Seismic Design Aspects of Vertically

Irregular Reinforced Concrete Buildings

Satrajit Das,a) M.EERI, and James M. Nau,b) M.EERI

Seismic building codes such as the Uniform Building Code (UBC) do not
allow the equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure to be used for structures
with vertical irregularities. The purpose of this study is to investigate the
definition of irregular structures for different vertical irregularities: stiffness,
strength, mass, and that due to the presence of nonstructural masonry infills.
An ensemble of 78 buildings with various interstory stiffness, strength, and
mass ratios is considered for a detailed parametric study. The lateral force-
resisting systems (LFRS) considered are special moment-resisting frames
(SMRF). These LFRS are designed based on the forces obtained from the
ELF procedure. The results from linear and nonlinear dynamic analyses of
these engineered buildings exhibit that most structures considered in this
study performed well when subjected to the design earthquake. Hence, the
restrictions on the applicability of the equivalent lateral force procedure are
unnecessarily conservative for certain types of vertical irregularities consid-
ered. [DOI: 10.1193/1.1595650]

INTRODUCTION
In order to provide an estimate of forces developed in a structure during an earth-
quake, building codes such as the Uniform Building Code (UBC) (ICBO 1997) recom-
mend special provisions. Most of these codes propose a simplified method called the
equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure to compute design forces. The ELF method is,
however, based on a number of assumptions. These assumptions are true for regular
structures, namely, structures with uniform distributions of stiffness, strength, and mass
over the height. An irregular distribution of these characteristics is common in real
building structures. Therefore, it is important to develop criteria that will enable the use
of the ELF method in the analysis of irregular structures. As pointed out by Porush
(1989), ‘‘It is true that research is needed to verify these limits. However, without such
limits there cannot be unambiguous enforceable provisions.’’
Analytical (Chopra, Clough, and Clough 1973; Humar and Wright 1977; Fernandez
1983; Aranda et al. 1986; Costa et al. 1988; Esteva 1992) and experimental (Moehle
1984, Wood 1992) investigations by previous researchers have identified differences in
dynamic response of regular and irregular buildings. Most notable are the altered dis-
placements and the high ductility demands in the vicinity of the irregularity. Some of the
studies were based on simple analytical models (e.g., shear buildings or stick models),
and others were based on experimental observations of small-scale models tested in re-

a)
URS Corporation, 1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Morrisville, NC 27560
b)
Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695

455
Earthquake Spectra, Volume 19, No. 3, pages 455–477, August 2003; © 2003, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
456 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

search laboratories. There have also been a few detailed studies on real irregular build-
ings that failed during earthquakes (Chopra, Bertero, and Mahin 1973; Kreger and
Sozen 1989), but such studies are small in number. In addition, several previous studies
(Hidalgo et al. 1994, Sharooz and Moehle 1990, Valmundsson and Nau 1997, Wood
1992) directly address the issue of code limits, which demarcate regular structures from
irregular ones.
The current version of the UBC defines a structure to be irregular based on certain
limits of the ratio of strength, stiffness, mass, setbacks, or offsets of one story to the
corresponding value in an adjacent story. These limits are based on experience and ob-
servations of behavior and performance of buildings during past earthquakes. If a struc-
ture fails to satisfy these limits, the UBC does not allow the ELF method alone to be
used for the evaluation of the design forces. In such situations, the UBC recommends the
use of detailed dynamic analysis methods: response spectrum or time history techniques.
The provisions in the UBC relating to the restrictions of the static procedure lead to the
motivation for this study, which involves a set of reinforced concrete lateral force-
resisting systems with a varying range of irregularities.
The set of buildings is comprised of low- to medium-rise structures including five,
ten, and twenty stories with the most prevalent lateral force-resisting systems (LFRS)—
special moment-resisting frames. These buildings are designed according to Chapter 21
of ACI 318-99 (ACI 1999) and the 1997 UBC. The effects of nonstructural infills on the
behavior of these structures are also studied to quantify meaningful design criteria for
structures with unintended vertical irregularities.

SELECTION OF BUILDING MODELS

The primary LFRS designed for the buildings is the special moment-resisting frame
(SMRF). The buildings are typically cast-in-place reinforced concrete structures with
beams cast monolithically with slabs and supported by columns.
All buildings have three bays in the direction of the earthquake. The bay sizes are
varied within practical limits to study its influence on the seismic response. Also, build-
ings of three different height categories are considered and include 5-, 10-, and 20-story
systems. The beams and columns are designed with normal weight concrete with 28-day
cylinder strength of 5 ksi and A615 Grade 60 reinforcement.
It is evident from the study of various structural failures that a soft and/or weak story
in any building poses a high risk of damage during a seismic event. A common form of
such irregularity exists where the first story of a building is taller than the stories above.
Although in most instances such irregularities are most hazardous when present in the
first story, there are a few structural failures where strength and/or stiffness discontinui-
ties were present in upper stories of a building. A class of buildings is therefore selected
to represent this form of vertical irregularity. Varieties of taller story heights ranging
from 15 to 30 feet, located at the base, at midheight, and at the top are selected to rep-
resent a range of interstory strength and stiffness ratios. In most instances, these ratios
are well beyond the limits of applicability of the ELF procedure. For example, the UBC
limit of overall height of a building with a story whose strength is less than or equal to
SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 457

