Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14771484

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

A simple replacment for the drift spectrum

P. Gulkan , S. Akkar
Disaster Management Research Center and Department of Civil Engineering, Middle East Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey

Abstract

The elastic drift spectrum displays, as a function of period, the story drift (expressed as the ratio of the story drift to story height)
that a ground motion record would cause in a multistory framed building. It is a pivotal instrument for performance-based earthquake
engineering. Wave theory for a uniform shear beam is utilized for calculating this spectrum, but it requires that records of the
ground velocity and displacement should be available. Alternative but less rigorous expressions of the drift spectrum for the ground
story level of a multistory frame are developed. This set of formulations requires only that the displacement spectrum, or equivalently
the acceleration spectrum, for which the basic input is the ground acceleration, should be at hand. We compare these expressions
against both the rigorous formulation and other simple techniques. The error that the proposed formulation represents appears to
be acceptable even when the comparison is done for near-field accelerograms where the drift demand is substantial. 2002 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Drift spectrum; Performance-based design; Shear beam; Wave velocity

1. Introduction
In retrospect, several near-field earthquakes since
Northridge, including the Kocaeli (Turkey) and Chi-Chi
(Taiwan) events in 1999, have served as a clarion call
reminding structural engineers that controlling displace-
ments is no less important than detailing members to
resist prescribed forces. Simultaneously, they have
become a support pad for performance-based engineer-
ing and a renewed vehicle for arguments contrary to two
widely held precepts that had been questioned in view
of experience since the 1971 San Fernando earthquake.
The first of these is that steel frame buildings must be
safe because they can meet more easily deformation
demands on account of the inherent ductility of their
constituent material. No steel frame buildings collapsed
during the Northridge earthquake but the perplexing
inadequacy of some types of welded joints was revealed.
The second is that the damage-causing capacity of
ground motions is masked within the traditional measure
expressed through the peak value of the grounds accel-
eration. Examination of damage patterns showed that
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-312-210-2446; fax: +90-312-
210-1193.
E-mail address: a03516@metu.edu.tr (P. Gulkan).
frames in the near field had to contend with larger dis-
placement ductility demands than could be associated
with only the peak accelerations. The velocity fling cor-
responding to a coherent superposition of the slips along
fault asperities packs an effect that is not immediately
apparent when dynamic calculations are done using the
familiar accelerogram. When structures are subjected to
such ground motions, the customary build-up of oscillat-
ory response with several modes dominating the global
response may not occur before one of the coherent velo-
city and displacement pulses propagating through the
structure as waves causes large local deformations, and
the associated damage [1]. It is interesting that Wester-
gaard had examined this problem in the 1930s [2].
Performance-based design criteria favor expression of
structural requirements in terms of permissible displace-
ments. Essentially, the process of structural design in this
complementary approach is to determine the displace-
ments first, and then to compare these with allowable
limits. Member forces follow after the associated dis-
placements have been found. The drift spectrum is a con-
venient tool that displays the drift requirement at a
chosen elevation in a structural frame. It is calculated
in a manner that is somewhat analogous to the familiar
response spectrum, but requires the velocity and dis-
placement traces of the ground motion as input. This can
be awkward because integration of acceleration signals

0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 9 5 - 0
1478 P. Gulkan, S. Akkar / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14771484

is not a straightforward process, and, for long periods in The force equilibrium at every floor dictates that the
the ground motion, it is difficult to calculate a unique increment in the local shear must be caused by the inertia
time function that mimics the ground displacement accu- force at that level:
rately. Most engineers are familiar with the accelerog-
ram, and the response spectrum for which this time series V mu. (2)
is used. This article proposes a simpler procedure for We now introduce the approximations
calculating the drift spectrum when spectral displace-
ment Sd (or spectral acceleration Sa) have been calcu- u V
u h and V h. (3)
lated. We demonstrate the accuracy of the procedure by y y
comparing the results with those from other techniques,
Substituting the first of these into Eq. (1), differen-
including rigorously calculated values.
tiating it with respect to y and substituting the resulting
expression into the second relation before equating it to
the right-hand side of Eq. (2), we obtain
2. Dynamics of a shear beam
2u 12EI2u
Propagation of shear waves in buildings can be con- 0. (4)
t2 mh y2
veniently represented through the lateral displacements
of a multistory building [3]. If in any section of the This equation is identical to the wave propagation
building the columns have the same stiffness and height, equation, where the velocity c of the wave is given by
and the story masses are the same, then a complete anal-

