Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Peak seismic demands on soft and weak stories models designed for required T
code nominal strength
Arturo Tena-Colunga1,∗, Daniel Alberto Hernández-Garcíab
1
Departamento de Materiales, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Azcapotzalco, Edificio 4P, Av. San Pablo 180, 02200, México, DF, Mexico
b
Posgrado en Ingeniería Estructural, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana Azcapotzalco, Av. San Pablo #180, 02200, DF, Mexico

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The performance of buildings with soft or weak stories in past and recent strong earthquakes has been un-
Soft story acceptable. Nevertheless, this structural vertical irregularity is still frequently used in new or modern buildings
Weak story in seismic regions because it is an architectural solution in urban areas for parking and retail purposes. Modern
Stiffness and strength balances seismic codes have some special provisions for the design of such structures, but some of them have not been
Ductility demands
formally evaluated. Therefore, in this paper a parametric study where two-degree of freedom (2DOF) simplified
Story drifts
Drift concentration factor
models are used to represent structures likely to develop soft or weak stories is presented. Different stiffness and
Nonlinear dynamic analyses strength balances were considered to define an ample range of structures with the potential to develop soft
Soft soil acceleration records stories. 338 models were studied for all the considered stiffness and strength combinations which represent
typical building structures with soft or weak stories currently built in the lakebed zone of Mexico City. Step by
step nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted using 10 artificial acceleration records generated to be com-
patible with the design spectrum for zone III-a of 2004 Mexico's Federal District Code, corresponding to soft soil
conditions in Mexico City. Peak ductility demands, story drifts, drift concentration factors and residual drifts
were obtained. The results obtained from this parametric study mostly confirm that a soft story mechanism may
be triggered or prevented with a right combination of strength and stiffness balances for the structural system,
which are close to what it is currently proposed in Mexican seismic building codes.

1. Introduction
Since many decades ago, it is common in most cities worldwide to
have a large inventory of apartment, hotel and office buildings struc-
tured with moment frames and infill walls where the infill walls are
interrupted at the first story to satisfy parking requirements or for
having retail stores (Fig. 1a). Such interruption causes lateral stiffness
and shear strength discontinuities between the first and the second
floor, where the first floor has a much smaller lateral stiffness and
strength with respect to the second floor. In other instances, some hotel
and office buildings have what it is known as “double height” at the
second or intermediate stories (Fig. 1b), creating also a lateral stiffness
and strength vertical irregularity. These buildings are then classified as
having a soft and/or weak story vertical irregularity condition.
It is known as soft story a lateral stiffness discontinuity between
adjacent stories where one story is much stiffer than the neighboring
one. It is known as weak story a lateral strength discontinuity between
adjacent stories where one story has much larger lateral shear strength
than its neighboring story.
Soft and weak stories are very dangerous vertical irregularity con-
ditions in earthquakes: many buildings with these characteristics have
collapsed or been severely damaged during past major earthquakes
worldwide, primarily related to the increased local demands for de-
formation of resisting columns which are unable to sustain (Fig. 2), as it
has been extensively documented in several pictures currently easily
available in internet [1] and in the literature for strong earthquakes
since the 1960s to date [2–15]. For example, during the September 19,
1985 earthquake, it was reported that about 8% of the total building
collapses in Mexico City were related to a soft story irregularity con-
dition, 42% were related to corner buildings with simultaneous soft
stories and torsion, 15% to pronounced stiffness asymmetries and 40%
to intermediate and upper story failures [16]. For the 1995 Kobe
earthquake, it was observed that severe damage and buildings collapses
in reinforced concrete buildings were much more frequent in buildings
with soft stories [17]. In fact, from the inventory of reinforced concrete
buildings with soft stories that were surveyed [17], 12.2% of buildings
built before the 1971 collapsed or suffered severe damage, 11.7% built
between 1971 and 1981 and 2.4% built after 1981 (although 4.6%

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: atc@correo.azc.uam.mx (A. Tena-Colunga), ing.dalhergarcia@gmail.com (D.A. Hernández-García).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.05.037
Received 20 August 2018; Received in revised form 21 May 2019; Accepted 23 May 2019
Available online 30 May 2019
0267-7261/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698

Fig. 1. Examples of buildings with a double height at the: a) first story and, b) intermediate stories (courtesy of AHA Universo).

Fig. 2. Collapse of buildings with soft and weak stories in Mexico City during strong earthquakes.

Fig. 3. Modern apartment buildings in the lakebed zone of Mexico City, designed according to the 2004 code [21] and with a soft and weak first story potential.
These buildings survived the September 19, 2007 earthquake undamaged (picture “b” taken on September 24, 2017).

suffered moderate damage). Nevertheless, this structural vertical irre-
gularity is still frequently used in new buildings in seismic regions be-
cause it is primarily an architectural solution for parking and retail
purposes [13] (Fig. 3).
Although modern seismic codes worldwide [18–25] have some
special provisions for the design of such structures since the late 1980s
[18,19], many of them have not been formally evaluated with ad-hoc
specific case studies, with few exceptions [26–30]. For this reason,
many structural engineers worldwide (Mexicans in particular) are still
skeptical and reluctant about how appropriate these provisions are to
reduce the risk for collapse of buildings with lateral stiffness and
strength discontinuities susceptible to develop soft and/or weak stories.
For these reasons, a state-of-the art review of available research was
needed first to discern how deeply two of the main factors of interest
related to the development of soft and weak stories included in most
seismic building code recommendations worldwide have been studied:
a) contrast in lateral stiffness between adjacent stories (ki+1/ki) and, b)
contrast in lateral shear strength between adjacent stories (Vi+1/Vi).
These reviews are commented in the following section.
The main objective of the described research is to assess how useful
the general recommendations available in Mexican seismic codes since
1987 are to lessen or even prevent the damaging effects of soft and
weak stories. These general recommendations are: a) established limits
for structural regularity for lateral stiffness between adjacent stories
(ki+1/ki), b) established limits for structural regularity for lateral shear
strength between adjacent stories (Vi+1/Vi) and, c) the use of a mod-
ification factor α for the reductive seismic force factor Q′ of Mexican
codes α = 0.8 for irregular buildings and α = 0.7 for strongly irregular
buildings, as described in more detail in following sections. In parti-
cular, in this study the soft soils of Hipódromo Condesa and Roma Norte

2
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
Table 1
Studied stiffness ratios between adjacent stories.
Districts in Mexico City are evaluated first, because severe damage and
collapses have been historically observed within these districts of the
city. For these reasons, taking into account the reviewed information,
and as first step of the ongoing research, a parametric study was de-
signed using two-degree of freedom (2dof) simplified models to re-
present structures likely to develop soft or weak stories within the soft
soil conditions of the lakebed zone of Mexico City. Therefore, different
stiffness and strength balances were considered to define a wide range
of structures (338 different models) with the potential to develop soft or
weak story mechanisms according to recommendations of Mexican
seismic building codes, as described in more detail in following sec-
tions. Step by step nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted using 10
artificial acceleration records generated to be compatible with the de-
sign spectrum for zone III-a of 2004 Mexico's Federal District Code,
corresponding, among other sites, to Hipódromo Condesa and Roma
Norte Districts in Mexico City, as described in detail in following sec-
tions.
2. Literature review
A comprehensive literature review was done of publications related
to the soft and weak story irregularity condition published since 1980,
shortly before the first recommendations for irregular buildings would
be available in Mexico's Federal District Code [18,20] and the UBC code
[19,20]. A total of 158 publications were found and reviewed, and from
this inventory, results from analyses of typical soft-stories were found in
88 publications. Since additional 11 studies were excluded because they
only presented results from elastic analyses, 77 publications were found
most relevant for this review. However, for space constraints, only
those directly relevant to the objectives of this paper would be explicitly
cited.
There were 21 publications with primarily results of experimental
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
testing i.e. [8,27,31–36], although seven of these experimental pub-
lications also present results of companion analytical nonlinear analyses
i.e., [8,27,31–33]. Experimental studies have been diverse, using lab
tests such as pseudo-static cyclic tests i.e. [8], pseudo-dynamic cyclic
tests, shaking table tests i.e. [27,31–35], roof shaker tests [36], as well
as in-situ tests, such as a pushover field test. Surprisingly as it may seem,
only one testing assessed the stiffness and strength ratios ki+1/ki and
Vi+1/Vi between adjacent stories [34,35], resulting to be ki+1/ki = 2.33
and Vi+1/Vi = 2.50. Nevertheless, from the available test data reported
from a very interesting shaking table tests of four 9-story scale frame
models [31], one can assess the following ratios of these four models
from the peak measured responses for the elastic runs: a) ki+1/
ki = 0.36, 0.71, 1.84 and 2.25, and b) Vi+1/Vi = 0.49, 0.75, 0.87 and
0.92.
There were also 60 analytical publications with the results of non-
linear analyses, where 47 presented results of nonlinear time-history
analyses i.e. [8,14,26–31,33,37–48], or incremental dynamic analyses
i.e., [49]. Most analytical studies have considered firm soils i.e.
[3,8,14,28,29,31–33,39–48], then soft soils i.e. [26,30,37,38], and
fewer of them medium soils i.e., [3,27]. Most analytical studies have
considered that the soft or weak story is formed at the first story
[3,8,14,15,26,28–33,37–43], except three that have considered to be
formed at an intermediate or top story only i.e., [27,47]. Some studies
have considered the possibility that the soft story can be formed either
at the first or at intermediate stories i.e, [28,31–33,37,40,42,45]. Few
studies have explicitly acknowledged that P-Δ effects were considered
in the performed analyses i.e., [14,26–30,38,39,47,49].
The stiffness ratio ki+1/ki and/or the strength ratio Vi+1/Vi between
adjacent stories, which are the parameters of most interest in this study,
were defined or assessed in 25 analytical studies
[3,14,26,28–30,37–53] and in two experimental-analytical studies
[31–35]. In order to facilitate interpretations, the range of stiffness and
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
Table 2
Studied strength ratios between adjacent stories.
strength ratios between adjacent stories (ki+1/ki and Vi+1/Vi) that have
been previously studied analytically and experimentally are identified
in Tables 1 and 2 respectively. It is worth noting that the reported
stiffness ratios ki+1/ki in Table 1 were obtained from those stated by the
authors or computed from their reported data. Few authors used shear-
spring models [39,41,46]. Most authors used flexural models (frames)
but, taking aside few of them [26,30,34,35,42,50,53], some did not
report the method they used to assess the lateral stiffness
[3,29,37,38,40,44,47], or used indirect methods based on story height
proportions [14,28], code equations [43], simplified equation to assess
the lateral stiffness for the frames and walls [52], or just scaling
structural properties between adjacent stories [48,49], methods the
equivalencies of which have not been fully validated with respect to
formal methods of structural analysis. It has been shown that the
method to assess the lateral stiffness is very important and, for the same
frame model, the stiffness ratios ki+1/ki are very different depending if
a flexural or a shear modeling is used [26,30,54].
It can be observed from Table 1 that although the pioneering studies
where the stiffness ratio ki+1/ki between adjacent stories were formally
evaluated considered records typical of soft soils [37,38], most of the
available studies considered records typical of firm soils
[3,14,28,29,39–49], including experimental shaking table tests
[31–35]. The stiffness ratio ki+1/ki covered by studies that considered
records typical of firm soils have been somewhat comprehensive for the
range 0.1 ≤ ki+1/ki ≤ 4.0, particularly for the range 1.0 ≤ ki+1/
ki ≤ 2.0 that has been considered for most available studies. In contrast,
from the few studies available in soft soils, it can be observed a more
sparse stiffness ratio ki+1/ki, where most of the available studies cover
the range 0.9 ≤ ki+1/ki ≤ 2.5.
It can be observed by comparing Tables 1 and 2 that there are fewer
studies where the strength ratio Vi+1/Vi between adjacent stories have
been formally assessed. Again, it can be observed in Table 2 that there
are more studies available for firm soils
[28,29,31–35,39–42,44,46,48,49] than for soft soils [26,30,37,38]. The
strength ratio Vi+1/Vi covered by studies for firm soils is within the
range 0.3 ≤ Vi+1/Vi ≤ 3.0, particularly the range 1.0 ≤ Vi+1/Vi ≤ 2.0.
For soft soils, most of the available studies cover the range 0.7 ≤ Vi+1/
Vi ≤ 3.0, particularly the range 1.0 ≤ Vi+1/Vi ≤ 2.0.
4
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
Therefore, it can be concluded from this literature review that al-
though comprehensive research has been conducted to study the soft
and weak story vertical irregularity conditions, few of them have been
oriented to assess the impact of the stiffness and strength ratios between
adjacent stories (ki+1/ki and Vi+1/Vi). These parameters are the ones
directly identified in most modern building codes worldwide [21–25] to
assess the vertical irregularity condition that define soft and weak
stories. Fewer studies are available for soft soils, and the stiffness and
strength ratios that have been covered are sparse. In addition, few
studies have really been oriented to assess some of the recommenda-
tions available in building codes to define and/or prevent a strong soft
or weak story [26–30]. Therefore, a comprehensive parametric study
using simplified but representative two degree of freedom models was
started to assess the recommendations of Mexico's Federal District Code
[21] regarding the design of buildings with a soft and/or weak story
irregularity condition for a suite of records representative of soft soils,
as described in following sections.
3. Seismic design of soft and/or weak stories according to Mexican
codes
In Mexican seismic codes, conditions of structural regularity are
defined in order that structures could be designed as regular buildings
[18,20–22,25]. If one or more of these conditions are not fulfilled, then
the building is classified as irregular.
In the 1987 version for the seismic provisions of Mexico's Federal
District Code (NTCS-87), the condition of structural regularity intended
to prevent soft stories was the following [18,20]:
• “The lateral shear stiffness of any story shall not exceed more than
100% the shear stiffness of the adjacent story below the one in
consideration”.
Therefore, in terms of the previously defined stiffness ratios, the
following relationship must be fulfilled to prevent a soft story: ki+1/
ki ≤ 2.0. Otherwise, it was specified in NTCS-87 [18,20] that the re-
ductive seismic force factor Q´ (the meaning of which will be explained
in following paragraphs) has to be reduced by 20% for the design of
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
irregular buildings (Q'irregular = 0.8Q´regular = αQ´regular). This re-
commendation remained unchanged for the 1995 version of the seismic
provisions [20].
For the 2004 version of the code (NTCS-04), the conditions of
structural regularity were reviewed and updated, and the design cri-
terion for irregular buildings updated [21,30]. Then, the condition of
structural regularity intended to prevent soft and/or weak stories was
the following:
• “Neither the lateral shear stiffness nor the lateral shear strength of
any story shall exceed by more than 50% the shear stiffness or shear
strength of the adjacent story below the one in consideration. The
top story is exempt from this requirement.”
Therefore, in terms of the previously defined stiffness and strength
ratios, the following relationships must be fulfilled: a) to prevent a soft
story: ki+1/ki ≤ 1.5, b) to prevent a weak story: Vi+1/Vi ≤ 1.5.
If the above condition is not met, the building is classified as irre-
gular and Q'irregular = 0.9Q´regular = αQ´regular must be used for the de-
sign. If two or more regularity conditions are not satisfied, then
Q'irregular = 0.8Q´regular = αQ´regular.
It is also established in NTCS-04 that if the lateral shear stiffness or
shear strength of any story exceed more than 100% the shear stiffness
or strength of the adjacent story below the one in consideration, this is,
ki+1/ki > 2.0 or Vi+1/Vi > 2.0, the building must be classified as
strongly irregular and use Q'irregular = 0.7Q´regular = αQ´regular for the
seismic design.
The conceptual adjustment for the design of irregular buildings in
Mexican seismic codes, NTCS-04 included, is illustrated with the help of
Fig. 4. For design purposes, for the collapse prevention limit state, the
elastic design spectrum could be reduced to spectral ordinates a´ as
(Fig. 4a):
a′ = a (β )/ Q′Rρ. (1)
where β is the damping coefficient that allows modifying spectral or-
dinates for damping ratios different from 5% to account primarily for
soil-structure interaction effects and/or supplemental damping (β = 1
for a 5% damping ratio), Q′ is a seismic reduction force factor that
accounts primarily for ductility (deformation) capacity (in terms of the
Q factor), R is an overstrength factor that depends on the structural
system and the structural period, and ρ is the redundancy factor. In
NTCS-04, redundancy was implicitly considered in both Q′ and R, so for
this provisions ρ = 1.0 and then, the reduced spectral ordinates a´ are
assessed as:
a′ = a (β )/ Q′R. (2)
The parameters involved in reductions for global inelastic behavior
Q, Q′, R, and ρ are schematically depicted in Fig. 4b, where the global
elastic-perfectly plastic behavior for each structural system considered
Fig. 4. Schematic representation of the reduction of design forces for regular and irregular buildings in Mexican seismic codes after year 2000.
5
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
in Mexican codes is illustrated. In the design of regular buildings, the
deformation capacity (ductility) is defined in Mexican codes in terms of
the structural system using the Q factor, known as the seismic response
modification factor. The seismic reduction force factor Q′ is basically
the R factor of US Codes [19,20,23] and, as schematically shown in
Fig. 4b, it is the dynamic reduction of elastic forces that an elastic-
perfectly plastic system could develop if the structural system achieves
a given ductility deformation capacity (in terms of the seismic response
modification factor Q).
Then, as it is schematically depicted in Fig. 4b, the difference in the
seismic design of irregular buildings with respect to regular buildings is
that Q′ is reduced by the α factor, so at the end irregular buildings are
designed for higher forces with respect to regular buildings (Fig. 4b). In
addition, since it is assumed that the irregular building and the regular
building have the same ductility capacity (in terms of Q), equivalent
“inelastic displacements” obtained indirectly from elastic analyses
(multiplied by QR in NTCS-04, as ρ = 1) are larger in irregular build-
ings than in regular buildings. As a consequence, it would be more
difficult to satisfy code drift limits in the design of an irregular building
than in a regular building in Mexican codes. Therefore, it is clear that
the design of irregular buildings in Mexican codes, although simple, is
more conservative than for regular buildings. Usually, the application
of the outlined procedure for irregular buildings leads to stronger and/
or stiffer buildings, including buildings with soft and weak stories
[26,30].
4. Definition of equivalent 2DOF systems
In order to evaluate the adequacy of the limits for the stiffness and
strength ratios between adjacent stories proposed in NTCS-04 [21] to
prevent the vertical irregularity condition for soft and/or weak story, a
parametric study was designed using simplified two-degree of freedom
systems considering an elastic perfectly-plastic behavior for a wide
range of story stiffness and strength ratios between adjacent stories, as
described in following sections.
4.1. Building models under consideration
As described earlier, most building collapses experienced in Mexico
City during the September 19, 1985 Michoacán Earthquake (Ms = 8.1)
were directly related to irregular buildings with soft and weak stories
[16], mostly reinforced concrete (RC) buildings with brick infills where
soft story columns were unable to sustain the increased local de-
formation demands (Fig. 2a). A similar problem was recently observed
during the September 19, 2017 Morelos-Puebla Earthquake (Ms = 7.1)
with the old inventory of existing buildings with soft and weak stories
(Fig. 2b). Historically, the most affected region in Mexico City usually is
an ample area known as the lakebed zone [55], with very soft soils. In
particular, during the 1985 earthquake, the severe damage and
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
collapses concentrated in downtown area, Roma Norte, Roma Sur, Hi-
pódromo Condesa and Condesa Districts because of both the intensity of
the ground shaking and dynamic coupling with many midrise RC
buildings [55], as acknowledged in the sizeable literature regarding this
strong earthquake. During the recent September 19, 2017 earthquake,
the damage was still significant in Mexico City within the lakebed zone
and in these districts, particularly for buildings designed with buildings
codes ruling before the 1985 earthquake, in particular the 1957
building code, despite the fact the ground shaking intensity in Roma
(Norte and Sur) and Hipódromo Condesa districts was not as strong as
in 1985. Many midrise buildings have been built in Mexico City since
mid 1990s using modern codes. Unfortunately, many of those new
apartment buildings have configurations prone to develop a soft or
weak first story. In fact, most apartment buildings built all over Mexico
City after 1986 have been solved using soft or weak first story config-
urations for parking purposes. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that
during the September 19, 2017 earthquake, most buildings with soft
and weak story potential built and designed in the lakebed zone of
Mexico City according the NTCS-04 [21] had a reasonable seismic be-
havior (Fig. 3) because the seismic demands were below the ones
considered in the design spectra for zones IIIa and IIIb [21], and for-
tunately, these potential soft and weak story buildings were not fully
demanded this time.
According to a building inventory survey recently conducted in
Roma and Condesa Districts for general seismic vulnerability assess-
ments, buildings with soft or weak story potential range from four to
eight stories in height, being more common six and eight-story RC
buildings [56]. The most commonly used structural system is inter-
mediate moment-resisting RC frames with brick infills (RC-IMRFs-BIs).
Therefore, six and eight-story buildings with such characteristics were
taken as benchmark models. Since the conducted parametric study
considered the comparison with regular buildings, 3D models of com-
pletely regular six and eight-story buildings with RC-IMRFs-BIs were
defined, as depicted in Fig. 5. The corresponding fundamental period of
vibration of the regular six and eight-story models were Treg = 0.328s
and Treg = 0.452s respectively.
4.2. Equivalent 2dof systems
Equivalent two degree of freedom (2dof) shear models were defined
to represent the 2D global response of benchmark regular buildings and
irregular buildings with soft and weak story potential only (Fig. 6).
4.2.1. Initial elastic properties
Global in-plane story stiffness balances k1 and k2 were proposed to
cover a reasonable range (0.25 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 3.0) that it can found in
multi-story buildings in design practice. In order to show that the
Fig. 5. Plan and 3D views of regular building models: a) 6-story building (Treg = 0.328s) and, b) 8-story building (Treg = 0.452s).
6
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
proposed range is plausible to represent to what some engineers would
understand as “realistic multi-story structures”, it is worth noting pre-
vious studies where stiffness ratios were obtained from experimental
tests [31–35] or the design of buildings that satisfy 100% all the re-
quirements of a given building code [26,30]. The 9-story reduced-scale
frame models studied primarily by Moehle [31–33] were within the
range 0.36≤ ki+1/ki ≤ 2.25 (Table 2), and such experimental models
considered both first soft stories and intermediate soft stories. In the 8-
story 3D reduced scale model tested by Ko and Lee [34,35], k3/
k2 = 2.33 was considered, this is, an intermediate soft story. The 12-
story 3D building models designed and studied by Tena-Colunga
[26,30] were within the range 1.66 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 2.46 (first soft stories).
Therefore, it is clear that these cited studies have considered the fol-
lowing range: 0.36≤ ki+1/ki ≤ 2.46, then, the proposed range
0.25 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 3.0 is reasonable ample to consider realistic multi-story
structures.
In order to introduce stiffness irregularities within the 2dof models
in a simple manner, but 100% related to their initial elastic dynamic
properties, it was necessary first to propose a suitable equation to assess
the fundamental period (T) of structures with a soft story in function of
the fundamental period for a regular structure (Treg) and the lateral
stiffness ratio between adjacent stories k2/k1. Miranda [3] proposed the
following equation:
T 1
=
Treg k1 0.015
−13.62 + 14.6 ( )
k2 (3)
However, in Miranda [3] it was not identified clearly the char-
acteristics of the models used to define Eq. (3) and only few data points
(eight) were shown. Then, it was decided to define an equation (Eq. (3))
using the results of numerical simulations of prototype structural
models considering 2dof systems, considering: a) the following nine
different balances of masses (m2/m1 = 0.8, 0.85, 0.90, 0.95, 1.0, 1.05,
1.10, 1.15 and 1.20), by assuming m1 = m and, b) different balances of
stiffnesses (k2/k1) within the range 0.25 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 4.5 at increments of
0.005, this is, 851 different k2/k1 balances per assumed m2/m1 ratio.
The generated data follows a normal distribution. Therefore, the var-
iation of the fundamental period (T) of structures with a soft story
configuration in function of their lateral stiffness ratio between adjacent
stories (k2/k1) and the fundamental period of a regular structure was
estimated in this manner. A total of 7659 simulations were done and
using a regression based upon least squares method, Eq. (4) was ob-
tained.
T 0.325 k2
= 0.632 + k ; 0.25 ≤ ≤ 3.0.
Treg 2 k1
k1 (4)
It is worth noting that although under the least square method data
does not need to follow a specific probability distribution, the method is
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698