Table 1. SMRF models with soft and weak first story

Ratio of Ratio of Ratio of

Interstory Interstory Interstory
5-story 10-story 20-story
Models Ka Va Models Ka Va Models Ka Va
A51020 1.56 1.04 A101020 1.60 1.05 A201020 1.56 1.03
A51520 0.54 0.68 A101520 0.60 0.61 A201520 0.52 0.68
A52020 0.27 0.51 A102020 0.25 0.51 A202020 0.24 0.52
A53020 0.09 0.34 A103020 0.09 0.34 A203020 0.08 0.33
A51025 1.60 1.05 A101025 1.71 1.04 A201025 1.89 1.05
A51525 0.58 0.61 A101525 0.59 0.69 A201525 0.55 0.69
A52025 0.27 0.44 A102025 0.27 0.51 A202025 0.26 0.52
A53025 0.11 0.37 A103025 0.10 0.34 A203025 0.10 0.34
A51030 1.75 1.04 A101030 1.67 1.04 A201030 1.70 1.07
A51530 0.62 0.69 A101530 0.59 0.69 A201530 0.60 0.69
A52030 0.32 0.53 A102030 0.27 0.51 A202030 0.28 0.52
A53030 0.11 0.39 A103030 0.09 0.34 A203030 0.10 0.34
A515203020 0.57 0.69 A1015203020 0.57 0.69 A2015203020 0.54 0.69
A530203020 0.09 0.34 A1030203020 0.10 0.34 A2030203020 0.09 0.33
A515302030 0.59 0.69 A1015302030 0.58 0.69 A2015302030 0.56 0.69
A530302030 0.11 0.38 A1030302030 0.10 0.34 A2030302030 0.10 0.34
a
K and V denote story stiffness and strength, respectively.

65% of that of the story above, is 30 feet or 2 stories. The number of stories or the over-
all height of models in several cases far exceeds this restriction. The typical story height
is 10 feet for all buildings, with the exception of the taller story.
Tables 1 and 2 present the various models studied in this category along with the
type and location of the irregularity. Buildings of Type A denote special moment-
resisting frames with a taller (softer and weaker) first story, Type B represents buildings
with a taller intermediate story, and Type C denotes buildings with a taller top story. For
Type B models, the taller intermediate story is located on the third, sixth, and tenth story
level for the 5-, 10-, and 20-story buildings, respectively. The geometric representations

Table 2. SMRF models with soft and weak story located at midheight and
top story

Ratio of Interstory Ratio of Interstory

Model ID Stiffness Strength Model ID Stiffness Strength
B515 0.39 0.67 C515 0.35 0.60
B525 0.11 0.39 C525 0.10 0.30
B1015 0.50 0.71 C1015 0.36 0.60
B1025 0.15 0.44 C1025 0.11 0.27
B2015 0.38 0.74 C2015 0.35 0.59
B2025 0.13 0.40 C2025 0.10 0.31
458 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

Figure 1. Geometric representation of the building models.

of these models are presented in Figure 1. The models described in the tables are iden-
tified in the following manner. The numbers following the letter ‘‘A’’ represent the num-
ber of stories in the structure, the height of the taller story in feet, and the bay size(s) in
feet. For example, in Table 1, A53020 represents a 5-story SMRF with a 30-foot-tall first
story and 20-foot bays.
Unless mentioned otherwise, the bay widths of the structures are equal. An example
of a building with three unequal bays is A1030302030 as shown in Table 1. This struc-
ture represents a 10-story-tall SMRF with a 30-foot-tall first story and three consecutive
bays of 30, 20, and 30 feet.
SMRFs with a 15-foot-tall first story and 25-foot long bays are considered for all
Type B and C buildings. The numbers following the letters ‘‘B’’ or ‘‘C’’ denote the num-
ber of stories in that structure and the height of the taller story in feet, respectively. For
example in Table 2, C2025 represents a 20-story SMRF with a 25-foot top story. The
differences in heights of the adjacent stories in the building models produce a wide
range of interstory stiffness and strength ratios ranging from 0.09 to 1.89 and 0.27 to
1.07, respectively.
It is commonly observed that a sudden concentration of mass along the height of any
building produces inertial effects leading to reduced ductility capacity of columns and
increased tendency of collapse due to second order (P⫺⌬) effects. Values of mass ratios
ranging from 1.0 to 5.0 are selected and positioned at different locations along the
height. The values of these mass ratios extend well beyond the limits of applicability of
the ELF procedure according to the UBC. The UBC requires that a structure with a
heavier mass on a particular story be classified as irregular if the heavier mass is 150%
or more than the mass of the adjacent story. However, the UBC indicates that a roof that
is lighter than the floor below need not fall under this category. For buildings with ir-
SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 459

Table 3. SMRF models with heavier mass on an intermediate story

Irregular story Irregular story Irregular story

5-story Mass 10-story Mass 20-story Mass
Models Floor Ratio Models Floor Ratio Models Floor Ratio
5t5 Roof 5.0 10t5 Roof 5.0 20t5 Roof 5.0
5t25 Roof 2.5 10t25 Roof 2.5 20t25 Roof 2.5
5m5 4th 5.0 10m5 6th 5.0 20m5 11th 5.0
5m25 4th 2.5 10m25 6th 2.5 20m25 11th 2.5
5b5 2nd 5.0 10b5 2nd 5.0 20b5 2nd 5.0
5b25 2nd 2.5 10b25 2nd 2.5 20b25 2nd 2.5

regular distributions of mass, the story heights are kept the same throughout except the
first story, which is maintained at 15 feet. Buildings of this type have three equal 25-foot
bays. Table 3 presents the various models studied in this category.
The letters ‘‘t,’’ ‘‘m,’’ and ‘‘b’’ denote the location of the heavier mass: t⫽top, m⫽
midheight, and b⫽bottom. The numbers before the letters denote the number of stories
in the structure and the numbers following denote the mass ratios. For example, 5t5 rep-
resent a 5-story structure with a mass ratio of 5.0 on the top floor, whereas 5t25 repre-
sent the same location of the heavier mass but a mass ratio of 2.5 (a mass ratio of 2.5
is denoted by ‘‘25’’). The building models with mass irregularities are also shown in Fig-
ure 1.
Generally, the presence of unreinforced masonry infills contributes to poor seismic
performance in buildings. Masonry panels are normally stiff, and they can drastically
alter the expected response of the structure. The formation of a soft-story mechanism
due to non-uniform distribution of masonry walls along the height of a building is a
commonly observed phenomenon. Partial height infills may force unexpected failure of
the surrounding reinforced concrete members due to increased shear demands. In order
to study the effects of the presence of masonry infills, a variety of models is considered.
Since the properties of masonry materials vary greatly, a combination of material
strengths is considered to represent weak and soft, and strong and stiff, masonry. The
details of the masonry properties are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. Masonry properties

