Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 765

Remarks regarding FEMA 368

seismic analysis guidelines
O. A. Mohamed
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Hartford, U.S.A.

Abstract
The intent of this paper is to explore the recommendations of FEMA 368 on
seismic analysis of buildings from a structural engineers’ perspective. The
objectives are to: 1) illustrate the decision making process on the selection of a
seismic analysis method in FEMA 368, 2) present a clear sequence of steps that
will guide a structural engineer using FEMA 368 guidelines to determine the
appropriate analysis method by calculating the appropriate quantities as they are
needed, and 3) compare the response history analysis procedure to the equivalent
lateral force procedure permitted in the body of FEMA 368 guidelines.
Keywords: dynamic analysis, equivalent lateral force, response history analysis,
story drift, FEMA368.

1 Introduction
FEMA 368 is created with the sponsorship of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). The purpose of this document is to provide
guidance for the engineering community on the seismic resistant design of
structures. FEMA publishes updated recommendations on seismic analysis and
design every three years. It includes recommendations for structural and
nonstructural building components. In the year 2000, the National Institute of
Building Systems (NIBS) updated the Provisions for FEMA and the resulting
document is FEMA 368. The complete title of the document is NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures. Presidential Executive Order 12699 mandates that all federal
buildings be constructed to mitigate seismic hazard and that NEHRP Provisions
are considered to be the suitable design standard [4]. Analysis and design

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
766 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

recommendations for certain engineering materials, structural components, and

non-structural components are distributed in 14 chapters and two appendices.
This presentation provides a clear understanding of the decision making process
that leads to the selection of an appropriate seismic analysis method and
discusses some of the important seismic analysis provisions. In this paper, the
term provisions will be used to mean FEMA 368 guidelines.

2 Seismic analysis procedures

This section provides important decision making guidance and analysis steps that
are readably useable by a structural engineer interested in implementing the
provisions. At the end of this section, four of the analysis methods permitted by
FEMA 368 are discussed and compared.

2.1 The first perquisite analysis step

Before an analysis procedure, such as the Equivalent Lateral Force (ELF)

method or Modal Response Spectrum analysis method can be selected as the
appropriate method, the structure will have to meet certain conditions to ensure
reliable results. These conditions will be explained in a subsequent section. A
mandatory first step to qualify a structure for a certain analysis method is to
determine the Seismic Design Category of the Structure. These categories are
designated A, B, C, or D. The steps to determine the seismic design category are:

1. Use seismic maps 1 to 24 to determine the mapped maximum

considered earthquake spectral response acceleration at short period
S s and at 1 second S1 (section 4.1.2 of the provisions), for the specific
site under consideration.
2. Determine the Site Class (A, B, C, D, E, or F) using sections 4.1.2.1
through sections 4.1.2.3 of the provisions. Site class describes the local
soil conditions. Class A represents hard rock and Class F represents
soils requiring site-specific evaluations.
3. Use the Mapped Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration obtained in step 1 and the Site Class in step 2 and enter
provision Tables 4.1.2.4a and 4.1.2.4b to determine the site
coefficients Fa and Fv , respectively. Fa adjusts short period spectral
acceleration for site conditions while Fv adjusts the 1-second spectral
acceleration for site conditions.
4. Calculate the Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response
Acceleration for short period, S MS , and at 1 second, S M 1 .
S MS = Fa S s . (1)
S M 1 = Fv S1 . (2)
5. Calculate the Design Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at
short period S DS and at 1 second, S D1 .

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 767

2
S DS =
S MS . (3)
3
2
S D1 = S M 1 . (4)
3
6. Determine the Seismic Use Group of the structure (i.e. group I, II, or
III) described in provisions section 1.3 and summarized below.
- Seismic Use Group III: Essential facilities that are required for
post-earthquake recovery and those containing substantial
quantities of hazardous substances.
- Seismic Use Group II: Structures that have a substantial public
hazard due to occupancy or use.
- Seismic Use Group I: Structures that are not included in
seismic groups II and III.
Knowing the seismic use group, determine the importance factor, I ,
from provisions Table 1.4. The importance factor will be used in
seismic analysis using the ELF method. The seismic use group also
affects the maximum permissible story drift as described in a
subsequent section.
7. Determine the Seismic Design Category A, B, C, or D from Table
4.2.1a and Table 4.2.1b using the value of S DS calculated in step 5
above and the Seismic Use Group determined in step 6.
Seismic Design Category determined in this step is used in subsequent sections
to determine the method of seismic analysis permitted by FEMA 368.

