THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS, Vol.

4,

15-25 (1995)

INTERSTORY DRIFT DESIGN AND DAMAGE CONTROL ISSUES

RONALD L. MAYES Dynamic Isolation Systems, Inc., 3470 M i . Diablo Blud., Suite A200, Lafayette, C A 94549, U.S.A.

SUMMARY This paper addresses post-earthquake functionality of buildings by focusing on one of the key aspects of damage control design-interstory drift. It is generally recognized that interstory drift can be used as a measure of expected damage. In order to control damage, the designer must understand the relationship between interstory drift and different levels of damage. Current code provisions for interstory drift, which attempt to address life safety primarily, are reviewed. The limitations of these provisions when applied to damage control design are discussed. An overview of current research on establishing a relationship between interstory drift and damage levels in nonstructural and structural elements is provided.

1. INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, building codes have emphasized life safety as their primary goal. Because of the potential social and economic impacts of the loss of function of buildings, there is a new focus on the control of damage in seismic design. Although there are multiple components in the control of damage, this paper focuses on one aspect known to be a significant factor-interstory drift. Where post-earthquake functionality is one of the owners performance criteria, it is necessary to consider the structures interstory drift in determining the level and type of damage that can be expected. Current design practice uses equivalent static forces to design the lateral force resisting systems, as shown in Figure 1. In the Uniform Building Code (UBC), an elastic force V , corresponding to the design event, is divided by a factor Rw to obtain the lateral design base shear force V,. A structure so designed will have a nonlinear force-deflection relationship consistent with the magnitude of the R factor. When idealized as a bilinear curve, the yield force V, is higher than V, by a factor of 1.5 or more, due to q!~ factors, over-strength, redundancy and over-sizing. A key issue in limiting drift-related damage is to obtain the best estimate of the displacements and interstory drifts associated with the nonlinear force-deflection characteristics of the structure. The current UBC attempts to address this by multiplying the displacements and drifts associated with the design base shear Vb by the arbitrary factor Rw. The SEAOC Blue Book Commentary acknowledges that this may underestimate the realistic drift and that a more appropriate factor may be as high as R,. More accurate solutions for the drift calculation can be obtained through considerations of nonlinear time-history analysis procedures, although this is seldom done. CCC 1062-8002/95/010015-11 0 1995 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received June 1994 Revised October 1994

16

R. L. MAYES

".

Figure 1. Idealized force displacement

In terms of understanding the process of damage control, there are two key issues. The first is to obtain a realistic value for the interstory drift, and the second is to develop damage matrices that provide estimated damage to both structural and nonstructural elements for varying levels of interstory drift. This paper attempts to summarize the current status of these two issues. This paper is a summary of a more extensive report by the present author (see Reference 1) prepared for the 1993 SEAONC Continuing Education Seminar. The complete list of references utilized herein can be found in Reference 1. 2. DEFINITIONS There have been several attempts to develop consistent definitions of interstory drift and to relate interstory drift to the ductility demand and damage of a structural element. Several key references were used in the development of this paper, including those by Bertero et aZ.,' Freeman,3 M ~ e h l eSozensS6and Uang,' and Uang and Maarouf.* These provide additional ,~ information on this subject as well as addressing the more complex relationships between ductility and drift. Both written material and figures from several of these references have been synthesized and utilized herein. Interstory drift is the relative displacement of one story relative to the other. In some structures, a substantial portion of the story drift may result from either axial deformation in the columns (see Figure 2) or global foundation rocking and/or settlement. Figure 3 illustrates extreme cases of the relation between interstory drift and the distortion of a nonstructural panel. The situation illustrated in Figure 3(a) may be typical of that occurring in frames, where the distortion of the nonstructural panel relates almost directly to the interstory drift (assuming the panel is not isolated from the frame). Figure 3(b) illustrates the other extreme, where an equal amount of drift occurs with no distortion of the nonstructural panel. Figure 3(b) may represent the situation

