Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Collapse modelling analysis of a precast soft storey building in Australia

Ari Wibowo a , John L. Wilson a, , Nelson T.K. Lam b , Emad F. Gad a,b
a

Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology, Victoria, 3122, Australia

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia

article

info

Article history:
Available online 30 March 2010
Keywords:
Precast concrete
Soft storey structure
Forcedisplacement relationship
Earthquake performance

abstract
A unique experimental field test study that provides insight into the push-over loaddeflection and
collapse behaviour of a soft storey building is reported in this paper. The five storey building had
been identified as being particularly vulnerable to earthquake excitation due to the particularly
weak connections at each end of the ground floor precast columns that constituted the soft storey.
Consequently, four field tests were undertaken to investigate the actual lateral forcedeflection behaviour
of the soft storey columns. Interestingly, the tests indicated that the soft storey columns possessed
significant displacement capacity despite significant strength degradation. An analytical model developed
to predict the overall forcedisplacement relationship that was influenced by the three component
mechanisms of (a) connection strength at column ends, (b) gravity rocking strength and (c) ground slab
interaction, was found to be in excellent agreement with the experimental test results. The presence of
the non-structural ground slab provided additional lateral strength to the system and greatly influenced
the as-built performance. The displacement capacity of the precast soft storey system was much greater
than an equivalent in situ system, due to the rigid body rocking behaviour of the columns. The precast
soft storey system was found to have sufficient displacement capacity for lower seismic regions, but the
performance was considered marginal for higher seismic regions.
Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
1.1. Background
A soft storey building (Fig. 1) is one that has a discontinuity
in the stiffness of the building where one storey is significantly
more flexible than adjacent storeys. According to ASCE 7-05 [1],
a soft storey has lateral stiffness less than 70% of that of the storey
immediately above, or less than 80% of average stiffness of the
three storeys above. Under substantial ground shaking, soft storey
buildings behave like an inverted pendulum with the ductility
demand concentrated at the soft storey elements.
Soft storey buildings are considered to be particularly vulnerable because the rigid block in the upper levels has limited energy
absorption capacity and displacement capacity, thus forcing the
columns in the soft storey to deflect and absorb the seismic energy
whilst also maintaining the axial gravity load carrying capacity.
Collapse of the building is imminent when the energy absorption
capacity or displacement capacity of the soft storey columns is exceeded by the energy demand or the displacement demand. This
concept is best illustrated using the Capacity Spectrum Method

Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9214 4882; fax: +61 3 9214 8264.
E-mail address: jwilson@swin.edu.au (J.L. Wilson).

shown in Fig. 2 where the seismic demand is represented in the

form of an accelerationdisplacement response spectrum (ADRS
diagram) and the structural capacity is estimated from a non-linear
push-over analysis expressed in an accelerationdisplacement relationship [2].
1.2. Scope and objective
A unique research project has been conducted jointly by
Swinburne University of Technology and the University of
Melbourne, which involved the experimental field testing of a
five-storey soft storey building in Melbourne [37]. The building
had been identified as being particularly vulnerable to earthquake
excitation due to the particularly weak connections at each end
of the ground floor precast columns creating a weak soft storey
with an unknown displacement capacity. In contrast, in situ
columns with connections as strong as the members, would have
created a more deterministic system in terms of lateral strength
and displacement capacity predictions using results from codes
of practice and previous published test results. Consequently,
four field tests were undertaken to investigate the actual lateral
forcedeflection behaviour of the soft storey precast column soft
storey system. The objective of the experimental investigation was
to study the actual loaddeflection and collapse behaviour of soft
storey buildings when subjected to lateral loading and to compare
with non-linear analytical predictions.

0141-0296/$ see front matter Crown Copyright 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.03.003

1926

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

Earthquake Excitation

Weak or soft storey

Inverted pendulum

Fig. 1. Idealisation of soft storey structures [8].

load to be applied to the soft storey bay. Horizontal loads were

applied in both the strong and weak directions via steel tension ties
and hydraulic jacks secured to a piled reaction frame located some
distance from the test bay, as shown schematically in Fig. 6. The
four columns in a typical bay would typically support around 200
tonnes of dead load from the upper storeys. However, it was not
deemed practical to load the frame with the full gravity load and
consequently only 50 tonnes of kentledge in the form of precast
jersey barriers was added to provide a reasonable loading. Overall
the self weight of the soft storey test frames including kentledge
was in the order of 600 kN.
The slab on ground provided significant restraint to the columns
at ground floor level and consequently two tests were conducted
with the ground slab intact and the other two tests with the slab
cut away to prevent restraint. Overall, the following four field tests
were undertaken:
a.
b.
c.
d.