ogy can be constructed for the translational vibrations of 12EI
c . (5)
the frame in Fig. 1 and one-dimensional wave theory mh
applies if the girders are assumed to be rigid. This frame
For free vibrations of this assembly, a solution of
is only a notional device that permits insight into the
the form
dynamic response of frames in general.
At any level, the relation between the story drift u

and the total story shear force V is u(y,t) fn(y)Z(t)n (6)

n1
12EI
V u. (1) yields, after substitution into Eq. (4) and imposition of
h3
the boundary conditions
fn(0) fn(H) 0,
Z(t) Ancoswnt Bnsinwnt (7)
and
py
fn(y) sin(2n1) , (8)
2H
with
pc
wn (2n1) . (9)
2H
For n 1 we have
pc 4H
w1 and T1 . (10)
2H c
The assembly in Fig. 1 also serves as a convenient
instrument of analysis for the case when the base of the
structure is subjected to a prescribed ground acceler-
ation, ug(t). Then the mode shapes and frequencies
derived above can be utilized for a modal analysis,
where, for each mode, an equation of the type
Ln
Z n 2wnnZn w2nZn u (11)
Fig. 1. Idealized shear frame. Mn g
 P. Gulkan, S. Akkar / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14771484 1479

may be written in terms of the modal amplitude Zn and is there that the demand is greatest. For y 0, the velo-
damping ratio zn. In Eq. (11) city and displacement of the structure match those of the
ground, so we can write

py m 2H m
Ln sin (2n1) dy (12) u
0
2H h (2n1)p h
y | y=0

1
c
v(t)
2p
T
z(t) . (20)

and
Examining the upward propagation part of the non-

H
py m Hm dispersive wave in the finite length beam expressed in
Mn sin2 (2n1) dy . (13) Eq. (20), and remembering that it is reflected with the
2H h 2h
0 same sign from the roof (y H) and with the reversed
sign from the ground level (y 0), and taking into
Note that L1 / M1 4 / 1.27.
account that the duration for a wave to travel to the roof
and back is T / 2 2H / c, we can rewrite Eq. (20) with
the additive effect of all waves that have been reflected
3. Drift spectrum until t nT / 2 as
A rigorous way of formulating the lateral motion
u(T,)

N2t
/T
within the elastic range of the conceptual multistory uni-
form frame in Fig. 1 is to utilize one-dimensional wave
theory [1,4]. If the assembly is subjected to a displace-
y
1
max v(t)
t c
2p
T |
z(t) 2
n1
( (21)

ment history of z(t) and its time derivative, the velocity

history of v(t), both defined at the ground level, then
these signals will travel within the beam as damped
T
1)nexp(np) v tn
2
2p
T
z tn
T
2 | .

waves with speed c, where

The shear deformation is equivalent to the lateral drift
4H of the ground story divided by the height of the ground
c , (14)
T story columns. This is called the ground story drift ratio
(GSDR). The plot of Eq. (21) as a function of period
T being the period. The expression for lateral displace- and damping constitutes the drift spectrum. Interestingly,
ment u(y,t) in Eq. (4) is the major contribution to u / ycomes from the ground
u(y,t) exp(at)f(y ct). (15) velocity v(t), and not its displacement z(t) [5]. For most
structural types, c is typically 100200 m/s, so it is easy
The constant a can be related to the viscous damping to see that a single velocity pulse with a peak in the
ratio z as range of 50 cm/s can generate a drift ratio greater than
2p 0.02. For the quality of materials and workmanship
a . (16) available for reinforced concrete buildings in many
T
countries, it is likely that columns will develop end
The shear deformation, or drift, of the beam at any yielding at drift ratios below 0.01. The rapid decay of
elevation y is given by capacity when this action is repeated over several sig-

