ELSEVIER

Engineering Structures, Vol. 18, No. 12, pp. 951-966, 1996

Copyright 0 1996 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
01414296/96 $15.00 + 0.00
Drift control and damage in tall
buildings
Zeynep Sindel
Tezokan Engineering Co., I stanbul, Turkey
Ragip Akbag and Semih S. Texan
Department of Civil Engineering, BogaziFi University, Bebek, I stanbul, Turkey
(Received May 1995; revised version accepted October 1995)
The interstorey drift limitations in earthquake codes of various
countries around the world, have been reviewed. It is emphasized
that, the aseismic safety of a tall building as well as its susceptibility
to nonstructural damage are primarily indexed to its ability to
restrict the relative storey displacements, in addition to its
adequate strength, ductility and toughness. A moment resisting
frame building satisfying all requirements of strength and ductility
may still be subject to severe nonstructural damage, if the intersto-
rey drifts are not restricted properly by means of shear walls. Sev-
eral stringent deflection criteria as well as a damage control index
are introduced to be conscientiously determined and checked dur-
ing the design calculations for the purpose of controlling damage
especially to nonstructural elements. Copyright 0 1996 Published
by Elsevier Science Ltd.
Keywords: tall buildings, interstorey drift, earthquake codes
1. Introduction
1.1. Design philosophy
Unless a building is equipped with a passive and/or active
control system, the universal philosophy of aseismic design
is based on assuring that the building will not fail or col-
lapse structurally during the most severe earthquake likely
to occur within the economic lifespan of the structure. This
universal philosophy, however, deliberately allows for
major nonstructural damage. Sometimes buildings with
minor structural damage have to be demolished after an
earthquake, because of excessive damage to nonstructural
elements. But, is this strategy acceptable to the owner?
Although, the lateral load carrying system itself is not
expected to collapse as a whole, the structural elements,
especially the beam-column joints are permitted to undergo
minor damage to the extent of developing plastic hinges.
But, what happens to the nonstructural elements, such as
infill walls, false ceilings, partition walls, plasters, finishing
materials, facade elements, elevators etc. is not of much
concern to the designer.
The extent of nonstructural damage in the recent
Northridge, USA (17 January 1994, M = 6.7), and Kobe,
Japan (17 January 1995, M = 7.2) earthquakes has thus
convinced many engine.ers that damage control, in addition
to life safety, should become a major objective for aseismic
structural design. During the recent Kobe earthquake,
whether located on hard soil along the hills or, on soft soils
along the coastal strip or, on the man-made islands, all of
the modem high rise buildings performed extremely well.
This we would like to call the Japanese miracle. One of
the basic characteristics of these buildings was that, their
lateral deflections were quite significantly reduced by
means of composite steel columns encased in reinforced
concrete shells, as will be discussed later in this paper. The
purpose of this paper is therefore, to focus on the control
of damage to buildings by way of increasing the stiffnesses
and thereby restricting the lateral elastic deflections under
the factored earthquake loads. Based on various analytical
investigations about the influence of lateral storey displace-
ments on the extent of damage on real example buildings,
some specific recommendations have been made in this
paper, concerning the upper limits of interstorey drifts.
1.2. Damage control in shear buildings
There are no specific restrictions or governing constraints
in the earthquake code provisions ensuring that the damage
to nonstructural elements will not be extensive. It is only
by experience gained from past earthquakes that engineers
have significant confidence in shear walls to avoid excess-
ive damage to nonstructural elements. Various publi-
cations+ strongly advocate the use of shear walls and/or
box systems for the purpose of controlling the secondary
damage. In fact, based on his conscientious observations
957
958 Drift control and damage in tall buildings: Z. Sindel et al.
on a multitude of reinforced concrete buildings in past
earthquakes, Fintel has noted that
. . .Safety against collapse has been the major preoccu-
pation of earthquake engineering. In addition to safety,
damage control should be our major goal. Judging from
the behaviour of multistorey concrete buildings in earth-
quakes, it seems that to achieve damage control the duc-
tile shear wall may be the most logical solution. Actu-
ally, from observations in earthquakes, it seems that we
can no longer afford to build our multistorey buildings
without shear walls.3
1.3. Interstorey drif limitations
It is true that there are some limiting requirements for the
interstorey deflections of buildings in the earthquake regu-
lations of almost all countries. But, these requirements are
not sufficient to control the extent of damage to nonstructural
elements, neither are these limitations intended to divert the
structural system from moment resisting frames to shear walls.
