See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272353679

On drift limits associated with different damage levels

Article · June 2004

CITATIONS READS

110 5,322

1 author:

Ahmed Ghobarah
McMaster University
141 PUBLICATIONS   4,333 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic behaviour of end-plate connections View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Ghobarah on 17 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ON DRIFT LIMITS ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT DAMAGE LEVELS

Ahmed GHOBARAH1

ABSTRACT

Performance objectives in performance-based design procedures have been described in

several ways according to the operational status of the structure or the level of damage
sustained up to collapse. The selection of the appropriate drift associated with different
levels of damage for the design is significant in terms economy and safety. The
identification of drift levels associated with different states of damage remains one of the
unresolved issues in the development of performance objectives in performance-based
design and assessment procedures. The objective of this study is to develop the approach
to establish the drift of different structural systems that is associated with different
definable levels of damage to use as performance objectives in the design of new
structures and the evaluation of the seismic resistance of existing structures.
Analytical and experimental data were used to examine the correlation between
drift and damage of various structural elements and systems. The analytical procedures
included time-history analysis, dynamic and static pushover analyses of various designs of
reinforced concrete walls and moment resisting frames. Recently conducted tests as well
as available experimental research results in the literature are reviewed for the
appropriateness and consistency of the data. The experimental work included static and
dynamic testing of walls and frame components.
It was found that the drift associated with various damage levels of different
reinforced concrete elements and structural systems vary significantly. Two main sets of
drift limits were defined for ductile and nonductile structural systems.

Keywords: Performance-based design, performance objectives, drift, damage,

moment resisting frames, walls

1. INTRODUCTION

Earthquakes continue to cause substantial damage and loss of life in many parts of the
world. Although many buildings designed to current codes did not collapse during
recent earthquakes, the level of damage to structures was unexpectedly high. In
addition to the high cost of repairs, economic loss due to loss of use was significant.

1
Department of Civil Engineering, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

1
Conventional methods of seismic design have the objectives to provide for life safety
(strength and ductility) and damage control (serviceability drift limits). Current code
design procedures succeeded in reducing loss of life during major seismic events.
However, much remains to be done in the area of damage reduction.
Performance-based design is a general design philosophy in which the
design criteria are expressed in terms of achieving stated performance objectives
when the structure is subjected to stated levels of seismic hazard. The performance
targets may be a level of stress not to be exceeded, a load, a displacement, a limit state
or a target damage state (Ghobarah 2001). Specifying structural performance
objectives in terms of drift limits has not been extensively studied. A set of
performance objectives defined in terms of drift was given by several publications
such as SEAOC (1995) and FEMA (1997). The definition of comprehensive and
realistic drift limits that are associated with known damage states remains one of the
important unresolved issues in performance-based design procedures.
The relationship between performance objectives and damage is best
illustrated by the typical performance curve shown in Figure 1. Vision 2000 defined
performance objectives are marked on the capacity curve. In addition, the states of
damage of the structure are identified on the capacity curve. The structure is
considered to suffer no damage or sustain very minor damage up to concrete cracking.
Between concrete cracking and the first yield of steel, the crack sizes are normally < 2
mm and damage is considered to be repairable. Past steel yield, the cracks are wider
than 2 mm and repair becomes difficult, impractical or costly, thus the irreparable
damage classification. The described performance applies to ductile systems.
However, nonductile systems may suffer brittle failure at any drift level that is
associated with repairable or irreparable damage states.
The structural response in terms of displacement can be related to strain-
based limit state, which in turn is assumed related to damage. The defined
performance of a structure in terms of a state of damage, strain or deformation gives
better indicator of damage than stresses. However, relating displacement limits and
drift of the structure to damage is an oversimplification since the level of damage is
influenced by several other factors such as the structural system, the accumulation and
distribution of structural damage, failure mode of the elements and components, the
number of cycles and the duration of the earthquake and the acceleration levels in
case of secondary systems.

The objective of this investigation is to develop the approach to quantify the

drift limits associated with different damage levels for some reinforced concrete
structural systems such as moment resisting frames (MRF) and walls.

2
 Elastic Inelastic Collapse
Behaviour
Minor
damageRepairable Irreparable Severe Extreme
Damage
Immediate
occupancy Life Collapse Near
Operational safety prevention collapse
Vision 2000

Ultimate capacity
Lateral load

Yield of steel
reinforcement

Concrete cracking

Drift
Figure 1. Typical structural performance and associated damage states

2. DAMAGE

An attempt to develop a procedure to correlate damage of various structural systems

to drift taking into account various ground motion characteristics, was made through
the use of a damage index (Ghobarah et al. 1997). For effective design criteria, the
correlation between damage and drift should be calibrated against experimental work
as well as observed performance of structures during earthquakes when possible. Drift
limits were found to vary and different sets should be developed for different
structural systems such as nonductile and ductile moment resisting frame, moment
resisting frame with infills, flexural structural walls and reinforced concrete squat
shear walls.
There have been several attempts to describe damage levels of various
structural systems (Rossetto and Elnashai 2003). The damage in terms of limits
defined in this study (No damage, Repairable, Irreparable and Severe damage states)

