ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 615

ACI Structural Journal, V. 101, No. 5, September-October 2004.

MS No. 03-047 received February 3, 2003, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2004, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including
the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the July-
August 2005 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2005.
ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Under seismic loading, floor and roof systems in reinforced concrete
(RC) buildings act as diaphragms to transfer lateral earthquake loads
to the vertical lateral force-resisting system (LFRS). In current
practice, horizontal diaphragms are typically assumed to be rigid,
thus neglecting the effect of their in-plane movement relative to the
vertical LFRS. The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact
of in-plane diaphragm deformation on the structural response of
typical RC rectangular buildings using a performance-based
approach. Three-story and five-story RC buildings with end shear
walls and two aspect ratios (approximately 2:1 and 3:1) were
developed and designed according to current code procedures
assuming rigid diaphragm behavior. The performance-based design
criteria outlined in the FEMA 273-NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings were used to assess the adequacy of the
four case study buildings when diaphragm flexibility was included in
the structural response. It was found that the use of a flexible
diaphragm model had the largest impact on the three-story, 3:1 aspect
ratio building and that the various analysis procedures in FEMA 273
gave differing assessments of the adequacy of this case study building.
The remaining three case study buildings generally satisfy the
FEMA 273 acceptance criteria based on an evaluation of critical
structural elements for three performance levels.
Keywords: analysis; reinforced concrete; seismic.
INTRODUCTION
Floor diaphragms in reinforced concrete (RC) buildings
are typically modeled as rigid during the design phase and so
the effect of in-plane diaphragm flexibility on the structure is
often not considered. For the rigid diaphragm model, the
diaphragm has equal in-plane displacements along its entire
length under lateral load such that horizontal forces are
transferred to the vertical LFRS proportional to the relative
stiffness of each frame. A flexible diaphragm, however,
exhibits in-plane bending due to lateral load, resulting in
additional horizontal displacements along its length. This
can lead to damage of the diaphragm due to high flexural
stresses along its boundaries. This flexibility also increases
the lateral load transfer to frames that were not designed to
carry these additional lateral loads based on a rigid
diaphragm model. If this effect is sizeable, it can lead to
overloading of structural elements. While a rigid diaphragm
model seems reasonable for structures that are nearly square,
additional information is needed to determine the minimum
aspect ratio for which a flexible diaphragm model should be
used in analysis and design of RC structures.
Damage related to diaphragm response and behavior was
observed in concrete structures following the 1994
Northridge earthquake, primarily for precast construction. A
department store in the Northridge Fashion Center experienced
damage to the roof diaphragm (concrete fill over metal deck
supported on steel beams) and to the floor diaphragms
(topping slab over precast elements)

(Hamburger 1996). The
Santa Monica College precast concrete parking structure
experienced chord failure in the diaphragm

(Phillips 1996).
Precast concrete parking structures at the Northridge
Fashion Center had diaphragm movement large enough to
cause failure in some of the interior frame columns designed for
gravity loads and the Glendale Civic Center garage (cast-in-
place, post-tensioned construction) had collector failures
between the topping

slab and a shear wall (Corley et al. 1996).
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Little quantitative information is available to confirm that
the use of a rigid diaphragm assumption is appropriate for
RC building analysis and design. This study focuses on
evaluating the impact of diaphragm flexibility on the
structural response of typical RC rectangular building
structures using a performance-based approach. Several RC
case study structures with different heights and aspect ratios
are evaluated to assess whether a rigid diaphragm assumption
leads to an acceptable design.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this study was to conduct a
performance-based evaluation of the seismic response of
rectangular cast-in-place RC structures to determine whether
a rigid diaphragm assumption leads to an acceptable
building design. These findings help to identify building
configurations in which a flexible diaphragm model
should be considered for analysis and design in similar
RC structures. A configuration based on a case study
building developed by ACI Committee 374 was extended
to define four buildings for use in this research. The studied
buildings were designed for the Los Angeles, California,
area using a rigid diaphragm assumption. The parameters
varied were diaphragm aspect ratio (2:1 and 3:1) and number
of stories (three and five stories). The buildings were then
analyzed with a flexible diaphragm model, and evaluated
according to the FEMA 273-NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC 1997a). Three analysis
procedures were conducted for each structure: 1) linear
static, 2) linear dynamic, and 3) nonlinear dynamic. The
appropriate FEMA 273 acceptance criteria were applied to
evaluate the structural response determined from these analyses
for three seismic performance levels. The results were
interpreted to conclude whether the rigid diaphragm design
Title no. 101-S60
Diaphragm Effects in Rectangular Reinforced
Concrete Buildings
by Joel M. Barron