nificant cycles can easily cause abject collapse in build-
u 2p
exp t f(y ct). (17) ing systems, particularly if gravity effects exacerbate the
y T restoring capacity of the columns due to inadequate size.
The velocity at any elevation y is given by Unlike the familiar ground acceleration used in deriving
other forms of spectra, computation of Eq. (21) requires
u
t
2p 2p

u exp t f(y ct) cexp
T T (18)
that the ground velocity and displacement records be at
hand. We note that, contrary to the typical modal sol-

ution for a multistory frame, the summation in Eq. (21)
2p 2p u expresses the cumulative contribution of the trains of
t f(y ct) u c .
T T y ground velocity and displacement pulses, each traveling
with the same velocity c, as they reach the ground level.
The expression in Eq. (17) for drift can now be revised: A shear beam has a single wave velocity given by Eq.
u
y
1
u
c T
2p
u . (19)
(5), so the summation of modal contributions for the
overall response is not applicable here. In Eq. (21), con-
ditions of elastic behavior are assumed to be satisfied at
We are interested in the ground-level drift because it all times.
1480 P. Gulkan, S. Akkar / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14771484
4. A simpler formulation for the drift spectrum
Consider again the structural frame representation in
Fig. 1. If this frame consists of columns identical in their
dynamic properties, then the shear beam expressions for
mode shapes and frequencies for any mode can be writ-
ten as in Eqs. (8) and (9). We confine our attention to
only the first mode of an N-story frame where H
Nh, because the part of the total mass mobilized in the
first mode is approximately 80% of the total mass of the
idealized shear frame. Eq. (8) states that the roof-level
displacement is unity, and the greatest normalized drift,
i.e. the difference between the lateral displacements of
any two successive floors in the fundamental mode
(n 1), occurs at the ground story where y h,
p ground motions, an ensemble of such records is utilized
f1(y) sin . (22)
2N
For a given ground motion that yields a displacement
spectrum of Sd(T), the GSDR can be expressed in terms
of Eq. (11) and story height h as
Sd(T,) p
GSDR 1.27 sin . (23)
h 2N
In structural engineering terms, Eqs. (23) and (21)
express the same quantity in two very different ways.
For a given period and damping ratio the spectral dis-
placement Sd can be computed for a given ground
motion. It remains to establish a functional relationship
between the remaining parameters of Eq. (23) and the
structural period [6].
In principle, any equation of the type T aHb with
a and b as regression constants may be used (e.g. [7]),
although, for an ideal uniform shear beam, b 1 in view
of Eq. (14). For example, if we take T 0.1 N
0.1(H / h), for a story height equal to 3 m, this is equival-
ent to c 120 m / s from the second expression in Eq.
(10). Deviations such as column end rotations from the
idealized conditions assumed in a shear beam cause the
constant b to become different from 1. Equating, for
example, the expression
T 0.08H3/4 (24)
to T 4H / c, we obtain c 50H , which indicates
1/4
that the apparent shear wave velocity is a slowly varying
function of the building height. Indeed, for H 10 m,
c 89 m / s; and for H 100 m, c 158 m / s. For
most building systems it is therefore possible to bracket
c to between 100 and 200 m/s. Forms of the period
expression different from Eq. (24), designed to yield
other structural displacements, may also be utilized.
With this observation, we can now modify Eq. (23)
as follows:
Sd(T,) 2p h
GSDR 1.27 sin . (23a)
h Tc
The form of this equation further downplays the rela-
tive error that using a given value of c may represent.
A competing version of Eq. (23a) may be derived by
substituting Eq. (24) and the expression N H / h into
Eq. (23):
Sd(T,) 0.054h
GSDR 1.27 sin 1.33 . (23b)
h T
The objective of the present article is to compare the
accuracy of these simple expressions for the ground
story drift ratio with the rigorous expression in Eq. (21).
We take h 3 m as standard story height in all of the
computations that follow. Owing to the fact that use of
the drift spectrum is critically more important for build-
ings that may be subjected to near-field earthquake
in the comparisons. Most of these records have been
made in Turkey.
Use of Eq. (23a) requires an assumption for the wave
velocity, so, for its comparison with Eq. (21), the same
value of c should be utilized. If a comparison is sought
between the predictive power of Eq. (23b), where only
the period is used, and that of Eq. (21), then the term
1/c there must be replaced by 0.00862T0.33. This fol-
lows from
1 T T
0.00862T0.33. (25)
c 4H 1 1.33
4 T
0.08
The arguments of the sine terms in Eq. (23a)or (23b)
are the arbiters of the difference between values of drift
calculated according to them. In Eq. (23a), for c
120 m / s, this argument is 0.157 / T, and for c
135 m / s it is 0.14 / T. For Eq. (23b), the argument is
always 0.162 / T1.33. In Fig. 2, we show the variation of
the sine of these three arguments for T between 0.3 and
3 s. For periods up to about 0.7 s, the difference between
them is significant, and becomes increasingly less so
until T 3 s, which is above the upper limit for the per-
Fig. 2. Arguments of Eq. (23).
 P. Gulkan, S. Akkar / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14771484 1481

