Comparative Study of Seismic Behavior of Multistory

Reinforced Concrete Framed Structures

Yong Lu1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: A comparative study of the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete 共RC兲 multistory structures is carried out on the basis of
measured response of four six-story, three-bay framed structures, namely a regular bare frame, a discontinuous-column frame, a partially
masonry-infilled frame, and a wall-frame system. The structures were designed for similar seismic requirements in accordance with
Eurocode 8, and their 1:5.5 scaled models were subjected to similar earthquake simulation tests. Experimental observations and numerical
analyses show that the distribution of the story shear overstrength is a rather stable indicator of the general inelastic behavior of frames,
and hence, can be employed as a characteristic parameter to quantify the frame irregularity for design purposes. Abrupt discontinuity of
the geometry or arrangement of structurally effective elements, where unavoidable, may be compensated by strength enhancement
targeting a smoothed overstrength profile to allow for distributed inelastic deformation, and this principle applies as well to nonuniformly
masonry infilled frames. For the wall-frame system, adequate countermeasures against rocking of the RC wall is shown to be a key to
maintaining the effectiveness of the system at advanced inelastic response.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2002兲128:2共169兲
CE Database keywords: Comparative studies; Buildings, multistory; Concrete, reinforced; Building frames; Seismic response.

Introduction senting vertical irregularity; a partially masonry-infilled frame

The seismic behavior of multistory structures has been the subject
of extensive study over the last several decades. Generally speak-
ing, typical multistory framed systems can be divided into three
categories concerning their seismic behavior, namely reinforced
concrete 共RC兲 frames, masonry-infilled frames, and wall-frame
systems. Apart from the development of the general ductile and
capacity design methodologies, of particular interest in recent
studies are the effects of the structural configurations and the
arrangement of nonstructural members on the seismic perfor-
mance 共Lu et al. 1999; Moehle and Sozen 1980; Negro and Ver-
zeletti 1996; Schultz 1990; Wood 1992兲. From numerous investi-
gations of individual cases, however, it is felt that there is a lack
of information regarding the comparative behavior of different
systems. The individually investigated structures seldom allowed
for a more rigorous comparative evaluation.
An experimental investigation conducted at the National Tech-
nical University of Athens in support of the Eurocode 8 共EC8兲
关1988 共draft兲; 1994兴 has provided comprehensive data allowing
for an interpretation of the seismic performance of various mul-
tistory systems using a comparative approach. Four six-story,
three-bay framed structures were selected to represent a variety of
multistory systems, including a benchmark regular bare frame
共frame BFR兲; a discontinuous-column frame 共frame DCF兲 repre-
1
Assistant Professor, School of Civil and Environmental En-
gineering, Nanyang Technological Univ., Singapore 639798.
E-mail: cylu@ntu.edu.sg
Note. Associate Editor: Brad Cross. Discussion open until July 1,
2002. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted
for review and possible publication on February 1, 2001; approved on
August 29, 2001. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engi-
neering, Vol. 128, No. 2, February 1, 2002. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/
2002/2-169–178/$8.00⫹$.50 per page.
with an open first story 共frame PIF兲; and a structural wall-frame
system 共SWF兲. Fig. 1 shows their geometry. All these structures
were designed to satisfy the seismic requirements for ductility
class ‘‘Medium’’ in accordance with EC8, with design peak
ground acceleration 共PGA兲 of 0.30 g. For the experiment, models
of 1:5.5 reduced scale were constructed and tested under the same
scheme of simulated earthquakes on an earthquake simulator.
This paper summarizes the experimental program and presents a
comparative study of the different response characteristics and
failure mechanisms based on the experimental observations and
associated numerical evaluation. Some recommendations for fur-
ther improvement of the design of multistory structures are also
given.
Design of Test Structures
EC8 adopts the concept of the behavior factor, q, to factor down
the elastic spectrum for the determination of the seismic design
lateral load. The structures are classified into three ductility
classes, namely ductility ‘‘high,’’ ‘‘medium,’’ and ‘‘low.’’ The
value of the q factor is determined according to the ductility class
chosen, taking into account the structure type and the irregulari-
ties involved. Specific detailing requirements are stipulated to sat-
isfy the respective ductility demand.
Ductility class ‘‘medium’’ was chosen for all the structures
under investigation. The corresponding q factor was 3.5 for the
regular frame BFR. For frames DCF and PIF, adjustment to the
above basic q value was made to account for the irregularities
associated with them. To do so, it was necessary to first quantify
the irregularity, and for this purpose, the concept of ‘‘regularity
index’’, as will be discussed in a greater length later, was adopted.
In the case of masonry-infilled frame PIF, the contribution of infill
walls was not considered in the final strength design but was
accounted for when evaluating the regularity index and determin-

