Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1931–1938

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Reliability based assessment of the effectiveness of metallic dampers

in buildings under seismic excitations
Raúl Oscar Curadelli a,
, Jorge Daniel Riera b
a
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
b
Laboratory of structural Dynamic and Reliability, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Sao Simao 385, Casa 1,
91420-560 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

Received 25 April 2003; received in revised form 14 June 2004; accepted 7 July 2004

Abstract

Both for purposes of seismic retrofitting and in new designs of building frames, external energy dissipation systems may be
advantageously used. In this paper, the improvement of the system reliability achieved through use of external passive metallic or
viscous dampers is assessed by simulation. The effect of the dissipation system is numerically evaluated using the properties of a
prototype lead-rings damper developed at LDEC, UFRGS in conjunction with methods for nonlinear structural dynamic analy-
sis. To obtain robust estimators of the reliability, a database including acceleration records with markedly different characteristics
was used in the simulation study. On the premise that the efficiency of a dampers system can best be assessed on a reliability
basis, full reliability analyses of typical steel and reinforced concrete frame buildings are performed, showing that a five-fold
reduction in the probability of failure may be achieved by introducing external metallic or similar dampers systems.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reliability in structures; Metallic dampers; Fragility curves; Energy dissipation

1. Introduction damage, which is clearly undesirable. Moreover, the

In general, the traditional approach for structural
design of buildings under seismic loads reduces the
original dynamic problem to an equivalent static prob-
lem. The dynamic excitation is modelled as a set of lat-
eral static loads, which for a low-intensity earthquake
may be resisted by the structure within its elastic range.
Meanwhile, in case of a moderate or strong earth-
quake, the structure is allowed to deform into the
inelastic range, which may give rise to structural and
non-structural damage, but should not result in failure.
This philosophy has been generally adopted in codes
and design recommendations, meeting considerable
success, in terms of preservation of life, i.e. of avoiding
failure.
However, the approach presents some obvious defi-
ciencies: energy dissipation is achieved through structural


Corresponding author. Fax: +55-54-3316-3000.
E-mail address: ocuradelli@yahoo.com (R. O. Curadelli).
0141-0296/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2004.07.004
task of restoring a structure damaged by an earth-
quake to its original condition is still cumbersome
and costly. This resulted in the search for alter-
natives, such as seismic isolation or the incorporation
of energy dissipators external to the structure, both
of which have received increasing attention in the last
two decades [1,2]. This paper discusses an application
of the second approach: by the incorporation of ele-
ments specifically designed to dissipate energy, the
deformations of the structure during an earthquake
may be significantly reduced. Hence, the structure
may remain elastic or at least see the ductility
demand on its members greatly reduced.
A large variety of passive devices for energy dissi-
pation are available [2]. In this paper, the increment of
the system reliability achieved through use of passive
metallic or viscous dampers is assessed by simulation.
The effect of the external dissipation system is numeri-
cally evaluated using the properties of a metallic dam-
per developed at LDEC, UFRGS [3] in conjunction
1932 R.O. Curadelli, J.D. Riera / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1931–1938

Fig. 1. View of tested energy dissipator device.

with methods for nonlinear structural dynamic analy-

sis, applied to enhance the seismic worthiness of exist-
ing steel and reinforced concrete structures. To obtain
robust estimators of the reliability, a database includ-
ing acceleration records with markedly different char-
acteristics was used in the simulation study.