Fig. 6. Equivalent 2DOF models used in the parametric study.

Fig. 8. Fundamental period for the six (6 N) and eight (8 N) story models under
Fig. 7. Comparison of proposed formulas to assess the fundamental period for study.
soft story structures with data obtained from 2DOF simulations.
π 2m
k1 = 10.472 ⎛ 2 ⎞.
⎜ ⎟

more efficient when follows a normal distribution because the estima- ⎝ T ⎠ (5)
tors of error terms are optimal (maximum likelihood).
Miranda's equation (Eq. (3)) and the proposed one (Eq. (4)) are Similarly, the resulting uniform mass for the given stiffness ratio n,
compared in Fig. 7 with the mean 2dof data obtained from numerical mn, is computed as (Eq. (6)):
simulations (m1 = m, m2 = m), as well as with the minimum (m1 = m,
m2 = 0.8 m) and maximum (m1 = m, m2 = 1.2 m) data curves obtained 1 T 2
mn = ⎛ ⎞ (k1 + 2k2 − (k1 + 2k2)2 − 4k1 k2 ).
from the 2DOF simulations. In order to improve visibility and ease 2 ⎝ 2π ⎠ (6)
comparisons, symbols were added in the k2/k1 ratios of interest for this
parametric study in the curves of most interest for the 2DOF data Finally, the equivalent height (heq) for the second story of the
(m1 = m2 = m), Miranda's equation and the proposed equation. It can equivalent 2dof systems was obtained using standard principles of
be observed from Fig. 7 that, a) the variation for the normalized data elastic structural dynamics, in order to warrant that the overturning
from 2DOF systems was minimal for the considered m2/m1 ratios and, moment at the base related to the fundamental mode would coincide
b) as expected, a better adjustment is obtained with the proposed Eq. both for the 2dof systems and the mdof systems. Then, it can be de-
(4), which it was the one used to define dynamic properties for the 2dof monstrated that this can be easily computed as:
simulations.
N
Therefore, the natural periods for the 2dof systems representing the 1 ⎛ γ1 − mdof ⎞ φ
soft story models were determined in function of the fundamental
heq ≈
mφ21 ⎜ γ1 − 2dof ⎟
∑ hj mj φj1 − h ⎛ φ11
⎜ + 1⎟⎞.
⎝ ⎠ j=1 ⎝ 21 ⎠ (7)
periods for the 6 N (Treg = 0.328s) and 8 N (Treg = 0.452s) regular
models and the stiffness ratio k2/k1 using Eq. (4), in a range 0.25 ≤ k2/ where h is the typical story height for the mdof system (and the first
k1 ≤ 3.0 at 0.25 increments considering also the ratio k2/k1 = 0.66. story height for the 2dof system), m is the assumed uniform mass at
Therefore, there are 13 different models in terms of the stiffness ratio each story for the 2dof system as explained above, ϕ11 and ϕ21 are the
k2/k1 for each story height, as depicted in Fig. 8. amplitudes for the first mode for the 2dof at the first and second story
Once the natural periods for the 2dof soft story models were esti- respectively, N is the number of considered stories for the mdof system,
mated with Eq. (4) and assuming for simplicity a uniform mass dis- mj is the mass at story j for the mdof system, hj is the height between the
tribution (m = m1 = m2), defining the stiffness ratio as n = k2/k1, and ground and story j for the mdof system, ϕj1 is the amplitude for the first
solving the resulting 2dof eigenvalue problem in terms of k1, Eq. (5) mode at story j for the mdof system, γ1-2dof is the modal participation
was obtained to compute the story lateral stiffness k1 the 2dof systems: factor for the first mode for the 2dof system and γ1-mdof is the modal
participation factor for the first mode for the mdof system respectively.