A moment resisting reinforced concrete frame structure
may very well satisfy all strength and ductility requirements
as well as the interstorey drift limitations, but the extent of
secondary damage during a strong earthquake may be so
high that the structure may have to be demolished on account
of the high costs of repair and rehabilitation. If, however, the
same building is designed to carry the lateral loads largely by
means of a shear wall system, the structural and nonstruc-
tural damage may be so minor that the building may be read-
ily put into service immediately after the earthquake.
Table 7 Deflection restrictions in earthquake codes
0
ttgaaess~%g~~~ai~%r.~g
a 3 3
s;z -
t*t
089 8 l g E 4
: =
J Gi>
;
3
Figure 7 Damage control index based on earhquake codes
2. Earthquake code requirements for deflections
2.1. Base shear coefficient
The limiting interstorey drift values recommended by the
earthquake codes of various countries7 are summarized in
Table 1. For the purpose of comparing the recommended
level of lateral loads, the base shear coefficient, C, in per-
cent of gravity, is also included in this table, for a typical
reinforced concrete building. The C-values correspond to
the highest earthquake hazard zone, hard soil, rigid low-
rise building with T 5 0.5 s and ductile moment resisting
frame conditions. Such an artificial assumption of the con-
Country
Base
shear s,,, = &lh (S,, ,RFl.s,,
Coeff.
Drift index
Walls Walls 6
C&j dN
rn,, =
Year Ref. C integral isolated M D S (s/C) lo4
Cuba 1964
El Salvador 1966
Chile 1972
Turkey 1975
Israel 1975
Australia 1979
Japan 1981
Colombia 1981
Yugoslavia 1982
Peru 1982
Venezuela 1982
Indonesia 1983
Ethiopia 1983
New Zealand 1984
India 1984
UBC H< 20m 1988
UBC H> 20m 1988
Iran 1988
Egypt
1988
Eurocode 1988
ATC/NEHRP 1991
Romania 1992
Turkey 1995
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
9
10
11
0.040
0.072
0.080
0.080
0.200
0.034
0.200
0.178
0.100
0.067
0.089
0.090
0.075
0.096
0.080
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.092
0.140
0.054
0.180
0.160
0.125
0.125
0.0020
0.0020
0.0020
0.0025
0.00501 R
0.0050
0.0150/R
0.0029
0.0100/R
0.0180/R
0.0050/R
0.0050/R
0.0060/R
0.0040
0.0400/R
0.0050
0.0300/R
0.0040
0.0050
0.0050/R
0.0020
0.0150/R
0.0035/R
0.0200/R
0.0035
0.0040
0.0040
0.0040
0. 001 H
1.5 1.3 1.0
0.0083
0.0150/R
0.0240/R
0.0100/R
0.0060
0.0070/R
11.2 6.5 5.0
0.0017H
4.5 3.8 2.3
6.0 5.0 4.0
1.0 1.0 0.8 2
3.0 3.0 3.0
3.1 2.5 2.5
12.0 12.0 8.0
12.0 12.0 8.0
12.0 12.0 8.0
3.0 3.0 3.0 2
1.0 1.0 1.0
5.5 6.5 5.0
5.0 4.0 4.0
8.0 7.0 6.0
500
278
250
313
250
76
290
333
337
556
222
200
500
362
543
271
435
357
311
151
44
200
280
M= moment resisting frame; D= dual system; S= shear wall system
Drift control and damage in tall buildings: Z. Sindel et al. 959
Figure2 High School Building, Burdur, Turkey, 12 May 1971
ditions for the calculation of the base shear coefficient is
necessary for the normalization of the drift control index.
2.2. Storey drift limitations
The storey drift, is defined as the difference of maximum
elastic lateral displacements of any two adjacent floors,
under the factored loads divided by the respective storey
height. If there is any torsional action in the building, the
influence of torsion should be taken into account in calcu-
lating the largest lateral deflections. In terms of elastic
deflections, the storey drift, s, is given by
s = SJh
(1)
6, = d, + , - 4 (2)
in which, d,, = maximum elastic deflection of the nth floor
under the factored loads. 8, = difference of the elastic
deflections between the two neighbouring floors and h =
storey height.
