Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Strength-based design of flexible diaphragms in low-rise structures

subjected to earthquake loading
Ho Jung Lee a,∗ , Daniel Kuchma a , Mark A. Aschheim b
a Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801, United States
b Department of Civil Engineering, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053, United States

Received 10 November 2005; received in revised form 18 August 2006; accepted 21 August 2006
Available online 5 October 2006

Abstract

Analyses motivated by damage and collapse of parking structures in the 1994 Northridge earthquake have shown that flexible diaphragms can
experience larger horizontal accelerations and interstory drifts than are considered in current codes of practice. This leads to lateral displacements
that can be in excess of code estimates and the drift capacity of the gravity load resisting system, and also may result in damage to the diaphragms.
In the present study, the amplification of forces and displacements in flexible diaphragms was investigated for low-rise structures having relatively
stiff perimeter shear walls. Various degrees of diaphragm flexibility, shear wall flexural overstrength, and numbers of stories were considered in
the inelastic dynamic analyses. The results confirmed recent findings that current code provisions (e.g. contained in UBC 97, IBC 2000 and IBC
2003) consistently underestimate diaphragm forces at the upper and lower floors under common conditions. Proposed herein are methods for the
design of diaphragms for both elastic and inelastic response. A companion paper presents the results of an investigation of diaphragm displacement
and interstory drift responses by principal components analysis (PCA) of the seismic response data. Based on these results, the companion paper
introduces a method to estimate interstory drift in preliminary design for determining the required diaphragm stiffness.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Parking structures; Northridge earthquake; Flexible diaphragm; Low-rise; Shear wall; Flexural overstrength

1. Introduction called into question the appropriateness of current design

A common low-rise structural system in seismic regions
of the US consists of horizontal concrete slabs supported by
columns and sparsely spaced concrete structural (shear) walls.
Typically, the concrete columns are designed only to support
the gravity loads while the walls resist both lateral and gravity
actions. The load path requires that lateral forces induced by
seismic actions must flow through these large concrete slabs
(which function as diaphragms) to the supporting walls and into
the foundations and supporting soils. In order to evaluate the
magnitude of the seismic force demands on the diaphragms and
walls, it has been common practice in the US to assume that the
diaphragms are rigid or at least elastic. The poor performance
of precast parking structures in the 1994 Northridge earthquake
∗ Corresponding address: SC Solutions, Inc., 1261 Oakmead Parkway, CA
94085, Sunnywale, United States. Tel.: +1 408 617 4552; fax: +1 408 617 4521.
E-mail address: hlee@scsolutions.com (H.J. Lee).
practice. It has been generally agreed that this poor performance
was, in part, due to significant dynamic force amplifications
(Zheng [20]; Fleishman and Farrow [9]) associated with the
flexibility of the diaphragms.
Recent studies have found that elastic response of floor
diaphragms in structures having long floor spans supported by
a perimeter lateral force resisting system is not assured using
the UBC 97 provisions [17]. Nakaki [14] studied the flexural
strength and lateral stiffness of concrete diaphragms. Nakaki
identified an inconsistency in the 1997 UBC provisions for
the strength and stiffness of diaphragms and pointed out that
current code limits on the aspect ratio for diaphragms alone
are insufficient to ensure sufficient diaphragm stiffness. Rather,
diaphragm span, stiffness and aspect ratio must be considered
in the design of the diaphragm. Nakaki also suggested that
the diaphragm flexural strength significantly decreases if the
diaphragm web connectors have a limited tensile deformation
capacity. Doudoumis and Athanatopoulou [4] showed that