and Mary Beth D. Hueste
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 616
assumption led to an acceptable building design for the
performance levels considered.
PAST RESEARCH
Experimental work on RC diaphragms and corresponding
finite element analysis began at Lehigh University and
continued at the State University of New York (SUNY) at
Buffalo. Initially, flat plate slabs (Karadogan et al. 1980),
beam supported slabs (Nakashima, Huang, and Lu 1982,
1984), and waffle slabs (Ji et al. 1985) were investigated at
Lehigh University. Chen, Huang, and Lu (1989) investigated
all three slab systems. Additional experimental research was
conducted at SUNY at Buffalo where Panahshahi et al.
(1990, 1991) and Panahshahi, Reinhorn, and Kunnath (1994)
tested a 1:6-scale model of a one-story floor system on a
shaketable and compared the measured response to predicted
response parameters from a finite element analysis. It was
found that inelastic cyclic loading of the floor diaphragms
resulted in considerable shear redistribution to the flexible
frames from the stiff frames with shearwalls. In addition, the
findings indicated that the diaphragm flexibility was most
pronounced in shorter buildings with long aspect ratios.
Many analytical studies related to RC diaphragms have
been conducted to examine the validity of the rigid
diaphragm assumption, using a variety of buildings with a
number of different parameters. Most studies show that the
diaphragm, when considered flexible, can alter the natural
frequency of the building and the distribution of forces to
frames located away from the primary lateral force-resisting
frames. Jain and Jennings (1985) concluded that in-plane
flexibility is important in long narrow buildings and in buildings
with end walls. Kunnath, Panahshahi, and Reinhorn (1991)
determined that a flexible diaphragm resulted in larger
middle frame displacements as the aspect ratio increases and
as the number of stories decreases. The larger aspect ratios
also resulted in more base shear distribution to the middle
frames, with less base shear distributed to the middle frames
as the number of stories increased.
CASE STUDY BUILDINGS
The case study buildings for this research originated from
a shearwall building developed by ACI Committee 374. The
selected case study buildings have 2:1 and 3:1 aspect ratios
and are three and five stories in height. The plan dimensions
of the 2:1 (more precisely, 2.2:1) aspect ratio buildings are
33.5 x 73.2 m (110 x 240 ft), as shown in the floor plan in
Fig. 1. The 3:1 (more precisely, 3.3:1) aspect ratio buildings
have a similar layout with twelve 9 m (30 ft) bays, making the
overall dimensions 33.5 x 110 m (110 x 360 ft). End shearwalls
are provided in the central bay in the transverse direction. For
all buildings, the first-story height is 6.10 m (20 ft) and each
additional story height is 3.96 m (13 ft).
Because this study focused on evaluating the importance
of considering in-plane diaphragm deformations, the structural
layout for the case study buildings was selected to maximize
the flexibility of the diaphragms. The transverse shearwalls
located in the end frames (refer to Fig. 1) provided a layout
that maximizes the in-plane deformation of the diaphragms
because the interior frames are flexible relative to the stiffer
end frames with shearwalls. Other possible configurations
for similar RC buildings include the placement of the shear-
walls near the interior to surround a service core. In this case,
the in-plane deformations of the diaphragms would be
largest at the end frames of the buildings. However, the
magnitude of the deformation over the diaphragm length for
this layout is not expected to exceed that found for the case
study structures. For similar RC structures with a frame
system and no shearwalls, the relative stiffness of the frames
would be similar and so the diaphragm is expected to behave
in a more rigid manner. In this case, the additional demands
on the frames due to in-plane flexural deformations of the
diaphragms would be small relative to those for the case
study structures. Therefore, the selected case study structures
were determined to provide a critical structural layout for
evaluating whether a rigid diaphragm assumption leads to an
acceptable design for similar rectangular RC structures.
Static elastic analyses using the software SAP2000 (1999)
were performed to obtain design forces for each of the four
case study buildings, with the floor and roof diaphragms
modeled as rigid. The gravity loads consisted of dead loads
from member self-weight plus a uniform 138 kPa (20 lb/ft
2
)
partition load, and a live load of 345 kPa (50 lb/ft
2
) at each
floor level and at the roof level. A curtain wall load of 138 kPa
(20 lb/ft
2
) was applied over the elevation of the outer perimeter
Joel M. Barron is an engineer with Thornton Tomasetti Engineers, Dallas, Tex. He
received his MS from Texas A&M University, College Station, Tex. His research inter-
ests include stadium and high-rise building design and earthquake-resistant design of
reinforced concrete structures.
ACI member Mary Beth D. Hueste is an assistant professor in the Department of
Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University. She is a member of ACI Committees 374,
Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings, and 375, Performance-
Based Design of Concrete Buildings for Wind Loads. Her research interests include
studying the behavior of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures using experi mental
and analytical techniques, with a focus on earthquake-resistant design of structures.
Fig. 1Floor plan of 2:1 aspect ratio case study building.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 617
of each building. Design earthquake loads were determined
using the International Building Code 2000 (IBC 2000)
(International Code Council 1998) for the Los Angeles region.
The earthquake loads were applied to the structure according to
guidelines for rigid diaphragms, which state that the lateral load
is to be distributed horizontally to the frames of the LFRS
proportional to their relative stiffness.
The four case study buildings were designed according to
ACI 318-99

