You are on page 1of 14

THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS

Struct. Design Tall Spec. Build. 22, 1296–1309 (2013)


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

Effect of soft-storey mechanism caused by infill elimination


on displacement demand in nonlinear static procedure using
coefficient method

Hossein Alinouri*,†, Fakhrodin Ahmadi Danesh and Seyed Bahram Beheshti-Aval


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.

Received 2 March 2011; Revised 30 December 2011; Accepted 3 January 2012

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

Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


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).

2. MODELLING AND ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS

2.1. Analytical assumption


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:

ðMass source ¼ DL þ 0:2 LLÞ

• Damping: viscous damping equal to 5% is used in nonlinear time-history dynamic (NTH)


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.

Figure 2. Moment–curvature of hinge HE260B (ton m) (ECCS, 1986).

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

2.2. Models specification


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

Figure 3. Member sizing of 5GM, 8GM and 15GM.

Table 1. First vibration mode of the structures described in Section 2.2.


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).

3. NUMERICAL EVALUATION OF SOFT-STOREY MECHANISM EFFECT

3.1. Methods of analyses


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

Capacity curve of 5SSB Capacity curve of 8SSB


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)

Capacity curve of 8SST Capacity curve of 15SSB


300 160
140
250
Base shear (ton)

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)

Capacity curve of 15SSM Capacity curve of 15SST


200 300
180
160 250
Base shear (ton)

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)

Figure 4. Capacity curves of introduced 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 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.

3.2. Evaluation of SMRSF response with soft-storey mechanism failure


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

NTH (25 Rec.) NTH (25 Rec.)

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 drift (NSP & NTH ) of 8SST


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

Storey disp. (NSP & NTH ) of 15SSM


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

4. MODIFICATION OF COEFFICIENT METHOD FOR SMRSF WITH SOFT-STOREY


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. (15SSM)


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