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter

doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.08.020
1278 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295
a rigid diaphragm model leads to inaccurate results in the
stress evaluation of vertical elements of lateral load resisting
system and is unable to represent stress distributions within
the diaphragm if the diaphragms are flexible. Rodriguez
et al. [15] investigated earthquake-induced floor accelerations
in regular buildings with rigid diaphragms. Their analytical
study showed that horizontal floor accelerations were larger
than peak excitation acceleration, exceeding the values used in
current codes (UBC 97 [17], IBC 2000 [10], FEMA 450 [6]
and IBC 2003 [11]). Tena-Colunga and Abrams [16] studied
the seismic response of an instrumented unreinforced masonry
structure subjected to the Loma Prieta Earthquake. From their
analytical study, they showed that diaphragm and shear wall
accelerations can increase with the flexibility of the diaphragm,
and design criteria based on rigid diaphragm behaviour are
not necessarily conservative for flexible diaphragm structures.
Zheng [20] studied the seismic shear demand for untopped
precast double-tee diaphragms joined by discrete mechanical
connectors. The analytical study showed that diaphragm
flexibility can increase the participation of higher modes in
the dynamic response of parking structures unlike first-mode
dominated response that occurs where rigid diaphragms are
present. Zheng proposed methods to amplify shear demand
using a diaphragm flexibility index, which was defined as
the diaphragm deflection relative to shear wall deflection at
midspan under a unit uniformly distributed load along the
diaphragm span. Fleischman et al. [9] performed a study on
the seismic response of flexible diaphragm structures having
perimeter lateral force resisting elements. The study showed
that diaphragm force demands can be significantly larger than
those considered in current design and the largest forces may
occur at the lower levels of the structure, in contrast to the
distributions specified in current code provisions. Based on
inelastic dynamic analyses of flexible diaphragm structures,
Fleischman et al. recommended that all diaphragms be designed
for a uniform strength over the height of the structure. In their
study, the design strength was determined by amplifying the
current top-level diaphragm strength by a magnification factor
which depends on a diaphragm flexibility factor, the number
of stories, and a diaphragm ductility factor that is selected in
relation to the diaphragm performance objectives.
This paper reports the results of parametric dynamic
analyses of low-rise perimeter shear wall structures. The
diaphragm strength required for elastic response of the
diaphragm as well as for limited inelastic behavior was
determined. The strength required for elastic behavior was
determined for parametric variations in (1) the effective
stiffness of the diaphragm, (2) the plan dimensions of the
diaphragm, (3) the number of stories, and (4) the overstrength of
the perimeter shear walls. The response of weaker diaphragms,
in which inelastic response develops, was determined for
parametric variations in (1) diaphragm strength and (2) post-
yield stiffness. These results are compared with results obtained
for diaphragms designed according to current code provisions.
New methods for the design of diaphragms for elastic and
inelastic behavior are then proposed.
2. Current code provisions for diaphragm design
Current code provisions (e.g. IBC 2000 and IBC 2003)
specify that diaphragm design forces can be calculated using
equivalent lateral forces. The equivalent lateral force used in
the design of vertical components of the lateral seismic force
resisting system is calculated as:
Fx = Cvx V (1)
where Fx = lateral load resisting system design force at level
x,
wx h kx
Cvx = n (2)
wi h ik
P
i=1
k = 1 for buildings with a period of 0.5 s or less, 2 for buildings
with a period of 2.5 s or longer, and is interpolated between
these values for periods between 0.5 and 2.5 s; h x and h i are the
height from the base to level x or i, respectively; wx and wi are
the portion of gravity load assigned to level x or i, respectively;
and V = the design base shear.
The lateral forces used for the design of the horizontal
diaphragms are based upon, but differ from, the lateral forces
used for the design of the vertical components of the lateral
load resisting system. For high seismic zones (Seismic Design
Category D-F), the diaphragm design force specified in the
2000 IBC is as follows:
n
P
Fi
F px =
i=x
w px + V px (3)
n
P
wi
i=x
where F px = the diaphragm design force at level x, Fi = the
lateral load resisting system design force at level i, calculated
using the Eq. (1), wi = the weight tributary to level i, w px = the
weight tributary to the diaphragm at level x, and V px = the
portion of the seismic shear force at the level of the diaphragm
that is required to be transferred to the components of the
vertical seismic-force-resisting system because of horizontal
offsets or changes in stiffness of the vertical components above
or below the diaphragm. For low and moderate seismic zones,
the diaphragm design force is:
F px = 0.2SDS I p w px + V px (4)
where SDS is the design spectral response acceleration value at
short periods and I p is the importance factor.
The values of F px determined above are amplified by
an overstrength factor to determine the actual forces used
in the design of diaphragms. This requirement is intended
to prevent damage to the diaphragms in the event that the
overstrength of the walls (strengths in excess of the design
strength) results in larger forces being transferred to the
diaphragms. This requirement does not specifically address
diaphragm flexibility or the participation of higher modes. The
2000 IBC code specifies an overstrength factor of 2.5 for
use with diaphragms and other elements of structures having
 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295
(a) Plan view.
(b) Sectional view A–A.
Fig. 1. Precast concrete diaphragm with topped and pretopped double tees.
reinforced concrete shear walls. This and other codes specify
minimum and maximum limits for the diaphragm design force.
The minimum diaphragm design force in the 1997 UBC is equal
to 0.5Ca I p w px , where Ca = a seismic coefficient representing
the spectral acceleration of the ground motion in the so-
called ‘constant-acceleration’ portion of the spectrum. This
minimum force level is intended to account for higher mode
effects (Nakaki [14]). The maximum diaphragm design force
in the 1997 UBC is 1.0Ca I p w px , which represents the ground
acceleration multiplied by an importance factor. The 2000 IBC
and 2003 IBC provisions specify a minimum diaphragm design
force of 0.2SDS I p w px and a maximum diaphragm design force
of 0.4SDS I p w px . Considering that SDS is about 2.5Ca , the 2000
IBC and 2003 IBC values are similar to the 1997 UBC values.
Although no amplification factors associated with dynamic
response are used for the design of diaphragms in the codes
mentioned previously, amplification factors are required for the
design of a non-structural component.
3. Flexibility of precast concrete diaphragms
The stiffness of reinforced or prestressed concrete elements
changes as cracking and yielding occur. Ideally, the softening
that occurs with cracking would be represented in the
structural model. However, linear or bilinear representations of
diaphragm stiffness are more common. Because the stiffness
used in the analysis can significantly affect the response
quantities determined, the appropriate stiffness to use should
be carefully assessed.
Two types of precast concrete diaphragms are shown in
Fig. 1. One is a double-tee system with a 5.1 cm flange and a
7.6 cm cast-in-place topping slab and the other is a ‘pretopped’
diaphragm wherein the flange thickness is increased in order
to forgo having to cast a topping slab in the field. In design
1279
practice, it is assumed that flexure is resisted only by chord
reinforcement located at the extreme ends of the double tees
and shear is resisted only by mechanical web connectors (used
