CAPACITY-DEMAND INDEX RELATIONSHIPS FOR PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN K. T. Farrow1 and Y. C.

Kurama2 ABSTRACT Seismic design procedures in current building provisions are based on linear and nonlinear static approaches that use capacity-demand index relationships such as the relationship between the lateral strength and the maximum lateral displacement. Previous research on the development of these relationships is based on linear-elastic ground motion acceleration response spectra, whereas the current design procedures are based on smooth design response spectra. For the design procedures to be consistent, new capacity-demand index relationships are proposed based on smooth design response spectra from existing design provisions. It is shown that, for survival-level, soft-soil, and near-field ground motion records, the capacity-demand index relationships developed using linearelastic ground motion response spectra are significantly different than those developed using smooth design spectra and can lead to unconservative designs. Introduction Seismic design and evaluation/rehabilitation approaches in current building provisions (e.g., International Building Code 2000 (IBC) (ICC 2000), Uniform Building Code (UBC) (ICBO 1997), FEMA 356 (ASCE 2000)) depend on capacity-demand index relationships such as the relationship between the lateral strength and the maximum lateral displacement. Design approaches that use these relationships include the conventional equivalent lateral force procedure (ICC 2000; ICBO 1997) and the more elaborate capacity spectrum procedure based on inelastic acceleration and displacement spectra (Reinhorn 1997; Chopra and Goel 1999). In current practice, the design lateral strength, Fdes, is determined by dividing the design force required to keep the structure linear-elastic during an earthquake, Felas, by a response modification coefficient, R = Rdes, as shown in Fig. 1a. This force reduction is allowed provided that the resulting maximum nonlinear displacement demand, nlin, can be accommodated. nlin depends on the R coefficient and can be estimated based on capacity-demand index relationships. Regardless of the design approach used, previous research on the development of seismic capacity-demand index relationships is based on linear-elastic acceleration response spectra from an ensemble of ground motion records. While these relationships may be appropriate for the ground motion ensembles that were used, the seismic design of most building structures is based on smooth response spectra as specified by model building design provisions.
1 2

Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Geological Sci., Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Geological Sci., Univ. of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556

Felas

0.6
CHANGE IN LATERAL DISPLACEMENT

BOSTON DESIGN-LEVEL SOFT SOIL

For the design procedures to be F (1 - ) F consistent, there is a 0.3 F F need to develop R 0.2 capacity-demand index F F = 0.1 R relationships using 0 smooth response 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 = 0 period, T (sec) spectra from existing lateral displacement, design provisions. This (a) (b) is particularly important for nearFigure 1. (a) Lateral force-displacement relationships; (b) Ground motion field ground motions response spectra versus smooth design response spectra. and for sites with soft soil profiles where the characteristics of the ground motion spectra may be significantly different from the characteristics of the smooth design response spectra, as shown in Fig. 1b (where W is the total seismic weight). This inconsistency may result in different values for the design force, Fdes, for the same value of R and may result in an unconservative design force as illustrated in Fig. 1b. To the best of the authors knowledge, previous research on the effect of using smooth response spectra instead of linear-elastic ground motion response spectra to calculate Fdes in the development of capacity-demand index relationships has not been published in the literature. The paper focuses on this issue.
0.5 0.4
1

Ground motion response spectrum ( = 5%)

lateral force, F

FORCE REDUCTION
elas

elas

1 R

Design response spectrum, IBC 2000 ( = 5%)

nlin

R = 1 (linear-elastic)

y =

elas

des

"significant yield"

