EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING A N D STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, VOL.

1, 347-355 (1973)

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANCE OF BUILDINGS WITH A

‘SOFT’ FIRST STOREY
A. K. CHOPRA*
University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.

D. P. CLOUGH’f R. w. C L O U G H ~
Bechtel Corporation, Sun Francisco, U.S.A. University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.

SUMMARY
The dynamic, bi-linear response behaviour of a series of eight storey shear buildings subjected to simulated earth-
quake excitation is studied. The specific objective of the investigation is to determine under what conditions a
yielding first storey can adequately protect the upper storeys from significant yielding. Two classes of buildings
are considered: stiff (0.5 sec period) and flexible (2.0 sec period), and the basic parameters considered in the
yielding first storey are the yield force level and the bi-linear stiffness. The results demonstrate that a verylow
yield force level and an essentially perfectly plastic yielding mechanism are required in the first storey to provide
effective protection to the superstructure. Moreover, the required displacement capacity of such an effective first
storey mechanism is found to be very large.

INTRODUCTION
An earthquake loading is unique among the types of forces to which a building may be subjected in that the
magnitude of this loading is directly dependent upon the stiffness properties of the building. Thus
the structural engineer can exert a considerable degree of control over these forces during the design of the
building frame, both with regard to their magnitude and to their distribution. The essential feature of the
earthquake loading, of course, is that external load is applied directly to the structure only through its base.
Forces developed at the upper levels are a consequence only of the local accelerations which result from the
earthquake motions introduced at the base.
Because the forces acting in the building depend on the storey accelerations, it is evident that their magni-
tude can be limited if the motions propagated through the building by its base displacements can be controlled,
and the concept of a mechanism which would insulate the upper storeys of a building from the earthquake
input has attracted the interest of structural designers for many de~adesl-~. The ultimate step in this direction
would be to put the building on a roller bearing system so that no horizontal force could be transmitted into
the structure when the ground beneath it moves. Practical factors such as problems with utility connections
and the necessity of providing for wind resistance have ruled out this extreme solution, but the similar
alternative of introducing easily deformable (soft) columns in the first storey has been proposed by many
engineers. In all of the early studies of this concept, it was assumed that the columns would remain fully
elastic during the earthquake response; however, a recent paper by Fintel and Kahn4 suggested that the first
storey should deform inelastically and thus provide an energy absorbing mechanism. The essence of their
proposal is to make the first storey act as a ‘soft’ ductile link which yields at a specified value of horizontal
shear force, and which therefore cannot transmit a greater force than this into the upper storeys. Accordingly,
they assume that the upper storeys need be designed only for the lateral force limit of the ductile link, and

* Associate Professor of Civil Engineering.

t Engineer, Scientific Development.
$ Professor of Civil Engineering.
Received 15 October 1972
@ 1973 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

347
348 A. K. CHOPRA, D. P. CLOUGH AND R. W. CLOUGH

that this can be selected to be consistent with the wind load requirements of the structure. On this basis, the
only special earthquake design of the structure is limited to the ‘soft’ first storey.
Although the logic of this argument is appealing, it does not, unfortunately, recognize the complexity of
the dynamic earthquake behaviour of a multistorey building. A crucial factor which has been overlooked is
that the shear wave transmitted into the superstructure by the ductile first storey (which actually may be
limited to the yield force level during its initial propagation) will be reflected at the top of the building and
this reflection would tend to cause a doubling of the net force amplitude in a uniform building. In tapered or
other types of non-uniform buildings, more complicated amplification mechanisms may occur.
From these remarks, it is clear that more thorough studies of the ‘soft’ first storey concept must be made
before conclusions may be drawn with regard to its expected benefits. It is the purpose of this paper to
summarize the results of one such s t ~ d yin, ~which the inelastic earthquake response of a ‘standard’ building
(designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.) ) is compared with the behaviour of a
building which is identical except that the yield strength of the first storey is reduced to a fraction of that in
the standard building. From the results of these studies, tentative conclusions have been drawn concerning
the design requirements which must be met if a ‘soft’ first storey design is to be acceptable.

DESCRIPTION OF BUILDINGS STUDIED

The building frames considered in this study are of the ‘shear distortion’ type, in which it is assumed that the
girders are rigid and the columns do not deform axially. Thus the floors displace only in simple translation
and the eight-storey frames considered here have only eight degrees of freedom. Even though computer
programs for the non-linear dynamic analysis of much more general two-dimensional frames are available,6
it is believed that this simple model is adequate for the present purposes and it was adopted in the interests
of saving computer time.
In order to limit the number of parameters to be studied, the weights lumped at the eight floor levels
were made equal. The elastic column stiffnesses were distributed in such a way that the first mode vibration
shape would vary linearly with height (i.e. the triangular shape implied by the U.B.C. specifications). A
viscous damping mechanism was assumed which is represented by a damping matrix derived to maintain
orthogonality of the modal vectors with respect to it, and to provide 5 per cent critical damping in all modes.
The yield force in all storeys above the first was specified to be twice the design force prescribed by the U.B.C. ;
the factor of two was adopted to account for the additional strength beyond the design value which may be
expected in most buildings due to the action of non-structural components and to the difference between
design and yield stresses.The yield force in the first storey of the ‘standard’ building was defined similarly, but
the corresponding yield force of the buildings with the ductile link was reduced by a factor R ;specific values
considered here were R = 0.7, 0.5, 0.3 and 0.1.
The relative values of storey stiffness which lead to the linear first mode displacement, and the relative
storey strengths based on twice the U.B.C. requirements are listed in Table I. These quantities represent
ratios to the first storey values of stiffness and strength, which are given respectively by
first story stiffness : k, = (18r2/T2g)W (1)
first storey yield strength: F,, = 2KCW (2)
Table 1. Standard building properties
Relative Relative
Storey elastic stiffness yield strength
~-
8 0.2222 0.3000
7 0.4167 0.4750
6 0.5833 0.6248
5 0.7222 0.7500
4 0.8333 0.8500
3 0.9167 0-9250
2 0.9725 0.9753
1 1~0000 1.oooo
 BUILDINGS WITH A ‘SOFT’ FIRST STOREY 349

in which,
W = 8w = total weight of building
T = fundamental period of vibration
g = acceleration of gravity
K = U.B.C. building type factor (taken as two-thirds here)
C = U.B.C. base shear coefficient = 0*05/+YT
In this study, two different periods of vibrations were considered; T = 0.5 sec was taken to represent a
stiff building, while T = 2.0 sec was taken for a flexible building. The non-linear character of the building
stiffness was assumed to be represented adequately by a bi-linear force-deflection relationship. In all storeys
above the first, the stiffness beyond the yield force was taken to be one-tenth of the elastic stiffness of the
corresponding storey, i.e. it was defined by a bi-linear stiffness coefficient = 6. The same bi-linear stiffness
coefficient was used initially in the first storey of all buildings; however, in a subsequent series of analyses,
the first storey bi-linear coefficient was reduced to /3 = A. The latter coefficient represents essentially
perfectly plastic behaviour.
In summary, the buildings with the soft storey considered in this study were identical to the standard
buildings except that the yield force value in the first storey was reduced, and in some cases a reduced
bi-linear stiffness coefficient was used in this storey. In all, two different periods of vibration, four different
first storey yield forces (in addition to the standard value) and two different bi-linear stiffnesses in the first
storey were considered, making a total of twenty different structures. It should be noted that the elastic
stiffness of the soft first storey was not varied.

EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTIONS

I n investigating the design requirements for multistorey buildings with a ‘soft’ first storey, it is important to
recognize the unpredictable nature of earthquake ground motion. Such uncertainty suggests that ground
motion should be represented as a random process with characteristics similar to those of ground motions
recorded during past earthquakes. Starting with the early work of Housner’ considerable research has been
done on such representations and simulation of ground motions.
The random process model and simulation procedure adopted herein is the one described by Ruiz and
Penzien.8 The simulation procedure consisted of generating samples of stationary Gaussian white noise,
multiplying the white noise by an intensity function of time to represent a segment of strong shaking at
constant intensity followed by a gradual decay in intensity, passing the resulting wave form through a second-
order linear filter with selected parameters to impart the desired frequency content, and finally performing a
base line correction on the filtered function.
The earthquake accelerograms simulated for purposes of this investigation are representative of ground
motions to be expected on firm ground at moderate epicentral distances and the filter parameters were
selected accordingly. This is demonstrated in Figure 1 where the shape of the average of the pseudo-velocity
spectra for twenty simulated earthquakes is compared with Housner’s average response spectra, obtained
from ground motions recorded on firm ground at 30-45 mile epicentral distances during the El Centro
1934, the El Centro 1940, the Olympia 1949 and the Taft 1952 earthquakes.
The expected maximum acceleration for this family of ground motions was selected as 0.30 g, and the total
duration was 30 sec, consisting of 12 sec of strong shaking followed by an exponential decay in intensity over
an 18-sec period. Twenty earthquakes were simulated; six of these are shown in Figure 2.

EARTHQUAKE BEHAVIOUR O F ‘STANDARD’ AND ‘SOFT” FIRST STOREY BUILDINGS

The earthquake behaviour of the two types-‘standard’ and ‘soft’ first storey-buildings was studied by
performing dynamic analyses of the structural models described above for the selected parameter values
when subjected to the simulated earthquakes motions. Because the restoring storey forces are non-linearly
related to the displacements, it was necessary to solve directly the coupled equations of motion; for this
350 A. K. CHOPRA, D. P. CLOUGH AND R. W. CLOUGH

--- AVERAGE OF 2 0 SIMULATED EARTHQUAKES

I .5 - - STANDARD RESPONSE SPECTRA (HOUSNER, 1959)

1.0
0'
W
m
\

u.
G

0.5

0 V 1 I I I I 1
0.5 1.0 I .5 2.0 2.5 3.0
UNDAMPED NATURAL PERIOD-SEC.

Figure 1. Average pseudo-velocity response spectra

(From Ruiz and Penzien*)

04

04

T i m e - secs

0 . 10
4 20
0 ~
30
-4.0
0
I 10 20
,I
______-.
30
Time -secs Time - s e a '
" " " " I " " " " ' 1 " ' " '
0.4
1

0.4 0
1 . . . . . . . . , 1 . . . .
10 . 20
- . - .
,...I
. 30 . 0 0
( 4 10 20 30
Time -secs T i m e -secs

Figure 2. Simulated ground accelerations-g

(Adapted from Ruiz and Penzien*)
 BUILDINGS WITH A ‘SOFT’ FIRST STOREY 351

purpose the step-by-step linear acceleration method was used. A primary concern in this investigation is the
effect of reduction in the yield strength of the first storey on the deformations and forces developed in the
upper storeys; the most significant factor is whether the drifts (storey to storey displacements) in the upper
storeys exceed the yield limit or not. In presenting the results of this study, the maximum absolute value of the
drift in each storey during an earthquake has been divided by the storey drift at yielding, thus expressing it
in the form of a ductility factor. A ductility factor less than or equal to one implies elastic behaviour.
The maximum ductility factors for the flexible building ( T = 2.0 sec) subjected to simulated ground motion
No. 1 (Figure 2) for different vaiues of the first storey yield strength reduction factor, R,are presented on the
left-hand side of Figure 3 ; these results are for the first storey yielding stiffness coefficient /3 = A.
From the
point of view of design, the ductility factor is a measure of the capacity for inelastic deformation required
of structural members in a given storey. However, the ductility factor is not meaningful when applied to the
‘soft’ first storey, which should be considered as a mechanism specifically designed to accommodate large

