ISSN 1520-295X

Experimental Investigation of P-Delta Effects

to Collapse During Earthquakes

by

Darren Vian and Michel Bruneau

University at Buffalo
Department of Civil, Structural and
Environmental Engineering
Ketter Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260

Technical Report MCEER-01-0001

June 25, 2001

This research was conducted at the University at Buffalo and was supported primarily
by the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Program of the National Science Foundation
under award number EEC-9701471.
 NOTICE
This report was prepared by the University at Buffalo as a result of research spon-
sored by the Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
(MCEER) through a grant from the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Pro-
gram of the National Science Foundation and other sponsors. Neither MCEER,
associates of MCEER, its sponsors, the University at Buffalo, nor any person acting
on their behalf:

a. makes any warranty, express or implied, with respect to the use of any infor-
mation, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report or that such use
may not infringe upon privately owned rights; or

b. assumes any liabilities of whatsoever kind with respect to the use of, or the
damage resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or pro-
cess disclosed in this report.

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this

publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of
MCEER, the National Science Foundation, or other sponsors.
 Experimental Investigation of P-Delta Effects
to Collapse During Earthquakes

by

Darren Vian1 and Michel Bruneau2

Publication Date: June 25, 2001

Submittal Date: September 1, 2000

Technical Report MCEER-01-0001

Task Number 00-2023

NSF Master Contract Number EEC 9701471

1 Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering,

University at Buffalo
2 Professor, Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, University at Buffalo

MULTIDISCIPLINARY CENTER FOR EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING RESEARCH

University at Buffalo, State University of New York
Red Jacket Quadrangle, Buffalo, NY 14261
 Preface

The Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER) is a national center of
excellence in advanced technology applications that is dedicated to the reduction of earthquake losses
nationwide. Headquartered at the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, the Center was
originally established by the National Science Foundation in 1986, as the National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research (NCEER).

Comprising a consortium of researchers from numerous disciplines and institutions throughout the United
States, the Center’s mission is to reduce earthquake losses through research and the application of advanced
technologies that improve engineering, pre-earthquake planning and post-earthquake recovery strategies.
Toward this end, the Center coordinates a nationwide program of multidisciplinary team research, education
and outreach activities.

MCEER’s research is conducted under the sponsorship of two major federal agencies: the National Science
Foundation (NSF) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the State of New York.
Significant support is derived from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), other state
governments, academic institutions, foreign governments and private industry.

MCEER’s NSF-sponsored research objectives are twofold: to increase resilience by developing seismic
evaluation and rehabilitation strategies for the post-disaster facilities and systems (hospitals, electrical and
water lifelines, and bridges and highways) that society expects to be operational following an earthquake;
and to further enhance resilience by developing improved emergency management capabilities to ensure an
effective response and recovery following the earthquake (see the figure below).

A cross-program activity focuses on the establishment of an effective experimental and analytical network
to facilitate the exchange of information between researchers located in various institutions across the

Earthquake Resilient Communities

Through Applications of Advanced Technologies

Infrastructures that Must be Available / Intelligent Response

Operational following an Earthquake and Recovery

Hospitals

Water, Gas More

Cost--
Pipelines Earthquake
Effective
Resilient Urban
Retrofit
Electric Power Infrastructure
Strategies Network System

Bridges and
Highways

iii
country. These are complemented by, and integrated with, other MCEER activities in education, outreach,
technology transfer, and industry partnerships.

This report addresses structural safety and the risk of damage, by determining the collapse
performance limit in engineering terms. It documents an experimental study of the P-delta effect on
a Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF) test structure subjected to earthquake ground motion. Fifteen
four-column frame specimens were subjected to progressive unidirectional ground shaking and
structural response was measured up to collapse.

An example of how to use the experimental data for analytical model verification is provided. A full
series of tests with a single specimen were analyzed using a simple SDOF dynamic analysis program.
The example illustrated the shortcomings/inaccuracies of a particular simplified model of structural
damping.

