Zurich

© All Rights Reserved

0 views

Zurich

© All Rights Reserved

- STP-PT-052_2012
- Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Curved Bridges
- evaluation of bridge structures subjected to severe earthquakes
- PerformanceBasedDesign
- Seismic response of skewed RC box-girder bridges
- Assessment of concrete by using incremental dynamic analysis method
- ASCE 7-02 Errata First Printing
- ABB Review 4-2010_72dpi
- Capacity Demand 1
- ATC 58 50percentDraft
- SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDING
- fried.ppt
- Soil Structure
- 424_ch2
- Response Evaluation
- Seismic Design to EC8 - L3
- Development of a Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Method for Schools_Tischer Et Al WCEE2012_0519 (1)
- China
- WCEE2012_1411.pdf
- NS2015.026

You are on page 1of 14

Published online 26 January 2012 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/tal). DOI: 10.1002/tal.1007

on displacement demand in nonlinear static procedure using

coefﬁcient method

K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

SUMMARY

In recent earthquakes, many buildings have been damaged due to the soft-storey mechanism failure. The

seismic design codes for buildings do not contain enough criteria to predict the real displacement of such

buildings. This paper focuses on evaluating the nonlinear displacement of buildings that fail in soft-storey

mechanism form. Results show that the nonlinear static procedure with coefﬁcient method, which is

described in Chapter 3 of ASCE/SEI 41-06, does not have sufﬁcient accuracy for estimation of structure

displacement demand in such buildings. In this paper, the coefﬁcient methodology is used for evaluating

the target displacement for 5-storey, 8-storey and 15-storey special moment resisting steel frames. For this

purpose, dynamic nonlinear time-history analysis has been applied for the mentioned structures having a

soft-storey mechanism failure form. The numerical results of storey displacement and interstorey drift

were compared with those values obtained from the coefﬁcient method described in Chapter 3 of ASCE/

SEI 41-06. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: nonlinear static procedure; displacement demand; coefﬁcient method; soft-storey mechanism; ASCE/

SEI 41-06

1. INTRODUCTION

In the last two decades, with the development of performance-based seismic engineering concepts, the

demand for the deﬁnition of simpliﬁed methods for estimating the seismic demand for structures with

an adequate level of conﬁdence has increased.

For the seismic evaluation of yielded systems, inelastic displacements rather than elastic forces

should be a more rational approach, since the ﬁrst directly relates with damage. Previous results

(Priestley, 1993) conﬁrmed this statement, assessing that traditional force-based design procedures

lead to unrealistic results.

The application of performance-based design principles thus requires the deﬁnition of analysis

procedures able to provide an accurate prediction of such inelastic mechanisms, avoiding excessive

computational effort. Among these, nonlinear static procedures (NSPs) appear as one of the most

attractive analysis tool since they are simple to use and since they provide a simple and effective

graphical representation of the structural response by means of the so called pushover curve. This kind

of procedures start from a pushover analysis, identify an equivalent single degree of freedom system

and then estimate the seismic demand for the design response spectrum usually in terms of roof

displacement. Finally, engineering response parameters of interest can be found through the predicted

response by the pushover analysis at the design displacement.

*Correspondence to: Alinouri, Hossein, Civil Engineering Faculty, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

†

E-mail: hossein_alinouri1984@yahoo.com

EFFECT OF SOFT-STOREY MECHANISM CAUSED BY INFILL ELIMINATION ON DISPLACEMENT 1297

DEMAND IN NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE USING COEFFICIENT METHOD

Whilst NSPs (as coefﬁcient methods or equivalent linearization procedures) differ only in the

approach used to estimate the global displacement demand, the pushover method adopted will affect

not only the global response demand but also the local response parameters of interest, because both

are related to the capacity curve obtained. For this reason, a more accurate prediction of the dynamic

response by means of a pushover analysis is a fundamental element, and thus the call for further

improvements in this ﬁeld has been increasing in the last few years.

In a pushover analysis, a mathematical model of the building, which includes all signiﬁcant lateral

force resisting members, is subjected to a monotonically increasing invariant (or adaptive) lateral force

(or displacement) pattern until a predetermined target displacement is reached or the building is on the

verge of incipient collapse.

Due to the static nature of the analysis, the overall response of the system cannot be reliably

estimated principally due to (a) higher mode effects and/or (b) high ductility demand, which are the

main issues investigated in the present work. In particular, the higher mode contributions are typically

difﬁcult to identify, and the spreading of inelastic deformations among the structural members leads to

degradation and softening of the system, resulting in period elongation and change of modal shape

characteristics not accounted for in traditional pushover schemes. Moreover, pushover procedures,

due to their static nature, are unable to reproduce peculiar dynamic effects, such as sources of energy

dissipation (kinetic energy and viscous damping) as well as duration effects, and account for a site-

speciﬁc response by considering both the actual dynamic properties of the system and the frequency

content of the seismic motion. Three-dimensional effects are also difﬁcult to incorporate, whereas

the effects of cyclic earthquake loading cannot be modelled.

According to the above-mentioned overview, many researchers studied on NSP from different

aspects. Some researchers studied these methods application in buildings with various systems, e.g.