FIRST STORYYIELDING STIFFNESS RATIO. 1)=1/10 1

I First Story Drift, inches: 5.77 4.89 3.97 3.07 2.21

1125) 135) 117) 19.51 (4.81 I
II I I I I 1 -

0 1 2 3 4 5
6 7
DUCT I L I T Y FACTOR
Figure 3. Effect of first storey yield strength reduction coefficient, R, on ductility factors-flexible building

drifts, rather than as an ordinary frame component. The maximum value of the first storey drift itself is of
significance because it will be a basic requirement in designing the soft-storey mechanism, thus this value
(along with the ductility factor in parenthesis) is listed in Figure 3.
It is apparent from Figure 3 that a reduction in the first storey yield strength has the general effect of
decreasing the ductility factors in all storeys above the first. However, the decrease in a particular storey is
not necessarily monotonic with reduction in R.The second story ductility factor is essentially independent of
R, the ductility factors for the middle storeys are only slightly greater than one when R < 0.5, but R must
have very small values to prevent the top storeys from going into the inelastic range. Perhaps the most
important observation to be made from Figure 3 is the significant inelastic deformation occurring in the
second storey even for the very soft first storey: R = 0.1. Also, the first storey drift is about 4-6 in. for the
smaller values of R.
The relatively slight change observed in the second storey ductility factor, over a wide range of R, implies
that the maximum shear force transmitted to the second storey does not decrease in spite of large reductions
in the first storey yield strength. This demonstrates that, to ensure elastic behaviour of the second storey, the
forces transmitted from the foundation must be limited. It is evident here that the large first storey drifts
operating on the yield stiffness /3 = =%, still develop large base shears. To reduce these values it is necessary
to use a lower yield stiffness, and for this purpose the value /3 = was tried. Results obtained with this
essentially perfectly plastic yield mechanism are presented for different values of R on the right-hand side of
352 A. K. CHOPRA, D. P. CLOUGH AND R. W. CLOUGH

Figure 3. These results show that the reduction in the bi-linear stiffness for the first storey leads generally to
a decrease in the ductility factors for all storeys above the first, this decrease being especially significant in the
lower storeys. The ductility factor for the second storey is now strongly affected by a decrease in R ;this
storey remains elastic for R equal to or less than 0.7. The entire structure above the first storey remains well
below the elastic limit when R = 0.1. Elastic behaviour is thus achieved in the structure above the first storey
by reducing the first storey yielding stiffness, at the expense of developing very large drifts in the first storey.
The value of about 20 in. for the first storey drift when R = 0.1 is, of course, a very severe requirement for
design of the soft-storey mechanism.
The maximum ductility factors for the stiff building ( T = 0.5 sec) subjected to the same simulated earth-
quake for different values of R and the first storey bi-linear stiffness coefficient L2, = 1% are presented on the
left-hand side of Figure 4. It is well known that, for structures designed according to the U.B.C., the

FIRST STORY YIELDING STIFFNESS RATIO, p=l/lO I FIRST STORY YIELDING STIFFNESS RATIO, p 1/100 I
8

6
I1T
w
m
5z 5
2 4
0
k
(0

2
R: 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0
First Story D r i f t , inches: . 3.78 2.56 1.74 1.51 1.26
, (824) (186) (75)(47) (27)
I
2 4 6 8 10 12 1 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DUCT1L l T Y FACTOR

Figure 4. Effect of first storey yield strength reduction coefficient, R, on ductility factors-stiff building

ductility requirements for stiff buildings are appreciably larger than those for flexible buildings, and this is
apparent in comparing Figures 3 and 4. This comparison demonstrates that the creation of a ‘soft’ first
storey in a stiff structure has relatively less effect on the ductility requirements for the storeys above the first.
Similar to the results for a flexible building, the reduction in R has little influence on the ductility require-
ments in the lower storeys (2 and 3), but the response in the upper storeys is significantly affected. It is
important to note that all storeys above the first undergo large inelastic deformations even when the strength
of the first storey has been reduced to very low values: R = 0.1, 0-3.
The general effect of reducing the bi-linear stiffness coefficient of the first storey of the stiff building to
= A, shown on the right-hand side of Figure 4,is similar to what was observed in the flexible structure.
It results in a dramatic reduction in the ductility requirements for storeys 2-5 but there is only a small change
in the values for storeys 6-8. The entire structure above the first storey now remains elastic when R = 0.1,
with a maximum drift in the first story of about 4 in.
A general observation on the behaviour of both sets of buildings is that the ductility requirements in the
lower storeys depend to a large extent on the total force (elastic plus plastic) developed a t the base, whereas
the ductility requirements in the upper storeys (which result from a ‘whiplash’ or wave reflection effect)
depend primarily on the elastic component of the base force. Thus, the yielding stiffness coefficient P is
important in the lower storeys while the strength factor R controls the behaviour in the upper storeys.
 BUILDINGS WITH A ‘SOFT’ FIRST STOREY 353

DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR ‘SOFT’ FIRST STOREY BUILDINGS

The results of inelastic response of the two selected idealized buildings to simulated earthquake No. 1,
presented in the preceding section, demonstrate that all storeys above the first remain elastic provided the
yield strength of the first storey is small enough and the behaviour of the first storey after yielding is almost
perfectly plastic. More specifically, in both structures all storeys above the first remain elastic for a first
storey yield strength reduction factor R = 0.1 and a first storey yielding stiffnessratio, p = A.
In other words,
the buildings meet the intent of a ‘soft’ first storey design for these values of the two basic parameters R and
,R, when they are subjected to this earthquake.
As can be seen from Figure 2, any two ground motions originating from a random process are not identical;
they exhibit certain common statistical characteristics because they are members of the same random process
but differ both in peak acceleration as well as in time-history. Recognition of these differences and their
effect on structural response is, of course, the basic purpose of any probabilistic study. In investigating the
design requirements of a building with a ‘soft’ first storey, it is necessary to recognize these probabilistic
variations in the ground motion. Two questions arise in this context: (1) Would all storeys above the first of
the two buildings with the presumably acceptable first storey parameters R = 0.1 and p = remain
elastic when subjected to other ground motions simulated from the random process mentioned earlier? (2)
What is the statistical dispersion to be expected in the first storey drift?
To answer these questions, the two buildings (T = 0.5 and T = 2.0) with the first storey yield parameters
R = 0.1 and /3 = & were subjected to twenty simulated earthquakes generated from the same random
process. The ductility factors computed for all storeys above the first are presented in Tables I1 and 111. If a
particular storey remains elastic, the ductility factor is less than one and its value is not reported. It is
apparent that yielding develops in at least one storey above the first of the ‘stiff’buildings for the simulated
ground motions Nos. 3, 6, 8, 16 and 18. In other words, this building would not be a successful ‘soft’ first
storey design, on a rough average, for one out of every four ground motions. On the other hand all storeys
above the first of the flexible building remain elastic for all the twenty simulated ground motions with the
minor exception that the top storey responded slightly beyond the elastic limit to ground motion No. 16.
Thus this may be accepted as a satisfactory design.

Table 11. Ductility factors for ‘stiff’ building above first storey R = 0.1, fl =&

Storey
Ground motion No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

3 4.68 3.88 3.02 2.24 1.06 -* -

6 2-22 1.28 1.11 1.01 - - -
8 - - - - - 1.10 -
16 - - - - - 1.002 -
18 1.46 - - - - - -
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-15, 17, - - - - - - -
19, 20

Table 111. Ductility factors for ‘flexible’ building above first storey

Storey
Ground motion No. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

* Ductility factor < 1, i.e. storey remains elastic.

354 A. K. CHOPRA, D. P. CLOUGH AND R. W. CLOUGH

The greatest yielding in the stiff structure is caused by ground motion No. 3. Analysis of the response to
this ground motion with /3 reduced further to 1/200th demonstrated that all storeys above the first remained
elastic. That the response of the storeys immediately above the first is extremely sensitive to /3 is again
apparent from this result.
The maximum values of first storey drifts obtained for the stiff and the flexible buildings for each of the
twenty simulated earthquakes are presented in Figure 5 on extreme value probability paper. Each plot,
corresponding to a particular building, shows the probability distribution of the maximum first storey drift,

RETURN PERIOD -NUMBER OF EARTHQUAKES

7 c 8 4

135
0
M E A N r n , in.

