Performance Assessment Through

Nonlinear Time History Analysis

EQ: 11121, Sa: 2.86g

EQ: 11122, Sa: 2.32g

FEMA 356 Scaling Method: SRSS of Spectra

) 250
N
k 200
(

e
c
r
o
F

]
g
[S 3
S
R
aS 2

Experimental Results
Model Prediction

150
100
50

0
r
a
e -50
h
S -100

-150
-200

0
0

0.5

1.5

Period (seconds)

2.5

Greg Deierlein
Stanford University
with contributions by

Curt Haselton & Abbie Liel

Stanford University

-250
-150

-100

-50

50

Column Top Horizontal Deflection (mm)

100

150

PBEE Current Best Practice: FEMA 273/356

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

- Modeling Assumptions
- Force Distribution

t
roof
Global Pushover Response

- Target Displacement (Sa)

Component Modeling Criteria
- Backbone Curve
Component Acceptance Criteria
- Force Controlled Elements
- Deformation Controlled Elements

Example: Criteria for RC Beams (FEMA 273)

Shortcomings of FEMA 273/356

500

)
N 400
k
(

Experimental Results

300

e
c
r
o
F

200
100

0
r
a
e -100
h
S
-200

Element backbone
predicted by
FEMA 356
(Table 6-8)

-300
-400
-500
-100

-50

50

100

150

Column Top Horizontal Deflection (mm)

Component Backbone Curve:

- Overly Idealized
- Conservative
- Deterministic

Component Force

Shortcomings of FEMA 273/356

Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety

Collapse Prevention

Component Deformation

Component Backbone Curve

Over-reliance on idealized (simplified) local component
demand indices to predict system response
Ambiguous relationships between structural indices
and building performance
Limited emphasis on static monotonic pushover approach

Assessment Using Improved NLTH Analysis

Nonlinear Component and System Modeling
FEMA 356 Concepts with NLTH Analysis
Preview of Comprehensive Collapse Simulation

Structural System & Components

J2

GC
S

J1

F
Perimeter Frame Elevation
Floor Framing Plan

Moment Frames
Beams, Columns, B-C Joints, and Foundations
Gravity Frames
Slab/beams, Gravity Columns, S-C Joints, and Foundations
Shear Walls (not shown)
Issue: Whether or not to consider the lateral resistance of the
gravity system in the simulation. There gravity system
can provide significant enhancement in a nonlinear
assessment.

Deterioration Modes & Collapse Scenarios

1. Deterioration Modes of RC Elements

- Simulation vs. Fragility Models
2. Building System Collapse Scenarios
- Sidesway Collapse (SC)
- Loss in Vertical Load Carrying Capacity (LVCC)
3. Likelihood of Collapse Scenarios
- Existing vs. New Construction
- Ordinary versus Special seismic design

Simulation Model
Gravity Frame(s)

Lateral Frame
Joints with both bond-slip
springs and shear springs

Gravity Frame(s)

Column bondslip springs

Lateral Frame
Lumped plasticity
beam-columns

More realistic component simulation

1.5
Non-Deteriorated
Backbone

OR OTHER COMPUTER CODES

Normalized Moment (M/M y)

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5
-8

) 250
N
k 200
(
e
c
r
o
F

-6

-4

-2

Chord Rotation (radians)

Experimental Results
Model Prediction

150
100
50

0
r
a
e -50
h
S -100
-150
-200
-250
-150

-100

-50

50

100

150

Column Top Horizontal Deflection (mm)

10

Illustration: Axial Load & Post-Peak Response

0.6 fc Ag

M
0.15 fc Ag

Key Parameter: P/Pbalance

12
Ref. Haselton, Liel, Deierlein (12 story IMF system)

n ti
nu
um

Drift

nc
e
H i n tr a
n g te
d
e

Co

Physical

In e D is
la s tr ib
tic u te
ity d
( fib
e r)

Co

Column Shear

Beam-Column Modeling Alternatives

Phenomenological

Beam-Column Model Considerations

Flexural Deformations
- concrete cracking/tension stiffening
- reinforcing bar yielding
- concrete crushing
Shear Deformations
- uncracked, cracked
Anchorage Bond Slip
- pre and post-yield
Critical Failure Modes and Deterioration
- lateral tie fracture concrete crushing, rebar buckling
- longitudinal bar buckling/fracture
- PMV interaction