Test structure performance was compared with proposed limits for minimizing P-delta effects in
highway bridge piers. The stability factor was found to have a strong relationship to the relative
structural performance in this regard. Performance was also compared with currently used strength
and stability limits for axial-moment interaction. Specimens generally reached accelerations and
maximum base shear (as a fraction of the system’s weight) in excess of the maximum spectral
accelerations calculated considering second order effects, but less than that considering only
member strength.

iv
 ABSTRACT

The effect of gravity on the lateral force resistance of structures, known as the P-∆ effect, has
been studied for a number of years. Most of the research into this phenomenon has been
performed using analytical models, with very few tests performed for verification.

This report is an experimental study of the P-∆ effect on a Single Degree of Freedom (SDOF)
test structure subjected to earthquake ground motion. It involves testing columns subjected to
SDOF ground shaking and measuring the displacements and accelerations of the structure for the
duration of the test, up to collapse. A literature review found no other tests of a similar nature.

Fifteen four-column frame specimens were subjected to progressive unidirectional ground

shaking and structural response was measured up to collapse. The specimens are subdivided into
sets of three different column slenderness ratios: 100, 150, and 200. For a given slenderness
ratio, column dimensions are varied from specimen to specimen, as is the mass used, such that
ground motions of various magnitudes are required to collapse each specimen.

An example of how to use the experimental data for analytical model verification is presented.
A full series of tests with a single specimen is analyzed using a simple SDOF dynamic analysis
program. This example illustrates the shortcomings/inaccuracies of a particular simplified model
of structural damping.

Test structure performance is compared with proposed limits for minimizing P-∆ effects in
highway bridge piers. The stability factor is found to have a strong relation to the relative
structural performance in this regard.

Performance is also compared with currently used strength and stability limits for axial-moment
interaction. Specimens generally reached accelerations and maximum base shear (as a fraction
of the system's weight) in excess of the maximum spectral accelerations calculated considering
second order effects, but less than that considering only member strength.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors thank Mrs. Richard Cizdziel, Mark Pitman, and Dan Walch (technical specialists at
the University at Buffalo Structural Engineering & Earthquake Simulation Laboratory) for their
help in the measurement, instrumentation, and logistics of the test structure assembly, and Jeffrey
Berman, Dragos Bontea, Thomas Boyle, Stephen Percassi (graduate students, University at
Buffalo) and Przemyslaw Kobialka (undergraduate lab assistant, University at Buffalo) for their
help during the physical assembly and instrumentation of the test structures. Also acknowledged
are the contributions of Madan Makasare (University of Ottawa, engineering machine shop),
Professor Jianhua Yu (Visiting Scholar from Chengdu University) and Ms. Wendy Scouten
(former undergraduate student at the University of Ottawa) for their assistance in the early
conceptual stages of specimens’ development. The editorial assistance of Ms. Jane Stoyle (from
MCEER) in producing this report is also appreciated.

This work was supported in part by the Earthquake Engineering Research Centers Program of
the National Science Foundation under Award Number ECC-9701471 to the Multidisciplinary
Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE

1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation for this Study 1
1.2 Research Objectives 1
1.3 Scope of Work 2
1.4 Outline 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 5
2.1 General 5
2.2 Basic Theory 6
2.3 Hysteresis Center Curve (HCC) Concept 9
2.4 Use of Amplification Factors to account for P-∆ Effects 10
2.5 Residual Displacement Ratio Response Spectrum 11

3 EXPERIMENTAL SETUP 13
3.1 General 13
3.2 Description of UB SDOF Shaking Table 13
3.2.1 Characteristics and Performance 13
3.2.2 Selection of Ground Motion 15
3.3 Description of Specimen 18
3.3.1 General 18
3.3.2 General Specimen Properties 20
3.3.3 Predicted Elastic Limit Response 22
3.3.4 Predicted Inelastic Limit Response 22
3.4 Construction of Test Structure 23
3.4.1 General 23
3.4.2 Measurement of Initial Imperfections 23
3.4.3 Construction Sequence 39
3.4.4 Lateral Bracing 40
3.5 Instrumentation of Specimen 41
3.5.1 General 41