3
associated with various performance levels of some structural systems such as
nonductile and ductile moment resisting frames and frames with infills and walls, is
described as follows:
a) No damage
No structural damage is observed. Some fine cracks in plaster may
exist.
b) Repairable damage
• Light damage. Initiation of hairline cracking in beams and columns
near joints and in walls. Cracking at the interface between frame
and infills and near corners of openings. Start of spalling in walls.
• Moderate damage. Flexural and shear cracking in beams, columns
and walls. Some elements may reach yielding of steel.
c) Irreparable damage
Yielding of steel reinforcement occurs in several elements. Cracks are
larger than 2 mm. Residual deflection may occur. Ultimate capacity is
reached in some structural elements and walls. Failure of short columns
may occur. Partial failure of infills and heavy damage to frame members
may take place. Severe cracking and bucking of steel in boundary
elements of walls occurs.
d) Extreme
Partial collapse of lateral and gravity load carrying elements of the
structures is observed. Shear failure of columns. Shear failure of beams
and columns causing complete failure of infills. Some reinforced
concrete walls may fail.
e) Collapse
The structure may be on the verge of collapse or may experience total
collapse.

3. DRIFT

For the case of three performance levels (serviceability, damage control and life
safety or collapse prevention), three corresponding structural characteristics
(stiffness, strength and deformation capacity) dominate the performance. If more
intermediate performance levels are selected, then it becomes difficult to define
which structural characteristic dominate the performance. Different performance
objectives may impose conflicting demands on strength and stiffness. The
displacements or drift limits are also function of the structural system and its
ability to deform (ductility). Design criteria may be established on the basis of
observation and experimental data of deformation capacity. For example, near
collapse the drift limits of ductile structural system are different from that of
nonductle systems, which suggest that different drift limits will correspond to
different damage levels for different structural systems.

4
3.1 Factors that affect drift

The displacements or drift of a structure are functions of several factors such as the
stiffness or strength and the ability of the structural system to deform (ductility).
Other factors such as the applied load whether shear or flexure, confinement and
shear span influence the structural deformations. An important factor in the behaviour
of columns and walls is the effect of the axial load. The increase in the axial load
increases the shear resistance of the member. In addition, it was found experimentally
that the increase in axial load reduces the lateral drift.
Although the performance objectives and the description of the associated
damage may remain unchanged, it is clear that several sets of drift definitions are
required to establish the limits for various structural systems and elements such as:
• Reinforced concrete moment resisting frame (MRF)
a) Ductile well designed frames according to current codes. The
established drift limits can be included in the code provisions.
b) Existing frame with nonductile detailing designed to earlier codes. The
established drift limits can be used in the evaluation of the lateral load
carrying capacity of existing structures.
c) Moment resisting frame with masonry infills.
• Structural walls
a) Flexural structural walls of aspect ratio (height/length) > 1.5.
b) Squat walls with predominantly shear behaviour of aspect ratio < 1.5.

3.2 Interstorey drift distribution

The roof drift is a useful simple measure of the overall structural deformation that is
routinely calculated. It can be determined from nonlinear dynamic analysis, pushover
analysis or the equivalent single degree of freedom representation in response
spectrum procedures. Roof drift calculated using the gross section inertia is almost
half the drift calculated using the cracked section inertia. Roof drift can be related to
damage. However, the roof drift does not reflect the distribution of damage along the
height of the structure and does not identify weak elements or soft storeys. The
interstorey drift can be directly used in the design and serviceability check for beams
and columns of the frame and can be correlated to damage at the floor level. A well-
designed MRF structure according to current seismic code provisions would have an
almost uniform interstorey drift distribution along its height. In this case, the
relationship between the roof drift and the maximum interstorey drift is linear with
near 45o slope as shown in Figure 2. For existing nonductile structures and poorly
designed frames such as those with a soft storey, the maximum interstorey drift of the
soft storey may indicate collapse while the roof drift will correspond to lower damage
level. Therefore, the damage to the MRF can be considered to be influenced by two
drift parameters: a) the interstorey drift; and b) its distribution along the height of the
structure.

