Priestley-Grant - 2005 - Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis

December 20, 2005 13:47 WSPC/124-JEE 00236
Journal of Earthquake Engineering

Vol. 9, Special Issue 2 (2005) 229–255
c Imperial College Press
VISCOUS DAMPING IN SEISMIC DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
M. J. N. PRIESTLEY and D. N. GRANT

European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk (ROSE School)
Via Ferrata, 27100 Pavia, Italy
The characterisation of viscous damping in time history analysis is discussed in this

paper. Although it has been more common in the past to use a constant damp-
ing coefficient for single-degree-of-freedom time history analyses, it is contended that
tangent-stiffness proportional damping is a more realistic assumption for inelastic sys-
tems. Analyses are reported showing the difference in peak displacement response of
single-degree-of-freedom systems with various hysteretic characteristics analysed with
5% initial-stiffness or tangent-stiffness proportional damping. The difference is found to
be significant, and dependent on hysteresis rule, ductility level and period. The rela-
tionship between the level of elastic viscous damping assumed in time-history analysis,
and the value adopted in Direct Displacement-Based Design is investigated. It is shown
that the difference in characteristic stiffness between time-history analysis (i.e. the ini-
tial stiffness) and displacement based design (the secant stiffness to maximum response)
requires a modification to the elastic viscous damping added to the hysteretic damping
in Direct Displacement-Based Design.
Keywords: Seismic analysis; viscous damping; displacement based design; equivalent

linearisation.
1. Introduction
Over the past 45 years there have been many studies [e.g. Veletsos and Newmark,
1960; Iwan, 1980; Miranda, 2000] investigating the response of structures with dif-
ferent hysteretic rules to earthquake records using inelastic time-history analyses.
Initially, the purpose of these studies was to determine the required force reduction
factors, R, (or behaviour factors q) to be used in force-based seismic design that
would result in a specified displacement ductility µ being achieved. Typically, it was
found that the results were rather insensitive to the hysteretic rule adopted, and that
for initial (elastic) periods greater than about 0.5 seconds the equal-displacement
approximation, which states that R = µ, provides an adequate approximation of
the behaviour. For periods shorter than about 0.5 seconds, R < µ was required,
with the value of R decreasing as the period reduced. These findings agreed with
the earlier recommendations of Newmark and Hall [1982].
More recently, a number of studies [e.g. Judi et al., 2000; Miranda and
Ruiz-Garcia, 2002] have investigated the response of inelastic systems with different
hysteretic rules with the specific intent of determining the relationship between duc-
tility and equivalent viscous damping for use in Direct Displacement-Based Design
229
230 M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant
Fu
me Fy r ki
F
ki keff
he
∆y ∆d
(a) (b)
30 5%
0.5
Elasto - Plastic
0.4
Displacement (m)
10%
Steel Frame
Damping (%)
20 15%
Concrete Frame 0.3 20%
∆d 30%
0.2
10 Unbonded
Prestressing
0.1
Te
0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement Ductility Period (seconds)
(c) (d)
Fig. 1. Fundamentals of Direct Displacement-Based Design. (a) Simulation of MDOF structure
with SDOF, (b) effective stiffness versus ductility (c) equivalent viscous damping versus ductility,
and (d) design displacement spectrum.
(DDBD) [Priestley, 2000]. As shown in Fig. 1, DDBD approximates a multi-degree-

of-freedom (MDOF) structure by an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom “substi-
tute” structure (SDOF), (Fig. 1(a)), and characterises the seismic response by the
secant stiffness to maximum displacement response (Fig. 1(b)), and equivalent vis-
cous damping representing the combined effects of elastic and hysteretic energy dis-
sipation (Fig. 1(c)). With knowledge of the design displacement and the equivalent
viscous damping, the effective period at peak displacement response can be found
from a set of displacement spectra for different levels of equivalent viscous damp-
ing, and hence the required secant stiffness to maximum displacement response,
and required strength, can be directly obtained [Priestley, 2000]. One of the key
research areas in DDBD over recent years has been the analysis of SDOF struc-
tures to refine the relationships between hysteretic model and equivalent viscous
damping. A companion paper [Blandon et al., 2005] reports recent results for a
number of hysteretic models representing a wide range of structural types.
Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis 231
An aspect of DDBD that has not received much attention is the characterisa-
tion of the initial elastic viscous damping, where “elastic” is used in this paper to
distinguish from the “equivalent viscous damping” used in the substitute structure
approach. In the past, as is common in many areas of seismic engineering, it has
been assumed that a value of 5% initial elastic damping is appropriate, and should
be added to the hysteretic damping, as indicated in Fig. 1(c). Thus, the fraction
of critical damping, ξeq , for the linear substitute structure is given as a function of
the target displacement ductility, µ, by an expression of the following form:
ξeq = ξeq,v + ξeq,h,µ , (1)
where ξeq,v and ξeq,h,µ represent energy dissipation resulting from viscous damping
and inelastic hysteresis, respectively, with ξeq,v generally assumed to be 5%, as noted
above.
However, it is apparent that there is a possible inconsistency here. In DDBD
the 5% initial elastic damping is related to the secant stiffness to maximum dis-
placement, whereas it is normal in SDOF dynamic analysis to relate the elastic
damping to either the initial (elastic) stiffness, or less commonly, a stiffness that
varies as the structural stiffness degrades with inelastic action (tangent stiffness).
Although the terminology is inexact, since the damping coefficient is proportional
to the square root of the stiffness, we will term these “initial stiffness proportional”
and “tangent stiffness proportional” damping, as they are analogous to damping
assumptions used for MDOF dynamic analysis. Since the response velocities of
the “real” and “substitute” structures are expected to be similar under seismic
response, the damping force, which is equal to the product of the damping coeffi-
cient and the velocity, will differ significantly, since the effective stiffness keff of the
substitute structure is approximately equal to keff = ki /µ (for low post-yield stiff-
ness). It would appear that some adjustment would be needed to the value of initial
elastic damping assumed in DDBD to ensure compatibility between the “real” and
“substitute” structures. Without such an adjustment, the verification of DDBD by
inelastic time-history analysis would be based on incompatible assumptions.
The discussion in the previous paragraph raises the question of how to char-
acterise initial elastic damping in inelastic time-history analysis (ITHA). Typi-
cally research papers reporting results on SDOF ITHA state that 5% initial elastic
damping was used, without clarifying whether this has been related to the ini-
tial or tangent stiffness. This is because in SDOF analyses, no special damping
model is required, and the damping coefficient is assumed to be constant. With
MDOF analyses, the situation is often further confused by the adoption of Rayleigh
damping, which is a combination of mass proportional and stiffness proportional
damping. It is believed that many analysts consider the choice of initial elastic
damping model to be rather insignificant for either SDOF or MDOF inelastic anal-
yses, as the effects are expected to be masked by the much greater energy dissi-
pation associated with hysteretic response. This is despite evidence by others [e.g.
Otani, 1981] that the choice of initial damping model between a constant damping
matrix (derived through the assumption of mass proportional or initial-stiffness

proportional damping) and tangent-stiffness proportional damping matrix could be
significant, particularly for short period structures. Note that a more rigorous math-
ematical discussion of damping models for SDOF systems is presented in Sec. 4.1
below.
This paper investigates the significance of the choice of SDOF initial elastic
damping model to displacement response of different hysteretic models in some
detail, and establishes the relationship between initial elastic damping models in
“real” and “substitute” structures.
2. Choice of Initial Elastic Damping Model