Ja f ⬘cba F⬘j a
Type of Masonry (inches) (ksi) (ksi)
Strong and Stiff 20.0 14.50 3.00
Weak and Soft 5.0 3.0 1.50
a
⬘ , F⬘j represent thickness of masonry infill, uniaxial com-
J, f cb
pressive strength of brick, uniaxial compressive strength of
mortar, respectively.
460 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

Table 5. SMRF models with nonstructural masonry infills

Masonry Infill Details

Thickness Height
Model ID Description Story (inches) (feet) Height Ratio
E1 Open ground 2–5 20.0 10.0 -
floor
E2 Open ground 2–5 5.0 10.0 -
floor
E3 Partial Infill 1 20.0 10.0 0.50
2–5 20.0 5.0 0.50
E4 Partial Infill 1 5.0 10.0 0.50
2–5 5.0 15.0 0.50
E5 Partial Infill 1 20.0 15.0 0.25
2–5 20.0 5.0 0.50
E6 Partial Infill 1 20.0 18.0 0.10
2–5 20.0 5.0 0.50

Two categories of problems are studied. First, these masonry panels are placed in all
stories except the first and the dynamic response of the structure is evaluated. Second,
these panels are placed as partial infills of different heights in the first story, and of con-
stant height in all other stories, and the captive columns above these panels are studied.
These two categories of structures are designated as Type E models and are presented in
Figure 1. The reference structure selected for the purpose of studying the behavior of
masonry infilled frames is a 5-story SMRF with a 20-foot-tall first story and is similar in
design to model A52025. Table 5 presents the various models considered in this cat-
egory.
A parameter, the height ratio, is introduced in order to quantify the extent of the ir-
regularity in a particular story. This quantity is defined as the ratio of the height of the
opening (ho) to that of the total height of the story. It is assumed that for a particular
structure, the masonry infills produce a uniform opening size across all bays in a story.
Height ratios ranging from 0.1 to 0.5 are considered in this study.
It should be noted that the purpose of studying the masonry infilled reinforced con-
crete frames is to evaluate the expected damage due to the presence of unintended ir-
regularities. In other words, none of the building models with masonry infills were de-
signed taking into account the presence of the masonry. On the other hand, the stiffness
and/or strength discontinuity due to a taller story or a mass discontinuity due to the pres-
ence of a heavier mass was accounted for in the design of the structures.

STRUCTURAL DESIGN
The seismic design of a structure starting from architectural conception to construc-
tion detailing is an iterative procedure involving many computations. For the purpose of
this investigation, several computational tools were developed for solving specific por-
tions of this design process for each structure and are presented elsewhere (Das 2000). It
SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 461

Table 6. UBC coefficients used in computing the design

base shear

Cv1 Ca1 Nv2 Z3 I4 R5

0.56 0.40 1.00 0.40 1.25 8.50
1
seismic coefficients defined in Tables 16-R and 16-Q, respec-
tively
2
near-source factor defined in Tables 16-T and 16-U
3
seismic zone factor defined in Table 16-I
4
importance factor defined in Table 16-K
5
numerical coefficient defined in Table 16-N or 16-P

must be pointed out that every building considered in this study was designed using the
equivalent lateral force (ELF) procedure of the UBC. The coefficients used for comput-
ing the design base shear are included in Table 6.
The size and shape of beams and columns are chosen to satisfy the drift limits, and
the limits of reinforcement ratio as specified in the UBC. Each element is then designed
for all possible combinations of axial load and moment resulting from the load combi-
nations given in ACI-318 and UBC. In addition, beam-column joints are checked for ad-
equate shear capacity. Slenderness effects are also included in the design.
For beams, transverse reinforcement is designed for shear arising from hinging at the
two ends. The design forces are based on shears due to factored dead and live loads plus
the shears due to hinging at the two ends of the beam for the frame swaying to the right
or to the left (ACI-318). The transverse reinforcement provided is checked for confine-
ment.
For columns, transverse reinforcement is provided based on the special provisions of
UBC that ensure adequate confinement of core concrete and lateral support of longitu-
dinal steel against local buckling. These provisions also attempt to enhance the curvature
ductility capacity of the section in plastic hinge regions. The transverse reinforcement
provided for columns is checked for shear in a manner similar to that for the
beams.
The building models encompass 58 different types of beams with a wide range of
characteristics. The beam size ranges from 18 in.⫻26 in. for a 5-story building to
26 in.⫻40 in. for a 20-story structure. The longitudinal reinforcement ratios in negative
and positive bending (␳⫺ and ␳⫹) range from 0.6% to 2.0%, and 0.4% to 1.0%, respec-
tively.
There are 81 different column cross sections with a wide range of characteristics.
The column size ranges from 24 in.⫻24 in. for a 5-story building to 38 in.⫻38 in. for a
20-story structure, the longitudinal reinforcement ratio (␳) ranges from 1% to 3%.
462 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

