Seismic Design of Tall Steel Buildings

  • Egor P. Popov


Earthquake-resistant design of buildings is very complex and is perhaps the most challenging and awesome problem in structural engineering. The magnitude of a major earthquake at a given site at best can only be roughly approximated. The dynamic nature of the problem, including soil-structure interaction effects, adds to the complexity of the problem. Moreover, for reasons of economy, building frames cannot be overly conservatively designed. The strength limit state at presumed extreme loading conditions during the intended life of the structure is the dominant criterion. In this strength limit state some damage to the structure can be tolerated. However, “the overriding considerations of public safety for life, limb and property of human beings” (AISC, 1984) must be strictly adhered to. For these reasons, the steel frames, as designed, do not respond in an elastic manner during a massive earthquake and are expected to develop inelastic action in many of the members and connections. Only very recently our analytical capabilities reached a stage of development where such behavior can be corroborated reasonably well by test results and as yet has not received any significant use in practice.


Tall Building Shear Link Apply Technology Council Uniform Building Code Moment Connection 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AISC, 1934 STEEL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL, American Institute of Steel Construction, New York, 2nd Ed., p. 127.Google Scholar
  2. AISC, 1984 SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDINGS, Commentary on the Proposed Load and Resistance Factor Design, Chicago, August 1, p. 18.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, A. W., et al., 1952 LATERAL FORCES OF EARTHQUAKE AND WIND, Transactions, ASCE, Vol. 1 17, pp. 716–780.Google Scholar
  4. ATC, 1978 TENTATIVE PROVISIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEISMIC REGULATIONS FOR BUILDINGS, NBS Special Publication 510, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC. Applied Technology Council.Google Scholar
  5. Binder, R. W., 1962 SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF THE MEXICAN EARTHQUAKES, May 11 and 19, Proceedings, 31st Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association of California, pp. 96–110.Google Scholar
  7. ICBO, 1982 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA.Google Scholar
  8. ICBO, 1985 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA.Google Scholar
  9. Kasai, K. and Popov, E. P., 1986 GENERAL BEHAVIOR OF WF STEEL SHEAR LINK BEAMS, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 111, February.Google Scholar
  10. Kerr, R. A., 1985 PREDICTABLE QUAKE DAMAGE, Science, Vol. 230, No. 4726, November p. 633.Google Scholar
  11. Malley, J. O. and Popov, E. P., 1984 DESIGN OF SHEAR LINKS IN ECCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 110, September, pp. 2275–2295.Google Scholar
  12. Merovich, A. T and Nicoletti, J. P, 1982 ECCENTRIC BRACING IN TALL BUILDINGS, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 108, May, pp. 2066–2080.Google Scholar
  13. NCR/EERI, 1985 IMPRESSIONS OF THE GUERRO-MECHOACAN, MEXICO EARTHQUAKE OF 19 SEPTEMBER 1985: A PRELIMINARY RECONNAISSANCE REPORT, Publication No. 85–05, National Research Council/ Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, CA, October, 20 pp. plus figures.Google Scholar
  14. Popov, E. P and Black, R. G., 1981 STEEL STRUTS UNDER SEVERE CYCLIC LOADING, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, September, pp. 1857–1881.Google Scholar
  15. Roeder, C. W. and Popov, E. P., 1978 ECCENTRICALLY BRACED STEEL FRAMES FOR EARTHQUAKES, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, March, pp. 391–412.Google Scholar
  16. SEAOC Seismology Committee, 1976 RECOMMENDED LATERAL FORCE REQUIREMENTS, Structural Engineers Association of California, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  17. Steel Committee of California, 1981 STEEL CONNECTIONS/DETAILS AND RELATIVE COSTS, El Monte, California, 24 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Steinbrugge, K. V, 1982 EARTHQUAKES, VOLCANOS, AND TSUNAMIS, Scandia America Group, 280 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, 392 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Yamanouchi, H., et al., 1984 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ON A K-BRACED STEEL STRUCTURE UNDER SEISMIC LOADING UTILIZING FULL-SCALE SIX-STORY TEST STRUCTURE-U.S./JAPAN COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM, Proceedings, 1984 Annual Technical Session, Stability Under Seismic Loading, Structural Stability Research Council, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  20. Zeevaert, L., 1964 STRUCTURAL STEEL BUILDING FRAMES IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING, Proceedings, Steel Utilization Congress, Luxembourg.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Egor P. Popov

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations