Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sustainability
ISBN 978-602-8605-08-3
School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. E-mail: sozen@purdue.edu
ABSTRACT
It was the disastrous Messina Earthquake of 1908 that led the structural engineers in Italy to develop
a procedure for earthquake-resistant design based on lateral forces. Considering the physics of structural
response to earthquakes, this decision did not make sense. A structure cannot develop more lateral force
than that limited by the properties of its components. An earthquake shakes a building. It does not load a
building. A building loads itself during a strong earthquake depending on how stiff and strong it is.
Nevertheless, the procedure based on force seemed to work in general. Besides it conformed to the
thinking related to gravity loading and made it convenient to combine effects related to gravity and
earthquake. Admittedly, an engineering design procedure can be good even if it is wrong.
Because it worked, a whole near-science was built around the concept of lateral force. Today, it is not an
exaggeration to claim that the peak ground acceleration is the focal point of almost all that governs
earthquake-resistant design.
In 1932, in a paper not filling a whole page in the Engneering News Record, Harald Westergaard
(Westergaard, 1932) wrote that it was the ground velocity that was the driving factor for damage. His
brilliant insight could have had the profession question whether force was the only issue for design, but it
did not happen.
Over the period 1967-1990, a series of earthquake simulation tests were carried out at the University of
Illinois, Urbana. Although the tests were targeted at the problem of nonlinear dynamic analysis, the most
useful results that emerged were that drift (lateral displacement) was the critical criterion for earthquake
response of a structure, that strength made little difference for the drift response, and that maximum drift
response could be related to peak ground velocity.
The goal of the talk is to explain the changes in thinking inspired by what was observed in the laboratory
and how developments on drift response are likely to affect preliminary proportioning of structures.
INTRODUCTION
There are two simple design rules to achieve satisfactory earthquake resistance of a building structure.
Both rules are related to geometry.
Rule #1: Elevations of the floors must be at approximately the same level after the earthquake that they
were before the earthquake and not as illustrated in Fig. 1. The object of the rule is to save lives.
Rule #2: Geometry of the building on the vertical plane must not differ from its original geometry by
more than a permissible amount on the order of a drift ratio 2 of 1.5% to 2% and not as illustrated in Fig.2.
The object of the rule is to save the investment.
M.A. Szen
Meaning a structure that fails safely and not meaning a structure that does not fail although the no-fail
option would be quite acceptable.
K-17
M.A. Szen
later events. Panetti recognized the need for dynamic evaluation of the entire structure including its
foundation but concluded that this was beyond the state of the art of his time and suggested design for
equivalent static forces (Committee,1909). (Oliveto, 2004) has written that it was S. Canevazzi who
suggested that the committee select buildings observed to have remained intact after the 1908 event and
determine the maximum lateral static forces that they could have resisted, thus providing an observational
basis for specifying lateral force requirements for design. The main concern of the committee members
appears to have been two-story buildings. Studies by the committee resulted in a report requiring design
lateral forces amounting to 1/8 of the upper-story weights and 1/12 of the first-story weight. Inasmuch as
this method was modified after the Tokyo Earthquake of 1923 and re-modified countless times over the
years by different groups in different countries, the main theme did not change. Except for rare instances,
the dominant driver has remained as the equivalent lateral force despite changes in the amount and
distribution of the forces assumed to act at different levels.
(1)
My : limiting moment capacity of column
h : clear column height
V: shear force acting on the column.
We ask a simple question. In the event of the idealized structure being subjected to a sudden horizontal
movement of the foundation, what determines the maximum lateral force on the column?
K-18
M.A. Szen
It is not unreasonable to assume that before the mass will have time to move, the columns will sustain a
lateral deflection that will cause yielding. In that case, the base shear force is going to be that indicated by
Eq. 1. Clearly, the driver is the moment capacity of the column.
Now we need to modify our question. Who determines the base shear?
The answer is the engineer. And that leads us to the next question.
If the base shear is determined by the engineer, except in massive stiff structures, and not by the
earthquake, why do we start the analysis with a crude estimate of the peak ground acceleration? We
should be concerned with the drift and then, if needed, with the lateral force. This hypothetical conclusion
may evoke an objection based on the fact that static design requires the force to determine the drift.