Magenes (2000) for masonry building seismic design, Moghaddam and Hajirasouliha (2006) about

steel braced frames and concrete structures researches of Goel (2008). Many researchers have noted

the type of lateral load distribution, e.g. Chopra and Goel (2002) and Antoniou and Pinho

(2004a, 2004b). Some researchers concentrated on the rate of accuracy in coefﬁcient method and

compared the results with other analysis methods, e.g. the Keyvani and Sadeghazar (2006) and

Bardakis and Ditsos (2007) studies. Many researchers studied on the structural dynamic properties

(period and damping) in coefﬁcient method such as the works carried out by Crowly (2003) and

Farahmand et al. (2006). Some researchers evaluated the effect of input frequency content,

affected by seismic waves on accuracy of coefﬁcient method, such as the Goel (2004) and Priestly

(2006) researches. The soil–structure interaction effects on coefﬁcient method have been studied by

Behmanesh and Khoshnudian (2008) and Huang et al. (2004). Some scientists studied other effect-

ive factors such as P–Δ effects (Pettinga and Priestley (2008) and Asimakopoulos et al. (2006)),

inﬂuence of torsion in the structures (Erduran (2008) and Crisafulli et al. (2008)) and effect of duc-

tility demand distribution (Sullivan (2002) and Saﬁ and Tehranizadeh (2004)) on coefﬁcient

method.

With citations to available studies, results describe that despite many researches, there are less

researches on the effects of structural failure mechanism during earthquakes on coefﬁcient method

than the other ones. Accordingly, in this paper, the effect of soft-storey mechanism on evaluating

the target displacement in coefﬁcient method has been considered.

In recent earthquakes, the occurrence of soft-storey mechanism has been seen in many structures,

which are designed on the basis of the current seismic design codes. The philosophy of seismic design

codes is general failure mechanism, while there is no accurate speciﬁcation of structural behaviour,

which suffered from soft-storey mechanism. The occurrence of soft-storey mechanism in such

structures causes mistakes in the calculation of the Ci factor in coefﬁcient method (the last edition of

which has been presented in ASCE/SEI 41-06 standard) as follows:

• C0 factor: in the current seismic design codes, the shape of the ﬁrst vibration modes of a structure has

been assumed as in Figure 1(left side). While if soft-storey mechanism occurs in the lowest storey, as

example, the shape of ﬁrst vibration mode is as that in Figure 1(right side).

• C1 factor: the considered nonlinear displacement demand in the highest storey of structures that

suffer nonlinear displacement just in one storey is different with structures that suffered nonlinear

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

1298 H. ALINOURI, F. A. DANESH AND S. B. BEHESHTI-AVAL

Figure 1. Shape of the ﬁrst vibration mode of idealized structure (left side: global mechanism failure,

right side: soft-storey mechanism failure in the lowest storey).

displacement in several storeys. Then, evaluation of the C1 factor is changed for structures with soft-

storey mechanism.

• C2 factor: the state of hysteretic loops for structures with general failure with high energy absorption

capacity is fat. While for structures with soft-storey mechanism because of the accumulation of

nonlinear displacement in one storey, hysteretic loops are thin, and this phenomenon changes the

deﬁnition of the C2 coefﬁcient.

For this purpose, nonlinear dynamic time-history analysis is applied to calculate the target displacement

in SMRSF frames that have suffered from soft-storey mechanism failure and investigate the effect of this

failure mode on the accuracy of NSP by coefﬁcient method (ASCE/SEI 41-06).

In this section, basis assumptions that are used in the numerical models are presented (Alinouri 2010).

• Steel material properties: applied steel is ST-37.

• Model of steel material nonlinearity: type of steel nonlinear behaviour is kinematics. Yield strain is

considered 0.0014, ﬁnal strain is equal to 0.028 and slope of stress–strain branch after yield is equal

to 0.005 times of its measure before yielding.

• Steel cross sections: whole used cross sections for beams are IPE and for columns are HE-B. These

types of sections are ductile compressed, and nonlinear analysis could be utilized for the designed

SMRSF (Mazzolani and Piluso 1996).

• Gravity loading: dead load of ceiling is about 500 kg/m² and live load is equal to 200 kg/m², considering

gravity tonnage bay equal to 4 m; linear dead and live load on beams are 2000 kg/m and 800 kg/m,

respectively.

• Seismic mass: seismic mass, considering gravity load, is obtained such as below:

analyses.

• Software: modelling and NTH and NSP analysis are performed in SAP2000 ver.12.

• Loading and design code: lateral load speciﬁcations is based on UBC97 for SMRSF, and elements

for SMRSF are going to be designed on the basis of UBC97-ASD.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF SOFT-STOREY MECHANISM CAUSED BY INFILL ELIMINATION ON DISPLACEMENT 1299

DEMAND IN NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE USING COEFFICIENT METHOD

• Nonlinear hinges: nonlinear hinges with axial force–bending moment interaction with ﬁbre type are

located in two ends of beams and columns before the panel zones, e.g. the moment–curvature graph

of the HE260B hinge, which is shown in Figure 2.

• The loss of stiffness and strength in nonlinear hinges: considering material ductility and used sec-

tions, strain is considered equal to 0.028 as failure index in such ﬁbres in nonlinear hinges. Herein,

with gravity and seismic loading, if strain in nonlinear hinge ﬁbres becomes equal to 2.8%, then the

ﬁbres encounter a drop in stiffness and strength.

• Reason of soft-storey mechanism: occurrence of soft-storey mechanism in structures has differ-

ent reasons. It should be noted that lack of suitable ﬁxity in the leg of columns in SMRSF,

lack of regard to the weak beam–strong column design principle in one storey, frequency

content of input records of earthquakes subject to structures, inﬁll elimination in one storey

of the structure that has been designed with the current seismic design code speciﬁcations

without regard to inﬁll–frame interaction effects, and so on, can make soft-storey phenomenon

in structures. In the following discussion, the occurrence of soft-storey mechanism is

considered for SMRSF because of inﬁll elimination in one storey of the mentioned

structures—which are designed without regard to inﬁll–frame interaction—on the basis of code

speciﬁcations.