elas

des

Nonlinear Behavior

des

Linear-Elastic Behavior

Idealized Bilinear Behavior

unconservative inconsistency in determining F. des

R=2

des

elas

nlin

The objectives of the research described in the paper are: (1) to develop new nonlinear inelastic seismic capacity-demand index relationships based on smooth response spectra; and (2) to investigate the effects of site soil characteristics, seismic demand level, and epicentral distance on these relationships. The results presented in the paper are limited to: (1) ground motions representative of regions with high seismicity (e.g., Los Angeles); (2) the bilinear elasto-plastic (EP) hysteresis type; and (3) the displacement ductility demand, = nlin / y, based on an idealized bilinear lateral force-displacement relationship as shown in Fig. 1a. Results for other seismicities, hysteresis types, and demand indices (e.g., for cumulative damage, residual displacement, etc.) are provided elsewhere (Farrow and Kurama 2001a, 2001b; Farrow 2001). Previous Research on Displacement Ductility Demand Investigations formulating displacement ductility demand relationships have been conducted by several researchers (e.g., Newmark and Hall 1973; Nassar and Krawinkler 1991; Miranda 1993). Nassar and Krawinkler (1991) investigated both single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) and multi-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) systems using an ensemble of 15 ground motion records representative of records on soil profile S1 (stiff) from the western United States. Through a statistical evaluation of the dynamic response of SDOF systems with idealized bilinear elasto-plastic (EP) behavior, the R coefficient was determined as a function of the demand, the post-yield stiffness ratio, (see Fig. 1a), and period of vibration, T, as: R ( , T , ) = [c( 1) + 1]1 / c , R = Felas / Fy , = nlin / y

(1)

c(T , ) =

Ta b + a T +1 T

(2) Values for a and b in Eq. 2 can be found in Table 1 (Nassar and Krawinkler 1991). In the development of Eqs. 1-2, the lateral strength, Fy = Felas/R, was determined from the 5%-damped linear-elastic acceleration response spectrum for each ground motion. As mentioned earlier, this is different from current provisions, where the lateral strength is calculated using a smooth design response spectrum.

Table 1. (%) 0 2 10

Values for a and b coefficients. a 1.00 1.01 0.80 b 0.42 0.37 0.29

The effects of site soil characteristics on the R--T relationship have been investigated by researchers such as Krawinkler and Rahnama (1992) and Miranda (1993). The effects of nearfield ground motions on seismic demands have been examined by several researchers (e.g., Hall et al. 1995; Naeim 1995), however R--T relationships have not been developed. It is noted that a large scatter in the results from Nassar and Krawinklers study was observed, particularly for large values of R. The implications of this large scatter in the demand estimates are discussed in depth elsewhere (Farrow and Kurama 2001c).
Description of the Research Program

A range of SDOF systems are subjected to ground motion ensembles to investigate the effect of the reference response spectra on the R--T relationships. This section describes the study as follows: (1) analytical models; (2) ground motion records; (3) reference response spectra; (4) nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses; and (5) statistical evaluation of results.
Analytical Models

The linear-elastic period of the SDOF systems, T, is varied by varying the mass, m. The linear-elastic stiffness, k, is set constant at 175,000 kN/m. The viscous damping ratio is assumed to be equal to = 5%. The bilinear elasto-plastic (EP) hysteresis type with a post-yield stiffness ratio, = 10%, is considered.
Ground Motion Records

Ground motions compiled by the SAC steel project (Somerville et al. 1997) are used. These ground motions, representative of the Los Angeles area (a total of 100 records), are categorized by: (1) site soil characteristics (stiff soil and soft soil, i.e., SD and SE soil profiles in IBC 2000); (2) seismic demand level (design-level and survival-level); and (3) epicentral distance (near-field, NF, and far-field). The 5%-damped linear-elastic acceleration response spectra of the SAC ground motions are shown in Figs. 2a-e. More detailed information on the ground motions is provided by Somerville et al. (1997) and Farrow (2001).

(a)

(b)

(c) Figure 2.

(d)

(e)

Acceleration response spectra (SAC Los Angeles): (a-b) SD soil; (c-d) SE soil; (e) NF.