MODELING
The building models are selected such that the center of mass coincides with the cen-
ter of stiffness at each floor level. In other words, none of the buildings have plan ir-
regularities. Hence, each of these buildings is subdivided into a series of vertical two-
dimensional (planar) frames; and a typical interior frame is chosen in each case for this
study.
The beams and columns are replaced by straight bars (line elements). The position of
such an idealized bar coincides with the centroidal axis of the beam or the column in the
physical structure. No allowance for rigid end regions to represent the joints is made in
beam and column elements of the frames under study. An average value of the effective
moment of inertia is assumed based on the secant stiffness to the first yield point for the
specific element. These same stiffnesses are considered to be appropriate for the initial
stiffness in the nonlinear procedure (ATC 1997a). For the purpose of this study, the ra-
tios of the effective to the gross moments of inertia are taken to be 0.45 for beams and
0.70 for columns (ATC 1997a, Paulay and Priestley 1992). The stiffness and strength
contribution of the slab is considered in the design process (Das 2000). In the analytical
models (global, member-type models), the inelastic behavior is limited to the member
ends or plastic hinges. The hysteretic behavior depicting the nonlinear characteristics,
typical of a reinforced concrete member that is subjected to cyclic loading, is based on
Takeda’s stiffness degrading model (Takeda et al. 1970). Values of the parameters defin-
ing the loading and reloading characteristics of the cyclic moment-curvature relationship
that defines the hysteretic behavior are chosen from previous research (Carr 1998,
Priestley et al. 1996). For nonlinear analysis, the length of the plastic hinge at the mem-
ber ends is taken as lp⫽0.5h, where h is the section depth (ATC 1997b, Paulay and
Priestley 1992). The P⫺⌬ (geometric nonlinearity) effects are explicitly taken into ac-
count in all stages of the analyses.
Unreinforced masonry infills are modeled using a combination of diagonal struts
(compression-only elements) with predefined physical properties (Carr 1998, Crisafulli
1997). The hysteretic relation governing the axial behavior of the diagonal struts is based
on Sargin’s equation and the envelope curve as proposed by (Crisafulli 1997). The de-
tails of the hysteretic models are described elsewhere (Carr 1998, Crisafulli 1997).

METHODS
In order to evaluate the restrictions on the applicability of the equivalent lateral force
procedure, all of the building models are designed based on the forces obtained from the
ELF analysis. The ELF method of the UBC incorporates several design coefficients for
base shear. These coefficients tend to mask the potentially detrimental effects of a struc-
tural irregularity. For example, the ELF method uses the total mass instead of the effec-
tive mass (which is less than the actual total mass), an empirical equation for the fun-
damental period (which is normally lower than the actual period), and accounts
indirectly for higher mode effects by redistribution of the lateral forces. The ELFR analy-
sis, considers the actual first mode shape, actual fundamental period, and the corre-
SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 463

sponding effective mass. The spectral acceleration corresponding to the actual funda-
mental period and 5% damping for a specific earthquake is utilized for computing the
lateral forces in the actual fundamental mode of vibration. Thus, the ELFR approach of-
fers the best possible estimate of structural response in the fundamental mode of vibra-
tion. The ratio (ELFR /TH) of elastic story drifts obtained from ELFR analysis to those
obtained from elastic time-history analysis (TH) signifies the approximation that is in-
volved when only the first mode is considered in the computation of design forces.
Finally, nonlinear dynamic analysis is carried out in order to assess the performance
of these buildings subjected to earthquake ground motions. Inelastic story drift ratios
and structural damage indices (DI) (Carr and Tabuchi 1993, Park et al. 1985) for each of
the buildings are examined. The full height and/or captive columns in the infilled frames
are studied by evaluating the shear demand/capacity ratios at the critical locations and
also the structural damage indices.
As stated earlier, the building models do not have any plan irregularities. Hence, it
may be reasonably assumed that it is less likely that a coupled lateral-torsional mode of
vibration would influence the dynamic response of these structures. Hence, the three-
dimensional effects are not considered in this study.
For computing the lateral strength of individual stories in a structure, a horizontal
shear force of increasing magnitude is applied at the story of interest, similar to a non-
linear pushover analysis. The story shear corresponding to the maximum inelastic story
drift as permitted by the UBC, is taken as the lateral strength of that story. For estimating
the lateral stiffness of individual stories, a similar approach is adopted as in the case of
story strength computations. However, in this case, the structural members are assumed
to be linearly elastic, and the story stiffness is computed as the story shear correspond-
ing to unit story drift.
The accelerograms used for this study are the Imperial Valley earthquake, 18 May
1940, El Centro record, Comp. S00E; the Kern County earthquake, 21 July 1952, Taft
Lincoln School Tunnel record, Comp. S69E; the Santiago, Chile, earthquake, 7 July
1971, University of Chile record, Comp. N10W; and the Northridge earthquake, 17
January 1994, Santa Monica City Hall record, Comp. S90E. These earthquake accelero-
grams are selected because the frequency content of these events closely matched that of
the design spectra in the 1997 version of the UBC. The elastic response spectra of these
earthquake accelerograms are shown in Figure 2 along with the code-specified design
spectrum. For ELFR and linear dynamic analyses (TH), the unscaled accelerograms are
used since the ratio ELFR /TH is examined.
For the nonlinear dynamic analysis, the earthquakes are scaled to match the spec-
trum intensity (Housner 1959) of that of the UBC design spectrum for a specific period
range. The area under the pseudo-velocity response spectrum between 0.1 and 2.5 sec-
onds gives Housner’s spectrum intensity. However, the integration limits used in this in-
vestigation are 0.25 and 2.5 seconds. This period range produced better correlation with
the natural periods of the building models in this study. The scaled spectra are shown in
Figure 3.
464 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

Figure 2. Unscaled elastic response spectra for 5% damping.