• Modelling of lateral behaviour of masonry inﬁlls: lateral behaviour of masonry inﬁlls has been mod-

elled on the basis of the seventh chapter of ASCE/SEI 41-06. With regard to lack of sufﬁcient ten-

sion suffering in masonry materials, lateral behaviour of inﬁlls is modelled with compression

diagonal element. In this study, the type of masonry material is assumed to be ‘good’ as showed

in Table 7-1 ASCE/SEI 41-06.

• Nonlinear behaviour of masonry inﬁlls: for the nonlinear lateral behaviour modelling of masonry in-

ﬁll equivalent compressive element, Table 7-9 and Section 7.4.2.3 ASCE/SEI 41-06 are used. The

nonlinear behaviour of unreinforced masonry wall is modelled on the basis of Graph 7-1b ASCE/

SEI 41-06.

• The given height and length of SMRSF bays is constant in Section 2.2. Therefore, according to

Table 7-9 ASCE/SEI 41-06, the L/H parameter value is always between 1 and 2, and the b parameter

is always greater than 1.3. Thus, the d parameter value is equal to 0.0106.

• It should be noted that Graph 7-1b ASCE/SEI 41-06 is related to nonlinear behaviour of masonry

walls. Whereas the lateral behaviour of masonry inﬁll is determined by equivalent compressive

element in the numerical models, the force–drift diagram of masonry walls should be converted to

the force–strain diagram of equivalent compressive element. The yield and ultimate strain and axial

capacity are presented in Eqn 2.1.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

1300 H. ALINOURI, F. A. DANESH AND S. B. BEHESHTI-AVAL

8 (

>

> s fm’ 1

>

> e ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:0018

>

> Yield values : y

E 550f ’ 550

>

> Py ¼ AEey

m

>

<

(2:1)

>

> 8

>

> < d hcol cosθ 0:0106 3 cosð tan1 ð3=4ÞÞ

>

> eu ¼ ¼ pﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃﬃ ¼ 0:0054

>

> Ultimate values :

>

: :

r inf 32 þ 42

Pu ¼ Py

• Based on the above calculations, nonlinear axial hinge is deﬁned and assigned to equivalent com-

pressive element of the masonry inﬁlls in numerical models.

• Selection of ground motions that are utilized for time-history dynamic analysis: one category with 30

ground accelerations have been chosen of far ﬁeld types, which are used by other famous researchers

such as Vamvatsikos and Cornell (2005). Described earthquake magnitude is relatively large and is

6.5 to 6.9. The 30 mentioned acceleration records have been selected in ﬁrm soil without the effects

of seismic wave directivity.

• Ground motions scaling method for time-history dynamic analysis: scaling of the used accelero-

grams for performing NTH analysis should be acted on the basis of the Vamvatsikos and Cornell

(2005) method. In this method, for each record, the intensity measure (IM) parameter is intro-

duced as follows. If ﬁrst mode of vibration is important in the behaviour of a structure (such

as 5GM), the IM is spectral acceleration with 5% damping for the period of the ﬁrst mode.

But, if two or three ﬁrst modes should be considered (such as 8GM and 15GM, respectively),

the IM parameter is calculated by Eqns 2.2 and 2.3, respectively. In these equations, the effects

of higher modes are considered for the scaling of accelerographs. Also in these equations, Sa

(Tn, 5%) is equal to the spectral acceleration of the nth modes of structure vibration with 5%

damping. After deﬁning the type of IM for each record, IM should be calculated with the design

acceleration code for the considered area with the same method. The measure of scale factor for

each record is obtained from division of IM related to the design acceleration spectra on the

response acceleration spectra.

Sa ðT2 ; 5%Þ 0:5

IM ¼ Sa ðT1 ; 5%Þ (2:2)

Sa ðT1 ; 5%Þ

ð1=3Þ ð1=3Þ

Sa ðT2 ; 5%Þ Sa ðT3 ; 5%Þ

IM ¼ Sa ðT1 ; 5%Þ (2:3)

Sa ðT1 ; 5%Þ Sa ðT1 ; 5%Þ

In this study, the structures are considered to be 5, 8 and 15 storeys (SMRSF) and as two-dimensional

frames. For the whole of the mentioned frames, the height of storeys is 3 m, and the length of bays is

4 m. Storeys number is related to the involved modes of elastic behaviour of structures. Considering

the inﬂuence of different modes on the basis of general failure mechanism philosophy, for the 5-storey

structure only the ﬁrst mode, for the 8-storey structure the ﬁrst two modes and ﬁnally for the 15-storey

structure the ﬁrst three modes should be considered. Also, the sum of mass participating ratio of more

than 90% is included in these analyses. The mentioned designed SMRSF models are named as below,

respectively:

• 5-storey SMRSF with general failure mechanism (5GM)

• 8-storey SMRSF with general failure mechanism (8GM)

• 15-storey SMRSF with general failure mechanism (15GM)

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF SOFT-STOREY MECHANISM CAUSED BY INFILL ELIMINATION ON DISPLACEMENT 1301

DEMAND IN NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE USING COEFFICIENT METHOD

Structure T1 (s) Structure T1 (s)

5SSB 0.58 15SSB 1.22

8SSB 0.72 15SSM 1.27

8SST 0.72 15SST 1.22

Also, because of the changing location of the soft-storey mechanism, the mentioned structures are

described as below (considering the important modes in structure behaviour) (Figure 3 and Table 1):

• For the 5-storey frame, soft storey is considered in the ﬁrst storey (5SSB).