INTERSTORY DRIFT AND DAMAGE

17

Figure 2. Drifts due to axial forces in first-story columns

(a) Drift with Distortion

@) Drift without Distortion

Figure 3. Interstory drift and distortion of non-structuralelements:(a) drift with distortion;(b) drift without distortion

in the upper floors of shear-wall buildings or in buildings with significant foundation rocking. A familiar and classic example of drift without significant interstory distortion is the Leaning Tower of Pisa. A better index of both structural and nonstructural damage is the tangential story drift index RT (Bertero st al.'), as shown in Figure 4. Tangential-Interstory drift = ( A i di-l)T = Drift-producing damage ( Figure 5 ) As schematically indicated in Figure 4(a), the intent of this index is to measure the shearing distortion within a story. For the displacement components shown in Figure 4(b), and assuming that floor diaphragms are rigid in their own plane, the average tangential drift R,(Figure 4(b))

18

R. L. MAYES

Figure 4. Computation of tangential interstory-drift index: (a) drift due to story deformation; (b) displacement components for computering RT

8 - 5 1 I-

'

I
' C

I 4

midheight

(a) Idealized Beam Deformations

0) Ground-Story Column
Deformatiom

Figure 5. Moment-curvature for typical intcrior column

is equal to

in which L is the bay width and H is the story height. The first term on the right-hand side of the above equation is the conventional story drift ratio, and the second is a correction applied to each bay accounting for the slope of the floors above and below the story. It may not bc appropriate to average the values of R , for a story when the pattern of axial column deformations varies greatly across the structure (e.g. frames with structural walls).
3. CODE REQUIREMENTS

The code-design process is illustrated in Figure 1. An elastic force V, corresponding to the project-specific seismic zone, soil conditions and estimated structural period is given either by the U BC or National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP) provisions. This elastic force, which would be required for design if no yielding in the structure were to occur, is divided

INTERSTORY DRIFT AND DAMAGE

19

by a factor R , (UBC) or a factor R (NEHRP) to determine the lateral design base shear force V,. Once the design of the structural system is complete, there will be a set of story displacements and interstory drifts (db) associated with the lateral loads resulting from the design base shear V,. In the UBC, the interstory drifts (db) associated with the design base shear are limited to 0.03/RW (or a maximum of 0.004) for buildings exceeding 65ft in height and O.04/Rw (or a maximum of 0005) for buildings less than 65 ft in height. For the design of elements sensitive to drift, the UBC multiplies d b by i R w to obtain a 'design event' level of drift. The SEAOC Blue Book Commentary states that a more appropriate multiplier may be as high as R , because, as Figure 1 illustrates, A,, = A , / R , and thus (iR,) A , generally will significantly underestimate
Amax.

In the NEHRP provisions, the interstory drifts associated with the design base shear (db) are multiplied by a factor C,, (which varies between 0.5 and 1 times the R factor), and the resulting interstory drift ratios are limited to a value between 0.01 and 0.02. It is difficult to compare precisely these two sets of code provisions, since the UBC is based on working stress design procedures and NEHRP is based on strength design procedures. However, if it is assumed that the best estimate of A,,, in Figure 1 is obtained by multiplying A , by R,, then the UBC drift design requirements would produce A,,, drift ratios in the 0.03 to 0.04 range and the NEHRP drift design provisions would produce A,,, drift values in the 0015 to 0.03 range. As a consequence, the NEHRP drift requirements are more conservative than the UBC.

4. COMPARISON OF CODE CALCULATIONS OF DRIFT

Elastic design response spectra may be defined by regions of roughly constant acceleration, velocity and displacement response, as summarized by Newark and Hall (1982). In those period ranges of constant velocity and displacement response for firm soil sites (greater than 0.5 to 1-0sec), it is commonly found that the inelastic displacement (A,,, of Figure 1) from the nonlinear response of the structure is approximately bounded by the elastic displacement ( A , of Figure 1; Newmark and Riddell, 1980; Otani, 1981). For shorter periods (less than 0.5 to 1.0 sec), the maximum inelastic displacements (Amax) tend to exceed the elastic (A,) values. Techniques for estimating the relation between inelastic and elastic displacements for shorter period structures have been developed by Shimazaki and Sozen (1985) and Qi and Moehle (1991). Consider the typical lateral force versus deformation relationship of a structural system in Figure 1. The elastic force demand for a design earthquake is expressed as V,. Idealizing the actual structural response curve by the linearly-elastic perfectly plastic curve in Figure 1, the structural ductility factor can be defined as