Test 1: Strong direction with ground slab.

Test 2: Weak direction with ground slab.
Test 3: Strong direction without ground slab.
Test 4: Weak direction without ground slab.

3. Instrumentation
Fig. 2. Capacity spectrum method.

This paper provides a unique insight into the collapse behaviour

of a precast soft storey building, including details of the building
configuration, experimental test set-up and instrumentation,
forcedeflection push-over curves, observed collapse behaviour
and a comparison with detailed non-linear theoretical predictions.
The results are then used to predict the likely seismic performance
of the building for regions of low and high seismicity using a
displacement based approach.
2. Building configuration and test set-up
2.1. Building configuration
The five storey test building shown in Fig. 3 consisted of four
levels above the open plan ground storey. The upper levels of the
residential building consisted of precast walls and slabs creating a
rigid box whilst the ground floor was constructed from reinforced
concrete columns and beams founded on individual pad footings.
The building is significantly stronger in the short portal direction
compared with the long spandrel direction.
Observations from the pre-trial test of adjacent buildings
indicated that the building to be used for the experimental testing
had a precast ground floor storey with connections significantly
weaker than the members they connected (Fig. 4). Consequently,
the ground floor columns tended to rock when subject to a
horizontal load. Several material samples were also collected from
the site to investigate the properties of the building elements, and
were tested to determine steel and concrete properties.

Various measurement techniques were utilised to obtain the

overall load deflection behaviour of each test specimen as well as
curvature of the column and crack width. The applied horizontal
loads were measured using load cells, whilst the displacement
measurement techniques included global positioning system
(GPS), total point station (TPS), laser scanner, photogrammetry,
visual measurement using a theodolite and ruler, and LVDT
transducers. A degree of redundancy was built into the measuring
systems to ensure that if one system failed, results could be
obtained from other sources. The theodolite was particularly
important for directly measuring the incremental displacements
when the testing was in displacement control. In addition, some
systems provided real time readings such as visual measurement
and LVDT whilst other methods such as photogrammetry and
the laser scanner required some post processing. The overall
measurement setup for Test 1 is shown in Fig. 7 showing
positions of the GPS antennas, total point station, laser scanner and
theodolite.
4. Test procedure and experimental results
4.1. Test procedure
A hydraulic jacking system with tension ties and a temporary
piled tie back anchorage system were used to apply the lateral
loads to the frame. The test specimens were laterally loaded under
force control in increments of 10 kN until the ultimate load was
reached. The loading was then applied in displacement control
with displacement increments of 25 mm up to around 250 mm in
both directions.

2.2. Test set-up

4.2. Experimental results

Four push-over field tests were undertaken on a ground floor

bay consisting of four columns pre-loaded with kentledge. It was
decided for safety reasons to demolish the upper levels of the
building to first floor level to create the test bay without damaging
the portal frames (Fig. 5). Four test bays were selected for testing
and were separated from each other by saw cutting the floor slab
between adjacent bays. A steel frame was constructed at first floor
level and positively secured to the slab and beams to provide
support for the kentledge and to provide anchorage for the lateral

The experimental results are summarised in Table 1, whilst

the loaddeflection curves for the four tests are shown in Fig. 8.
The displacements shown correspond to the lateral displacement
at the first floor slab level and the load is the total lateral force
imposed on the structure. In the strong direction, the majority
of the deformations were concentrated at the end connections,
with gaps opening at the foundation and beam interfaces. This
was a clear indication that the columns were significantly stronger
than the connections. In the weaker direction, deformations were

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

1927

Fig. 3. Building configuration.

Precast beam
IV

III

II

780mm

Precast slab
(130mm thick)

1 0 .0 0

94.85 120.30 94.85

7 5.00

Precast Column

1 00 .0 0

1 8 0.00

2400mm

8 mm @ 3 0 0 mm
4# 22 HIGH TENSILE
STEEL BAR

1 00 .0 0

3 80 .0 0

GL

GL

Foundation
Cast in situ

Weak Direction Connection

1000mm

Section A-A

180.00
Strong Direction Connection

Fig. 4. Structural details of the test bay.

concentrated at the foundation interface and at the interface of the

portal beams and the first floor slab. It can be shown analytically
that the loaddeflection behaviour of the strong direction is
mostly affected by the connection strength at the top of the
column, whereas the gravity load rocking mechanism dominates
the loaddeflection behaviour in the weak direction.