2. Metallic energy dissipators

The inelastic strain of metallic elements with large

hysteretic cycles is one of the most effective mechan-
isms available to dissipate energy in vibrating struc-
tures. The first proposals to use this type of damper to
dissipate part of the seismic energy in structures sub-
jected to earthquake excitation are attributed to Kelly
et al. [4] and Skinner et al. [5]. In those devices, the Fig. 2. Force–displacement curves of metallic damper
(frequency ¼ 0:5 Hz).
inelastic strains were produced in steel beams by tor-
sion and bending. More recently, steel plate dampers
have received considerable attention. Bergman and
Goel [6] reported cyclic tests with ‘‘X’’ and ‘‘V’’ plate
dampers manufactured by Bechtel Corporation. At the
University of California, Berkeley, Wittaker et al. [7]
developed another program, jointly sponsored by
Bechtel Power Corporation and Counter Quake Cor-
poration, focused on the analysis of a device with ‘‘X’’
plates called Added Stiffness and Damping (ADAS).
Another type of metallic damper, based on lead
extrusion, was developed by Robinson and Greenbank
[8]. Monti and Robinson [9] describe a lead commercial
damper that works under shear deformations.
A device for energy dissipation, using the defor-
mation capacity of lead, was developed at LDEC,
UFRGS [3] (Fig. 1). When a relative displacement
between both steel coaxial cylinders is applied, a plastic
deformation in a set of lead rings occurs, due to com- Fig. 3. Damper force–displacement curves for different frequencies.
bined compression and shear stresses. If this process is
repeated in both directions, a hysteretic cycle is
developed (Figs. 2 and 3). nearly rectangular force–displacement curve. In conse-
The most important characteristics of a device of this quence, the absorbed energy oscillates between 80%
type are its force–displacement curve. As the elastic and 90% of the total strain energy corresponding to a
energy involved in a cycle is relatively small compared given capacity and displacement.
with the plastic energy, and the post-yielding hardening To study the mechanical properties at different strain
is negligible, this device acts as rigid-plastic with a levels, tests with displacement amplitudes from 1 to 12
 R.O. Curadelli, J.D. Riera / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1931–1938
mm were performed. Fig. 2 shows a sample curve for
cyclic excitation at 0.5 Hz. To study the influence of
the strain rate on the load vs. strain curve of the dam-
per, cyclic tests for frequencies ranging between 0.1 and
3 Hz were carried out. Fig. 3 shows typical results for a
displacement amplitude of 9 (mm) and frequencies
equal to 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 and 1 Hz. In the frequency range
studied, which covers most buildings and Civil Engin-
eering structures, the damper constitutive relation can
be considered independent on the excitation frequency.
The device was subjected to 500 cycles, from 0.1 to
3 Hz and displacement amplitudes between 1 and 12 mm
to assess the risk of shake-down or early weakening. No
change in the mechanical properties was observed, even
under conditions considered more severe than expected
in service.
3. Methods of analysis of structures with external
dampers
To consider the presence of damping devices in struc-
tural design, it is necessary to define their non-linear
stress–strain law. For such purpose, Ozdemir [10] pro-
posed a model using analogies with existing elastoplastic
and viscoelastic constitutive laws used earlier for met-
allic elements under time dependent loads. Afterwards,
Bhatti et al. [11] used the methodology to determine the
response of structures with torsional dampers and a
seismic isolation system. An extension of Ozdemir’s
model for multiaxial loads is due to Graesser and
Cozzarelli [12]. Zienkiewicz and Taylor [13] discuss a
more complete and complex finite element model in
plasticity of metals. Recently, Dargush and Soong [14]
and Tsai and Tsai [15] proposed triangular and ‘‘X’’
metallic damper models on the basis of classical mech-
anics, but without verification by means of experimental
testing or more advanced theoretical models.
Non-linear structural analyses of elastic structures
provided with metallic dampers using the finite element
program DRAIN-2D [16] are found in the works of
Tsai et al. [17] and Xia and Hanson [18], who employ
steel plate triangular and ‘‘X’’ dampers, respectively.
In several previous contributions, the seismic per-
formance of externally damped structures was assessed
by the storey drift method, as shown by Pall et al. [19],
Filiatrault and Cherry [20] and Aiken et al. [21], who
were concerned with friction dampers. Similarly, Tsai
et al. [22] and Martinez-Romero [23] considered met-
allic dampers, while Chang et al. [24,25] applied the
approach to viscoelastic dampers. Alternatively, Nims
et al. [26] and Filiatrault and Cherry [27] assess the per-
formance by estimating the acceleration reduction at
different levels of the building.
1933
4. Reliability assessment of externally damped
structures
In order to account for the uncertainties involved in
the frequency content, duration and other features of
the excitation, the most appropriate approach to assess
the effectiveness of a structural damper arrangement is
through a reliability analysis. Thus, in this paper the
failure probability of the structure prior to and after
the installation of the external metallic dampers is eval-
uated. The efficiency of the damping system is mea-
sured by the computed decrease of the failure
probability of the structure.
The procedure is basically the following: (a) samples
of the excitation are obtained, as described below and
normalized by the peak ground acceleration (PGA), (b)
fragility curves are built by simulation, counting the
relative number of failures for each PGA level, and (c)
the fragility curves are used to estimate, in a second
stage, the failure probability for an N-years period at
any specific location, as discussed in Section 6.
In step (a), either acceleration time-histories obtained