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

1302 H. ALINOURI, F. A. DANESH AND S. B. BEHESHTI-AVAL

• For the 8-storey frame, soft storey is considered in two locations. Initially, soft storey is located in

ﬁrst storey (8SSB), and then, soft storey is moved and is considered in the ﬁfth storey (8SST).

• For the 15-storey frame, soft storey is located in three locations. Initially, soft storey is considered in

the ﬁrst storey (15SSB). Then, soft storey is moved and is considered in the sixth storey (15SSM).

Finally, soft storey location is considered in the 11th storey (15SST).

The effects of soft-storey mechanism on SMRSF responses are evaluated by applying the following

analyses:

• NTH

• NSP

Displacement and drift have been evaluated and compared with each other. In nonlinear response-

history analysis, the presented results are based on the average of the obtained results from the

analyses.

In NSP, initially, the performance point of the structure is described (base shear–roof displacement).

In the next stage, storeys displacement and drift responses are obtained by coefﬁcient method presented in

100 160

90 140

Base shear (ton)

80

Base shear (ton)

120

70

60 100

Modal Dist. Modal Dist.

50 Weight Dist.

80 Weight Dist.

40 60

30

40

20

10 20

0 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Roof Displacement (cm) Roof Displacement (cm)

300 160

140

250

Base shear (ton)

120

200

100

Modal Dist. Modal Dist.

150 Weight Dist.

80 Weight Dist.

60

100

40

50

20

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Roof Displacement (cm) Roof Displacement (cm)

200 300

180

160 250

Base shear (ton)

140 200

120

Modal Dist. Modal Dist.

100 Weight Dist.

150 Weight Dist.

80

60 100

40 50

20

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Roof Displacement (cm) Roof Displacement (cm)

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF SOFT-STOREY MECHANISM CAUSED BY INFILL ELIMINATION ON DISPLACEMENT 1303

DEMAND IN NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE USING COEFFICIENT METHOD

ASCE/SEI 41-06. There are two types of lateral loading distribution that are utilized in the mentioned

calculations. The two types of lateral loading distribution are as follows:

• Modal distribution (NSP–modal distribution): lateral load distribution corresponding to forces

obtained from spectral dynamic analysis with total mass participating ratio equal to the minimum

of 90%.

• Weight distribution (NSP–weight distribution): lateral load distribution corresponding to the seismic

weight of each storey.

In Figure 4, the capacity curves of structures introduced in Section 2.2 are presented to understand

the nonlinear behaviour of designed frames and also to compare them with each other.

In this section, for SMRSF with soft-storey mechanism, storeys displacement and drift responses

are computed using the mentioned analysis in Section 3.1. Then, accuracy of NSP is compared

with that of the nonlinear dynamic analysis results (as a real response of the structure). With regard

to the mathematical models of the designed structures, failure occurred in the columns of soft

storey due to the formation of plastic hinges. But, for the structure with general failure mechanism,

structural failure occurred subject to the formation of bending plastic hinges at the two ends of

storey beams and axial force–bending moment interaction plastic hinges at the base of the columns

in the lowest storey. In Table 2, base shear is given in ton, and roof displacement is given in

centimetre.

By studying the curves presented in Figure 5, the following results can be concluded:

• Generally, in the NSP analysis method, similar to the NTH analysis method, the results are sensitive

to the location of soft storey.

• In 5SSB, 15SSB, 15SSM and 15SST frames, the structure did not achieve the target displacement

calculated on the basis of ASCE/SEI 41-06 and premature failure occurred.

• By increasing the number of storeys in structures, the differences between the results of

NSP and NTH methods are reduced. This result agreement is more signiﬁcant in the NSP

analysis method with weight distribution rather than the NSP analysis method with modal

distribution.

• The differences between displacements as well as storey drifts obtained by NSP analysis with weight

distribution and NTH analysis are lower when compared with results obtained by NSP analysis with

modal distribution and NTH analysis.

• When the soft-storey mechanism occurs in higher storeys, the differences between the results of

NSP analysis with modal distribution and NTH analysis are increased. The reason is the type of

lateral load distribution in NSP analysis with modal distribution, since in this method, it is

assumed that the ﬁrst vibration mode is the prevalent mode shape of the structure. However,

when soft-storey mechanism occurs in a structure, the effect of higher mode shapes should also

be considered.

Table 2. Performance point of structures introduced in Section 2.1 on the basis of ASCE/SEI 41-06

coefﬁcient method.

Structure NSP–modal NSP–weight

Base shear Roof disp. Base shear Roof disp.

5SSB 85.34 11.67 86.29 10.18

8SSB 146.58 14.13 149.42 13.72

8SST 157.32 14.19 228.26 12.14

15SSB 132.87 24.2 156.56 21.81

15SSM 143.99 24.1 175.57 20.45

15SST 168.19 25.03 246.71 22.68

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

1304 H. ALINOURI, F. A. DANESH AND S. B. BEHESHTI-AVAL

Storey disp. (NSP & NTH ) of 5SSB Storey drift (NSP & NTH ) of 5SSB

5 5

4 4

Storey

3

Storey

3

NSP-Modal NSP-Modal

2 2

NSP-Weight NSP-Weight

1 1

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030

Storey Disp.(cm) Storey drift

Storey disp. (NSP & NTH ) of 8SSB Storey drift (NSP & NTH ) of 8SSB

8 8

7 7

6 6

NTH (19 Rec.) NTH (19 Rec.)

5 5

Storey

Storey

4 NSP-Modal 4 NSP-Modal

3 NSP-Weight 3 NSP-Weight

2 2

1 1

0 0

0 3 6 9 12 15 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035

Storey Disp.(cm) Storey drift

Storey disp. (NSP & NTH ) of 8SST 8

8

7

7

6

6

NTH (29 Rec.) NTH (29 Rec.)

