Effect of Construction Deficiencies on Seismic

Performance of Hospitals during the

2017 Sarpol-e Zahab Earthquake
Siavash Sadeghi 1; Afshin Kalantari 2; and Esmaeel Izadi Zaman Abadi 3

Abstract: In this study, the construction deficiencies affecting performance of hospitals during the 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake in Iran
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

were studied through a field survey and numerical assessment. The inadequate bracing of infill walls, façades, and false ceilings, as well as the
improper infill wall materials were the nonstructural deficiencies identified through the initial field survey. Improper spacing and anchoring of
the reinforcement, unanticipated frame-infill interaction, and low concrete strength were also identified as the major drawbacks of structural
members. In the numerical assessment, the results of the concrete coring tests were utilized to establish an as-built nonlinear model whose
response was compared with the as-designed model for evaluation purposes. For this purpose, the models were initially pushed to a target roof
drift and were then subjected to nonlinear response history analyses under various levels of the Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake. The ductility
demands undergone by some members of the deficient as-built model were shown to surpass the counterpart values of the stronger
as-designed model, while a nearly 17% reduction was observed in the maximum base shear due to the construction deficiencies. DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001550. © 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Construction deficiencies; Hospitals; Seismic performance; Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake; Field survey; Numerical
assessment.

Introduction
Numerous studies have been carried out worldwide to improve the
safety of structures designed and constructed following the seismic
design codes. Nevertheless, the practical methods used in con-
structing the buildings suffer from faults that prevent the buildings
from perfectly matching the characteristics prescribed by the design
documents. While some of these deficiencies are within the accept-
able tolerances permitted by the standards, some others are likely to
pose serious threats to the safety of the built structures. Hence, the
effect of the construction errors on the performance of structures
has been addressed by a number of previous research studies.
The first group of studies are those not employing analytical
methods; instead, they have been devoted to comprehensive surveys
that identify and categorize faults according to the resulting structural
failures. Imam and Chryssanthopoulos (2010) and Hansson (2011)
used such methods on steel bridges and timber structures, respec-
tively. Field survey studies have been frequently used as a means
for identifying the actual effects caused by earthquakes on structures.
A study by Spence et al. (2003) used the results of two field surveys
performed after the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey to identify
1
Ph.D. Candidate, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Najafabad Branch,
Islamic Azad Univ., Najafabad 8514143131, Iran. ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0003-4998-1041. Email: sadeghi.research@gmail.com
2
Associate Professor, Structural Engineering Research Center, Interna-
tional Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Tehran
1953714453, Iran. Email: a.kalantari@iiees.ac.ir
3
Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Najafabad Branch,
Islamic Azad Univ., Najafabad 8514143131, Iran (corresponding author).
Email: esm_izadi@yahoo.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 6, 2020; approved on
August 31, 2020; published online on November 30, 2020. Discussion per-
iod open until April 30, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance of
Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
the actual losses undergone by the structures during this event and
compare them against numerical estimations. A similar study was
carried out by Zhang and Jin (2008) to identify damage undergone
during the Wenchuan Earthquake. Leite et al. (2013) used site sur-
veys to statistically identify and categorize the damage undergone
by churches after the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquake in New
Zealand. They also used the survey findings for investigating
the numerical analyses performed on some of the surveyed build-
ings. A study on the hospital damages following the 2014 Mae Lao
earthquake was also based on field survey (Ornthammarath and
Puavaranukroh 2018). Another study using field survey is the re-
search by Kagermanov et al. (2017) on reinforced concrete (RC)
buildings damaged during the Muisne (Ecuador) earthquake of
2016. In this study, the identified actual damages were used for
evaluating a numerical case study.
The second group of studies are analytical studies that quantify
the performance of the deficient structures. For example, Hong
and He (2015) and Gashti et al. (2014) investigated the effect of
human error on the reliability of roof structures subjected to wind
and seismic effects, respectively. Other studies [e.g., (Melchers 1989;
Ellingwood 1994, 2001)] considered construction errors as random
variables and studied the reliability of a randomly deficient structure.
El-Shahhat et al. (1993) used a scenario-based analysis to investi-
gate the probability of the error-caused structural failure during the
construction of RC multistory buildings. Later, Epaarachchi et al.
(2002) and Epaarachchi and Stewart (2004) extended the work by
El-Shahhat et al. (1993) by taking more parameters into account
and replacing the sensitivity-based assessment with an event-based
Monte Carlo simulation.
Among various structures, construction faults pose the highest
risks to hospitals and the other buildings that provide early rescue
and relief services in the aftermath of catastrophic events. The dam-
age posed to the hospitals during the 2003 Bam earthquake (Tierney
et al. 2005), the 2005 Pakistan earthquake (IASC 2005), the 2007
Peru earthquake (Chapin et al. 2009), the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake

© ASCE 04020140-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

 (Chapin et al. 2009), and the two earthquakes occurring in 2016 and
2017 in central Italy (Santarsiero et al. 2018) prove the construction
deficiencies to be a main cause of the hospitals’ cease of service dur-
ing severe earthquakes.
Due to the significant role of hospitals, in this study an initial
field survey is conducted to evaluate the status of medical centers
(hospitals) affected by the 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake in Iran.
This 2018 survey shows that some RC hospitals damaged by this
event suffered from serious construction drawbacks. While the
cease of service undergone by these hospitals cannot be rolled
back, there are lessons to be learned to prevent similar functionality
failures in the construction of future RC hospitals. To start the
appraisal, a qualitative field survey is done of the hospitals dam-
aged by the earthquake in the urban areas of the Sarpol-e Zahab
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
According to the USGS report, the earthquake was the result of a
shallow crustal trust fault of 23 km depth.
The initial investigations on the earthquake center showed that
the earthquake had occurred on a fault that was either mildly in-
clined toward the northeast or steeply sloped to the southwest.
In the region, the Arabian plate moved toward the Eurasian plate
with a speed of 26 mm=year (USGS 2017). These plates met along
a plate boundary in the vicinity of the earthquake-stricken region
and with a northwest direction. This movement also led to the gen-
eration of Zagros Mountains in Iran. Generally, earthquakes with
magnitudes similar to Sarpol-e Zahab and with trust faults occur in
regions with 25 × 65 km approximate dimensions. During the last
century, four other motions with M > 6 magnitudes have been re-
corded in the regions no more than 250 km distance from the center

city in Kermanshah Province, Iran. During this qualitative assess-
ment, the construction drawbacks observed in RC hospitals are
classified.
The second part of the appraisal consists of a quantitative analy-
sis. The aim of these analyses is to answer the following questions:
1. How sensitive are the structural performance measures to the
construction errors?
2. What aspects should be focused on during a rehabilitation pro-
gram to maximize its effectiveness? and
3. How vulnerable are the structures built in the studied area and
how should the after-event rescue and relief activities be
prioritized?
During this phase, the concrete material forming the columns
of the inspected hospitals is subjected to core sampling and the
corresponding compressive strengths are obtained using the axial
test. To evaluate the effect of the observed compressive concrete
strengths, a numerical assessment is conducted using finite-element
analysis. The effect of the reduced concrete strength on various
structural response parameters is investigated using nonlinear push-
over and response-history analyses. In the dynamic analyses, in ad-
dition to the mainshock effects, the effect of the sequential shocks
imposed during the Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake is also taken into
account.
Sarpol-e Zahab Earthquake
of the Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake. The last event was observed in
January 1967 with an M ¼ 6.1 magnitude and with a center located
about 100 km south of the Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake (Tehran
University 2018). The Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake led to 620 deaths
and 12,386 injuries. According to the 2017 reports, the earthquake
caused losses in 10 cities and 930 villages, while around 100,000
buildings underwent partial or complete damage (HFIR 2017).
Studied Hospitals
As a result of the 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake, 62 medical
centers were completely destroyed and 42 others suffered partial
repairable damage. In addition, four clinical centers and eight hos-
pitals (listed in Table 1) experienced a partial or complete loss of
functionality. This study has focused on the latter eight hospitals in
order to identify the construction faults with the most detrimental
effects. The main reason for excluding hospitals with no structural
or nonstructural damage is that the damaged buildings are more
likely to suffer from construction drawbacks. Another reason is
the cost and difficulties of the nondestructing error detection meth-
ods applicable to serving buildings. It must be emphasized that the
aim of this study is not to extract the statistical distribution of faults;
thus, the studied hospitals do not need to provide a statistically
acceptable society of samples. Further information about these hos-
pitals is presented in Table 1.

In November 2017, a strong earthquake (Mn ¼ 7.3 and Mw ¼ 7.3

magnitudes) affected the Iran-Iraq border regions. In Iran, it was
mostly sensed in the Sarpol-e Zahab city of Kermanshah Province.
The main event was preceded by an Mn ¼ 4.5 magnitude preshock
43 min before its occurrence. This preshock acted as an alert and
reduced the consequent human losses to a great extent. The peak
ground acceleration (PGA) of the earthquake in Sarpol-e Zahab sta-
tion was around 0.7g (g is the gravitational acceleration constant).
Qualitative Survey
As mentioned, the aim of the qualitative survey is to identify the
main construction faults responsible for the damage experienced by
hospital structures. For this purpose, it was essential to assure that
the observed damage is not the result of design errors. Therefore,
the design documentations were reviewed and the inspecting

Table 1. Information and characteristics of the studied hospitals

No. of No. of Building Epi-central Peak ground
No. Town Name stories beds materials Age distance (km) acceleration (g)
1 Paveh Ghods 3 70 RC/masonry >30 years 51 N.R.
2 Sarpol-e Zahab Shohada-old building 1 96 RC 10 years 37 0.70
3 Sarpol-e Zahab Shohada-new building 2 — Steel U.C. 37 0.70
4 Ghasr-e Shirin Abolfazl 3 32 RC 18 years 45.5 N.R.
5 Gilan-e Gharb Al-Zahra 1 60 RC 12 years 75 N.R.
6 Eslamabad-e Gharb Imam-Khomeini 6 120 RC 6 months 101 0.13
7 Tazehabad Tazehabad 1 <10 Steel 15 years 24 0.20
8 Javanrood Hazrat-e Rasoul 3 78 RC 18 years 54 0.21
Note: N.R. = not recorded; and U.C. = under construction.

© ASCE 04020140-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

 Table 2. General observations related to various hospitals
No. Town Name Structural damage level Nonstructural damage level
1 Paveh Ghods Very low High
2 Sarpol-e Zahab Shohada-old building Moderate Very high
3 Sarpol-e Zahab Shohada-new building Moderate Very high
4 Ghasr-e Shirin Abolfazl Moderate Very high
5 Gilan-e Gharb Al-Zahra Very low High
6 Eslamabad-e Gharb Imam-Khomeini Moderate Very high
7 Tazehabad Tazehabad Very low High
8 Javanrood Hazrat-e Rasoul Very low High

authorities were interviewed regarding the design procedure of the construction drawbacks can be categorized into structural and non-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

buildings. The obtained information revealed that the Iranian 2800
standard (BHRC 2013) and the ninth section of the Iranian National
Standard [INBC9 (Iranian National Building Codes 2013)] are
acceptably met for the design of structures. The nonstructural parts
mainly including the façades, however, were found not to be de-
signed to resist earthquake loads. After ensuring the adequacy of
the designs regarding the latest guidelines, the construction faults
were identified and categorized.
The identification and categorization of construction faults were
done using a query form designed for this purpose. In designing
the form, some key parameters were regarded for the identification
of the construction faults. Information fields were then provided to
reflect the values of these parameters and identify the errors. A
qualitative rating method of the level of damage experienced by
each hospital was also used based on the form’s information.
General Observations
Before presenting the identified construction faults, some general
observations on the damage experienced by various hospitals are
given in Table 2.
As will be discussed, the construction faults were evidently the
cause of the damage experienced by the hospitals in spite of their
relatively acceptable design results. For example, the damage ex-
perienced by hospital No. 6 (Imam-Khomeini Hospital located in
Eslamabad-e Gharb) was rather high despite its distance (101 km)
from the ground motion center and the low PGA (0.13g) recorded
at its site. In addition, the under-construction hospital No. 3 (Sho-
hada Hospital located in Sarpol-e Zahab) underwent large damage
despite its design meeting the most recent design standards. The
structural types. Detailed information about the nonstructural faults
are omitted for brevity. However, a brief review on these deficien-
cies is presented later. The identified structural defects are the main
focus of this study due to their remarkable effect on the buildings’
seismic performance. These defects are described in the following
sections.
Structural Deficiencies
The construction deficiencies engaging structural members mainly
consist of the items discussed in the following sections.
Frame-Infill Interaction
Infill walls are designed and constructed as nonstructural members;
thus, the effect of these members on the structural characteristics of
the load-carrying system is commonly omitted. Seismic design
guidelines [e.g., Iranian 2800 standard (BHRC 2013)] reflect this
fact by stipulating the construction methods that provide sufficient
isolation between the structural frame and the infill walls. Failing to
meet these requirements causes the infill walls to interact with the
frame system during a seismic event. This interaction commonly
has detrimental effects on the lateral behavior of the frame system.
These effects are as follows:
1. Increasing the lateral stiffness and reducing the vibration period;
for the common range of periods, this, in turn, leads to higher
spectral acceleration and earthquake forces.
2. Altering the distribution of story forces from what has been con-
sidered in the design process; the higher stiffness of the infilled
bays will attract lateral forces larger than the design values. The
additional load is induced on the frame when the infill acts as a
diagonal compressive strut.

Fig. 1. Instance of column rupture caused by the infill wall in a surveyed hospital. (Images by Siavash Sadeghi.)

© ASCE 04020140-3 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

 Table 3. Details of the four column ruptures in the old building of Shohada Fig. 1 shows an instance of failure caused by improper infill
Hospital due to improper infill isolation isolation during the construction of a surveyed hospital.
Column Damage Damage To better highlight the frequency related to this failure, detailed
No. diagnosis level Structural cause information is presented for the old building of Shohada Hospital
1 Deep shear crack Moderate Short column formation located in Sarpol-e Zahab. The observed damage diagnosis as well
2 Shear crack Low Diagonal compressive strut as the level and the cause of the failures undergone by the columns
3 Shear crack Low Short column formation in this hospital are listed in Table 3. In this table, shear cracks are
4 Deep shear crack Moderate Diagonal compressive strut those appearing at the midwidth of the member where the shear
stresses are maximized. Extensive shear damage is associated with
cracks that have wider openings and are termed deep cracks.
3. When the infills are constructed partially in height, the unbraced
portion of the columns will behave in shear mode (due to their Improper Reinforcement
reduced deformable length) and will convey the applied moment Some of the important construction drawbacks observed in the
through developing large shear forces far beyond their capacities. surveyed hospitals address the reinforcement details used in RC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Such a mechanism is called short column formation. members. In the end regions of RC elements, where large plastic

Fig. 2. Instance of the improper overlapping of longitudinal bars and the resulting damage in an RC column during the 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab earth-
quake. (Images by Siavash Sadeghi.)

Fig. 3. Instance of the excessive spacing of stirrups and the resulting damage in an RC column during the 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake. (Images
by Siavash Sadeghi.)