COEFF. O F V A R I A T I O N , V = u / m

LARGEST OF 20 V A L U E S , in. 33.18 6.15

SMALLEST OF 20 VALUES, in. 5.68 2.29

I I I I I I I I 1 I lo
.I0 .20.30 SO .70 .80 .90 .95
PROB ABI L l T Y D I S T R l B U T ION
I I I I I
I 0 I 2 3
REDUCED EXTREME VALUE, y
Figure 5. Probability distributions for first storey drifts

i.e. probability that a given value of first storey drift is not exceeded. This may be interpreted in terms of the
expected number of earthquakes required to exceed a given first storey drift, as shown in Figure 5. The wavy
lines represent the probability distribution computed from responses to twenty simulated motions and the
straight lines are the theoretical distributions assuming that the maximum first storey drifts are random
variables with a probability distribution of the exponential Type I. These plots are such that the ordinate of
first storey drift at the origin of the reduced extreme value scale, y = 0, represents the most probable value and
the slope is proportional to its standard deviation.
From Figure 5 the following conclusions may be deduced:
1. The most probable first storey drift for flexible buildings is much larger in comparison to that for stiff
buildings.
2. The statistical dispersion in the first storey drift, as measured by the coefficient of variation, is larger for
flexible buildings than in the case of stiff buildings.
3. First storey drifts much larger than the mean value can occur. The largest values observed among
responses to the selected sample of twenty ground motions are 33.18 and 6.15 in. for flexible and stiff
buildings respectively. Of course, even larger values could occur if a bigger sample of ground motions were
considered.
4. If it is assumed, for example, that the stiff building is designed for a first storey drift of 4.5 in. and the
flexible building for 24 in., these values will, on the average, be exceeded once in five earthquakes.
 BUILDINGS WITH A ‘SOFT’ FIRST STOREY 355

CONCLUSIONS
Although this study has been limited to eight storey shear distortion type buildings, it is believed that the
following conclusions drawn from these results are applicable as well to a much broader class of yielding
first storey structures.
1. In order to limit the force transmitted to the storeys immediately above the yielding first storey, this
should provide essentially an elastic-perfectly plastic mechanism. Any significant yielding stiffness (second
slope) in the mechanism can cause large increases over the yield value in the transmitted shear force.
2. Even when the yielding first storey properly limits the force transmitted into the superstructure, the
resulting shear wave propagates upward through the building and can be expected to cause distress as it
reaches the weaker upper storeys if they have been designed only for ordinary wind requirements.
3. An additional factor requiring further strengthening of the upper storeys is the wave reflection or ‘whip-
lash‘ mechanism, which can produce a doubling of the propagating shear force.
4. The first storey yield mechanism must be designed to accommodate very large displacements, in excess
of 1 ft, if it is to be effective with a flexible structure. The required displacements are much smaller in the
case of a stiff structure.
5. It is important to consider the earthquake design requirements on a statistical basis in order to determine
the range of displacements which must be accommodated; analysis of the response due to one, or even to
several, earthquakes is likely to be quite misleading.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This investigation was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grant GI-3 1883.

REFERENCES
1. R. R. Martel, ‘The effects of earthquakes on buildings with a flexible first story’, Bull. Seis. SOC. Am., 19, 167-178 (1929).
2. N. B. Green, ‘Flexible first storey construction for earthquake resistance’, Trans. Am. SOC. Civ. Eng. 100, 645-674 (1935).
3. L. S . Jacobsen, Effects of a Flexible First Storey in a Building Locatedon Vibrating Ground, S . Timoshenko 60th Anniversary
Volume, Macmillan, New York, 1938, pp. 93-103.
4. M. Fintel and F. R. Khan, ‘Shock-absorbing soft storey concept for multistorey earthquake structures, A C I J . 381-390
(1969).
5 . D. P. Clough, ‘A study of the soft storey concept in earthquake resistant design,’ Graduate Student Report No. 526,
Div. Struct. Eng. Struct. Mech., Dept. Civ. Eng., University of California, Berkeley, California, 1972.
6. H. Kamil, ‘Optimum inelastic design of unbraced multistorey frames under dynamic loads’, Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of California, Berkeley, California, 1972.
7. G . W. Housner, ‘Characteristics of strong motion earthquakes’, Bull. Seis. SOC. Am. 37, 19-37 (1947).
8. P. Ruiz and J. Penzien, ‘Stochastic seismic response of structures’, J. Engng Mech. Div., A.S.C.E. 97, 441-456 (1971).