For integral-type connections of infill walls, the storey
drift limitation, s,, recommended in various codes varies
between 0.002 and 0.005, as listed in Table 1. When the
nonstructural elements axe isolated from and not integrally
connected to the main structure, however, they are not
affected by the lateral vibrations of the building, and as
such are not susceptible to severe damage. Then relatively
higher values of storey drift limitations, s,, are rec-
ommended to vary between 0.004 and 0.008.
2.3. Elastoplastic de$ections
In some earthquake codes, very high values of storey drift
limitations are specified corresponding to the elastoplastic
action of the structure. For the purpose of uniformity and
normalization in comparison, these elastoplastic storey drift
limitations have been divided by the respective structural
amplification factor, R, which represents in a way, the ratio
of the elastoplastic deflections to the elastic deflections. In
some codes the lateral deflection amplification factor, C,,
is recommended instead of R. In such cases, the value of
C, is utilized in the role of R in Table 1.
Therefore, the upper limits of storey drift, s,, separately
listed in Table 1, for: (a) the integrally connected; and (b) the
isolated cases, are to be tested only against the elastic deflec-
tions. The structural factor, R, is also listed in Table 1 as
specified in each code: for (a) ductile moment resisting
frames, M, (b) dual system of frames and shear walls, D, in
which the frame alone is capable of resisting 25% of the
lateral shears; and (c) shear wall systems, S. In shear wall
systems, the foundation compliance of the walls should be
taken into account in calculating the lateral deflections.
2.4. Maximum interstorey dejection
In the earthquake codes of Indonesia and Egypt, the upper
limit of the maximum relative elastoplastic deflection, S,,,
between any two adjacent floors, is restricted to be less than
2 m. That is
max S,, = R 6, I 0.02 m
(3)
in which, 8, = difference of elastic displacements under
the factored loads between any two adjacent floors. The
structural amplification coefficient, R, is given as R = 1 in
FigI lre3 Flc bor plan, Burdur High School
960 Drift control and damage in tall buildings: Z. Sindel et al.
Tabl e2 Def l ecti ons of the Burdur Hi gh School (C, =O. O6)
Fl oor h(m) W(ton) F(ton) d(m) 6, (m) s =Seth i= IO4 s/C,
Frame bui l di ng
4 3
3 3
2 3
1 4
Shear bui l di ng
4 3
3 3
2 3
1 4
43 4. 54 0. 0153 0. 0024 0. 0008 133
50 3. 33 0. 0129 0. 0033 0. 0011 183
50 2. 48 0. 0096 0. 0043 0. 0015 250
51 1. 27 0. 0053 0. 0053 0. 0013 217
43 4. 54 0. 0085 0. 0024 0. 0008 132
50 3. 33 0. 0061 0. 0024 0. 0008 133
50 2. 48 0. 0037 0. 0018 0. 0006 100
51 1. 27 0. 0019 0. 0019 0. 0005 83
Indonesia, but R = 3 in Egypt. For reasons of correlation
with the example structures reviewed in this paper, R =5
has been proposed, which results in
max6,50.004m
2.5. Maximum roof dejection
(4)
The maximum elastic deflection at the top of a building is
restricted not to exceed a certain percentage of the building
height as follows
dN 5 0.0007 H Fintel
dN 4 0.0010 H Israel7
d,a, 5 0.0017 H Yugoslavia7
1
in which, dN =the top floor elastic deflection of a building
and H = total height of the building. It is seen that the
limitation on roof deflection is specified only in the earth-
quake codes of Israel and former Yugoslavia. Based on his
observations, in the past earthquakes of Central America,
Fintel recommended a rather low limit for the maximum
roof deflection. As will be illustrated in the four example
buildings, the present writers are in full agreement with
Fintels recommendation. Unfortunately, this important
deflection control parameter is not yet included in the earth-
quake provisions of most countries.
One may argue that the maximum elastic roof displace-
ment is not an important quantity, since the maximum inter-
storey drift limitation is already imposing a restriction on
the lateral deflections at each floor level. This is true. But,
the overall level of damage in a structure is also closely
related to its global deflection measured at roof level. If
the interstorey drift values at each floor level reach their
maximum allowable limits, then the roof displacement will
reach undesirable values. Therefore, an independent global
limitation on the roof displacement is most desirable.