Overall the lateral strength to self weight ratio in the strong

direction was around 40%50% and in the weak direction 12%20%
as listed in Table 1. The soft storey column was found to
have significant displacement capacity irrespective of strength
degradation. An important outcome of this work is that the
columns maintained their gravity load carrying capacity at a

1928

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

Fig. 5. Demolition process of the buildings.

(a) Strong direction.

(b) Weak direction.

Fig. 6. Test set-up.

Base GPS antenna

TP2

GPS data Receiver

NW

TP4

BSP2

Bay 1

North Frame

TP3

South Frame

SW

T
Theodolite

SE

W
E

Measuring
Scale

NE

Theodolite

GPS

TP1
TPS

GPS

GPS

BSP1

Scanner
Position

GP S data Receiver

Measuring
Scale

Pulling Direction

GP S data Receiver

Fig. 7. Measurement setup for Test 1.

(a) Results Test 1 and 3 (strong direction).

(b) Results Test 2 and 4 (weak direction).

Fig. 8. Experimental test results.

lateral displacement of about 260 mm or a drift capacity of

about 8% under these quasi-static conditions. Interestingly, the
weak column/foundation and column/beam precast connections
allowed the columns to rock about their ends, greatly enhancing

the displacement capacity of the soft storey system compared with

rigid end column connections more typical of in situ construction.
The ground slab, which is considered non-structural from a
design perspective, provides significant restraint to the frame,

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

1929

Table 1
Summary of maximum load, displacement and drift of all tests.
Orientation

Test

Maximum load (kN)

Maximum load (% self weight)

Maximum displacement (mm)

Maximum drift (%)

Strong direction

Test 1
Test 3

310
250

52
42

200
255

5.9
7.5

Weak direction

Test 2
Test 4

125
75

21
12

225
260

6.6
7.6

especially in the weak direction. The increase of load capacity due

to the existence of ground slab is about 25% in the strong direction
and about 67% in the weak direction, which has a significant effect
on the as-built performance of the structure.
5. Theoretical prediction
This section develops a theoretical model to predict the
loaddeflection behaviour of the soft storey test bays which is then
compared with the experimental results. The ground floor framing
had been designed as a precast system with the connections significantly weaker than the members. Consequently, the horizontal
capacity could be calculated from both the connection capacity of
the top and base of the column (FTC and FBC ) combined with the
gravity load rocking mechanism (FR ) and the additional restraint
provided by the slab on ground (FGS ) as summarised in Table 2.
The lateral capacity of bay was determined using Eqs. (1) and
(2):

Strong direction test:

FH = FC + FR + FGS = FTC + FBC + FR + FGS .

(1)

Weak direction test:

FH = FC + FSF + FR + FGS

= FTC + FBC + FSF + FR + FGS

(2)

where:
FC = horizontal capacity from connection strength at top and
base of column
FR = horizontal capacity from gravity load rocking mechanism
FGS = horizontal restraint from the reaction of ground slab
against the column
FSF = horizontal restraint from the steel frame connection on top
of first floor slab.

5.1. Connection strength at the column ends (FC )

(a) Base connection strength (FBC )
The moment strength of the base connection provides a
negligible contribution to the overall system capacity and can
be ignored. However, the shear strength of the base connection
influences the overall displacement behaviour for the tests that
involve column interaction with the ground slab. This will be
discussed further in Section 5.3.
(b) Top connection strength (FTC )
The strength of the top connection between the precast
concrete column and beam members is provided via the concrete
in compression and the unbonded steel tendon in tension (and fully
bonded steel reinforcement, if present at the connection interface).
The behaviour of precast concrete ductile connections has been
widely investigated over the last two decades. Several approaches
for predicting the behaviour of this mechanism consist of trilinear
idealisation of momentrotation behaviour [9], calibration of
the hysteresis parameter of hybrid connections [10] and finite
element modelling [11]. Simple calculation for predicting the
ultimate strength of hybrid precast concrete has been illustrated

Fig. 9. Column lateral displacementrotation relationship.

in NISTIR 5765 [12]. The top connection analysis in this paper was
developed based on the momentrotation principle proposed by
Pampanin [13].
The presence of the unbonded tendon prevents the use of a
closed form solution to estimate the depth of the neutral axis
because of strain incompatibility between the steel and concrete
at the connection interface. Consequently, the neutral axis position
was estimated from a trial and error procedure that solved the
equilibrium equations at the connection interface by estimating
the tendon tensile strains and forces from a global displacement
and joint rotation consideration. In particular, the angle of the gap
that opens at the connection interface is assumed equal to the
column rotation as shown in Fig. 9.
The algorithm used to solve the forcedeflection relationship of
the top connection is outlined in the following steps:
Step 1. Fix increment of global displacement from 1 mm to
250 mm, and calculate the related rotation for each
increment.
Rotation of column:

= arctan

Lcolumn

(3)

where:

= angle of gap opening at beamcolumn interface

= global displacement of structure
Lcolumn = height of column.

Step 2. Guess an initial value of both axis depth c and concrete

strain c (refer Fig. 10):
Evaluate the strain in unbonded high-strength (HS) steel
bar


pt .i = dpt .i c ;
pt .i = pt .i /Lubt
(4)
where:
pt .i = elongation at HS steel
Lubt = unbonded length of HS steel
dpt .i = distance of HS bar from extreme fibre of
compression concrete.
Evaluate the strain in mild steel bar
s.i = (ds.i c ) ;
s.i = s.i /Lubs
(5)
where:
s.i = elongation at mild steel
Lubs = unbonded length of mild steel
dpt .i = distance of MS bar from extreme fibre of
compression concrete.

1930

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

Table 2
General principles of lateral strength prediction analysis.

Evaluate section equilibrium

Cc Ts + Cs = Tpt + P

(6)

where:
Cc = compression concrete force
Ts = tension mild steel force
Cs = compression mild steel force
Tpt = post-tensioning force acting as an
external force
= Tin + f (pt )Apt

stressstrain relationship respectively. In the case of this

test building, there were no bonded steel reinforcement
bars at the connection interface and consequently Ts =
Cs = 0 which simplifies the model as shown in Fig. 11.
Step 3. Iterate Step 2 until the equilibrium equation (6) is satisfied
and calculate the moment capacity (Eq. (8)) with the
updated values of c and c .
M = Cc

(7)

Tin = initial prestress force

P = external load.
The compression concrete force Cc is determined using
moment-curvature analysis [14], whilst the forces in the
mild steel (Ts and Cs ) and the force Tpt in HS steel bars are
calculated as a function of steel strain from MS and HS

c
2

j
X
i=1

Ti ds.i

j
X

c
Tpt .i dpt .i P .
2
i =1

(8)

Step 4. Calculate the top connection horizontal load FTC .

FTC =

M
Lcolumn

(9)

Step 5. Repeat the whole process for the next increment of

deflection until = max .

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

1931

Fig. 12. Column gravity rocking mechanism.

(the neutral axis was assumed at the centre and edge of the column
for the lower and upper bounds respectively). In this section, the
actual location of the neutral axis provided by top connection
analysis has been used to calculate the horizontal capacity of the
rocking mechanism as expressed in the following equation and
shown in Fig. 12:
Fig. 10. Gap opening mechanism for general beamcolumn precast connection.

FR =

FV x1 + W x2
Lcolumn

FV D

c
2

+W

Lcolumn

D
2

(10)

where:
x1 = horizontal distance between the column axial load FV and
the neutral axis
x2 = horizontal distance between column self weight W and
the neutral axis.

5.3. Ground slab restraint (FGS )

The ground slab provides a restraint to the lateral movement of
the column. This additional restraint modifies the global behaviour
of the structure from a pure rocking mechanism into a partial
cantilever column mechanism and as a result, a bending moment
develops in the column at the level of the ground slab.
An estimate of the lateral strength provided to the overall structural system by the ground slab can be obtained through simple
statics. The column is assumed as a cantilever beam supporting a
lateral force F at the free end. From a simple momentarea method,
the angle of rotation and deflection at the free end relative to
the fixed end can be determined as:

FL2

FL3

.
(11)
2EI
3EI
By substituting the curvature equation = M /EI into the displacement equation, the relationship between local curvature and
global displacement can be expressed as:
=
Fig. 11. Gap opening mechanism for beamcolumn connection field test.