with the pretopped diaphragms) or welded wire fabric (used
within the topping slab). The effective stiffness of diaphragms
is largely dependent on the connector type between double
tees. Since mechanical connectors are more flexible than
precast concrete elements (double tees), the average stiffness of
diaphragm is significantly reduced by the discrete connectors.
In the 1994 Northridge earthquake, topping slabs cracked above
the joints between the underlying precast elements. With this
behaviour in mind, the post-cracking elastic stiffness of topped
diaphragms is reduced in mechanism similar to what occurs in
pretopped diaphragms, wherein the precast elements are joined
together using discrete web connectors.
Several studies have been performed in order to obtain
the effective stiffness of precast concrete diaphragms. The
effective diaphragm stiffness was determined using various
analytical methods for diaphragm-connector modules that can
represent the rectangular diaphragms often used in buildings or
the subdiaphragms (rectangular components of larger, irregular
diaphragms) of parking structures that may have one or
more openings. Nakaki [14] introduced a so-called ‘effective
stiffness factor’ (kcr ) for flexure which is defined as the ratio
of reduced diaphragm flexural stiffness to gross diaphragm
flexural stiffness. This factor was used as a convenient way to
explicitly quantify the effective stiffness of diaphragms. She
derived an equation to obtain the effective flexural stiffness
factor based on a smeared crack model for reinforced concrete
diaphragms and provided guidance about how to apply this
equation to discrete diaphragm systems. Zheng [20] and
Lee [12] performed sectional analyses and finite element
analyses to evaluate the effective stiffness of precast concrete
diaphragms. They calculated the effective stiffness factors
1280 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295
for flexure and shear independently and showed significant
stiffness reduction in both actions.
According to the separate studies by Zheng and Lee, the
effective stiffness factor of diaphragms ranged from 0.05 to
0.4 for both shear and flexure in typical construction practice.
The effective stiffness value depended on (1) diaphragm aspect
ratio, (2) the types and spacing of web connectors, and (3)
the presence of a cast-in-place topping slab or a ‘pretopped’
diaphragm. Accounting for the reduction in stiffness relative
to the gross stiffness can have a significant effect on the
seismic demands of structures having diaphragms composed
of precast components, exacerbating interstory drifts and
potentially causing damage to the diaphragms as well as the
gravity-load carrying system.
4. Structural configuration and wall overstrength
Multistory structures with precast concrete diaphragms were
selected for dynamic analysis in this study. The plan consists
of a single rectangular diaphragm supported laterally by two
end walls as shown in Fig. 1. The lateral stiffness of the gravity
load carrying elements was not represented in the analyses. The
structural system was designed according to the 2000 IBC for
Seismic Design Category D, with spectral amplitudes S DS =
1.0 and S D1 = 0.636, where S D1 = the design spectral response
acceleration at a period of one second. The two 6.1 m long by
0.3 m thick cantilever walls located at the perimeter provide
lateral force resistance in the transverse direction. The dynamic
analysis used recorded ground motions that were applied only
in the transverse direction. The number of stories ranged from
3 to 6; story heights are 3.2 m on centre. The width of the
diaphragm was 18.3 m while its span ranged from 36.6 to 64 m
(resulting in aspect ratios ranging from 2 to 3.5). Inertial mass
corresponding to a diaphragm weight of w px = 6.3 kN/m2 was
used in the analysis. Effective stiffness factors of diaphragms
were assumed to be the same for both shear and flexure, having
values equal to 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3, to represent the values typical
of construction practice.
Since the actual shear wall strengths may be several
times the design strengths, and this overstrength can lead to
inelastic response of the diaphragms (Fleischman et al. [7]),
the influence of wall overstrength is important for determining
diaphragm forces. In this study, the overstrength factor of
shear walls is defined as the ratio of the actual strength of
shear walls to the design strength of the shear walls according
to the code. Overstrength can be caused by a number of
factors such as actual material strengths in excess of the design
values, the increased strength due to strain-hardening of the
flexural steel, the extra strength that results from confinement of
the compressed concrete, underestimation of the fundamental
period of vibration of flexible diaphragm systems, leading
generally to higher design base shears, and the contribution
to flexural strength of the longitudinal web reinforcement used
for shear, which is not considered in usual design practice for
determining the longitudinal reinforcement required for flexure.
ACI 318-99 [3] addressed this last issue, requiring that the
longitudinal web reinforcement be considered in the calculation
Table 1
The overstrength factors of shear walls determined by finite element analyses
The number of stories The aspect ratio of diaphragms
2 2.5 3 3.5
3 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.7
4 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
5 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.6
6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5
of flexural strength of shear walls (Wallace and Orakcal [19]).
This language was not present in ACI 318-95 [2].
Overstrength factors based on traditional shear wall design
practice following the provisions of ACI 318-95 were
computed for the walls considered in this study using VecTor2
(Vecchio [18]), a 2D-continuum nonlinear finite element
analysis program. Walls were designed for a moment and shear
based on IBC 2000 and ACI 318-95, using strength reduction
factors of 0.9 for flexure and 0.85 for shear. For wall shear
strength, the ACI code states:
 p 
Vn = Acv αc f c0 + ρh f y (5)
where the coefficient αc is 3.0 for h w /lw ≤ 1.5, is 2.0 for
h w /lw ≥ 2.0, and varies linearly between 3.0 and 2.0 for
h w /lw between 1.5 and 2.0 and Acv = the sectional area of
a wall, h w = the total height of a wall, lw = the length of a
wall, f c0 = concrete cylinder strength, ρh = web reinforcement
ratio and f y = yield strength of web reinforcement.
The evaluation of wall overstength focused on the
contribution of web reinforcement to the flexural strength,
which was not considered in the design. Actual material
strengths in excess of the design values were not considered
in VecTor2. The code specified design force was applied to the
walls until the walls reached their yield strength (yield point
determined by fitting a bilinear curve to the monotonic analysis
results) by increasing the magnitude of the design force. The
calculated values of overstrength factors are shown in Table 1
and range from 1.5 to 1.9 according to the diaphragm aspect
ratio and the number of stories. These overstrength factors
of the walls, established by this procedure, were used for
modelling the walls in the inelastic dynamic analyses.
5. Structural models and ground motions
Two structural models used in the dynamic analyses are
shown in Fig. 2. One is a distributed mass model for diaphragms
consisting of elastic beam elements (12 elements per floor) that
have the flexural and shear stiffness reduced according to the
effective stiffness factor. The second is a lumped mass model of
half the structure (taking advantage of symmetry about a mid-
span axis) in which each diaphragm was modelled with two
lumped masses and one spring element. The spring element was
modelled as a linear element for elastic diaphragms and as an
inelastic bilinear element with kinematic hardening for inelastic
diaphragms. The lumped mass model considered the shear
deformation of diaphragm; rotational inertia of diaphragms and
wall masses were not considered in the lumped mass model.
 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295 1281