Reference Response Spectra

In order to investigate the effect of reference response spectra on the R--T relationships, three types of linear-elastic acceleration response spectra were used to calculate Fy: (1) response spectra based on the individual ground motion records (IND); (2) average response spectra based on the ground motion ensembles (AVG); and (3) smooth design response spectra (DES). In the case of the AVG spectra, Fy is calculated as the mass, m, times the average linearelastic spectral acceleration (at the structure period) of the ground motion ensemble divided by R. The AVG spectra for the ground motion ensembles used in the paper are shown by the thick dashed lines in Fig. 2. In the case of the DES spectra, Fy is calculated as m, times the spectral acceleration (at the structure period) from the design response spectrum divided by R. The general shape of the design response spectra in IBC 2000 and UBC 1997 is shown in Fig. 3a. The 2.5 seismic coefficients Sd1, Sds, Cv, = 5% Los Angeles 2 and Ca are mapped or tabulated based on site seismicity, seismic 1.5 demand level, site soil 1 characteristics, and epicentral distance. 0.5
Sds (IBC 2000) 2.5Ca (UBC 1997)

= 5%

S D S
E

Design-Level

S (g)

0.4Sds (IBC 2000) Ca (UBC 1997)

Sd1 /T (IBC 2000) Cv /T (UBC 1997)

S D S
E

Survival-Level

To = 0.2Ts

Ts = Sd1 /Sds (IBC 2000) Ts = 0.4Cv /C

a

0.5

(UBC 1997)

1.5 T (sec)

2.5

(a) Figure 3.

(b)

Design spectra: (a) definition; (b) design-level and survival-level spectra for Los Angeles.

The seismic coefficients Sd1 and Sds in IBC 2000 have been determined to provide a uniform margin of safety (across the United States) against

structural collapse under a maximum considered earthquake which has a 2 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (corresponding to a return period of approximately 2500 years). The maximum considered earthquake ground motion is referred to as the survival-level ground motion herein. A second seismic demand level is defined using a design-level ground motion. The smooth response spectrum for the design-level ground motion is determined by multiplying the smooth response spectrum for the survival-level ground motion by a factor of 2/3 (referred to as the seismic margin (BSSC 1998)). This roughly corresponds to an earthquake with a 10 percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years (a return period of approximately 500 years) for coastal California and a lower probability of occurrence (a return period of approximately 1400 years) for the eastern United States (BSSC 1998). Note that Sd1 and Sds for the survivallevel ground motion correspond to SM1 and SMS for the maximum considered earthquake in IBC 2000, and Sd1 and Sds for the design-level ground motion correspond to SD1 and SDS for the design earthquake in IBC 2000. Additionally, it is noted that the coefficients Cv and Ca in UBC 1997 are specified for the designTable 2. Coefficients for the smooth design response spectra. level ground motion. Fig. 3b shows the smooth design response spectra used in Los Angeles this paper for Los Angeles. The Survival seismic coefficients that define the a 2.5Ca and Cv from UBC 1997 are used for SE soil design response response spectra for stiff (SD) soil are obtained from the IBC 2000 spectra for Los Angeles (ICBO 1997) b The seismic coefficients for survival-level are determined by provisions and are given in Table multiplying the coefficients for design-level by 3/2 2. The IBC 2000 provisions do not provide design spectra for soft (SE) soil sites in regions with high seismicity. Thus, the SE soil design spectra are based on the UBC 1997 (ICBO 1997) provisions instead.
Design Site Seismicity Demand Level Site Soil SD SE SD SE Sds 1.37 0.90a 2.05 1.35b Sd1 0.81 0.96a 1.22 1.44b

Nonlinear Dynamic Time-History Analyses

A Matlab (2000) algorithm, CDSPEC (Capacity-Demand SPECtra), was developed to conduct nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses of the SDOF models described previously. An incremental step-by-step formulation is used assuming that the response acceleration varies linearly between the time discretization points (Chopra 1995). Time step, ts, and error tolerance are defined by the user (defaults are set for t s / T 1 / 50 and 1% error in displacement, respectively). Analytical verification of the CDSPEC program is provided by Farrow (2001). The nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted for the following: (1) five ground motion ensembles for Los Angeles (a total of 100 records); (2) five response modification coefficients, R = 1(linear-elastic), 2, 4, 6, and 8; (3) one hysteresis type (EP); (4) one post-yield stiffness ratio, = 10%; (5) thirty structure periods, exponentially spaced, between T = 0.1 to 3.0 seconds; and (6) three linear-elastic acceleration reference response spectra for calculating Fy. In the development of R--T relationships, there are two approaches that can be adopted: (1) the constant- approach; and (2) the constant-R approach. In the constant- approach,