5
 6

4
Roof drift %

0
0 2 4 6 8

Maximum interstorey drift %

Figure 2. Relationship between maximum interstorey drift and roof drift of well-
designed 3, 6, 9 and 12 storey MRFs subjected to several ground motion records

To take into account a measure of the storey drift distribution along the
height of the structure, a representative factor is proposed. The factor is called the
Storey Drift Factor (SDF) and can be calculated by the formula:

1 n n
∑ (Si − S ) ∑ (Si )
2 2
(n − 1) i =1
2
i =1
SDF = (1)
S

where n is the number of storeys, Si is the maximum interstorey drift of floor i, and
S is the mean value of the maximum interstorey drift ratios. The SDF includes a
normalization factor such that it varies between 0 and 1. The value of the interstorey
drift factor of zero indicates equal interstorey drift along the different stories, and 1
indicating that only one storey is the cause of the overall deformation. The formula
given by equation (1) is the result of multiplying the normalized form of the standard
deviation by the variation of Si from a specific value taken as zero. The normalization
is to make the upper bound value of the factor as 1.

6
 4. MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES

4.1 Ductile MRF

The storey drift factor calculated using equation (1) for a number of ductile, well-
designed MRFs can be correlated with damage as shown in Figure 3. The damage
index used is the final softening representing the effect of stiffness degradation
following the application of the load. This damage index was arbitrarily selected
because of its simplicity. Other damage indices could have been also used. In Figure
3, zero damage index indicates no damage while 1 represents collapse. However in
practical terms, the actual failure of the structure occurs at damage index values of 0.7
to 0.8. For ductile MRF, damage index values up to 0.2 represent repairable damage.
The plot in Figure 3 using SDF on the horizontal axis can be compared with
a similar damage plot using the maximum interstorey drift shown in Figure 4. The
figures are similar but not identical. Comparison between the two horizontal axes of
Figures 3 and 4 gives a rough relationship between the maximum interstorey drift and
the SDF values.
The SDF for the ductile reinforced concrete moment resisting frames is
plotted with the ductility factor as shown in figure 5. For SDF values from 0 to 0.2 the
damage as measured by the final softening damage index is light. Moderate repairable
damage is estimated for SDF values from 0.2 to 0.4. The start of yield as indicated by
ductility >1 from figure 5 corresponds to SDF of 0.4, damage index of 0.15 and
intersorey drift of 1.3. In the figure, the point marking the departure from ductility
factor 1 is well defined. Past the yield point, damage increases and is considered
irreparable. When using a large sample of frames, the mean damage index at frame
yield is closer to 0.2. The maximum interstorey drift limits corresponding to various
damage states for a ductile MRF are listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Drift ratio (%) limits associated with various damage levels

State of damage Ductile Nonductile MRF with Ductile Squat

MRF MRF infills walls walls
No damage <0.2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.2 <0.1
Repairable damage
a) Light damage 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.2
b) Moderate damage <1.0 <0.5 <0.4 <0.8 <0.4
Irreparable damage >1.0 >0.5 >0.4 >0.8 >0.4
(>yield point)
Severe damage - Life 1.8 0.8 0.7 1.5 0.7
safe - Partial collapse
Collapse >3.0 >1.0 >0.8 >2.5 >0.8

7
 1

0.8
Damage index

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Storey drift factor (SDF)

Figure 3. Correlation between the intersory drift factor and damage for a 3, 6, 9
and 12 storey MRFs.

1
3-storey frame
0.8 6-storey frame
9-storey frame
Damage index

12 storey frame
0.6
Data trend

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Interstorey drift ratio %

Figure 4. Damage at various drift levels of code designed 3, 6, 9 and 12 storey

ductile MRFs

8
 5

Ductility factor 3

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Storey drift factor (SDF)

Figure 5. Correlation between ductility and the storey drift factor

4.2 Nonductile MRF

MRF designed to earlier codes or without seismic detailing often suffer from poor
confinement of lap splices, lack of shear reinforcement in the beam-column joints and
inadequate embedment length of the beam bottom reinforcement at the column. These
frames behave in a nonductile manner and may fail in brittle failure modes. As an
example of the data used, the maximum interstorey drift is plotted against the damage
index in Figure 6. The behaviour of several frames when subjected to a number of
ground motions contributed the data shown in the figure. For nonductile MRF, the
damage index corresponding to repairable damage limit is 0.4. This damage level
corresponds to maximum interstory drift limit of 0.5%, which is considered to be the
limit of irreparable damage as suggested by experimental observation. The maximum
interstorey drift limits corresponding to various damage states of a nonductile MRF
are listed in Table 1.
1

0.8
Damage index

0.6

0.4 Existing 3-storey frame

Existing 9-storey frame
0.2 Data trend

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Interstorey drift ratio %
Figure 6. Relationship between maximum interstorey drift and damage for
existing nonductile frames