RESULTS
A detailed study is performed on the ratio (ELFR /TH) of elastic story drifts obtained
from ELFR and TH analyses (Das 2000). From the statistics of the response of the build-
ing models, it is observed that for special moment-resisting frames, the bay size does not
significantly influence the results predicted by ELFR , nor does bay size have pronounced
effects on the inelastic behavior of these buildings. Table 7 shows the variation of re-
sponses obtained for all of the 5-, 10-, and 20-story models of Type A with a wide range
of bay sizes.

Figure 3. Scaled elastic response spectra for 5% damping.

SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 465

Table 7. Influence of bay sizes on response predicted

by ELFR

ELFR /TH
Number of Number of
Stories Buildings Range Mean
5 16 0.92–1.00 0.97
10 16 0.89–1.01 0.95
20 16 0.79–0.88 0.82

For example, for 20-story structures, the ELFR /TH ratio varies between 0.79 and
0.88, with a mean of 0.82, for bay sizes ranging from 20 to 30 feet. Thus, there is only
a variation of 7% from the mean of 0.82. Therefore, structures with three equal 25-foot
bays are considered as the representative models in subsequent discussion of results. As
shown in Table 7, in some cases ELFR tends to underestimate the response, especially
for the taller structures, because of the contribution of higher modes. This is due to the
fact that the effective mass in the first mode decreases as the building height increases,
and may be as much as 30% less than the actual mass. To address this deficiency of the
ELF procedure, the UBC specifies that the total mass be used to compute the design base
shear. In addition, the UBC specifies a redistribution of the lateral forces by subtracting
a component, Ft , from the design base shear and then adding this force at the top level
of the structure. Therefore, the code version of the ELF procedure addresses the issues
that may cause ELFR to underestimate the design forces for taller structures. The impor-
tant issue here is the change in the ELFR /TH ratio as irregularities are introduced and
varied.

Table 8. Summary of responses of ‘‘irregular’’ buildings of Type A

Height of Ratio of
Irregularity Story ELFR /TH ⌬Ma
Type Building (ft.) Stiffness Strength (1st story) (%) DIa
10 1.63 1.04 0.98 0.53 0.18
5-story 15 0.58 0.67 0.99 0.85 0.31
SMRF 20 0.29 0.49 0.95 1.18 0.37
30 0.10 0.36 1.00 1.11 0.27
10 1.66 1.04 0.97 0.47 0.14
Taller first 10-story 15 0.59 0.67 0.89 0.77 0.19
story SMRF 20 0.26 0.51 1.05 1.11 0.22
30 0.10 0.34 0.98 1.41 0.32
10 1.72 1.05 0.84 0.35 0.16
20-story 15 0.55 0.69 0.79 0.47 0.17
SMRF 20 0.26 0.52 0.81 0.82 0.20
30 0.09 0.34 0.82 1.20 0.20
a
⌬M , DI denote the inelastic story drift ratio and the structural damage index, respectively.
466 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

Table 9. Summary of responses of ‘‘irregular’’ buildings with non-uniform distribution of mass

Building Type
Irregularity (Location of ELFR /TH ⌬Ma
Type Heavier Mass) Mass Ratio (1st story) (%) DIa
1.0 0.99 0.21 0.31
5-story SMRF (Roof) 2.5 0.91 0.47 0.32
5.0 0.98 0.60 0.18
1.0 0.89 0.38 0.19
Heavier mass
10-story SMRF (Roof) 2.5 0.94 0.56 0.16
at top
5.0 0.94 0.50 0.13
1.0 0.79 0.39 0.17
20-story SMRF (Roof) 2.5 0.79 0.52 0.18
5.0 0.76 0.46 0.24
1.0 0.99 0.55 0.31
5-story SMRF
2.5 0.96 0.69 0.38
(4th floor)
5.0 1.00 0.78 0.26
1.0 0.89 0.65 0.19
Heavier mass 10-story SMRF
2.5 1.03 0.91 0.15
at midheight (6th floor)
5.0 1.00 0.74 0.17
1.0 0.79 0.81 0.17
20-story SMRF
2.5 0.80 0.87 0.20
(11th floor)
5.0 0.81 0.63 0.21
1.0 0.99 0.85 0.25
5-story SMRF
2.5 0.96 1.02 0.37
(2nd floor)
5.0 0.89 0.90 0.31
1.0 0.89 0.77 0.19
Heavier mass 10-story SMRF
2.5 0.98 0.78 0.14
at bottom (2nd floor)
5.0 0.83 0.55 0.12
20-story SMRF 1.0 0.75 0.47 0.18
(2nd floor) 2.5 0.79 0.41 0.17
5.0 0.68 0.43 0.26
a
⌬M , DI denote the inelastic story drift ratio and the structural damage index, respectively.

Tables 8 and 9 present the summary of responses of buildings with strength, stiff-
ness, and mass discontinuities. It is clear from the tables that the presence of a softer,
weaker and/or heavier story in a building does not substantially influence the results pre-
dicted by ELFR analysis. For example, for the 5-story SMRF with a taller first story, the
ELFR /TH remains essentially unaffected due to the changing height of the first story.
The range of values for these structures is 0.95 to 1.00 from Table 8. The mean is 0.98;
SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 467

Figure 4. Ratio of elastic story drifts as predicted by ELFR and TH for 10-story Type A build-
ings.

hence, the variation from the mean is quite small. This trend is true regardless of the
extent, and the location of the irregularity in the structure. The greatest variation is ob-
served for the 10-story SMRF where the ELFR /TH ranges from 0.89 to 1.05. The mean
is 0.97; hence, the variation from the mean is 8%. Figures 4 and 5 show the variation of
the ELFR /TH ratio over the height of 10-story buildings of Type A, and 20-story build-
ings with mass irregularity, respectively. Similar trends were observed for buildings of

Figure 5. Ratio of elastic story drifts as predicted by ELFR and TH for 20-story buildings with
mass irregularity.
468 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

Figure 6. Variation of inelastic story drift ratios for 5-story Type A buildings.