the objective is to determine the R coefficients that are required to limit the demand to preselected values. The smallest R coefficient corresponding to a demand is calculated from nonlinear dynamic time-history analyses, which are conducted iteratively based on an initial value of R, until the desired demand is obtained. As an example, the dashed lines in Fig. 4 show the mean R- relationships obtained by Farrow and Kurama (2001b) using the constant- approach (for = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8) for the EP hysteresis type with post-yield stiffness = 0.0, structure periods T = 0.2 sec. and 0.92 sec., and the ground motion ensemble used by Nassar and Krawinkler (N&K) (1991). The thin solid lines represent the R- relationships for the individual ground motions. The diamond markers represent results obtained by Nassar and Krawinkler (1991), which are in good agreement with results from Farrow and Kurama (2001b). Previous research on the development of R--T 5 5 relationships has often used 4 4 the constant- approach. T = 0.20 sec. 2 1 3 3 However, Farrow and Kurama (2001b) 2 2 demonstrated that the 1 1 constant-R approach results N&K Ground Motion Ensemble N&K Ground Motion Ensemble 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 in more conservative demands than the constant- approach. In the constant-R (a) (b) approach, the objective is to Figure 4. R- relationships (EP hysteresis type, = 0.0) for: determine the demands (a) T = 0.20 sec.; (b) T = 0.92 sec. corresponding to preselected R coefficients. Unlike the constant- approach, the dynamic analyses in the constant-R approach are conducted without iteration. Sample results are represented by the thick solid lines in Fig. 4 using 25 linearly-spaced R coefficients ranging from 1 to 6. The constant- approach is consistently unconservative when compared to the constant-R approach. For example, the constant- approach would predict an R coefficient of approximately 3.4 for a period of T = 0.2 sec. and a target displacement ductility demand of = 7 (point 1 in Fig. 4a). However, if R is set to a value of 3.4 and the structure is subjected to the same ground motion ensemble, clearly, a larger displacement ductility demand of approximately = 9 would be observed (point 2 in Fig. 4a). It is for this reason that the constant-R approach is adopted in this paper.
6
6
mean, constant- mean, constant-R N&K 1991

T = 0.92 sec.

mean, constant- mean, constant-R N&K 1991

Statistical Evaluation of Results

Results are presented as mean -spectra corresponding to different R coefficients. A twostep nonlinear regression analysis, similar to the procedure used by Nassar and Krawinkler (1991), is performed to provide R--T relationships as given by Eqs. 1-2. Further details on the regression analyses are provided elsewhere (Farrow and Kurama 2001b; Farrow 2001).
Results

This section presents the results from the nonlinear dynamic analyses described earlier as follows: (1) mean R- spectra; and (2) nonlinear regression curves to describe the R- spectra.

Stiff Soil Profile (SD)

Figs. 5a-b show the mean R- spectra for sites with a stiff soil profile under design-level and survival-level ground motions. The solid and dashed lines represent results obtained using the IND and AVG spectra, respectively. On average, the differences between the results obtained using the IND and AVG spectra are small, particularly for the design-level ground motions. For long period structures (i.e., T > 1 sec.) under survival-level ground motions, the demands estimated using the AVG spectrum are consistently larger than the demands estimated using the IND spectra.
14 12 10 8

R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin thick lines) IND spectra AVG spectrum

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin thick lines) IND spectra AVG spectrum

14 12 10 8

R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin thick lines) IND spectra DES spectrum

14 12 10 8

R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin thick lines) IND spectra DES spectrum

6 4 2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

T (sec)

6 4 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

T (sec) T (sec)

6 4 2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

T (sec)

(a) design-level
14 12 10 8

R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin thick lines) IND spectra AVG spectrum

(b) survival-level
14 12 10 8

R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin thick lines) IND spectra AVG spectrum

(c) design-level
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin thick lines) IND spectra DES spectrum

(d) survival-level
14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin thick lines) IND spectra DES spectrum

6 4 2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

T (sec)

6 4 2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

T (sec)

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

T (sec)

T (sec)

(e) design-level

(f) survival-level

(g) design-level

(h) survival-level

Figure 5.