(a) Entire structural configuration selected for the analysis. (b) Distributed mass model for diaphragms.

(c) Lumped mass model for diaphragms.

Fig. 2. Structural models used in dynamic analyses.

The parametric inelastic dynamic analyses were conducted
using the commercial software program ABAQUS [1].
ABAQUS was selected because it has the required capability
to compute dynamic response of the structures selected in
this study using inelastic frame elements and complicated
constraint models. In the ABAQUS models, the shear walls
were modelled with story-high beam–column line elements
possessing concentrated plastic flexural hinge regions at the
base of the walls. In order to consider the appropriate cracked
section properties of shear walls, wall flexural stiffnesses equal
to 0.5E c Ig and 0.8E c Ig were selected for the lower half and the
upper half of the walls, respectively, and a wall shear stiffness
of 0.4E c Aw was selected following the recommendations of
FEMA 356 [5]. The post-yield stiffness of the walls was
set at 1% of the initial cracked-section stiffness for the
inelastic dynamic analysis. In these analyses, the kinematic
hardening rule was applied to the post-yielding behaviour of the
beam–column plastic hinges. Rayleigh damping (proportional
to the mass and initial stiffness matrices) was used in the
dynamic analyses, with modal damping ratios ranging between
2% and 3% for the significant modes. Viscous damping equal
to 3% of critical damping is recommended for prestressed
concrete structures (Zheng [20]).
The structural models were subjected to 6 ground motion
records scaled to a peak ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.4g.
The ground motions were selected such that the average
pseudo-acceleration spectrum of the six ground motions
reasonably follows the 2000 IBC design spectrum (see Fig. 3
and Table 2).
6. Efficiency and appropriateness of diaphragm models
Diaphragm stiffness in the lumped mass model was
calculated using symmetry about a mid-span axis based on
the assumption that diaphragms act as simple beams spanning
1282 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295

Fig. 3. Normalized spectral pseudo-acceleration for the six recorded ground motions (computed for 3% viscous damping).

Table 2
Characteristics of the recorded ground motions

Earthquake Date Magnitude Station Epicentral Identifier Unscaled Scale

(MLa ) distanceb (km) PGA (g) factor
Imperial valley May 18, 1940 6.3 El-centro 8.3 ELCN 0.319 1.260
Northridge January 17, 1994 6.6 Century city—LACC north 25.7 CENT 0.221 1.802
Loma Prieta October, 1989 7 Corralitos—Eureka Canyon Rd. 5.1 CORR 0.478 0.836
Northridge January 17, 1994 6.6 Newhall—LA Country Fire Station 7.1 NWHL 0.589 0.678
Loma Prieta October, 1989 7 Saratoga—Aloha Ave. 13 SARA 0.504 0.794
Northridge January 17, 1994 6.6 Sylmar—Country Hosp. Parking Lot 6.4 SYLH 0.604 0.662
a ML = Richter magnitude.
b Closest distance to fault rupture.
 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295
Fig. 4. Diaphragm stiffness calculation in the lumped mass model.
between perimeter shear walls as shown in Fig. 4. After static
condensation, the diaphragm midspan deflection of the lumped
mass model is calculated as
P L3 PL
U (L/2) = + . (6)
24E I 2G A
The first term of the right side in the Eq. (6) is the
flexural component of the diaphragm midspan displacement
and the second term is the shear component. This lumped
mass model underestimates the flexural component of the
diaphragm midspan deflection, while the shear component of
the diaphragm midspan deflection of the lumped mass model is
the same as that of the uniformly distributed mass model. The
diaphragm midspan displacement of the uniformly distributed
mass model is calculated as:
5wL 4 wL 2
U (L/2) = + (7)
384E I 8G A
where w is a uniformly distributed load. The first term of
the right side in the Eq. (7) is the flexural component of the
displacement and the second term is the shear component.
Substituting w = 4P/L in the Eq. (7) gives
5P L 3 PL
U (L/2) = + . (8)
96E I 2G A
Thus, the ratio of the flexural deformation component of the
lumped mass model to the flexural deformation component of
the uniformly distributed mass model is:
P L3 5P L 3
= 0.8. (9)
24E I 96E I
Therefore, the lumped mass model underestimates the
flexural component of the diaphragm midspan displacement
by 20% if the static analysis results are substituted into the
Eq. (9). The variation of the diaphragm midspan displacement
ratio Eq. (8) divided by Eq. (6) with the diaphragm aspect ratio
and effective stiffness is plotted in Fig. 5. The lumped mass
model underestimates the diaphragm midspan displacement
by 10% to 25% according to the diaphragm aspect ratio
and effective stiffness. The difference between two models
is especially large for the long span diaphragm with smaller
flexural rigidity relative to shear rigidity.
The first natural periods obtained from the simplified lumped
mass model are compared with values obtained from the
1283
Fig. 5. Variations of diaphragm displacement ratio of the distributed model to
the lumped model at midspan with the diaphragm aspect ratio and effective
stiffness.
distributed mass model for 3-level and 6-level structures in
Fig. 6. The distributed mass model considers wall mass and
rotational inertia of walls and diaphragms. The distributed
mass models result in larger periods than the simplified
lumped mass models because the simplified lumped mass
model underestimates the flexural stiffness as mentioned
previously. The effects of the rotational inertia and wall mass
on the dynamic response of diaphragms are not significant.
Although the lumped mass model produces smaller diaphragm
deformation estimates than the distributed mass model, its
simplicity made it attractive for identifying trends in subsequent
analyses that addressed inelastic diaphragm behaviour and
a method for estimating interstory drift estimation that is
proposed in the companion paper.
The lumped mass model facilitated a more efficient
evaluation of displacement ductility demand of inelastic
diaphragms. However, one shortcoming of the lumped mass
model is that locations of yielding in the diaphragms are not
identified. Since the simplicity of the lumped mass model
makes it desirable for use in preliminary design, this model
was used in the method proposed in the companion paper for
estimating interstory drifts.
7. Efficiency and appropriateness of wall models
In order to investigate the effects of wall masses and the
number of elements used in wall models on the dynamic
response of diaphragms, a few comparison studies were
performed for 3-level and 6-level structures with relatively
stiff diaphragms (aspect ratio = 2, kcr = 0.3) and relatively
flexible diaphragms (aspect ratio = 3.5, kcr = 0.1). In the
dynamic analysis, story-high beam elements for walls neglected
wall masses because wall masses are small in comparison to
diaphragm masses.
Diaphragm force demands and interstory drift responses
are compared in Fig. 7 because these response quantities are
emphasized in this study. Wall models with story-high beam
elements neglecting wall masses give similar results to wall
1284 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295