Types B and C. In general, it may be seen from these figures that the presence of irregu-
larities has relatively little influence on the ELFR computed responses.
The nonlinear dynamic response of all the building models is computed using scaled
accelerograms. The earthquake accelerograms are scaled to the same spectrum intensity
so that the response calculated from each earthquake can be compared. In addition, the
scaling of each earthquake record produces excitation representative of the design earth-

Figure 7. Variation of inelastic story drift ratios for 10-story Type A buildings with mass ir-
regularity.
SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 469

quake, to enable proper performance evaluation of the buildings designed according to

the codes. Despite this scaling, however, it is observed that there is some variation in
response across earthquakes.
The inelastic story drift ratios increase markedly in the vicinity of the irregularities.
As seen from Table 8, for the SMRF, increasing the story height from 10 feet to 15 feet
reduces the stiffness and strength of the taller story by about 60% and 40%, respectively.
This reduction in story stiffness and strength results in an increase in inelastic drift ratio
in the first story by as much as 60%. It may also be noted that for structures with a
30-foot first story, the inelastic drift at this level may increase by more than 200%. A
30-foot-tall story may be impractical, however.
As seen from Table 9, a mass ratio of 2.5 may result in an increase in the inelastic
drift ratio in the heavier story by more than 100%. Figures 6 and 7 show the variation of
inelastic story drift over the height of 5-story buildings of Type A, and 10-story build-
ings with mass irregularity. It is clear from these figures that the presence of an irregu-
larity alters the inelastic response of the buildings, and there are marked increases in the
inelastic story drift in the vicinity of the irregularity. It must be noted, however, that in
no case did the drift exceed the code specified limit of 2%.
The structure damage index, DI, as defined by Park and Ang (Park et al. 1985), is a
measure of the overall structural damage suffered by each building subjected to scaled
ground motion. The damage index is not only dependent on the maximum deformation
but also on the dissipated energy, number of inelastic cycles, and stiffness degradation
(Carr and Tabuchi 1993). According to the damage assessment carried out by Park and
Ang, the structural damage index represents the level of damage of any particular struc-
ture as follows: repairable damage (DI⬍0.4), damage beyond repair (1.0⬎DI⬎0.4), and
total collapse (DI⬎1.0). The constant ␤, in the expression for the damage index as de-
fined by Park and Ang, is taken equal to 0.05. Since the damage index computation is
based on the inelastic behavior of each structure, statistics (Das 2000) are performed
across the earthquakes to see if there is any observable trend.
As shown in Tables 8 and 9, the structure damage indices for all buildings remain
less than 0.40, the threshold of repairable damage. Inelastic action in most buildings fol-
lows the desirable strong-column/weak-beam (SCWB) behavior. Although all structures
were designed based on the SCWB criteria of Chapter 21 of ACI-318, story mechanisms
develop in the vicinity of the taller stories, especially where the taller stories are located
at the bottom or at the midheight of 5- and 10-story structures. In fact, even for a taller
top story, there is an initiation of a story mechanism at the top story in 5- and 10-story
structures.
Building A52025 serves as the reference structure for studying the behavior of in-
filled frame components. It is observed that shear demand does not cause any adverse
effects in the nonlinear response of Type E1 and E2 buildings, both with an open first
floor. However, comparing the shear demand/capacity ratios for models E3, E5, and E6,
it is clear that shear becomes a critical factor for captive columns in the lower stories,
especially with decreasing height ratio of the infills.
470 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

Figure 8. Inelastic response of 10-story Type A buildings.

The damage indices are insensitive to both the mass ratios and the location of the
heavier mass. Figures 8 and 9 show the formation of plastic hinges (denoted by dark
circles) in buildings of Type A subjected to the indicated scaled ground motions. The
number beside each plastic hinge indicates the maximum computed curvature ductility
demand. For all categories of models studied, despite large increases in curvature duc-
tility demands in the plastic hinge regions in the vicinity of the irregularities, the de-
mands did not exceed the computed curvature ductility capacities for which the mem-
bers were designed. It may be seen that the buildings normally respond within the
desirable framework of strong-column/weak-beam behavior. Also, the damage indices
for most models fall below the threshold of repairable damage. There is, however, a col-
umn sway mechanism with simultaneous plastic hinging at both the top and bottom of
the 30-foot-tall first-story columns. Also, it must be pointed out that, for the buildings
shown in Figure 9, a comparison of the rotation demands at the member ends obtained
from linear analysis versus nonlinear analysis would likely show the limitations of linear
analysis and that special checks would be required to prevent concentration of yielding
in a few elements.
SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 471

Figure 9. Inelastic response of 10-story Type A buildings.

As shown in Table 10, the shear demand/capacity ratio in the first-story captive col-
umns increases from 0.76 to 1.63 for a corresponding decrease in the height ratio from
0.50 to 0.10.

Table 10. Summary of responses of ‘‘irregular’’ buildings with masonry

infills

Irregularity Height Maximum Shear

Type Infill Type Location Ratio Demand/Capacity DI
Open ground Strong and Stiff 1st story - 0.41 0.37
floor Weak and Soft 1st story - 0.41 0.31
Strong and Stiff 1st story 0.50 0.76 0.28
Strong and Stiff 1st story 0.25 1.25 0.21
Partial infill
Strong and Stiff 1st story 0.10 1.63 0.17
Weak and Soft 2nd story 0.50 0.75 0.18
472 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

Figure 10. Inelastic response of 5-story SMRFs with nonstructural masonry infills and open
ground floor.