where the deformation is expressed in terms of story drift A . The ratio between the elastic force demand V , and the structure's idealized yield force level V, is defined as the ductility-reduction factor R,:

20

R. L. MAYES

Based on these definitions, the force-reduction factor (FRF, or R, in the UBC) for working stress design can be derived from Figure 1 as follows:

FRF (or R,)

= -= R,

v,

v,

v,

v,

The displacement-amplification factor (DAF) can also be derived from Figure 1 as follows:

Since Ay/A, is equal to ?/V, (see Figure l), it follows that DAF = p(V,/V,). From the above equations, the ratio between DAF and FRF is DAF/FRF = p / R p . For a single degree-of-freedom system (Newmark and Hall, 1982), the ratio between p and R, can be expressed as follows: (a) in the velocity and displacement-amplification regions, p / R , = p/p = 1. (b) in the acceleration-amplification region, p / R , = p/(2p - 1) 2 1. If a multistory building tends to deform as a single degree-of-freedom system, which appears to be valid assumption for structures that do not have irregularities or discontinuities, it follows from the above equations that the DAF used to multiply d b to estimate the total story drift should not be less than FRF, or R, in the UBC. A review of the 1991 UBC, the 1991 NEHRP, the 1990 National Building Code of Canada, the 1987 Mexico Code and the 1988 Eurocode indicates that the ratios between the DAF and FRF vary considerably from one code to another. Table I lists the ratio between the DAF and the R, values used in these codes. On one extreme, both the Mexico Code and the Eurocode use a DAF no smaller than the R,. At the other extreme, the UBC uses a DAF only that of the R,.
5. PERFORMANCE GOALS

The role that interstory drift plays in the analysis and design scenario depends on the performance objectives of the building owner. Design codes imply that interstory drifts that lead to structural instability are unacceptable. Design codes also attempt to limit interstory drift while requiring attached elements to tolerate a specified drift through connection ductility. Both these provisions attempt to address life safety and not damage control or post-earthquake functionality. In addressing damage control and post-earthquake functionality, it is essential to understand the level of drift that an element can tolerate at each of its damage threshold states. If an element Table I. D A F / F R F ratios in five building codes
Building code

FRF
Rw R R/06

DAF
3~
Cd

DAF/FRF
0.375 0.5- 1.O 0.6 1.0
1.o

UBC (1991)
NEHRP (1991) NBCC (1990) Mexico (1987) Eurocode (1988)

Q*
4

Q
4

INTERSTORY DRIFT AND DAMAGE

21

is attached through ductile connections that can deform in such a manner as not to deliver the drift to the element, then damage may be controlled. However, if the element is not so isolated and does participate in the imposed story drift, then the damage thresholds and realistic estimates of interstory drift must be understood to meet the owner's goals. The relative value of structural and non-structural components for four typical sample buildings was addressed by Arnold et al. (1987). Depending on building type, the value of the structure ranges from slightly over 10%to slightly under 25% of the total construction cost of the building. The architectural, non-structural components (as defined for this study) ranged from approximately 12% to 33% of the total, and the building services costs ranged from approximately 25% to over 50% of the building cost. Thus, although protection of the building structure is obviously crucial with respect to life safety, the non-structural components represent a much larger proportion of the building investment.

