Nxx –Nyy : shell membrane forces of element 6692. Each subplot illustrates the efforts computed by four different methods among the seven listed in Table 5. Notice
that the center of the ellipses does not coincide with the origin, since the static load is taken into account.
projection of the response vectors onto the plane Nxx − Nyy is shown in Fig. 5. One observes that (i) the points obtained by the “equivalent
static load” approach, especially when several levels of the building are considered (procedure “Equivalent static load, 384 points, six
levels”), define an envelope which is slightly larger than the one associated with the CQC-Newmark’s points and the points of the elliptical
response envelope. Hence, the reinforcement demand associated with the “equivalent static methods” is expected to be more important
than the ones found by the other two approaches; (ii) some of the shell efforts computed by the “CQC-SRSS-parallelepiped” method are
far outside the elliptical envelope. This will entail an overestimation of reinforcement demands.
5.4. Comparison of the seismic analysis methods of section 5.1 in terms of total reinforcement demand
Once the static plus seismic shell generalized forces are known for each element of the model, the steel reinforcement demand can be
determined using the method of Capra and Maury (1978). This method provides the minimum steel reinforcement areas per unit length
for both directions and for both upper and bottom steel reinforcement layers of each shell element. Then, for each element, these steel
areas per unit length are multiplied by the element area and then summed: this gives the total required steel volume for each element. The
required reinforcement volume for the whole structure is found by summing all the element volumes. Table 5 gives the ratios between the
total steel volume found by each method and the total steel volume computed by the “Ellipsoid 1920 points” method, taken as reference.
Table 5
Total reinforcement demand for the building of Fig. 4a. Comparison of the required steel volumes calculated by the seismic analysis methods described in section 5.1.
Vi [m3 ]
i Seismic analysis method
V3b [m3 ]
1 CQC-sign-40% 1.01
2 CQC-SRSS-parallelepiped 1.53
3a Ellipsoid 384 points 1.02
Elliptical response envelope
3b Ellipsoid 1920 points 1
4a 384 points, forces at the basis 1.13
4b Equivalent static load 1920 points, forces at the basis 1.09
4c 384 points, forces at six levels 1.18
One observes that the results obtained using the “Ellipsoid 384 points” and the “Ellipsoid 1920 points” methods (cases 3a and 3b)
are very close to the one associated with procedure “CQC-signs-40%” method (case 1). This result can be justified by observing that the
fundamental modes for the x and y directions have an important participating mass: as a result, the procedure consisting in attributing
the sign of directional CQC responses according to these fundamental modes is quite accurate. However, non-small element by element
differences between the steel demands obtained from these methods may occur, mainly due to procedure of sign attribution characterizing
the “CQC-sign-40%” method (Nguyen et al., 2013b). These local differences are more important for structures without a dominant mode
per direction (Erlicher et al., 2013).
As expected, the “CQC-SRSS-parallelepiped” method (case 2) gives the maximum reinforcement demand. The reinforcement volume
obtained by the equivalent static load method (cases 4a and 4b) is greater than the one found by procedures 1, 3a and 3b. The result is less
conservative when the finest hyper-ellipsoid approximation of procedure 4b is used. This can be explained by the fact that the 6D ellipsoid
of the forces and moments at the building basis is discretized by a polyhedral envelope whose vertices are outside the hyper-ellipsoid and
the distance with respect to the hyper-ellipsoid surface is larger when procedure 4a is used. Case 4c is more conservative than case 4a,
since a greater number of load cases are considered.
6. Conclusions
In this paper, several seismic analysis approaches based on the response spectrum method, in particular the so-called elliptical response
envelopes and a novel definition of equivalent static loads, have been discussed. In Section 2, some basic equations about response spectrum
method have been recalled. Then, the notion of hyper-ellipsoid of the linear modal combination coefficients has been introduced, by
distinguishing the ˛k -ellipsoid for a single-component ground motion and the ˛-ellipsoid for three-component ground motions. This has
allowed for the proposal of a new interpretation of elliptical response envelopes, based on the relationship between these envelopes and
the ˛- and ˛k -ellipsoids. In the second part of the paper (Section 3), two methods for the discretization of elliptical response envelopes of
generic dimension nr ≥2 have been presented: first, a classical procedure based on the definition of a polyhedron enveloping the response
envelope has been described; then, a modified version, characterized by a finer and more accurate hyper-ellipsoid discretization, has
been proposed. In Section 4, a novel definition of equivalent static load has been presented, based on the use of the pseudo-inertia forces
obtained by suitable linear combination of modes. In the last section, several different seismic analysis methods, i.e. the “CQC-sign-40%”
method, the “CQC-SRSS-parallelepiped” method, the “Elliptical response envelope” method with two different discretization approaches
and three variants of the “Equivalent static load” method have been applied to the same reinforced concrete nuclear building. The results
are compared in terms of shell generalized forces in one finite element and in terms of steel reinforcement demand for the whole building.
For the structure analyzed here, the “CQC-sign-40%” method has given a total amount of reinforcement close to the one of the “Elliptical
response envelope” method. However, it is important not to forget that local (element-by-element) steel demands may be different, above
all for structures having several modes with large participating mass. The steel demand obtained from the proposed “Equivalent static load”
method are sensibly affected by the choice of the engineering criterion adopted for the static load definition: the steel demand associated
with the load fields representing the total forces and moments at all the main levels of the building is larger than the one obtained from
the load fields associated with the total forces and moments at the basis only. Finally, as expected, the “CQC-SRSS-parallelepiped” method
has proven to be largely conservative.
Appendix A. Inequalities defining the ˛k - and ˛-ellipsoids
Using the assumption that H is symmetric positive definite (Section 2.1.1), hence invertible, it is possible to rewrite Eq. (7) as follows:

T −1
F k H H ˛k = ˛T H −1 H F k ≤ (H F k )T H −1 (H F k ) or ˛T , (H F k ) −1 ≤ H F k −1 (A.1)
k k H H
where ·, · H −1
indicates the scalar product associated with H −1 and · −1 is the corresponding norm. Using these notations, the inequality
H
in (A.1) can also be written as ˛T k

−1 H F k
−1
cos ≤ H F k −1 and must hold for any vector F k (see Eq. (7)). This implies
-
H H H

˛k = ˛Tk H −1 ˛k ≤ 1 (A.2)
H −1
Eq. (A.2) is identical to Eq. (8) and it means that when a vector ˛k fulfills Eq. (7), it must belong to a hyper-ellipsoid of dimension n. Vice
versa, when ˛k fulfills Eq. (A.2), then for any F- k ∈ n one has

T
F k , (H ˛k ) −1 = ˛T , (H F k ) −1 = ˛T −1 H F k −1 cos ≤ H F k −1
H k H k H H H
and this equivalent to Eq. (A.1) (and Eq. (7)). The proof of Eq. (12) is analogous, provided that ˛k and H are replaced by ˛ and H̃, respectively.
Appendix B. Relationship between the ˛k -ellipsoid (˛-ellipsoid) and a xk -ellipsoid (x-ellipsoid)
Let H be a n × n real symmetric positive definite matrix (therefore invertible) and let R be a n × nr real matrix. Moreover, suppose that
k
nr ≤ n and that the nr columns of R are linearly independent. Let us introduce the nr × nr matrix X = RT H R and the vectors xk ∈ nr and
k k k k
˛k ∈ n . Then:
T T
(1) X is symmetric. Proof: X T = (RT H R ) = RT (RT H) = RT H R = X .
k k k k k k k k k
(2) X is non-singular and positive definite. Proof: if x- k belongs to the kernel of X , then X xk = RT H R xk = 0. It follows that xTk RT H R xk = 0
k k k k k k k
and then H 1/2 R xk = 0. Recall that the assumptions on H entail the existence and non-singularity of the matrix H 1/2 . This entails R xk = 0
k k
and finally xk = 0, since the rank of R is supposed equal to nr , which also is the dimension of x- k . In summary, the kernel of X contains
k k
/ 0, then xTk X xk = xTk RT H R xk = (xTk RT H 1/2 )(H 1/2 R xk ) > 0.
the vector xk = 0 only. This proves that X is invertible. Moreover, if xk =
k k k k k k
Then, X is positive definite.
k
(3) The solution sets of the quadratic equations ˛Tk H −1 ˛k = c and xTk X −1 xk = d with c,d > 0 are hyper-ellipsoids of dimension n and nr ,
k
respectively. Proof: the positive definiteness of H and X directly implies this result.
k
(4) For a given vector x- k , a unique vector ˛k can be found such that xk = RT ˛k and such that the quadratic form ˛Tk H −1 ˛k (the norm of ˛k
k
associated with H −1 ) is minimized. Moreover, this vector reads (see also Eq. (18)):
˛k = H R X −1 xk (B.1)
k k
Proof: see Appendix C.