Beam-Column Model Considerations, contd

Definition of Displacements and Deformations
- Total = Distortional (or Natural) + Rigid Body
- Total = Clear Story Drift
- Damage is typically associated with distortional deformations

= n
Drift from Experiment

= n+ RBR
Drift from Frame Analysis

Standardized Inelastic Component Models

1.5

M, Column Base Moment

Concentrated hinge

0.5

Quasi-elastic (EI, EA)

-0.5

-1

-1.5
-8

-6

-4

-2

_ , Chord Rotation

Model Input
- Physical Design Parameters (material, configuration, geometry,
details, )
- Calculated/calibrated backbone parameters (mean and COVs
for anchor points and hysteretic response parameters)
Model Output: Engineering Demand Parameters (e.g., plastic)

Element Models for Collapse Analyses

M, Column Base Moment

Montonic Backbone
Curve (5 parameters,
and )

1.5

0.5

Cyclic Strength &

Stiffness Degradation (,
for significant effects)

-0.5

-1

-1.5
-8

-6

-4

-2

_ , Chord Rotation

RC Beam-Column Simulation Model Calibration

OVERVIEW OF CALIBRATION EFFORT

!Cap,pl

"

Basic Hysteretic Model

My

5 parameter backbone curve

#Ke

Ke

2 (x4) hysteretic parameters

Previous RC Behavioral Studies

!y
) 250
N
k 200
(
e
c
r
o
F

-Fardis et al. (cap, u)

-Eberhard et al. (EDP criteria for
spalling and bar buckling)

Experimental Results
Model Prediction

150

Current effort: Systematic calibration to

226 flexurally dominated columns

100
50

0
r
a
e -50
h
S -100
-150
-200
-250
-150

-100

-50

50

Column Top Horizontal Deflection (mm)

100

150

Goal: Validated model to be vetted

through consensus process

RC Beam-Column Parameters
cap
200
Experimental Results
Model Prediction

)
N
k
(
e
c
r
o
F
r
a
e
h
S

150

100

50

Tes t 19 (kN, mm, rad):

-50

K = 3.1779e+007
e
K
= 7.4024e+007
init

! = 0.02
s
! = -0.04 (ND = 1)

-100

" = 0.0091
y
"
= 0.069 (LB = 1)
cap,pl

"

-150

u,mono,pl

= 0.116 (LB = 1)

# = 85, c = 1.20
is PDeltaRemov ed = 1

-200
-100

-50

50

100

150

Column Top Horizontal Deflection (mm)

Semi-Empirical -- calibrated
from tests, fiber analyses, and
basic mechanics:
Secant Stiffness (EIeff)
Yield Strength (My)
Hardening Stiffness

Empirical - calibrated from tests:

Capping (peak) point
Post-peak unloading (strain
softening) stiffness
Hysteretic stiffness/strength
degradation

Column Models (sample data)

!Cap,pl

"
My
Ke

#Ke

!y

Cap rotation
includes bond slip

cap,pl (RAD)

COV

COV

0.07

60%

-0.05

60%

Beam - Nonconforming

0.02 to 0.05

-0.15

Column conform, low axial

0.04 to 0.05

-0.05

Column nonconf, low axial

0.02

-0.15

Column nonconf, med. axial

0.01

-0.15

COMPONENT
Beam - Conforming

Phenomenological P-M-V Hinge Element

P

Desired Model Features:

M
P

Axial Spring
V

Shear
Spring

vert

direct modeling of P-M

interaction through limit
surface (strength, post-peak
softening, hysteretic
degradation)
DIRECT SIMULATION (as
opposed to limit state check)
of column shear failure and
axial failure (LVCC)
More transparent modeling of
flexibility introduced by bond
slip and shear deformations.

Beam-Column Joint Models

Bond slip (pullout?)