Fig. 6. The first natural periods for 3- and 6-level structures using distributed mass and lumped mass models for diaphragms.
 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295 1285

Fig. 7. Peak diaphragm forces and interstory drifts determined in dynamic response analyses as a function of modelling assumptions (3- and 6-level structures).

models with 10 beam elements per story including wall masses.
Therefore, detailed modelling of walls is not necessary if we are
interested in only diaphragm responses.
The stiffness of shear wall components is difficult to
accurately represent using bilinear models because of changes
in stiffness associated with cracking and degradation related to
cyclic response. The influence of wall effective flexural stiffness
factor, which is defined as the ratio of cracked wall stiffness to
gross section stiffness, on the first and second natural periods
obtained using the lumped mass model for 3-story and 6-story
1286 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295
Fig. 8. Variations of the first and second natural periods with the wall effective flexural stiffness factor and diaphragm flexibility (3-level and 6-level structures).
structures is illustrated in Fig. 8. In this analysis, the wall
shear stiffness was not reduced and gross section properties
were used.
Variations in the natural periods of flexible diaphragm
structures as a function of wall effective flexural stiffness factor
and diaphragm flexibility are shown in Fig. 8. For 3-story
structures, both the first and second natural periods are not
significantly affected by the wall effective flexural stiffness
factor. The average period of the first mode only increased
by 29% as the effective flexural stiffness of the wall changed
from fully uncracked (gross stiffness) to 20% of its uncracked
stiffness. The periods of the second mode remained nearly
constant, because second mode deformations are dominated
by diaphragm deformation with little wall deformation, and
therefore the wall stiffness was immaterial. The second mode
and closely spaced modes with similar periods to the second
mode significantly contributed to large interstory drifts at the
bottom floor for very flexible diaphragm structures (see the
companion paper [13]). Fig. 8 illustrates that the diaphragm
characteristics (aspect ratio and effective stiffness) have a
greater influence on the first mode periods.
As for the 3-story structures, the first natural period of
the 6-story structures is affected by the wall effective flexural
stiffness factor, while the second natural period is not sensitive
to wall stiffness characteristics. The average period of the first
mode increased by 96% as the effective flexural stiffness of the
wall changed from fully uncracked to 20% of its uncracked
stiffness. However, except for quite flexible wall systems of
the 6-level structures (the highest level selected in this study),
modal characteristics of flexible diaphragm structures selected
in this study are not sensitive to wall stiffness characteristics. In
light of these results, the FEMA 356 recommendations for the
effective stiffness of walls were considered to be reasonable for
use in the dynamic analysis.
8. Dynamic force magnification of diaphragms
Traditionally, the objective in diaphragm design has been
to provide sufficient diaphragm strength to ensure that the
 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295
diaphragm responds elastically in the design earthquake.
Therefore, special detailing to provide ductile behavior has not
been emphasized in the design of diaphragms. However, there
is strong evidence that forces applied to diaphragms in the
1994 Northridge earthquake exceeded their design values. In
this study, the required shear and flexural strengths to ensure
elastic diaphragm behaviour were determined from the dynamic
analyses and are discussed in relation to code provisions. Based
on the strength demands of diaphragms obtained from analyses
in which elastic elements were used for the diaphragms, it
was possible to compare force demands with design values.
The ratio of the shear or moment demand to the design shear
or moment is referred to as the dynamic force magnification
factor. Effects of (1) diaphragm flexibility, (2) the number of
stories and (3) wall overstrength factor on the dynamic force
magnification of diaphragms were investigated parametrically.
In addition, force distribution patterns along the diaphragm
span were illustrated as a function of an aspect ratio. These
analysis results are the basis of the proposed method for
diaphragm strength design.
The shear and flexural strength demands for elastic
diaphragm behavior were determined in relation to parametric
variations in diaphragm flexibility and the number of stories and
are shown in Fig. 9. Diaphragm flexibility is represented by the
diaphragm aspect ratio and effective stiffness factor (kcr ). The
response values reported are averages of peak (absolute) values
determined for the 6 ground motions. The required strengths
were normalized to the force corresponding to peak ground
acceleration (PGA) applied statically.
The diaphragm force magnification factors reflect the
mean of the peak values that occurred during different
seismic excitations. The peak values depend on the spectral
amplitudes at the modal periods of those modes having
significant contributions as well as the timing of the modal
peaks–that is, whether modal contributions add constructively
or destructively. Thus, deviation from the mean reflects both
the deviation of the earthquake ground motion spectrum from
the mean spectrum and randomness in the timing of modal
contributions. Consequently, the force magnification factors
can be expected to result in elastic behaviour for earthquakes
having the design ground motion intensity with a confidence of
approximately 50%. Any overstrength (due, for example, to the
use of materials having actual strengths in excess of the nominal
design values) provides some reserve against unfavourable
modal timings.
As shown in Fig. 9, analysis results indicate that the
top and bottom floors consistently require more strength
than the middle floors across the entire range of parameter
values considered. As the number of stories increases, the
diaphragm dynamic force magnification at the top and bottom
floors increases. The overstrength of walls has a significant
effect on diaphragm force demands, as shown in Fig. 10. As
the overstrength factor of walls increases, diaphragm force
demands in both shear and moment significantly increases at
upper floors. The effect of diaphragm strengths less than those
required for elastic behaviour on peak ductility demands for
the walls and diaphragms was also investigated for different
1287
overstrength factors. For this investigation, the lumped mass
model for diaphragms was used. The analysis results of 5-level
structures are shown in Fig. 11. The definitions of diaphragm
displacement ductility and post-yield stiffness ratio are shown
in Fig. 12. According to Fig. 11, as wall overstrength increases,
diaphragm ductility demands at the upper floors increase and
wall ductility demands at the base decrease. Large diaphragm
strengths slightly increase wall ductility demands, but reduce
diaphragm ductility demands. Therefore, if wall overstrength
and diaphragm strengths are significantly large, near-elastic
responses occur. For the case of near-elastic responses, peak
ductility demands for the walls and diaphragms are small.
However, diaphragm strength demands at the upper floors can
be quite large.
According to Fig. 9, diaphragm force magnification factors
are larger for moment demand than shear demand. Current
diaphragm design approaches consider the inertial forces
developed within the diaphragm to be uniformly distributed
across the diaphragm span, based on an assumption that the
floor is restrained against translations at shear wall locations.
However, the analysis results indicate that the applied lateral
force distribution required to obtain the peak dynamic moments
and shears along the diaphragm span is not uniform, especially
in diaphragms with an aspect ratio larger than three (see
Fig. 13). The force distributions corresponding to the peak
dynamic moments were obtained by considering equilibrium
at the instant of the peak. If a uniform distribution is used, and
if the actual moment and shear strengths are proportional to
the design strengths, then the diaphragm will be deficient in
flexural strength relative to shear strength, because the actual
distributions at the instants of peak moment differ from the
uniform assumptions used in design for the flexible-diaphragm
structures with an aspect ratio larger than three. In reality,
diaphragm connectors will be subjected to tension as well as
shear under earthquake loading. Connector shear strength is
typically dependent on tensile demand. Therefore, for irregular
diaphragm structures with long spans such as parking structures
having ramp openings, the actual diaphragm force distribution
is complex due to the structural configuration, making it
difficult to predict locations of first yielding. Lee [12] studied
the force distribution in the diaphragm of parking structures.
The diaphragm dynamic force magnification factors
obtained from the seismic analysis of flexible diaphragm
structures range from 1 to 4. These values are similar to
the floor acceleration magnifications determined using records
in instrumented buildings during the Northridge earthquake
and from analytical studies of rigid diaphragm structures
(Rodriguez et al. [15]). While analysis results show that
diaphragm flexibility increases the dynamic force amplification
of diaphragms in some cases, it is recommended that diaphragm
design forces are not related to diaphragm flexibility for
simplicity. The cap on the diaphragm design force specified
in the codes implies that the diaphragm dynamic force
magnification factor is 1. The data indicate that if the
diaphragms are to be designed to remain elastic, the cap should
be raised significantly.
1288 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295

