Deflection Amplification Factor for Seismic Design Provisions
Publication: Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 120, Issue 8
Abstract
Seismic design provisions estimate the maximum roof and story drifts occurring in major earthquakes by amplifying the drifts computed from elastic analysis at the prescribed design seismic force level with a deflection amplification factor . A comparison of several seismic design provisions indicated that the deflection amplification factor in both the UBC and NEHRP Recommended Provisions, being equal to and , respectively, is very low and could lead to unconservative drift estimations. An analytical study of the seismic responses of four instrumented buildings confirmed that drifts developed in major earthquakes are much higher than those predicted by the UBC or NEHRP approach. It is recommended that the deflection amplification factor be increased to at least the seismic force reduction factor ( in UBC and in NEHRP) for estimating maximum drifts. The effects of the ratio between building period and earthquake predominant period, types of yield mechanisms, and structural overstrength on the are also presented.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Anderson, J. C., and Bertero, V. V. (1987). “Uncertainties in establishing design earthquakes.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 113(8), 1709–1724.
2.
Kannan, A. E., and Powell, G. H. (1973). “DRAIN‐2D: a general purpose computer program for dynamic analysis of inelastic plane structures.” Rep. No. UCB/EERC‐73/6, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Ctr., University of California, Berkeley, Calif.
3.
National Building Code of Canada (NBCC). (1990). Nat. Res. Council Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
4.
NEHRP recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings. (1991). Bldg. Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
5.
Newmark, N. M., and Hall, W. J. (1992). Earthquake spectra and design, Earthquake Engrg. Res. Inst., Oakland, Calif.
6.
Popov, E. P. (1991). “U.S. seismic steel codes.” Engrg. J., 28(3), 119–128.
7.
“Seismic design regulations of the 1976 Mexico building code.” (1988). Earthquake Spectra, 4(3), 427–439.
8.
Shakal, A., Huang, M., Reichle, M., Ventura, C., Cao, T., Sherburne, R., Savage, M., Darragh, R., and Peterson, C. (1989). “CSMIP strong‐motion records of the Santa Cruz (Loma Prieta) California earthquake of 17 October, 1989.” Rep. OSMS 89‐06, Calif. Strong Motion Instrumentation Program, Calif. Div. Mines Geology, Sacramento, Calif.
9.
Shimazaki, K., and Sozen, M. A. (1984). “Seismic drift of reinforced concrete structures.” Tech. Res. Rep., Hazama‐Gumi, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, 145–165.
10.
Structures in seismic regions. (1988). Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
11.
Takeda, T., Sozen, M. A., and Nielsen, N. N. (1970). “Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquakes.” J. Struct. Div., ASCE, 96(12), 2557–2573.
12.
Uang, C.‐M. (1991). “Establishing (or ) and factors for building seismic provisions.” J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, 117(1), 19–28.
13.
Uang, C.‐M., and Maarouf, A. (1992). “Evaluation of displacement amplification factor for seismic design codes.” Final Rep., Calif. Dept. of Mines and Geology, Dept. of Civil Engr., Northeastern Univ., Boston, Mass.
14.
Uang, C.‐M. (1993). “An evaluation of two‐level seismic design procedure.” Earthquake Spectra, 9(1), 121–135.
15.
Uniform Building Code (UBC). (1991). Int. Conf. of Bldg. Officials, Whittier, Calif.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Structural Engineering
Volume 120 • Issue 8 • August 1994
Pages: 2423 - 2436
Copyright
Copyright © 1994 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jun 30, 1993
Published online: Aug 1, 1994
Published in print: Aug 1994
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.