9
4.3 MRF with infills

Several researchers have recently studied the behaviour of MRFs with infills (Lu
2002). Quality experimental data is becoming available. An example illustrating the
effect of infills on the relationship between damage and maximum interstorey drift is
shown in Figure 7. The load carrying capacity of infilled frame is higher than that of a
bare frame. A moment resisting frame with infills gives roughly half the interstorey
drift of a bare frame (Chiou et al 1999) with twice the damage index. For example,
0.35 damage index corresponds to interstorey drift of bare MRF of 0.8%. Interstorey
drift ratio of 0.8% corresponds to a damage index of a MRF with infills of 0.7, which
is near collapse. The behaviour of infilled frame may not return to the behaviour of a
ductile MRF after the failure of the masonry infills. The apparent lack of ductility for
MRF with infills is because the pattern of masonry failure may cause brittle failure of
the frame elements. This may be the case even for a well-designed frame that is
ductile when tested without the infills. The maximum interstorey drift limits
corresponding to various damage states of MRF with infills are listed in Table 1.
0.8

0.7

0.6
Damage index

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 Bare MRF

0.1 MRF with infills

0
0 1 2 3

Interstorey drift ratio %

Figure 7. Behaviour of bare portal MRF and MRF with infills

5. WALLS

Structural walls may act predominantly in shear or flexure depending on their aspect
ratio and the applied loads. Squat walls may fail abruptly by one of several brittle
modes of failure. There is a comprehensive volume of experimental research and post
earthquake observation on the behaviour of walls (Duffey et al. 1994; Khalil and
Ghobarah 2003; Kowalsky 2001; Wood 1991).

10
5.1 Flexural Structural walls

An example of the behaviour of flexural walls is shown in Figure 8. Initially the wall
stiffness is high. Yielding of the steel reinforcement in ductile flexural walls occurs at
drift values of approximately 0.8%. The drift limits corresponding to various damage
states of ductile flexural walls are listed in Table 1.

5.2 Squat shear walls

The relationship between damage and drift ratio for squat walls is shown in Figure 8.
Initially under low levels of load, the behaviour of the squat wall is the same as
ductile flexural walls. However, when shear cracks occur and are not arrested, the
wall stiffness degrades rapidly reflecting a substantial increase in damage leading to
abrupt failure. In the case of squat walls, it was experimentally observed that damage
index of 0.3 represents the limit of repairable damage. This limit corresponds to
relatively low drift ratio value of 0.4%. The steel yield point is normally not reached
before shear failure occurs. The drift limit corresponding to various states of damage
of squat shear walls are listed in Table 1.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Damage index

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Squat shear wall
0.2
0.1 Flexural wall

0
0 1 2 3
Drift ratio %

Figure 8. Shear and flexural behaviour of walls (Khalil and Ghobarah 2003)

11
 6. CONCLUSIONS

Different sets of drift limits associated with various damage levels were defined for
moment resisting frames (ductile, nonductile, with infills), flexural structural walls
and squat shear walls. The defined performance levels were based on experimental
data, field observations and measurements and theoretical analyses. At least two main
sets of drift limits can be identified to represent various damage levels for the design
of ductile systems and the assessment of the seismic resistance of nonductile ones.
Currently available drift limits were found to be conservative for ductile
structures and nonconservative for nonductile structures.
Realistic drift calculations should be made using reduced gross inertia due to
the cracked section properties.
The proposed drift limits representing various performance objectives of the
structure can be further refined as additional test and analysis data are included.

REFERENCES

Chiou, Y-J., J-C. Tzeng, and Y-W Liou (1999). Experimental and analytical study of
masonry infilled frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 125(10):1109-1117.
Duffey, T.A., C.R. Farrar and A. Goldman (1994) Low-rise shear wall ultimate drift
limits. Earthquake Spectra 10(4):655-674.
FEMA (1997) Guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings. National Earthquake
Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP), Report FEMA 273, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Ghobarah, A. (2001). Performance-based design in earthquake engineering: state of
development. Engineering Structures, 23:878-884.
Ghobarah, A., N.M. Aly and M. El Attar (1997). Performance level criteria and
evaluation. In: Fajfar P., Krawinkler, H. editors. Seismic Design Methodologies for
the Next Generation of Codes. AA Balkema, Rotterdam: 207-215.
Khalil, A. and A. Ghobarah (2003) Scale model testing of structural walls. Response
of Structures to Extreme Loading, Toronto, Canada, Paper# 246, Elsevier, UK.
Kowalsky, M. J. (2001). RC structural walls designed according to UBC and
displacement-based methods. Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(5):506-516.
Lu, Y. (2002). Comparative Study of Seismic Behavior of Multistory Reinforced
concrete Framed Structures. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(2):169 – 178.
Rossetto, T. and A. Elnashai (2003) Derivation of vulnerability functions for
European type RC structures based on observed data. Engineering Structures
25:1241-1263.
SEAOC (1995). Vision 2000, Performance based seismic engineering of buildings.
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
Wood, S. L. (1991). Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the 1985
Chile earthquake: implications for the design of structural walls. Earthquake Spectra,
7(4):607-638.

12

View publication stats