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2002 / 169

J. Struct. Eng., 2002, 128(2): 169-178

 The design peak ground acceleration was 0.3 g. Other design
assumptions included: Soil profile A, Concrete class C20 共charac-
teristic compressive strength 20 MPa兲, Flexural reinforcement
Grade S400, Transverse reinforcement, and RC wall reinforce-
ment Grade S220, Floor dead load 1.5 kN/m2, and live load 2.0
kN/m2.
The proportioning of the structural members was carried out
following capacity design procedures for a weak-beam, strong-
column design and to avoid premature shear failure. In particular,
the column design moment effects were obtained by observing
equilibrium around a joint, taking into account the actual bending
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

capacity of the beams framing into the joint. A relaxation was

then considered on the above column moment effects through a
‘‘moment reversal factor’’ 共EC8 1994兲. The transverse confining
reinforcement within the column critical regions was detailed ac-
cording to the required mechanical volumetric ratio to satisfy a
curvature ductility of not less than 9 for the medium ductility
frames. Table 1 lists the cross section dimensions and longitudinal
reinforcement ratios of the structural members.

Test Model Structures and Experimental Program

Fig. 1. Geometry of structures under investigations 共model scale
1:5.5兲
ing the design seismic load. A minimum regularity index of 0.55
was imposed. In fact, it was this minimum requirement that actu-
ally governed the proportioning of the open first-story columns in
frame PIF as will be discussed later as well. The final design q
factors were 2.7 for DCF and 2.4 for PIF. The q factor adopted for
the design of the wall-frame system SWF was 3.0.
Each test model comprised a single planar frame, constructed at
1:5.5 reduced scale. At floor levels, a 300-mm wide flange was
provided on both sides of the frame to represent the floor slab
effects and to accommodate the additional masses required by the
similitude laws 共Tassios 1992兲. The model reinforcement, shown
in Fig. 2, was deduced from the prototype design on a one-to-one
basis.
Microconcrete having an average cylinder compressive
strength of 30 MPa and tensile-to-compressive strength ratio of
1:10 was used for casting the model structures. The model flex-
ural reinforcement in beams and columns were of conventionally
deformed 6-mm bars, which had average yield strength of 430
MPa after annealing treatment and a bond strength of 25–30% the
concrete compressive strength when embedded in the model con-
crete. The remaining model reinforcement was of 3-mm smooth

Table 1. Cross-section Dimensions 共full-scale兲 and Longitudinal Reinforcement Ratios 共␳, %兲

Column Beam
Story/ Section ␳a Section ␳b
Model level 共mm兲 共mm兲
BFR 5– 6 350⫻350 2.76 350⫻400 1.32
3– 4 450⫻450 1.68 400⫻450 1.02
2 500⫻500 1.37 400⫻500 0.91
1 600⫻600 1.87 400⫻500 0.91

DCF 5– 6 350⫻350 2.76 350⫻400 1.32

3– 4 450⫻450 1.68 400⫻450 1.02
2 500⫻500 1.37– 4.10 400⫻500 0.91–1.37
1 600⫻600 0.93–2.80 400⫻500 0.91–1.37

PIF 5– 6 350⫻350 2.76 350⫻400 1.32

3– 4 450⫻450 1.68 –3.36 400⫻450 1.02–1.53
2 500⫻500 1.37–3.41 400⫻500 0.91–1.37
1 700⫻700 1.67–3.35 400⫻500 0.91–1.82

SWF 1– 6 450⫻450 1.68 400⫻450 1.02

Wall vertical ␳a 0.95
Wall horizontal ␳a 0.63
a
Total area of steel/Gross section area.
b
Area of tension steel/Effective section area.

170 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2002

J. Struct. Eng., 2002, 128(2): 169-178

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Dimensions and reinforcement arrangement of test model
structures
wire having yield strength 195 MPa. A single layer of 3-mm-wire
mesh at 50-mm spacing was used in the floor slabs.
The model bricks for frame PIF were fabricated to the scaled
size with cement-lime mortar. The strength of the model bricks
was made higher to allow for cracking to occur along brick joints
for which similitude to the normal mortar joints was maintained.
The compressive strength of the mortar for joining the model
bricks was 3.5 MPa.
The models were mounted on the earthquake simulator by
fixing the base girders to the simulator platform. To ensure that
the model frame responded to the unidirectional excitation within
its plane, a side-support system was provided. A sketch of the test
setup is shown in Fig. 3共a兲. The additional masses, weighing,
respectively, 6,900 kg 共BFR兲, 6,850 kg 共DCF兲, 7,800 kg 共PIF兲,
and 7,400 kg 共SWF兲, were distributed and fixed on the floor slabs.
In an attempt to minimize the additional restraint on the flexural
deformation of the beams and slabs, the masses were separated
into several blocks and a layer of ‘‘soft’’ lime mortar was placed
between the mass blacks and the floor slabs.
The instrumentation was organized so that both overall and
critical local responses of interests were measured. Totally, about
30 channels of measurements were recorded for each model.
The models were tested for several levels of simulated earth-
quakes resembling the motion wave form of the El Centro 1940
N-S component, with a time scale of 冑5.5. In the description
which follows, each earthquake simulation is labeled by ‘‘EL’’
followed by a numeral indicating the peak acceleration in terms
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2002 / 171
J. Struct. Eng., 2002, 128(2): 169-178
Fig. 3. Typical test setup and input base motion
of ‘‘g’’. The following consecutive simulations were performed:
EL0.10, EL0.30, EL0.60, EL0.90, and EL1.20 共EL1.20 was not
performed for model BFR due to an accidental setup problem兲.
Fig. 3共b兲 shows a typical achieved base acceleration time history
and the corresponding 5%-damped response spectrum. A comple-
mentary random vibration test was performed after each earth-
quake simulation, and subsequently, the transfer functions of the
measured floor accelerations to the random input signal were
computed to determine the changes of the natural frequencies of
the models during the course of the tests.
Observed Response and Comparison
Cracking Pattern and Failure Modes
For test EL0.30 which corresponded to the design intensity, only
a few scattered minor cracks were detected on the models, except
for DCF where more cracks appeared on beams of the middle and
right-hand side spans, due to the relatively small overstrength
margin in these particular beams 共Lu 1996兲. Rather distinctive
crack patterns appeared after test EL0.60, and further developed
through test EL0.90, leading to the eventual failure mechanisms
which became apparent during test EL1.20. Fig. 4 illustrates the
crack patterns recorded after test EL0.90. The main features of the
different damage patterns are discussed in what follows.
Frame BFR exhibited a rather uniformly distributed cracking
pattern. The severe damage at the fifth story is attributable to the
abrupt reduction 共over 20%兲 of the column cross section size and
the subsequently intensified higher mode ‘‘whipping’’ effects. A
similar phenomenon was also seen in frame DCF and this will be
further discussed later. For test EL0.90, the general response of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Crack patterns recorded after test EL0.90
BFR remained stable, however, cracking widened substantially
共maximum crack width on the model exceeded 1.0 mm兲, indicat-
ing extensive yielding, while spalling of concrete occurred in the
lower stories. Plastic hinges appeared to also occur in several
columns, and this may be attributed to the ‘‘relaxation’’ of column
design moments from satisfying equilibrium around joints, as
mentioned in the description of the design, as well as some en-
hancement of the beams and slabs due to the fixing of additional
masses. It is noted that the diagonal cracks that occurred at some
beam–column joints were generally light and did not become
critical thanks to the heavy joint reinforcement as shown in Fig. 2.
The cracking pattern of DCF demonstrated the combined ef-
fects of a soft first story and the soft middle and right-hand side
spans. During EL0.90, severe spalling of concrete and buckling of
reinforcement were observed on the top and bottom of the first-
story columns, indicating the formation of a soft-story mecha-
nism. A permanent mechanism set was observed during test
EL1.20.
In frame PIF, the enlarged first-story columns appeared to be
effective in preventing what would usually be anticipated a soft
story mechanism. Instead, the cracking spread into the beam-
column members as well as the masonry walls throughout the
frame. 共The shear-looking cracks above the midheight of the first-
story exterior columns, appeared at the late testing stage, was
found to result from an imperfect cast joint. This problem was
avoided during the casting of other models.兲
The cracking pattern of model SWF represented an over-
whelming wall rocking response. Major horizontal cracks oc-
curred across the wall bottom section during test EL0.60 and
further developed to cause a rupture of the vertical reinforcement
during test EL0.90, while intense cracking appeared in the beam–
wall adjoining regions due to the large rotation demands associ-
ated with the intensified wall rocking. At the final stage 共EL1.20兲,
172 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2002
J. Struct. Eng., 2002, 128(2): 169-178
Fig. 5. Measured base shear versus top displacement relationships
the wall bottom was almost cut free from the base, while connec-
tion failure developed at the beam-wall adjoining regions. Some
horizontal cracks also appeared on higher levels of the wall, a
phenomenon which could be attributed to the higher-mode par-
ticipation as well as the effects of the opposing displacement
shapes between the wall 共bending兲 and the frame 共shear兲.
Overstrength and Displacements
Fig. 5 shows the measured envelope base shear versus the top
displacement relationships for the test models. The design base
shears are also indicated in Fig. 5 for a comparison.
The variation of the design base shear in terms of the total
weight 共W兲, in the range of 0.15– 0.25W as shown in Fig. 6共a兲,
was the result of considering the varying natural period and the
pertinent irregularities of different frames. The consideration
proved to be adequate as one can observe the same variation trend
from the measured base shear demands during the initial EL0.10
test, also shown in Fig. 6. Because of the increased demands
(V D,B ) in PIF and SWF, despite that these two models achieved a
much higher base shear strengths (V R,B ) than BFR, the base shear
overstrength factor, i OS,B ⫽V R,B /V D,B , was found to range
closely, between 3 and 3.5, in these three models 关Fig. 6共b兲兴.
Relatively low base shear overstrength was achieved in DCF due
to the lower available base shear strength compared to BFR.
Similar base shear overstrength, on the order of 3, was ob-
served in many previous experimental investigations under rather
deterministic laboratory conditions 共Charney and Bertero 1982;
Shahrooz and Moehle 1990兲. The known contributing factors in-
clude the material overstrength, the surplus amount of reinforce-
ment, as well as structural redundancy. With such overstrength,
the earthquake intensity which would generate the design antici-
pated inelastic response is expected to increase. For this reason,
the test EL0.90 (PGA⫽3⫻0.3 g⫽0.9 g) is considered herein as
the reference simulation for evaluating and comparing the inelas-
tic response of the models.
Based on Fig. 5, an estimation of the overall ductility demands
at different test stages can be obtained 共Lu 1996兲. Fig. 6共c兲 com-
pares the ductility demands on the four models for test EL0.90. It
can be observed that for all models except DCF the displacement
ductility demands were in the range of 3 to 4, which correlates
very well with the design anticipated medium ductility response.
Frame DCF exhibited an approximately 35% higher ductility de-
mand. The normalized ductility demands, obtained by multiplying
the measured ones with an overstrength correction factor equal to
(i OS,B /3.0), show a fair independence from the frame configura-
tion and all fall in the range from 3 to 4.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Comparison of top displacements and critical first-story drifts

Comparison of Hysteretic Behavior

The hysteretic behavior reflects the energy dissipation capacity as
well as the inelastic stability of a structure. Fig. 9共a兲 shows the
base moment versus top drift 共top displacement divided by frame
height兲 hysteretic relations of the test models.
BFR maintained a stable hysteretic response throughout the
tests while the maximum top displacement reached 87 mm 共top
drift 2.4%兲. For model DCF, however, considerable strength and
Fig. 6. Comparison of base shear strength and top displacement stiffness degradation occurred with the formation of a mechanism
ductility demands during test EL0.90, while the top drift reached 3%.
Model SWF exhibited a good hysteretic behavior in contrast to
that of frame PIF where pronounced pinching occurred through-
With regard to the control of absolute drift, Fig. 7 compares out the tests. The pinching in PIF was characteristic and it can be
the top displacements and the first-story drifts attained in the four attributed to the imperfect integrity of the infill walls with the
models during various stages of testing. As can be seen, models surrounding RC frame as well as the behavior of the masonry
PIF and SWF effectively reduced the displacements, by 50 and
40%, respectively, compared to BFR, during low to moderate
responses 共up to EL0.60兲. However, the percentage reduction of
displacements notably declined with an increase of the inelastic
response, indicating more rapid deterioration of the RC wall and
the infill walls at advanced inelastic stages. As expected, frame
DCF exhibited much higher first-story drift.
To further examine the distribution of inelastic deformation
along the structure height, Fig. 8 shows the profiles of the dis-
placement and interstory drifts measured during various tests. The
first-mode dominance is readily observed. Nevertheless, all
frames exhibited more or less a ‘‘kink’’ in the displaced shapes at
the fifth story, indicating an appreciable higher mode contribu-
tion. The severe kink at the fifth story of model BFR and DCF
highlighted the adverse effects of abrupt changes to the column
dimensions and thereby the story strength. In model PIF, the pres-
ence of infill walls appeared to significantly increase the story
stiffness as long as the infills remained intact, subsequently, the
drifts in the infilled stories were smaller than the open first story
in spite of its substantially enlarged column cross section. The
infill walls deteriorated rapidly during advanced inelastic re-
sponse such that the second-story drift turned to be more critical
and approached 2.3% during test EL0.90. Frame SWF exhibited a
smooth drift profile due to the relative rigidity of the rotating RC
Fig. 8. Comparison of displacement and interstory drift profiles
wall.

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2002 / 173

J. Struct. Eng., 2002, 128(2): 169-178

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 9. Comparison of hysteretic behavior
wall itself against shear. Despite the poor hysteretic loops, how-
ever, the frame members were better protected in PIF than in BFR
due to the reduced interstory drifts.
A quantitative comparison of the general hysteretic energy dis-
sipation capacities is given in Fig. 9共b兲 in terms of the equivalent
hysteretic damping coefficient, which is regarded as a key param-
eter in a performance-based design procedure 共Priestley 2000兲
and is evaluated herein by the following expression,
E hys
␰ eq⫽ (1)
4␲E el
where E hys and E el⫽hysteretic and elastic strain energy of the
system, respectively, at peak displacement, i.e., the secant stiff-
ness of the equivalent system with the above hysteretic damping
corresponds to the peak displacement on the base moment versus
top drift curves. Generally speaking, a 10% hysteretic damping
coefficient was achieved in all models at advanced inelastic re-
sponse, except for PIF for which the coefficient was approxi-
mately 6%.
Discussion on Performance and Evaluation
of Design
Vertical Irregularity and Distribution of Lateral Inertial
Forces
Frames DCF and BFR both exhibited concentrated damage at the
fifth-story columns. The direct cause of this appeared to be the
174 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2002
J. Struct. Eng., 2002, 128(2): 169-178
Fig. 10. Measured and computed story shear envelopes and corre-
sponding lateral force distributions
weakness introduced by an abrupt reduction 共more than 20%兲 of
the column cross section size compared to the story below. While
the damage could be predicted by a nonlinear dynamic analysis, it
could not be anticipated with an equivalent static analysis adopt-
ing either an inverted triangle or uniform distribution of lateral
forces 共Lu 1996兲. This indicates that there existed a significant
dynamic amplification effect at the top of these frames, and an
unsafe design of the upper stories could result if such an effect is
not appropriately taken into account. To extend the evaluation of
this phenomenon, Fig. 10 plots the profiles of the envelope story
shear forces measured during the elastic 共EL0.10兲 and an inelastic
共EL0.60兲 test, as well as the corresponding distributions of the
lateral forces, for all four test models. Note that the magnitude of
the forces is normalized so that the base shear is equal to the
design base shear in each model. The design lateral force distri-
butions and those predicted by linear and nonlinear dynamic
frame analyses are also shown in Fig. 10.
As can be observed, for frames BFR and DCF at the elastic
stage, both the equivalent static and dynamic lateral force distri-
butions reasonably resemble the measured distributions. For the
inelastic response, however, the measured lateral force distribu-
tion exhibits a substantial amplification at the top level and the
magnitude appears to be predictable only with a nonlinear dy-
namic analysis. An equivalent static analysis could resemble the
measured response if a concentric lateral force, in this case equal
to 20% of the total base shear, is added to the top level while the
rest is distributed over height. It is interesting to note that for
models PIF and SWF where no significantly weaker stories were
present, no apparent top amplification is observed and the equiva-
lent lateral force distribution appears to result in an adequate
story-shear envelope.
The general interpretation of this observation may be as fol-
lows: 共1兲 For frames with significant vertical irregularity, for ex-
ample with a regularity index 共described in the next section兲 less
than 0.70 as in the case of DCF, a reliable prediction of the in-
elastic response would necessitate a nonlinear dynamic analysis.
As an approximation, an equivalent static analysis may be accept-
 Fig. 11. Story-shear overstrength profile of frame discontinuous col-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
umn frame 关dashed lines: modified design corresponding to Fig.
12共b兲兴
able provided the top amplification effect is appropriately taken
into account. 共2兲 The fact that the distribution of the elastic story
shear demands shows much less effect of the discontinuity of the
initial story stiffness indicates that essentially it was the story
strength 共and thereby the postyield secant stiffness兲 distribution
that governed the development of the general inelastic behavior in
the frames. Further discussion follows.
Evaluation of Discontinuous-Column Irregularity and
Soft Story Mechanism
The removal of a first-story column created a significant draw-
back in the topology of frame DCF. A general countermeasure in
dealing with all vertical irregularities, as explicitly prescribed in
EC8 共1988兲 is a reduction of the design q-factor 共thus an increase
in the design base shear兲. The reduction coefficient is taken as a
function of the regularity index, ␣ r , which is defined as the ratio
of the minimum story-shear overstrength factor to the average,
共 i OS 兲 min
␣ r⫽ (2)
共 i OS 兲 ave
and the story shear overstrength factor, i OS , is calculated as
VR
i OS ⫽ (3)
VS
where V S ⫽design story shear force and V R ⫽available story shear
strength taking into account all vertical members in the story.
For bare RC frames, V R is computed by equilibrium assuming
all columns yield concurrently at both ends. Fig. 11 depicts the
story shear overstrength (i OS ) profile for frame DCF 共solid lines兲.
From this profile, the ␣ r index is calculated to be 0.67 with the
first story being the weakest. The frame is thus considered to be
irregular but within an acceptable range 共␣ r is not allowed to be
smaller than 0.55 while ␣ r ⭓0.85 is classified as regular兲.
Comparing the general response between DCF and BFR
shown in Figs. 8 and 9, it may be fair to say that the two frames
exhibited practically the same performance up to a moderate in-
elastic response 共EL0.60兲. However, frame DCF abruptly became
unstable following the formation of the first-story mechanism.
Table 2. Design Modifications on Frame Discontinuous Column Frame 共Modified Values in Parentheses兲
Column section
Story 共full scale, mm兲 Exterior 共left-hand side兲
1, lower 600⫻600 (650⫻650) 4 共4兲
1, upper 600⫻600 (650⫻650) 2 共3兲
5 350⫻350 (450⫻450) 2 共2兲
J. Struct. Eng., 2002, 128(2): 169-178
Fig. 12. Comparison of responses between original DCF and its
modified design
The subsequent increase of the first-story drift was so substantial
that it would render any enhancement of the local ductility mean-
ingless.
The improvement of the inelastic behavior of the DCF system
appears to require an effective strengthening of the first-story col-
umns. To explore this, a nonlinear dynamic response analysis was
carried out using the program DRAIN-2D with a modified Takeda
restoring force model 共Kanaan and Powell 1973; Lu 1996兲. The
response during EL0.60 was selected to represent a significantly
nonlinear and yet stable situation which is deemed adequate for
an inelastic evaluation. In order to apply the Takeda model for
columns, each column member was approximated to undergo a
constant axial force during the response such that an envelope
moment–rotation relationship could be prescribed. Other assump-
tions included a section stiffness to be 40% of the uncracked
gross-section stiffness for all beams and columns, and a viscous
damping coefficient of 3%. Fig. 12共a兲 shows a good agreement
between the computed and measured interstory drifts for the test
frame DCF. The above calibrated modeling scheme was then ap-
plied to compute the response of a modified design, in which the
first-story column section was increased from 110⫻110 to 120
⫻120 mm 共600⫻600 to 650⫻650 mm at full scale兲 together with
an increase of the longitudinal reinforcement as shown in Table 2.
This modification leads to an increase in the story-shear strength
by approximately 30%, resulting in a smoothed overstrength pro-
file as shown in Fig. 11 共dashed lines兲. The weak fifth-story col-
umns are also modified to have the same dimension and rein-
forcement as the fourth story.
Column reinforcement 共No. of bars per face兲
Interior Exterior 共right-hand side兲
3 共3兲 3 共3兲
2 共3兲 2 共3兲
2 共2兲 2 共2兲
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2002 / 175
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Comparison of strength and stiffness characteristics of noninfilled 共BFR兲 and infilled 共PIF兲 second stories
Considerable improvement of the nonlinear behavior is
achieved with the modified design, as clearly indicated in the
computed interstory drift profile and the plastic hinge pattern
shown in Fig. 12共b兲. The concentration of inelastic deformation at
the first and fifth stories is effectively eliminated. This result il-
lustrates that, whereas the disadvantage in topology is sometimes
unavoidable, a generally satisfactory inelastic behavior may be
achieved if the geometric weakness is compensated such that a
smooth distribution of the actual story-shear overstrength pre-
vails.
Effects of Infill Walls and Design of Nonuniformly
Infilled Frames
Significant effects of the infill walls on the frame behavior have
been demonstrated by the general displacement response of frame
PIF 共Figs. 8 and 9兲. To give a more quantitative estimation of the
extent to which the infill walls contribute in the story strength and
stiffness, Fig. 13 compares the story shear versus interstory drift
relationships between the infilled second story in PIF and the bare
second story in BFR. Note that the total flexural reinforcement in
the second-story columns of PIF was 1.7 times as much as that in
model BFR 共cross section is the same兲, and this is estimated to
contribute about 60% increase of the story strength and, to a
lesser extent, the stiffness.
As can be seen from Fig. 13, the second story of PIF exhibited
an actual increase of more than 120% in both strength and stiff-
ness as compared to BFR, about 60% of which can therefore be
attributed to the infill walls. As a result, the interstory drift was
reduced by approximately 50%. The infilled story maintained a
stable hysteretic behavior at maximum interstory drift of 2.3%.
Marked strength degradation occurred when the maximum drift
approached 3%, at which level severe separation of mortar joints
was observed. Hence, the interstory drift of 3% may be regarded
as an overall stability limit for the infilled stories.
With such significant effects of the infill walls, of particular
interest is the fact that the open first story of PIF was effectively
prevented to develop into a soft story. The design preventive mea-
sures seemed to be effective, and a scrutiny of the proportioning
procedure is helpful for an adequate treatment of this widely used
frame configuration.
The essential point in the design of frame PIF was the mini-
mum requirement for the vertical regularity index, ␣ r ⫽0.55, and
for the infilled stories, the story-shear overstrength factor 关Eq. 共3兲兴
was calculated taking into account the contribution of the infill
walls, such that
176 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2002
J. Struct. Eng., 2002, 128(2): 169-178
1 1
V R ⫽⌺V RC⫹ 兺 V RW⫽ ␥ C 兺 A C ␶ RC⫹ ␥ W 兺 A W f v k (4)
where V RC and V RW⫽contribution of shear resistance from the
columns and the infill walls, respectively; A C denotes the hori-
zontal cross sectional area of columns and A W that of infill walls;
␶ RC⫽shear strength of concrete; f v k ⫽characteristic tensile
strength of the masonry wall; while ␥ C and ␥ W ⫽partial factors.
The V R for the open first story is calculated as described in the
previous section.
The design of frame PIF revealed that, following the afore-
mentioned procedure, it was essentially the requirement for ␣ r
⭓0.55, rather than the design seismic load, that governed the
proportioning of the frame members in the open first story. The
fact is that Eq. 共4兲 treats the infilled story like a composite shear
panel and hence tends to overestimate considerably the story-
shear strength 共a rough comparison of the computed story-shear
strength using actual material properties and the measured value
for the second story of PIF indicates an overestimation of ap-
proximately 100%兲. This leads to a substantial strengthening of
the first-story columns than what is implied by satisfying the
minimum ␣ r requirement, and subsequently resulted in a much
more desirable overstrength profile in PIF that enabled a distrib-
uted inelastic deformation. As can be observed from Fig. 14, the
real story-shear overstrength profile, obtained by considering the
measured story shear strengths, does exhibit a satisfactory
smoothness comparing to the design-anticipated scenario. Note
that the design overstrength profile shown here is evaluated using
the design material properties to reflect what could be perceived
at the design stage.
This evaluation demonstrates again the significance of the
story-shear overstrength distribution. Bearing this in mind, further
refinement of the design procedure for PIF frames can be straight-
Fig. 14. Story-shear overstrength profile of frame PIF
 forward provided a sound estimation of the story-shear strength
involving masonry walls is available. The revised version of EC8
共1994兲 adopts increased design action effects at a partially or
noninfilled story according to the relative reduction of the story
resistance due to the removal of the masonry walls. This method
also aims at a smoothed overstrength distribution, and hence, the
effectiveness relies on the calculation of the masonry wall resis-
tance as well.
Critical Top and Interstory Drifts
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The horizontal displacement is commonly used as a criterion to
quantify the structural performance and identify the ultimate state
for collapse. The design critical drifts given by different codes
typically fall within 1.5 and 2.5% 共EC8 1994; Uniform Building
Code 1997兲. Some previous observations based on simple mem-
ber tests recommended a drift limit as high as 6% for actual
failure 共Roufaiel and Meyer 1983兲. The current test results sug-
gest that it is reasonable to expect a stable frame behavior if the
displacement response falls within both 共1兲 top drift limit of
2.5%, and 共2兲 interstory drift limit of 3%. Pertinent evidences are
described in what follows.
1. At a drift slightly lower than the limits just proposed, the
regular frame BFR maintained a stable hysteretic response
共Fig. 7, EL0.90兲. However, spalling of cover concrete oc-
curred at several beam and column ends, while diagonal
cracking appeared on some beam–column joints. In conjunc-
tion with the observation of a fully developed cracking pat-
tern showing spread plastic hinge locations 共Fig. 4兲, it may
be deduced that the frame was approaching the mechanism
formation leading to instability.
2. In the case of the irregular DCF frame, the response was
observed to remain perfectly stable during test EL0.60 for
which the maximum drifts were about 20% lower than the
proposed limits. The frame apparently became unstable at
the maximum response during the subsequent test, with a
sharp increase of the first-story drift as well as the top dis-
placement. Although it is physically reasonable to lower
somehow the 2.5% top drift limit for such irregular frames
with localized damage, it does not appear to be practically
necessary since in these situations, the 3% interstory drift
limit is expected to govern.
3. The maximum top and interstory drifts of the wall-frame
SWF were 1.9 and 2.3%, respectively, during test EL0.90
and the hysteretic response was satisfactory 共Figs. 7 and 9兲,
however concentrated damage occurred at the wall base.
Marked strength degradation occurred during test EL1.20
关Fig. 5共c兲兴 while critical local damage occurred near the wall
base and at the beam-wall adjoining regions. Since the maxi-
mum top and interstory drifts increased to 3 and 4%, respec-
tively at this stage, by interpolation the proposed drift limits
can be obtained.
4. The proposed drift limits appear to apply also to the case of
the infilled frame PIF as discussed in the previous section.
Conclusions and Recommendations
1. A general base-shear overstrength factor on the order of 3
was observed for the various multistory frames under the
rather deterministic construction and testing conditions. As a
result, the test structures remained virtually elastic with
minor cracking under the simulated earthquake of design
intensity with PGA equal to 0.3 g. The design anticipated
JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2002 / 177
J. Struct. Eng., 2002, 128(2): 169-178
inelastic deformation and ductility demand were attained at
increased earthquake intensity approximately proportional to
the base shear overstrength, i.e., PGA⫽0.9 g. The hysteretic
response remained essentially stable at this stage, while the
overall ductility demand ranged between 3 to 4. Thus, the
design provisions adopted for medium ductility class framed
structures proved to be generally adequate.
2. For the story-shear controlled frames including the infilled
frames, the distribution of the story-shear overstrength factor
is observed to be a quite stable indicator of the distribution
of inelastic deformation irrespective of the frame configura-
tion, and hence, can be employed to quantify the frame regu-