5.2. Gravity rocking strength (FR )

The simple horizontal load prediction for the gravity rocking
mechanism can be obtained by using an upper and lower bound
estimate, based on the possible location range of the neutral axis

and

.
(12)
L2
Based on this equation, for each increment of global structure
displacement , the curvature and moment capacity of the column
cross-section at the ground slab location can be calculated and the
equivalent forcedisplacement behaviour of the structural system
estimated.
The base column connection does not affect the overall ultimate
lateral resistance of the soft storey system, but the shear behaviour

1932

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

Fig. 13. Effect of column base connection and ground slab restraint.

of the connection affects the post peak (declining) part of the pushover curve, by modifying the ground slab restraint mechanism in
three stages (refer Fig. 13):
Stage 1: Base connection prevents movement of the base column
resulting in cantilever column mechanism as previously
described.
Stage 2: Localised horizontal movement of the base column due to
deformation and unzipping failure of the welded section
of the U-bar base connection.
Stage 3: Pure rocking mechanism commences as the U-bar
connection fractures.
The modelling approach used in the analysis is described
in Table 3 (together with Eqs. (13)(22)) with the ground slab
providing a horizontal restraint and the column base connection
providing a flexible spring restraint. Eqs. (13)(14) describe the
global displacement T as a function of lateral force F for a
pinned base connection. The introduction of lateral flexibility into
the base connection increases the column top deflection due to
a rigid body rotation of the column in addition to the column
deformation as described in Eqs. (15)(18) for the weak direction
and Eqs. (19)(22) for the strong direction, by using unloading
stressstrain model for confined concrete illustrated by Sakai [15].
The weakening of the column base connection results in the
column displacement increasing with a corresponding decrease
in the lateral force capacity (i.e. the unloading section of the
forcedisplacement diagram).

Fig. 14a. Comparison between experimental and analysis result for Test 1 (with
ground slab).

5.4. Total horizontal capacity

The total horizontal loaddeflection behaviour is the summation of the three components (top and base connection strengths,
gravity load rocking mechanism and the restraint of ground slab)
as represented by Eqs. (1) and (2). The experimental results and
analytical predictions are in excellent agreement as summarised
in Tables 4 and 5 and Figs. 1417.
The loaddeflection curve for the strong direction test with the
ground slab (Test 1) is shown in Fig. 14a, whilst the contributions
from the components are shown in Fig. 14b. Similarly, the results
without the ground slab (Test 3) are shown in Figs. 15a and 15b.
The lateral resistance from the top connection (163 kN) is markedly
higher than that from the rocking mechanism (92 kN), whilst the
base column connection provides negligible strength for both tests
(i.e. around 0.1 kN). Significantly, the ground slab in Test 1 provides
an additional 20% strength capacity, compared with the strength
achieved in Test 3 without the ground slab.
The theoretical analysis results in the weak direction are also
in excellent agreement with the experimental field tests for Test 2

Fig. 14b. Components of lateral strength for Test 1.

(with ground slab, Figs. 16a and 16b) and Test 4 (without ground
slab, Figs. 17a and 17b). In contrast to the strong direction test, the
gravity rocking mechanism dominates overall loaddisplacement
behaviour of the structure in the weak direction. Moreover,
the ground slab restraint increases the weak direction strength
capacity by about 67% (i.e. Test 2 versus Test 4).
The complete forcedisplacement relationship for the test bay
can be idealised into the following four stages as illustrated in
Fig. 18.
(i) The resisting force increases steeply as a combination of
the increase in both the connection and rocking mechanism
strength until the rocking mechanism reaches peak strength
at about 10 mm displacement (OA).
(ii) The resisting force increases more gradually as the rocking
strength component decreases (AB).

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

1933

Table 3
Analysis of ground slab restraint.

where:
kb = stiffness of column for hingehinge support
a = distance between column base and ground slab
b = distance between ground slab and top of column
kBC = lateral stiffness of mild steel U-bar at column base
T = global displacement of structure on top of column
As = cross section area of mild steel U-bar at column base
Is = inertia moment of mild steel U-bar cross section at column base
Ls = length of mild steel U-bar at column base
R = horizontal reaction at column base
BC = lateral displacement of column base.

Fig. 15a. Comparison between experimental and analysis result for Test 3 (without
ground slab).

(iii) The resisting force plateaus as the unbonded high-strength

steel bars yield and the concrete stress reaches ultimate
strength (BCD).
(iv) The resisting force then decreases significantly, as the
connection loses strength, high strength steel bars fracture,
compression mild steel bars yield, concrete cover commences
to spall and the rocking mechanism dominates (DEF).
In summary, the lateral strength of the system in the strong
direction for Test 1 was around 50% of the self weight and consisted
of 25% from the top beamcolumn connection, 15% from the

Fig. 15b. Components of lateral strength for Test 3.

rocking action and 10% from the ground slab restraint. Similarly
in the weak direction, the overall lateral strength of 20% consisted
of approximately 5% from the top beamslab connection, 7%
from rocking and 8% from the ground slab restraint. Interestingly,
a design calculation of lateral strength based on linear elastic
principles would have excluded the strength components from
both rocking and the ground slab restraint and hence significantly
underestimated the actual strength of the soft storey system.
The large drift capacity of the system in the order of 6%
was attributed to the rocking behaviour, with the maximum
displacement controlled by the actual column dimensions together