As noted above, it appears that the vast majority of analysts use initial-stiffness
proportional elastic damping for SDOF analysis, without considering whether or not
this is appropriate. It is believed that this is based on elastic response measurements
which indicate that a constant level (typically 5% for concrete structures, but often
less for steel structures) is appropriate for the elastic range of response. It is not
clear, however, that this is appropriate for inelastic response.
There appear to be three main reasons for incorporating initial elastic damping
in ITHA:
• The assumption of linear elastic response at force-levels less than yield: Many
hysteretic rules make this assumption, and therefore do not represent the non-
linearity, and hence hysteretic damping within the elastic range for concrete and
masonry structures, unless additional damping is provided.
• Foundation damping: Soil flexibility, nonlinearity and radiation damping are not
normally incorporated in structural time-history analyses, and may provide addi-
tional damping to the structural response.
• Nonstructural damping: Hysteretic response of nonstructural elements, and rela-
tive movement between structural and nonstructural elements in a building may
result in an effective additional damping force.
Discussing these reasons in turn, it should be recognised that hysteretic rules
are generally calibrated to structural response in the inelastic phase of response.
Therefore additional elastic damping should not be used in the post-yield state to
represent structural response except when the structure is unloading and reload-
ing elastically. If the hysteretic rule models the elastic range nonlinearly then no
additional damping should be used in ITHA for structural representation. It is
thus clear that the elastic damping of hysteretic models which have linear elastic
branches, and hence do not dissipate energy by hysteretic action at low force lev-
els would be best modelled with tangent-stiffness proportional damping, since the
elastic damping force will greatly reduce when the stiffness drops to the post-yield
level. It should, however, be noted that when the post-yield stiffness is significant,
the elastic damping will still be overestimated. This is particularly important for
hysteretic rules such as the modified Takeda degrading stiffness rule which has
comparatively high stiffness in post-yield cycles.
The second point considers foundation damping. Assume an essentially elastic
foundation, and a structural response with low post-yield stiffness. Then, during the
intervals of time in which the structure exhibits ductility and deforms plastically,
the foundation forces, and hence foundation deformation, remain constant. Clearly
no energy is dissipated by the foundation during these time intervals. It is thus clear
that the effects of foundation damping in SDOF analysis are best represented by
tangent stiffness related to the structural response, unless the foundation response
is separately modelled by springs and dashpots.
It is conceivable that the non-structural damping force is displacement-
dependent rather than force-dependent, and hence a constant damping coefficient
may be appropriate for the portion of “elastic” damping that is attributable to non-
structural forces. There are two possible contributions to non-structural damping
that should be considered separately:
• Energy dissipation due to hysteretic response of the nonstructural elements
• Energy dissipation due to sliding between nonstructural and structural elements
For a modern frame building, separation between structural and non-structural
elements is required, and hence they should not contribute significantly to damping.
Further, even if not separated, the lateral strength of all non-structural elements is
likely to be less than 5% of the structural lateral strength (unless the non-structural
elements are masonry infill). If we assume 10% viscous damping in these elements,
an upper bound of about 0.5% equivalent viscous damping related to the structural
response seems reasonable. Nonstructural elements are unlikely to play a significant
role in the response of bridges.
Sliding will normally relate to a frictional coefficient, and the weight of the non-
structural element. Unless the non-structural elements are masonry, the frictional
force is likely to be negligible. It should be noted that it is probable that so-called
nonstructural infill initially contributes more significantly to strength, stiffness, and
damping than is the case with (e.g.) lightweight partitions. However, it is known
that the strength degrades rapidly for drift levels > 0.5% (which is generally less
than structural yield drift). The damping force is also likely to degrade rapidly. The
effects of non-structural masonry infill should be modelled by separate structural
elements with severely degrading strength and stiffness — not by increased viscous
damping.
It is thus recommended that for modern buildings with separated or lightweight
non-structural elements, viscous energy dissipation should be modelled by a
tangent-stiffness proportional damping coefficient. Note that the specification of
tangent-stiffness proportional Rayleigh damping for MDOF, multi-storey build-
ings will not have the desired effect, since most of the elastic damping in the
critical first mode will be mass proportional, which is constant with inelastic
action. Consider the basic form for the fraction of critical damping in the Rayleigh
damping model:

1 α
ξ= + βωn , (2)
2 ωn
where α and β are the coefficients associated with mass proportional and stiffness
proportional damping respectively, and ωn is the circular frequency. If we specify
the same value (say 5%) for ξ at two different frequencies, where the higher one is
κ times the lower (fundamental) frequency, then:

1 α
ξ= + βω1 , (3)
2 ω1
and

1 α
ξ= + βκω1 . (4)
2 κω1
Subtracting Eq. (4) from κ times Eq. (3):

α κ2 − 1
ξ(κ − 1) = , (5)
2ω1 κ
and hence the damping α/2ω1 associated with mass proportional damping in the
first mode is ξκ/(κ + 1), while the damping attributed to stiffness proportional
damping in the first mode is ξ/(κ + 1).
Consider the case where we specify 5% damping at T1 = 1.5 sec and T2 = 0.3 sec.
Hence κ = 5. Then, even if we specify tangent-stiffness proportional Rayleigh damp-
ing, only 0.83% is stiffness proportional, while 4.17% is mass proportional, and hence
acts in an identical manner to initial-stiffness damping when the structure responds
inelastically.
3. Significance of Choice of Damping Model

3.1. Steady-state response
It is instructive in determining the influence of alternative elastic damping models
to consider the steady-state response of an inelastic SDOF oscillator subjected
to sinusoidal excitation. This enables direct comparison between hysteretic and
elastic damping energy dissipation, and also between elastic damping energy using
a constant damping coefficient and tangent-stiffness proportional damping models.
To this end a simple SDOF oscillator with initial period of 0.5 sec and a modified
Takeda hysteresis rule for inelastic response typical of a concrete bridge pier was
subjected to 10 seconds of a 1.0 Hz forcing function. Details of the Takeda model
which included a post-yield stiffness equal to 5% of the initial stiffness are discussed
later in relation to Fig. 3(a). Flexural action of the bridge pier was modelled by axial
deformation of a linear spring, using the ITHA program Ruaumoko [Carr, 2001].
The constant damping coefficient case was specified by selecting initial-stiffness
proportional damping in the program, although for SDOF analysis, the results
will be identical to the mass proportional case. As noted above, “initial-stiffness
proportional” is a misnomer for SDOF analysis, as the damping coefficient, and thus
the damping force, is actually proportional to the square root of the initial stiffness
(see Eq. (8)). The steady-state response of the pier corresponded to a displacement
ductility of about 7.7 — at the upper limit of reasonable ductile response.
Results for the stabilised loops, ignoring the transitory first three seconds
of response are plotted in Fig. 2(a) (initial-stiffness proportional damping) and
Fig. 2(b) (tangent-stiffness proportional damping). In each case the hysteretic
response associated with nonlinear structural response is plotted on the left, and the
elastic damping force-displacement response is plotted to the right. The areas inside
the loops indicate the relative energy absorption. For the case with initial-stiffness
2000 2000
1000 1000
Damping Force (kN)
Stiffness Force (kN)
0 0
-1000 -1000
-2000 -2000
-0.1 0 0.1 -0.1 0 0.1
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(a)
2000 2000
1000 1000
Damping Force (kN)
Stiffness Force (kN)
0 0
-1000 -1000
2
- 000 -2000
-0.1 0 0.1 -0.1 0 0.1
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
(b)
Fig. 2. Steady-state inelastic response of a SDOF model to harmonic excitation. (a) Initial-
stiffness proportional damping, and (b) tangent-stiffness proportional damping.
proportional damping, the energy absorbed by elastic damping is approximately