Fig. 9. Average of maximum diaphragm forces represented by equivalent uniform load ratio under 6 ground motions according to the diaphragm aspect ratio
(effective stiffness factor kcr = 0.2).

9. Determination of diaphragm strengths in design flexibility, the overstrength factor of shear walls, and the charac-
teristics of ground motions makes it difficult to specify a precise
The sensitivity of the diaphragm dynamic force magnifica- value of the magnification factor to use in a general design ap-
tion factor to the complex response associated with diaphragm proach. Based on the analytical studies performed for low-rise
 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295 1289

Fig. 10. Effect of wall overstrength on dynamic force magnification of diaphragms (5-level structure, kcr = 0.2, average over six ground motions).

structures with stiff perimeter shear walls up to six stories in
height, an approach was developed for determining the required
diaphragm strengths in the design of rectangular, end-supported
diaphragms. This paper describes the method to determine
the diaphragm strengths required for both elastic and inelastic
response. A method for estimating interstory drifts, needed for
establishing the minimum stiffness of the diaphragm in design,
is introduced in the companion paper.
The diaphragm strength requirement is related to the short
period design spectral acceleration (SDS ) value of IBC 2000
1290 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295
Fig. 11. Wall overstrength vs peak ductility demands for the walls and the diaphragms (5-level structure, kcr = 0.2, average over six ground motions, diaphragm
post-yield stiffness = 10%).
regardless of the flexibility of diaphragms, while the flexibility
of diaphragms is an important factor for interstory drift check.
The strength requirement for elastic diaphragm design is shown
in Fig. 14. Two different elastic diaphragm design approaches
are suggested. ‘Elastic Design Approach 1’ is a constant
strength design approach (over the height of the structure).
Diaphragm strength is increased to 1.2SDS I p w px in order to
achieve the elastic diaphragm behaviour or moderate yielding
of diaphragms. This value is 3-times the upper bound value
specified in the codes (UBC 97 and IBC 2000). ‘Elastic Design
Approach 2’ allows the required diaphragm strength in middle
floors to be reduced, consistent with the analysis results that
show lower diaphragm strength demands in middle floors. This
design approach can be achieved by increasing diaphragm
strength proportionally from 0.6SDS I p w px at the midstory
to 1.2SDS I p w px at the top and bottom floors. Uniformly
distributed horizontal forces in a diaphragm can be used with
the amplified diaphragm strengths suggested in this study. The
elastic design approaches suggested in this study assumes that
the overstrength factor of shear walls is less than 1.5 and
diaphragms have a moderate ductility capacity to avoid a brittle
diaphragm failure.
Elastic diaphragm design methods require significantly
larger diaphragm strength than the upper bound value specified
in the codes. Therefore, an inelastic diaphragm design method
is also introduced in order to reduce diaphragm strength
requirement. This method is predicated on sufficient ductility
capacity being available in the diaphragms, an issue that is
discussed separately, below. The effect of diaphragm strengths
less than those required for elastic behaviour on peak interstory
drift response was investigated parametrically for different
number of stories, wall overstrength, diaphragm flexibility, and
the post-yield stiffness of diaphragms, in order to identify
acceptable diaphragm strength distributions. Some results are
 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295
Fig. 12. Idealized bilinear diaphragm force versus displacement relationship.
shown in Figs. 15 and 16. On the basis of these results, it is
recommended that diaphragm strengths over the height of a
structure be as shown in Fig. 17. The same diaphragm strength
as the upper bound value (0.4SDS I p w px ) specified in the codes
is assigned from the bottom floor to the midstory. The design
strength of the top floor is increased up to twice as large as
the upper bound value specified in the codes. If the diaphragm
strength is smaller than 0.8SDS I p w px , at the top floor, the large
interstory drift and diaphragm ductility demands occur at the
top floor (see Figs. 15 and 16). Therefore, even if the inelastic
diaphragm design approach is used, a diaphragm strength of
at least 0.8SDS I p w px should be supplied at the top floor. This
value is twice the maximum limit value specified in the codes.
Post-yield stiffness of diaphragms is also an important factor
in order to determine interstory drift and diaphragm ductility
demands. This stiffness should be larger than 10% of the