© ASCE 04020140-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Concrete core sampling of Imam Khomeini Hospital after the 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake. (Images by Siavash Sadeghi.)

deformations are expected to develop, certain reinforcing details are inappropriate concrete mixing and using of the improper pouring
specified by design standards [INBC9 (Iranian National Building equipment for this six-story hospital. Due to these observations, a
Codes 2013)]. The maximum spacing of stirrups is an instance concrete sampling program was conducted for this hospital (Fig. 4).
of such detailing that provides confinement to the core concrete The sampling program started with the destructive coring at
and precludes the lateral buckling of the compressive longitudinal the lower stories. However, by moving toward upper stories, the
reinforcement. The properly spaced stirrups also resist large shear unusual weakness of the concrete prevented obtaining acceptable
forces corresponding to the end plastic moments. In addition to stir- samples through the coring process. Thus, nondestructive test
rups, the overlapping of longitudinal bars should be avoided in these methods, including the Schmidt hammer and shear wave velocity,
portions due to their critical role in withstanding large inelastic de- were used instead. Still, some damaged columns at the fifth story
mands. Despite these specifications, the overlapping of longitudinal
bars in the plastic hinge region was observed in some of the surveyed
hospitals. An instance of damage imposed due to the violation of the
overlapping specifications is depicted in Fig. 2. In this case, the ver-
tical bars used in the upper story column are not extended into the
lower column and a discontinuity occurs in the column bars. In ad-
dition, the end angle necessary for anchoring the horizontal bars is
not provided in the beam shown in this figure.
In addition to the inadequate anchorage, the excessive spacing
of stirrups in the plastic region was observed in several cases. An
instance of damage caused by such a reinforcement deficiency and
the consequent damage are presented in Fig. 3. It is worth noting
that the concrete status shown in this figure is the result of extensive
crushing at the end of earthquake and cannot be taken as a sign of
the initial porosity of concrete.

Cast-in-Place Concrete Strength

Visual inspection of the damaged RC members of Imam Khomeini
Hospital in Eslamabad-e Gharb indicates that the employed concrete
was mixed improperly. Faults like the improper size and quality of
gravels were evident, and the extensive concrete rupture implied
inadequate compressive strength. Local evidence also verified the

Table 4. Average concrete strength measured at various stories of Imam

Khomeini Hospital
Average concrete % of reduction from
strength (MPa) design value
Story No. Beams Columns Beams Columns
1 17 15 32 40
2 17 15 32 40
3 17 15 32 40
4 17 15 32 40
5 15 8 40 68 Fig. 5. Damage of concrete columns in Imam Khomeini Hospital dur-
6 15 9 40 64 ing the 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake. (Images by Siavash Sadeghi.)

© ASCE 04020140-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

 Table 5. Summary of the observations related to the surveyed hospitals during the 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake
Qualitative rating of
No. Name Structural damage types Nonstructural damage types overall damage
1 Ghods Use of steel joists and masonry infill in Lack of façade bracing Low
structural roofs (lack of rigidity in roof
diaphragms)
2 Shohada-old Insufficient overlap length for beam Lack of façade bracing; lack of bracing for Very high
building reinforcing bars; improper location of infill walls
overlapping in column bars; insufficient
shear resistance by transverse
reinforcement in beam-column joints;
overly spaced stirrups in columns; lack of
infill isolation and short-column formation
due to infill-frame interaction
3 Shohada-new — Lack of façade bracing; use of low-quality Low
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

building lightweight infill bricks

4 Abolfazl
5 Al-Zahra
6 Imam-Khomeini
7 Tazehabad
8 Hazrat-e Rasoul
Insufficient shear resistance by transverse Lack of façade bracing Moderate to high
reinforcement in beam-column joints
— — Low
Low concrete compressive strength Lack of façade bracing; use of low-quality High
lightweight infill bricks
— Lack of façade bracing; lack of crack-preventing Low to moderate
methods in infill walls surrounding the
photography center
— Lack of façade bracing Moderate

did not show sufficiently large strength to be measured through
these methods. Although the design documents required a nominal
concrete strength of f c0 ¼ 25 MPa, the measured values varied be-
tween 8 and 22 MPa. Generally, the columns’ concrete strength
decreased by moving toward upper stories and was less than the
beams. Thus, the average concrete strength of the first-story col-
umns reached 15 MPa, which was the highest among all the stories.
At the fifth story, this value was reduced to 8 MPa. Among 62 core
samples taken from the beams, only 2 samples had strengths in
excess of 20 MPa. Thirteen had strengths around 15 MPa and
the other strengths varied between 15 and 19 MPa. The average
concrete strength of beams and columns is given in Table 4 for
various stories. Instances of ruptures observed in Imam Khomeini
Hospital in the 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake are reported
in Fig. 5.
Summary of the Qualitative Survey
The construction faults observed in the surveyed hospitals are sum-
marized in Table 5.
Quantitative Case Study
As previously mentioned, the second part of this article is dedicated
to the numerical assessment regarding the effect of construction

Fig. 6. Plan of the numerically assessed Imam Khomeini Hospital.

