Understanding Seismic Performance:

Displacement Coefficient Method vs.

Capacity Spectrum Method

1
 From Nonlinear Analysis to Performance Assessment:
Determining the Seismic Performance Point

After completing a nonlinear pushover analysis to get the capacity curve of a

structure, the next key step is to find the performance point. This point shows
how the structure will behave under specific seismic demands, based on the
site’s location. It’s crucial for understanding how well a building can withstand
an earthquake.

There are a few methods to calculate this point, including the Displacement
Coefficient Method and the Capacity Spectrum Method. Both aim to match
the structure’s capacity with the seismic demand.

The Displacement Coefficient Method uses empirical formulas to adjust elastic

displacements and estimate inelastic behavior. In contrast, the Capacity
Spectrum Method visually compares the structure’s capacity curve with the
seismic demand spectrum, helping to determine the performance point.

2
Displacement Coefficient Method (ASCE 41-23)

• Target Displacement for Nonlinear Static Procedure

𝑇𝑒2
𝛿𝑡 = 𝐶0 𝐶1 𝐶2 𝑆𝑎 2 𝑔
4𝜋

Sa =Response spectrum acceleration at the effective

fundamental period and damping ratio of the building in
the direction under consideration;

g = Acceleration of gravity;

Te = The effective fundamental period (see page 4).

3
Displacement Coefficient Method

• Effective Period, Te

𝐾𝑖
𝑇𝑒 = 𝑇𝑖
𝐾𝑒

Fig. 1. Idealized force-displacement curves

(ASCE 41-23)
Where,
Ti = Elastic fundamental period (in seconds) in the direction under
consideration calculated by elastic dynamic analysis,

Ki = Elastic lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under consideration,

Ke = Effective lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under

consideration (See Fig. 1). 4
Displacement Coefficient Method

• Modification Factor C0

This modification factor relates spectral displacement of an equivalent single-

degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system to the roof displacement of the building
multiple-degree-of-freedom (MDOF) system calculated using one of the following
procedures:

• The first mode mass participation factor multiplied by the ordinate of the first
mode shape at the control node,

• The mass participation factor calculated using a shape vector corresponding to

the deflected shape of the building at the target displacement multiplied by
ordinate of the shape vector at the control node, or

• The appropriate value from Table 1 (see page 6),

5
Displacement Coefficient Method

• Modification Factor C0

Table 1. Values for Modification Factor C0

(ASCE 41-23)
6
Displacement Coefficient Method

• Modification Factor C1

• This modification factor relates expected maximum inelastic

displacements to displacements calculated for linear-elastic response.

• For periods less than 0.2s, C1 need not be taken as greater than the value
at T = 0.2 s. For periods greater than 1.0 s, C1 = 1.0.

𝜇𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ − 1
𝐶1 = 1 +
𝑎𝑇𝑒2

Where,
a = Site class factor (see page 8)
𝜇𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = Ratio of elastic strength demand to yield strength coefficient
(see page 9) 7
Displacement Coefficient Method

• Site Class Factor a

a= 130 for Site Class A or B;

a= 90 for Site Class C;
a= 60 for Site Class D, E, or F;

Table 2. Site Classification

(ASCE 7-22) 8
Displacement Coefficient Method

• 𝜇𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ

𝑆𝑎
𝜇𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ = .𝐶
𝑉𝑦 Τ𝑊 𝑚

Vy = Yield strength of the building in the direction under consideration

calculated using results of the NSP for the idealized nonlinear force–
displacement curve developed for the building (see Fig. 1);

W = Effective seismic weight;

Cm = Effective mass factor (see page 10).

9
 Displacement Coefficient Method

• Effective Mass Factor, Cm

Table 3. Values for Effective Mass Factor Cm

(ASCE 41-23)

• Alternatively, Cm can be taken as the effective modal mass participation factor

calculated for the fundamental mode using an eigenvalue analysis.

10
Displacement Coefficient Method

• Modification Factor C2

• This modification factor represents the effect of pinched hysteresis

shape, cyclic stiffness degradation, and strength deterioration on the
maximum displacement response.