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
SECTION TITLE PAGE

3.5.2 Displacement Measurements 42

3.5.2.1 General 42
3.5.2.2 Horizontal Displacement 44
3.5.2.3 Vertical Displacement 44
3.5.3 Accelerometers 45
3.5.4 Strain Gages 46
3.6 Testing of Specimens 47
3.6.1 General 47
3.6.2 Free Vibration Testing 47
3.6.3 Shake Table Testing 47
3.6.4 Tension Testing 52
3.7 Data Acquisition 53
3.8 Data Reduction 55
3.8.1 Data Noise 55
3.8.2 Horizontal Displacement Correction 55
3.8.3 Sign Convention 56
3.8.4 Estimated Base Shear Calculation 57

4 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 59
4.1 General 59
4.2 Summary of Test Results 59
4.2.1 Tension Testing 59
4.2.2 Free Vibration Tests 60
4.2.2.1 Fundamental Period of Vibration 60
4.2.2.2 Inherent Damping 63
4.2.3 SDOF Shake Table Tests 72
4.2.4 Exceptions 80

5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 199

5.1 General 199

x
 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont’d)
SECTION TITLE PAGE

5.2 How to Use Experimental Data for Analytical Model Verification 199
5.2.1 Where to find the Data 199
5.2.2 Effect of Damping on Analytical Results 200
5.2.3 Force-Displacement Comparison 204
5.3 Behavioral Trends 210
5.4 Comparison with NCHRP 12-49 Proposed P-∆ Limits 214
5.5 Specimen Stability Analysis 217

6 CONCLUSIONS 223
6.1 General 223
6.2 Recommendations for Further Research 224

7 REFERENCES 227

APPENDICES
A PRELIMINARY DESIGN CALCULATIONS A-1

B EFFECTS OF TRANSVERSE BRACING ON

BEHAVIOR OF TEST STRUCTURE B-1
B.1 Introduction B-1
B.2 Polyurethane Mechanical Properties B-5
B.3 Specimen 9* Free Vibration Tests B-12

C ANALYSIS OF RESULTS C-1

xi
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE TITLE PAGE

2-1 Free Body Diagram of Typical SDOF structure 5

2-2 Bilinear Lateral Force vs. Displacement model for SDOF structure 6
2-3 Force vs. Displacement Behavior for a dynamically stable
and unstable bilinear system 9
2-4 Maximum Residual Displacement 11
2-5 Residual Displacement Ratio Response Spectra SRDR vs.
Bilinear Factor r as Proposed for Design 12

3-1 University at Buffalo SDOF Shaking Table 14

3-2 El Centro S00E Ground Acceleration 16
3-3 El Centro S00E Ground Displacement 16
3-4 Input Table Displacement – Maximum Actuator Displacement 17
3-5 Target Table Acceleration – Maximum Actuator Displacement 17
3-6 Specimen Axial Strength versus Slenderness 19
3-7 General Specimen Dimensions and Conventions for
Imperfection Measurements for (a) U-D and (b) L-R Orientations 20
3-8 Angle of Bowing in (a) U-D Orientation and (b) L-R Orientations 24
3-9 Lateral Shift & Angle of Twist in (a) U-D and (b) L-R Orientations 25
3-10 Construction of a Typical Test Structure 39
3-11 Cross Bracing Attached to specimen 41
3-12 Schematic of Test Setup and Instrumentation (Looking West) 42
3-13 Horizontal Displacement Transducer Modification Details 44
3-14 Vertical Displacement Transducer Modification Details 45
3-15 MTS Axial-Torsion Testing Machine 53
3-16 Data Acquisition System 54
3-17 Definition of Variables used in Horizontal Displacement Correction 56

4-1 Free Vibration Test of Specimen 1 82

4-2 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 1 84
4-3 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 2 85
4-4 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 3 86

xiii
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4-5 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 4 87