7
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
Fig. 9. Design spectra for zone III-a of NTCS-04 for regular and irregular
buildings.
4.2.2. Strength properties and hysteretic modeling
Once the initial elastic dynamic properties for the equivalent 2dof
systems have been defined in terms of the stiffness ratios k2/k1, the
lateral strength properties for the systems should be addressed. For this
purpose, the lateral base shear (V) for the 2dof systems was assessed to
satisfy the nominal strength required by NTCS-04 [21] for soft soils of
the Roma Norte and Hipódromo Condesa Districts, which are mostly
located in zone III-a according to NTCS-04. Therefore, nominal design
base shears were assessed from the design spectrum for zone III-a
(Fig. 9) in function of the computed fundamental periods (Eq. (4)) and
using the seismic response modification factor Q = 2 specified in
Mexico's Federal District Code for RC-IMRFs-BIs. For regular buildings,
the resulting design spectrum is the one identified in Fig. 9 as “Regular
Q = 2”. Two resulting design spectra were considered for irregular
buildings: a) one using a correction factor for structural irregularity
α = 0.8, because it is the original factor proposed since the 1987 ver-
sion of the code [18] and is still in use and, b) considering α = 0.7,
which it is proposed for the design of strongly irregular buildings since
2004 [21].
Once the assessment of the design base shear V was defined, the
story shear strength for each model was defined considering the fol-
lowing range for the story strength ratio: 0.25 ≤ V2/V1 ≤ 3.0 at 0.25
increments including V2/V1 = 0.66 also. Therefore, 13 different
strength ratios V2/V1 were defined for each one of the 13 stiffness ratios
k2/k1 considered in the study, resulting in 169 different combinations of
stiffness and strength per building height. Then, 368 different 2dof
models were needed to assess the response of six and eight story
buildings designed to satisfy the nominal base shear strength required
by NTCS-04 for soft soils in zone III-a.
Finally, it is worth noting that the hysteretic model considered for
the nonlinear dynamic analyses was an elastic-perfectly plastic model.
4.2.3. Calibrations of 2dof models
To assess how representative the proposed 2dof models were in the
nonlinear dynamic range of response, a sample calibration was done.
Then, the nonlinear dynamic response of the proposed equivalent 2dof
systems was compared with respect to the one obtained for the re-
ference 6dof and 8dof systems for a small sample of the studied stiffness
ratios: k1/k2 = 0.5, k1/k2 = 1.0 and k1/k2 = 2.0 for the story strength
ratios V2/V1 = 0.5 and V2/V1 = 1 and for the critical record CM-NS
(Fig. 10). The following time histories were compared (Fig. 11): a)
displacements at the first story (u1), b) displacements at the top level
(utop) and, c) normalized story base shear (Vb/Vb-max). It was found a
plausible correlation between the computed response for 2dof and mdof
systems in frequency content, location of peak responses, response
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
maxima and residual drifts.
As it can be observed from the time histories depicted in Fig. 11, the
errors on peak responses and residual drifts were small. Higher differ-
ences were obtained for the displacements at the top level, and these
differences were below 10% for the critical case. Interesting enough, if
the obtained displacements are normalized, the error was reduced to
less than 3% for the critical case. Therefore, the normalized equivalent
results obtained from the 2dof systems are close enough for practical
purposes.
4.2.4. Limitations of the proposed 2dof models
It is worth noting that P-Δ effects were not included in this initial
benchmark study because of the following reason. The seismic reduc-
tion force factor Q′ in Mexican codes is based upon studies conducted
for single degree of freedom (sdof) systems assuming an elastic, per-
fectly-plastic behavior for the whole structure. Therefore, it was
decided to do first a modeling directly related to the assumptions be-
hind seismic building codes, by using equivalent 2dof systems with the
same hysteretic behavior: elastic-perfectly plastic. Nevertheless, it is
planned in the ongoing research project to include later on P-Δ effects
on detailed studies for a reduced set of 3D building models for critical
k2/k1 and V2/V1 balances obtained from the parametric studies.
5. Ground motion records
Given that the nominal base shear strength was defined according to
design spectrum for zone III-a defined in NTCS-04 [21], 10 artificial
acceleration records that match the resulting elastic design spectrum
were used, as shown in Fig. 10. These records were generated by
Godínez [57] for a postulated Ms = 8.4 subduction earthquake for a
selected number of stations located in zone IIIa, according to a seismic
source scaling methodology described in detail elsewhere [58].
6. Results of parametric studies
Nonlinear dynamic analyses were conducted for the resulting 368
2dof systems under the action of 10 artificial acceleration records
(Fig. 10), considering an elastic-perfectly plastic behavior for each story
and a Raleigh damping (stiffness proportional only) of 5%. Among the
processed results are peak global and story drifts and ductility demands
and residual drifts, which average responses would be discussed in
following sections. Ductility demands were assessed directly from the
obtained hysteretic curves (story and global), considering their corre-
sponding yield displacements (drifts) and strengths.
6.1. Global ductility demands
Average peak global ductility demands (μglobal) were computed for
each model for each considered stiffness (k2/k1) and strength (V2/V1)
ratios. Some of the obtained average peak global ductility curves re-
presenting the studied models are depicted in Figs. 12–16, where they
are compared with Q = 2, because it is the assumed global ductility for
the studied systems in the assessment of nominal design base shear.
It can be observed from Fig. 12 that unreasonable peak global
ductility demands (μglobal > 10) were obtained for all k2/k1 values
when V2/V1=0.25 for both the 6 N and 8 N models, representing a
theoretical numerical collapse for these 2dof systems. In fact, ex-
cessively large peak global ductility demands were also obtained for the
2dof systems with V2/V1=0.25 when applying the correction factors for
structural irregularity α. Therefore, it was confirmed that weak and soft
stories structural collapses are prone in zone III-a for buildings from 6 to
8 stories when V2/V1=0.25 when designed to develop the nominal
strength according to the guidelines of 2004 Mexico's Federal District
Code [21].
In order to ease the comparison for the remaining strength ratios
V2/V1, in Figs. 13–16 the strength ratio V2/V1=0.25 is omitted, as
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
Fig. 10. Artificial acceleration records related to the elastic design spectrum for zone III-a and their corresponding response spectra.
theoretical weak story collapses (μglobal > 10) are always obtained. The
results obtained for the 6 N models without applying the structural ir-
regularity correction factor α are presented in Fig. 13. It can be ob-
served from Fig. 13 that, under nominal strength, peak global ductility
demands mostly are still large (μglobal > 4) for all studied combina-
tions. Also, the following tendencies are observed with respect to μglobal:
a) in general, μglobal tends to decrease for a given k2/k1 ratio as the V2/
V1 ratio increases, b) for the considered 2dof systems and ground mo-
tions, μglobal is the same for a given k2/k1 ratio when V2/V1 ≥ 1.0 and, c)
for a given V2/V1 ratio, in general μglobal tends to increase as k2/k1 in-
creases when k2/k1 ≥ 0.5, with the exception of k2/k1 = 1.5 when V2/
V1 ≥ 1.0.
The results obtained for the 8 N models without applying the
structural irregularity correction factor α are presented in Fig. 14,
where it can be observed that μglobal are reduced to more reasonable
bounds (μglobal < 4). It can be observed by comparing Figs. 13 and 14
that under nominal strength, peak global ductility demands are smaller
for the 8 N models (Fig. 14) than for 6 N models (Fig. 13) for all the
considered k2/k1 and V2/V1 ratios. This is as a consequence that since
the 8 N models have greater fundamental periods for a given k2/k1 ratio
(Fig. 8), they are designed for a relatively higher nominal strength
(Fig. 9). Similar tendencies are observed for the 8 N models and 6 N
models with respect to μglobal; however: a) there are more dispersion of
results within the range 0.75 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 1.75 when V2/V1 ≥ 0.66 and,
b) μglobal is the same for a given k2/k1 ratio when V2/V1 ≥ 1.5.
In order to help illustrate the impact of the irregularity correction
factor α, the results obtained for the 6 N and 8 N models when applying
α = 0.8 are depicted in Figs. 15 and 16 respectively. According to
NTCS-04 [21], the correction factor α should be applied only when k2/
k1 > 1.5. Nevertheless, it also should be applied for the inverse ratio,
this is, k2/k1 < 0.66. For this reason, in those figures the are lines
defining the limits for a regular structure in lateral stiffness ratios be-
tween consecutive stories according to Mexican codes and the proposal
of the authors, this is, 0.66 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 1.50. Also, in these figures, there
are other set of lines to distinguish the limits where a strongly irregular
building is defined, this is, k2/k1 > 2.0, and it also should be con-
sidered the inverse stiffness ratio, k2/k1 < 0.5. Therefore, α = 0.8 was
applied for the following stiffness ratios between consecutive stories:
k2/k1 < 0.66 and k2/k1 > 1.5, whereas it was not modified when
0.66 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 1.50. It can be observed by comparing: a) Fig. 15 with
9
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
Fig. 13 and, b) Fig. 16 with Fig. 14, that the added nominal strength in
the design of irregular structures using the structural irregularity cor-
rection factor α is effective in notably reducing the peak global ductility
demands to reasonable bounds, as for both the 6 N and 8 N models,
μglobal < Q = 2 when k2/k1 < 0.66 and k2/k1 > 1.5, except when k2/
k1 = 0.25 for V2/V1 = 0.50 for the 6 N models (Fig. 15), and k2/
k1 ≤ 0.50 for V2/V1 = 0.50 for the 8 N models (Fig. 16). The results
obtained considering α = 0.7 (not shown) further reduce μglobal to rea-
sonable bounds for the 6 N models when k2/k1 < 0.66 and k2/
k1 > 1.5, but for the 8 N model still μglobal = 2.71 > Q = 2 when k2/
k1 = 0.25 for V2/V1 = 0.50.
From the reported results in Figs. 13–16, the interested reader may
have the false impression that 6 N and 8 N models where 0.66 ≤ k2/
k1 ≤ 1.5 are not correctly protected by NTCS-04 [21] and are suscep-
tible to collapse. Therefore, it is worth noting that since nominal
strength according to the design spectrum was considered, peak global
story ductility demands are overestimated, as the developed over-
strength in the design process is not being considered in this study for
the following reasons. First, the overstrength factor proposed in NTCS-
04 [21], which is mainly R = Ω = 2 for most structural periods, was
defined from data collected for regular, reinforced concrete ductile
moment frames, where plastic hinges are developed at beams ends in
several stories. In structures prone to experience soft stories, inelastic
rotations occur primarily (if not exclusively) at columns and beams of
the soft story. Then, developed overstrengths for structures prone to
have a soft or weak story should be smaller than those for regular
buildings.
Surprisingly as it may seem, most previous studies on soft story
structures have not reported the developed overstrength for such
structures. One exception to the rule is the shaking table tests con-
ducted by Moehle [31,32]. They reported measured overstrengths
R=Ω ˜ 1.14 (when k2/k1 = 1.74 and V2/V1 = 0.87) and R=Ω ˜ 1.30
(when k2/k1 = 2.25 and V2/V1 = 0.92) for their two soft first story
models, and R=Ω ˜ 1.30 for their two models where the soft and weak
story occurred at an intermediate level (k2/k1 = 0.36 and V2/
V1 = 0.41; k2/k1 = 0.81 and V2/V1 = 0.75). From the data for the de-
sign and corresponding nonlinear dynamic analyses conducted for 12-
story buildings with a first soft and weak story by the first author in
previous studies [26,30], which were designed as ductile moment-re-
sisting frames, the developed overstrength varied from R=Ω = 1.47
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698

Fig. 11. Sample calibrations of 6-dof and 8-dof systems with equivalent 2-dof systems when subjected to the most demanding record CM-NS.

10
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
Fig. 12. Peak global ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
corresponding to the 6 N and 8 N models for V2/V1 = 0.25 without using
structural irregularity correction factors α
Fig. 13. Peak global ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
corresponding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 without using
structural irregularity correction factors α
(when k2/k1 = 2.36 and V2/V1 = 2.81) to R=Ω = 1.57 (when k2/
k1 = 1.66 and V2/V1 = 1.66) for the studied buildings. This over-
strength assessment includes the impact of the following factors: a)
combinations with gravitational loads, b) load combination factors, c)
force reduction factors for structural elements failing in bending, d) the
use of typical sections for beams and columns at given number of stories
and, e) structural redundancy (the simultaneous action of four, four-bay
frames).
Overstrength factors for typical soft-story, RC-IMRFs-BI buildings
may be smaller than those obtained for ductile systems. Nevertheless, it
is worth noting that an equivalent overstrength factor Req=Ωeq = 1.25
is considered when using α = 0.8, (Req = 1/α), and this additional
strength was effective to reduce μglobal to reasonable bounds for the
considered 2dof-systems when k2/k1 < 0.66 and k2/k1 > 1.5 (Figs. 15
and 16). Therefore, since it is expected that overstrength factors higher
than 1.25 should be developed in a formal design process for structures
where 0.66 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 1.5, peak global ductility demands should be
smaller than Q = 2 when considering the real developed overstrength.
Therefore, regular structures in stiffness (k2/k1 = 1.0), and closely
regular structures in stiffness (0.66 ≤ k2/k1 < 1.0, 1.0 < k2/k1 ≤ 1.5)
would be most likely correctly protected by NTCS-04 when considering
11
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
Fig. 14. Peak global ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
corresponding to the 8 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 without using
structural irregularity correction factors α
Fig. 15. Peak global ductility demands vs. stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
corresponding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 using structural
irregularity correction factor α = 0.8.
their “real” overstrength. Unfortunately, to the authors' knowledge,
there is not available yet a good proposal on how overstrength factors
vary in terms of k2/k1 and V2/V1 ratios for a given structural system.
6.2. Story ductility demands
In order to help illustrate where the soft or weak story is formed in
terms of the different combinations for the stiffness and strength ratios
between adjacent stories, k2/k1 and V2/V1, average peak story ductility
demands (μstory) were computed for each model. The obtained average
peak story ductility curves for each model are depicted in Figs. 17 and
18 for the 6 N and 8 N models respectively, where the results for the
strength ratio V2/V1 = 0.25 were excluded to improve visibility. In
Figs. 17 and 18, only the demands related to the first soft story (N1) are
presented for the V2/V1 ratios, except for V2/V1 = 0.5, where the soft
story can be triggered at any story depending on the k2/k1 ratio. It is
observed in both the 6 N and 8 N models that for the strength ratio V2/
V1 = 0.25, the weak story is always formed at the second story (N2),
regardless of the stiffness ratio k2/k1 (not shown) and that nonlinear
demands also occurred at the first story (N1); the resulting curves are
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698

Fig. 16. Peak global ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves Fig. 18. Peak story ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
corresponding to the 8 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 using structural corresponding to the 8 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 without using
irregularity correction factor α = 0.8. structural irregularity correction factors α

when V2 ≥ V1. On the other hand, when the strength of the story above
is smaller (V2 < V1), the soft story moves to the upper story for ratios
smaller than 0.66 (V2 < 0.66V1), and the condition becomes critical
when V2 = 0.25V1, where weak story collapses are obtained at the
second story.
In order to evaluate the adequacy of the stiffness and strength ratio
limits proposed in NTCS-04 [21], average peak story ductility demands
were normalized (μstory-norm) with respect to the demand of benchmark
2dof “regular systems” in stiffness for each strength ratio V2/V1, defined
in this work as the 2dof systems where k2/k1 = 1.0. The obtained
curves are depicted in Figs. 19–23. Broken lines are again used to mark
the limits of Mexican codes (and the proposed extensions) for regular
structures in lateral stiffness ratios between consecutive stories
0.66 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 1.50, as well as the limits where a strongly irregular
buildings are defined, this is, k2/k1 > 2.0 and k2/k1 < 0.5.
From the perspective of observing how much peak soft story re-
sponses are deviated in the average from those defining a regular
system in stiffness (k2/k1 = 1.0), from the observation of Figs. 19 and
20 it can be concluded that the proposed limits in Mexican codes for the
Fig. 17. Peak story ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
stiffness ratio k2/k1 seem reasonable, both to define the range of regular
corresponding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 without using
structures in stiffness (k2/k1 ≤ 1.50), but particularly those defining a
structural irregularity correction factors α

similar to those for global demands (Fig. 12).