• For periods greater than 0.7 s, C2 = 1.0.

2
1 𝜇𝑠𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ − 1
𝐶2 = 1 +
800 𝑇𝑒

11
 Capacity-Spectrum Method of Equivalent Linearization

Equivalent Linearization is a technique used to simplify the nonlinear seismic

response of a structure by approximating it as an equivalent linear system. In the
Capacity Spectrum Method, this helps determine the performance point, which
predicts how the structure will behave during an earthquake.

As a building deforms under seismic loads, its stiffness and damping properties
change. Instead of modeling these complex, nonlinear behaviors directly, the
structure is represented using an effective period and effective damping that
approximate its inelastic response. By comparing the structure’s capacity curve
(obtained from pushover analysis) with the seismic demand spectrum, we identify
the point where the two curves intersect, revealing the expected performance of
the structure.

12
Conversion of the Capacity Curve to the Capacity Spectrum

𝑉 Τ𝑊 σ𝑁
𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 𝜙𝑖1 Τ𝑔
𝑆𝑎 = 𝑃𝐹1 = 𝑁 2 Τ
𝛼1 σ𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 𝜙𝑖1 𝑔

∆𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑓 2
𝑆𝑑 = σ𝑁𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 𝜙𝑖1 Τ𝑔
𝑃𝐹1 𝜙𝑟𝑜𝑜𝑓,1 𝛼1 = 𝑁
σ𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 Τ𝑔 σ𝑁 2
𝑖=1 𝑤𝑖 𝜙𝑖1 Τ𝑔

Where:
PF1 = modal participation factor for the first natural mode.
α1 = modal mass coefficient for the first natural mode.
wi/g = mass assigned to level i.
ϕi1 = amplitude of mode 1 at level i.
V = base shear.
W = building effective seismic weight.
13
Conversion of the Capacity Curve to the Capacity Spectrum

Fig. 2. Example Modal Participation Factors and Modal Mass Coefficients

(ATC 40)

14
Conversion of the Traditional Spectrum to ADRS Spectrum

Fig. 3. Response Spectra in Traditional and ADRS Formats

(ATC 40)
15
Capacity Spectrum Method

Fig. 4. Derivation of Damping for Spectral Reduction 16

(ATC 40)
 Effective Viscous Damping

Table 5. Variation of κ-Value in ATC-40

(FEMA 440)

63.7𝑘 𝑎𝑦 𝑑𝑝𝑖 − 𝑑𝑦 𝑎𝑝𝑖

𝛽𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑘𝛽0 + 5 =
𝑎𝑝𝑖 𝑑𝑝𝑖

Table 4. Values for Damping Modification Factor

(ATC 40)
17
Structural Behaviour Types

Table 6. Structural Behaviour Types

(ATC 40)
18
 Numerical Derivation of Spectral Reductions

3.21 − 0.68 ln 𝛽𝑒𝑓𝑓

𝑆𝑅𝐴 = ≥ 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑇𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 7
2.12

Table 7. Minimum allowed SRA

(ATC 40)

19
FEMA 440 Interpretation of ATC 40

According to FEMA 440, the Capacity-Spectrum Method according to ATC-40 uses the
secant stiffness at maximum displacement to compute the effective period and
relates effective damping to the area under the hysteresis curve (see Fig. 4).These
assumptions result in an equivalent period, Teq, and equivalent damping ratio
(referred to as effective viscous damping, βeq, in ATC-40) given by:

𝜇
𝑇𝑒𝑞 = 𝑇0
1 + 𝛼𝜇 − 𝛼

2 𝜇−1 1−𝛼
𝛽𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 0.05 + 𝑘
𝜋 𝜇 1 + 𝛼𝜇 − 𝛼
Where:
T0 is the initial period of vibration of the nonlinear system,
α is the post-yield stiffness ratio and,
κ is an adjustment factor to approximately account for changes in
20
hysteretic behavior in reinforced concrete structures (see Table 4&5).
 Enhancing ATC 40 Approach: Key Improvements from FEMA 440

• Effective Damping

For 1.0 < 𝜇 < 4.0:

𝛽𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝛽0 + 4.9 𝜇 − 1 2 − 1.1 𝜇 − 1 3

For 4.0 ≤ 𝜇 ≤ 6.5:

𝛽𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝛽0 + 14 + 0.32 𝜇 − 1

For 𝜇 > 6.5:

2
0.64 𝜇 − 1 − 1 𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓
𝛽𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝛽0 + 19
0.64 𝜇 − 1 2 𝑇0

Note: There are more refined equations in FEMA440 that are not shown here for brevity. 21
 Enhancing ATC 40 Approach: Key Improvements from FEMA 440

• Effective Period

For 1.0 < 𝜇 < 4.0:

𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑇0 0.2 𝜇 − 1 2 − 0.038 𝜇 − 1 3 +1

For 4.0 ≤ 𝜇 ≤ 6.5: Note that these expressions

apply only for T0=0.2 to 2.0 s.
𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑇0 0.28 + 0.13 𝜇 − 1 + 1

For 𝜇 > 6.5:

𝜇−1
𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 = 𝑇0 0.89 −1 +1
1 + 0.05 𝜇 − 2

Note: There are more refined equations in FEMA440 that are not shown here for brevity. 22
Enhancing ATC 40 Approach: Key Improvements from FEMA 440

• Spectral Reduction for Effective Damping

𝑆𝑎 0
𝑆𝑎 𝛽 =
𝐵 𝛽𝑒𝑓𝑓

4
𝐵 𝛽𝑒𝑓𝑓 =
5.6 − ln 𝛽𝑒𝑓𝑓 𝑖𝑛 %

23
MADRS for Use with Secant Period

ATC-40 uses the secant period to calculate the effective linear period, assuming
that the performance point corresponds to this period. However, it does not
modify the ADRS based on this period, meaning the capacity curve and demand
spectrum may not always intersect at the correct point due to changes in
stiffness and damping as the structure moves beyond the elastic range.

Therefore, multiplying the ordinates of the ADRS demand corresponding to the

effective damping, βeff, by the modification factor, M, results in the modified
ADRS demand curve (MADRS) that may now intersect the capacity curve at the
performance point.

24
 MADRS for Use with Secant Period

2
𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓 1+𝛼 𝜇−1
𝑀=
𝑇0 𝜇

Fig. 6. Modified acceleration-displacement response spectrum (MADRS) for use with secant period, Tsec
(FEMA 440) 25
Speed vs. Insight: Choosing the Right Method

When determining seismic performance, your choice of method depends

on whether you prioritize speed or a deeper understanding of the
structure's behavior.

Displacement Coefficient Method (DCM) – Fast but Limited

The DCM is a quick and simple method, well-suited for rapid assessments. It
calculates the performance point using empirical formulas, making it efficient for
checking if a structure meets seismic criteria. However, this speed comes with
limitations. The DCM only provides insight at that specific performance point,
offering no information on how the structure behaves throughout a seismic event.
It does not help identify whether the structure lacks sufficient stiffness,
strength, or ductility, and it doesn’t offer a visual comparison of the capacity and
seismic demand curves, which can limit deeper understanding.

26
Speed vs. Insight: Choosing the Right Method

Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) – Detailed and Insightful

The CSM offers a more in-depth analysis by transforming pushover results

into an ADRS curve, enabling engineers to visually compare the
structure’s capacity with seismic demands. While it requires more
expertise and study to use effectively, it doesn’t significantly increase
time consumption. Unlike the DCM, the CSM allows engineers to evaluate
whether the structure has sufficient stiffness, strength, and ductility. It
provides richer insights into how the structure behaves under seismic
loads, helping to identify potential weaknesses and gain a deeper
understanding of its overall performance. This makes the CSM especially
valuable for complex designs where a more detailed assessment of the
structure’s response is critical.

27
References

ASCE7-22 (2022). Minimum design loads and associated criteria for

buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers.
ASCE41-23 (2023). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
ATC40 (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings,
Applied Technology Council.
FEMA440 (2005). "Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis
procedures." FEMA-440, Redwood City 7(9): 11.

28