© ASCE 04020140-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Frame dimensions and typical beam and column sections of the modeled frame.

faults. For this purpose, the compressive strengths measured for RC
members in the 6-story Imam Khomeini hospital are used in lieu of
the design values. Then, the nonlinear dynamic response of the as-
built structure is compared with the as-designed one.
Numerical Model
The structural plan of Imam Khomeini Hospital is shown in Fig. 6.
The lateral load-resisting system of this structure in the x-direction is
a special RC moment frame and is evaluated in this study. For this
purpose, the highlighted middle frame was adopted and modeled in
two dimensions. Example member sections with typical sizes and
dimensions of the modeled frame are illustrated in Fig. 7. The beam
and column sizes along their reinforcements are presented in Table 6.
To reflect the variations in the measured concrete compressive
strengths, the average story values reported in Table 4 were
assigned to all story members. The yield strength of the reinforce-
ments was assumed to be 400 MPa according to the design reports.
The structural model was then subjected to nonlinear dynamic
analysis using the sequence of shocks recorded in the Sarpol-e
Zahab earthquake. The gravitational loading values applied uni-
formly to the stories constitute dead loads equal to 7.0 kN=m2 .
The applied live load varied depending on the areas functionality
and equaled 5.0 kN=m2 and 3.5 kN=m2 for the corridors and the
patient rooms, respectively.
The numerical model used to represent the above structure uti-
lizes the OpenSees version 3.2.0 finite-element program (Mazzoni
et al. 2004). The RC beams and columns are modeled using
displacement-formulated fiber beam-column elements provided
in this program. The fiber cross-section defined for this purpose
utilizes the Concrete-01 uniaxial-material model of OpenSees. This
model is a Kent-Scott-Park (Park et al. 1972) stress-strain model
with stiffness degradation and zero tensile strength (Mazzoni
et al. 2004). The ideal accuracy could be obtained for fiber-type
beam-columns by employing a force formulation. However, this
formulation encounters serious convergence problems when it is
used for RC members. Thus, a displacement-based formulation
is employed to allow for numerical convergence of the analyses.

Table 6. Sizes (in cm) and reinforcements of the frame members

Beams Columns
Start reinforcement Middle reinforcement End reinforcement
Story Size Size
No. (B × H) Top Bottom Top Bottom Top Bottom (B × H) Reinforcement
1 50 × 50 5Ø20 5Ø20 4Ø20 4Ø20 5Ø20 5Ø20 80 × 90 22Ø20
2 50 × 50 5Ø20 5Ø20 4Ø20 4Ø20 5Ø20 5Ø20 70 × 80 22Ø20
3 50 × 50 5Ø20 5Ø20 4Ø20 4Ø20 5Ø20 5Ø20 70 × 70 20Ø20
4 45 × 50 5Ø20 5Ø20 4Ø20 4Ø20 5Ø20 5Ø20 60 × 60 20Ø20
5 45 × 50 5Ø18 5Ø18 4Ø18 4Ø18 5Ø18 5Ø18 60 × 60 20Ø20
6 45 × 50 5Ø18 5Ø18 4Ø18 4Ø18 5Ø18 5Ø18 60 × 60 20Ø20

© ASCE 04020140-7 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Pushover curves derived to assess the sensitivity of model accuracy to the members’ mesh number.

To account for the inaccuracy resulting from the displacement

formulation, each member was divided into several segments. To
determine the optimum number of element segments that provided
an acceptable balance between accuracy and analysis costs, the sen-
sitivity pushover analyses were performed on the as-designed and
as-built models. To derive these curves, a linear load-pattern was
applied to the models, and the structures were pushed to a roof dis-
placement equal to 5% of the building height. Since the pushover
curves are only used for comparative evaluations of the models,
selection of the target roof displacement is not of critical impor-
tance. This parameter only determines the nonlinearity level at
which the lateral response of the structures is assessed.
The resulting pushover curves are compared in Fig. 8 for various
numbers of segments of displacement-based elements and for the
single-meshed force-formulated elements. As shown in the figure,
the model employing accurate force-formulated elements has not
continued beyond a global drift of about 0.5%. This is due to the
convergence problem occurring at this model when larger lateral
drifts are applied. It should be noted that the displacement increments
Fig. 9. Pushover curves obtained for the two as-designed and as-built have successively refined for achieving convergence at the case of
models. force-formulated elements. Furthermore, at each refined displace-
ment increment, the various nonlinear solution algorithms available

Fig. 10. Contour of MDDs obtained from the pushover analysis of as-designed model.

© ASCE 04020140-8 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 11. Contour of MDDs obtained from the pushover analysis of as-built model.

in OpenSees have been used before giving up the convergence

Fig. 12. Average story MDDs obtained from pushover analysis.
achievement attempt. The models with displacement-formulated
elements appear to be approaching the accuracy of the force-
formulated element by increasing the number of segments. A good
precision is obtained when 10 segments are used for meshing the
members. However, the high chance of nonconvergence of this large
number of segments still needs to be prevented by using lower mesh
numbers. Thus, as a compromise between accuracy and analysis
costs, seven segments are applied in this study for meshing each
member using displacement-based elements.

Fig. 13. Acceleration history of the 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab ground motion along with its scaled and unscaled acceleration spectra (BHRC 2018).