4-6 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 5 88
4-7 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 6 89
4-8 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 7 90
4-9 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 8 91
4-10 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 9 92
4-11 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 10 93
4-12 Seismic Response of Specimen 1 - Trial 11 94
4-13 Specimen 1 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 95
4-14 Specimen 1 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 98
4-15 Specimen 1 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 101
4-16 Seismic Response of Specimen 2 - Trial 9 102
4-17 Seismic Response of Specimen 2 - Trial 10 103
4-18 Specimen 2 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 104
4-19 Specimen 2 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 106
4-20 Specimen 2 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 108
4-21 Seismic Response of Specimen 4 - Trial 5 110
4-22 Seismic Response of Specimen 4 - Trial 6 111
4-23 Specimen 4 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 112
4-24 Specimen 4 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 114
4-25 Specimen 4 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 115
4-26 Seismic Response of Specimen 5b - Trial 1 116
4-27 Seismic Response of Specimen 5b - Trial 2 117
4-28 Specimen 5b - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 118
4-29 Specimen 5b - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 119
4-30 Specimen 5b - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 120
4-31 Free Vibration Test of Specimen 6 121
4-32 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 1 123
4-33 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 2 124
4-34 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 3 125

xiv
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4-35 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 4 126

4-36 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 5 127
4-37 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 6 128
4-38 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 7 129
4-39 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 8 130
4-40 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 9 131
4-41 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 10 132
4-42 Seismic Response of Specimen 6 - Trial 11 133
4-43 Specimen 6 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 134
4-44 Specimen 6 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 137
4-45 Specimen 6 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 139
4-46 Seismic Response of Specimen 7 - Trial 4 141
4-47 Seismic Response of Specimen 7 - Trial 5 142
4-48 Specimen 7 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 143
4-49 Specimen 7 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 144
4-50 Specimen 7 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 145
4-51 Seismic Response of Specimen 8 - Trial 3 146
4-52 Seismic Response of Specimen 8 - Trial 4 147
4-53 Specimen 8 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 148
4-54 Specimen 8 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 149
4-55 Specimen 8 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 150
4-56 Seismic Response of Specimen 9 - Trial 3 151
4-57 Seismic Response of Specimen 9 - Trial 4 152
4-58 Specimen 9 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 153
4-59 Specimen 9 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 154
4-60 Specimen 9 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 155
4-61 Seismic Response of Specimen 10 - Trial 1 156
4-62 Specimen 10 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 157
4-63 Specimen 10 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 158
4-64 Seismic Response of Specimen 10b - Trial 4 159

xv
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4-65 Seismic Response of Specimen 10b - Trial 5 160

4-66 Seismic Response of Specimen 10b - Trial 6 161
4-67 Specimen 10b - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 162
4-68 Specimen 10b - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 164
4-69 Specimen 10b - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 165
4-70 Free Vibration Test of Specimen 11 166
4-71 Seismic Response of Specimen 11 - Trial 1 168
4-72 Seismic Response of Specimen 11 - Trial 2 169
4-73 Seismic Response of Specimen 11 - Trial 3 170
4-74 Seismic Response of Specimen 11 - Trial 4 171
4-75 Seismic Response of Specimen 11 - Trial 5 172
4-76 Seismic Response of Specimen 11 - Trial 6 173
4-77 Seismic Response of Specimen 11 - Trial 7 174
4-78 Specimen 11 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 175
4-79 Specimen 11 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 177
4-80 Specimen 11 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 179
4-81 Seismic Response of Specimen 12 - Trial 2 181
4-82 Seismic Response of Specimen 12 - Trial 3 182
4-83 Specimen 12 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 183
4-84 Specimen 12 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 184
4-85 Specimen 12 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 185
4-86 Seismic Response of Specimen 13 - Trial 4 186
4-87 Seismic Response of Specimen 13 - Trial 5 187
4-88 Specimen 13 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 188
4-89 Specimen 13 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 189
4-90 Specimen 13 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 190
4-91 Seismic Response of Specimen 14 - Trial 4 191
4-92 Seismic Response of Specimen 14 - Trial 5 192
4-93 Specimen 14 - Progressive Displacement Time Histories 193
4-94 Specimen 14 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 194

xvi
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE

4-95 Specimen 14 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 195

4-96 Seismic Response of Specimen 15 - Trial 1 196
4-97 Specimen 15 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Ductility 197
4-98 Specimen 15 - Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift 198

