See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268871212

Investigation of Seismic Behavior of Flexible

Diaphragms In Typical Buildings

Conference Paper · July 2012

READS

36

3 authors, including:

Seyed Mehdi Zahrai

University of Tehran
163 PUBLICATIONS 243 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Seyed Mehdi Zahrai
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 13 August 2016
 Thi3rd International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries
(ICCIDC-III)

July 04-06, 2012

Bangkok, Thailand

Investigation of Seismic Behaviour of Flexible Diaphragms in

Typical Buildings

Mohammadali BARKHORDARI1, SeyedMahdi ZAHRAI2 Morteza DAVOUDY 3

1
PhD civil Engineering, university of science and technology, Iran, barkhordar@ iust.ac.ir
2
PhD civil Engineering, university of tehran, Iran, mzahrai@ut.ac.ir
3
MSc civil Engineering, Islamic Azad University, Takestan Branch, Iran, mortezadavoudy@yahoo.com

Abstract
One of the most important assumptions which is being used in analysis and design of buildings against
lateral forces is the rigid-floor assumption. Lateral rigidity of diaphragms depends on several factors such
as: type of the structure, dimensions of structure, rigidity and location of lateral load bearing elements,
stiffness of frames, type and thickness of floors, number of stories and etc. so, we should give more and
more importance to this assumption.
In this study, in order to investigate how tabular concrete slabs behave, a lot of models in two cases of
rigid-floor (master node method) and flexible-floor (finite element method) in linear limitations are
analysed and compared.

Keywords
Rigidity, flexibility, diaphragm, concrete waffle slab

1- Introduction
Structures with flexible floor systems behave differently under dynamic lateral loading than structures
with rigid diaphragms. The rigid floor assumption distributes forces between lateral resistant elements
according to the proportion of elements rigidity. In addition, this assumption decreases the degrees of
freedom and makes the analysis simpler. Several codes, for instance Iranian code of practice for seismic
resistance of buildings (Standard 2800) present some criterions for the diaphragm. According to the
mentioned standard, diaphragm is to be considered flexible when the diaphragm deflection exceeds twice
the story drift. However, flexible diaphragm systems are still analyzed with criteria and recommendation
developed for structure with rigid diaphragms. Variables such as structural system can affect diaphragm
behavior and causes rigid diaphragm treatment was not accurate. In this study analysis was performed in a
linear mode and for each structures, modeling was performed considering both real rigidity and rigid
diaphragm assumption.

2-Model description
A basic plan according to the below figure is provide in order to set up the modeling procedure, having
3m height, 5m width, 6 and 10 m spans. The diaphragm is assumed to be concrete waffle slab.
 Third International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries
(ICCIDC-III)

July 04-06, 2012

Bangkok, Thailand

Figure.1. Model description

Loading is performed based on Iranian earthquake code and the analysis type is static. The selected
structural systems are concrete structure with shear wall, concrete moment frame, steel braced frame and
steel moment frame. The braces and shear walls are in 1, 2, 3 directions and earthquake load is applied in
x direction. The numerical modeling is made in SAP2000 for both rigid and flexible cases of diaphragms.

3- Comparison criterions
Here, some criterions are defined in order to make it possible to compare the results between rigid and
flexible modeling results. The parameter is chosen as displacement symbol. In fact are the
displacement for the three direction in the below figure.

    2'   2 /  2 ,

 2'  21   3  / 3
1  12 2  23 3

There are also parameters such as , and finally ∆ that must be defined here:
1  1 2  (1   2  / 2) /((1   2 ) / 2),

 2   2  3  ( 2   3  / 2) /(( 2   3 ) / 2),

  Max{1 ,  2 }

4- Illustrative graphs
To completely understand the results for the structures modeling, in this part different graphs according to
variation of some variables are plotted.
 Third International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries
(ICCIDC-III)

July 04-06, 2012

Bangkok, Thailand

Table.1. Graphs for SH models

Variation of slab thickness

1.4 3

1.2
2.5

1
2

0.8
1.5
0.6
1
0.4

0.5
0.2

0 0
5 10 15 25 35
5 10 15 25 35

Variation of shear wall thickness

1.4
1.4

1.2 1.2

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0
0
5 10 20 30 40
5 10 20 30 40

Variation of beam dimensions

1.2 1

0.9
1
0.8

0.7
0.8
0.6

0.6 0.5

0.4
0.4
0.3

0.2
0.2
0.1

0 0
25*35 35*55 50*75 25*35 35*55 50*75
 Third International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries
(ICCIDC-III)