(5) For a pair of vectors x- k and ˛k defined as in item (4), one has xTk X −1 xk = ˛Tk H −1 ˛k . Proof: using Eq. (B.1), the following identities hold:
k
˛Tk H −1 ˛k = xTk X −1 RT H H −1 H R X −1 xk = xTk X −1 RT H R X −1 xk = xTk X −1 xk .
k k k k k k k k k
(6) Let xk and ˛k be a pair of vectors defined as in item (4). Then, ˛Tk H −1 ˛k ≤ 1 entails xTk X −1 xk ≤ 1 and vice-versa. Proof: using the identity
k
between quadratic forms of item (5), the proof is trivial.
Analogous results hold when R , H, X , xk , ˛k are replaced with R (3n × nr matrix with nr ≤ 3n linearly independent columns), H̃
k k
(3n × 3n matrix), X = RT H̃R (nr × nr matrix), x ∈ nr , ˛ ∈ 3n , respectively. Moreover, observe that:
T
(7) if R (k = x, y, z) is a n×nr matrix with nr ≤ n linearly independent columns, then the 3n ≤ nr matrix R = [RT , RT , RT ] also has nr linearly
k x y z
T
independent columns. Proof: let ˛ = (˛Tx , ˛Ty , ˛Tz ) , with ˛k ∈ n (k = x, y, z). Then, R ˛ = 0 entails R ˛k = 0 for all k and, from the
k
assumptions on R , ˛k = 0 for all k. This entails ˛ = 0 and therefore the rank of R is equal to nr .
k
Appendix C. Derivation of Eq. (B.1)
Let R be a n × nr real matrix with nr ≤ n linearly independent columns. Moreover, let H be a n × n real symmetric positive definite
k
matrix. It follows that X = RT H R is symmetric definite positive too; see Appendix B, items (1) and (2). Then, for a given xk ∈ nr , find
k k k
˛∗k ∈ n that minimizes the quadratic form ˛Tk H −1 ˛k under the constraint RT ˛k = xk :
k
˛∗k = ARG(min∀˛ ∈ n :RT ˛ =x [˛Tk H −1 ˛k ]) = ARG(min∀˛k ∈ n [˛Tk H −1 ˛k + T

(RT ˛k − xk )]) (C.1)
k k k k
k
with ∈ nr the vector of Lagrange multipliers associated with the constraint RT ˛k = xk . Due to the positive definiteness of H and the
k
linearity (then convexity) of the constraint RT ˛k = xk , Eq. (C.1) represents a convex optimization problem. As a result, if a local minimum
k
exists, then it is a (unique) global minimum. The graphical interpretation of this problem is given in Fig. 1. The stationary conditions defining
∗
˛k = ˛k read:
⎧ T ∗
⎨ Rk ˛k − xk = 0
H R ∗ (C.2)
⎩ 2H −1 ˛∗ + R ∗ =0→ ˛∗k = − k
k k 2
By replacing the expression of ˛∗k into the first equation of the system (C.2), one has:
RT H R ∗
1
xk = RT ˛∗k = − k k
=− X ∗
→ ∗
= −2X −1 xk → ˛∗k = H R X −1 xk (C.3)
k 2 2 k k k k
This solution coincides with Eq. (B.1). It is trivial to check that the constraint RT ˛∗k = xk is fulfilled. Moreover, observe that the vector
k
˜ k = a˛∗k , with a > 0, belongs to the hyper-ellipsoid ˛Tk H −1 ˛k = 1 if and only if
˛
−1/2 −1/2
a = ((˛∗k )T H −1 ˛∗k ) = (xTk X −1 xk ) (C.4)
k
Analogous results hold when R , H, X , xk , ˛k are replaced with R (3n × nr matrix with nr linearly independent columns and with nr ≤ 3n),
k k
H̃ (3n × 3n matrix), X = RT H̃ R (nr × nr matrix), x ∈ nr , ˛ ∈ 3n , respectively.
Appendix D. Properties of the polyhedrons defined in Section 3
Let em ∈ Rnr , with m = 1, . . ., nr ≥1, be a set of vectors constituting the standard orthonormal basis of Rnr . Hence, a generic vector

nr
x ∈ Rnr can be written as follows: x = xm em = [x1 , x2 , . . ., xnr ]T where xm are the coordinates of x associated with the orthonormal basis.
m=1
Moreover, let S be a hyper-sphere in Rnr having unit radius and consider the problem of the definition of a polyhedron enveloping S. Two
steps can be distinguished:
(1) Choice of the vectors orthogonal to the polyhedron facets. We suppose they have unit norm and that they define the outer normal of
the facets.
(2) Choice of the distance between the facets and the hyper-sphere surfaces and definition of the polyhedron vertices as the crossing
points between the facets. The facets have to be tangent to or outside S. In some cases, it is possible to choose the vertices and check a
posteriori that the associated facets are tangent to or outside the hyper-sphere.
D.1. Definition of the vectors orthogonal to the facets of a polyhedron enveloping the hyper-sphere S ∈ Rnr
In order to define the facets of a polyhedron enveloping S, we consider nr sets of outer normal vectors with unit norm. Each set (or
“Group”) is characterized by the index k (“Group k”, with k = 0, 1, . . ., nr − 1), indicating how many vector coordinates are nil. We will use
the name “Group k” for both the normal vectors and for the associated facets. We also suppose that all the non-zero coordinates of each
vector have the same absolute value (and the vector norm is unit). Hence, the nr vectors of a given group differ in: (i) the position of the
zero vs. non-zero coordinates, index i, and (ii) the sign of each one of the non-zero coordinates, index j:
(i,j)
Nn ∈ Rnr with nr ≥1 and k = 0, 1, . . ., nr − 1 (D.1)
r ,k
When nr and k are fixed, it can be proven that
nr !
i = 1, . . ., and j = 1, . . ., 2nr −k (D.2)
k!(nr − k)!
with 0! = 1. This means that for a given arrangement i of the vector coordinates, there are 2nr −k possible sign permutations of the non-zero
coordinates. Vice versa, for a given sign permutation j, the number of possible distinct vectors which can be found by changing the positions
(i,j)
of the zero and non-zero coordinates is k!(nnr−k)!
!
. According to this definition of the vectors N n ,k , the total number of normal vectors and,
r r
equivalently, of polyhedron facets in the generic “Group k” is:
n nr !
r
Nfacets (nr , k) = 2nr −k = 2nr −k , with nr ≥1, k = 0, 1, . . ., nr − 1 (D.3)
k k!(nr − k)!
where is the Newton coefficient.