3. Drift control index
The storey drift limitation, sm, specified in almost all earth-
quake codes, appears to be the only parameter intended to
control directly the degree of damage which will occur in
nonstructural elements. In practice, however, this parameter
seldom becomes a governing criterion in affecting the design.
Further, the storey drift limit, s,,,, is only introduced for test-
ing against the elastic deflections. If the design base shear is
relatively small, then the storey drifts of the building are also
calculated to be relatively small. Therefore, logically it would
be advisable to divide the upper limits of the storey drift, s,,
Tabl e3 Def l ecti ons of the Yayl a apartment bl ock (C, , , =O. OS)
Fi gure4 Yayl a Apartment bl ock, Erzi ncan, Turkey, 13 March
1992
Fl oor h (rn) W(ton) Fi ton) d(m) s, (m) s= 6$h i =104sl C,
Frame bui l di ng i n y- di recti on
5 2. 8 200
4 2. 8 240
3 2. 8 240
2 2. 8 240
1 2. 4 240
Shear bui l di ng i n Y- di recti on
5 2. 8 200
4 2. 8 240
3 2. 8 240
2 2. 8 240
1 2. 4 240
27. 8 0. 0110 0. 0023 0. 00082
26. 5 0. 0087 0. 0019 0. 00066
19. 7 0. 0068 0. 0024 0. 00087
12. 8 0. 0049 0. 0042 0. 0150
6. 0 0. 0007 0. 0007 0. 00030
27. 8 0. 0073 0. 0012 0. 00045 56
26. 5 0. 0061 0. 0016 0. 00059 74
19. 7 0. 0044 0. 0017 0. 00062 90
12. 8 0. 0027 0. 0016 0. 00056 70
6. 0 0. 0011 0. 0011 0. 00046 57
102
83
109
198
36
Drift control and damage in tall buildings: Z. Sindel et al.
S.S. YAYLA YAP1 KOOrERATiFi 64
I I
/ iii
I
I
I
!
i
I
I
I
- 101 I I I
i
i
0 1 2
scale
3 4
) -
figure 5 Floor plan, Yayla apartments
961
meter FLOOR PLAN (Typ)
by the level of the base shear, so as to obtain a normalization
among the earthquake regulations of various countries. For
this purpose, the maximum storey drift values, s,, for each
country have been divided by the respective maximum base
shear coefficient, C,, and the resulting parameter
i , = 104 (s,/C,) (5)
is defined as the drift control index, and listed in the right-
hand column of Table 1. It is not surprising that, similar
to storey drift limitations, the drift control index, i , , also
varies within a very wide range. The lowest value is i , =
44 in Romania, and the highest value is i , = 986 in Aus-
tralia, as illustrated in Figure I.
The drift control index values in most countries, how-
ever, range within a relatively narrower band (200-500).