1934

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

Table 4
Horizontal capacity estimation for strong direction.
Predicted capacity

Strong direction (kN)

Weak direction (kN)

(i)

(ii)

(i)

(ii)

FC
FSF
FR
FGS

164
0
92
69

160
0
82
65

0.04
34
44
50

0.04
34
42
48

FH (without ground slab)

FH (with ground slab)

242
307

76
124

Note: (i) Maximum strength of each component. (ii) Strength of each component at
maximum lateral capacity.

P
Fig. 16a. Comparison between experimental and analysis result for Test 2 (with
ground slab).

B
A

C D
E
F

A = Peak of gravity Rocking Mechanism

B = High -Strength steel yi eld and strain
hardening
C = Concrete reach the ultimate strength
D = Concrete cover commence to spall
E = Compression mild steel yield

F
Fig. 18. Typical lateral loaddisplacement relationship resulted from analysis.

Fig. 16b. Components of lateral strength for Test 2.

with the Pdelta effects. The rocking behaviour occurred because

the precast column connections were significantly weaker than the
members they connected. Interestingly, if the soft storey had been
constructed in situ with connections as strong as the members
they connected, then the lateral strength would have increased,
but the drift capacity would have reduced substantially since
the rocking mechanism would have been prevented, forcing the
columns to deform inelastically in shear and flexure. Previous
reinforced concrete column tests by the authors, indicate that the
drift capacity would have reduced to around 2% if the columns and
connections had been cast in situ [7] or a conservative 0.7% drift in
accordance with international guidelines [16,17].
6. Performance evaluation of soft storey buildings
The seismic performance of the building was assessed by using
a two tier displacement based seismic assessment of structures
presented in Wilson and Lam [2].

First tier: The performance of the building can be simply

Fig. 17a. Comparison between experimental and analysis result for Test 4 (without
ground slab).

Fig. 17b. Components of lateral strength for Test 4.

assessed using a first tier approach by comparing the seismic

peak displacement demand (PDD) with the displacement
capacity (c ). If the PDD is less than c , then the structure is
deemed satisfactory in terms of its ultimate performance.
Second tier: Alternatively, the capacity spectrum method
(CSM) [16,17] can be used, where the seismic demand is
represented in the form of an accelerationdisplacement
response spectrum (ADRS diagram) and the structural capacity
is obtained from a push-over analysis (Refer Fig. 2). The
performance of the structure to the design seismic event can be
assessed from the point where the demand and capacity curves
intersect. The structure is considered to survive the design if the
capacity curve intersects the demand curve, and collapse if the
curves do not intersect.
The soft storey structure had considerable displacement
capacity beyond the traditional definition of failure used in high
seismic regions, which is deemed to occur when the horizontal
resistance capacity of the system is reduced to 80% of the nominal
capacity (for example, NZS1170.5:2004 [18]). Alternatively, a more
direct measure of failure could be considered, where failure is
defined at the point when the overall structure cannot support
the gravitational loads resulting in catastrophic collapse. To allow
for some conservatism, it is suggested that this nominal failure

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

1935

criteria associated with 75% of the displacement capacity. Since C

greatly exceeds PDD for all soil types, the soft storey structures can
be deemed satisfactory in terms of their ultimate performance for
Z = 0.1g.
6.2. Second tier assessment

Fig. 19. ADRS diagram for Z = 0.10g in accordance with AS1170.4 [19].
Table 5
Comparison between predicted and experimental results.
Orientation

Test

Predicted capacity
(kN)

Experimental maximum
load (kN)