as samples of earthquakes defined as stationary or
evolutionary random processes or actual earthquake
records may be used. In order to draw general conclu-
sions about the expected seismic performance of build-
ing structures provided with external metallic dampers,
applicable in any location, a set of 10 widely different
acceleration time-histories, corresponding to strong
earthquakes recorded in Asia and North and South
America, was employed in the study. The records are
the following:
1. Caucete, San Juan, Argentina, 1977.
2. Chichi, CHY010 E, N, Taiwan, 1999.
3. Imperial Valley, El Centro, 000, USA, 1979.
4. Kobe, JMA, NS, Japan, 1995.
5. Landers, Josuha Tree, 000, USA, 1992.
6. Llollelo, 010, Chile, 1985.
7. Loma Prieta, Halls Valley, 000, USA, 1989.
8. Northridge, Brentwood V.A. Hospital, 195, CA,
USA, 1994.
9. San Fernando, Pasadena, Cit Athenaeum, 000,
USA, 1971.
10. Taft, CA, N21E, USA, 1952.
The accelerograms were normalized to 10 specified
levels of PGAs, as required by the probabilistic seismic
analysis discussed in Section 5. It is important to note
that different scaling procedures are possible, such as
response-spectrum intensity, but the inferences on dam-
per performance are not expected to be affected by this
choice.
In order to assess whether a given sample fails (step
b above), it is necessary to monitor the response of the
system up to failure. Since for such purpose a robust
1934 R.O. Curadelli, J.D. Riera / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1931–1938
Fig. 4. Typical moment–rotation relationship.
non-linear structural model is needed, a plane frame
model was resorted to, reducing the range of case stu-
dies discussed in this paper to symmetrical buildings
without torsional effects. The hysteretic moment–
rotation relationship is represented by a bilinear plastic
hinge with a limited rotation capacity at each element
end, as indicated in Fig. 4. In order to reduce the num-
ber of random variables in the description of the struc-
ture, the ductility was assumed constant. However, to
assess the relevance of this factor, both a high ductility,
namely 6, and a low ductility, assumed equal to 3, were
considered in the analysis. In columns, the combined
effect of axial force and bending moment was taken
into account using interaction surfaces. More details
can be found in FEMA 273 [28].
5. Failure criterion
To build the fragility curves needed for the reliability
assessment, a failure criterion for buildings subjected to
seismic excitation must be available. Several such cri-
teria have been proposed in the technical literature.
Murotsu et al. [29] consider that the structure reaches
failure when the ratio between the module of the deter-
minants of the stiffness matrices of the damaged and
undamaged structures becomes smaller than a specified
value. Park et al. [30] define a damage index for rein-
forced concrete elements, as a combination between
maximum structural deformation and absorbed hyster-
etic energy, adjusted with experimental data. This para-
meter has a log-normal distribution with unit mean
and a coefficient of variation equal to 0.54. Esteva and
Ruiz [31] obtained estimates of the seismic hazard of
multistory buildings under seismic loads. As failure cri-
ðlnPGA
lC Þ =2rC ð4Þ
terion, a relationship between the maximum story-drift
and the specified ductile strain capacity of the structure
was adopted. It is clear that the definition of a failure
criterion to rigorously quantify the damage level of a
structure subjected to seismic excitation is still an open
question [32]. Hence, in this study a robust and at the
same time, simple failure criterion was adopted. Eq. (1)
defines the damage vector as:
D ¼ ½d1 =xc1 ;d2 =xc2 ; . . . ;dn =xcn T ð1Þ
in which D is the damage vector; di is the maximum
story-drift during seismic event; and xci is the ith story-
drift that results in failure.
The xci values can be determined as follows: by
means of a pushover analysis, the global failure dis-
placement Xc was defined as the roof displacement
when the base shear drops 20% of its peak value. A
pushover analysis is frequently used in seismic design to
check the structural performance. For additional
details see for instance works of Mwafy and Elnashai
[33], Krawinkler and Seneviratna [34] or Tso and
Moghadam [35]. Because the structures present a linear
stiffness distribution through their height, the xci values
were assumed constant and determined as the ratio
between Xc and the story height. For illustration pur-
poses, Fig. 5 shows the base shear–roof displacement
relationship of the structures described in Section 7,
assuming ductility 6. The curves show sudden drops
due to the exhaustion of the rotation capacity of sev-
eral plastic hinges. Structural failure will be reached
when one or more damage vector elements become
equal to, or larger than one. Therefore, it is possible to
define a failure variable C, as:
 S S
¼ 1; if ðDi  1Þ ¼ ðdi =xci  1ÞðfailureÞ
C ð2Þ
¼ 0; otherwise ðno failureÞ
S
where denotes the union of elements in the set.
The likelihood of structural damage caused by
increasing intensity levels of the ground motion is
described by earthquake motion intensity vs. damage
relationship usually known as fragility curve. Once the
seismic events set, the structural model and the failure
criterion are defined, fragility curves for the structures
under consideration, with and without external dam-
pers may be built, using the relative frequency of the
variable C as estimator of failure probability, that is:
PC ¼ P½C ¼ 1 ¼ P½[ðdi =xci  1Þ ð3Þ
6. Determination of failure probability
If the conditional failure probability function pC, in
terms of the PGA, is modelled by a log-normal density
function:
1 2
PC ðlnPGAÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi e
rC 2p
The probability distribution function of C, that defines
the failure state, i.e. the actual fragility, is given by:
ð lnPGA
PC ðlnPGAÞ ¼ PC ðlnPGAÞdðlnPGAÞ ð5Þ
0
 R.O. Curadelli, J.D. Riera / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1931–1938 1935