In the particular case nr = 1, only the “Group 0” exists. The polyhedron becomes a segment of the real axis, bounded by the “facets” +1
and −1.
When nr = 2, there are 2 groups of normal vectors: the “Group 0”, having k = 0 coordinates equal to zero, and the “Group 1” having
k = nr − 1 = 1 null coordinates:
T T T T
(1,1) (1,2) (1,3) (1,4)
- “Group 0”: N 2,0 = √1 , √1 , N 2,0 = − √1 , √1 , N 2,0 = √1 , − √1 , N 2,0 = − √1 , − √1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
(1,1) T (1,2) (2,1) (2,2)
- Group 1: N 2,1 = [1, 0] , N 2,1 = [−1, 0]T , N 2,1 = [0, 1]T , N 2,1 = [0, −1]T
In the “Group 0”, the only difference between the normal vectors is the sign of their coordinates. In the “Group 1”, the vectors differ
2!
in both the signs and the position of the zero vs. non-zero coordinates. There are Nfacets (2, 0) = 0!2! 22−0 = 1 × 4 = 4 in the Group 0 and
2!
Nfacets (2, 1) = 1!1! 22−1 = 2 × 2 = 4 in the Group 1.
In the general case:
- “Group 0” (facets not parallel to any vector em ):

T
(1,j) ±1 ±1 ±1 ±1
Nn = √ , √ , √ , . . ., √
r ,0 nr nr nr nr (D.4a)
Nfacets (nr , 0) = 2nr
- “Group 1” (each facet is parallel to 1 vector em ):

T T
±1 ±1 ±1 ±1 ±1 ±1
(1,j)
N n ,1
r
= 0, , , . . ., ,
(2,j)
N n ,1
r
= , 0, , . . ., ,...
nr − 1 nr − 1 nr − 1 nr − 1 nr − 1 nr − 1
nr ! nr −1 nr −1
Nfacets (nr , 1) = 2 = nr 2
1!(nr − 1)! (D.4b)
...
...
...
- “Group nr − 1” (each facet is parallel to nr − 1 vectors em ):
(1,j) (2,j) nr !
Nn = [±1, 0, 0, . . ., 0]T = ±e1 , Nn = [0, ±1, 0, . . ., 0]T = ±e2 , . . .Nfacets (nr , nr − 1) = 2 = 2nr (D.4c)
r ,nr −1 r ,nr −1 (nr − 1)!(1)!
D.2. The vertices of the polyhedron enveloping the unit hyper-sphere S ∈ Rnr
n
Let us take the subspace V1 ⊂ Rnr defined as the set of vectors x = r
x e ∈ Rnr such that all xm ≥0. For nr = 1, V1 is the half-line R+ .
m=1 m m
In the case nr = 2, V1 is the first quadrant, the first octant for nr = 3 and so on for greater values of nr . There are 2nr subspaces of this type,
one per each permutation of the sign of the non-zero element of vectors em . The union of all these subspaces coincide with Rnr . Taking
into account this, and for reasons of symmetry, all the polyhedron properties, e.g. the coordinates of its vertices as well as the coordinates
of the vectors normal to the polyhedron facets, can be defined with reference to the subspace V1 , where these coordinates are positive.
Then, the corresponding results can be extended to the whole space Rnr by doing the suitable sign permutations.
(i,j)
The normal vectors N n ,k introduced above are necessary but not sufficient to define the facets of a polyhedron enveloping the hyper-
r
(i,j)
sphere S. Actually, each vector N n defines a family of hyper-planes orthogonal to it:
r ,k
(i,j)
xT N n = dnr ,k (D.5)
r ,k
(i,j)
We suppose x ∈ V1 and N n ∈ V1 . Then dnr ,k is positive and indicates the distance between the hyper-plane and the origin O ∈ Rnr . A
r ,k
(i,j)
facet associated with N n ,k is fully defined when dnr ,k is fixed. When dnr ,k > 1, the facet is outside the unit hyper-sphere S. The facet is
r
tangent to S when:
(i,j)
xT N n =1 (D.6)
r ,k
D.2.1. Case where all facets are tangent to S