Figures 10 and 11 represent the hinging mechanisms for the worst-case scenarios of
the Type E models. It can been seen from Figure 10 that for Type E1 and E2 models,
although shear is not a governing factor, the formation of a story mechanism within the
first story causes high ductility demands both at the top and the bottom of the columns.
It may be noted here that these ductility demands will most likely increase with increas-
ing number of stories.
From Figure 11, it may be observed that buildings with infills with a height ratio of
0.50 in all floors tend to form plastic hinges in the captive columns of the first story. If
the masonry is weak and soft, as in model E4, hinging also initiates in the beams.

Figure 11. Inelastic response of 5-story SMRFs with nonstructural masonry infills and captive
columns on all floors with a height ratio of 0.5.
SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 473

Table 11. Overall statistics on the mean of ELFR /TH

Regular Buildings Irregular Buildings

ELFR /TH ELFR /TH
Model Number Range Mean Number Range Mean
A, B, C 9 0.79–0.99 0.92 51 0.74–1.01 0.90
A 9 0.84–0.98 0.93 39 0.75–1.01 0.91
t, m, b 3 0.79–0.99 0.89 16 0.68–1.03 0.89

For Type E5 and E6 structures, which have height ratios of 0.25 and 0.10 in the first
story, the shear demand exceeds the capacity indicating a shear failure of the corre-
sponding elements. Overall, the shear demand tends to govern the behavior of the frame
elements with decreasing height ratio of masonry infills, whereas the presence of an
open first story results in an undesirable story mechanism.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Tables 10 through 13 present the overall summary of responses of all the building
models considered in this study. Table 11 presents statistics on the ratio of elastic story
drifts, ELFR /TH, at the first-story level of the regular (reference), and the irregular
structures. It is evident that both the range and the mean for each of the structure types
considered separately, or as groups, are similar.
Table 12 presents the statistics on the inelastic story drift ratios in the vicinity of the
irregularities for the models considered in this study. It is obvious from this table that the
presence of an irregularity in a structure produces an increase in inelastic story drifts.
However, despite the large increases, the inelastic drifts fall within the lower UBC limit
of 2% in all cases.
Table 13 shows the statistics of the structure damage index obtained for each type of
model. It may be observed that even if the maximum values of the index exceed 0.40,
the means lie well within this limit.

Table 12. Influence of the irregularities on the inelastic story drifts

Increase in inelastic story drifts

(%) Maximum
⌬M
Model Maximum Mean (%) Remarks
A, B, C 210 195 1.58 (1)
A 210 140 1.57 (1)
t, m, b 80 35 1.06 (2)
(1) structures with interstory stiffness ratios ranging between 0.09 and 1.71, and inter-
story strength ratios ranging between 0.33 and 1.07
(2) structures with mass ratios ranging between 1.0 and 5.0
474 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

Table 13. Overall statistics of the structure damage

indices

Structure Damage Indices (DI)

Model Range Mean
A, B, C 0.10–0.42 0.25
A 0.10–0.42 0.26
t, m, b 0.12–0.38 0.22

The following conclusions may be drawn regarding the buildings with nonstructural
masonry infills:
• For infilled frames with open ground floors, the damage indices are very high
(up to a maximum of 0.53) with a story mechanism in the open first story, as
shown earlier in Figure 10. The damage indices are not influenced significantly
by the strength and stiffness of the masonry infill.
• For infilled frames with captive columns, the shear in the captive columns be-
comes critical with decreasing height ratio of the infills. The shear demand/
capacity ratio increases from 0.76 to 1.63 for a decrease in height ratio from
0.50 to 0.10. Further, as shown in Figure 10, there is also a simultaneous forma-
tion of a plastic hinge at the top and bottom of the captive columns making the
situation even worse.
Although most of the building models may be regarded as ‘‘irregular’’ according to
the UBC, and hence fall outside the limits of applicability of the ELF method, all of
these structures were originally designed based on the forces computed from the equiva-
lent lateral force procedure. It may be concluded that for most framed structures con-
sidered in this study, ELFR provides reasonable estimates of the design forces. The per-
formance of the buildings as judged from the results of nonlinear dynamic analysis
conforms, in most cases, to the SCWB criteria. The computed damage indices also in-
dicate that the structures mostly fall within the threshold of repairable damage.

RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of this study, it is observed that although the SMRFs with widely vary-
ing interstory stiffness, strength and/or mass ratios performed reasonably well, there are
a few instances in which a story mechanism forms in the vicinity of the discontinuity, or
where the damage indices are considerably closer to or even greater than the threshold of
0.40. In view of these observations, it is recommended that special techniques be applied
in order to avoid undesirable behavior in the structural components. For example, if
there is a stiffness and/or strength discontinuity at the first-story level, the equation gov-
erning the SCWB criteria as proposed in the codes may be modified using a higher over-
strength factor (presently 1.2) for columns in the first-story level. This may reduce the
likelihood of either a partial column-sway mechanism or a story mechanism. A similar
approach may be taken for other types and locations of vertical discontinuities including
the elements of an open first floor of a masonry infilled frame.
SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 475