Fig. 5. Base shear–roof displacement relationship. Structure 1 (left); Structure 2 (right).

in which lC and rC denote the expected value and the metrical and mechanical properties are indicated
standard deviation of C, respectively. The values of the below.
latter parameters were determined, in each case, by a
log-normal approximation of the fragility curves 7.1.1. Example 1
obtained by numerical simulation. This example consists of the three bays, 10-stories
Moreover, the probability density function of the high steel frame, in a building with two planes of sym-
PGA, which defines the excitation A of each seismic metry [39]. The structure was designed for a PGA of
area, is also represented by a log-normal function, fol- 0.5 g (value from seismic hazard curve, that has a 10%
lowing Lee et al. [36]. chance of exceedance in 50 years) in accordance with
1 2 the provisions of the Uniform Building Code [40] and
PA ðlnPGAÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi e
ðlnPGA
lA Þ =2rA ð6Þ
rA 2p as reported in the reference. The total mass per floor is
47 t and Young’s modulus of steel E ¼ 2  1011 N=m2 ,
in which lA and rA denote the expected value and the
resulting in a fundamental period for low amplitude
standard deviation of A, respectively. In this analysis,
vibration equal to T1 ¼ 1:67 s. The nominal yield stress
the parameters used in Eq. (6) were based on the
attenuation relationships for the two seismic scenarios
assumed in the examples. For more details on this
topic, see works of Field [37] and Lee et al. [36] and,
for a complete probabilistic seismic hazard analysis in
order to determine the seismic hazard curve, see
SSHAC [38]. Finally, the failure probability P may be
obtained by numerically integrating the convolution
integral:
ð1
P¼ PC ðlnPGAÞPA ðlnPGAÞdðlnPGAÞ ð7Þ
0 ance with the provisions of the Argentine Code
of steel was assumed to be fy ¼ 2:48  108 N=m2 and
the internal damping in the frame defined by a 1% of
critical damping ratio. Frame and members dimensions
are indicated in Fig. 6.
7.1.2. Example 2
The second example is a three bays, six-stories high
reinforced concrete frame, in a building designed for
PGA of 0.17 g (value from seismic hazard curve, that
has a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years), in accord-
INPRES-CIRSOC 103 [41] or ACI, which in this case
result in similar designs. The total mass per floor is 100
7. Evaluation of the metallic dampers effectiveness
7.1. Description of example structures
Two plane frames were analyzed in order to assess
their original reliability and the up-dated reliability
after installation of dampers. Both may be considered
t, Young’s modulus of concrete E ¼ 2:48  1010 N=m2
which lead to a fundamental period T1 ¼ 1 s. The
internal damping was assumed equal to 5% of critical
damping ratio. In the non-linear constitutive relations,
the yield strength of reinforcing steel and the com-
pressive strength of concrete were assumed equal
typical of steel and concrete frame buildings without to fy ¼ 4:13  108 N=m2 and fc ¼ 2:76  107 N=m2 ,
shear walls in seismic areas, for which reason they were respectively. Fig. 7 shows the geometric characteristics
selected from the technical literature. The relevant geo- of the structure.
1936 R.O. Curadelli, J.D. Riera / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1931–1938