2.2 The second perquisite analysis step

After the Seismic Design Category is determined from the previous section, a
structural analysis procedure is to be selected. The type of analysis procedure
permitted depends on the Seismic Design Category, the amount of plan or
S
vertical irregularity present in the structure, and the quantity Ts = D1 . Ts is the
S DS
ratio of Design Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 second to short
period. Provisions Table 5.2.3.2 describes the types of plan structural
irregularities and Table 5.2.3.3 describes the type of vertical irregularities.
Depending of the severity of the plan and/or vertical building irregularities, a
complete response history analysis may be required.

2.3 Load combinations and analysis procedures

The analysis load combinations to design structures in regions where seismic

design is necessary are the same as the ASCE 7-02 [5] combinations. ASCE 7-02
load combinations that include seismic forces are combinations 5 and 7 listed
below:
1.2 D + 1.0 E + L + 0.2S . (5)
0.9 D + 1.0 E + 1.6 H . (6)

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
768 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

Earthquake loads E listed in combinations 5 and 7 above are calculated from

provision 5.2.7 as follows:
a. For the situation where gravity loads are seismic loads are additive
E = ρ QE + 0.2 S DS D. (7)
b. When gravity load counteracts seismic load, seismic load effect is computed
using the following equation
E = ρ QE − 0.2 S DS D. (8)
Seismic force effect QE is obtained from structural analysis using procedures that
depend on Seismic Design Category, structural system, dynamic properties, and
regularity of the structure. The provisions for seismic analysis are included in
Chapter 5 of the provisions.
Index Force Analysis method is the simplest of all methods described in the
provisions. However, the method is limited to structures in Seismic Design
Category A, which is a severe restriction to the method. The ELF method is also
relatively simple but is applicable to a wider range of structures except when the
structure has certain types of plan and vertical irregularities. However, even for
structures where the use of ELF methods is not permitted for final design, ELF
will generally be used to estimate certain response characteristics before other
more general methods can be used.

2.3.1 Equivalent lateral force analysis

This method of analysis is not suitable for building with certain types of plan and
vertical irregularities. However, it is an essential first step for other more general
analysis methods. Before calculations related to the ELF method are performed,
the short period design spectral acceleration, S DS , and importance factor, I , need
to be determined.

1. Calculate the total seismic shear section 5.4, FEMA368 [1]

V = CsW . (9)
a. Calculate the seismic response coefficient (Provisions
eqn (5.4.1.1-2)).
S
Cs = DS . (10)
R/I
Calculate the minimum seismic response coefficient (FEMA
368 Equation 5.4.1.1-3)
Cs ,min = 0.044 IS DS . (11)
Calculate the maximum seismic response coefficient
S D1
Cs ,max = . (12)
T (R / I )
If Cs < Cs ,min use Cs = Cs ,min
If Cs > Cs ,max , use Cs = Cs ,max
b. Calculate the load W
All of the dead loads (weights of slabs, beams, columns, etc)

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 769

+ 25% of floor live load in storage areas (if any). Do not

include garages.
+ actual weight of partitions but not less than 10 psf (500
Pa/sq.m). This is considered when an allowance for partition
load is included in the floor load design
+ weight of permanent equipment (not accounted for in other
places)
+ snow loads on flat roofs when estimated load is greater than
30 psf.
2. Calculate the approximate fundamental period.
Ta = Cr hnx . (13)
hnx = height (ft or m) above the base to the highest level of the structure.
Cr and x : constants from provisions Table 5.4.2.1. They depend on
structure type (steel or concrete, amount of seismic force carried by
moment resisting frames, etc.
OR
If a moment resisting frame concrete or steel structure does not exceed
12 stories in height and story heights are at least 10 ft (3m), the
fundamental period can be calculated from
Ta = 0.1N . (14)
N = Number of stories
3. Distribute the total shear force V (kip or kN) to determine the lateral
force at each floor level.
Fx = CvxV . (15)
wx hxk
Cvx = n
.
k
∑ wi hi
i =1

wi and wx : portion of the total gravity load, W , located or assigned to

level, i , or x
hi and hx : height (ft or m) from the base to level i or x .
k : an exponent related to the structure period.
= 1.0 (for structures having a period less than or equal to
0.5 seconds)
= 2.0 (for structures having a period greater than or equal
to 2.5 seconds)
= 2.0 (for structures having a period between 0.5 and 2.5
seconds). Linear interpolation is also permitted.
4. Calculate the horizontal shear distribution at each story level.
Calculate the seismic design story shear force Vx (kip or kN) at each
story level x using,
n
Vx = ∑ Fi . (16)
i= x