83% of the structural hysteretic energy dissipation, despite the high ductility level.
This might be surprising when it is considered that the elastic damping corre-
sponds to 5% of critical damping, while the hysteretic damping is equivalent to
about 20% of critical damping. This anomaly is due to the different reference stiff-
ness used. The elastic damping is specified with respect to the initial stiffness,
whereas the hysteretic damping is calculated from the secant stiffness to maximum
response.
When the elastic damping is tangent-stiffness proportional, as we believe to
be most appropriate for structural response, the elastic damping area is greatly
reduced, as can be seen by comparing the upper and lower right-hand plots of
Fig. 2. In the lower plot, the reduction in damping force corresponding to the
stiffness change is clearly visible. In this case, the area of the elastic damping loop
is only about 15% of the structural hysteretic energy dissipation.
3.2. Response to earthquake records

3.2.1. Hysteresis models
It is clear from the simple comparison of steady-state response that there is a signif-
icant difference between the total energy absorbed (hysteretic plus elastic damping)
using a constant damping coefficient and a coefficient that is proportional to the
tangent-stiffness, for steady-state response. It is not clear, however, that this will
translate into significant differences in peak displacement response under transitory
seismic response. In order to investigate this aspect, a series of analyses were carried
out for SDOF oscillators with initial periods between 0.25 seconds and 2.0 seconds,
using the six different hysteretic models of Fig. 3. Two modified Takeda [Otani
and Sozen, 1972] models representative of reinforced concrete bridge piers were
considered with post-yield stiffnesses of 0.2% and 5% of the initial stiffness, respec-
tively. The post-yield stiffness ratios represent reasonable lower and upper bounds.
r ki r ki r ki
ki
Fy β Fy ki
ki ku ki ki
r ki
r ki r ki r ki
(a) (b) (c)
Fig. 3. Hysteresis models included in parameter study. (a) Modified Takeda model, r = 0.002
and 0.05, (b) Bilinear model, r = 0.002 and 0.05, and (c) Flag model, r = 0.05, β = 0.35 and 0.70.
Unloading stiffness was given by:

ku = ki /µγ , (6)
where γ is the Takeda unloading coefficient, taken equal to 0.5, and µ is the dis-
placement ductility factor. On reloading, the rule points to the previous peak force-
displacement response.
Two bilinear hysteretic models were investigated, again with post-yield stiff-
nesses of 0.2% (essentially elastic-perfectly plastic) and 5%, respectively. Unloading
and reloading stiffnesses were equal to the initial stiffness. The bilinear rule can be
considered an upper bound of hysteretic energy dissipation for common structural
materials. The final two hysteretic models followed a flag hysteresis rule (Fig. 3(c)),
with 5% post-yield stiffness in both cases. The flag hysteresis rule is representative of
unbonded post-tensioned structures with additional damping [Nakaki et al., 1999],
with the area inside each lobe of the loop dependent on the amount of additional
energy dissipation provided. For these analyses, values of the loop area parameter
(see Fig. 3(c)) of β = 0.35 and 0.7 were chosen. Note that this loop has zero residual
displacement.
A measure of the hysteretic damping of the different models can be obtained
from the equivalent viscous damping of the stabilised steady-state response, related
to the secant stiffness to maximum response, an approach attributed to Jacobsen
for nonlinear viscous [Jacobsen, 1930] and hysteretic [Jacobsen, 1960] models. For
the three hysteretic types considered, the following equivalences apply:
1
Takeda model : ξeq,h,µ = (1 − (1 − r)µγ−1 − rµγ ); (7a)
π
2(µ − 1)(1 − r)
Bilinear model : ξeq,h,µ = ; (7b)
πµ (1 + r(µ − 1))
(µ − 1)β
Flag model : ξeq,h,µ = . (7c)
πµ( 1 + r(µ − 1))
These expressions are plotted in Fig. 4(a) for the different values of r (post-yield
stiffness ratio), displacement ductility µ, and β (flag loop parameter). Figure 4(b)
plots the ratio of effective period at maximum displacement response to initial
period as a function of r and displacement ductility.
3.2.2. Earthquake records

A basic design spectrum corresponding to the ATC32 [Applied Technology Cor-
poration, 1996] Soil Category C, with a peak ground acceleration of 0.56 g was
selected for the study, though this choice was arbitrary. Five spectrum-compatible
records were generated with Simqke [Carr, 2001], each with a duration of 30 sec-
onds. In addition, a real earthquake record (El Centro 1940 NS) was scaled to give
approximately the same displacement as the design spectrum at the initial period
as a “reality check” on the results from the artificial records. Elastic displacement
238
Equivalent Viscous Damping ratio M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant
Effective/Initial Period Ratio

0.6 3.2
Bilinear, r=0.002
2.8
Bilinear, r=0.05
0.4 2.4 r = 0.002
2
Takeda, r=0.002 r = 0.05
0.2
1.6
Flag, β =0.70
Takeda, r=0.05
Flag, β =0.35 1.2
0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement Ductility, µ Displacement Ductility, µ
(a) (b)
Fig. 4. Definition of equivalent linear properties. (a) Equivalent viscous damping and (b) effective
period for different hysteresis rules.
0.8
0.6
Spectral Displacement
0.4
Solid Line: Target Spectrum
Dashed Line: Average Spectrum
Thin lines: Individual Spectra
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period (seconds)
Fig. 5. Target and accelerogram spectral displacements for 5% damping.
spectra for 5% damping for the five artificial records, their average, and the design
displacement spectrum are compared in Fig. 5.
There is a tendency to use “real” earthquake records for parameter studies of
this kind, as it is more representative of expected response than will be the case
with artificial records. In such cases the real accelerograms are scaled to match the
design spectrum at the initial period of the structure analysed. However, unless the
accelerogram also matches the design spectrum at the degraded effective period at
maximum displacement response, the results will not be appropriate for the design
spectrum. The use of a large number of “real” accelerograms will not improve this,
unless the average spectrum matches the design spectrum over the full range of
periods. In the longer period range (say from 1.5 to 4 seconds), the “real” records
need to be chosen carefully as individual records tend to have acceleration spectra
that decrease more rapidly than given by typical uniform risk spectra. For this
reason, and to reduce the number of analyses necessary, the bulk of the study in
this section was carried out using artificial records, although the results from the
El Centro record, which showed greater scatter, but similar trends, were included
in the averaged results.
3.2.3. Analysis methodology

For each initial vibration period considered in the analyses, elastic analyses with
5% damping were initially run, and the average of the peak displacements, and
corresponding maximum forces from the six records, were determined. A series of
inelastic analyses were then run for the six different hysteretic rules using force-
reduction factors of R = 2, 4 and 6, with both a constant damping coefficient
(initial-stiffness proportional damping) and tangent-stiffness proportional elastic
damping. The resulting averaged peak displacements were then compared, and
also compared with the elastic displacement. All analyses were carried out using
Ruaumoko [Carr, 2001], using a time-step of 0.005 seconds.
3.2.4. Results of analyses