larity. In this respect, a rational distribution of the seismic
lateral load is of particular importance for the design analy-
sis. In lieu of a nonlinear dynamic analysis for frames with
significant vertical irregularity, which may be defined as hav-
ing a regularity index less than 0.70, an equivalent static
analysis may be acceptable provided a concentric lateral
force, tentatively taken to be 20% of the total base shear, is
added on the top level. For frames having a relatively uni-
form overstrength along their height, a conventional equiva-
lent static load distribution 共inverted triangle type兲 is deemed
to be adequate.
3. Merely increasing the design base shear force does not actu-
ally remove the adverse irregularity effects due to drawbacks
in topology such as in frame DCF, consequently a soft-story
mechanism could develop leading to abrupt loss of structural
stability. Nonlinear analysis indicates that such vertically ir-
regular frames could also behave in a regular manner if the
geometrically weak-story columns are proportioned such
that a story-shear overstrength factor similar to the adjacent
stories is achieved.
4. Significant effects of the masonry-infill walls were observed.
In the infilled stories, an increase of the story-shear strength
and stiffness by 60% was attributable to the masonry walls
up to an interstory drift of 3%. The prevention of a soft-story
mechanism to occur in the open first story of the PIF frames
requires a smoothed overstrength distribution taking into ac-
count the infill walls in the adjacent stories, and for this
purpose, more accurate estimation of the resistance of the
infilled stories under cyclic loading is necessary.
5. Comparing to the regular frame, the wall-frame system ex-
hibited a good drift control 共reduction by 40%兲 up to a mod-
erately inelastic stage with a displacement ductility demand
on the order of 2. Severe concentration of inelastic deforma-
tion occurred at the wall base during advanced inelastic re-
sponse, subsequently, the rocking of the wall intensified, re-
sulting in the system performance to deteriorate more rapidly
than the regular frame. Further improvement of the inelastic
behavior of the wall-frame systems requires effective coun-
termeasures against the wall rocking.
6. Based on the hysteretic response and damage observations, it
is recommended that as a general guideline a top drift of
2.5% and interstory drift of 3% may be considered critical
concerning the inelastic stability of multistory framed struc-
tures.
Acknowledgments
The experimental work was conducted at the National Technical
University of Athens, under the guidance of Professor T. P. Tas-
sios. Dr. G.-F. Zhang participated in the shaking table tests. As-
sistance received from Professor P. Carysis, Professor E. Vintzi-
leou, Dr. H. Mouzakis, and Dr. C. Zeris during the experiment is
greatly acknowledged.
 References
Charney, F. A., and Bertero, V. V. 共1982兲. ‘‘An evaluation of the design
and analytical seismic response of a seven-story reinforcement con-
crete frame-wall structure.’’ Rep. No. UCB/EERC-82/08, Univ. of
California, Berkeley, Calif.
Eurocode 8 共EC8兲. 关1988 共draft兲兴; 共1994兲. ‘‘Design provisions for earth-
quake resistance of structures.’’ CEN 共European Commission for
Standardization兲/TC250/SC8, Brussels, Belgium.
Kanaan, A. E., and Powell, G. H. 共1973兲. ‘‘DRAIN-2D: A general-
purpose computer program for dynamic analysis of inelastic plane
structures.’’ Rep. No. UCB/EERC-73/6, Earthquake Engineering Re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MANIPAL INST OF TECHNOLOGY on 08/24/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
search Center, Univ. of California, Berkeley, Calif.
Lu, Y. 共1996兲. ‘‘Study of seismic behavior of reinforced concrete frames
having vertical irregularities.’’ Doctoral dissertation, National Techni-
cal Univ. of Athens, Athens.
Lu, Y., Tassios, T. P., Zhang, G.-F., and Vintzileou, E. 共1999兲. ‘‘Seismic
response of reinforced concrete frames with strength and stiffness
irregularities.’’ ACI Struct. J., 96共2兲, 221–239.
Moehle, J. P., and Sozen, M. A. 共1980兲. ‘‘Experiments to study earth-
quake response of R/C structures with stiffness interruption.’’ Civil
Eng. Studies, Structural Res. Series No. 4.82, Univ. of Illinois, Ur-
bana, Ill.
178 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING / FEBRUARY 2002
J. Struct. Eng., 2002, 128(2): 169-178
Negro, P., and Verzeletti, G. 共1996兲. ‘‘Effect of infills on the global be-
havior of R/C frames: energy consideration from pseudodynamic
tests.’’ Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25共8兲, 753–773.
Priestley, M. J. N. 共2000兲. ‘‘Performance based seismic design.’’ Proc.,
12th World Conf. on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New
Zealand, Paper ID: 2831.
Roufaiel, M. S. L., and Meyer, C. 共1983兲. ‘‘Analysis of damaged concrete
frame buildings.’’ Rep. NSF-CEE81-21359-1, Dept. of Civil Engi-
neering and Engineering Mechanics, Columbia Univ., New York.
Schultz, A. E. 共1990兲. ‘‘Experiments on seismic performance of RC
frames with hinging columns.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 116共1兲, 125–145.
Shahrooz, B. M., and Moehle, J. P. 共1990兲. ‘‘Evaluation of seismic per-
formance of reinforced concrete frames.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 116共5兲,
1402–1422.
Tassios, T. P. 共1992兲. ‘‘Modeling of structures subjected to seismic load-
ing.’’ in Small Scale Modelling of Concrete Structures, F. A. Noor and
L. F. Boswell, eds., Elsevier, New York.
International Conference of Building Officials 共ICBO兲. 共1997兲. Structural
engineering design provisions.’’ Uniform building code, Vol. 2, Whit-
tier, Calif.
Wood, S. L. 共1992兲. ‘‘Seismic response of R/C frames with irregular
profiles.’’ J. Struct. Eng., 118共2兲, 545–566.