iod of most building systems where the simplification Sa(T,)T2 2p h

proposed in this article would be admissible. GSDR 0.0323 sin (23c)
h Tc
While the analogy with a shear beam is useful for
deriving the drift spectrum for a given ground motion, and
other models can be utilized. One of these possible
Sa(T, )T2 0.054h
approaches is to design a series of simple shear frames, GSDR 0.0323 sin 1.33 . (23d)
and to vary their column stiffness and story mass proper- h T
ties systematically so that different periods are obtained. The interrelationship with spectral quantities can be
When these frames are subjected to the ground motions pursued further by noting that the derivative of Eq. (8)
considered, their dynamic response can be computed by for n 1 and y 0, modified by the shape factor 4/p,
time-history methods, and this can be done in the elas-
yields the following estimate for the ground story drift
tic or inelastic ranges. The largest value of the ground limit, expressed in terms of the total frame height H:
story displacement divided by its height is then the drift
ratio. A third way of arriving at an equivalent expression Sa(T,)T2
of the drift spectrum is based on the shear beam idealiz- GSDR 0.051 . (26)
H
ation for structural frames and the spectral displacement,
but accounting for as many modes as is necessary to Eq. (26) serves as a further estimate for GSDR.
calculate not only the displacements but the internal Through reference to H it utilizes implicitly roof-level
forces as well [8]. drift, which generally underestimates the maximum drift
In Eqs. (23a) and (23b), the spectral displacement can localized at the ground level. Eq. (26) is the same as the
be replaced by spectral acceleration for increased famili- drift expression derived in [9] except that the multiplier
arity, to yield two wholly equivalent expressions: there is 0.0625.

Table 1
Ground motion records utilized

Record and date Site type Component Mechanism Magnitude Distancea (km) PGA (g) PGV (cm/s) PGD
(Mw) (cm)

Sakarya, August 1999 Rock EW Strike slip 7.4 3.2 0.407 79.80 198.64
Yarmca, August 1999 Soil EW Strike slip 7.4 3.28 0.230 84.70 167.57
NS 0.322 79.60 65.32
Izmit, August 1999 Rock EW Strike slip 7.4 4.26 0.227 54.28 129.28
NS 0.167 32.04 47.64
Gebze, August 1999 Rock EW Strike slip 7.4 7.74 0.143 34.72 103.70
NS 0.269 45.59 82.58
Duzce, August 1999 Soil EW Strike slip 7.4 17.06 0.383 49.61 108.57
NS 0.337 60.59 63.81
Duzce, November 1999 Soil EW Strike slip 7.2 8.23 0.513 86.05 170.12
NS 0.410 65.76 88.04
Bolu, November 1999 Soil EW Strike slip 7.2 20.41 0.821 66.92 21.27
NS 0.754 58.25 40.29
Erzincan, March 1992 Soil FN Strike slip 6.7 2.0 0.432 119.20 42.29
FP 0.457 58.14 29.46
Landers, June 1992, Lucern Soil FN Strike slip 7.3 1.1 0.713 136.04 229.77
FP 0.799 70.26 183.79
Northridge, January 1994, Soil N41W Thrust 6.7 7.5 0.480 80.33 21.88
Rinaldi
S49W 0.841 170.32 33.37
Northridge, January 1994, Olive Soil FN Thrust 6.7 6.4 0.732 122.19 31.04
View
FP 0.595 53.19 9.03
Kobe, January 1995 Soil FN Strike slip 6.9 3.4 1.088 160.17 40.09
FP 0.575 72.35 15.88
Kobe, January 1995, Takatori Soil FN Strike slip 6.9 4.3 0.786 173.79 56.02
FP 0.472 63.69 23.25