Figure 6 shows a typical comparison of the displacement response for a SDOF
oscillator with initial-stiffness and tangent-stiffness proportional elastic damping. In
this example the El Centro record has been used, the initial period was 0.5 seconds,
a Takeda hysteretic rule with r = 0.05 was adopted, and the force-reduction factor
was approximately 4. The peak displacement for the tangent-stiffness proportional
elastic damping case is 44% larger than for the initial-stiffness proportional damping
case, indicating a very significant influence.
Complete results from the parameter study are presented in Table 1, and in
Figs. 7–10. In Table 1, the average results for a given elastic period, force-reduction
factor R, and elastic damping model have been divided by the average elastic dis-
placement for the same period. Tangent-stiffness and initial-stiffness proportional
results are indicated by “T” and “I” respectively, and the number following T or I
represents the force-reduction factor used in the analysis. Table 1 also includes the
ratio of tangent-stiffness displacement to initial-stiffness displacement (e.g. T4/I4
indicates the displacement ratio for a force-reduction factor of 4).
Figures 7, 8 and 9 plot the relationship between the displacement ratio
∆/∆elastic for different force-reduction factors, for Takeda, Bilinear and Flag hys-
teresis rules respectively. Results for the tangent-stiffness and initial-stiffness elastic
damping assumptions have been plotted with solid and dashed lines respectively.
The “equal-displacement” assumption that ∆/∆elastic = 1.0 has also been plot-
ted as a bold straight line, for comparison. Note that in these figures, values of
∆/∆elastic for T = 0.25 sec, which it will be seen from Table 1 are frequently very
0.15
Tangent Stiffness
0.1
Initial Stiffness
Displacement (m)
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
0 4 8 12 16 20
Time (seconds)
Fig. 6. Displacement response of a SDOF model, T = 0.5 sec, to 1.5 × El Centro 1940
NS component, using tangent-stiffness and initial-stiffness viscous damping. (Takeda hysteresis,
R = 4, r = 0.05).
high, have been omitted when greater than about 2.7, so that the trends at larger
periods are more apparent.
From these plots, and Table 1, the following conclusions can be drawn:
• Use of tangent-stiffness proportional damping always results in larger peak dis-

placements than the use of initial-stiffness proportional damping, for all hysteresis
rules considered.
• The difference between tangent-stiffness and initial-stiffness displacements
increases as the force-reduction factor R increases. This implies an increase in
the difference as the displacement-ductility increases, as would be expected.
• The difference between tangent-stiffness and initial-stiffness displacements tends
to reduce as the post-yield stiffness ratio r increases. This effect is, however,
less significant than the reduction in displacement of both tangent-stiffness and
initial-stiffness results with increase of r.
• The Bilinear hysteresis models show the smallest difference between tangent-
stiffness and initial-stiffness displacements, but the difference is still significant,
particularly at moderate to high force-reduction (or ductility) factors.
• The difference is particularly pronounced for the Flag hysteresis model with
β = 0.35 (low additional damping), and high ductility. This is of particular
significance to prestressed structural systems with unbonded tendons and low,
or zero additional damping, as it is common for these systems to be designed for
Table 1. Displacement ratios of average inelastic to elastic results, for initial-stiffness

proportional (I) and tangent-stiffness proportional (T) damping models, with
R = 2, 4, 6.
Period T2 I2 T2/I2 T4 I4 T4/I4 T6 I6 T6/I6

TAKEDA, r = 0.002
0.25 1.303 1.098 1.187 3.742 2.512 1.490 6.563 3.217 2.040
0.50 1.106 1.006 1.099 1.613 1.153 1.399 2.591 1.719 1.507
1.00 0.980 0.92 1.065 1.220 1.022 1.194 1.491 1.092 1.365
1.50 0.925 0.888 1.042 1.078 0.981 1.099 1.432 1.066 1.343
2.00 0.962 0.917 1.049 1.199 0.947 1.266 1.293 1.101 1.174
TAKEDA, r = 0.05
0.25 1.226 1.065 1.151 2.878 2.134 1.349 3.699 2.600 1.423
0.50 1.102 1.012 1.089 1.425 1.105 1.290 2.133 1.463 1.458
1.00 0.978 0.914 1.070 1.159 0.961 1.206 1.344 1.078 1.247
1.50 0.918 0.871 1.054 1.109 0.972 1.141 1.293 1.004 1.288
2.00 0.964 0.883 1.092 1.119 0.928 1.206 1.328 1.047 1.268
BILINEAR, r = 0.002
0.25 1.265 1.209 1.046 2.707 2.213 1.2223 4.311 3.164 1.463
0.50 1.270 1.222 1.039 1.637 1.420 1.153 1.950 1.745 1.117
1.00 1.094 1.051 1.041 1.402 1.284 1.092 1.773 1.546 1.147
1.50 1.050 1.024 1.025 1.039 0.972 1.069 1.229 1.010 1.217
2.00 0.934 0.902 1.041 1.092 0.981 1.113 1.081 0.992 1.090
BILINEAR, r = 0.05
0.25 1.038 1.018 1.020 1.690 1.394 1.239 2.460 1.899 1.295
0.50 1.113 1.071 1.039 1.098 0.998 1.100 1.230 1.071 1.148
1.00 1.004 0.978 1.027 0.959 0.913 1.050 1.054 0.924 1.140
1.50 0.981 0.962 1.020 0.943 0.872 1.081 0.940 0.806 1.166
2.00 0.924 0.891 1.037 0.914 0.864 1.058 0.949 0.836 1.135
FLAG, β = 0.35, r = 0.05
0.25 1.470 1.030 1.427 4.569 2.501 1.827 6.430 3.120 2.061
0.50 1.511 1.197 1.262 2.611 1.354 1.928 2.407 1.817 1.325
1.00 1.209 0.973 1.243 1.299 1.020 1.272 1.884 1.181 1.595
1.50 1.250 0.989 1.264 1.564 1.160 1.348 1.866 1.188 1.571
2.00 1.231 1.048 1.175 1.353 1.106 1.223 1.929 1.303 1.480
FLAG, β = 0.70, r = 0.05
0.25 1.081 0.950 1.378 2.995 1.994 1.502 4.348 2.718 1.600
0.50 1.290 1.160 1.156 1.506 1.129 1.334 2.315 1.533 1.510
1.00 1.025 0.895 1.145 1.146 0.880 1.302 1.450 1.032 1.405
1.50 1.083 0.908 1.193 1.169 0.998 1.171 1.549 1.006 1.540
2.00 1.125 0.953 1.180 1.241 0.871 1.425 1.636 1.130 1.448
Note: T2, T4, T6 = tangent-stiffness displacement divided by elastic displacement for
force reduction factors of 2, 4, and 6.
I2, I4, I6 = initial-stiffness displacement divided by elastic displacement for force reduc-
tion factors of 2, 4, and 6.
high ductility demand as a consequence of their low damage at moderate to high

ductility levels.
• The equal-displacement approximation is reasonable only if the assumption of
initial-stiffness damping is made, and then only for force-reduction factors of
R < 4, and periods greater than 0.5 seconds.
2.4 2.4 2.4

Displacement Ratio (∆/∆elastic)
TS
2 2 2
1.6 R=2 1.6 R= 4 1.6 IS R= 6

TS
1.2 TS 1.2 IS 1.2
IS
0.8 0.8 0.8
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Period (seconds) Period (seconds) Period (seconds)
(a)
2.4 2.4 2.4

TS
2 2 2 TS
1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

IS
1.2 TS 1.2 1.2
IS
0.8 IS 0.8 0.8
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
(b)
Fig. 7. Average ratio of peak inelastic displacement to elastic displacement for modified Takeda
hysteresis. (TS = Tangent-stiffness proportional damping, IS = Initial-stiffness proportional
damping, R = force-reduction factor). (a) r = 0.002 and (b) r = 0.05.
• The equal-displacement approximation is non-conservative when tangent-stiffness

elastic damping is assumed, except with Takeda hysteresis, R = 2, and Bilinear
hysteresis, r = 0.05. In virtually all other cases the equal-displacement approxi-
mation is significantly non-conservative.
As noted above, Figs. 7 to 9 show the results of the tangent-stiffness and initial-
stiffness analyses as separate lines. In order to facilitate a quantitative examination
of the effect of the choice of damping model, the T/I results of Table 1 have been
plotted for the three types of hysteresis model in Fig. 10. For Takeda hystere-
sis, the tangent-stiffness displacements are about 10%, 20%, and 35% higher than
initial-stiffness displacements, on average, for force-reduction factors of 2, 4, and 6
2.4 2.4 2.4