Strong
direction

Test 1
Test 3

307
242

310
248

Weak
direction

Test 2
Test 4

124
76

125
75

Table 6
Displacement demand for Australia (for Z = 0.10g).
Site class

Soil type
Hard rock
PDD (mm) 30

Rock
35

Shallow soil
50

Deep soil
75

Very soft soil

120

The second tier method can be illustrated using the same soft
storey building described in this paper and checking the performance for different seismic regions ranging from low to high
seismicity (Z = 0.10g to Z = 0.40g), for a shallow soil site
(Site Class C). It should be noted that this scaling is considered viable provided the earthquake magnitude does not exceed Mn = 7
(for larger magnitude events this scaling would be deemed unconservative, since the corner period T2 would also increase and
be greater than 1.5 s, further explanation is provided in Reference [21]).
The soft storey capacity curves from Figs. 1417 have been
superimposed on the ADRS diagram for both the strong and
weak directions, creating the capacity spectrum diagram shown
in Figs. 20(a) and (b). The intercept between the demand and capacity curves provide an estimate of the likely performance point.
For the strong direction Tests 1 and 3, the displacement demands
are found to be within elastic limit for Z = 0.10g, inelastic for
Z = 0.200.30g, and insufficient for Z = 0.40g as shown in
Fig. 20(a). The results are similar for the weak direction Tests 2
and 4, although the soft storey is considered marginal for Test 4
at Z = 0.40g as indicated in Fig. 20(b). These results are based on a
shallow soil site (site class C), whereas the performance would be
different for deep and softer soil sites, such as site classes D and E,
where the displacement demands are significantly greater.
7. Conclusions

point be associated with a displacement limit set at 75% of the

maximum displacement capacity. This preliminary and alternative
definition which was supported by the experimental push-over
test, is considered more realistic, particularly for regions of lower
seismicity where the ground shaking is more modest in terms
of displacement demand and duration and provides the basis for
further study and investigation.
6.1. First tier assessment
In a soft storey building all the lateral displacement is concentrated at one storey, hence the building can easily be represented
as a single degree of freedom (SDOF) system, with the maximum
displacement equal to PDD.
The PDD is dependent on the seismicity of the region and the
soil type. For a lower seismic region such as Australia, an effective
ground acceleration for a 500-year return period is typically in the
order of Z = 0.10g, which is equivalent to a peak ground velocity
of PGV = 75 mm/s. The seismic demand in the form of an ADRS diagram scaled to Z = 0.10g for the different soil types in accordance
with AS1170.4 (2007) [19], is illustrated in Fig. 19. The soil types
range from AE and represent hard rock (A), rock (B), shallow soil
(C), deep soil (D) and very soft soil (E). Importantly, this response
spectra has a corner period between the regions of constant velocity and constant displacement of T2 = 1.5 s, which is considered
robust for earthquakes up to magnitude Mn = 7 [20,21]. The resulting PDD as a function of site class for Z = 0.10g is summarised
in Table 6.
The displacement capacity C of the soft storey for Tests 1
& 3 and Tests 2 & 4, was around 200 & 255 mm and 225 &
260 mm as shown in Figs. 1417 and summarised in Table 1.
These displacement capacities reduce to 150 & 190 mm and 170
& 195 mm respectively for the test pairs using the modified failure

1. Four soft storey structures were tested in the strong and

weak directions to obtain actual push-over forcedisplacement
curves. The preliminary results showed that the soft storey
columns could sustain large drifts in the order of 6%8% whilst
maintaining the gravity axial loads despite the reduced lateral
strength capacity due to Pdelta effects. The horizontal strength
and drift capacity predicted by a non-linear rocking model was in
excellent agreement with the lateral capacity obtained from the
experimental tests. Significantly, the experimental tests confirmed
that the lateral displacement capacity of the soft storey system was
directly controlled by the width of the rocking column, which is a
very significant finding from a collapse failure perspective.
2. The large drift capacity of the precast soft storey structure was
attributed to the weak connections which allowed the columns to
undergo non-linear rocking at each end. Interestingly, the lateral
strength capacity of the soft storey system would have increased
significantly if the column end connections were as strong as the
members, but the drift capacity would have reduced from around
6%8% to around 2% since the rocking mechanism would have been
prevented forcing the columns to deform inelastically with both
shear and flexural deformations. Hence, the precast soft storey
construction resulted in a structure that was weaker than a more
traditional in situ reinforced concrete structure, but a structure
with a far greater drift capacity developed through a non-linear
rocking mechanism.
3. The ground floor slab, which from a design perspective is
considered non-structural provided significant restraint to the
base of the columns and increased the system lateral capacity,
particularly in the weaker spandrel direction. Significantly, this
commonly found non-structural component greatly influenced
the as-built performance of the structure.
4. The soft storey structure had considerable displacement
capacity beyond the traditional definition of failure used in high
seismic regions, where failure is deemed to occur when the

1936

A. Wibowo et al. / Engineering Structures 32 (2010) 19251936

(a) Strong direction.

(b) Weak direction.