© ASCE 04020140-9 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

 Static Pushover Analyses
To perform an initial evaluation of the effect of construction faults,
the pushover curves obtained for the as-designed and as-built mod-
els are compared in Fig. 9. The as-built model employs the concrete
strengths measured in the survey program, which are presented in
Table 4. The maximum base shear the deficient as-built model can
resist is about 17% lower than the as-designed model.
To further evaluate the state of the nonlinear deformations
undergone by the structures, the axial strain experienced in each
fiber of a section is divided over the corresponding yield value
to obtain the ductility demand in that fiber. The maximum ductility
demand (MDD) of the end sections of each frame member is then
extracted and displayed as a contour in Figs. 10 and 11 for the as-
designed and as-built models, respectively. As denoted by these
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
figures, the pattern through which plasticity is distributed over the
structures is the same for the two models. Comparing the MDD
values undergone by similar points of the models, some similarities
and differences can be observed.
A noteworthy similarity is the concentration of plasticity at the
right ends of the beams (the dark-colored places with ≫1 values),
whereas the left ends have remained nearly elastic. To account for
this, it must be noted that the moments induced by the gravity and
the lateral loads are in the same direction considering the right ends.
For the left end locations, however, these moments have opposite
Fig. 14. Time history of roof drift imposed by the Sarpol-e Zahab ground motion on as-designed and as-built structures: (a) DBE level; and (b) MCE
level.
© ASCE 04020140-10
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140
directions considering that the lateral loads have been applied in the
right direction. Therefore, the summation of the gravity and lateral
moments at the right ends leads to an earlier yielding of the section
at these points. According to the rules governing the series systems,
the softening initiated by the early yielding at these points absorbs
most of the deformation induced at large lateral load values. There-
fore, excessive inelasticity occurs at these points, while the other
portions of the structure are still in the elastic range. This plasticity
localization is observed for the two models with some differences
that are caused by the concrete strength changes.
In a similar trend, the plasticity also increases by moving toward
the right bay beams of the frame. Considering the first story, for the
two models, an MDD ≈ 6.5 occurs in the leftmost bay. Moving
towards the right bays, this value increases at a rate that decreases
at upper stories. The major difference caused by the concrete
strength reduction in the as-built model is related to this trend.
In the as-built model, the rightward increase of the beam end plas-
ticity occurs at a lower rate compared to the as-designed model. As
a result, the largest MDD values experienced by the two models
differ. Furthermore, in the rightmost bay of the as-designed model,
the left end of the beam undergoes a plasticity that does not occur in
the as-built model. These differences are caused by the different
distribution of strengths throughout the as-designed and as-built
models.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 15. Maximum story drifts undergone by various stories under
DBE and MCE scales of Sarpol-e Zahab ground motion.
For a better comparison between the MDD values observed
in the beams and columns of different stories, these values are
averaged for each story and are graphically presented in Fig. 12.
According to this figure, the columns of the two models have
Fig. 16. Contour of MDDs obtained from the DBE-level dynamic analysis of the as-designed model.
© ASCE 04020140-11
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140
undergone no inelastic demands except those at the first story.
At this story, the columns of the two models have undergone
MDDs slightly in excess of unity, indicating a minor inelasticity
in the columns of this story. Regarding the beam members, the rel-
atively similar patterns are reobserved for both models and the
MDDs experience an overall increase by moving from upper stories
to the lower ones. The aforementioned difference in MDDs of the
first-story beams is also evident here and the average of the values
undergone by the as-designed model is nearly two times that of the
as-built counterpart.
Considering the above observations, it can be concluded that the
changes in the concrete strength leads to complicated variations in
plasticity distribution over the studied building. As was seen in the
mentioned increase of MDDs in the first-story beams of the as-
designed model, these variations are not always in favor of the
building with larger concrete strength. Thus, the reduction under-
gone in the maximum base shear strength of the as-built structure is
not proportionate to the average concrete strength reductions re-
ported in Table 4.
While the inelastic response of the structures is evaluated in this
article using the MDD parameter, other response parameters could
also be used for assessment purposes. These parameters include the
maximum axial, shear, and flexural forces experienced by the mem-
bers at various locations of the structures. However, these param-
eters are not studied in this article.
Nonlinear Response History Analyses
To further investigate the effect of the deficient concrete strength
caused by construction errors, the nonlinear dynamic responses of
the two models are studied in this section. For this purpose, the
2017 Sarpol-e Zahab ground motion record was used. The accel-
eration history of this record is shown in Fig. 13 along with its
scaled and unscaled acceleration spectra. For scaling this spectrum,
the method of the Iranian 2800 standard (BHRC 2013) is em-
ployed. According to this method, the spectrum is scaled so that
it falls above the target spectrum in the 0.2T1 to 1.5T1 period range
where T1 is the fundamental period of the structure. The scaling of
the Sarpol-e Zahab earthquake is performed by targeting two vari-
ous intensity levels. These levels are defined by the design base
earthquake (DBE) and the maximum considered earthquake
(MCE) spectra of the 2800 standard.
The time history of the roof drift imposed by the DBE- and
MCE-scaled versions of Sarpol-e Zahab ground motion is shown
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 17. Contour of MDDs obtained from the DBE-level dynamic analysis of as-built model.