2 2 2
TS
1.6 R=2 1.6 TS R=4 1.6 IS R=6
TS IS
1.2 1.2 1.2
IS
0.8 0.8 0.8
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
(a)
2.4 2.4 2.4

2 2 2 TS
1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

TS
1.2 TS 1.2 1.2
0.8 IS 0.8 IS 0.8 IS
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
(b)
Fig. 8. Average ratio of peak inelastic displacement to elastic displacement for Bilinear hysteresis.
(TS = Tangent-stiffness proportional damping, IS = Initial-stiffness proportional damping, R =
force-reduction factor). (a) r = 0.002 and (b) r = 0.05.
respectively; for Bilinear hysteresis, the ratios are approximately 4%, 8%, and 15%,
while for Flag hysteresis the average ratios are about 20%, 30% and 50%. Generally
the ratios decrease as the period increases. It is felt that, except for Bilinear with
low force-reduction factors, these ratios are too large to be ignored in ITHA.
4. Elastic Viscous Damping in DDBD

As discussed in Sec. 1, existing applications of the substitute structure approach in
displacement-based design methods assume a constant value of ξeq,v (see Eq. (1)),
equal to the fraction of critical damping, ξ, assumed appropriate for the initial
elastic response. The same value is normally assigned in the ITHA used to verify
the design. In the equation of motion, however, it is the damping coefficient, c, that
2.4 2.4 2.4

Displacement Ratio(∆/∆elastic)
2 2 TS 2 TS
1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

IS
TS IS
1.2 1.2 1.2
IS
0.8 0.8 0.8
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
(a)
2.4 2.4 2.4

TS
2 2 2 TS
1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

IS
TS
1.2 1.2 1.2
IS
0.8 IS 0.8 0.8
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
(b)
Fig. 9. Average ratio of peak inelastic displacement to elastic displacement for flag hysteresis.
(TS = Tangent − stiffness proportional damping, IS = Initial − stiffness proportional damping,
R = Force − reduction factor). (a) β = 0.35, and (b) β = 0.70.
is multiplied by the velocity to obtain the viscous damping force, and therefore
the viscous energy dissipation. If the energy dissipation is to be the same in the
inelastic model and the substitute structure, then the fraction of critical damping
assigned in design should depend on the assumed relationship between c and ξ (see
Secs. 4.1.1–4.1.3, below), and will, in general, not be identical to ξ. Furthermore,
for damping models in which c changes with inelasticity, the appropriate value of
ξeq,v will depend on the ductility.
The relationship between damping force, Fd , and displacement, for steady-state
harmonic response under Bilinear hysteresis is illustrated in Fig. 11 for three damp-
ing models: A constant damping coefficient, tangent-stiffness proportional damping,
1.5 1.5 2
Displacement Ratio ∆TS/∆IS
R=6
1.4 1.4 1.8 R=4
R=4 R=6
1.3 1.3 1.6 R=6
R=6
R=4
R=6
1.2 1.2 1.4
R=4
1.1 R=2 1.1 1.2

R=4 R=2
R=2
1 1 1
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 10. Average ratio of tangent-stiffness displacement to initial-stiffness displacement for dif-
ferent hysteretic models and force-reduction factors, R. (a) Modified Takeda hysteresis, r = 0.002
(dashed line) and r = 0.05 (solid line), (b) Bilinear hysteresis, r = 0.002 (dashed line) and r = 0.05
(solid line), and (c) Flag hysteresis, β = 0.35 (dashed line) and β = 0.70 (solid line).
Fd
Fs c = constant
Y
c = α m + β kt
U
r ki
c = β kt
Y ki ki
U U ∆
Substitute ∆
structure, Y
k = keff Substitute Y
Bilinear structure,
U
hysteresis ξeq,v = ξ
(a) (b)
Fig. 11. Steady-state harmonic response of different hysteretic and damping models. (a) Bilinear
hysteresis, and (b) corresponding damping force versus displacement for various damping models
and substitute structure.
and Rayleigh damping with a 50% mass and 50% tangent stiffness contribution at
the system period of vibration. As discussed below, Rayleigh damping is not com-
monly used in SDOF analyses, as it requires at least two modes of vibration to
fully determine the coefficients of the model. Points labelled “Y” and “U” rep-
resent changes in stiffness due to yielding and unloading, respectively, and the
subsequent changes in the damping coefficient for the latter two models. For each
model, the specified fraction of critical damping, ξ, is identical, but clearly the
energy dissipation, represented by the area contained in the “viscous hysteresis”
loops, is model-dependent. In addition, the substitute structure model for which
ξeq,v = ξ has been specified is shown in the same figure. In this case, the damping
coefficient and the stiffness of the equivalent linear hysteresis model are constant,
so the shape of the damping force-displacement loop is elliptical for steady-state
harmonic response. It is clear from Fig. 11 that ξeq,v = ξ will not result in the
same viscous energy dissipation as the ITHA, regardless of hysteresis model and
damping model.
For DDBD applications, it will be important to obtain appropriate values of ξeq,v
for hysteresis models and damping models representative of real structural response.
This is of particular importance for verifying DDBD with ITHA, as in this case the
models are known exactly, and this source of error can be effectively removed from
the comparison. For actual design applications, there is more uncertainty in the
modelling, particularly for the viscous damping. In this case, we believe that it is
appropriate to use values corresponding to tangent stiffness proportional damping,
as discussed in Sec. 3.2.4.
4.1. Analytical method for viscous damping in DDBD

Figure 11 suggests that a procedure similar to Jacobsen’s approach can be used to
obtain correction factors, λ, for DDBD, such that ξeq,v = λ · ξ, to provide equal
viscous energy damping in the “real” and substitute structure under steady-state
response. We compute the viscous energy dissipated in a single cycle of steady-
state harmonic response in a nonlinear SDOF system, with ξ specified for a given
damping model, and equate it with the energy dissipated by a substitute structure
with stiffness keff , and damping ξeq,v . The results from this procedure for Bilinear
and modified Takeda hysteresis are summarised in the following subsections. The
Takeda unloading parameter, γ, is equal to 0.5, and the β-parameter, introduced
in some applications of the modified Takeda model [Carr, 2001] is equal to zero;
generalised results for γ = 0.5, and more details of the derivations can be found in
[Grant et al., 2005].
4.1.1. Constant damping coefficient

As discussed in Sec. 1, a damping coefficient that does not change under inelas-
tic response is usually adopted in SDOF analysis. Simple models specified in
MDOF analysis, such as mass proportional or initial-stiffness proportional damping
matrix, and more complicated models, such as the methods of Caughey [1960] and
Wilson and Penzien [1972], will lead to a constant damping matrix for the dura-
tion of the analysis. For inelastic MDOF systems, it is difficult to characterise the
changes in damping over time, as modal damping ratios are only defined in the
elastic range of structural response. Nevertheless, in the common case of a single
mode governing the response, we expect the ductility-dependence of the damping
to be at least qualitatively described by the SDOF results in this section.
For SDOF systems, the constant value of the damping
coefficient is determined
with respect to the initial vibration frequency, ωi = ki /m, and a specified fraction
of critical damping, ξ:

c = 2mωi ξ = 2ξ mki . (8)
In the substitute structure model, the damping coefficient is determined with
respect to the secant stiffness, keff , and will therefore be given by:

c = 2ξeq,ν mkeff . (9)
For steady-state response of the inelastic model and the substitute structure at
the same displacement amplitude, the velocity time histories will be nearly identical.
Although this assumption will be less accurate under earthquake loading, it is
consistent with the approach commonly used for the hysteretic component of the
equivalent viscous damping [Jacobsen, 1960], and should provide adequate results.
Identical velocity over time implies that the viscous energy dissipation will also be
equal if:
ξeq,ν = ξ · λ1 , (10)
where
v s
u
u ki µ
λ1 = t = , (11)
keff 1 + rµ − r
and µ and r are the displacement ductility and post-yield stiffness ratio, respectively.
The first equality in Eq. (11) applies for any hysteresis model, whereas the second
equality only applies for models with a bilinear backbone, such as the Bilinear,
modified Takeda, and Flag models considered in previous sections. For small r,
√
we have λ1 ≈ µ. Equation (11), which is plotted in Fig. 12(a), implies that if a
constant damping coefficient equivalent to 5% of critical damping is assumed to be
appropriate, then for an expected displacement ductility of µ = 4, and post-yield
stiffness ratio r = 0.05, an equivalent damping of ξeq,v = 9.33% should be assumed
in DDBD.
4.1.2. Tangent-stiffness proportional damping coefficient