Fig. 8. Dampers location. Structure 1 (left); Structure 2 (right).

Table 1
Dampers capacity distribution

Floor Dampers capacity distribution (N)

Structure 1 Structure 2
1 2:0  105 4:08  105
Fig. 6. Steel structure (Structure 1). Bertero et al. [39].
2 1:9  105 3:96  105
3 1:85  105 3:61  105
4 1:75  105 3:01  105
5 1:62  105 2:18  105
6 1:44  105 1:16  105
7 1:23  105 –
8 9:7  104 –
9 6:74  104 –
10 3:5  104 –
Fig. 7. Reinforcement concrete structure. (Structure 2).
The dampers location in both structures may be seen
in Fig. 8. The distribution in height of the dampers
capacity is finally indicated in Table 1.
7.2. Reliability analysis and discussion of results
Fig. 9 shows the form of Eqs. (5) and (6) for both
examples, with and without dampers, for ductility 6.
Similar information for ductility 3, i.e. for a fragile
behavior, is presented in Fig. 10. Table 2 shows the esti-
mated failure probabilities, obtained by applying Eq. (7),
at sites in CA, USA, for Example 1, and Tucumán,
Argentina, for Example 2, for the structures without
and with external damping system. The analysis was
conducted both for a fragile behavior (ductility 3) and
for ductile or normal behavior (ductility 6).
Total 1:38  106 (30% 1:8  106 (30%
of total weight) of total weight)
In every case, the energy dissipation system was
quite effective, leading to a reduction of the probability
of structural failure between 70% and 80%. The effect
is more pronounced for fragile structures (ductility 3),
suggesting that the use of external dampers may also
be a feasible alternative to enhance the seismic
reliability of non-complying structures, cases in which a
five-fold reduction of the failure probability may be
expected.
It should be mentioned that the distribution of struc-
tural damage with height, that is, the floors in which
damage begins or most damage occurs, vary signifi-
cantly with the earthquake type. An optimum distri-
bution of the dampers capacity would be valid only for
specific types of motion, and thus would not be rel-
evant in the development of a robust energy dissipation
system.
8. Conclusions
Both for purposes of seismic retrofitting and in new
designs of frame building structures, external energy
 R.O. Curadelli, J.D. Riera / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1931–1938 1937

Fig. 9. Fragility curve with and without dissipation system and peak ground acceleration probability density function (excitation). Structure 1
(left); Structure 2 (right), for ductility 6.

Fig. 10. Fragility curve with and without dissipation system and peak ground acceleration probability density function (excitation). Structure 1
(left); Structure 2 (right), for ductility 3.