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
770 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

The seismic story shear force, Vx , should then be distributed to vertical

elements of the seismic-force-resisting system in the story under
consideration based on the relative lateral stiffnesses of the vertical-
resisting elements and the diaphragm.
5. Calculate the overturning moment at each floor level, x , due to all
forces, Fi , between the base and the floor level under consideration.
n
M x = ∑ Fi ( hi − hx ) . (17)
i =1

Fi : portion of the seismic base shear, Vx , induced at level, i .

hi and hx : the height (ft or m) from the base to Level i or x
n : number of levels above the story under consideration.
The foundation can be designed for 75% of the foundation overturning
moment (kip.ft or kN.m).

Structural engineers should note that when Equation 11 (Provisions

eqn (5.4.1.1-3)) above controls the calculation of the seismic response
coefficient, Cs , that equation should not be used to calculate drifts. The intent of
FEMA 368 is that drifts should be calculated using eqn (10) (provisions
eqn (5.4.1.1-3)), which provides realistic values. To minimize analysis time,
forces can be calculated using eqn (11) but drifts obtained from that analysis
Cs
should be scaled up by the factor .
Csmin
The use of the relatively simple ELF method is permitted for analysis and
final design of structures that meet certain conditions as described in Fig. 1.
However, the capabilities of today’s software and computers make the use of
more refined methods, such as the modal response spectrum more realistic.

2.4 Choice of seismic analysis method

Once the Seismic Design Category is determined, an approximate fundamental

period and the quantity Ts are calculated, the engineer is ready to select an
appropriate analysis method. The restrictions on using each of the analysis
methods are detailed in Chapter 5 of the provision. Fig. 1 is a flowchart that can
guide the decision-making process to select the appropriate seismic analysis
method. Analysis method selected based on Fig. 1 satisfies the requirements of
provisions section 5.2.5.
The linear response spectrum analysis method is considered more refined than
the ELF method. However, compared to the modal response spectrum analysis
method, linear response spectrum analysis method is more demanding, especially
when it comes to the preparation of analysis model and the selection of suitable
set of ground motions.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Determine Seismic Design Category
A, B, C, D, E, or F

Seismic Design Seismic Design Category Seismic Design Category

Category A B or C D, E, or F

Is structure light frame No Is structure No Is the fundamental period

construction? regular?
T < 3.5Ts ? No

www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)

Yes
Yes Yes
Are any of
Is the fundamental period following
Yes Are any of irregularities
T < 3.5Ts ?
Permitted Permitted analysis following present?
analysis methods methods are irregularities No Plan: Type 2, 3,
present? 4, or 5
Yes Plan: Type 1a or 1b Vertical: Type 4

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
or 5
1. Index Force
2. Equivalent Lateral Force 1. Equivalent Lateral Force 1. Modal Response
3. Modal Response 2. Modal Response Spectrum Spectrum No
Spectrum 3. Linear Response History 2. Linear Response History
4. Linear Response History 4. Nonlinear Response History 3. Nonlinear Response Permitted analysis
5. Nonlinear Response History methods are
History
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

Figure 1: Decision making guide for choice of a seismic analysis procedure that satisfies the requirements of Chapter 5 of FEMA 368.
771
772 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

The nonlinear response spectrum analysis method is the most promising of all
methods shown in Fig. 1 and provides the designer with valuable information.
The continuing improvement in software capabilities and personal computers
will make the method more appealing. However, most codes and standards
including FEMA 368 do not clearly address important issues related to the
selection of ground motions needed for this type of analysis [6]. Furthermore,
creation of a suitable model and interpretation of results from a nonlinear
dynamic analysis requires special expertise. Nonetheless, all structures that can
be designed in accordance with FEMA 368 can be analyzed using modal
response spectrum and linear response history analysis methods. This makes
nonlinear response history analysis optional.