For the strength ratio V2/V1 = 0.5, the following is observed: a) for
the 6 N models (Fig. 17), peak story ductility demands are higher in the
second story (N2) than in the first (N1) when k2/k1 < 1, and very si-
milar in both stories when k2/k1 > 1 and, b) for the 8 N models
(Fig. 18), peak story ductility demands are always higher in the second
story (N2) for all considered k2/k1 ratios, so the soft story is formed at
the second story.
It is observed in both Figs. 17 and 18 that: a) the greatest dispersion
on peak first story ductility demands among all considered strength
ratios V2/V1 are observed for the stiffness ratio k2/k1 = 0.25, b) soft
first stories are always formed for any k2/k1 ratio when V2/V1 > 0.66,
b) peak first story ductility demands are almost identical when V2/
V1 > 0.66 for the range 0.66 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 3.0. In fact, there are no var-
iations in peak first story responses for the entire studied k2/k1 range
when V2/V1 > 1.0 in the 6 N models (Fig. 17) and V2/V1 > 1.5 for the
8 N models (Fig. 18). In fact, from the obtained results, it can be con-
cluded that when the strength of the first story is the one that controls
Fig. 19. Normalized peak story ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean en-
nonlinear demands, it makes no difference how larger the strength of velope curves corresponding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3
the story above is, and that it is why peak responses are mostly identical without using structural irregularity correction factors α