It is seen that, the earthquake codes are not in agreement
I
Q
l=
-
-
tYP
-
Fi gur e 6 Floor plan, 20-storey frame building
962 Drift control and damage in tall buildings: 2. Sindel et al.
with each other with respect to the storey drift or drift con-
trol index limitations. In the current Turkish earthquake
code5, the storey drift is limited to S, = 0.0025 and the
resulting drift control index is
4.3. Maximum storey drif
i,,, = lo4 s,,,/C,,, = lo4 (0.0025)/0.08 = 312
(6)
In the proposed draft code , however, the storey drift limi-
tation, for a moment resisting frame (R = S), is s, = 0.02/R
= 0.0025 and the drift control index is
In the current Turkish earthquake code5, the maximum sto-
rey drift at any floor, calculated on the basis of elastic
deflections, is not allowed to exceed s, 5 0.0025. In the
proposed new code, this upper limit is revised to be the
smaller of s, = 0.0035 and s, = 0.02/R. For reasons of
effective damage control, and also for reasons of calibration
with the example buildings, it is proposed herein that the
upper limit of the elastic storey drift be taken as
i, = lo4 s,/C, = IO4 (0.0025)/0.125 = 200
(7) max s I s, = 0.0014
4. Proposed drift criteria
4.4. Drift control index
4.1. Maximum dejection at top jloor
There is no provision in many current earthquake codes for
top floor deflection. The most stringent requirement, how-
ever, is in the Israeli code where d,,, 5 0.0010 H. In order
to encourage the use of shear walls as well as to achieve a
good correlation with the example buildings, the maximum
deflection, dN, at the top floor is proposed by the writers to
be the same as that recommended by Fintel, not to exceed
dN 5 0.0007 H
(8)
4.2. Maximum interstorey dejections
The difference in maximum elastoplastic deflections
between any two neighbouring floors is limited to 2 m only
in the earthquake codes of Indonesia and Egypt. No such
provision exists in other codes. For reasons of safety in
damage control, as well as to achieve a good correlation
with the example buildings, R = 5 is selected. Thus, the
maximum elastic interstorey deflection is proposed as
Maximum storey drift limitation, s,,,, is very much depen-
dent on the level of base shear coefficient and the magni-
tude of the factored elastic lateral loads. If, however, the
maximum storey drift limitation, s,, is divided by the
maximum effective base shear coefficient, C,, the rec-
ommendation of various earthquake codes may be nor-
malized as discussed above. None of the earthquake codes,
except those of Colombia and Romania, provide suf-
ficiently stringent requirements for drift control. For the
purpose of encouraging the use of shear walls in practice,
and also increasing the stiffnesses of moment resisting
frames, it is proposed that the effective value of the drift
control index does not exceed i_x = 120.
5. Example buildings
max S,, = R 6, I 0.02 m
max S, 5 0.004 m
(9)
(10)
5.1. Burdur High School building
The High School building (Figure 2) was under construction
at the time of the 12 May 197 1 Burdur, Turkey earthquake
(M = 6.2). Due to severe structural damage, which occurred
at the basement and ground floor, this four-storey frame
building had to be demolished after the earthquake*. The
(11)
3
tYP
Figure 7 Floor plan, 20-storey shear building
Drift control and damage in tall buildings: Z. Sindel et al.
963
a)Moment Resisting Frame
Figure 8 Elevations, 20-storey building
floor plan is given in Figure 3. The high school was one of
the typical schools constructed elsewhere in Turkey and was
designed and constructed under the strict supervision of the
Ministry of Public Works. The typical structural system has
been drastically revised, and extensive shear walls have been
added in both directions, after this particular building was
damaged during the Bu:rdur earthquake.
The lateral deflections, storey drifts as well as the drift
control index values of the building frame along the axis
No. 15, before and after the addition of shear walls are all
listed in Table 2. The base shear coefficient is assumed to
be C = 0.06, as recommended by the Turkish earthquake
code, valid at that time. The influence of infill walls is neg-
lected in calculating the lateral rigidities. The modulus of
elasticity of the concrete is assumed to be E = 21000 MPa.
Table 4 Floor weights (ilO-storey building)
Floor
Frame building Shear building
h (ml (t on) (ton)
20 4 32.7 245.3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 4 32.7 245.3
Total 80 854.0 4905.8
-*?poms CO/100 typ
b) Shear Wall System
ns
tYP
5.2. Yayla apartment block, Erzincan
It was reported that about 3290 residential units were mod-
erately damaged during the 13 March 1992 Erzincan earth-
quake13. The Ministry of Public Works, in collaboration
with the Technical University of Istanbul, repaired and
strengthened about 2000 such residential units, through
some disaster contingency funds and long-term credit
arrangements with the owner@.
The Yayla apartment block, shown in Figure 4, was one
of the several hundred other buildings, which experienced
mild structural damage14, and major nonstructural damage.
The building is five-storeys high and consists of moment
resisting frames in both transversal and longitudinal direc-
tions as outlined in the typical floor plan shown in Figure
5. No shear walls are included in the system. The building
was originally designed fully to meet the strength and inter-
storey drift requirements of the current Turkish earthquake
codes. In order to strengthen this particular building, along
with 350 other apartment blocks, in addition to repairing
the plastic hinges at beam-column connections of the first
floor, new shear walls have been added in two principal
directions. The details of this strengthening have been pre-
sented by Ulker et ~16.