Concentrated rotations
Due to Rebar yielding

Shear
deformation

Alternative Joint Models

Single spring joint

Single Spring joint

with rigid zones

Continuum model

Multi spring super element

Idealized Joint Model

Column Spring
Panel zone

Beam Spring
Joint Panel Spring
Component Springs
Beam-end
zone
Column-end zone

Joint Kinematics

Shear Wall Systems Behavior Modes

Flexural Behavior
- concrete cracking/tension stiffening
- reinforcing bar yielding
- concrete crushing
- tie rupture rebar buckling/fracture
Shear Behavior
- uncracked, cracked
- shear failure
Anchorage Bond Slip (base only)
- pre and post-yield
Coupling Beams
Foundations
System Compatibility
- slab/column & slab/wall
- column deformation

erZ
e
L

erZ
e
L

Idealization of RC Walls

V-s
erZ
e
L

V-s

M-f

X
X
X M- f
X
X

Continuum

Multi-Spring

Concentrated
Spring

erZ
e
L

Shear Wall Modeling and Behavior

Squat (short) walls versus tall flexural walls
Inelastic Time History versus Equivalent Static Loading
- surprising variations in flexural and shear demands
- shears can be much higher than predicted by pushover
analysis (e.g., Krawinkler & Zareian)

Veq

Veq

2/3H

<1/4H
Pushover

Time History

Viscous Damping with NLTH Analysis

[M ]{&x&}+ [C ]{x&}+ [K ]{x}= ![M ]{&x&g }+ [P]

Raleigh Damping:

[C ]= " [M ]+ ! [K ];

# 1 "
$n =
+ !n
2 !n 2

For inelastic analysis, viscous damping should be on the order of n = 5%.

Need to be careful how [K] is specified, i.e., [Ke] versus [Kt], since the
choice will lead to variations in [C] during the analysis (see Bernal).

Explicit Damping Elements (preferred?):

[C ]= ! [c]i

[c]i

[c]i configured to represent likely

sources of viscous and other
incidental damping.

Geometric Nonlinear (P-) Effects

Negative stiffness effect of P-:

V
h
W = Pg

Kg = -W/h

Increases internal forces associated with overturning:

V

Mot=Vh + P

Key Points

W should represent the seismic mass that is being stabilized by the

lateral system (not just the tributary gravity load)
Linear P- formulations accurate for drift ratios up to about 5-10%;
beyond this large rotation (e.g., co-rotational) formulations should
be used to track response.

Dynamic Sidesway Collapse

u
V

Sa = 1.28g
w/strain softening
w/P-!

u
!u

Static Pushover Analysis

(Critical Story)

Sa = 1.23g
NLTH Analysis Results

For structural systems governed by sidesway collapse, evidence suggests that

the dynamic drift capacity is about 2/3 of the static pushover limit (u) --provided that the static analysis represents strength degradation due to strain
(displacement) softening and P- effects.
Collapse point can be very sensitive to ground motion intensity level and other
effects.

Assessment Using Improved NLTH Analysis

Nonlinear Component and System Modeling
FEMA 356 Concepts with NLTH Analysis
Preview of Comprehensive Collapse Simulation

FEMA 356 with NL Time History Analysis

NL Analysis Model

modeling assumptions (role of component

backbone curves?)

Selection of GM

match M, R and fault type/mechanism

records from at least 3 events
synthetics OK if necessary

Scaling of GM to UHS to design EQ

5% damped spectra from SRSS of two orthogonal

components
Scale such that SRSS spectra > 1.4 UHS for
periods between 0.2T1 and 1.5T1
32

Ex. Ground Motion Scaling to 10/50 Hazard

FEMA 356 Scaling: Individual Component Spectra
4

0.2T1

1.5T1

3.5

]
g tn
[e

2.5

n
o
2
p
m
o
a c 1.5

UHS

S
1
0.5

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

Period (seconds)

20 components for 10 pairs of EQ Records

33

FEMA 356 with NL Time History Analysis

Acceptance Critera

Demand Parameters < Component Criteria

e.g., p < p,limit

Evaluation based on either:

Maximum demand from results of 3 records
Average demand from results of >7 records

Concerns:
- statistical rationale for acceptance criteria ?
- implementation (which 3 records) ?
34

Enhanced FEMA 356

Realistic Inelastic Model
Nonlinear Time History Analysis
20 ground motions (10 pairs) with their
geometric mean scaled to hazard at Sa(T1)
Statistical evaluation of deformation demands
to input ground motions
Probabilistic assessment of component
acceptance criteria to test data
Probability[p>p,limit-state] = X
35

Illustration 4 Story SMF Building

Office occupancy
Los Angeles Basin
Design Code: 2003 IBC /
2002 ACI / ASCE7-02
Perimeter Frame System
Maximum considered EQ
demands:

Ss = 1.5g; S1 = 0.9g

Sa(2% in 50 yr) = 0.82g

Design V/W of 0.094g

Maximum inelastic design
drift of 1.9% (2% limit)

36

RC Beam & Column Component Models

NL Joints

OpenSees Model
Lumped plasticity beams, columns,
and joints with strength/stiffness
degradation
Geometric NL (P-)
20 ground motions (10 pairs)

Lumped plasticity beamcolumn elements

pl,cap of conforming members:

!Cap,pl

"

Columns (low axial)

My
Ke

!y

#Ke

Mean = 0.050 rad

COV = 40%
Beams
Mean = 0.065 rad
COV = 40%

Peak Interstory Drift Demands

]
g
[
1.2

)
c
1
e
s
1 0.8
=
T . 0.6
m
(.

At 2% in 50 year (MCE) Sa:

IDRmax = 0.016 to 0.050
Mean IDRmax = 0.028
COV = 37%

a g 0.4
S
0.2
0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

Peak Story Drift Ratio (story three)

0.08

20 time history analyses at each of 5 hazard levels

peak inter-story drift ratio from each time history analysis
ground motions are scaled to hazard spectra over the
region 0.2T1 to 1.5T1.
38

Probabilistic Measures of Drift Demand

]
g
[

At 2% in 50 year (MCE) Sa:

1.2

)
c
1
e
s
1 0.8
=
T . 0.6
m
(.

IDRmax = 0.016 to 0.050

Mean IDRmax = 0.028

a g 0.4
S

COV = 37%

0.2

y
t
i
l
i
b
a
b
o
r
P

0
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

Peak Story Drift Ratio (story three)

0.08

35

]
t
f
i
r
d

30

<

0.7

T
F
I
R
D
[
P

0.6

45
Fitted Lognormal PDF
40

Mean IDR = 0.028

y
t
i
s
n
e
D

25
20
15

P(D<0.02)
10

0.9
0.8

0.5

P(D<x) = 0.50
median

0.4

P(D<0.2) = 0.15
0.3
0.2

5
0
0

0.1
0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Interstory Drift Ratio, Story Three

0.06

0.07

PDF (probability density function)

0
0

Empirical CDF
Fitted Lognormal CDF
0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

Interstory Drift Ratio, Story Three

CDF (cumulative density function)

39

Beam and Column Plastic Rotation Demands

]
g
[

At 2% in 50 year (MCE) Sa:

1.2

)
c
1
e
s
1 0.8
=
T . 0.6
m
(.

Beams:
p,max = 0.012 to 0.045
Mean p,max = 0.025

a g 0.4
S

0.2
0
0

]
g
[

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

Peak Beam Plastic Rotation (rad)

0.1

COV = 43%
(vs. FEMA 356 cp < 0.025)
Columns:
p,max = 0 to 0.03
Mean p,max = 0.010

1.2

)
c
1
e
s
1 0.8
=
T . 0.6
m
(.

COV = 110%

(vs. FEMA 356 cp < 0.020)

a g 0.4
S
0.2
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

Peak Column Plastic Rotation (rad)

0.06

40

Probabilistic Limit State Assessment

y
t
i
s
n
e
D
y
t
i
l
i
b
a
b
o
r
P

90
80

Column Plastic Rotation Demand

Column Plastic Rotation Capacity

pl,max

!pl,cap
Cap,pl

"

70
60

My
#Ke

Ke

50
40

pl,cap

!y

30

Demand (
pl,max)

ln

Capacity (
pl,cap)

ln

20
10
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

Peak Column Plastic Rotation Demand

& 0 ' ln, z

P[D ) C ]= 1 ' ($$
% * ln, z
where:

Beams

0.025 0.43 0.065 0.40

Cols

0.010 1.10 0.050 0.40

#
!
!
"

ln, z = ln, D ! ln,C

2
2
2
! ln,
=
!
+
!
z
ln, D
ln,C

(standard normal table)

Component Limit State Checks:

Beams P[D>C] = 5.6%
Columns P[D>C] = 5.6%
(just a coincidence that they turn out the same)

41

Comments
Advantages
-More transparent and rigorous assessment of component limit
state criteria
-Framework to incorporate available test data (outside the scope
of FEMA 356)

