Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A

, Volume 12, Issue 8, pp 616–626 | Cite as

Estimating seismic demand parameters using the endurance time method

  • Ramin Madarshahian
  • Homayoon Estekanchi
  • Akbar Mahvashmohammadi


The endurance time (ET) method is a time history based dynamic analysis in which structures are subjected to gradually intensifying excitations and their performances are judged based on their responses at various excitation levels. Using this method, the computational effort required for estimating probable seismic demand parameters can be reduced by an order of magnitude. Calculation of the maximum displacement or target displacement is a basic requirement for estimating performance based on structural design. The purpose of this paper is to compare the results of the nonlinear ET method with the nonlinear static pushover (NSP) method of FEMA 356 by evaluating performances and target displacements of steel frames. This study will lead to a deeper insight into the capabilities and limitations of the ET method. The results are further compared with those of the standard nonlinear response history analysis. We conclude that results from the ET analysis are in proper agreement with those from standard procedures.

Key words

Endurance time (ET) method Nonlinear static pushover (NSP) Nonlinear dynamic analysis (NDA) Target displacement 

CLC number

TU17 TU391 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AISC, 1989. Manual of Steel Construction: Allowable Stress Design (9th Ed.). American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, USA.Google Scholar
  2. Akkar, S., Metin, A., 2007. Assessment of improved nonlinear static procedures in FEMA-440. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(9):1237–1246. [doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:9(1237)]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ATC-40, 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  4. BHRC 2800-05, 2005. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings (3rd Ed.). Building and Housing Research Center, Tehran, Iran.Google Scholar
  5. Chandler, A.M., Lam, N.T.K., 2001. Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: a multidisciplinary review. Engineering Structures, 23(12):1525–1543. [doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(01)00070-0]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chopra, A.K., Goel, R.K., Chintanapakdee, C., 2004. Evaluation of a modified MPA procedure assuming higher modes as elastic to estimate seismic demands. Earthquake Spectra, 20(3):757–778. [doi:10.1193/1.1775237]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Estekanchi, H.E., Vafai, A., Sadeghazar, M., 2004. Endurance time method for seismic analysis and design of structures. Scientia Irania, 11(4):361–370.Google Scholar
  8. Estekanchi, H.E., Riahi, H.T., Vafai, A., 2006. Endurance Time Method: A Dynamic Pushover Procedure for Seismic Evaluation of Structures. First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, 433:1–9.Google Scholar
  9. Estekanchi, H.E., Valamanesh, V., Vafai, A., 2007. Application of endurance time method in linear seismic analysis. Engineering Structures, 29(10):2551–2562. [doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.01.009]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Estekanchi, H.E., Arjomandi, K., Vafai, A., 2008. Estimating structural damage of steel moment frames by endurance time method. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 64(2):145–155. [doi:10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.05.010]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Estekanchi, H.E., Vafai, A., Riahi, H.T., 2009. Endurance time method: exercise test as applied to structures. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 10(5):559–577.Google Scholar
  12. Eurocode 8, 2001. Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 1: General Rules Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium.Google Scholar
  13. Fajfar, P., 2000. A nonlinear analysis method for performance-based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra, 16(3):573–592. [doi:10.1193/1.1586128]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. FEMA 273, 1997. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  15. FEMA 356, 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  16. FEMA 440, 2005. Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Freeman, S.A., Nicoletti, J.P., Tyrell, J.V., 1975. Evaluations of Existing Buildings for Seismic Risk-A Case Study of Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Washington. Proceedings of the 1st US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, p.113–122.Google Scholar
  18. Goel, R.K., Chopra, A.K., 2004. Evaluation of modal and FEMA pushover analysis: SAC buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 20(1):225–254. [doi:10.1193/1.1646390]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. INBC, 2005. Iranian National Building Code. Office of Collection and Extension of National Building Code, Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Tehran, Iran.Google Scholar
  20. Kalkan, E., Kunnath, S.K., 2007. Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures for seismic evaluation of buildings. Engineering Structures, 29(3):305–316. [doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.04.012]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Krawinkler, H., Seneviratna, G.D.P.K., 1998. Pros and cons of a pushover analysis of seismic performance evaluation. Engineering Structures, 20(4–6):452–464. [doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00092-8]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kunnath, S.K., Kalkan, E., 2004. Evaluation of seismic deformation demands using nonlinear procedures in multistory steel and concrete moment frames. ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, 41(1):159–181.Google Scholar
  23. Madarshahian, S.R., Estekanchi, H.E., 2007. Investigation of Nonlinear Endurance Time and Static Pushover Methods in Estimating Steel Moment Frames Performance. Fifth International Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, p.1–7 (in Persian).Google Scholar
  24. Riahi, H.T., Estekanchi, H.E., 2010. Seismic assessment of steel frames with endurance time method. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 66(6):780–792. [doi:10. 1016/j.jcsr.2009.12.001]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Riahi, H.T., Estekanchi, H.E., Vafai, A., 2009a. Application of endurance time method in nonlinear seismic analysis of SDOF systems. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(10):1817–1832. [doi:10.3923/jas.2009.1817.1832]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Riahi, H.T., Estekanchi, H.E., Vafai, A., 2009b. Estimates of average inelastic deformation demands for regular steel frames by the endurance time method. Scientia Iranica, 16(5):388–402.Google Scholar
  27. Saiidi, M., Sozen, M.A., 1981. Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures. Journal of the Structural Division, 107(5):937–953.Google Scholar
  28. Shattarat, N.K., Symans, M.D., McLean, D.I., Cofer, W.F., 2008. Evaluation of nonlinear static analysis methods and software tools for seismic analysis of highway bridges. Engineering Structures, 30(5):1335–1345. [doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.07.021]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Valamanesh, V., Estekanchi, H.E., 2010. A study of endurance time method in the analysis of elastic moment frames under three-directional seismic loading. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 11(5):543–562.Google Scholar
  30. Valamanesh, V., Estekanchi, H.E., Vafai, A., 2010. Characteristics of second generation endurance time accelerograms. Scientia Iranica, 17(1):53–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ramin Madarshahian
    • 1
  • Homayoon Estekanchi
    • 1
  • Akbar Mahvashmohammadi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringSharif University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.ATLSS Center, Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringLehigh UniversityBethlehemUSA

Personalised recommendations