Table 2
Probability of failure of example structures with and without dampers

Structure Failure probability

Ductility 6 Ductility 3
Without dampers With dampers Ratio Without dampers With dampers Ratio
1 (Steel) 0.014 0.004 3.5 0.152 0.038 4
2 (Concrete) 0.01 0.002 5 0.134 0.027 5

dissipation systems may be advantageously used. The Acknowledgements

effectiveness of an energy dissipation system based on
metallic dampers is examined in the paper, including
the experimental determination of the mechanical
properties of a prototype lead-rings damper. On the
premise that the efficiency of a dampers system can
best be assessed on a reliability basis, full reliability
analyses of typical steel and reinforced concrete frame
buildings are performed, showing that a five-fold
reduction in the probability of failure may be achieved
by introducing external metallic or similar dampers
systems.
The authors wish to thank the financial support of
CNPq and CAPES, Brazil. The tests were conducted at
the Laboratory of Physical Metallurgy, School of
Engineering, UFRGS, Brazil.
References
[1] Kelly JM. Aseismic base isolation: review and bibliography. Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1986;5(4):202–16.
1938 R.O. Curadelli, J.D. Riera / Engineering Structures 26 (2004) 1931–1938
[2] Soong TT, Dargush GF. Passive energy dissipation systems in
structural engineering. John Wiley & Sons; 1997.
[3] Curadelli RO, Riera JD. Design and testing of a lead damper for
seismic applications. Engineering Structures; 2003 (submitted for
publication).
[4] Kelly JM, Skinner RI, Heine AJ. Mechanisms of energy absorp-
tion in special devices for use in earthquake resistant structures.
Bulletin of New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering
1972;5(3):63–88.
[5] Skinner RJ, Kelly JM, Heine AJ. Hysteresis dampers for earth-
quake-resistant structures. Earthquake Engineering and Struc-
tural Dynamics 1975;3:287–96.
[6] Bergman DM, Goel SC. Evaluation of cyclic testing of steel-
plate device for added damping and stiffness. Report no. UMCE
87-10, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; 1987.
[7] Wittaker AS, Bertero VV, Thompson CL, Alonso LJ. Seismic
testing of steel plate energy dissipation devices. Earthquake
Spectra 1991;7(4):563–604.
[8] Robinson WH, Greenbank LR. An extrusion energy absorber
suitable for the protection of structures during an earthquake.
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1976;4:251–9.
[9] Monti MD, Robinson WH. A lead damper suitable for reducing
the motion induced by wind and earthquake. Proceedings, XI
WCEE, Acapulco, México. 1996.
[10] Ozdemir H. Nonlinear transient dynamic analysis of yielding
structures. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley,
CA; 1976.
[11] Bhatti MA, Pister KS, Polek E. Optimal design of an earth-
quake isolation system. Report no. UBC/EERC-78/22. Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley, CA; 1978.
[12] Graesser EJ, Cozzarelli FA. A multidimensional hysteretic
model for plastically deforming metals in energy absorbing devi-
ces. Technical report NCEER-91-0006, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY; 1991.
[13] Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL. The finite element method. London
(UK): McGraw-Hill; 1989.
[14] Dargush GF, Soong TT. Behavior of metallic plate damper in
seismic passive energy dissipation systems. Earthquake Spectra
1995;11(4):545–68.
[15] Tsai CS, Tsai KC. TPEA device as seismic damper for high-rise
building. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE
1995;121(10):1075–81.
[16] Kanaan AE, Powel GH. DRAIN-2D a general-purpose com-
puter program for dynamic analysis of inelastic plane structures.
Technical report no. UCB/EERC 73-06, University of Cali-
fornia, Berkeley, CA; 1973.
[17] Tsai KC, Chen HQ, Hon CP, Su YF. Design of steel triangular
plate energy absorbers for seismic-resistant construction. Earth-
quake Spectra 1993;9(3):505–28.