(ACI Committee 318 1999). The design of the
beams and girders was controlled by gravity load demands
because nearly the full lateral load was applied directly to the
exterior frames with the stiffer shearwalls. Therefore, the
reinforcing requirements for the interior frame members
were very similar for all four buildings. The design of the
shearwalls in the exterior frames was controlled by the
overturning moment at the base and was different for all
four buildings.
Member dimensions and typical reinforcement layouts are
provided in Fig. 2. The selected dimensions are generally
consistent with those in the original ACI 374 building and
were not refined because they yielded reasonable reinforcement
details for the selected building configurations. The reinforcing
details for each building are described in Table 1. The interior
floor beams between girders were not included in the case
study building models for simplicity and because they were
not assumed to be part of the lateral force-resisting system.
The weight of the beams, however, was included in the
analytical models. The shearwalls are 305 mm (12 in.) thick
in the three-story buildings and 610 mm (24 in.) thick in the
five-story buildings. The slab is 127 mm (5 in.) thick for the
floors and was designed as a one-way slab spanning between
interior floor beams. No interior beams are provided at the
roof level; rather, a post-tensioned slab with a constant thickness
of 203 mm (8 in.) is used. Normalweight concrete with a
specified compressive strength of 34.5 MPa (5000 psi) is
used for all members and the reinforcing steel specified yield
strength is 414 MPa (60 ksi). Additional design details are
documented by Barron (2001).
PERFORMANCE-BASED
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
General
The NEHRP guidelines for evaluation of existing buildings
for seismic demands are described in FEMA 273 and were
recently updated in FEMA 356 (ASCE 2000). The FEMA 273
guidelines include four analysis procedures with corresponding
criteria for determining the adequacy of structures. For this
study, three of the four analysis procedures were used: 1) the
linear static procedure (LSP); 2) the linear dynamic
procedure (LDP); and 3) the nonlinear dynamic procedure
(NDP). Both the linear and nonlinear models used in these
analyses allowed for flexible diaphragm behavior.
Linear static procedure (LSP)
For the linear static procedure (LSP), the FEMA 273
guidelines were used to determine the pseudo-lateral load
and its distribution over the height of the building. The
pseudo- lateral load is intended to produce displacement
magnitudes, computed using a linear elastic static analysis, that
Fig. 2Typical reinforcing bar layouts for case study build-
Table 1Reinforcing details for case study buildings
Description
(1)
Three-story
2:1 ratio
(2)
Three-story
3:1 ratio
(3)
Five-story
2:1 ratio
(4)
Five-story
3:1 ratio
(5)
Beam
Bottom reinforcement Four No. 7 Four No. 7 Four No. 7 Four No. 7
Top reinforcement Seven No. 7 Seven No. 7 Eight No. 7 Seven No. 7
Transverse reinforcement No. 3 at 305 mm No. 3 at 305 mm No. 3 at 305 mm No. 3 at 305 mm
Roof girder
Bottom reinforcement Six No. 7 Six No. 7 Six No. 7 Six No. 7
Top reinforcement Seven No. 8 Seven No. 8 Seven No. 8 Seven No. 8
Transverse reinforcement No. 3 at 150 mm No. 3 at 150 mm No. 3 at 150 mm No. 3 at 150 mm
Girder
Bottom reinforcement Five No. 8 Five No. 8 Five No. 8 Eight No. 8
Top reinforcement Nine No. 8 Nine No. 8 10 No. 8 14 No. 7
Transverse reinforcement No. 4 at 150 mm No. 4 at 150 mm No. 4 at 150 mm No. 4 at 150 mm
Column
Longitudinal 12 No. 9 12 No. 8 16 No. 10 16 No. 10
Transverse No. 4 at 150 mm No. 3 at 254 mm No. 3 at 254 mm No. 3 at 229 mm
Shearwall
Longitudinal (two layers) No. 9 at 305 mm No. 9 at 150 mm No. 11 at 150 mm No. 10 at 76 mm
Transverse (two layers) No. 6 at 305 mm No. 6 at 205 mm No. 5 at 305 mm No. 7 at 305 mm
Notes: Reinforcement given as U.S. bar sizes; and 1 in. = 25.4 mm.
618 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
approximate the maximum displacements anticipated for the
earthquake event under consideration. The pseudo-lateral
load V is found using the following expression
(1)
where C
1
is a modification factor to relate expected
maximum inelastic displacements to displacements calculated
for linear elastic response; C
2
is a modification factor to
represent the effect of stiffness degradation and strength
deterioration on maximum displacement response; C
3
is a
modification factor to represent increased displacements due
to dynamic P- effects; S
a
is the response spectra acceleration at
the fundamental period and damping ratio of the building in
the direction under consideration; and W is the weight of the
building including total dead load. For this study, the selected
value of S
a
corresponds to a Basic Safety Earthquake 2
(BSE-2), which is also termed the maximum considered
earthquake (MCE). This event typically corresponds to a 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years.
Linear dynamic procedure (LDP)
For the linear dynamic procedure (LDP), a linearly elastic,
dynamic analysis is used to determine the design seismic
forces and corresponding displacements and internal forces.
Two percent damping was assumed for the structural model.