What if the drift can be determined independently of the force or strength in most cases? Is it possible to
determine the drift first and the strength later? Consideration of that possibility is the object of this
discussion.
Much as it has been criticized for not being exact for every kind of ground motion, it is still an effective
way of thinking of the ground-motion demand for proportioning structures.
5
It took some time to change the thinking from blast-resistant design where energy absorption was the
issue to earthquake-resistant design where energy dissipation was the issue.
K-19
M.A. Szen
K-20
M.A. Szen
multiples of the structural weight, W. On the other hand, observations initiated in 1909, suggested that a
lateral force of approximately W/12 might be sufficient. This created a wide intellectual chasm that
focused attention on force response. The challenge to bring together linear dynamic response, observed
nonlinear response, and a whole host of traditional safety factors led to overlooking Talbots dictum of
observation without preconception.
K-21
M.A. Szen
OTANI
GLKAN
K-22
M.A. Szen
K-23
M.A. Szen
that time drift continued to be considered to be a minor consideration in design for earthquake resistance.
This fact is captured very well in Appendix A.
Algans compilation of data on damage revealed that, as long as brittle failure of the structure was
avoided, the story drift ratio (a measure of the distortion of the building profile) was the best pragmatic
indicator of intolerable damage especially because the structure amounted to a fraction of the cost of the
building. His approach demanded a simple and yet realistic procedure for determining drift. To do that he
went back to Glkans substitute damping, by that time expanded by Shibata (Shibata, 1974) into a fullfledged design method. The main conclusion from Algans work was that drift should control design
rather than force and that the main concern for limiting drift was more often related to nonstructural
elements than to the ductility of the structure. This was proposed explicitly during the seventh world
conference on earthquake engineering in 1980 (Sozen,1980).
SHIMAZAKI
In 1982, K. Shimazaki set out in search of an energy based criterion to determine the possible extent of
response-force reduction (Shimazaki, 1984). While pursuing this goal he noticed that within Newmarks
range of nearly-constant velocity response, he could determine the nonlinear drift of reinforced concrete
structures using linear analysis by assuming an amplified period of 2*T where T is the period based on
uncracked state of the structure and a damping factor of 2% of critical. While this was a disturbing
observation because his approach to drift response was insensitive to the area within the hysteresis loop as
well as to strength it confirmed what Fig. 10 implied. Shimazaki reoriented his studies from acceleration
to drift response to come up with a very simple and useful method for determining maximum drift
response. He concluded that if
TR + SR =>1
(2)
DR =<1
(3)
where
TR
: Ratio of T2 to characteristic period for ground motion. The characteristic period was that
beyond
which the spectral energy demand did not increase.
SR
: Ratio of base shear strength to base shear force for linear response
DR
: Ratio of nonlinear-response displacement to linear response displacement based on T2 and
damping factor of 2%.
If the first statement was satisfied, estimating the response displacement was very easy using Eq. 3 but for
stiff structures the method was handicapped.
LEPAGE
In the years 1976 through 1996, a series of earthquake-simulation tests were conducted to produce data on
maximum drift response by With eyes still fixed on force response, experimental work on the simulator
was continued by Aristizabal (1976), Lybas (1977), Healey (1978), Moehle (1978 and 1980), Cecen
(1979), Abrams (1979), Morrison (1981), Kreger (1983), Wolfgram-French (1984), Wood (1985),
Schultz (1985), Bonacci (1989), Eberhard (1989), Dragovich (1996) to investigate the response of sevento ten-story frames and walls (Fig. 9) as well as their interactions. As a result of these works a large
inventory of data on displacement response as well as on modal shapes became available.
K-24
M.A. Szen
(4)
Sd : nonlinear displacement in m
T : period based on a linear model in sec used as a dimensionless coefficient.
ZTRK
In a study of the effects of the ground motions measured in Anatolia during the two earthquakes of 1999
(Marmara and Dzce), ztrk noted that for structural systems with low base shear strengths and low
mode-1 periods, the drift response tended to exceed the limit set by LePage if the building was
approximately within ten km of the transmitting faulting. He also noted that the difference increased with
peak ground velocity. To generalize what he had observed, he devised Eq. 3.