5 5

Storey

Storey

4 NSP-Modal 4 NSP-Modal

3 NSP-Weight 3 NSP-Weight

2 2

1

1

0

0 3 6 9 12 15 0

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030

Storey Disp.(cm)

Storey drift

Storey disp. (NSP & NTH ) of 15SSB Storey drift (NSP & NTH ) of 15SSB

15

15 14

14 13

13 12

12 11

11

10 10

NTH (13 Rec.) NTH (13 Rec.)

Storey

9

Storey

9

8 8

7 NSP-Modal 7 NSP-Modal

6 6

5 NSP-Weight 5 NSP-Weight

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 0.000 0.003 0.006 0.009 0.012 0.015 0.018

Storey Disp.(cm) Storey drift

15 Storey drift (NSP & NTH ) of 15SSM

14 15

13 14

12 13

11 12

11

10 10

9 NTH (23 Rec.) NTH (23 Rec.)

Storey

Storey

9

8 8

7 NSP-Modal 7 NSP-Modal

6 6

5 NSP-Weight 5 NSP-Weight

4 4

3 3

2

2 1

1 0

0 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21

Storey drift

Storey Disp.(cm)

Storey disp. (NSP & NTH ) of 15SST Storey drift (NSP & NTH) of 15SST

15 15

14 14

13 13

12 12

11 11

10 NTH (20 Rec.) 10 NTH (20 Rec.)

Storey

9

Storey

9

8 NSP-Modal 8 NSP-Modal

7 7

6 NSP-Weight 6 NSP-Weight

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

Storey Disp.(cm) Storey drift

Figure 5. Storey displacements and interstorey drifts of described structures in Section 2.2.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF SOFT-STOREY MECHANISM CAUSED BY INFILL ELIMINATION ON DISPLACEMENT 1305

DEMAND IN NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE USING COEFFICIENT METHOD

FAILURE MECHANISM

In the previous part, it was determined that the occurrence of soft-storey mechanism causes signiﬁcant

difference between displacement and drift results of SMRSF calculated by NSP and NTH numerical

methods. The reason of this difference is inadequate prediction of target displacement in these

structures, when nonlinear static method is used. For the structure that fails due to soft-storey mechanism,

this problem causes the target displacements to be larger than real values obtained by nonlinear dynamic

analyses.

In this section, it is tried to modify the target displacements that are calculated using coefﬁ-

cient method of the ASCE/SEI 41-06 standard for the SMRSF deﬁned in Section 2.2 of this

paper. This modiﬁcation will cause the results of this method to be close to the results of non-

linear dynamic analysis. Since the occurrence of soft storey affects the calculation progress of all

Ci factors in coefﬁcient method, Cm modiﬁcation coefﬁcient is introduced for NSP analysis with

modal distribution and Cw modiﬁcation coefﬁcient is introduced for NSP analysis with weight

distribution.

First, for the SMRSF that fail due to soft-storey mechanism, the value of target displacement at

the roof is calculated by NSP analyses with modal and weight distributions according to the

ASCE/SEI 41-06 standard. Then, for the NTH analyses, the maximum displacement of the

structure roof during earthquake is recorded. In the next step, the ratios between maximum roof

displacements during earthquake obtained by the NTH analyses and the predicted target displace-

ments calculated according to the coefﬁcient method of ASCE/SEI 41-06 are determined for

modal and weight load distributions. Finally, the average value of ratios has been calculated as

modiﬁcation factors.

With the obtained results, for designed frames described as below, the values of Cw and Cm with

standard deviation values (sc or sw) are presented in Table 3.

• Structure 1: SMRSF in which the participation percentage of the ﬁrst mode in total mass is over 90%

and the soft-storey mechanism occurs in the lowest storey.

• Structure 2: SMRSF in which the participation percentage of the ﬁrst two modes in total mass is over

90% and the soft-storey mechanism occurs in the lowest storey.

• Structure 3: SMRSF in which the participation percentage of the ﬁrst two modes in total mass is over

90% and the soft-storey mechanism occurs above the middle storey.

• Structure 4: SMRSF in which the participation percentage of the ﬁrst three modes in total mass is

over 90% and the soft-storey mechanism occurs in the lowest storey.

• Structure 5: SMRSF in which the participation percentage of the ﬁrst three modes in total mass is

over 90% and the soft-storey mechanism occurs above the storey located at 1/3 of structure

height.

• Structure 6: SMRSF in which the participation percentage of the ﬁrst three modes in total mass

is over 90% and the soft-storey mechanism occurs above the storey located at 2/3 of struc-

ture height.

Table 3. Modiﬁcation factors for target displacement calculated by coefﬁcient method of ASCE/SEI and the

statistical parameters.