PGA, peak ground acceleration; PGV, peak ground velocity; PGD, peak ground displacement; FN, fault normal component; FP, fault parallel compo-
nent.
a
Closest distance to rupture surface.
1482 P. Gulkan, S. Akkar / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14771484

5. Comparison

The ground motion records utilized in reaching a judg-

ment about the accuracy of Eqs. (23a)(23c) or (23b)
(23d) in predicting the drift at the ground story of shear
frames of different periods are summarized in Table 1.
These 13 near-field records have yielded 25 horizontal
components of ground motion (the exception is Sakarya,
where one sensor failed to function), and represent a
wide spectrum of fault mechanisms and conditions of
recording site geology. For the purposes of comparison,
a constant damping ratio of z 0.02 is used. Sample
curves for the drift spectra for motions at four stations
[Sakarya (EW), Yarmca (NS), Duzce (August 1999,
NS), and Olive View (FN)] are shown in Figs. 36.
Each figure contains two parts for the drift spectrum cal-
culated according to one of several methods discussed
in this article:

1. Eqs. (21) and (23a) for c 120 or 135 m / s com-

pared against the multiple degrees of freedom
(MDOF) time-history results (part a); and
2. Eq. (21), modified in accordance with Eqs. (24) and
(23b), compared against the MDOF time-history
results (part b).

Qualitatively, and within the degree of accuracy

Fig. 4. Drift spectra for Yarmca NS.