This polyhedron definition has been introduced by Gupta (1980). In the elementary case nr = 1, the subspace V1 is defined by the
(i,j) (i,j)
condition x1 ≥0. Only the “Group 0” exists, with two normal “vectors” N 0,0 → ±1. The analysis can be restricted to N 0,0 → +1. Eq. (D.6)
(i,j)
becomes x- T N 0,0 = 1 → x1 = 1.
(1,j) (i,j)
In the case nr = 2, one has x = [x1 , x2 ]T and there are two groups of four facets (N 2,0 and N 2,1 ). The facets are defined by requiring the
T
(1,1) (1,1)
tangency for both groups. Restricting the analysis to the subspace V1 (x1 ≥0, x2 ≥0), only three normal vectors N 2,0 = √1 , √1 , N 2,1 =
2 2
(2,1)
[1, 0]T and N 2,1 = [0, 1]T have to be considered. For the two facets of “Group 1”, Eq. (D.6) implies
(1,1)
xT N 2,1 = x1 = 1 → x = [1, x2 ]T (D.7a)
(2,1)
xT N 2,1 = x2 = 1 → x = [x1 , 1]T (D.7b)
Eqs. (D.7a) and (D.7b), together with the conditions x1 ≥0, x2 ≥0, define two half-lines in the first quadrant of R2 , each one parallel to
one of the basis vectors em . Moreover, the condition of tangency between the circle S ∈ R2 and the facet of “Group 0”, together with Eqs.
(D.7a) and (D.7b) allows the polygon vertices to be determined:
(1,1) 1 √ T
xT N 2,0 = √ (1 + x2 ) = 1 → x = [1, 2 − 1] (D.8a)
2
(1,1) 1 √ T
xT N 2,0 = √ (x1 + 1) = 1 → x = [ 2 − 1, 1] (D.8b)
2
These two polyhedron vertices have been found as the intersection between the facet of the “Group 0” and each one of the two facets
of the “Group 1”, all of them being tangent to the circle. In other words, all the vertices belong to the facet of the “Group 0”, while each one
of the other facets contains only one of the two vertices. Each sign permutation corresponds to a different quadrant. This gives the other
vertices of the polyhedron in R2 :
√ T √ T
All sign permutations of x = [±1, ± 2 − 1] and of x = [± 2 − 1, ±1] (D.9)
There are 2 × 22 = 8 vertices.

In the case nr = 3, an analogous procedure, based on the condition of tangency between the sphere and the facets of all the groups, can
(1,j) (i,j) (i,j)
be applied. In the first octant, the coordinates of the vector x = [x1 , x2 , x3 ]T and those of the normal vectors N 3,0 , N 3,1 and N 3,2 (“Groups
0, 1 and 2”) are positive. For the three facets of “Group 2”, the conditions of tangency lead to:
x- = [1, x2 , x3 ]T , x- = [x1 , 1, x3 ]T , x- = [x1 , x2 , 1]T (D.10)
Eq. (D.10) define three planes, each one parallel to a couple of basis vectors e- m . By using Eq. (D.10) and imposing the tangency between
the sphere and the three facets of “Group 1”, one obtains the equations of nine lines:
√ T √ T √ T
x- = [1, 2 − 1, x3 ] , x- = [1, x2 , 2 − 1] , x- = [ 2 − 1, 1, x3 ] (D.11a)
√ T √ T √ T
x- = [x1 , 1, 2 − 1] , x- = [ 2 − 1, x2 , 1] , x- = [x1 , 2 − 1, 1] (D.11b)
√ T √ T √ T
x- = [1, x2 , 2 − x2 ] , x- = [x1 , 1, 2 − x1 ] , x- = [x1 , 2 − x1 , 1] (D.11c)
Finally, by also imposing the tangency between the sphere and the facet of the “Group 0”, one gets six vertices of the polyhedron
enveloping the unit sphere:
√ √ √ T √ √ √ T √ √ √ T
x- = [1, 2 − 1, 3 − 2] , x- = [1, 3 − 2, 2 − 1] , x- = [ 2 − 1, 1, 3 − 2] (D.12a)
√ √ √ T √ √ √ T √ √ √ T
x- = [ 3 − 2, 1, 2 − 1] , x- = [ 2 − 1, 3 − 2, 1] , x- = [ 3 − 2, 2 − 1, 1] (D.12b)
The three straight lines defined by Eq. (D.11c) do not cross the facet of the “Group 0”, because they lie in a parallel plane, crossing the
unit sphere. Each one of the other six lines is parallel to one of the basis vectors e- m . The points where these six lines cross the facet of the
“Group 0” define the six vertices of the polyhedron in the first octant. Hence, all the vertices belong to the facet of the “Group 0”, while
each one of the other facets contains only few vertices. The vertices of the polyhedron in the other octants can be found by doing sign
permutations. This leads to the following 3 × 2 × 23 = 48 vertices in 3 :
√ √ √ T
All coordinate arrangements and sign permutations of vector x- = [±1, ±( 2 − 1), ±( 3 − 2)] (D.13)
In the general case nr ≥ 1, there are nr ! vertices into the subspace V1 :
All coordinate arrangements of vector x- = [c1 , c2 , . . ., cnr ]T (D.14)