5-1 Displacement Comparison of Specimen 11 - Trial 1 202

5-2 Acceleration Comparison of Specimen 11 - Trial 1 203
5-3 Bilinear Lateral Force versus Displacement model for SDOF structure 204
5-4 Force-Displacement - Specimen 11 - Exp. vs. Method 1 206
5-5 Force-Displacement - Specimen 11 - Exp. vs. Method 2 208
5-6 Spectral Acceleration versus Stability Coefficient 211
5-7 Displacement Ductility versus Stability Coefficient 211
5-8 Drift versus Stability Coefficient 212
5-9 Spectral Acceleration versus Static Stability Limit 213
5-10 Displacement Ductility versus Static Stability Limit 213
5-11 Drift versus Static Stability Limit 214
5-12 Test Results Comparison with NCHRP 12-49 Limits 216

A-1 Spectral Capacity of Specimen 2 A-9

B-1 Free Vibration Test of Specimen 9* no Bracing B-15

B-2 Free Vibration Test of Specimen 9* with Bracing B-17

C-1 Normalized Base Shear vs. Displacement Ductility C-7

C-2 Normalized Base Shear vs. Normalized Residual Displacement C-10
C-3 Normalized Base Shear vs. Normalized Ductility C-13
C-4 Normalized Base Shear vs. Displacement Ratio C-16
C-5 Normalized Base Shear vs. Drift C-19
C-6 Normalized Spectral Acceleration vs. Displacement Ductility C-22
C-7 Normalized Spectral Acceleration vs. Normalized Residual Displacement C-25

xvii
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (cont'd)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE

C-8 Normalized Spectral Acceleration vs. Normalized Ductility C-28

C-9 Normalized Spectral Acceleration vs. Displacement Ratio C-31
C-10 Normalized Spectral Acceleration vs. Drift C-34
C-11 Normalized Absolute Acceleration vs. Displacement Ductility C-37
C-12 Normalized Absolute Acceleration vs.
Normalized Residual Displacement C-40
C-13 Normalized Absolute Acceleration vs. Normalized Ductility C-43
C-14 Normalized Absolute Acceleration vs. Displacement Ratio C-46
C-15 Normalized Absolute Acceleration vs. Drift C-49

xviii
 LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE

3-1 Specimen Nominal Dimensions 18

3-2 Specimen General Properties 21
3-3 Specimen Dynamic Properties 22
3-4 Measured Column Dimensions 26
3-5 Calculated Column Dimensions 31
3-6 Column Locations and Orientations 36
3-7 Displacement Transducer Properties 43
3-8 Displacement Transducer Initial Offsets 43
3-9 Accelerometers Used During Testing 46
3-10 Strain Gages Used during Testing 46
3-11 Specimen Test Schedules 49

4-1 Tension Test Results 60

4-2 Free Vibration Period Comparison 61
4-3 Free Vibration Damping Estimates 64
4-4 Shake Table Test Results 73
4-5 Shake Table Acceleration Statistical Analysis 77

5-1 Yield Force Reduction – Specimen 11 205

5-2 First Order Strength and Stability Analysis 220
5-3 Second Order Strength and Stability Analysis 221
5-4 Comparison of Measured Acceleration and
Base Shear Coefficients with Analytical Values 222

A-1 Nominal Specimen Properties A-6

A-2 Computation of Required Spectral Acceleration A-7
A-3 Computation of Maximum Displacement Response A-8
A-4 Computation of Maximum Acceleration Response A-10
A-5 First Order Strength and Stability Analysis A-15
A-6 Second Order Strength and Stability Analysis A-16

xix
 LIST OF TABLES (cont'd)
TABLE TITLE PAGE

B-1 Measured Specimen Dimensions B-12

B-2 Calculated Specimen Dimensions B-12
B-3 Column Locations and Orientations B-13
B-4 Free Vibration Damping Estimates B-14