Limitations and Issues

- Requires judgment to select appropriate limit states and the
probabilistic acceptance criteria, i.e., P[D>C] at some hazard level
-Still limited by assumptions between component and system
performance.
- Does not incorporate variability and uncertainties in structural
system behavior.
42

Assessment Using Improved NLTH Analysis

Nonlinear Component and System Modeling
FEMA 356 Concepts with NLTH Analysis
Preview of Comprehensive Collapse Simulation

43

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering

O
P
E
N

O
P
E
N

O
P
E
N

Collapse
Onset

Damage
Threshold

Base
Shear

Deformation

PBEE today

IO

LS

PEER & ATC 58 vision

25%
0

0.0
0

0.0001
1

50%
0.001
30

CP

100%
0.01
180

0.25

FEMA 356 Performance

Levels
$, % replacement
Casualty rate
Downtime, days

PBEE COLLAPSE (SAFETY) Assessment

Decision
Variable

DV: COLLAPSE

Damage
Measure

DM: Loss of Vertical Carrying

Capacity (LVCC)

Engineering
Demand
Parameter
Intensity
Measure

EDPs: Deformations & Forces

EDP: Interstory Drift Ratio

IM: Sa(T1) + Ground Motions
45

Incremental Dynamic Analysis Concept

1. Given: Inelastic Analysis
Model

SaT1
IM

Sasc
SaLVCC

2. Select and scale earthquake

ground motion to specified
earthquake intensity (IM)

X
X

3. Perform nonlinear time

history analysis
4. Record and plot engineering
demand parameter (EDP)
IDRLVCC

IDRsc

EDP

Peak Interstory
Drift Ratio

5. Repeat steps 2-5 until

system collapse is observed
through analysis
6. Perform check for local
LVCC conditions that are
not simulated in analysis

46

Sidesway Collapse Simulation 4 Story SMF

47

Incremental Dynamic Analysis Collapse

4

3.5

Capacity Stats.:
Median = 2.2g
LN = 0.36

]
g
3
[
Mediancol = 2.2g
)
s
LN, col = 0.36g
0 2.5
.
1
=
2
T.
(m
.
a g 1.5

S
0.82g is 2% in 50 year
motion

2% in 50
year =
0.82g
0.5

0
0

IDRcol = 7-12%
0.05

0.1

Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio

0.15

48

Sidesway Collapse Modes

EQ: 11021,
Sa: 2.52g
EQ: 11151,
Sa: 2.51g

EQ: 11091, Sa: 2.19g

EQ: 11131, Sa: 2.19g

EQ: 11122, Sa: 2.32g

40% of collapses

EQ: 11161, Sa: 0.66g

EQ: 11101, Sa: 1.52g

EQ: 11141, Sa: 1.79g

17% of collapses

5% of collapses

EQ: 11022,
Sa: 2.12g
EQ: 11152,
Sa: 2.26g

EQ: 11092, Sa: 3.06g

EQ: 11132, Sa: 2.12g

EQ: 11141, Sa: 1.79g

EQ: 11142

27% of collapses
EQ: 11162, Sa: 0.72g

EQ: 11102, Sa: 1.06g

EQ: 11142, Sa: 1.32g

12% of collapses

2% of collapses
49

Incremental Dynamic Analysis Collapse

4

3.5

Capacity Stats.:
Median = 2.2g
LN = 0.36

]
g
3
[
Mediancol = 2.2g
)
s
LN, col = 0.36g
0 2.5
.
1
=
2
T.
(m
.
a g 1.5

S
0.82g is 2% in 50 year
motion

0.5

0
0

0.05

0.1

Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio

0.15

50

Collapse Capacity Empirical and Lognormal Fit

Median Collapse, Sa (T=1sec) = 2g

2% in
50 yrs
P[collapse |2% in 50 yrs] < 1%

51

1.2

1.2

1.0

1.0

Normalized Moment (M/My)

Normalized Moment (M/My)

Uncertainty Plastic Rotation Capacity

0.8

Mean () Plastic
Rotation Capacity

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.8

0.6

Reduced ()
Plastic Rot. Cap.
Mean minus standard
deviation (lognormal)
for both plastic
rotation capacity and
post-capping stiffness

0.4

0.2

0.0

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.00

Total Chord Rotation (radians)

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

Total Chord Rotation (radians)

1.4

]
g
[ 1.2
)
s
1
0
.
2 0.8
=
Tp
( m 0.6

ac
0.4
S

ac
0.4
S

0.2

0.2

]
g
[ 1.2
)
s
1
0
.
2 0.8
=
Tp
( m 0.6

0
0

0.02

0.05

0.1

Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio

0.15

0
0

0.05

0.1

Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio

0.15

52

Collapse Capacity with Modeling Uncert.