6. NON-STRUCTURAL DAMAGE
In order to achieve a set of performance goals for a specific project, the existing experimental research data must be synthesized to produce a set of damage matrices that relates the percentage of damage to a particular structural or non-structural element to varying levels of drift. Femtto (1984) developed such a table and at a drift of 001, he shows that windows would be 80% damaged whereas partitions would be 30% damaged. This type of table is essential for performance-based criteria. Ferritto also provided a damage multiplier which coupled with the initial cost of the element, enables a damage cost to be calculated for a given level of drift. Since the time that Ferritto published his study, additional work on non-structural damage has been performed and has been summarized by Rihal (1984, 1985, 1986, 1988), Roeder (1987), Sakamoto (1984) and Wang (1987). What is required is for this more recent research information to be synthesized and incorporated into an updated version of Ferritto's table. A brief summary of some of the more recent work follows. Rihal (1985, 1986) reported on the correlation between interstory drift and damage levels in full-height partitions. Figure 6 provides a summary of that data, together with a description of the damage levels that he used. According to Rihal's (1986) experimental data, initial partition damage appears to start at interstory drift levels of 0.002. Severe partition damage occurs at drift levels in the range of 0.007 to 0.011. Rihal (1988) summarized in-plane cyclic testing of

' 1
6

0.03
0.02

3
P'I P 1.0 05
0.0

0.00

0.01

0.02

'

0.03

'

Tension Reidorcement Ratio

Figure 6. Rotation capacity of reinforced-concrete beam sections

22

R. L. MAYES

full-scale, pre-cast concrete cladding panels. According to Rihal (1988), the levels of interstory drift that can be accommodated by the threaded rod lateral connection prior to failure ranges from 0.007 to 0.012. It should be noted that Rihal's test values, which demonstrate significant damage in the 0.01 drift range for these elements, indicate that Ferritto's tabulated values may be on the non-conservative side. Rihal(l984) also provided a summary of experimental research results of observed behavior and threshold levels of damage for suspended ceilings. These test results have not yet been reduced to a form similar to those for partitions. As part of the U.S.A.-Japan cooperative research program utilizing large-scale testing facilities, a series of pseudo-dynamic seismic tests on a full-scale, 6 story steel frame structure was performed and reported by Roeder (1987) and Wang (1986, 1987). Phase 1V of the program included the addition of cladding walls, partitions, suspended ceilings and other non-structural elements to the 6-story frame. Although this test was not able to consider the mass, velocity and acceleration of the elements, it did provide a reasonable indication of the behavior of the elements under large drifts. Joint slip was first observed in the cladding elements at story drifts in the order of 04015. Initiation of cracking in joint sealants was first noted at story drifts in the order of 0.002. Damage to the non-structural elements increased dramatically with increasing story drift, and it was sensitive to the type of installation detail and errors in installation. The construction personnel appeared to be very conscientious by US. standards, but a number of errors in the installation of nonstructural elements was noted. Several premature failures could be attributed to these errors in installation. The corner elements of the cladding system appeared to be a source of major problems, and more study is needed in this area. In terms of US. cladding practice, in which the sway mechanism (panel fixed at the lower floor level) is preferred over the rocking mechanism, the longer ductile rod connection performed much better than the short bolt with a slotted hole. The latter had installation problems (over tightening bolts) and exhibited problems at drifts of 0.004 with some failures occurring at 0.008. The longer rod detail was able to accommodate the maximum imposed drift of 0.025. This exceeded the results obtained by Rihal (1988), who did his tests at frequencies of 0 1 Hz and 0.5 Hz and had failures in the 0-007 to 0-012 range. Unfortunately, the full-scale test was not able to subject the connections to a combination of imposed drift and inertia forces. This was unfortunate, because this is a primary concern with the long-rod type connection. Ceiling tile elements suffered no damage until the story drifts reached 0.0067, and the damage was significant only after the story drift exceeded 0008, Several attachment details of the nonstructural elements were regarded to be in a dangerous condition after the story drift exceeded 0.017. Two types of door and doorjamb assemblies were tested. Both were built by Japanese manufacturers, but one was designed for seismic applications in that it was designed to accommodate larger movements. The ordinary doors became impossible to operate at story drifts greater than approximately 0.002, and the seismic-designed doors were impossible to open at drifts greater than 0.008. Finally, it should be noted that the nonstructural elements had considerable impact on the structural properties. The nonstructural elements added to the test structures reduced the natural period by 30%, and this would suggest that the overall structural stiffness was increased by more than 100%. The stiffness of the structure decreased as damage occurred to the nonstructural elements. After 8 cycles, at a maximum story drift of 0.003, however, most of the additional stiffness of the nonstructural elements had been lost. In the paper by Sakamoto et al. (1986), the authors provided an overview of work in Japan and, in addition, supplied some interesting information on glass breakage that occurred in the 1978 Off-Moyagi earthquake. From the base of the building, the horizontal distance of the debris of broken glass was observed to be half the vertical height of where the glass breakage occurred