When the damping coefficient is proportional to the instantaneous value of the
stiffness, it is updated whenever the stiffness changes. At any instant, c is given by:
kt 2ξ
c = 2mωi ξ · = · kt . (12)
ki ωi
Using the approach described above, the following expression for the fraction of
critical damping required for the substitute structure may be obtained:
ξeq,ν = ξ · λ1 λ2 , (13)
where λ1 is obtained from Eq. (11), and λ2 is given by:
√
1−r −1 µ − 2 2 (µ − 2) µ − 1
λ2 = r + cos − , (14)
π µ µ2
r=0
λ1 3
r = 0.1
2 r = 0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
µ
(a)
1.0 1.0
λ2 λ2
0.5 0.5
r = 0.05
r = 0.2 r = 0.02
r = 0.1
r=0 r=0
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
µ
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
µ
(b) (c)
Fig. 12. Correction factors for viscous damping in DDBD. (a) λ1 for Bilinear and modified
Takeda hysteresis, (b) λ2 for Bilinear hysteresis, and (c) λ2 for modified Takeda hysteresis.
for Bilinear hysteresis, and a more complicated expression for the modified Takeda
model, given in full in [Grant et al., 2005]. Note that the r term in Eq. (14) represents
the dissipated energy for a linear viscoelastic system with stiffness rki . In Fig. 11,
this corresponds to the area of the smaller ellipse partly traced out by the damping
force between points Y and U; the extra spikes in the damping force from U to Y
are given by the second addend in Eq. (14). The inverse cosine is a result of the
assumption of harmonic steady-state response in the nonlinear model.
Equation (14), for Bilinear hysteresis, and the corresponding expression for mod-
ified Takeda hysteresis, are plotted in Figs. 12(b) and 12(c), respectively.
4.1.3. Rayleigh damping model

Rayleigh damping is commonly used in MDOF, nonlinear analyses, where modal
analysis is not possible. The damping matrix is specified as a sum of mass and stiff-
ness proportional terms, with two constants to be specified in terms of desired modal
damping ratios. In SDOF analysis, where only one damping ratio can be specified,
the Rayleigh damping assumption is over-defined, and an additional assumption
about the proportions of mass and stiffness damping must be made. The results
from such an assumption, properly calibrated for typical structures, can be used to
give insight into the nature of viscous damping in MDOF analyses using Rayleigh
damping. Again, it should be emphasised that modal damping ratios, defined at

the start of a MDOF analysis, lose relevance when the structure deforms inelas-
tically and the tangent stiffness changes. The results in this section, however, are
consistent with the substitute structure SDOF idealisation of MDOF response.
The damping coefficient for tangent-stiffness Rayleigh damping for a SDOF
system is given by:
c = αm + βkt , (15)
where α and β are the same coefficients introduced in Sec. 2. In this case, the
resulting damping model is a mixture of the models considered in Secs. 4.1.1 and
4.1.2 — the first term is constant and the second term evolves with the tangent
stiffness — and the correction factors, λ1 and λ2 must be proportioned accord-
ingly. For initial-stiffness proportional Rayleigh damping, the damping coefficient
is constant, and the results from Sec. 4.1.1 may be used directly.
The factor λ1 , defined by Eq. (11) is a function of the effective stiffness of the
system, and therefore does not change with damping model. The factor λ2 , given
in Eq. (14) for Bilinear hysteresis, is a function of the ratio of damping coefficients
for instantaneous and initial system properties. For the damping model defined
by Eq. (12), this was simply the post-yield stiffness ratio, r; for tangent-stiffness
proportional Rayleigh damping, r must be replaced with the ratio of damping
coefficients from Eq. (15), which for the Bilinear model is given by:
αm + βrki
r∗ = . (16)
αm + βki
As an example, if the mass and stiffness terms initially contribute in the ratio
5:1, as calculated in Sec. 2 for typical MDOF structural properties, then:
5+r
r∗ = . (17)
6
For r/6 ≈ 0, r∗ ≈ 5/6, which is equal to the assumed fraction of mass proportional
damping.
For the modified Takeda model, the effective post-yield stiffness ratio must be
evaluated based on the ratio of reloading stiffness under steady-state response to
the unloading stiffness, and will be ductility-dependent.
The effective post-yield stiffness ratio given by Eq. (16) is clearly greater than
r for 0 ≤ r ≤ 1, and therefore λ2 is closer to one, and the total multiplier λ1 λ2
is greater, than that obtained for pure tangent-stiffness proportional damping. In
MDOF applications, lower frequencies will have a larger contribution of mass, and
therefore λ1 λ2 will be larger than for higher frequencies, as discussed in Sec. 2.
4.2. Numerical method for viscous damping in DDBD