expected from representing complex structural systems

by means of simple conceptual models, the three alterna-
tive formulations are surprisingly similar. This suggests
that use of the spectral displacements in estimating drift
ratios is quite acceptable for structural engineering pur-
poses. It is also plausible to extend this to the inelastic
range, because, for ductility ratios less than about 46,
Sd is representative also of yielding systems except for
long periods. For larger ductility ratios the drift also
increases, but of course this is not proportional to m.
A complete set of comparisons among the different
formulations is in order. This is accomplished in Fig. 7
collectively for all records listed in Table 1. The com-
parisons are made against the drift value computed
according to the MDOF time-history results in each case.
Fig. 7(a) displays the predictive power of Eqs. (21) and
(23a)(23c) for c 120 m / s, and Fig. 7(b) repeats this
exercise for c 135 m / s. In Fig. 7(c), the comparison
is conducted between modified Eq. (21) and Eqs. (23b)
(23d). Each frame contains the average of 25 records and
the 95% confidence traces. This exercise is repeated in
Fig. 8, where now Eq. (26) is tested. We note that Eq.
(26) errs on the unsafe side, although it also yields a
very quick estimate for GSDR.
We see that the curves display similar trends, but Eq.
(23a) with c 120 m / s achieves the best match. This
Fig. 3. Drift spectra for Sakarya EW. is not surprising, because the multistory frames designed
 P. Gulkan, S. Akkar / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14771484
Fig. 5. Drift spectra for Duzce NS.
to serve as the yardstick for the range of frames with
different periods were proportioned such that they each
had a period that corresponded to c 120 m / s. Strictly
speaking, the comparison of the performance of Eq.
(23a) for c 135 m / s should be performed against
frames with periods matching that velocity. For periods
longer than about 2 s, Eq. (23a) or (23b) tends to be less
conservative than Eq. (21), but in the period range of
0.3 to about 0.8 s the reverse is true. The advantage
offered by the simple form of either of the two
expressions developed in this article outstrips the accu-
racy that is achieved either by the lengthy calculations
implied by Eq. (21), with the attendant difficulties of
deriving correct ground velocity and displacement rec-
ords, or the cumbersome calculations a time-history
analysis entails. Two factors contribute to the enhanced
deviation from the MDOF solutions for T larger than
about 2 s. The first is the increased contribution of the
second and higher modes to the drift for taller frames.
The other is the fact that comparison against the MDOF
results itself is flawed because there exists no unique
way of defining an MDOF frame with a prescribed per-
iod.
Fig. 8 measures the predictive capacity of Eq. (26)
against Eqs. (23a)(23c) across the ensemble of ground
motion records listed in Table 1 and for periods up to 3
s. The MDOF frames against which the comparisons
1483
Fig. 6. Drift spectra for Olive View FN.
have been drawn were also proportioned to yield T
0.1 N, or c 120 m / s, for h 3 m. As expected, roof-
level drift also falls short of serving as an accurate tool
for ground-level drift for taller frames with period larger
than about 2 s. Local drifts calculated from dynamic
responses of idealized frames appear to exceed global
drifts.
6. Conclusions
The drift spectrum is a fundamental tool for perform-
ance-based earthquake engineering because it displays
the drift or damage-causing power a given ground
motion packs. Its calculation can be done more simply,
and in fact as a by-product of the customary spectral
displacement or acceleration calculations, via the simple
expressions developed as Eqs. (23a)(23c) and (23b)
(23d) in this article. Testing the drift requirements in
elastic frames caused by 13 near-field records (from
mostly strikeslip mechanism events) calculated with
this approach has indicated that the accuracy is accept-
able. The error between the simplified expressions for
drift in Eqs. (23a)(23c) or (23b)(23d) for longer-per-
iod systems stems from the simplification that the formu-
lation, embodied in Eq. (22), contains. We have tested
the accuracy of the formulation against near-field earth-
1484 P. Gulkan, S. Akkar / Engineering Structures 24 (2002) 14771484
Fig. 7. Performance of proposed replacements against MDOF sol-
utions.
quake records only because it is here that large drift
demands appear. The proposed method obviates the need
Fig. 8. Comparison of Eq. (26) with Eqs. (23a)(23c).
to calculate the ground velocity and displacement rec-
ords, which can become a significant advantage when
instrument characteristics are only imperfectly known.
Most sources of strong ground motion records contain
only the ground acceleration, and, depending on how
they have been derived, significant differences can exist
among the derived velocity and displacement traces for
a given record, especially from early-generation analog
traces. This article has confirmed that roof-level drift
tends to underestimate the ground-level drift.
References
[1] Iwan WD. The drift spectrum: a measure of demand for earthquake
ground motions. J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 1997;123:397404.
[2] Westergaard HM. Earthquake-shock transmission in tall buildings.
Engineering New-Record 1993 Nov 30.
[3] Clough RW, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures., 2nd ed. New
York: McGraw Hill, 1993.
[4] Courant R, Hilbert D. Methods of mathematical physics, vol. 2.
New York: Interscience Publishers, 1962.
[5] Akkar S, Gulkan P. Examination of selected recent ground motion
records from Turkey in terms of displacement design procedures.
In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Seismic
Zonation, Palm Springs, CA, 2000 [CD-ROM]. Earthquake Engin-
eering Research Institute, Paper No. 60.
[6] Gulkan P, Sozen MA. Procedure for determining seismic vulner-
ability of building structures. ACI Struct. J. 1999;96:33642.
[7] Goel RK, Chopra AK. Period formulas for moment resisting frame
buildings. J. Struct. Eng., ASCE 1997;123(4):45461.
[8] Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C. Drift spectrum vs. modal analysis
of structural response to near-fault ground motions. Earthquake
Spectra 2001;17:22134.
[9] Heidebrecht AC, Rutenberg A. Applications of drift spectra in
seismic design. In: Proceedings of 12WCEE, Auckland, NZ, 2000.,
New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 209.