Fig. 20. Capacity spectrum method performance evaluation of test structures.

horizontal resistance capacity of the system is reduced to 80%

of the nominal capacity. A more direct definition of failure is
when the overall structure cannot support the gravitational loads
resulting in catastrophic collapse. To allow for some conservatism,
it is suggested that the nominal failure point could be reduced
to a displacement limit set at 75% of the maximum displacement
capacity. This preliminary definition is considered more realistic,
particularly for regions of lower seismicity where the ground
shaking is more modest in terms of displacement demand
and duration and Pdelta effects are not as significant. This
alternative failure definition provides the basis for further study
and investigation.
5. A seismic performance evaluation using a displacement
based assessment showed that the precast soft storey structure
would perform satisfactorily in regions of lower to moderate seismicity, whilst the performance would be compromised in regions
of high seismicity, where catastrophic collapse through Pdelta
effects could be expected due to the excessive displacement demands. In addition, an in situ reinforced concrete system would
have performed significantly worse due to the reduced drift capacity associated with column flexure deformations rather than rigid
body rocking of the precast system.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support from the ARC
Discovery Grant #DPO772088. The active support in completing
field test from Delta Demolitions, the Office of Housing, and Fenton
Partners, is gratefully appreciated. The authors are grateful to Dr.
Phillip Collier and the postgraduate team from the University of
Melbourne including Rupali S. Bhamare, Elisa Lumantarna, Bidur
Kafle, David Heath, Eldar Rubinov and Anna Donets.
References
[1] ASCE 7-05. Minimum design load for building and other structures. 2006.
[2] Wilson JL, Lam NTK. Earthquake design of buildings in Australia using velocity
and displacement principles. Aust J Struct Eng 2006;6(2):10318.

[3] Wibowo A, Wilson JL, Gad EF, Lam NTK. Performance testing of soft
storey structuresCarlton walk-up flats. Australia: Swinburne University of
Technology Project Report; 2008.
[4] Bhamare R, Wibowo A, Gad EF, Collier P, Wilson JL, Lam NTK. et al. Field testing
of a soft-storey building in Melbourne. In: Proceedings AEES conference. Paper
no. 48. 2008.
[5] Bhamare R, Lam NTK, Wibowo A, Wilson JL, Gad EF, Rodsin K. Seismic
performance assessment of soft-storey buildings based on results from field
testing. In: Proceedings 20th Australasian conference on the mechanics of
structures and materials. 2008. p. 195204.
[6] Wibowo A, Wilson JL, Lam NTK, Gad EF. Modelling precast reinforced concrete
columns and comparisons with results from field testings. In: Proceedings
1st international conference on computational technologies in concrete
structures. 2009. p. 184.
[7] Wilson JL, Lam NTK, Rodsin K. Collapse modelling of soft-storey buildings. Aust
J Struct Eng 2009;10(1):1123.
[8] Murty CVR. Earthquake tipslearning earthquake design and construction.
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur; 2005.
[9] Priestley MJN, Tao JR. Seismic response of precast prestressed concrete frames
with partially debonded tendons. PCI J 1993;5866.
[10] Stanton J, Stone WC, Cheok GS. A hybrid reinforced precast frame for seismic
regions. PCI J 1997;42(2):2032.
[11] El-Sheikh M, Sause R, Pessiki S, Lu LW. Seismic behaviour of unbonded posttensioned precast concrete frames. PCI J 1999;44(3).
[12] NISTIR 5765. Simplified design procedure for hybrid precast concrete
connections. US Department of Commerce; 1996.
[13] Pampanin S, Priestley MJN, Sritharan S. Analytical modelling of the seismic
behaviour of precast concrete frames designed with ductile connections.
J Earthq Eng 2001;5(3):32967.
[14] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced concrete structures. Wiley-Interscience Publication; 1975.
[15] Sakai J, Kawashima K. Unloading and reloading stressstrain model for
confined concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 2006;132(1):11222.
[16] Applied Technology Council. ATC40. Seismic evaluation and retrofitting of
concrete buildings. USA.
[17] Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA273. NEHRP guideline for the
seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Washington DC; 1997.
[18] NZS 1170.5. Structural design actions, part 5: earthquake actions. New Zealand
Standard. 2004.
[19] AS 1170.4. Structural design actions, part 4: earthquake actions in Australia.
Australian Standard, Standards Australia. 2007.
[20] Wilson JL, Lam NTK. A recommended earthquake response spectrum model
for Australia. Aust J Struct Eng 2003;5(1):1727.
[21] Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Chandler A, Hutchinson GL. Response spectrum modelling
for rock sites in low and moderate seismicity regions combining velocity,
displacement and acceleration predictions. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 2000;29:
1491525.