LN, modeling = 0.50g
(vs. 0.34g R-R)

2% in
50 yrs

P[collapse |Sa = 0.82g] =

10% (increased variability)

53

Combined Sidesway and Vertical (LVCC) Collapse

P[C | IM
im]==imP] [=CPSIM
| IM
| NC
] ! SIM
P[ NC
P[C=| IM
[CSIM
| IM==im
im]] + PP[[CCDMDM| NC
IM, IM
= im]=! Pim
[ NC
| IM SIM
= im| ]IM = im]
SIM ,SIM
Total Collapse
Probability

Sidesway Collapse
+ Probability of LVCC X Probability of no SS
Probability at IMi
(given drift ratio)
Collapse at IMi

P (DM | EDP)

Sa(g) at (T1)

Probability of LVCC

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

LVCC (e.g., slab

failure, column
shear-axial failure)

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0%

Peak Interstory Drift Ratio

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

EDP (IDR)

Peak Interstory Drift Ratio

Plot is shown for illustration purposes;
not calib rated to test data.

54

Collapse Capacity Simulation + LVCC

P[LVCC|MCE]

MCE
(2/50)

Plot is shown for illustration purposes;

not calib rated to test or analysis data.

55

Concluding Remarks
Benefits of Assessment by NLTH Analysis

More explicit simulation of cyclic and dynamic effects

Transparent and extendable to innovative systems and materials

Challenges with NLTH Analysis

Calibration/Validation of Hysteretic Component Models

Selection and Scaling of Input Ground Motions

Computational hurdles (convergence, runtime, post-processing)

Standardization of Structural Component Models & Criteria

Simulation & fragility models

Statistically neutral models i.e., mean and COV
Important role for material standards organizations (e.g., ACI)

Future Vision -- Explicit Assessment of Collapse Risk

56

References
Deierlein, G.G. and C.B. Haselton (2005). Benchmarking the Collapse Safety of Code-Compliant Reinforced
Concrete Moment Frame Building Systems. ATC/JSCA US-Japan Workshop on Improvement of Structural
Design and Construction Practices, Proceedings of an International Workshop, Kobe, Japan, October 17-19,
2005, 12 pp. (in press)
Deierlein, G.G. and C.B. Haselton (2005), Developing Consensus Provisions to Evaluate Collapse of Reinforced
Concrete Buildings, US-Japan DaiDaiToku/NEES Workshop on Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete
Structures, PEER Center, Berkeley, California, July 7-8, 2005, 17 pp.
Haselton, C.B. AND G.G. Deierlein (2006), Toward the Codification of Modeling Provisions for Simulating
Structural Collapse, 8NCEE, San Francisco, CA, April 18-22, 2006, 10 pp. (in press).
Fardis, M.N. and D.E. Biskinis, 2003. Deformation Capacity of RC Members, as Controlled by Flexure or
Shear, Otani Symposium, 2003, pp. 511-530.
Krawinkler, H., Miranda E., Bozorgnia, Y. and Bertero, V. V., 2004. Chapter 9: Performance Based
Earthquake Engineering,, Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based
Engineering , CRC Press, Florida.
Filippou, F., Fenves, G., Bozorgnia, Y. and Bertero, V. V., 2004. Methods of Analysis for Earthquake Resistant
Structures,, Earthquake Engineering: From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering ,
CRC Press, Florida.
Panagiotakos, T.B. and M.N. Fardis, 2001. Deformations of Reinforced Concrete at Yielding and Ultimate,
ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, March-April 2001, pp. 135-147.
PEER, 2005. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center: Structural Performance Database , University of
California, Berkeley, http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd/ (March 10, 2005).
Ibarra, L.F., R.A. Medina, and H. Krawinkler 2005. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness
deterioration, Earthquake Engrg. and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 34, pp. 1489-1511.
Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (Opensees). (2005). PEER Center, University of
California, Berkeley, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/.
Bernal, D. (1994). "Viscous damping in inelastic structural response", Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 120, No.4, pp.1240-1254.

57