Skip to main content
Log in

Evaluating the code approaches for estimating the seismic drifts of steel frame buildings designed under variable levels of seismicity

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two different approaches are considered by seismic codes for estimating the seismic drifts of moment resisting steel frames (MRSFs). The first approach which is adopted by the European and the Canadian codes is driven by the equal displacement rule and defines the deflection amplification factor (DAF) to be equal to the response modification factor R. The second approach which is motivated by the opinion of professionals who believe that the equal displacement rule often over-estimates displacements is employed by the ASCE 7-10 and the Egyptian seismic code, where the DAF is considered equal to a fraction of R. This study evaluates the two approaches considered for estimating the seismic drifts of MRSFs. Four MRSF buildings having 2-, 4-, 8- and 12-stories have been designed under variable levels of seismic intensity. Five lateral-stiffness scenarios are considered for each building to account for the stiffness increase due to the nonstructural components as well as the modeling approximations. The seismic drifts of the MRSFs are calculated under the effect of twenty-two pairs of far-field ground motion records by time history analysis and with using the code simplified approaches. The results obtained indicate that the current code approaches of amplifying the elastic drifts significantly overestimate the seismic drifts of buildings designed under low level of seismicity. In contrast, the ASCE 7-10 and the Egyptian code approaches of estimating the seismic drifts underestimate the maximum story drift ratios under earthquake loading for long period buildings designed under high level of seismicity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abou-Elfath H (2019) Evaluating the inelastic displacement ratios of moment-resisting steel frames designed according to the Egyptian code. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 18(1):159–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE 7 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers/Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, VA

  • ECP-201 (2012) Egyptian code for calculating loads and forces in structural work and masonry. Housing and Building National Research Center, Ministry of Housing, Utilities and Urban Planning, Cairo, Egypt

  • Euro code 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: General rules, seismic actions, and rules for buildings. EN 1998-1, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium

  • FEMA (2009), Quantification of building seismic performance factors, FEMA P695, Prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C

  • Krawinkler H (1996) Pushover analysis: why, how, when, and when not to use it. In: The 65 annual convention of the structural engineers association of California, Maui, Hawaii, pp 17–36

  • Miranda E (2001) Estimation of inelastic deformation demands of SDOF systems. J Struct Eng 127:1005–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miranda E, Bertero VV (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake resistant design. Earthq Spectra 10(2):357–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mollaioli F, Mura A, Decanini LD (2007) Assessment of the deformation demand in multi-storey frames. J Seismol Earthq Eng 8(4):203–219

    Google Scholar 

  • NBCC (2010) National building code of Canada. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakash V, Powell GH. (1993) DRAIN-2DX- Version 1.02: User Guide. Report No. UCB/SEMM-93/17, Civil Engineering Department, University of California at Berkeley

  • Uang CM, Maarouf A (1994) Deflection amplification factor for seismic design provisions. J Struct Eng 120(8):2423–2436

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UBC (1997) Uniform Building Code. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Whittier, California, USA

  • Veletsos AS, Newmark NM (1960) Effect of inelastic behavior on the response of simple systems to earthquake motions. In: The 2nd world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo, Japan, vol 2, pp 895–912

  • Woessner J, Laurentiu D, Giardini D et al (2013) The 2013 European Seismic Hazard Model: key components and results. Bull Earthq Eng 13:3553–3596

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hamdy Abou-Elfath.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abou-Elfath, H., Elhout, E. Evaluating the code approaches for estimating the seismic drifts of steel frame buildings designed under variable levels of seismicity. Bull Earthquake Eng 17, 4169–4191 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00634-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00634-z

Keywords

Navigation