√ √
with ci = i − i − 1. All these vertices belong to the facet of the “Group 0”. Each one of the other facets contains only few vertices. In the
whole space nr , the vertices can be found by considering the sign permutations of the coordinates ci :
All coordinate arrangements and sign permutations of vector x- = [±c1 , ±c2 , . . ., ±cnr ]T (D.15)
√ √ n
with ci = i − i − 1. There are nr !2 vertices.
r
By definition, these points lie on facets which are all tangent to the hyper-sphere. However, the points are outside the hyper-sphere,
- is always greater than 1, except when nr = 1:
i.e. their distance from the origin O

nr √ 2 √ √ 2
x- = xi2 = 1 + ( 2 − 1) + ( 3 − 2) + · · · (D.16)
i=1
D.2.2. Cases where some facets are tangent to S and the others are outside
We consider here some variants of the previous polyhedron, obtained by increasing the distance between the hyper-sphere surface and
the facets of the group(s) with the lowest k indices. This leads to a less accurate approximation of the hyper-sphere, but it also allows a
significant reduction of the number of vertices. For instance, the simplest polyhedron is the hyper-cube enveloping the hyper-sphere S. In
this case, there are 2nr vertices:
All sign permutations of vector x- = [±1, ±1, . . ., ±1]T (D.17)

√
The distance of these vertices from the origin is x- = nr . Two other polyhedron definitions are given hereinafter.
Approach A
It is possible to consider a polyhedron defined by the following (nr 2nr ) vertices:
All coordinate arrangements and sign permutations of vector
√ √ T
x- = [±1, ±( 2 − 1), . . ., ±( 2 − 1)] (D.18)
√ √
All the elements of x- are equal to +( 2 − 1) or −( 2 − 1), except one of them, which is equal to +1 or −1. In the case nr = 1, the two
vertices are x1 = ±1. The distance of these vertices from the origin is

√ 2
x- = 1 + (nr − 1)( 2 − 1) (D.19)
The distance from the origin of the facets of the generic group k reads:
1 √
dnr ,k = x- T N
(i,j)
- nr ,k = (1 + (nr − k − 1)( 2 − 1)) with k = 0, . . ., nr − 1 and nr ≥2 (D.20)
nr − k
For instance, in the case nr = 3, the facets of √

“Group 1” and “Group 2” are tangent to the hyper-sphere (d3,1 = d3,2 = 1), while the facets
of the “Group 0” are outside (d3,0 = √1 (1 + 2( 2 − 1)) ≈ 1.056). This polyhedron definition is well-known (see e.g. Gupta, 1980; ASCE,
3
2009).
Approach B
Another approximate polyhedron can be defined by the following (nr − 1)nr 2nr vertices:
All element arrangements and sign permutations of vector
√ √ √ √ √ T
x- = [±1, ±( 2 − 1), ±( 3 − 2), . . ., ±( 3 − 2)] (D.21)
√ √ √ √ √ √
All the elements of x- are equal to +( 3 − 2) or −( 3 − 2), except two of them, which are equal to +1 or –1 and +( 2 − 1) or −( 2 − 1).
√ T √ T
In the case nr = 1, the vertices are x1 = ±1. When nr = 2, the vertices are x- = [±1, ±( 2 − 1)] and x- = [±( 2 − 1), ±1] and all the facets
are tangent to the circle with unit radius. The distance from the origin of the vertices defined by Eq. (D.21) reads:

√ 2 √ √ 2
x- = 1 + ( 2 − 1) + (nr − 2)( 3 − 2) (D.22)
The distance from the origin of the facets of the generic group k, with k = 0, . . ., nr − 1 and nr ≥3, reads:
1 √ √ √
k = 0, . . ., nr − 2 : dnr ,k = x- T N
(i,j)
- nr ,k = ( 2 + (nr − k − 2)( 3 − 2)) (D.23a)
nr − k
(i,j)
k = nr − 1 : dnr, k = x- T N
- nr, k = 1 (D.23b)
For instance, in the case nr = 4, the√facets of √ 1, 2 and 3 are tangent to the hyper-sphere (d4,1 = d4,2 = d4,3 = 1), while the facets
√ Groups
of the group 0 are outside: d4,0 = √1 ( 2 + 2( 3 − 2)) ≈ 1.025.
4
References
Anastassiadis, K., 1993. Directions sismiques défavorables et combinaisons défavorables des efforts. Annales de l’Institut technique du bâtiment et des travaux publics 512,
81–98 (in French).
ASCE 4-09, 2009. Working Group on Revision of ASCE Standard 4. Seismic Analysis of Safety-Related Nuclear Structures, Draft.
Capra, A., Maury, J.F., 1978. Calcul automatique du ferraillage optimal des plaques ou coques en béton armé. Annales de l’insitut technique du bâtiment et des travaux publics
367 (in French).
Chu, S.L., Amin, M., Singh, S., 1972. Spectral treatment of actions of three earthquake components on structures. Nucl. Eng. Des. 21, 126–136.
Der Kiureghian, A., 1979. On Reponses of Structures to Stationary Excitation. Report No. UCB/EERC-79/32. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley.
Erlicher, S., Nguyen, Q.S., Shaparevich, Y., Ruocci, G., 2013. Elliptical response hyper-ellipsoid envelopes and equivalent static load cases for seismic analysis of NPP reinforced
concrete buildings. In: 1st Conference on Technological Innovations in Nuclear Civil Engineering (TINCE), Paris, France, October.
Gupta, A.K., Singh, M.P., 1977. Design of column sections subjected to three components of earthquake. Nucl. Eng. Des. 41, 129–133.
Gupta, A.K., Chu, S.L., 1977a. Equivalent modal response method for seismic design of structures. Nucl. Eng. Des. 44–1, 87–91.
Gupta, A.K., Chu, S.L., 1977b. Probable simultaneous response by the response spectrum method of analysis. Nucl. Eng. Des. 44, 93–95.
Gupta, A.K., Fang, S.J., Chu, S.L., 1977. A rational and economical seismic design of beam columns in steel frames. In: Proceedings of 4th SMIRT International Conference, San
Francisco, US (Paper K9/7).
Gupta, A.K., 1978. Approximate design for three earthquake components. J. Eng. Mech. Proc. ASCE 104–EM6, 1453–1456.
Gupta, A.K., 1980. Design of nuclear power plants strutures subjected to three earthquake components. In: ASCE Conference on Civil Engineering and Nuclear Power, vol. 2,
Knoxville, TN, US, 12-2-1–12-2-23.
Gupta, A.K., Hassan, T., Gupta, A., 1996. Correlation coefficients for modal response combination of non-classically damped systems. Nucl. Eng. Des. 165, 67–80.
HERCULE, 2000. Finite Element Code, Version 34.01. SOCOTEC, France.
Hernández, J.J., López, O.A., 2003. Evaluation of combination rules for peak response calculation in three-component seismic analysis. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 32, 1585–1602.
Leblond, L., 1980. Calcul sismique par la méthode modale. Utilisation des réponses pour le dimensionnement. Théories et méthodes de calcul 380, 119–127 (in French).
López, O.A., Chopra, A.K., Hernández, J.J., 2001. Evaluation of combinations rules for maximum response calculation in multicomponent seismic analysis. Earthq. Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 30, 1379–1398, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.68.
Martin, F., 2004. Problèmes de concomitance en analyse modale spectrale. Combinations linéaires de modes – Domaine de concomitance. Internal Report – IOSIS Industries
(in French).
Menun, C., 2004. Strategies for identifying critical seismic response combinations. Earthq. Spectra 20 (4), 1139–1165.
Menun, C., Der Kiureghian, A., 1998. A replacement for the 30%, 40%, and SRSS rules for multicomponent seismic analysis. Earthq. Spectra 14 (1), 153–163.
Menun, C., Der Kiureghian, A., 2000a. Envelopes for seismic response vectors: I. Theory. J. Struct. Eng. 126 (April), 467–473.
Menun, C., Der Kiureghian, A., 2000b. Envelopes for seismic response vectors: II. Application. J. Struct. Eng. 126 (April), 474–481.
Miranda, M., Braverman, J., Wei, X., Hofmayer, C., Xu, J., 2011. Structural design challenges in design certification for new reactors. In: ASME 2011 Pressure Vessels & Piping
Division Conference, Baltimore, MD, July.
Morante, R., Wang, Y., Kenneally, R., 1999. Reevaluation of Regulatory Guidance on Modal Response Combination Methods for Seismic Response Spectrum Analysis. Brookhaven
National Laboratory, US-NRC, NUREG/CR-6645, BNL-NUREG-52576.
Newmark, N.M., 1975. Seismic design criteria for structures and facilities Trans-Alaska pipeline system. In: Proceedings of the U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, pp. 94–103.
Nguyen, Q.S., Erlicher, S., Martin, F., 2012. Comparison of several variants of the response spectrum method and definition of equivalent static loads from the peak response
envelopes. In: 15th World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, September (Paper 4269).
Nguyen, Q.S., Erlicher, S., Martin, F., 2013a. Definition of static load cases equivalent to the seismic action using peak response hyper-ellipsoid envelopes: theoretical
formulation, algorithmic aspects and application to a NPP building. In: SMiRT-22, August.
Nguyen, Q.S., Erlicher, S., Martin, F., 2013b. Elliptical response envelopes for the design of reinforced concrete structures: new developments and application to NPP buildings.
In: SEDIF 2013, September.
Penzien, J., Watabe, M., 1975. Characteristics of 3-dimensional earthquake ground motions. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 3 (4), 365–373.
Rosenblueth, E., Contreras, H., 1977. Approximate design for multicomponent earthquakes. J. Eng. Mech. Div. ASCE 103 (EM5), 881–893.
Rosenblueth, E., Elorduy, J., 1969. Response of linear systems to certain transient disturbances. In: Proceedings, Fourth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago
of Chile.
Smeby, W., Der Kiureghian, A., 1985. Modal combination rules for multicomponent earthquake excitation. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 13, 1–12.
Vezin, J.M., Martin, F., Langeoire, A., Cazadieu, S., 2007. Optimisation du dimensionnement sismique par analyse spectrale en utilisant le domaine de concomitance des
sollicitations. In: Colloque AFPS, (in French).