The base shear coefficient was C = 0.08 for the frame
structure, and C = 0.15 for the frame and shear wall struc-
964 Drift control and damage in tall buildings: Z. Sindel et al.
Table 5 Lateral loads and storey drift (20-storey building, C,,,= 0.125)
Floor
Forces,
f (ton)
Frame building Shear building
Deflection, Drift, Forces, Deflection, Drift,
d (10-4m) s (104) F (ton) d (10-4m) s (104)
20 5.40 966 12 40.51 567 7
19 2.27 919 13 17.04 539 7
18 2.15 868 14 16.15 510 8
17 2.03 813 14 15.25 480 8
16 1.91 756 15 14.35 488 8
15 1.79 696 15 13.46 416 8
14 1.67 634 16 12.56 382 9
13 1.55 570 16 11.66 848 9
12 1.44 505 14 10.76 812 9
11 1.32 448 14 9.87 277 9
10 1.20 391 14 8.97 242 9
9 1.08 335 14 8.07 207 8
8 0.96 280 12 7.18 173 8
7 0.84 233 11 6.28 141 8
6 0.72 187 11 5.38 110 7
5 0.60 144 10 4.49 82 6
4 0.48 103 8 3.59 56 6
3 0.36 69 8 2.69 34 4
2 0.24 39 6 1.79 17 3
1 0.12 15 4 0.90 5 1
Total 28.12 210. 94 -
ture15. However, for the purpose of uniformity of compari-
son, the lateral deflections, storey drifts and the drift control
index values have been calculated for both frame and shear
building conditions, assuming C = 0.08, and the results
have been summarized in Table 3. The modulus of elas-
ticity is assumed to be E =32 500 MPa.
5.3. Managua, Nicaragua earthquake
The Bank of America, an 18-storey reinforced concrete
building, consisting of a rigid core of shear walls, was put
into service, immediately after the 23 December 1972 Man-
agua, Nicaragua earthquake (M = 6.5). There was no struc-
tural or nonstructural damage, except the cracking of a few
coupling beams between the elevator shafts and spalling of
the marble covers at a few places. This shear building was
designed for a base shear of about 7% gravity.
In contrast to such a good performance, the 15storey
Banco Central de Nicaragua building, consisting of ductile
moment resisting space frames, which was located diagon-
ally across the comer of the same street, had to have the
Table 6 Deflection tests for example buildings
top 12-storeys demolished, because the nonstructural dam-
age was too extensiveT3. The frame building was designed
for a base shear coefficient of 10% gravity.
In order to simulate the performances of the Banco de
Central, Nicaragua and the Bank of America buildings a
20-storey building example representing these two build-
ings has been selected. Keeping the floor area to be the
same as A =400 m, two different structural systems have
been envisaged: (a) frame building; and (b) shear building
as shown in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. A typical
moment resisting plane frame and also one half of the shear
building elevations are illustrated in Figure 8. The weights
of each floor are given in Table 4.
Assuming the building is located in the highest earth-
quake hazard zone, and following the methodology as con-
tained in the new draft earthquake code of Turkey, the
lateral deflections as well as the storey drifts have been
calculated and listed in Table 5. The same values are also
diagramatically illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. In a frame
building, only one typical interior frame is analysed. In a
Example
building
&
0.0007 H
top storey
deflection
6,
0.004 m
lnterstorey
deflection
s= t&/h
0.0014
Drift
i
120
Drift
index
High School,
Burdur
Yayla apartment,
Erzincan
Bank buildings,
Managua
USA style
Japanese style
0.0012 H
0.0006 H
tf 0.0005 0.0008 H H
0.0012 H
0.0007 H
0.0022 H
0.0008 H
0.0053 m 0.0015 250
0.0024 m 0.0008 133
0.0027 m 0.0014 130
0.0017 m 0.0006 90
0.0065 m 0.0016 128
0.0035 m 0.0009 72
0.0092 m 0.0026 283
0.0038 m 0.0011 119
M= moment resisting frame, s= shear walls and frames
Drift control and damage in tall buildings: Z. Sindel et al.
Displacement , m
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12
20 zz
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
El1
8
c IO
9
0
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
74.0 m
Figure 9 Lateral elastic displacements (m)
0
20
19
10
17
16
15
14
13
1::
9
;
E-
4
!