For frames with nonstructural partial infills, a possible way to reduce the chances of
a shear failure in the plastic hinge regions of the captive columns is to compute the de-
sign shear based on the maximum probable strengths of these columns at the balanced
point, and assuming the effective height of the columns is equal to the height of the
opening. Further, it is recommended that the transverse shear/confinement reinforcement
of the columns be provided for at least the full height of the opening.
In summary, the following recommendations appear appropriate and will not sacri-
fice the safety of the building structures:
1. The use of the ELF procedure need not be restricted on the basis of interstory
stiffness, strength, and mass ratios. Furthermore, the use of more sophisticated
linear analysis techniques such as time history analysis will not, in general, be
superior to the ELF method. However, the use of the ELF procedure should only
be endorsed if additional checks are performed to ensure satisfactory behavior
of buildings with vertical irregularities.
2. Table 16L in the Uniform Building Code, which contains the definitions and
limits of vertical irregularities, should be revised in light of performance-based
criteria. Different levels of interstory stiffness, strength, and mass irregularity,
including those due to the presence of nonstructural infills, should have guide-
lines for the selection of overstrength factors for the design of critical members
that enforce the desirable performance characteristics.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to extend thanks to Dr. Mervyn J. Kowalsky for sharing his
thoughts and ideas. Discussions with him on several occasions have been useful and in-
formative. A note of thanks also goes to Dr. Athol Carr at the University of Canterbury,
New Zealand, Mr. Ronald Hamburger of Simpson, Gumpertz and Heger, and Mr. Ken
Wong at NISEE.

REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 1999. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-99) and Commentary (ACI 318R-99), reported by ACI Committee 318, published
by the American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1997a. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
of Buildings, FEMA-273, prepared for the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1997b. NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-274, prepared for the Building Seismic Safety
Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC.
Aranda, G. R., and Rascon, O. A., 1986. An improved method for seismic analysis of buildings
irregular in elevation, in Proceedings of the Eighth European Conference on Earthquake En-
gineering, Lisbon, Portugal, vol. 6, pp. 9–16.
Carr, A., and Tabuchi, M., 1993. The structural ductility and the damage index for reinforced
concrete structure under seismic excitation, in Proceedings of the Second European Confer-
ence on Structural Dynamics—EURODYN ’93, Rotterdam, pp. 169–176.
476 S. DAS AND J. M. NAU

Carr, A. J., 1998. Ruaumoko, Computer Program Library, Christchurch 1, New Zealand.
Chopra, A., Bertero, V., and Mahin, S., 1973. Response of the Olive View Medical Center Main
Building during the San Fernando earthquake, in Proceedings of Fifth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Rome, Italy, pp. 26–35.
Chopra, A., Clough, D., and Clough, R., 1973. Earthquake resistance of buildings with a ‘soft’
first story, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 1, 347–355.
Costa, A. G., Oliveira, C. S., and Duarte, R. T., 1988. Influence of vertical irregularities on seis-
mic response of buildings, in Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake En-
gineering, Tokyo, Japan, vol. 5, pp. 491–496.
Crisafulli, F. J., 1997. Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Masonry In-
fills, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Das, S., 2000. Seismic Design of Vertically Irregular Reinforced Concrete Structures, Ph.D.
Thesis, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Dooley, K., and Bracci, J. M., 2001. Seismic evaluation of column-to-beam strength ratios in
reinforced concrete frames, ACI Struct. J. 98 (6), 843–851.
Esteva, L., 1992. Nonlinear seismic response of soft first-story buildings subjected to narrow-
band accelerograms, Earthquake Spectra 8 (3), 373–389.
Fernandez, J., 1983. Earthquake response analysis of buildings considering the effects of struc-
tural configuration, Bulletin of the International Institute of Seismology and Earthquake En-
gineering (Tokyo, Japan) 19, 203–215, November.
Hidalgo, P., Arias, A., and Cruz, E., 1994. Influence of vertical structural irregularity on the
selection of the method of seismic analysis, in Proceedings of the Fifth U.S. National Con-
ference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 1, Chicago, IL, pp. 293–302.
Housner, G., 1959. Behavior of structures during earthquakes, J. Eng. Mech. Div. 85 (4), 109–
129.
Humar, J., and Wright, E., 1977. Earthquake response of steel-framed multistory buildings with
set-backs, Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 5, 15–39.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997. Uniform Building Code, vol. 2,
Whittier, CA.
Kreger, M., and Sozen, M., 1989. Seismic response of Imperial County Services Building in
1979, J. Struct. Eng. 115 (12), 3095–3111.
Moehle, J. P., 1984. Seismic response of vertically irregular structures, ASCE J. Struct. Div. 110
(9), 2002–2014.
Park, Y., Ang, A.-S., and Wen, Y., 1985. Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete build-
ings, J. Struct. Eng. 111 (4), 740–757.
Paulay, T., and Priestley, M. J. N., 1992. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Porush, A. R., 1989. The new 1988 SEAOC Blue Book and 1988 UBC overview of lateral force
section, in Proceedings of the sessions related to seismic engineering at Structures Congress
’89, San Francisco, CA, pp. 702–711.
Priestley, M. J. N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G., 1996. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Sharooz, B. B., and Moehle, J. P., 1990. Seismic response and design of setback buildings, J.
Struct. Eng. 116 (5), 2002–2014.
Takeda, T., Sozen, M. A., and Nielsen, N. N., 1970. Reinforced concrete response to simulated
SEISMIC DESIGN ASPECTS OF VERTICALLY IRREGULAR R/C BUILDINGS 477

earthquakes, Journal of Structural Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil

Engineers 96 (12), 2557–2573.
Valmundsson, E. V., and Nau, J. M., 1997. Seismic response of building frames with vertical
structural irregularities, J. Struct. Eng. 123 (1), 30–41.
Wood, S. L., 1992. Seismic response of R/C frames with irregular profiles, J. Struct. Eng. 118
(2), 545–566.
(Received 18 March 2002; accepted 15 November 2002)