(5)
Where
(6)
(7)
K-25
M.A. Szen
Sd
PGV
Cy
G
T
Spectral Disp., m
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period, sec.
Fig. 12A: Variation of nonlinear displacement response with period for a base shear
strength coefficient of 0.1
The results of Eq. 4 are shown in Fig. 12a and 12b for base shear strength coefficients of 0.1 and 0.2 and
for peak ground velocities of 0.4 m/sec (broken line) and 0.8 m/sec (solid line). It is seen that as the base
shear strength coefficient increases, the maximum response spectrum tends to conform to the LePage
spectrum over a larger range of periods. In effect, ztrk had returned in 2003 to what Westergaard had
suggested in 1932.
Spectral Disp., m
1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Period, sec.
Fig. 12b: Variation of nonlinear displacement response for a base shear strength
coefficient of 0.2
K-26
M.A. Szen
CONCLUSION
It is important to emphasize that the drift determination is useful in comparing and selecting among
competing design options. One should not expect to obtain an exact drift prediction, not only from the
procedure described here, but from any procedure that is proposed for calculation of drift caused by an
earthquake that has not happened. Within that understood, it is reasonable to choose the right structural
framing for building structures of moderate height (below 20 stories) using the following approach.
For the purpose of choosing between competing designs, the spectral drift may be estimated from the
expression
(4)
where
Sd
T
code)
: Spectral displacement in m
: Computed mode-1 period of structure (dimensionless and not a period based on tradition or
: A constant that may be taken as 4 for a strong ground motion expected to have a peak ground
acceleration of 0.5g +/- 0.1g and a velocity response that may be assumed to remain nearly
constant over the period range 0.5 to 2.5 sec.
If the site of the structure is suspected to be within 10 km of a transmitting fault and if its first-mode
period does not exceed 1 sec, the spectral drift may be estimated using Eq. 5
If the calculated first-mode period of the structure in question does not exceed 2.5 sec, story drifts in a
multi-story structure may be estimated using the expression
mi i
i 1
m i i
n
i S d
(5)
i 1
Di
n
mi
i
: Drift at level i
: Number of stories
: Mass at level i
: modal shape factor at level i (it is convenient to define the modal shape by normalizing
displacements at all levels with respect to the displacement at top level)
Sd
: Spectral displacement
Equation 5 is useful if the distribution of mass and stiffness over the height of the structure is not uniform.
Otherwise, selection of the framing with the correct proportions may be made using Eq. 4.
NOTE
All Structural Research Series reports cited below may be downloaded from
http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/
Complete sets of data from many of the experiments reported in the reports listed below may be found in
https://nees.org/warehouse/enhanced
K-27
M.A. Szen
REFERENCES
Abrams, D.P. (1979). Experimental Study of Frame-Wall Interaction in Reinforced Concrete Structures
Subjected to Strong Earthquake Motions. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 460,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Il., May 1979, 386 pp.
Algan, B. (1982). Drift and Damage Considerations in Earthquake-Resistant Design of Reinforced
Concrete Buildings, PhD Thesis Submitted to The Graduate College of The University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL, 1982.
Aristizabal-Ochoa, Dario (1976). Behavior of Ten-Story Reinforced concrete Walls Subjected to
Earthquake Motion. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 3431, University of
Illinois, Urbana, Il., October 1976, 5378 pp.
Committee Report, (1909). Norme Edilizie Obligatorie per I Comuni Colpiti dal Terremoto del 28
Diciembre 1908 e da altri anteriori, (Mandatory Building Codes for Municipalities Affected by The
Earthquake of 28 December 1908 and Previous Events) Giornale del Genio Civile, Roma, 1909.
Committee on Special Structures, Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, Report on
Drift, Los Angeles, CA, 1959.
een, Haluk, (1979). Response of Ten-Story Reinforced Concrete Model Frames to simulated
Earthquakes. PhD Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of The University of Illinois, Urbana, IL,
June 1979.
Dragovich, J.J. (1996). An Experimental Study of Torsional Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures
to Earthquake Excitation. PhD Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of The University of Illinois,
Urbana, IL, June 1996.