-
Figure 77 USA and Japanese styles of steel columns
& .Dlspbcsment,m (max& q 9.~n)
0.00 0.15 0.20 m
20
19
-
/-
18
17 J
Figure 70 Storey drifts (lOA)
16
15
14
13
shear building, however, one half of the building is ana-
lysed as a plane frame, due to symmetry. The peripheral
columns have also been considered as a plane frame and
attached to the shear walls by hinges at floor levels.
12
E 11
B
LL 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
-
Figure 72 Lateral elastic displacements (m)
5.4. J apanese and USA style constructions
It has been a Japanese miracle that none of the modem
high rise buildings was damaged during the 17 January
1995 Kobe earthquake. There were some minor nonstruc-
tural cracks at the decorative wall finishing materials only
at a few buildings. The main reason for such excellent per-
formance of high rise buildings was the extremely low level
of the storey drifts. In contrast to the USA method of con-
struction, the box-shaped steel columns were encased by
25 m thick concrete cover, as shown in Figure 11.
In order to compare the relative efficiencies of the
Japanese and the USA style of construction, on a para-
metric basis, a 20-store,y high, one-bay steel plane frame
example has been analysed under the action of identical
base shear coefficient C,, = 0.092. The elastic lateral sto-
rey displacements as well as the relative storey drifts are
illustrated in Figures 12 and 13, respectively. It is clearly
seen that the Japanese style of construction results in rela-
tively very low values of displacements, which satisfy the
very
stringent deflection criteria proposed herein.
Especially, the top floor deflections are less than 0.0007 H
with only a slight overrun at,the upper two floors.
5.5. Calibration of the proposed criteria
The results of deflection analyses for all four example build-
ings have been summarized in Tabk 6. It is seen clearly that,
when shear walls are added to the system or, when the lateral
stiffness is large enough, the elastic deflections satisfy all of
the proposed requirements. Therefore, by virtue of these
example buildings representing a proven satisfactory per-
966 Drift control and damage in tall buildings: Z. Sindel et al.
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
Figure 73 Storey drifts (6$h)
J
formance in strong earthquakes, the proposed criteria should
be considered to be in calibration with real case histories.
6. Cost-benefit considerations
It was vividly demonstrated in the four example buildings
discussed above that the lateral deflections are significantly
reduced if the structural system stiffness is increased or if
new shear walls are added. The use of shear walls, may
certainly increase the amount of concrete consumption per
unit floor area. It is calculated in various example buildings,
however, that the additional cost due to increase in the vol-
ume of vertical elements is only of the order of about 1%
of the total cost of the building. An important issue with
shear walls is that there may be base rotations, especially
on soft ground, to be taken into account during the calcu-
lations of the lateral displacements. Some basic advantages
of shear walls may be summarized as follows
Shear walls substantially increase the lateral stiffness of
buildings and thereby reduce deflections
Shear walls effectively support the gravity loads
Shear walls act as partition walls at the same time
Shear walls meet the twin requirements of safety and
damage control, and thus prevent excessive damage to
nonstructural elements
Shear walls reduce the need for relatively expensive duc-
tile moment resisting frames
Buildings with shear wall structural systems may be put
into service immediately after a severe earthquake, as
they will help control excessive nonstructural damage
I. Conclusions
Based on the observations of damage which occured to the
example buildings in past earthquakes, and also considering
the methods of rehabilitation applied thereon, various con-
clusions may be drawn.
Ductile moment resisting frames, although saisfying the
necessary requirements of strength and ductility, may not
escape major nonstructural damage. Collapse may be pre-
vented but the cost of repair and rehabilitation after the earth-
quake may be prohibitive, necessitating demolition and total
reconstruction. Therefore, the use of ductile shear walls, in
almost all reinforced concrete buildings, or increased column
stiffnesses, to the extent of restricting the elastic lateral dis-
placements to remain below the limiting values proposed her-
ein, will help to protect against nonstructural damage.
There are no specific requirements or provisions in the
earthquake codes discouraging or discarding the use of
moment resisting frames in favour of shear wall systems.
On the contrary, the shear wall systems are slightly penal-
ized with respect to the calculation of base shear coef-
ficients. The proposed drift control limitations, however,
introduce the shear walls as very desirable and indispens-
ible elements of the lateral load carrying system.