[18] Xia C, Hanson RD. Influence of ADAS element parameters on
building seismic response. Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE 1992;118(7):1903–18.
[19] Pall A, Venzina S, Proulx P, Pall R. Friction dampers for seis-
mic control of Canadian Space Agency Headquarters. Earth-
quake Spectra 1993;9(3):547–57.
[20] Filiatrault A, Cherry S. Comparative performance of friction-
damped systems and based isolation systems for earthquake ret-
rofit and aseismic design. Earthquake Engineering and Structur-
al Dynamic 1988;16:389–416.
[21] Aiken ID, Kelly J, Pall AS. Seismic response of a nine-story steel
frame with friction damped cross-bracing. Technical report no.
UCB/EERC-88/17, University of California, Berkeley, CA;
1988.
[22] Tsai KC, Chen HW, Hong CP, Su YF. Design of steel triangu-
lar plate energy absorber for seismic-resistant construction.
Earthquake Spectra 1993;9(3):505–28.
[23] Martinez-Romero E. Experiences on the use of supplemental
energy dissipators on building structures. Earthquake Spectra
1993;9(3):581–625.
[24] Chang KC, Soong TT, Oh ST, Lai ML. Seismic behavior of
steel frame with added viscoelastic dampers. Journal of Structur-
al Engineering 1995;121(10):1418–26.
[25] Chang KC, Soong TT, Oh ST, Lai ML. Effect of ambient tem-
perature on a viscoelastically damped structure. Journal of
Structural Engineering 1992;118(7):1955–73.
[26] Nims DK, Richter PJ, Bachman RE. The use of energy dissipat-
ing restraint for seismic hazard mitigation. Eathquake Spectra
1993;9(3):467–89.
[27] Filiatrault A, Cherry S. Performance evaluation of friction
damped braced frames under simulated earthquake loads. Earth-
quake Spectra 1987;3(1):57–78.
[28] FEMA. NEHRP. Guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of build-
ings. FEMA 273, Federal Emergency Management Agency; 1996.
[29] Murotsu Y, Okada H, Shao S. Reliability-based design of trans-
mission lines structures under extreme wind loads. In: Schüeller
GI, Shinozuka M, Yao JTP, editors. Structural safety and
reliability, ICOSSAR, vol. 3. 1993, p. 1675–81.
[30] Park Y, Ang A. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete
buildings. Journal of Structural Engineering 1985;111(4):740–57.
[31] Esteva L, Ruiz S. Seismic failure rates of multistory frames.
Journal of Structural Engineering 1989;115(2):268–84.
[32] Esteva L, Dı́az-López O, Garcı́a-Pérez J. Reliability functions
for earthquake resistant design. Reliability Engineering and Sys-
tem Safety 2001;73:239–62.
[33] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic col-
lapse analysis of RC buildings. Engineering Structures
2001;23:407–24.
[34] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GD. Pros and Cons of a pushover
analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Struc-
tures 1998;20(4–6):452–64.
[35] Tso WK, Moghadam AS. Pushover procedure for seismic ana-
lisys of buildings. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materi-
als 1998;1(3):337–44.
[36] Lee Y, Anderson JG, Zeng Y. Evaluation of empirical ground
motion relations in Southern California. Bulletin of Seismic
Society of America 2000;90:6B.
[37] Field EH. Accounting for site effects in probabilistic seismic haz-
ard analysis of southern California. Overview of the SCEC
phase III report. Bulletin of Seismic Society of America
2000;90:6B [Available from: http://www.scec.org/phase3/
index.html, http://www.scec.org/resources/catalog/seismicha-
zards.html].
[38] SSHAC (Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee). Recom-
mendations for probabilistic seismic hazard analysis: guidance
on uncertainty and use of experts. US Nuclear Regulatory Com-
mission report CR-6372, 1997, Washington (DC).
[39] Bertero V, Mahin S, Herrera R. Aseismic design implications of
near-fault San Fernando earthquake records. Earthquake Engin-
eering and Structural Dynamics 1978;6:31–42.
[40] U.B.C. Uniform building code. vol. 1–3; 1997.
[41] INPRES-CIRSOC 103. Normas Argentinas para Construcciones
Sismo-resistentes; 1970.