2.4.1 Insights on the analysis and design philosophy in FEMA 368

FEMA 368 permits linear elastic analysis for all structures even though, in high
seismicity regions, ground shaking may produce forces and deformations much
greater the yield limits. The design earthquakes, which may cause structures to
deform beyond their yield limit, are scaled down by the response modification
factor, R , which appears in eqns (10) and (12). Structures designed for this
reduced design lateral force are expected to perform satisfactorily if: 1) the
selected structure is suitable, 2) the detailing provides appropriate level of
ductility, and 3) structures are not highly irregular [4]. Observations on
performance of buildings during past earthquakes confirm the conclusion above.
One of the reasons for satisfactory performance is that fundamental periods tends
to increase during inelastic deformations which results in a reduction in strength
demand [4].

2.5 Drift

After a seismic analysis is completed based on a method selected in the previous

section, maximum story drift become available. Story drift at any level should
not exceed a maximum allowable story drift ∆a . Provisions Table 5.2.8 lists the
limiting values of story drift for structures analyzed using linear methods such as
the ELF method. The limiting story drift depends on the seismic use group, the
material and type of structure, and height. For example, the limiting deflection
for a masonry cantilever shear wall in a structure that falls in seismic use group
II is 0.01hsx .
The provisions require that the story drifts due to seismic forces shall be
obtained from structural analysis that accounts for cracked section effects on the
stiffness of reinforced concrete and masonry elements.
A particularly important consideration in FEMA 368 is section 5.2.2.4.3,
which requires structural elements that are not part of the lateral force resisting
force system to resist moments and shears caused by seismic story drifts, ∆ . This
is because such elements may still experience lateral deformations and forces as
the lateral force resisting system deforms. Observations on performance of
buildings during the 1994 Northridge earthquake show that some buildings have

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V 773

partially collapsed due to poorly detailed structural elements that are not part of
the lateral force resisting system [4].

2.6 Special analysis provisions for time history and response spectrum
analysis

When the analysis is performed using Response Spectrum, section 5.5.7 of the
provisions requires design forces, as well as drifts, to be scaled to values
consistent with 85 of the values calculated using the ELF method with a base
shear computed using a fundamental period equals to Cu Ta = 2.23 seconds.
When Response History Analysis is used, section 5.6.3 of the provisions requires
the Response History Forces to be scaled up to the values consistent with ELF
analysis with base shear computed using a period Cu Ta = 2.23 . This requirement
is considered unclear because this method is more reliable than ELF

3 Conclusions
Some of the basic provisions for seismic analysis and design using FEMA 368
were examined and discussed. A flowchart was produced that can aid a structural
engineer in the selection of appropriate analysis method while observing
restrictions on analysis methods imposed by the provisions.
The following observations on the FEMA 368 were made:

- The structural analysis method permitted by FEMA 368 depends on the

Seismic Design Category, plan and vertical irregularities of the
building, fundamental period, and the ratio of the Design Earthquake
Spectral Acceleration Response at 1 second to short period
S
acceleration Ts = D1 . However, the provisions permit three methods to
S DS
be used regardless of Seismic Design Category, fundamental period,
S
plan or vertical irregularity, or Ts = D1 . The three methods are:
S DS
o Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
o Linear Response History Analysis, and
o Nonlinear Response History Analysis.
- The Response History Analysis method is considered the most general
for seismic structural analysis. The commentary of the provisions
considers the method as one that requires special expertise and
recommends caution when interpreting the results. Section 5.6.3 of the
provisions requires that seismic forces calculated using Response
History Analysis method be scaled up to forces obtained to forces
obtained from the ELF method with base shear computed using
T = Cu Ta .

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)
774 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures V

- The Provisions adopt linear elastic analysis of structures and

emphasizes ductility and continuity of lateral force resisting systems as
important design and detailing requirements.
- The Provisions require structural elements that are not part of the lateral
force resisting system to be designed for the additional moments and
deformations caused by deformation of lateral force resisting system.
This will guard against collapses observed in previous earthquakes.

References
[1] NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and other Structures (FEMA 368); U.S. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, MD, 2000.
[2] ETABS User’s Manual, Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, CA.
[3] Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-02) and
Commentary (ACI 318R-02), American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Michigan, 2002.
[4] NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New
Buildings and other Structures, Part 2 – Commentary (FEMA 369); U.S.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, MD, 2000.
[5] Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures, ASCE 7-02,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2002.
[6] Guide to Application of the 2000 NEHRP Recommended Provisions;
Multihazard Building Design Summer Institute, U. S. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Emmitsburg, MD, 2003.

WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 81, © 2005 WIT Press
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line)