Fig. 18. Average story MDDs obtained from DBE-level dynamic analysis.

in Fig. 14. The maximum story drifts (MSDs) undergone by various
stories of the as-designed and as-built models are shown in Fig. 15
for the DBE- and MCE-scaled versions of Sarpol-e Zahab ground
motion. As shown in this figure, the MSDs experienced by the as-
designed and as-built models are of the same magnitude under the
DBE-level ground motion. By increasing the ground motion level,
however, the as-built model undergoes larger MSDs compared to
the as-designed model. The maximum MSD values of the as-
designed and as-built models occur at the same story, while the
value of the as-built model is about 30% larger.
The contour of the MDD distribution obtained from the appli-
cation of the DBE-level Sarpol-e Zahab ground motion on the as-
designed model is illustrated in Fig. 16. Comparing this contour
with the MDD contour displayed for the as-built model in Fig. 17
reveals the slight effects of the concrete strength reduction on over-
all distribution pattern of MDDs.
As before, a story-wise comparison is made by considering the
average story values graphically tabulated in Fig. 18. In this figure,
the columns of the two models have remained in the elastic range
under the DBE-level motion. The effect of the concrete strength
reduction on the average column MDDs reaches the maximum
of 68% at the 5th story and decreases to around 1% at the base.
Addressing the average beam MDDs, the yielding is observed at
all stories of the two models. The values follow very similar patterns
for the two models, indicating the minority of concrete strength effect
on the distribution pattern of beams’ plasticity throughout the height.
The variation percentage in the beams’ DBE-level MDDs due to the
concrete strength reduction changes between 1% (at the 6th story)
and 23% (at the 3rd story). These variation percentages closely
follow the strength reduction ratios reported in Table 4 for the con-
crete of members in different stories.
Similar figures are also derived from Figs. 19 and 20 in Fig. 21
regarding the MCE-level imposition of the Sarpol-e Zahab earth-
quake. The previous observations are also made here with increments
in all MDD values due to an increase in the intensity level. Consid-
ering the MDD values averaged at various stories, the effect of the
concrete strength reduction on the column MDD alteration is more
pronounced at the MCC level. The variation caused by this construc-
tion deficiency to the beams average MDDs is, however, of an order
comparable to the DBE level.
Conclusions
In this study, the construction deficiencies affecting the perfor-
mance of medical centers during the Iranian 2017 Sarpol-e Zahab
earthquake were studied through field survey and numerical assess-
ment. The initial field study was conducted to identify the construc-
tion drawbacks by the visual inspection of a number of hospitals
damaged by the earthquake. Inadequate bracing of infill walls,
façades, and false ceilings along with the improper infill wall mate-
rials were classified as the major drawbacks impairing nonstructural
members. The improper spacing and anchorage of the reinforcement,
unanticipated frame-infill interaction and low concrete strength were
also the major drawbacks of structural members. In addition to visual
inspection, concrete coring test was used to evaluate the concrete
strength provided in the beams and columns of a selected hospital.
The resulting strength values were then used for the numerical as-
sessment of this hospital.

© ASCE 04020140-12 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 19. Contour of MDDs obtained from the MCE-level dynamic analysis of the as-designed model.

Fig. 20. Contour of MDDs obtained from MCE-level dynamic analysis of the as-built model.

Fig. 21. Average story MDDs obtained from MCE-level dynamic analysis.

In the numerical assessment, two models representing the as-
designed and as-built versions of the selected hospital were devel-
oped using OpenSees software. The distribution of plasticity within
various parts of these models was studied through the static push-
over and dynamic response-history analyses. According to the
pushover results, the maximum ductility demands undergone by
the deficient as-built model were not necessarily lower than those
experienced by the stronger as-designed counterpart when models
were pushed to a similar roof drift of 5%. The maximum base shear
provided by the as-designed model was, however, around 17%
higher than that of the deficient model. To perform the dynamic
analyses, the recorded Sarpol-e Zahab ground motion was scaled
to different intensity levels. These levels were defined following the
design-base and maximum-considered versions of the Iranian stan-
dards earthquake spectrum. At the design level, the maximum story
drift and ductility demands undergone by the two models were