C-1 Shake Table Tests-Critical Parameters C-3

C-2 Shake Table Tests-Normalized Peak Responses C-4

xx
 NOTATIONS

AccEast east side total acceleration instrumentation channel

AccTbl table acceleration instrumentation channel
AccWest west side total acceleration instrumentation channel
Cs* estimated maximum base shear coefficient
E modulus of elasticity (MPa)
fD damping force
fI inertial force in specimen mass
fS restoring spring force
Fy yield stress
g gravitational constant (=9.807m/s2)
h nominal width of column
HorEast east side total displacement instrumentation channel
HorWest west side total displacement instrumentation channel
i index of damping estimates (=1,2,3)
I moment of inertia of column
j number of free vibration cycles between peaks used for estimate of ξ
K1 elastic stiffness with P-∆ effect considered
K2 post-elastic stiffness with P-∆ effect considered
ki cycle number used as first peak for ith estimate of the damping ratio
ki+j cycle number used as second peak for ith estimate of the damping ratio
Ko stiffness without P-∆
l length of rod used on the horizontal displacement transducers
L height of the column
l1 l2 length of column as shown in Fig 3-7
M moment at ends of column
Mm moment calculated from the strains measured at the third point of column height
Mp plastic moment of column
P nominal axial load on column

xxi
P-∆
Pn axial capacity of column (AISC notation)
Pu axial load on column (AISC notation)
r bilinear stiffness ratio (k2/k1)
Sa-filt elastic spectral acceleration of measured & filtered ground motion
Sa-meas elastic spectral acceleration of measured ground motion
Sa-target elastic spectral acceleration of target ground motion
Sa-ultim. spectral acceleration for design at ultimate strength
Sa-yield spectral acceleration at first yield of structure
SRDR residual displacement ratio spectrum
Strain strain at third point of column instrumentation channel
t time, s
Tn nominal fundamental period, s
Tno predicted fundamental period ignoring P-∆
Tnp predicted fundamental period including P-∆
Tn-spectrum calculated period from Fourier Analysis of test data
u*i average of amplitude of peaks k to k+j throughout the ith estimate interval (mm or
g)
ua(t) actual horizontal displacement at time, t, mm
UG instrument channel table displacement, mm
ug(t) measured ground displacement at time, t, mm
uk amplitude of kth peak (first peak used for the estimate)
uk+j amplitude of (k+j)th peak (last peak used for the estimate)
uki = amplitude of first peak used for ith estimate of the damping ratio
uki+j = amplitude of second peak used for ith estimate of the damping ratio
um(t) measured horizontal displacement at time, t
uo maximum amplitude of free vibration response (mm or g)
ur residual displacement of test structure at end of test
urel-max maximum relative displacement of the specimen during test
urmax maximum residual displacement of the specimen from Eq. (2-7)
ütmax maximum total acceleration of the structural mass (g)

xxii
v(t) measured vertical displacement / vertical projection of l at time, t
V*max maximum experimentally estimated base shear
v1 v2 lateral shifts of baseplate corners as shown in Fig 3-9
Vert vertical displacement instrument channel
Vo base shear on structure ignoring P-∆
Vo* estimated base shear from experiment (without P-∆ Effects)
Vp base shear on structure affected by P-∆
Vp* estimated base shear from experiment (including P-∆ Effects)
Vunif average lateral shift of top baseplate of column (=average(v1 and v2))
Vyo base shear on structure at plastic moment
Vyo’ reduced lateral yield force in analysis
Vyp base shear on P- ∆ affected structure at yield
w1 w2 w3 width of column at bottom, middle, and top as shown in Fig 3-7
x(t) horizontal projection of l at time, t
∆ relative displacement of top of column
∆coll. residual displacement at formation of plastic mechanism
∆Fy change in analytical yield force due to residual displacement
∆Tn percent differnce in period between observed and analytical, s
∆u ultimate Displacement
∆y yield Displacement
εm strain measured by strain gage at third point of column height
φ angle of twist of column
µ displacement ductility of structure (∆/∆y)
µs static stability limit
θ stability coefficient
θb angle of bow of column
ξ damping ratio (percent of critical damping)
ξi ith estimate of the damping ratio

xxiii
 ABBREVIATIONS

NSP Nonlinear Static Procedure

PGA peak ground acceleration
SDOF single-degree-of-freedom
SEESL Structural Engineering and Earthquake Simulation Laboratory
UB University at Buffalo

xxv