12
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
Fig. 20. Normalized peak story ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean en-
velope curves corresponding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3
without using structural irregularity correction factors α
Fig. 21. Normalized peak story ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean en-
velope curves corresponding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 with and
without using structural irregularity correction factors α
Fig. 22. Normalized peak story ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean en-
velope curves corresponding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 1.0–3.0 with and
without using structural irregularity correction factors α
13
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
Fig. 23. Normalized peak story ductility demands vs stiffness ratios mean en-
velope curves corresponding to the 8 N models for V2/V1 = 1.0–3.0 with and
without using structural irregularity correction factors α
strongly irregular condition (k2/k1 > 2.0), predominantly for the 6 N
models (Fig. 19). The proposed extensions to define structural reg-
ularity for intermediate stories (k2/k1 ≥ 0.66) and to protect soft in-
termediate stories for strong irregularity (k2/k1 < 0.5) seem reason-
able also.
In order to help illustrate the impact of neglecting (“REG”) or ap-
plying the irregularity correction factor α in peak story ductility de-
mands, the results obtained for the 6 N models when V2/V1 = 0.5 and
V2/V1 ≥ 1.0 and for the 8 N models when V2/V1 ≥ 1.0 are depicted in
Figs. 21–23 respectively. It is observed that the application of the ir-
regularity correction factor α is effective to reduce most peak demands
below the one of a regular structure in stiffness (k2/k1 = 1) both when
the soft story is formed predominantly at the second story (Fig. 21) or
the first story (Figs. 22 and 23), with the exception of k2/k1 = 0.25
when V2/V1 ≥ 1.0 for the 8 N models (Fig. 23). In most cases, using
α = 0.8 is good enough to reduce amplifications. Nevertheless, using
α = 0.7 considerably reduces amplifications in structures classified as
strongly irregular in stiffness (k2/k1 > 2 and k2/k1 < 0.5). Therefore,
the results shown in Figs. 21–23 lead one to conclude that applying the
irregularity reduction correction factor α is helpful to diminish con-
siderably the risk of developing a soft/weak story, as it is the intention
behind the recommendations of Mexican codes.
6.3. Story drift demands
Story drifts can be related to the expected extent of damage of a
structure. For this reason, the assessed average peak story drift curves
for each model and each story are depicted in Figs. 24 and 25 when
neglecting the α factor for the 6 N and 8 N models respectively. Again,
the results for the strength ratio V2/V1 = 0.25 were excluded to im-
prove visibility. In these figures, reference lines are related to NTCS-04
limiting values for the following cases: a) 0.15% is the drift limit for
initial cracking of masonry walls, b) 0.6% is the ultimate drift limit for
RC-IMRFs-BI buildings, as masonry brick infills are usually severely
damaged at that stage and, c) 1.5% is the ultimate drift limit allowed in
the design of RC-IMRFs, if infill walls are properly separated from the
frames. The following is observed in Figs. 24 and 25 for both the 6 N
and 8 N models: a) for all considered strength ratios V2/V1, structures
with a stiffness ratio k2/k1 = 0.25 may experience severe structural
damage or even the collapse at the soft or weak story if they only de-
velop their nominal design strength, b) for strength ratios V2/
V1 ≥ 0.66, drift demands at the soft or weak story are within reasonable
bounds when k2/k1 ≥ 0.66, although significant damage is expected
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
Fig. 24. Peak story drift demands vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
corresponding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 without using
structural irregularity correction factors α
Fig. 25. Peak story drift demands vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
corresponding to the 8 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 without using
structural irregularity correction factors α
and, c) peak drift demands at the strong story are below the drift limit
for cracking of masonry brick infill walls when k2/k1 ≥ 0.66 for V2/
V1 ≥ 0.66. The impact of applying the irregularity reduction correction
factors α is that reduces peak story drifts to reasonable bounds when k2/
k1 > 1.5 and k2/k1 = 0.5, but it does not help to reduced peak story
drifts at the soft story when k2/k1 = 0.25 (not shown).
6.4. Drift concentration factor
The drift concentration factor (DCF) is a non-dimensional parameter
that has been proposed to evaluate the likeliness of the development of
a soft story [36,59]. The DCF is defined as the ratio of the peak story
drift demand (Δstory-max) and the peak drift demand between the roof
and the base (Δglobal-max). Therefore, for any given story i of interest,
their corresponding drift concentration factor (DCFi) is calculated as:
Δstoryi − max
DCFi =
Δglobal − max (8)
Then, a soft story is likely to be developed when the DCF is greater
than one, whereas a DCF close to zero would suggest a quasi rigid-body
motion. It is interesting, however, to discern a more accurate value to
14
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
Fig. 26. Drift concentration factors vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
corresponding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 without using
structural irregularity correction factors α
Fig. 27. Drift concentration factors vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
corresponding to the 8 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 without using
structural irregularity correction factors α
define the soft story potential, because a DCF higher but close to 1.0
may be related to the response of any regular building. Therefore, for
that purpose, drift concentration factors for both stories of the 2-dof
systems were assessed and they are presented in Figs. 26 and 27 for the
6 N and 8 N models without using the structural irregularity correction
factors. For the studied 2dof systems (or a 2-story building), a soft story
would be clearly defined when the DCF of the soft story is reasonable
far apart from the DCF of the other story. With that in mind, and with
all the results previously discussed as supporting information, such as
normalized peak story ductility demands (Figs. 19 and 20) and peak
story drifts (Figs. 24 and 25), it can be observed from Figs. 26 and 27
that well-defined soft story responses generally occur when
DCF ≥ 1.45. This observation correlates well with the results reported
recently for shake weight testings of a two-story, two-bay non-ductile
RC frame with a soft first story [36]. It can also be confirmed from the
observation of Figs. 26 and 27 that a clear first soft story is formed
when V2/V1 ≥ 0.66 in the stiffness ratio range 0.66 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 3.0 and
that the severity of the soft story increases as k2/k1 increases.
In order to evaluate the impact of the structural irregularity cor-
rection α in the DCF, the results obtained for the 6 N models for V2/
V1 = 0.66 are depicted in Fig. 28. It can be observed that, as expected,
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
Fig. 28. Drift concentration factors vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves
corresponding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 0.66 with and without using
structural irregularity correction factors α
the use of this α factor, that basically adds global strength in the design
process, does not solve by itself the soft story potential. However, its use
is certainly helpful to reduce the DCF in the soft story, so the DCF in the
soft story is reduced as α increases.
6.5. Residual drifts
In modern earthquake-resistant design procedures, such as perfor-
mance-based design or resilient-based design, the attention of the
earthquake engineering community is turning from peak responses to
residual displacements. It is desirable to achieve seismic designs for the
maximum credible earthquake scenario where residual drift are limited
to reasonable bounds, in order that the subject structure could be easily
repaired or retrofitted, making sure that people is not only saved during
the earthquake (life-safety), but that their patrimony is not completely
lost after the event.
From this perspective, average residual drifts were also assessed. In
order to compute residual drifts, 5 s of null accelerations (a = 0.0) were
added to the accelerations records depicted in Fig. 10 to make sure that
2dof models were stand still (in a static-deformed state), this is, free
vibration for the 2dof system was over.
The assessed average residual drift curves for each model and for
the story where the soft and weak story is developed are depicted in
Fig. 29 with and without considering the α factor for the 6 N models
only. It can be observed that when the soft story is developed at the
upper level (N2, V2/V1 = 0.5), average residual drifts are larger than
those obtained when the soft story is developed at the first story (N1,
V2/V1 = 1.0–3.0). Assessed average residual drifts varied from 0.08%
to 0.2% when the α factor was not considered in the range 0.5 ≤ k2/
k1 ≤ 3.0. In fact, it can be observed that residual drifts tend to increase
as k2/k1 increases.
If the correction factor α = 0.7 is considered, it can be observed in
Fig. 29 that average residual drifts are reduced close to zero when the
soft story is developed at the first story (N1, V2/V1 = 1.0–3.0) and
significantly reduced when the soft story is developed at the upper level
(N2, V2/V1 = 0.5). Therefore, it can be concluded that, in the average,
using the α = 0.7 correction factor is useful to reduce residual drifts in
structures prone to develop soft and weak stories in more reasonable
bounds.
Finally, it is also important to assess how large residual drifts are in
structures likely to develop soft and weak stories with respect to their
corresponding peak drifts. Therefore, normalized residual drift to peak
drift ratios were also computed. Normalized residual drifts varied
15
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
Fig. 29. Residual drift demands vs stiffness ratios mean envelope curves cor-
responding to the 6 N models for V2/V1 = 0.5 to V2/V1 = 3 with and without
using structural irregularity correction factors α
mostly from 0.25 to 0.53 in the range 0.5 ≤ k2/k1 ≤ 3.0, this is, nor-
malized residual drifts are a significant portion of peak drifts in struc-
tures prone to develop soft and weak stories.
7. Concluding remarks
From the results obtained from the parametric study on 2dof sim-
plified models used to represent structures likely to develop soft stories,
designed for the nominal strength of RCDF-04 code for soft soil zone III-
a and subjected to 10 artificial acceleration records for a postulated
Ms = 8.4 subduction earthquake, the following general observations
can be done:
• When the strength of the story above is smaller (V 2 < V1), the soft
story moves towards the upper story for ratios smaller than 0.66
(V2/V1 < 0.66). The condition becomes critical when V2 = 0.25V1,
where weak story collapses are obtained at the second story.
• The greatest dispersion on peak first story responses (drifts, ducti-
lity, etc.) among all considered strength ratios V2/V1 are observed
for the stiffness ratio k2/k1 = 0.25. In fact, this ratio leads to un-
desirable large amplified responses, making this condition highly
undesirable from the structural viewpoint.
• The worst ratios between adjacent stories for structures likely to
develop soft or weak story are: a) strength: V2/V1 = 0.25 and, b)
stiffness: k2/k1 = 0.25.
• In general and for the studied systems, when the soft and weak story
was formed at the first story (V2/V1 > 0.66), it can be concluded
that the strength of the first story (V1) is the one that controls
nonlinear demands and it makes no difference how larger the
strength of the story above (V2) is.
• In general, peak demands (drifts, ductility, etc.) and residual drifts
tend to increase as k2/k1 increases when k2/k1 ≥ 0.66 for V2/
V1 ≥ 0.50.
• The results obtained from the parametric study lead one to conclude
that the relative amplification of soft story responses depends more
on the stiffness ratio k2/k1 rather than the strength ratio V2/V1, al-
though both of them are important.
• According to the results obtained in this study, for low-rise struc-
tures, well-defined soft story responses are obtained when the drift
concentration factor is 1.45 or higher (DCF ≥ 1.45).
The results obtained in this parametric study allows one to conclude
that for the considered structural system and ground motions, the soft
or weak story might be averted or minimized with a good combination
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
of stiffness and lateral strength similar to what it is currently proposed
in Mexican seismic codes. The proposed limits in Mexican codes for the
stiffness ratio k2/k1 seem reasonable, both to define the range of regular
structures in stiffness (k2/k1 ≤ 1.50), but particularly those defining a
strong irregularity condition (k2/k1 > 2.0). The proposed extensions to
define regularity for intermediate stories (k2/k1 ≥ 0.66) and to protect
soft intermediate stories for strong irregularity (k2/k1 < 0.5) seem
reasonable also. Likewise, the use of a correction factor for structural
irregularity (α) is helpful to reduce significantly peak story and global
ductility and drift demands, residual drifts and the drift concentration
factor in the soft story, then helping to prevent the development of an
uncontrollable soft/weak story. From the results obtained until now, it
seems that using a correction factor for structural irregularity α = 0.8
could be enough to control to reasonable bounds peak story and global
responses for the studied six and eight stories models at the soft soils of
zone III-a of Mexico City.
Additional parametric studies on simplified models are needed to
evaluate the following: a) responses near theoretical resonance, b) other
soil profile types, c) the impact of stiffness and strength degradation, d)
the impact of P-Δ effects, e) the impact of soil-structure interaction
effects in soft and medium soils and, f) a wider range of building
heights. This research group is currently evaluating some of these
variables.
Acknowledgments
The PhD fellowship granted to the second author by the National
Science and Technology Council of Mexico (Conacyt) is gratefully ac-
knowledged. Appreciation is extended to Luis Eduardo Pérez-Rocha for
generating the artificial record SANTA EW and to Eber Alberto