R- spectra: (a-d) stiff soil profile, SD; (e-h) soft soil profile, SE.

Similarly, Figs. 5c-d show comparisons between the R- spectra obtained using the IND and DES spectra. Contrary to the AVG spectrum, the demands under design-level ground motions decrease when using the DES spectrum. Thus, R--T relationships developed using the IND spectra would result in more conservative designs for design-level ground motions than relationships developed using the DES spectrum. Under survival-level ground motions, the demands obtained using the DES spectrum can be significantly larger than the demands obtained using the IND spectra, particularly T > 0.8 sec. and regardless of R. From this important observation, it can be concluded that R--T relationships developed using the IND spectra can lead to significantly underestimated seismic demands under survival-level ground motions.
Soft Soil Profile (SE)

Figs. 5e-h show the mean R- spectra for sites with a soft soil profile under design-level and survival-level ground motions. Similar to the stiff soil profile, the differences in the demands for the IND and AVG spectra are small (Figs. 5e and f), however there is a significant increase in the demands when using the DES spectrum, especially for the survival-level ground motions (e.g., the demand from the DES spectrum can be about 2.5 times the demand from the IND spectra as shown in Fig. 5h). These large increases occur for almost the entire period range (i.e., T > 0.25 sec.) and are especially severe for 1.0 < T < 2.5 sec. where the predominant period of the soil resides (see Fig. 2d). It is obvious from these results that using IND spectra

instead of the DES spectrum to develop R--T relationships can lead to significantly unconservative designs for soft soil profiles, especially for medium- to long-period structures.
Near-Field (NF), Stiff Soil Profile (SD)

Fig. 6 shows the mean R- spectra 10 10 for sites with a stiff soil 8 8 profile under near-field 6 6 ground motions. The 4 4 R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin thick lines) differences between 2 2 IND spectra DES spectrum the results obtained 0 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 T (sec) T (sec) using the IND and AVG spectra are small (a) (b) (Fig. 6a). However, the Figure 6. R- spectra for near-field ground motions: (a) AVG versus IND increase in the demands when using spectra; (b) DES versus IND spectra. the DES spectrum is dramatic (the demand from the DES spectrum can be almost 3 times the demand from the IND spectra as shown in Fig. 6b). The large amplification factors using the DES spectrum occur for almost the entire period range and are especially severe for T > 0.5 sec. The pulse-like (large amplitude, long period) characteristics of the NF ground motions result in these large demands. From these observations, it is concluded that R--T relationships developed using the IND spectra can lead to significantly unconservative designs for structures within close proximity of an active fault.
14 12 14 12
R = 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (thin thick lines) IND spectra AVG spectrum

Regression Analysis

In the previous sections, R--T relationships are investigated in terms of mean R- spectra. Based on these spectra, closed-form R--T relationships are developed: (1) to quantify the effect of the different parameters evaluated on the R--T relationships; and (2) to provide relationships that can be integrated into current and future design provisions. The nonlinear regression analysis scheme and the regression equations developed by Nassar and Krawinkler (Eqs. 1-2) are used for this purpose. Table 3 shows the a and b regression coefficients developed in this study. These regression coefficients reinforce the previous observations from the mean R- spectra (Farrow
Table 3. Regression coefficients for the EP hysteresis type, = 0.10 with the SAC Los Angeles ground motion ensemble. Demand Level Design Los Angeles Survival Site Soil/Distance SD SE SD, NF SD SE IND spectra a b 1.89 0.68 0.15 0.85 0.35 0.89 0.40 0.72 -0.71 0.94 AVG spectrum a 1.92 0.41 0.67 1.01 -0.07 b 0.66 0.86 0.92 0.73 1.00 DES spectrum a 1.71 0.80 6.23 2.04 2.32 b 0.59 0.88 1.34 0.79 1.31