© ASCE 04020140-13 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140

 almost the same. At the maximum-considered level, however, the
deficient as-built model experienced responses that were about
30% larger than the as-designed structure.
Data Availability Statement
Some or all data, models, or code that support the findings of this
study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable
request.
References
BHRC (Building and Housing Research Center). 2013. Iranian code of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Carleton University on 12/03/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
practice for seismic resistant design of buildings. Tehran, Iran: Building
and Housing Research Center.
BHRC (Building and Housing Research Center). 2018. “Building and
Housing Research Center.” Accessed February 20, 2018. https://bhrc
.ac.ir.
Chapin, E., A. Daniels, R. Elias, D. Aspilcueta, and S. Doocy. 2009.
“Impact of the 2007 Ica earthquake on health facilities and health ser-
vice provision in southern Peru.” Prehospital Disaster Med. 24 (4):
326–332. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X00007056.
Ellingwood, B. R. 1994. “Probability-based codified design: Past accom-
plishments and future challenges.” Struct. Saf. 13 (3): 159–176. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0167-4730(94)90024-8.
Ellingwood, B. R. 2001. “Acceptable risk bases for design of structures.”
Prog. Struct. Mater. Eng. 3 (2): 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1002
/pse.78.
El-Shahhat, A. M., D. V. Rosowsky, and W.-F. Chen. 1993. “Construction
safety of multistory concrete buildings.” Struct. J. 90 (4): 335–341.
Epaarachchi, D. C., and M. G. Stewart. 2004. “Human error and reliability
of multistory reinforced-concrete building construction.” J. Perform.
Constr. Facil. 18 (1): 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828
(2004)18:1(12).
Epaarachchi, D. C., M. G. Stewart, and D. V. Rosowsky. 2002. “Structural
reliability of multistory buildings during construction.” J. Struct. Eng.
128 (2): 205–213. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)
128:2(205).
Gashti, E., M. Zarrini, M. Irannezhad, and J. Langroudi. 2014. “Evaluation
of traditional methods in construction and their effects on reinforced-
concrete buildings behavior.” Int. J. Struct. Constr. Eng. 8 (12):
1275–1281.
Hansson, E. F. 2011. “Analysis of structural failures in timber structures:
Typical causes for failure and failure modes.” Eng. Struct. 33 (11):
2978–2982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.02.045.
HFIR (Housing Foundation of Islamic Revolution). 2017. “The last situa-
tion of reconstruction at regions affected by earthquake regions of
Kermanshah Province.” Accessed February 8, 2018. https://en
.bonyadmaskan.ir/SitePages/Home.aspx.
© ASCE 04020140-14
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2021, 35(1): 04020140
Hong, H., and W. He. 2015. “Effect of human error on the reliability of roof
panel under uplift wind pressure.” Struct. Saf. 52 (Jan): 54–65. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.07.001.
IASC (Inter-Agency Standing Committee). 2005. Humanitarian health
cluster: Pakistan earthquake. Consolidated Health Situation Bulletin# 2.
Geneva: IASC.
Imam, B., and M. Chryssanthopoulos. 2010. “A review of metallic bridge
failure statistics.” In Proc., 5th Int. IABMAS Conf. Bridge Maintenance,
Safety and Management, 3275–3282. Guildford, Surrey: The Univ. of
Surrey.
Iranian National Building Codes. 2013. Design and construction of
reinforced concrete structures. INBC9. Tehran, Iran: Iranian National
Building Codes.
Kagermanov, A., P. Ceresa, E. Morales, J. Poveda, and J. O’Connor. 2017.
“Seismic performance of RC buildings during the M W 7.8 Muisne
(Ecuador) earthquake on April 2016: Field observations and case
study.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 15 (12): 5167–5189. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s10518-017-0182-y.
Leite, J., P. B. Lourenco, and J. M. Ingham. 2013. “Statistical assessment
of damage to churches affected by the 2010–2011 Canterbury (New
Zealand) earthquake sequence.” J. Earthquake Eng. 17 (1): 73–97.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2012.713562.
Mazzoni, S., F. McKenna, M. H. Scott, and G. L. Fenves. 2004. OpenSees
user’s manual. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
Melchers, R. 1989. “Human error in structural design tasks.” J. Struct. Eng.
115 (7): 1795–1807. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1989)
115:7(1795).
Ornthammarath, T., and T. Puavaranukroh. 2018. “Observed hospital
damages following the 2014 Mae Lao (Northern Thailand) earthquake:
A survey report.” J. Disaster Res. 13 (4): 804–812. https://doi.org/10
.20965/jdr.2018.p0804.
Park, R., D. C. Kent, and R. A. Sampson. 1972. “Reinforced concrete mem-
bers with cyclic loading.” J. Struct. Div. 98 (st 7): 60–69.
Santarsiero, G., L. Di Sarno, S. Giovinazzi, A. Masi, E. Cosenza, and
S. Biondi. 2018. “Performance of the healthcare facilities during the
2016–2017 Central Italy seismic sequence.” Bull. Earthquake Eng.
17 (10): 5701–5727.
Spence, R., J. Bommer, D. Del Re, J. Bird, N. Aydinoğlu, and S. Tabuchi.
2003. “Comparing loss estimation with observed damage: A study of
the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey.” Bull. Earthquake Eng. 1 (1):
83–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024857427292.
Tehran University. 2018. “Iranian Seismological Center Institute of Geo-
physics.” Accessed December 15, 2018. http://irsc.ut.ac.ir.
Tierney, K., B. Khazai, L. T. Tobin, and F. Krimgold. 2005. “Social and
public policy issues following the 2003 Bam, Iran, earthquake.” Supple-
ment, Earthquake Spectra 21 (S1): 513–534. https://doi.org/10.1193/1
.2098928.
USGS. 2017 “US Geological Survey.” Accessed November 21, 2017.
https://www.usgs.gov.
Zhang, M., and Y. Jin. 2008. “Building damage in Dujiangyan during
Wenchuan earthquake.” Earthquake Eng. Eng. Vibr. 7 (3): 263–269.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-008-0870-3.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.