Godínez-Domínguez for generation the remaining 9 artificial records
for stations located at zone III-a that are being used in this research.
Constructive observations of reviewers were very helpful to improve
this manuscript and they are gratefully acknowledged.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.05.037.
Appendix 1. Notation
α modification factor for irregular buildings for the reductive
seismic force factor Q′ of Mexican seismic codes
β damping modification factor of spectral ordinates for
damping ratios different from 5% in Mexican seismic codes
Δglobal-max peak drift between the roof and the base
Δstory-max peak story drift
ϕ11 amplitude for the first mode at the first story for the 2dof
system
ϕ21 amplitude for the first mode at the second story for the 2dof
system
ϕj1 amplitude for the first mode at story j for the mdof system
γ1-2dof modal participation factor for the first mode for the 2dof
system
γ1-mdof modal participation factor for the first mode for the mdof
system
μglobal peak global ductility demands
μstory peak story ductility demands
μstory-norm peak story ductility demands normalized with respect to the
demand of benchmark 2dof regular systems
ρ structural redundancy factor of Mexican seismic codes
Ω overstrength factor of American codes
a0 peak ground acceleration for the elastic design spectrum of
Mexican codes
a´ reduced design spectral ordinates of Mexican seismic codes
16
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
after considering effective damping, ductility capacity,
overstrength, redundancy and structural irregularity
c peak acceleration for the plateau of the elastic design spec-
trum of Mexican seismic codes
DCF Drift concentration factor
h typical story height for the mdof system and for the first story
of the 2dof system
heq equivalent height for the second story of the 2dof model
hj height between the ground and story j for the mdof system
k1 lateral stiffness for the first story of the 2dof model
k2 lateral stiffness for the second story of the 2dof model
ki lateral stiffness of story i
ki+1 lateral stiffness of story i+1
m assumed uniform mass at each story
m1 mass for the first story of the 2dof model
m2 mass for the second story of the 2dof model
mj mass at story j for the mdof system
mn uniform mass for a given stiffness ratio n
n stiffness ratio k2/k1
N number of considered stories for the mdof system
Q´ reductive seismic force factor of Mexican seismic codes
R overstrength factor of Mexican seismic codes
Req equivalent overstrength factor
T fundamental period for a structure with a soft first story
Treg fundamental period for a regular structure
V1 lateral shear strength for the first story of the 2dof model
V2 lateral shear strength for the second story of the 2dof model
Vi lateral shear strength of story i
Vi+1 lateral shear strength of story i+1
References
[1] Web Berkeley. Courtesy of national information service for earthquake engineering
(NISEE), university of California at berkeley. Primarily karl steinbrugge and vitelmo
bertero picture collections. 2017https://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/.
[2] Fukuyama H, Iwabuchi K, Suwada H. HPFRCC device for structural control of RC
buildings with soft story. Proceedings, 6th RILEM symposium on fiber-reinforced
concretes (FRC) – BEFIB, varenna, italia. 2004. p. 1163–72. [September].
[3] Miranda E. Aspectos fundamentales de la respuesta sísmica de edificios con en-
trepisos blandos. Proceedings, 4° simposio de Ingeniería estructural, veracruz,
méxico, december (in Spanish). 2005.
[4] EERI. “Learning from earthquakes. The mw 6.3 java, Indonesia, earthquake of may
27, 2006”, EERI special earthquake report, august. 2006.
[5] EERI. “Learning from earthquakes. The pisco, Peru, earthquake of august 15, 2007”,
EERI special earthquake report, october. 2007.
[6] EERI. “Learning from earthquakes. The wenchuan, sichuan province, China,
earthquake of may 12, 2008”, EERI special earthquake report, october. 2008.
[7] EERI. “Learning from earthquakes. The mw 6.3 abruzzo, Italy, earthquake of april 6,
2009”, EERI special earthquake report, june. 2009.
[8] Javadi P. Seismic evaluation of soft-first-story RC buildings retrofitted by thick
hybrid wall technique PhD. Thesis Okinawa, Japan, August: Division of Material,
Structural and Energy Engineering, University of the Ryukyus; 2009.
[9] Shabestari K, Shen-Tu B. “Lessons learned from the 1999 chi-chi earthquake and
their application to California”, air currents, document 09.09. Air Worldwide
Corporation; 2009 Available in www.air-worldwide.com.
[10] EERI. “Learning from earthquakes. The mw 7.0 Haiti earthquake of january 12,
2010: report #1T”, EERI special earthquake report, april. 2010.
[11] Tena A. Irregularidad estructural y su efecto en la respuesta sísmica de edificios.
Proceedings, V congreso iberoamericano de Ingeniería civil, mérida, Venezuela,
CDROM, 1-57, november (in Spanish). 2010.
[12] Miyamoto HK, Gilani ASJ, Yanev P. “Lessons learned from the 2008 Sichuan
earthquake and application to the retrofit program in Istanbul, Turkey. Proceedings,
9th U.S. National and 10th Canadian conference on earthquake engineering.
Toronto, Canada: CDROM; 2010. Paper No. 149.
[13] Guevara-Perez LT. Soft story and weak story in earthquake resistant design: a
multidisciplinary approach. Proceedings, 15th world conference on earthquake
engineering. Lisbon, Portugal: CDROM; 2012. Paper No. 0183 [September].
[14] Rezavandi A. Torsional effect on soft story for lightly reinforced concrete structures
in low seismic zones PhD. Thesis University of Maryland; 2015.
[15] Khan D, Rawat A. Nonlinear seismic analysis of masonry infill RC buildings with
eccentric bracings at soft storey level. Proc. Eng. 2016;161:9–17. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.proeng.2016.08.490.
[16] Meli R. Evaluation of performance of concrete buildings damaged by the September
19, 1985 Mexico Earthquake. Proceedings, ASCE international conference: the
Mexico earthquakes 1985. Factors involved and lessons learned, Mexico city,
Mexico, 308-327, september. 1986.
A. Tena-Colunga and D.A. Hernández-García
[17] Watanabe F. Behavior of reinforced concrete buildings during the Hyougoken-
Nanbu Earthquake. Cement Concr Compos 1997;19:203–11.
[18] NTCS-87. Normas técnicas complementarias para diseño por sismo. Mexico,
November: Gaceta Oficial del Departamento del Distrito Federal; 1987. [in
Spanish)].
[19] UBC-88. Uniform building code, 1988 edition. Whittier, California: International
Conference of Building Officials; 1988.
[20] Tena-Colunga A. International seismic zone tabulation proposed by the 1997 UBC
code: observations for Mexico. Earthq Spectra 1999;15(2):331–60https://doi.org/
10.1193/1.1586044.
[21] NTCS-04. “Normas técnicas complementarias para diseño por sismo”, Reglamento
de Construcciones para el Distrito Federal, Gaceta Oficial del Departamento del
Distrito Federal, Mexico, November (in Spanish). 2004.
[22] Tena-Colunga A, Mena-Hernández U, Pérez-Rocha LE, Avilés J, Ordaz M, Vilar JI,
J.I.. Updated seismic design guidelines for buildings of a model code of Mexico.
Earthq Spectra 2009;25(4):869–98https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3240413.
[23] ASCE-7. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE standard
ASCE/SEI 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers; 2010. ISBN 0-7844-0809-2.
[24] EN 1998-1: 2004: E. Eurocode 8: design of Structures for earthquake resistance –
Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Belgium: European
Committee for Standardization; 2011.
[25] MOC-2015. Manual de diseño de obras civiles. Diseño por sismo. México: Comisión
Federal de Electricidad; 2015. [November (in Spanish)].
[26] Tena A. “Revisión de los factores de comportamiento sísmico para el diseño por
sismo de estructuras esbeltas y/o con piso débil”, Reporte FJBS/CIS-97/03, Centro
de Investigación Sísmica, AC. Fundación Javier Barros Sierra; 1997. [October (in
Spanish)].
[27] Fardis MN, Negro P, Bousias SN, Colombo A. Seismic design of open-storey infilled
RC buildings. J Earthq Eng 1999;3(2):173–97.
[28] Das S, Nau JM. Seismic design aspects of vertically irregular reinforced concrete
buildings. Earthq Spectra 2003;19(3):455–77. [August].
[29] Altuntop ME. Analysis of building structures with soft stories MSc Thesis Turkey:
Department of Civil Engineering, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences,
Atilim University; 2007. [October].
[30] Tena-Colunga A. Review of the soft first story irregularity condition of buildings for
seismic design. Open Civ Eng J 2010;4:1–15. https://doi.org/10.2174/
1874149501004010001.
[31] Moehle JP, Sozen MA. “Experiments to study earthquake response of R/C structures
with stiffness interruptions”, Structural Research Series No. 482. Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 1980.
[August].
[32] Moehle JP. Seismic response of vertically irregular structures. ASCE J. Struct. Eng.
1984;110(9):2002–14. [September].
[33] Moehle JP, Alarcón LF. Seismic analysis methods for irregular buildings. ASCE J.
Struct. Eng. 1986;112(1):35–52. [January].
[34] Ko D-W, Lee H-S. Shaking table tests on a high-rise RC building model having
torsional eccentricity in soft lower storeys. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn
2006;35:1425–51.
[35] Lee H-S, Ko D-W. Seismic response characteristics of high-rise RC wall buildings
having different irregularities in lower stories. Eng Struct 2007;29:3149–67https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.02.014.
[36] Shin J, Scott DW, Stewart LK, Yang C-S, Wright TR, DesRoches R. Dynamic response
of a full-scale reinforced concrete building frame retrofitted with FRP column
jackets. Eng Struct 2016;125:244–53https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.07.
016.
[37] Ruiz SE, Diederich R. The seismic performance of buildings with weak first story.
Earthq Spectra 1989;5(1):89–102.
[38] Esteva L. Nonlinear seismic response of soft-first-story buildings subjected to
narrow-band accelerograms. Earthq Spectra 1992;8(3):373–90.
[39] Wen S, Suzuki K, Kwon K-H. Prediction of response in ultimate stage for multistory
concrete frames with soft story subjected to ground motions vol. 15. Concrete
Engineering Annual Report, Japan Concrete Institute; 1993. p. 1321–6. (2).
[40] Valmundsson EV, Nau JM. Seismic response of building frames with vertical
17
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 129 (2020) 105698
structural irregularities. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 1997;123(1):30–41.
[41] Soda S, Iwata N. Seismic design of low to mid-rise building with a soft first storey
subject to semi-active viscous damping control. Proceedings, 12th world conference
on earthquake engineering, auckland, New Zealand, paper No. 1728. CDROM;
2000. [February].
[42] Chintanapakdee C, Chopra AK. Seismic response of vertically irregular frames: re-
sponse history and modal pushover analyses. ASCE J. Struct. Eng.
2004;130(8):1177–85.
[43] Komoto H, Kojima T, Mase Y, Suzuki K, Wen X. Case study on the soft-first-story
buildings strengthened by confined concrete columns. Proceedings, 13th world
conference on earthquake engineering. Vancouver, Canada: CDROM; 2004. Paper
No. 654 [August].
[44] Fakhouri MY, Igarashi A. Upgrading the seismic performance of soft first story
frame structures by isolators with multiple sliding surfaces. Proceedings, ninth
pacific conference on earthquake engineering: building an earthquake-resilient
society. Auckland, New Zealand: CDROM; 2011. Paper No. 134 [April].
[45] Guney D, Aydin E. The nonlinear effect of infill walls stiffness to prevent soft story
collapse of RC structures. Open Construct Build Technol J 2012;6:74–80.
[46] Zhou J, Bu G, Wang H, Cai J. Modification of ductility reduction factor for vertically
irregular structures subjected to pulse-like ground motions. Adv Struct Eng
2013;16(4):641–52.
[47] Yousef AM, El-Metwally SE, El-Mandouh MA. Seismic performance of HSC dual
systems irregular in elevation. Ain. Shams. Eng. J. 2014;5:321–32https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.asej.2013.11.001.
[48] Baek ER, Lee SH. Seismic performance for a low-rise irregular building with soft-
weak story. Proceedings of the tenth pacific conference on earthquake engineering:
building an earthquake-resilient pacific, sydney, Australia, paper No. 42, 1-6, no-
vember. 2015.
[49] Fragiadakis M, Vamvatsikos D, Papadrakakis M. Evaluation of the influence of
vertical irregularities on the seismic performance of a nine-storey steel frame.
Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2006;35:1489–509. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.
[50] Hejazi F, Jilani S, Noorzaei J, Chieng CY, Jaafar MS, Ali AAA. Effect of soft story on
structural response of high rise buildings. Proceedings, IOP Conf. Series: Mater Sci
Eng 2011;17:012034. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/17/1/012034.
[51] Hosseini-Gelekolai SM, Tabeshpour MR. Soft story design in reinforced concrete
structure and effect of masonry infill wall. Proceedings, sixth international con-
ference of seismology and earthquake engineering. Tehran, Iran: CDROM; 2011. p.
1–18. [May].
[52] Li S, Wang X, Shan S, Zhai C, Xie L. “Seismic and progressive collapse potentials of
low-rise soft-story RC frames and strengthening strategy. Proceedings, advances in
structural engineering and mechanics (ASEM15). Incheon, Korea: CDROM; 2015. p.
1–21. [August].
[53] Apostolska R, Necevska-Cvetanovska G, Bojadzieva J, Gjorgjievska E. Seismic per-
formance assessment of soft-story RC frame buildings. J Int Environ Appl Sci
2016;11(3):241–8.
[54] Tabeshpour MR, Noorifard A. Comparing calculation methods of storey stiffness to
control provision of soft storey in seismic codes. Earthq. Struct. 2016;11(1):1–23.
https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.11.1.001.
[55] Tena-Colunga A, Godínez-Domínguez EA, Pérez-Rocha LE. “Vulnerability maps for
reinforced concrete structures for Mexico City's Metropolitan Area under a design
earthquake scenario. Earthq Spectra 2007;23(4):809–40. November https://doi.
org/10.1193/1.2798243.
[56] Juárez H. Personal communication. 2014.
[57] Godínez EA. Estudio del comportamiento de marcos dúctiles de concreto reforzado
con contraventeo chevrón Tesis de Doctorado Posgrado en Ingeniería Estructural,
División de Ciencias Básicas e Ingeniería, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana
Azcapotzalco; 2010. [July (in Spanish)].
[58] Godínez-Domínguez EA, Tena-Colunga A, Pérez-Rocha LE. Case studies on the
seismic behavior of reinforced concrete chevron braced framed buildings. Eng
Struct 2012;45(12):78–103. December https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.
05.005.
[59] MacRae GA, Kimura Y, Roeder C. Effect of column stiffness on braced frame seismic
behavior. ASCE J. Struct. Eng. 2004;130(3):381–91. [March].