initial cracked stiffness if the diaphragm strengths follow the
distributions of Fig. 17.
Dynamic responses of the diaphragms of the 3-level and 6-
level structures designed using the Inelastic Design Approach
are shown in Fig. 18. Some panels plot the average of peak
diaphragm responses obtained for six ground motions for
specific values of aspect ratio (2, 2.5, 3, and 3.5) and effective
diaphragm stiffness factor (kcr = 0.1 and 0.3), while
other panels plot the average of peak diaphragm responses
over various pairings of aspect ratio and effective diaphragm
stiffness factor ((2, 0.1), (2, 0.3), (2.5, 0.1), (2.5, 0.3), (3, 0.1),
(3, 0.3), (3.5, 0.1) and (3.5, 0.3), respectively) for a specific
ground motion excitation. Diaphragm ductility demands are
limited to less than 5. Interstory drifts are approximately
uniform over the height of the structure if diaphragms are stiff.
Large interstory drifts associated with diaphragm flexibility
can be controlled by the method suggested in the companion
paper. Although there are benefits in reducing the diaphragm
strength with the inelastic diaphragm design approach, the
ductility capacity of diaphragms for the inelastic diaphragm
behavior is a new design issue. According to the analysis
1291
Fig. 13. Equivalent static diaphragm force distribution at the top floor of
5-story structures (earthquake = CENT, wall overstrength factor = 1.5,
kcr = 0.2).
results, the displacement ductility demands of diaphragms are
larger than five in some cases. Therefore, if the inelastic
diaphragm design approach is used, it is recommended that the
diaphragm displacement ductility capacity should be larger than
5. This inelastic diaphragm design method is also based on the
assumption that the overstrength factor of shear walls is less
than 1.5.
The design approaches for diaphragm strength proposed in
this paper are independent of diaphragm flexibility, while the
design procedure developed by Fleischman et al. [9] considers
directly diaphragm flexibility in determining the required
diaphragm strength. They recommend a constant diaphragm
strength design over the height of a structure where the design
force is obtained by amplifying the top-level diaphragm force
calculated using UBC 97. The amplification factor is a function
of the number of stories, diaphragm flexibility, and diaphragm
ductility capacity considering diaphragm inelastic behaviour.
In this study, it is suggested that flexibility does not affect
the required diaphragm strengths and the strengths can be
stated simply (Figs. 14 and 17) if diaphragm stiffness satisfies
the limits given in the companion paper based on avoiding
excessive interstory drifts. The design procedure proposed in
this study simplifies diaphragm strength design mainly by
considering SDS in the IBC 2000 code and considers separately
the minimum diaphragm stiffness associated with limiting
interstory drift values (see the companion paper [13]). In
addition, the procedure provides the option of a non-uniform
diaphragm strength design.
Strength requirements for diaphragms were proposed in
accordance with the analysis results. However, the seismic
performance of many flexible diaphragm structures is governed
by interstory drift considerations, provided that sufficient
strength is available to resist seismic loading. Diaphragm
flexibility can lead to large interstory drifts, particularly at the
bottom floor, due in part to significant contributions from higher
mode responses (Fleischman and Farrow, [8]). Where multiple
diaphragms that have similar dimensions and lateral stiffness
1292 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295

Fig. 14. Diaphragm strength requirements for elastic design approaches.

Fig. 15. Effect of diaphragm strength on interstory drift response (6-level structure, earthquake =CENT, diaphragm post-yield stiffness ratio = 10%, wall
overstrength factor = 1.5, I p = 1.0).

are present, elastic modes are found to provide an inefficient
reduced-order representation of the response relative to the
principal modes for flexible diaphragm structures having stiff
shear walls. In the companion paper, efficient representations
were obtained by means of principal components analysis of the
seismic response data and a method is proposed for estimating
peak interstory drifts considering higher mode contributions.
10. Conclusions
This study presented results from static and dynamic anal-
yses of low-rise perimeter shear wall structures with flexible
diaphragms having 3 to 6 levels. The study confirms recent
findings that current code provisions are not sufficient to pre-
vent diaphragm yielding under design seismic loads. Results of
 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295 1293

Fig. 16. Effect of diaphragm strength and post-yield stiffness ratio (P.S.) on diaphragm ductility demand (6-level structure, earthquake = CENT, wall overstrength
factor = 1.5, I p = 1.0).