Glkan, Polat, (1971). Response and Energy-Dissipation of Reinforced Concrete Frames Subjected to
Strong Base motions. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 377, University of
Illinois, Urbana, Il., May 1971, 288 pp.
Healey, Timothy, (1978). Experimental Study of The Dynamic Response of A Ten-Story Reinforced
Concrete Frame with A Tall First Story. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 450,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Il., August 1978, 120 pp.
Housner, G.W. (2002). Historical View of Earthquake Engineering. International Handbook of
Earthquake & Engineering Seismology, Part A, Volume 81A , 2002, pp 13-18.
Kreger, M. (1983). A Study of Causes of Column Failures in The Imperial County Services Building
during The 15 October 1979 Imperial Valley Earthquake. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research
Series No. 509, University of Illinois, Urbana, Il., August 1983, 321 pp.
Lepage, Andres, (1996). A Method for Drift Control in Earthquake-Resistant Design of Reinforced
Concrete Building Structures. PhD Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of The University of
Illinois, Urbana, IL, October 1996.
Lybas, John (1977). Effect of Beam Strength and Stiffness on Dynamic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete
Coupled Walls. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 392, University of Illinois,
Urbana, Il., July 1977, 569 pp.
Moehle, J. P. (1978). Earthquake Simulation Tests of A Ten-Story Reinforced Concrete Frame wit A
Discontinued First-Level Beam. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 451,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Il., August 1978, 162 pp.
Moehle, J. P. (1980). Experiments to Study Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete Structures with
Stiffness Interruptions. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 482, University of
Illinois, Urbana, Il., August 1980, 542 pp.
K-28
M.A. Szen
Morrison, D.G. (1980). Response of Reinforced Concrete Plate-Column Connections to Dynamic and
Static Horizontal Loads. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 482, University of
Illinois, Urbana, Il., August 1980, 217 pp.
Oliveto, G. (2004). Review of the Italian Seismic Code Released after The 1908 Messina Earthquake.
Proceedings of the Passive Structural Control Symposium, Tokyo Institute of Technology, November
2004, pp. 1-20.
Otani, Shunsuke (1972). Behavior of Multistory Reinforced Concrete Frames During Earthquakes. Civil
Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 392, University of Illinois, Urbana, Il., November
1972, 575 pp.
ztrk, Baki, (2003). Seismic Drift Response of Building Structures in Seismically Active and Near-Fault
Regions. PhD Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Purdue University, May 2003.
Saiidi, Mehdi (1979). Simple and Complex Models for Nonlinear Seismic Response of Reinforced
Concrete Structures. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 465, University of Ill.,
Urbana, Il., August 1979, 188 pp.
Schultz, A.E. (1985). An Experimental and Analytical Study of Reinforced Concrete Frames with Yielding
Columns. PhD Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of The University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, Augus
1985.
Shibata, Akenori(1974). The Substitute-Structure Method for Earthquake resistant Design of Reinforced
Concrete Frames. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 412, University of Illinois,
Urbana, Il., October 1974, 34 pp.
Shimazaki, K. (1984). Seismic Drift of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Technical Report, Hazama-Gumi,
Tokyo, 1984. P. 145-165.
Szen, M.A. (1980). Review of Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings with A View to
Drift Control. Seventh World Conference of Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 1980.
Szen, M.A. and Otani, S. (1970). Performance of The University of Illinois Earthquake Simulator for
Reproducing Scaled Earthquake Motions. Proceedings of US-Japan Seminar in Erathquake Engineering,
Sendai, Japan, September, 1970.
Takeda, Toshikazu (1962). Study of the load-Deflection Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete Beams
Subjected to Alternating Loads. Transactions, Architectural Institute of Japan, V. 76, 1962.
Takeda, Toshikazu et al. (1970). Reinforced Concrete Response to Simulated Earthquakes. Journal of the
Structural Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, No. ST12, December, 1970, p. 2557- 2573.
Eberhard, Marc (1989). Experiments and Analyses to Study The Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete
Frame-Wall Structures with Yielding Columns. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No.
548, University of Illinois, Urbana, Il., September 1989, 5424 pp.
Bonacci, J..F. (1989). Experiments to Study Seismic Drift of Reinforced Concrete Structures. PhD Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate College of The University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, June 1989.