Structure Cm sm Cw sw

1 0.71 0.17 0.81 0.19

2 0.79 0.13 0.81 0.14

3 0.77 0.2 0.9 0.23

4 0.72 0.07 0.8 0.07

5 0.73 0.16 0.86 0.19

6 0.75 0.15 0.83 0.16

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

1306 H. ALINOURI, F. A. DANESH AND S. B. BEHESHTI-AVAL

Difference between NTH & NSP storey Disp. (5SSB) Difference between NTH & NSP storey Disp. (8SSB)

5 8

7

4

6

3 NSP-Modal 5 NSP-Modal

Storey

Storey

4

NSP-Weight NSP-Weight

2 3

2

1

1

0 0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

Storey Disp.(cm) Storey Disp.(cm)

Difference between NTH & NSP storey Disp. (8SST) Difference between NTH & NSP storey Disp. (15SSB)

8 15

14

7 13

12

6 11

10 NSP-Modal

5 NSP-Modal

9

Storey

Storey

4 NSP-Weight 8 NSP-Weight

7

3 6

5

2 4

3

1 2

1

0 0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

Storey Disp.(cm) Storey Disp.(cm)

Difference between NTH & NSP storey Disp. (15SST)

15

15

14

14

13 13

12 12

11 11

10 10

9 9

Storey

Storey

NSP-Modal

8 8 NSP-Modal

7 NSP-Weight 7

6 NSP-Weight

6

5 5

4 4

3

3

2

2 1

1 0

0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5

Storey Disp.(cm)

Storey Disp.(cm)

Figure 6. Difference between NTH and NSP storey displacement of described structures in section 2.2.

On this basis, in the case of SMRSF that fail due to soft-storey failure mechanism caused by omit-

ting the inﬁll walls in a storey, the equation for calculation of target displacement in coefﬁcient method

of ASCE/SEI 41-06 should be modiﬁed as the following:

8

> T 2

< Modal dist:⇒dtm ¼ Cm C0 C1 C2 Sa 1 g

4p2 (4:1)

>

: Weight dist:⇒d ¼ C C C C S T1 g

2

tw w 0 1 2 a

4p2

where dtm is the prediction of target displacement in nonlinear static analysis with modal distribution in

SMRSF that failed due to soft-storey mechanism, dtw is prediction of target displacement in nonlinear

static analysis with weight distribution in SMRSF that failed due to soft-storey mechanism and T1 is

the period of the ﬁrst vibration mode of the structure.

In Eqn 4.1, the coefﬁcient Cm or Cw is multiplied in target displacement resulted by ASCE/SEI 41-06

coefﬁcient method with modal and weight lateral load distribution. Besides, because of no signiﬁ-

cant nonlinear behaviour in base shear–roof displacement curve of the roof, it can be assumed that

Te = T1. This is also considered in Eqn 4.1. The other parameters are calculated similar to the

method of ASCE/SEI 41-06.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF SOFT-STOREY MECHANISM CAUSED BY INFILL ELIMINATION ON DISPLACEMENT 1307

DEMAND IN NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE USING COEFFICIENT METHOD

Difference between NTH & NSP storey drift. (5SSB) Difference between NTH & NSP storey Drift. (8SSB)

5 8

7

4

6

5 NSP-Modal

Storey

3 NSP-Modal

Storey

4 NSP-Weight

NSP-Weight

2 3

2

1

1

0 0

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.000 0.005 0.010

Storey drift Storey drift

Difference between NTH & NSP storey Drift (8SST) Difference between NTH & NSP storey Drift (15SSB)

8 15

14

7 13

12

6

11

5 NSP-Modal 10 NSP-Modal

Storey

Storey

4 NSP-Weight 8 NSP-Weight

7

3 6

5

2 4

3

1 2

1

0 0

0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005

Storey drift Storey drift

Difference between NTH & NSP storey Drift (15SSM) Difference between NTH & NSP storey Drift (15SST)

15 15

14 14

13 13

12 12

11 11

10 10 NSP-Modal

9 NSP-Modal 9

Storey

Storey

8 8 NSP-Weight

7 NSP-Weight 7

6 6

5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007

Storey drift Storey drift

Figure 7. Difference between NTH and NSP interstorey drift of described structures in section 2.2

5. CONCLUSION

Since many structures have failed due to soft-storey mechanism during the past earthquakes, it is

necessary to investigate the inﬂuence of this phenomenon on the accuracy of numerical methods used

for evaluating the vulnerability of structures to earthquakes. In this paper, an investigation is carried

out to study the effect of soft-storey failure mechanism occurrence on behaviour of SMRSF. The

results presented here are as the following:

Generally, in NSP method such as the NTH analysis, the results are sensitive to the location of soft

storey.

For 15SST, 15SSM, 15SSB and 5SSB frames, failure occurred before receiving target displacement.

This study presented that in 8SST, 15SSM and 15SST, the differences between results of NSP

method and NTH analysis outcomes from the lowest storey to the soft storey are lesser than those

of the upper storeys above the soft storey.

Figures 6 and 7 show that storeys displacement and interstorey drift based on NSP method with

weight distribution make lesser differences in comparing NTH analysis outcomes with NSP method

by modal distribution.

The results show that movement of soft storey to upper storeys makes much differences for the

results of NSP method with modal distribution in comparison with NTH analysis outcomes.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

1308 H. ALINOURI, F. A. DANESH AND S. B. BEHESHTI-AVAL

It is concluded that the occurrence of soft-storey mechanism causes a signiﬁcant error in the prediction

of displacement demand of SMRSF in nonlinear static analysis using the method of coefﬁcients in ASCE/

SEI 41-06. Consequently, it is necessary to improve the calculations of target displacement in structures in

which soft-storey mechanism will occur in a way that the predicted values of lateral displacements are

close to the real values during earthquakes.

REFERENCES

Alinouri H. 2010. “Effect of soft storey mechanism on displacement demand of special moment resisting frames”. A Dissertation

Submitted in Partial Fulﬁlment of Requirements for Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering. K.N.Toosi University of

Technology, Tehran, Iran.

Antoniou S, Pinho R. 2004a, “Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non-adaptive force-based pushover procedures”.

Journal of Earthquake Engineering 8(4): 497–522.

Antoniou S, Pinho R. 2004b. “Development and veriﬁcation of a displacement-based adaptive pushover procedure”. Journal of

Earthquake Engineering 8(5): 643–661.