INTERSTORY DRIFT AND DAMAGE

23

for buildings up to 1OOft in height. Consequently, if pedestrians are to be protected from the danger of falling glass, balconies extending a significant distance from the building are required. The more recent research data discussed above appears to be consistent with the values developed in 1984 by Ferritto. What is now required is an updated and expanded version of Ferrittos table.
7. STRUCTURAL DAMAGE

Damage can be considered cosmetic by some and structural by others. If structural, there can be degrees depending on the impact of the damage on the structural system. For the purpose of this paper, damage is defined in the following categories. (a) Cracking that does not significantly affect the strength or stiffness of the element. (b) Permanent damage that affects the post-earthquake strength and stiffness, such that repairs would need to be made to restore the strength to pre-earthquake conditions. (c) Degrading damage which affects the strength and stiffness, such that there is a loss of capacity which would detrimentally affect the performance of the element to provide resistance during the design event. Most of the work that has been performed to date on assessing structural damage has focused on the strength and ductility of structural elements (Applied Technology Council, 1983; Bertero et al., and Moehle,). Little data exists on the direct relationship between drift and structural damage, primarily because it is difficult to develop and it depends on the more complex relationships between drift and ductility and the stiffness-degradation characteristics of a particular structural component. Moehle, provided an approximate deviation for the relationship between the drift in a reinforced-concrete frame and the curvature ductility of the element. In order to establish the relationship between interstory drift and rotational capacities of reinforced-concrete beams in a multistory building, it is necessary to understand the relative contributions of beam and column deformations to the total interstory drift. The discussion here is extracted from the work of Moehle, and is restricted to multistory frames with typical aspect ratios. Current design practice for frames in regions of high seismic risk requires that the columns in new construction be stronger than the beams. As a consequence, the majority of inelastic action in intermediate floors is expected to occur in the beams. Therefore, a conservative approach to establishing beam deformation demands is to assume that the columns are rigid (see Figure S(a)). According to this assumption, the effective beam rotation (or drift ratio 6/1) is equal to the interstory drift ratio of the stories containing the beam. Columns at these same intermediate floors should be designed to have strength exceeding the beam strength, and should be capable of accommodating moderate inelastic action (Park, 1986). The columns framing into the foundation cannot be protected easily from inelastic deformation demands. Neither can their deformations be easily determined because of the uncertain flexibility of the foundation and first-floor beams. Given the critical nature of these columns and the numerous failures reported in the literature, it is recommended that they be detailed conservatively to sustain an effective column rotation (or drift ratio 6/Z) equal to the expected interstory drift at that location. Moehle, and others have developed simplified relationships for unconfined reinforcedconcrete beams that relate a beams rotational capacity to the amount of tension reinforcement, and a typical relationship is given in Figure 6. According to Figure 5, the beam rotation may be taken to equal the interstory drift ratio in a building. The results indicate a

24

R. L. MAYES

maximum drift ratio capacity of approximately 0.01 for the permitted range of longitudinal reinforcement ratios. ACI 318-89 seismic provisions require transverse reinforcement at close spacing in the plastic hinge regions of beams, resulting in an increase in the usable concrete compressive strain capacity (Park, 1986). As a result, flexural-drift ratio capacities in excess of those indicated in Figure 6 are likely in beams satisfying current code provisions. Experimental results support these analytical results (Qi and Moehle, 1991). Consequently, if beam rotational capacities in a frame system can be established and related to the degree of damage in the beam, the degree of structural damage in a reinforced-concrete frame could be established. This needs to be done. The concepts described above can be applied to other structural elements. For example, reinforced-concrete structural walls may be visualized as beams oriented vertically and having tension reinforcement equal to compressive reinforcement. A more detailed analysis of wall boundary element requirements using this approach has been discussed by Wallace and Moehle
(199 1).