1 s2.0 S0029549314002829 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S0029549314002829 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nuclear Engineering and Design 276 (2014) 277–294

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Nuclear Engineering and Design

Seismic design by the response spectrum method: A new

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 1 73 13 19 14.

2.1.1. Case of a single component ground motion (˛k -ellipsoid)

for any vector ˛

2.1.2. Case of a three-component ground motion (˛-ellipsoid)

2.2.1. Case of a single-component ground motion (˛k - and xk -ellipsoids)

R :=[X 1,k , X 2,k , . . ., X n,k ]T = [F 1,k , F 2,k , . . ., F nr ,k ] (14)

2.2.2. Case of a three-component ground motion (˛- and x-ellipsoids)

The corresponding matrix form reads:

3. Discretization of elliptical response envelopes

Fig. 2. Discretization of a hyper-ellipsoid by an enveloping polyhedron (case nr = 2).

(A) nr × 2nr polyhedron vertices:

A nr × 2nr 8 24 64 160 384 896 2048

A ␹ 1.0824 1.1589 1.2307 1.2986 1.3630 1.4246 1.4836

A dnr ,0 1 1.0556 1.1213 1.1881 1.2538 1.3173 1.3787

5. Application: seismic design of a reinforced concrete nuclear building

5.1. Four methods of seismic analysis

5.2. Structure description and modal analysis

1 4.41 0.2268 6.6 55.9 0.4 0

Appendix A. Inequalities deﬁning the ˛k - and ˛-ellipsoids

Appendix B. Relationship between the ˛k -ellipsoid (˛-ellipsoid) and a xk -ellipsoid (x-ellipsoid)

Proof: see Appendix C.

Appendix C. Derivation of Eq. (B.1)

˛∗k = ARG(min∀˛ ∈ n :RT ˛ =x [˛Tk H −1 ˛k ]) = ARG(min∀˛k ∈ n [˛Tk H −1 ˛k + T

Appendix D. Properties of the polyhedrons deﬁned in Section 3

When nr and k are ﬁxed, it can be proven that

where is the Newton coefﬁcient.

- “Group 0” (facets not parallel to any vector em ):

- “Group 1” (each facet is parallel to 1 vector em ):

- “Group nr − 1” (each facet is parallel to nr − 1 vectors em ):

D.2.1. Case where all facets are tangent to S

There are 2 × 22 = 8 vertices.

x- = [1, x2 , x3 ]T , x- = [x1 , 1, x3 ]T , x- = [x1 , x2 , 1]T (D.10)

In the general case nr ≥ 1, there are nr ! vertices into the subspace V1 :

All coordinate arrangements of vector x- = [c1 , c2 , . . ., cnr ]T (D.14)

All sign permutations of vector x- = [±1, ±1, . . ., ±1]T (D.17)

For instance, in the case nr = 3, the facets of √

You might also like

˛∗k = ARG(min∀˛ ∈ n :RT ˛ =x [˛Tk H −1 ˛k ]) = ARG(min∀˛k ∈ n [˛Tk H −1 ˛k + T