ASCE/ SEI 41-06. 2006. “Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings”.

Asimakopoulos A, Karabalis D, Beskos D. 2006. “Inclusion of P–Δ effect in displacement-based seismic design of steel moment

resisting frames”. First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, Paper No:

1091.

Bardakis VG, Ditsos SE. 2007. “Evaluating assumptions for seismic assessment of existing buildings”. Soil Dynamics and

Earthquake Engineering 27: 223–233.

Behmanesh I, Khoshnudian F. 2008. “Effect of soil–structure-interaction on inelastic displacement ratios of existing structures”.

Proceeding, 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.

Chopra AK, Goel RK. 2002. “A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings”. Earthquake

Engineering and Structural Dynamics 31: 561–582.

Crisafulli F, Reboredo A, Torrisi G. 2008. “Consideration of torsional effects in the displacement control of ductile buildings”.

13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper No. 1111.

Crowly H. 2003. “Periods of vibration for displacement based assessment of RC structures”. A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulﬁlment of Requirements for Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering: ROSE School, Pavia, Italy.

ECCS Technical Research. 1986. “Study on Design of Steel Building in Earthquake Zones”. ECCS: Brussels, Belgium.

Erduran E. 2008. “Assessment of current nonlinear static procedures on the estimation of torsional effects in low-rise frame

buildings” Engineering Structures 30: 2548–2558

Farahmand B, Ghannad MA, Jafarieh AH. 2006. “An equivalent damping model for direct displacement-based design”. First

European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology Geneva, Switzerland, Paper No: 1473.

Goel RK. 2004. “Evaluation of nonlinear static procedures using building strong motion records”. 13th World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper No. 3213.

Goel RK. 2008. “Evaluation of current nonlinear static procedure for reinforced concrete buildings”. Proceeding. 14th World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.

Huang S, Islam S, Skokan M, Moey A, Diaz E. 2004. “Seismic retroﬁt of a major hospital buildings based on nonlinear analysis

considering soil-structure interaction”. 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper

No. 991.

Keyvani A, Sadeghazar M. 2006. “Evaluation of nonlinear static analysis for estimating of target displacement”. First European

Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, Paper No: 64.

Magenes G. 2000. “A method for pushover analysis in seismic assessment of masonry buildings”. Proceeding, 12th World

Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Paper No. 1866.

Mazzolani FM, Piluso V. 1996. “Theory and design of seismic resistant frames”. Published by E & FN Spon, an imprint of

Chapman & Hall, 2-6 Boundary Row, London SE1 8HN, UK, First edition.

Moghaddam H., Hajirasouliha I. 2006. “An investigation on the accuracy of pushover analysis for estimating the seismic

deformation of braced steel frames”. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62: 343–351

Priestly MJN. 2006. “Seismological information for displacement-based design—a structural engineer’s wish list”. First

European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology Geneva, Switzerland, Paper No: Keynote Address K1a.

Priestley MJN. 1993. “Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering—conﬂict between design and reality”. Bulletin of New

Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 26(3): 329–341.

Pettinga D, Priestley MJN. 2008. “Accounting for P–Δ effects in structures when using direct displacement-based design”.

Proceeding. 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.

Saﬁ MS, Tehranizadeh M. 2004. “Effect of ductility demand distribution on displacement based design of steel frames”. 13th

World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Paper No. 3072.

SAP2000 ver.12, Computers and Structures, Inc. 1995. University Avenue Berkeley, California 94704 USA.

Sullivan T. 2002. “The current limitations of displacement based design”. A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulﬁlment of

Requirements for Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering. ROSE School, Pavia, Italy.

UBC97. 1997. dummy “Uniform Building Codes”, Structural Engineering Design Provisions.

Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. 2005. “Developing efﬁcient scalar and vector intensity measures for IDA capacity estimation by

incorporating elastic spectral shape information”. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34: 1573–1600.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

EFFECT OF SOFT-STOREY MECHANISM CAUSED BY INFILL ELIMINATION ON DISPLACEMENT 1309

DEMAND IN NONLINEAR STATIC PROCEDURE USING COEFFICIENT METHOD

AUTHORS’ BIOGRAPHIES

Hossein Alinouri has a bachelor’s degree in Civil Engineering from Arak University (Arak, 2007) and

a master’s degree in Earthquake Engineering from KNT University (Tehran, 2010). He is now a mem-

ber of the Iranian Organization for Engineering Order of Buildings and Head of Retroﬁtting Session in

Schools Renovation Ofﬁce of Qom province. His expertise is in the ﬁeld of design, seismic assessment

and retroﬁtting of steel, concrete and masonry buildings.

Fakhroddin Ahmadi Danesh is an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the Faculty of K.N.

Toosi University, Tehran, Iran. He is also the head of Session Earthquake Engineering in the same uni-

versity from 2003–2009. His professional expertises are in following ﬁelds: seismic evaluation of steel

and concrete structures, retroﬁtting of existing buildings, nonlinear dynamic analysis of structures,

seismic behavior of steel structures with rigid and semi-rigid connections, pseudo-dynamic testing

of steel frames, experimental works on semi-rigid steel frames, experimental works on retroﬁtting of

concrete columns with FRP and seismic behavior of masonry structures.

Seyed Bahram Beheshti-Aval is an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the Faculty of K.N.

Toosi University, Tehran, Iran. He is also the Vice-Principal for research and development in the same

university from 2008-present. His professional expertises are in following ﬁelds: vulnerability assess-

ment and seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, retroﬁtting of existing structures using FRP ma-

terial, nonlinear analysis of structures, numerical techniques in analysis of structures, constitutive

models of materials, active and passive control of structures under vibratory loading, structural health

monitoring, application of smart materials in structures and non-destructive testing.