The analytical expressions derived in the previous section assume that the viscous
energy dissipation in a single cycle of steady-state harmonic response is the funda-
mental measure of elastic viscous damping. As discussed in the previous sections,
this is the same approach taken for the hysteretic component of the equivalent
viscous damping in Jacobsen’s approach [Jacobsen, 1930; 1960].
The factor λ1 derived in Sec. 4.1.1 is an exact correlation between the damping
coefficients of the nonlinear model and the substitute structure, as the viscous
damping remains linear in both cases. The λ1 factor adjusts the fraction of critical
damping specified in terms of initial stiffness to one appropriate for secant stiffness,
which, provided the velocity history is the same in both cases, results in exactly
the same damping force for the duration of loading. For this reason, Eq. (11) does
not require numerical validation.
The derivation of factor λ2 for tangent-stiffness proportional damping and
Rayleigh damping, however, clearly involves some degree of approximation. It is
not immediately obvious what effect replacing the nonlinear viscous damping for
Bilinear hysteresis (the solid lines in Fig. 11(b)) with an equivalent linear viscous
damping (dashed line, scaled by λ2 ) will have on the response of a SDOF system.
For the modified Takeda hysteresis model, the viscous damping force is even more
complicated, particularly when the loading is non-harmonic, as different branches of
the hysteresis model exhibit significantly different stiffnesses. At any instant in time,
the actual damping force will be different in the nonlinear and substitute structure
models, and what is important is the effect of the viscous energy dissipation on the
maximum displacement response.
It is difficult to use a direct comparison of the response of a nonlinear system
with that of the corresponding substitute structure to determine the correction
factor, λ2 . For the former system, the effect of damping due to hysteresis cannot
be separated from that due to viscous dissipation, and the substitute structure
model will require an approximation of the equivalent viscous damping due to both
components. Conversely, existing studies of the hysteretic component of equivalent
viscous damping [e.g. Judi et al., 2000; Miranda and Ruiz-Garcia, 2002] that do not
consider the model- and ductility-dependence of the elastic viscous component do
not properly separate the effects of the two halves of Eq. (1). In that case, adopting
an elastic viscous damping equal to zero in both DDBD and ITHA, (as in Blandon
et al. [2005]), could isolate the effects of hysteresis. We cannot achieve the converse
by setting the hysteretic dissipation to zero as we would no longer have a nonlinear
system.
For this reason, the system described in Fig. 13 has been used to study the
effects of tangent-stiffness proportional and Rayleigh damping on the response of a
SDOF structure. In this system, the restoring force, Fs , is obtained from a linear
elastic model with stiffness equal to the effective stiffness of the substitute struc-
ture model (Fig. 13(a)). The calculation of the damping force (Fig. 13(b)), however,
assumes that the stiffness is actually equal to the tangent stiffness of a simulated
hysteretic model, kt,sim (simulated Bilinear hysteresis is shown in the dotted line
in Fig. 13(a)). The damping level of the simulated nonlinear system, ξ, is adjusted
until the peak displacement response under a given input ground motion matches
that of a substitute structure with specified damping, ξeq,v . The ratio ξeq,v /λ1 ξ is
Fs
Fd Simulated tangent
stiffness proportional
damping,
2ξ
c = ⋅ kt ,sim
∆ ω
Linear ∆
hysteresis,
k= keff Simulated
Bilinear Substitute
hysteresis for structure,
c calculation c = 2ξeq ,v mk eff
(a) (b)
Fig. 13. Numerical procedure for determining λ2 . (a) State determination and definition of sim-
ulated bilinear stiffness, and (b) damping force versus displacement for simulated tangent-stiffness
proportional damping model and substitute structure.
then equal to λ2 , from Eq. (13). Note that hysteretic damping (or its linearised
equivalent) is not included in either the substitute structure or the simulated non-
linear structure.
The procedure described above was carried out for target ductility values
between 1.0 and 10.0, over a suite of 40 ground motions records from the
FEMA/SAC database [Woodward-Clyde Federal Services, 1997]. The records, from
the Los Angeles (LA) and near fault (NF) subsets of the database, were scaled
to obtain the target displacement in the substitute structure, and therefore the
actual hazard level to which the ground motions correspond is irrelevant, provided
that the duration of each record is somewhat consistent with its intensity. Although
the analytical relationships derived in Sec. 4.1 do not predict period-dependence,
the simulations were carried out for SDOF initial stiffness corresponding to effec-
tive periods of 1.0 sec and 2.0 sec at a ductility of 4. Finally, the post-yield stiffness
ratio and, for the modified Takeda model, the unloading parameter, γ, (see Eq. (6))
were varied, although only the results for γ = 0.5 are reported here.
The median results across the ground motion suite for converged values of λ1 λ2
are shown in Fig. 14. The total multiplier is plotted, rather than just the unknown
value λ2 , as it is the product that is required for DDBD applications, and this
allows simplified design equations to be obtained directly from Fig. 14 (see below).
Figures 14(a) and 14(b), for Bilinear and modified Takeda hysteresis, respectively,
show that the analytical expressions developed in Sec. 4.1 generally underestimate
the correction factors obtained from the numerical simulations. For both models, it
may be observed that the period-dependence is also negligible. Increasing the post-
yield stiffness also tends to increase the factor λ1 λ2 towards unity, although for
the range of r values appropriate for modelling reinforced concrete elements with
the modified Takeda model, the dependence is small. Obviously, for the Bilinear
model, as r tends to one, the response tends to linear, and λ1 λ2 → 1. For the
modified Takeda model, this limit does not hold, as the applicability of the model
1 1
λ1λ2 λ1λ2
r=0 r=0
r = 0.1 r = 0.05
r = 0.2 T = 1 sec
T = 1 sec eff,4
eff,4 Teff,4 = 2 sec
T = 2 sec
eff,4
Analytical Analytical
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
µ µ
(a) (b)
Fig. 14. Results of numerical simulations for λ1 λ2 . (a) Bilinear model and (b) modified
Takeda model.
is restricted to values of r less than or equal to (µ1−γ − 1)/(µ − 1) [Grant et al.,

2005]. Although not shown here, the dependence of the numerical results on the
Takeda unloading parameter γ is also negligible [Grant et al., 2005].
Although just the median results are shown in the figures, it should be noted
that there was a relatively large amount of scatter in the results for all the ground
motions in the suite. It is particularly notable that, in rare cases, the simulated
tangent stiffness model with ξ = 0% resulted in smaller displacements than in the
substitute structure model with ξeq,v = 5%. This somewhat counterintuitive result
shows that, in some cases, a system with some viscous damping has a larger peak
response than one with none. Clearly, the peak response cycle is also affected by
the maximum displacement of the prior cycle, which cannot be described by an
equivalent linearisation based on steady-state energy dissipation. Because it was
not possible to converge to negative values of λ1 λ2 in the algorithm, these cases
could not be included in the calculation of the mean of the data. For this reason,
the median results were used as the best measure of central tendency in the figures,
as they are not affected by these few outliers.
The following equations, linear in µ for a given value of r, provide a good match
of the median values from the numerical simulations, for realistically attainable
ductility levels, 1 ≤ µ ≤ 6:
Bilinear model : λ1 λ2 = 1 − 0.11 (µ − 1) (1 − r) ; (18a)

Takeda model : λ1 λ2 = 1 − 0.095 (µ − 1) (1 − r) . (18b)
Equations (18a) and (18b) should only be used for the range of r values used in the
numerical analyses — 0 to 0.2 for the Bilinear model, and 0 to 0.05 for the modified
Takeda model — although at least Eq. (18a) exhibits the correct limit as r tends to
1.0. Using the same example as considered in Sec. 4.1.1, the required damping to
be used in DDBD to model 5% tangent-stiffness damping when µ = 4 and r = 0.05

is, from Eq. (18b), ξeq,v = 3.65%.
The relatively poor fit of the analytical expressions observed in the numerical
simulation process shows that the problem of obtaining the correct level of equiv-
alent viscous damping is not as simple as assumed in the derivations in Secs. 4.1.2
and 4.1.3. For this reason, we believe that Eqs. (18a) and (18b) are more appropri-
ate for design than the analytical expressions in Eq. (14) and [Grant et al., 2005],
for Bilinear and modified Takeda hysteresis, respectively. Because the simplified
design equations combine λ1 and λ2 for tangent-stiffness proportional damping, for
Rayleigh damping it would be necessary to divide Eq. (18) by Eq. (11), and to
replace r by r∗ from Eq. (16). Alternatively, simplified expressions could be devel-
oped directly for λ2 , although this has not been presented here, as we believe that
tangent-stiffness proportional damping is the best model for real non-hysteretic
energy dissipation, and therefore Eqs. (18a) and (18b) should be used in the design
of real buildings.
A second numerical approach can also be carried out to obtain expressions for
λ1 λ2 . Comparing the inner and outer solid lines in Fig. 11(b), it is apparent that
the only difference between the constant damping and tangent-stiffness proportional
models is in the viscous damping force, provided both analyses reach the same duc-
tility level. Therefore, if the initial-stiffness proportional model is run with a certain
input motion and damping level, ξ, then the tangent stiffness model should reach
the same ductility for a damping level of ξ/λ2 . Actually, this is an oversimplification,
as hysteresis and energy dissipation under smaller hysteretic cycles will be different
in each case, but this simplification is consistent with the design procedure in which
only peak values of displacement are considered. The results from this numerical
procedure are not shown here, but they are very similar to the results obtained
using the simulated tangent stiffness approach.
5. Conclusions
It is reasoned that elastic viscous damping in structures is more realistically mod-
elled in inelastic time-history analyses by a tangent-stiffness proportional viscous
damping coefficient than by a constant damping coefficient. This is in contradiction
to common analytical practice.
Comparative inelastic analyses of single-degree-of-freedom systems with differ-
ent hysteretic rules, and either a constant damping coefficient or tangent-stiffness
proportional elastic damping showed that the choice of damping model can give a
very significant influence on peak response displacements, with the tangent-stiffness
assumption invariably resulting in larger displacements. The difference increases as
displacement ductility increases, and is dependent on initial period and hysteresis
rule. Although the analyses were carried out only on SDOF systems, it is expected
that similar results would be obtained for MDOF systems. This, however, needs
verification by additional studies. It is noted that care needs to be exercised when
damping in MDOF systems is represented by Rayleigh damping, since a large por-