There has been a considerable amount of research on masonry shear walls over the past two decades. As with reinforced-concrete shear walls, there are two primary modes of response: the more ductile, flexural mode and the less ductile, shear mode. The drift associated with different limit (damage) states in masonry shear walls is currently being summarized as part of the TCCMAR program (Shing et al., 1991; Leiva and Klingner, 1991; Sieble et al., 1992; Sveinsson et al., 1985; Fattal and Todd, 1991). Significant shear cracking generally occurs at drifts (based on shear deformation) in the 0.002 to 0003 range. The maximum deformation capacity in the post-cracking range depends on many factors. Walls responding in the shear mode of failure have maximum capacities in the 0.004 to 0.007 drift range. Well designed and detailed walls that exhibit the flexural mode of response have drift capacities in the 0 0 8to 0-015 range. The .0 5-story, full-scale structure tested as the final stage of TCCMAR program developed drifts in the order of 0-015.

8. CONCLUSIONS
Where post-earthquake functionality and damage control are part of an owners performance criteria, it is essential that architects and engineers understand the impact of interstory drift on both structural and nonstructural damage. Current code requirements only address life safety and, therefore, a designer must understand the limits of current code requirements, as well as develop a knowledge of what levels of drift a particular element can tolerate at each of its damage threshold states. This paper has provided an overview of current code requirements and illustrates that current UBC and NEHRP requirements could result in realistic drifts for the 475-year design event in the 0.02 to 006 drift-ratio range. These demands appear to be well beyond the capacity levels which have caused significant damage in the limited amount of testing performed to date on non-structural elements. The available test data indicates that significant non-structural damage will occur in the 0-005to 0.02drift-ratio range. Clearly, if damage control is desired, the interstory drift demand/capacity ratio of key components must be within acceptable limits. This paper also discusses the importance of using cracked-section properties in the analysis of masonry and concrete structures when drift is of concern. It also provides an overview of the limited amount of available test data on interstory drift tests on nonstructural elements. One of the more difficult issues is the relationship between interstory drift and structural damage-and, again, the limited amount of available information is summarized.

INTERSTORY DRIFT AND DAMAGE REFERENCES

25

1. R. L. Mayes, Interstory drift: design and damage control issues, Proc. Seminar on Nonstructural Components: Design and Detailing, Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, 1993.

Papers cited in the text but not listed in this section may be found by referring to this reference. 2. V. V. Bertero, J. C. Anderson, H. Krawinkler and E. Miranda, Design guidelines for ductility and drift limits, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California, EERC Report No. 91/15. 3. S. A. Freeman, Structural moments number &drift limits: are they realistic, Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, El Cerrito, California, 1(2), pp. 335-362 (1985). 4. J. P. Moehle, Displacement based design of rc structures subjected to earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra,
8(3) (1992). 5. M. A. Sozen, Review of earthquake response of r.c. buildings with a view to drift control, 0. Ergunay and M, Erdik (Eds), In State-of-the-Art in Earthquake Engineering-1981, Ankara, Turkey, 1981, pp. 383-418. 6. M. A. Sozen, A frame of reference, The Art and Science of Geotechnical Engineering, A Volume Honoring Ralph B. Peck, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1989, pp. 240-247. 7. C. M. Uang, Establishing R (or R,) and C, factors for building seismic provisions, J . Structural Engng, ASCE, 117(1), 19-28 (1991). 8. C . M. Uang and A. Maarouf, Evaluation of displacement amplification factor for design codes, Proc. C S M I P Seminar, May 1992.