the study and guidance for the design of flexible diaphragms in

low-rise perimeter shear wall structures are as follows:
1. According to previous research, the effective stiffness of
typical diaphragms composed of precast elements with
discrete web connectors or a topping slab ranges from 0.05
to 0.4 of the gross stiffness for both shear and flexure,
depending on the topping or connector type, design load
associated with seismic hazard, and evaluation method. The
reduced diaphragm stiffness relative to gross stiffness values
in effect makes diaphragms more slender than their aspect
ratio alone would suggest, and has a significant impact on
estimates of interstory drift demand.
2. Inaccuracies in the estimate of wall stiffness appear
to have little effect on the seismic response of the
diaphragms, for the flexible diaphragm structures considered
in this study. However, the wall overstrength factor (actual
strength/design strength) has a significant effect on the
amplification of seismic forces carried in the diaphragms, Fig. 17. Diaphragm strength requirements for the Inelastic Design Approach.
particularly at the upper floors. Large wall overstrength
increases diaphragm ductility demands at the upper floors ratio, termed the diaphragm force magnification factor,
if diaphragm strengths are insufficient for elastic diaphragm results in forces that exceed the maximum limitation of
response. Diaphragm ductility demands can be reduced 0.4SDS I p w px specified in the 2000 IBC and the 2003
by increasing diaphragm strengths and decreasing wall IBC provisions. The use of this unconservative limit can
overstrength. Wall ductility demands can be reduced be expected to result in significant inelasticity or damage
by increasing wall strengths and decreasing diaphragm in the diaphragms, unless the diaphragms have strengths
strengths. sufficiently in excess of nominal design values.
3. Peak diaphragm shears and moments were between 1 and 4. The inertial forces applied in a static analysis in order to
4-times the values determined in static analyses. This force duplicate the forces and deformations experienced by the
1294 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295

Fig. 18. Dynamic diaphragm responses of the 3-level and 6-level structures designed using the inelastic diaphragm design approach (average over 6 ground motions
and 8 diaphragm flexibility values, wall overstrength factor = 1.5, diaphragm post-yield stiffness ratio = 10%).

diaphragms in diaphragms with an aspect ratio larger than slender diaphragms. Although no inelastic action is intended
three increase towards midspan rather than being uniform. in design, the likelihood of inelastic action identified in this
Thus, current design practice can result in insufficient and other studies is anticipated to result in flexural yielding
diaphragm flexural strength relative to shear strength, for of the diaphragm if similar conservatism is put in both
 H.J. Lee et al. / Engineering Structures 29 (2007) 1277–1295
flexure and shear design.
5. Based on the analysis results, the required diaphragm
strengths for both elastic and inelastic diaphragm behaviour
were determined. The elastic diaphragm design approaches
require a significant increase in the diaphragm strength
relative to current design, while the inelastic diaphragm
design approach requires a moderate increase in the
diaphragm strength if inelastic diaphragm response can be
tolerated.
6. Design recommendations proposed in this study are based
on the mean values of results from response history analyses,
and thus there may still be unintended inelastic behaviour in
approximately half the cases. Moderate diaphragm ductility
capacity for inelastic diaphragm behaviour is required to
prevent severe diaphragm damage even if the proposed
elastic design approaches are used.
Acknowledgments
Research funding was provided by the Precast/Prestressed
Concrete Institute (PCI) Daniel P. Jenny Fellowship and
through a General Partnership between PCI and the Mid-
America Earthquake Center and the Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois
at Urbana-Champaign. The careful review and comments
provided by anonymous reviewers are greatly appreciated.
References
[1] ABAQUS Version 6.3. Pawtucket (RI): Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen,
Inc.; 2002.
[2] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318-95) and commentary (318R-95). Farmington Hills (MI):
American Concrete Institute; 1995.
[3] ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete
(ACI 318-99) and commentary (318R-99). Farmington Hills (MI):
American Concrete Institute; 1999.
1295
[4] Doudoumis IN, Athanatopoulou AM. Code provisions and analytical
modeling for the in-plane flexibility of floor diaphragms in building
structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2001;5(4):565–94.
[5] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Prestandard and commentary
for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 356), 2000.
[6] Federal Emergency Management Agency. The 2003 NEHRP recom-
mended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings. Part 1: Pro-
visions (FEMA 450), 2003.
[7] Fleischman RB, Sause R, Pessiki S, Rhodes AB. Seismic behavior of
precast parking structure diaphragms. PCI Journal 1998;43(1):38–53.
[8] Fleischman RB, Farrow KT. Dynamic behavior of perimeter lateral-
system structures with flexible diaphragms. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 2001;30:745–63.
[9] Fleischman RB, Farrow KT, Eastman K. Seismic response of perimeter
lateral-system structures with highly flexible diaphragms. Earthquake
Spectra 2002;18(2):251–86.
[10] International Building Code. International conference of building
officials, Whittier, CA, 2000.
[11] International Building Code. International conference of building
officials, Whittier, CA, 2003.
[12] Lee HJ. Seismic response of low-rise shear wall structures with flexible
diaphragms. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana, 2005.
[13] Lee HJ, Kuchma D, Aschheim MA. Interstory drift estimates for low-
rise flexible diaphragm structures. Engineering structures 2007;29(7):
1375–97.
[14] Nakaki SD. Design guidelines for precast and cast-in-place concrete di-
aphragms. EERI professional fellowship report, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, CA, April, 2000.
[15] Rodriguez ME, Restrepo JI, Carr AJ. Earthquake induced floor horizontal
accelerations in buildings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics 2002;31(3):693–718.
[16] Tena-Colunga A, Abrams DP. Seismic behavior of structure with flexible
diaphragms. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE 1996;122(4):
439–45.
[17] Uniform Building Code. International conference of building officials,
Whittier, CA, 1997.
[18] Vecchio FJ. VecTor2, Nonlinear finite element analysis program of
reinforced concrete. University of Toronto; 2002.
[19] Wallace JW, Orakcal K. ACI 318-99 Provisions for seismic design of
structural walls. ACI Structural Journal 2002;499–508.
[20] Zheng W. Analytical method for assessment of seismic shear capacity de-
mand for untopped precast double-tee diaphragms joined by mechanical
connectors. Ph.D. thesis. University of Wisconsin–Madison; 2001.