None of the lateral deflection restrictions of the current
earthquake codes would have provided a clear prediction of
the excessive nonstructural damage to the four example build-
ings treated in this paper. In order to remedy this deficiency,
the proposed stringent requirements for elastic deflections are
believed to provide satisfactory protection against nonservic-
ability of buildings immediately after severe earthquakes.
References
5
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Fintel, M. Quake lesson from Managua: revise concrete building
design? Civil Engineering, ASCE August 1973, pp. 60-63
Salse, E. A. B. and Fintel, M. Strength, stiffness and ductility proper-
ties of slender shear walls, Proc. 5th WCEE, Rome, 1973 No. 109
Fintel, M. Ductile shear walls in earthquake resistant multistorey
buildings, ACI J 1974, pp. 296-305
Texan, S. S. Perde Duvarh Kirissiz Sislemlerin Saglad& Ekono-
mi, Teknik Btilten, Yrl 2/8, TMMOB, Ingaat Milhendisleri Odasr
Ankara Subesi, Yenisehir, Ankara, s. 81-96, 1971 (in Turkish).
Afet Blilgelerinde Yaptlacak Yaprlar Hakkmda Yonetmelik, Imar
ve Iskan Bakanhgr, Deprem Arapuma Enstittlsti, 9.6.1975 tarih ve
15 260 sayrh Resmi Gazete, 1975 (in Turkish)
Ulker, R., Texan, S. S., Kiiyltloglu, A. and Yuva, Y. Erzincan
Depreminde Hasar G&en 2000 Konutun Onarim ve Takviyesi,
Ikinci Ulusal Deprem Mtlhendisligi Sempozyumu Tebligleri,
TMMOB, Ingaat Mtlhendisleri Odasr Istanbul Subesi, 13 Mart, I.T.U.,
Istanbul, s. 499-524, 1993 (in Turkish)
Earthquake resisfant regulations, a world list. 1988, IAEE, Kenchiiu
Kaikan 3rd Floor, 5-26-20, Shiba, Minato-ku, Tokyo 108, Japan, 1988
Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for
buildings, ATC 3-06, NSF 78-8, National Science Foundation, US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, USA, 1978
NEHRP Recommended provisions for the development of seismic
regulations for new buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council,
Washington, DC, USA
Code for aseismic design of residential buildings, Ministry of Public
Works and Territory Planning, Romania, 1992
Deprem Blilgelerinde Yaplacak Yap&r Hakkmda Yonetmelik.
Baymduhk ve Isk?ut Bakanhgt, Afet Isleri Gene1 Mtldilrlttgil, Ankara,
Taslak Yonetmelik, Temmuz, 1994 (in Turkish)
Texan, S. S., Ipek, M. and Acar, S. Reasons for the earthquake
damage to the New High School Building in May 12, 1971 Burdur,
Turkey earthquake. Proc. 5th WCEE, Rome, Italy, June 1973
Ersoy, U., Gtllkan, P., Karaesmen, E., Gzkan, Y., Sucuoglu, H., Tok-
yay, M. and Cobanoglu, M: 13 Mart 1992 Erzincan Depremi Mtlhen-
dislik Raporu, TMMOB, Intaat Mtthendisleri Odasi Ankara Subesi,
Yenisehir, Ankara, Haziran 1992 (in Turkish)
Altan, M., Gen$oglu, M. and Doganer, S. 13 Mart 1992 Erzincan
Depreminde Hasar G&en S.S. Yayla Yap] Kooperatifi Binalarinin
Deprem Gtivenliginin Artrnlmast i9in Yapdan Inceleme Raporu,
I.T.U. Yap] ve Deprem Uygulama ve Aragtirma Merkezi, Maslak,
Istanbul, Agustos, 1992 (in Turkish)
Tezcan, S. S., Koyltloglu, A., Ipek, M. and Yuva, Y. Yayla Yapt Koop
eratifi Hesap Rapom - 64 YNS, Baymduhk ve I.&in Bakanhg~, ,&fet
Isleri Gene1 MiJdtlrltl& 13 Mart 1992 Erzincan Depmmi Gnanm ve
Takviye Isleri, Teknik Rapor, Tee&an Ltd., Kasrm, 1992 (in Turkish)