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)

DOI: 10.1002/tal

- STP-PT-052_2012Uploaded bySirio333
- Direct Displacement Based Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Curved BridgesUploaded byG V krishna
- evaluation of bridge structures subjected to severe earthquakesUploaded byYossi Reichman
- PerformanceBasedDesignUploaded byhypjax
- Seismic response of skewed RC box-girder bridgesUploaded bylangchen
- Assessment of concrete by using incremental dynamic analysis methodUploaded byAJER JOURNAL
- ASCE 7-02 Errata First PrintingUploaded byC. Todd St. George
- ABB Review 4-2010_72dpiUploaded byWenming Gong
- Capacity Demand 1Uploaded byMohammed Younus Ahmed
- ATC 58 50percentDraftUploaded byKader Newaj Sakib
- SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF IRREGUAR (L-SHAPED) RCC BUILDINGUploaded byJournal 4 Research
- fried.pptUploaded byJuan Carlos Torres Hernández
- Soil StructureUploaded bySowmya Hanumanthaiah
- 424_ch2Uploaded byahmedany
- Response EvaluationUploaded byIzet Mehmetaj
- Seismic Design to EC8 - L3Uploaded byChamil Mahagamage
- Development of a Seismic Vulnerability Assessment Method for Schools_Tischer Et Al WCEE2012_0519 (1)Uploaded bysabareesan09
- ChinaUploaded bymetkon1418
- WCEE2012_1411.pdfUploaded byAnonymous e3TzDf4Ew
- NS2015.026Uploaded bypaul505
- Retrofit CourseUploaded byKuber Bogati
- a411Uploaded byMrEngineer01
- SGEM-2013Uploaded byZitheeq Umar
- ttttUploaded byyaswanth reddy mummadi
- sec2Uploaded byJason Toralde
- STR-144-152Uploaded byjagmal
- 424_ch2_webUploaded byMadhu Kumar
- Carlos Bhatt e Rita Bento 2013 - The Extended Adaptive Capacity Spectrum Method for the Seismic Assessment of Plan Asymmetric BuildingsUploaded byGonçaloGomes
- 2. Analysis of G+30 Highrise buildings by using Etabs for various frame sections in ZoneIV and ZoneV.pdfUploaded byK.ANISH
- MirandaandCruz-DampinginTallBuildings-TongiOct2017Uploaded bymedian27

- DupuitUploaded byyaseen90aziz
- Dissertation2007 Martini (1)Uploaded byHendra Marianto
- Chapter-4 Kanis Method (1)Uploaded bySateesh Kumar Puri
- Unit4-HW Structural Analysis IIUploaded bySmr Only
- Mono ConstrUploaded bySateesh Kumar Puri
- upload docum.pdfUploaded bySateesh Kumar Puri
- is.sp.64.2001.pdfUploaded byRamesh Subramani Ramachandran
- Sap TutorUploaded bySateesh Kumar Puri
- Sap TutorUploaded byBambang Purnomo
- Cover PageUploaded bySateesh Kumar Puri
- 16525005Uploaded bySateesh
- MTech Seminar Report FormatUploaded bySateesh Kumar Puri
- boussinesq2Uploaded bypriatnorendra
- Settlement and ConsolidationUploaded bysuryakanta padhi
- Well Hydraulics and AquifersUploaded bySateesh Kumar Puri
- project 2Uploaded bySateesh Kumar Puri
- 1 ProjectUploaded bySateesh Kumar Puri

- d.e. QuestionsUploaded byrobertz_tolentino014
- The Basis of API Corrolation for Fire Relief of Unwetted VesselsUploaded bycedw
- Aits 1718 Pt III Jee Main SolUploaded byLakshit Sanghrajka
- Quiz 2Uploaded byJuba W Allen
- Nuen 309 test 2Uploaded byjohn tam
- Transkrip Nilai 14.16.1.0031 [Cepi Kusdiana]Uploaded byCepi Kusdiana
- ms 300 manualUploaded byanantbshinde
- Mr. T PatentsUploaded bybarbosi
- Nominal System VoltagesUploaded bymdc2013
- A Carrier-Based PWM Strategy with Zero-SequenceUploaded byfloyd_ramone
- Energy Release RateUploaded byQuique Torres
- Strenght of Materials(ES-64)Uploaded byapi-3836341
- TCE_ P.no 251 Be Ece Degree Programme 2018Uploaded bySadish Kumar
- pospelov2013Uploaded byLuis MOnzon
- Essential Process Control for Chemical EngineersUploaded byAhmed Elzawawi
- RX-005H CSTR Series EsterificationUploaded byudokas
- Hohne DscUploaded byHari Shankar
- residual stress simulia.pdfUploaded byJorge Beltran
- IMU_Wk8Uploaded byAnh Là Bi
- aerodynamics tutorial iistUploaded byShubham Maurya
- I Value CalcUploaded bysharanmit2039
- 25 Ohms Ground Resistance HistoryUploaded byBen E
- Stability - AISC's Direct Analysis Method - How to EngineerUploaded bypatricklim1982
- Lecture 2 WebUploaded byMrSomnambulul
- Bichat General AnatomyUploaded bysmeraldabree
- Check Point PhysicsUploaded byAdwin Anil Saldanha
- Unit 5 the Mole Concept (S)Uploaded byKarm Veer
- 9D17105 Advanced Fluid MechanicsUploaded bysubbu
- E401.docxUploaded byFroileth Pulido
- lab report.docxUploaded byshareen tan