tion of the damping associated with the critical first mode will act as though initial-
stiffness proportional, even if tangent stiffness is specified in the analysis. Because
of the importance of the results presented in this paper, it is essential that carefully
conducted shake-table tests be compared with analytical results based on different
elastic damping assumptions.
It should be noted that with tangent stiffness proportional damping, the damp-
ing force will be dependent on the hysteretic characteristics. This may have signif-
icance in parameter studies investigating the influence of hysteretic characteristics
on structural response.
It was found that for the reported analyses, the equal-displacement approxima-
tion for moderate and long period structures, though reasonable when a constant
damping coefficient was assumed, was generally significantly non-conservative when
tangent-stiffness proportional damping was adopted for the time-history analyses.
It is shown that as a consequence of the difference between the initial stiffness
and the effective stiffness used to characterise response in Direct Displacement-
Based Design, it is necessary to modify the value of “elastic” viscous damping from
the value referenced to the initial stiffness. The necessary correction factor is more
significant if the elastic viscous damping coefficient is assumed to be constant, as
assumed in most studies of force reduction factors or equivalent linearisation of
structural response. In verification of designs developed by DDBD, it is essential
that the assumptions for elastic damping made in the design and time-history anal-
ysis are compatible.
References
Blandon, C. A. and Priestley, M. J. N. [2005] “Equivalent viscous damping equations for
direct displacement-based design,” J. Earthquake Eng. 9(Special Issue 2), 257–278.
Carr, A. J. [2001] Ruaumoko — A Program for Inelastic Time-History Analysis, Dept. C.
Eng. Univ. Canterbury, New Zealand.
Caughey, T. K. [1960] “Classical normal modes in damped linear systems,” J. Appl. Mech.
27, 269–271.
Grant, D. N., Blandon, C. A. and Priestley, M. J. N. [2005] “Modelling inelastic response
in direct displacement-based design,” Rept. No. ROSE 2005/03, European School for
Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, Pavia.
Jacobsen, L. S. [1930] “Steady forced vibrations as influenced by damping,” Transactions
ASME 52, 169–181.
Jacobsen, L. S. [1960] “Damping in composite structures,” in Proceedings of the 2nd
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume 2, Tokyo and Kyoto, Japan,
pp. 1029–1044.
Judi, H. J., Davidson, B. J. and Fenwick, R. C. [2000] “The direct displacement based
design — A damping perspective,” in Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 0330.
Iwan, W. D. [1980] “Estimating inelastic response spectra from elastic spectra,” Earth-
quake Eng. and Struct. Dynamics 8, 375–388.
Miranda, E. [2000] “Inelastic displacement ratios for structures on firm sites,” J. Struct.
Eng. 126, 1150–1159.
Miranda, E. and Ruiz-Garcia, J. [2002] “Evaluation of approximate methods to estimate
maximum inelastic displacement demands,” Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Dynamics
31, 539–560.
Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J. [1982] Earthquake Spectra and Design, EERC, Berkeley.
Otani, S. [1981] “Hysteretic models of reinforced concrete for earthquake response analy-
sis,” J. Faculty of Eng. Univ. Tokyo XXXVI(2), 24 pp.
Otani, S. and Sozen, M. A. [1972] “Behavior of multistory reinforced concrete frames
during earthquakes,” Structural Research Series No. 392, Civil Engineering Studies,
University of Illinois, Urbana.
Priestley, M. J. N. [2000] “Performance-based seismic design,” Keynote Address, 12-
WCEE, Auckland, 22 pp.
Nakaki, S. D., Stanton, J. F. and Sritharan, S. [1999] “An overview of the PRESSS five-
story precast test building,” PCI Journal 44(2), 26–39.
Veletsos, A. S. and Newmark, N. M. [1960] “Effect of inelastic behavior on the response
of simple systems to earthquake motions,” Proc. World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Japan, V.2, 895–912.
Wilson, E. L. and Penzien, J. [1972] “Evaluation of orthogonal damping matrices,” Int.
J. Numerical Methods in Eng. 4, 5–10.
Woodward-Clyde Federal Services [1997] “Suites of ground motion for analysis of steel
moment frame structures,” Report No. SAC/BD-97/03, SAC Steel Project.

Priestley-Grant - 2005 - Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Priestley-Grant - 2005 - Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

December 20, 2005 13:47 WSPC/124-JEE 00236

Journal of Earthquake Engineering

VISCOUS DAMPING IN SEISMIC DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

M. J. N. PRIESTLEY and D. N. GRANT

The characterisation of viscous damping in time history analysis is discussed in this

Keywords: Seismic analysis; viscous damping; displacement based design; equivalent

230 M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant

(DDBD) [Priestley, 2000]. As shown in Fig. 1, DDBD approximates a multi-degree-

Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis 231

232 M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant

matrix (derived through the assumption of mass proportional or initial-stiﬀness

2. Choice of Initial Elastic Damping Model

Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis 233

234 M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant

3. Significance of Choice of Damping Model

Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis 235

236 M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant

proportional damping, the energy absorbed by elastic damping is approximately

3.2. Response to earthquake records

Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis 237

Unloading stiﬀness was given by:

3.2.2. Earthquake records

Effective/Initial Period Ratio

Fig. 5. Target and accelerogram spectral displacements for 5% damping.

Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis 239

3.2.3. Analysis methodology

3.2.4. Results of analyses

240 M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant

• Use of tangent-stiﬀness proportional damping always results in larger peak dis-

Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis 241

Table 1. Displacement ratios of average inelastic to elastic results, for initial-stiﬀness

Period T2 I2 T2/I2 T4 I4 T4/I4 T6 I6 T6/I6

high ductility demand as a consequence of their low damage at moderate to high

242 M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant

2.4 2.4 2.4

1.6 R=2 1.6 R= 4 1.6 IS R= 6

1.2 TS 1.2 IS 1.2

2.4 2.4 2.4

1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

0.8 IS 0.8 0.8

• The equal-displacement approximation is non-conservative when tangent-stiﬀness

Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis 243

2.4 2.4 2.4

1.6 R=2 1.6 TS R=4 1.6 IS R=6

0.8 0.8 0.8

2.4 2.4 2.4

1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

0.8 IS 0.8 IS 0.8 IS

4. Elastic Viscous Damping in DDBD

244 M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant

2.4 2.4 2.4

1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

2.4 2.4 2.4

1.6 R=2 1.6 R=4 1.6 R=6

Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis 245

1.1 R=2 1.1 1.2

(a) (b) (c)

246 M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant

4.1. Analytical method for viscous damping in DDBD

4.1.1. Constant damping coeﬃcient

Viscous Damping in Seismic Design and Analysis 247

4.1.2. Tangent-stiﬀness proportional damping coeﬃcient

248 M. J. N. Priestley & D. N. Grant