Severn, R.T. (2010). The Development of Shaking TablesA Historical Note. Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics, 40, 2010, p 195-213.
Veterans Administration Office of Construction, Report of the Earthquake and Wind Forces Committee
(1972). Earthquake-Resistant Design Requirements for VA Hospital Facilities.s Washington, D.C.1972.
Westergaard, H.M. (1932). Measuring Earthquake Intensity in Pounds per Square Foot. Engineering
News Record.
K-29
M.A. Szen
Wolfgram-French, Catherine, E. (1984). Experimental Modeling and Analysis of Three One-Tenth Scale
Reinforced Concrete Wall-Frame Structures, PhD Thesis Submitted to the Graduate College of The
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, June 1984, 350 pp.
Wood, Sharon, L. (1985). Experiments to Study the Earthquake Response of Reinforced Concrete Frames
with Setbacks. Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series No. 544, University of Illinois,
Urbana, Il., December 1985, 390 pp.
K-30
M.A. Szen
APPPENDIX A
REPORT ON DRIFT
COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL STRUCTURES
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA
This committee met with the staff of the Building Division of the Department of Building and Safety on
Friday evening, February 27, 1959. Present were Murray Erick, Robert Wilder, Roy Johnston, and S. B.
Barnes. R. W. Binder was absent but sent in his written comments. These were read at the meeting and
given serious consideration.
The meeting was held in the Hearing Room at the City Hall after dinner at the Redwood House.
The question submitted to the committee was: "What is good engineering practice as related to drift of
buildings subjected to lateral forces?" The first part of the meeting was devoted to a discussion of the
extent to which a building department should set limitations of this kind and to the desirability of
attempting to legally limit the amount of nonstructural damage. The necessity of using "sound
engineering judgment", that overworked phrase, was stressed. Three items were discussed under the
category of basic philosophy, namely-protection of health and safety of life, protection of nonstructural
elements, and protection from motion sickness or discomfort.
It was felt by the committee that the breakage of glass or the breaking up of exterior wall elements which
might fall on the public was definitely within the province of regulation. The committee generally felt that
the other two items bordered on excessive paternalism. Mr. Hanley Wayne disputed this point of view on
the basis that the present law required them to safeguard property. It was pointed out that some plaster
cracks must be expected in case of high wind or severe earthquake even with the most conservative
designs. It was noted that isolation of plaster walls, glass or other brittle materials was possible in some
degree but that more isolation would result in less damping. It was finally decided that we could not
legislate out all plastering cracks but that it would be desirable to avoid breaking up partitions beyond the
point of mere plaster repair. The chairman started the meeting by questioning whether this matter
rightfully should come before this committee. He personally feels that this should be a matter for the
entire Seismology Committee since it involves general principles. However, the committee proceeded
with its discussion and findings, hoping that it was not too far out of line in this respect.
It was further recommended that the advice and opinions of the committee on this matter not be placed in
code form but be considered as a portion of a Manual of Good Practice, which could be revised later if
found desirable. Since most experience of record as related to drift in tall buildings has been due to the
effect of wind and since such recommendations of experienced engineers are limited to wind, it was
decided to make separate recommendations for wind and for earthquake. It was felt by most of the
committee that the deflections of buildings subjected to earthquake computed as a statical force are not
necessarily a true measure of the actual deflections of these buildings under earthquake shock. It was
therefore decided to permit earthquake drift to be twice that for wind. The monetary cost of extreme
limitation for earthquake drift was discussed and considered in this recommendation. Because it is
desirable to have uniform agreement between engineers on a state-wide basis, and because the SEAOC is
currently proposing a new set of earthquake design criteria to the Uniform Code officials, and since there
is at present a committee writing a Manual of Good Practice which will involve drift limitations, it is
suggested that this report be sent to the proper committees engaged in this work for their review and
comments.
An excerpt of conclusions reached at the meeting, compiled by Tom Brown and Hanley Wayne, is
enclosed.
Respectfully submitted,
COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL STRUCTURES,
SEAOSC
S. B. Barnes, Chairman
Murray Erick
Roy Johnston
Robert Wilder
R. W. Binder
Los Angeles, California
March 4, 1959
K-31