Site Seismicity

and Kurama 2001b). The dramatic increase in demand when using smooth design response spectra to determine the design lateral force capacity can be inferred by comparing the relative values for the a and b coefficients, especially for survival-level, soft soil, and near-field ground motions. The R coefficients specified in current seismic design provisions may be very unconservative under these conditions.
Conclusions

The main objective of the paper is to develop R--T relationships that are consistent with the linear-elastic smooth design response spectra used in current seismic code provisions. The effects of the structure period, seismic demand level, site soil characteristics, and epicentral distance on the R--T relationships are investigated. The major conclusions are as follows: 1. Using individual (IND) ground motion acceleration response spectra for the basis of Fy in developing R--T relationships can lead to unconservative designs, especially for survival-level, soft soil, and near-field ground motion records. Using smooth design (DES) response spectra provides demand estimates that are more consistent with current design procedures. 2. The differences between the demands for the IND spectra and the demands for the average (AVG) spectra are small. 3. The dramatic effect of using DES spectra results in demands that are extreme and possibly uncontrollable under survival-level, soft soil, and near-field conditions. Thus, either the smooth design response spectra in current codes need to be modified (e.g., using AVG spectra instead) or the R coefficients used in current provisions should be reduced under these conditions. 4. The regression curves defined by Eqs. 1-2 and the coefficients listed in Table 3, which take into account a variety of seismic, structural, and site parameters, can be integrated into current and future seismic design approaches. As an example, a capacity spectrum procedure can be implemented using these regression equations and smooth design response spectra from current seismic design provisions. A design example that demonstrates this procedure is provided elsewhere (Farrow and Kurama 2001b).
Acknowledgements

The research is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) as part of the CAREER Program (NSF/CMS 98-74872). The support of the NSF Program Director Dr. S.C. Liu is gratefully acknowledged. The authors thank Prof. Richard Sause of Lehigh University for his comments and suggestions. The findings and conclusions expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the individuals and organizations acknowledged above.
References
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D. C. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, ATC 40.

Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) (1998). NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings, FEMA 302, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D. C. Chopra, A. K. (1995). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, Inc., New Jersey. Chopra, A. K. and R. K. Goel (1999). Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic demand spectrum, Earthquake Spectra, 15, 637-656. Farrow, K. T. (2001). Capacity-demand index relationships for performance-based seismic design, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame. Farrow, K. T. and Y. C. Kurama (2001a). Capacity-demand index relationships for performance-based seismic design, submitted for publication in the Journal of Earthquake Engineering. Farrow, K. T. and Y. C. Kurama (2001b). Displacement ductility demands based on smooth design response spectra, submitted for publication in Earthquake Spectra. Farrow, K. T. and Y. C. Kurama (2001c). Ground motion scaling methods for different site conditions and structure characteristics, submitted for publication in Earthquake Eng. and Structural Dynamics. Hall, J. F., T. H. Heaton, M. W. Halling, and D. J. Wald (1995). Near-source ground motion and its effects on flexible buildings, Earthquake Spectra, 11, 569-605. International Code Council (ICC) (2000). International Building Code (IBC), Falls Church, Virginia. International Council of Building Officials (ICBO) (1997). Uniform Building Code (UBC), Whittier, CA. Krawinkler, H. and M. Rahnama (1992). Effects of soft soil on design spectra, Proceedings, 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 5841-5846. Matlab (2000). The Math Works, Inc., Natick, MA. Miranda, E. (1993). Site-dependent strength-reduction factors, Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, 119, 3503-3519. Naeim, F. (1995). On seismic design implications of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake records, Earthquake Spectra, 11, 91-109. Nassar, A. and H. Krawinkler (1991). Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Report 95, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Stanford University. Newmark, N. M. and W. J. Hall (1973). Procedures and criteria for earthquake resistant design, Building Sci. Series No. 46, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Washington, D.C. Reinhorn, A. M. (1997). Inelastic analysis techniques in seismic evaluations, Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Balkema, Rotterdam, 277-287. Somerville, P., N. Smith, S. Punyamurthula, and J. Sun (1997). Development of ground motion time histories for phase 2 of the FEMA/SAC steel project, Report SAC/BD-97/04, SAC, Sacramento.