July 04-06, 2012

Bangkok, Thailand

Table.2. Graphs for MC models

Variation of slab thickness

0.04
0.06

0.035
0.05
0.03

0.04
0.025

0.03 0.02

0.015
0.02

0.01
0.01
0.005

0
0
5 10 15 25 35
5 10 15 25 35

Variation of beam dimensions

0.031 0.015

0.03
0.0145

0.029
0.014
0.028

0.027 0.0135

0.026
0.013
0.025

0.0125
0.024

0.023 0.012
25*40 40*60 55*85 25*40 40*60 55*85

Variation of column dimensions

0.12
0.07

0.1 0.06

0.05
0.08

0.04
0.06
0.03

0.04
0.02

0.02 0.01

0
0
30*30 50*50 70*70
30*30 50*50 70*70
 Third International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries
(ICCIDC-III)

July 04-06, 2012

Bangkok, Thailand

Table.3. Graphs for BR models

Variation of slab thickness

0.6
0.4

0.5 0.35

0.3
0.4
0.25

0.3 0.2

0.15
0.2
0.1
0.1 0.05

0
0
5 10 15 25 35
5 10 15 25 35

Variation of brace dimensions

0.3 0.35

0.25 0.3

0.25
0.2
0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1

0.05 0.05

0 0
2L60x6 2L80x8 2L120x12 2L150x15 2L180x18 2L60x6 2L80x8 2L120x12 2L150x15 2L180x18

Variation of beam dimensions

0.2 0.122
0.18 0.12
0.16 0.118
0.14
0.116
0.12
0.114
0.1
0.112
0.08
0.11
0.06

0.04
0.108

0.02 0.106

0 0.104
IPE 20 IPE 30 IPE 40 IPE 20 IPE 30 IPE 40
 Third International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries
(ICCIDC-III)

July 04-06, 2012

Bangkok, Thailand

Table.4. Graphs for MS models

Variation of slab thickness

0.035 0.016

0.03 0.014

0.012
0.025
0.01
0.02
0.008
0.015
0.006
0.01
0.004

0.005 0.002

0 0
5 10 15 25 35 5 10 15 25 35

Variation of beam dimensions

0.0192 0.006
0.019
0.005
0.0188

0.0186 0.004
0.0184
0.003
0.0182

0.018 0.002

0.0178
0.001
0.0176

0.0174 0
IPE 22 IPE 36 IPE 45 IPE 22 IPE 36 IPE 45

Variation of column dimensions

0.035
0.014

0.03 0.012

0.025 0.01

0.02 0.008

0.015 0.006

0.01 0.004

0.005 0.002

0
0
IPB 16 IPB 24 IPB 28
IPB 16 IPB 24 IPB 28
 Third International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries
(ICCIDC-III)

July 04-06, 2012

Bangkok, Thailand

5-Results
Based on the previous graphs for the 4 mentioned structural systems, the result are concluded here.
SHn (n=1-13) models
According to the results for this part, table.1, and . The extreme amount
for this parameter shows that in this part, the diaphragms are mostly flexible. This could be because of
rigid behavior of shear walls in this system.

MCn (n=1-11) models

Based to the results for this part, table.2, and . The models for
concrete frames demonstrate more rigid diaphragms rather than shear wall models. The reason lies on the
fact that slab rigidity is more than columns stiffness.
BRn (n=1-13) models
According to the results for this part, table.3, and .
Since the lateral load bearing systems in this type of models are rather rigid, the behavior for the slabs is
concluded as flexible.
MSn (n=1-11) models
According to the results for this part, table.4, and .
the results show that steel moment frame present a more rigid diaphragm rather than the braced steel
frames.

6- Conclusion
In this paper the effect of structural lateral load bearing systems on rigidity of concrete waffle slabs is
investigated. the results show that for a shear wall resisted structure the assumption of a rigid diaphragm
is not valid. so designers should consider it as a flexible diaphragm in their designations.

References
De-La-Colina, J. (1999). “Inplane floor flexibility effects on torsionally unbalanced systems”. Earthquale
Engrg. And Struct. Dyn., 28 (12), 1705-1715.
Jain, S.K., and Mandal, U.K. (1995), “Dynamics of building with Y shaped plan and flexible floor
diaphragms”, J.strut.engr., ASCE, 121(6).
Jain, S.K., and Mandal, U.K. (1992). “Dynamics of buildings with V-shaped plan.” This paper is part of
the journal of engineering mechanics, 118(6).
Ju, S. H., and Lin, M.C. (1990). “Comparison of building analyses assuming rigid or flexible floors. “
J.Struct. Engr., ASCE, 125(1), 25-31.
Tremblay, R., and Stiemer, S.F. (1996). “Seismic behavior of single story steel structures with a flexible
roof diaohragm.” Canadian journal of civil engineering, 23(11).
Ju, S. H., and Lin, M.C. (2007). “Comparison of building analyses assuming rigid or flexible floors. “
J.Struct. Engr., ASCE, 125(1), 25-31.