The LDP basis, modeling approaches, and acceptance
criteria are similar to the LSP, with the exception that the
response calculations may be performed using a modal
spectral analysis or a time history analysis. Time history
analysis was used in this study. The LDP analysis is intended
to give computed displacements that are approximately
equal to those expected during the design earthquake.
The time history analysis uses a discretized earthquake
time history of a base motion acceleration input for a time
step analysis of the structural model. The LDP guidelines
require that time history analyses be performed for a
minimum of three data sets. When only three data sets are
used, the maximum value of each response parameter is
evaluated to determine acceptability. If seven or more data
sets are used, then the average value of each response parameter
is used to determine acceptability. For this study, ten data
sets were used from the ground motion time histories developed
for the SAC project (SAC 1997). The suite chosen was for
the Los Angeles area, with a 2% probability of exceedance
in 50 years. The target response spectrum for the motions
was NEHRP site category S
D
, firm soil. The suite contains
20 records, or 10 orthogonal time history pairs. The time
history having the maximum peak ground acceleration
(PGA) was chosen for each pair and applied to the case study
buildings in the transverse direction. The maximum PGA
varies from approximately 0.5g to 1.3g for the 10 selected
ground motion records.
Nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP)
For the nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP), an inelastic
time history analysis is used to determine the design seismic
forces and corresponding displacements and internal forces.
Because the calculated response can be sensitive to the
characteristics of each particular ground motion, FEMA 273
recommends that more than one ground motion be used for
the NDP analysis. The same criteria for selecting time
histories of ground motion apply to both the NDP and the
V C
1
C
2
C
3
S
a
W =
LDP, so the same SAC synthetic ground motion data sets
were used for both procedures. However, only the strong
motion portion of each time history was used for the NDP to
reduce computation time. The strong motion portion of each
record was determined using the method proposed by
Trifunac and Brady (1975), where the strong motion duration is
defined as the time interval in which the energy imparted by
the ground motion record increases from 5 to 95% of the
total energy produced by the full time history.
Acceptance criteria
GeneralFEMA 273 defines acceptance criteria for use in
evaluating the expected performance of structural
components. The specified performance levels relate to
limitations on the maximum damage sustained during a
ground motion, while a performance objective is used to define
the target performance level to be achieved for a particular
intensity of ground motion. The acceptance criteria vary
based on the desired performance level and the approach for
evaluation differs for the linear and nonlinear procedures.
Linear proceduresTo evaluate acceptability for the
linear procedures, an action is classified as either deformation-
controlled or force-controlled. Deformation-controlled
actions are applicable for components that have the capacity to
undergo deformations into the inelastic range without failure. In
this case, a deformation is allowed to exceed the yield value
and the maximum allowable deformation is limited to the
ductility capacity of the component. In contrast, the
deformations associated with force-controlled actions are
not allowed to exceed the yield value.
Deformation-controlled design actions are calculated
according to the following equation
(2)
where Q
E
is the action due to design earthquake loads, Q
G
is
the action due to design gravity loads, and Q
UD
is the design
action due to gravity loads and earthquake loads; all determined
from the analysis. The design action Q
UD
calculated above is
evaluated according to the acceptance criteria for deformation-
controlled design actions, using the following equation
(3)
where m is the component or element demand modifier to
account for expected ductility of the deformation associated
with the design action, is the knowledge factor, and Q
CE
is
the expected strength of the component, or element, at the
deformation level under consideration. The design action
Q
UD
is expressed in force terms, even for deformation-
controlled actions. Therefore, in a linear analysis, a design
action may result in a computed member demand that
exceeds the actual strength of the element for deformations
beyond yield. The acceptance criterion takes this into
account with the factor m, which is an indirect measure of the
nonlinear deformation capacity of the structural element.
The value of m depends on the structural element being
considered, the elements material type, and the selected
performance level. The expected strength of the structural
element Q
CE
is the largest resistance obtained for deformations
as high as the maximum deformations experienced by the
structural element for the design earthquake. Equation (3) can
Q
UD
Q
G
Q
E
=
mQ
CE
Q
UD

ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 619

be rearranged for direct comparison of the demand-capacity
ratio (DCR) to m to determine acceptability
(4)
Nonlinear proceduresFor the nonlinear procedures, the
evaluation of structural components using the FEMA 273
acceptance criteria involves directly comparing the demands
determined from the nonlinear analysis for the specified
design earthquake, whether internal deformations or forces,
with the given FEMA 273 deformation limits or the lower-
bound strength. In this study, deformation capacities and
lower-bound strengths are computed considering all
coexisting forces and deformations; and Q
CE
is based on
the nominal yield strength for the reinforcing steel, with
no strain hardening considered.
ANALYTICAL TOOLS
Two structural analysis programs were used to perform the
three analysis procedures. SAP2000 (1999) was used for the
linear static and dynamic analysis procedures. The nonlinear
dynamic analysis procedure was carried out using IDARC2
software (Reinhorn, Kunnath, and Panahshahi 1988).
Linear analysis
Two elements were used in the development of the
SAP2000 case study building models: the frame element for
the beams and columns, and the shell element for the floor
diaphragms and shearwalls. The diaphragm joint constraint
was also used to constrain all the joints on a floor to move
together as rigid against membrane deformation when a rigid
diaphragm analysis was performed.
Nonlinear analysis
The IDARC2 two-dimensional inelastic finite element
anal ysis program for RC structures (Reinhorn, Kunnath, and
Panahshahi 1988) was chosen to perform the nonlinear
dynamic analyses. IDARC2 was expanded from the original
program, IDARC (Park, Reinhorn, and Kunnath 1987), with
the major change being the inclusion of inelastic floor
diaphragm elements. IDARC2 uses six elements to model a
building: floor slabs, beams, columns, shearwalls, edge
columns, and transverse beams. The building is modeled
with a series of plane frames containing beam, column,
shearwall and edge column elements, connected with
transverse beam elements. Each frame must lie in the same
vertical plane. Figure 3 illustrates a typical structure
modeled with elements available in IDARC.
Floor slabs behave similarly to shearwalls placed on their
side. Floor slabs, however, are primarily in bending while
shearwall behavior is one of axial tension and compression
under vertical load. Each slab is modeled as a pair of shear
and flexural springs connected in series. Beams are modeled
as a continuous flexural spring with shear deformation
coupled by connecting an equivalent spring in series with the
flexural spring. Column elements are formulated similar to
beam elements, but a one-dimensional spring has been added
to account for axial deformation. The modeling of shear-
walls is the same as that for floor slabs with a few additions.
First, the shearwall element takes into account axial effects,
and second, the shearwall model incorporates edge columns
when defined by the user. Edge columns were not used for
m DCR
Q
UD
Q
CE
------------- =
this study. Transverse beam elements are modeled using
elastic springs with one vertical and one rotational degree of
freedom. There are two types of transverse elements: beams
that connect to shearwalls and beams that connect to the main
beams that are oriented in the direction of lateral loading.
IDARC2 introduces inelastic member behavior with spring
elements whose hysteretic behavior is defined using the
three-parameter model (Reinhorn, Kunnath, and Panahshahi
1988). The three parameters are: 1) , the stiffness degradation
factor; 2) , the pinching behavior factor; and 3) , the
strength deterioration factor. The stiffness degradation
factor specifies the degree of reduction in the unloading
stiffness and the reduction in area enclosed by the hysteresis
loops for consecutive loading cycles. The pinching factor
reduces the stiffness of the reloading paths as well as the area
of the hysteresis loops and the amount of dissipated energy.
The strength deterioration factor is the ratio computed as
the amount of incremental damage caused by the increase of
the maximum response divided by the normalized incremental
hysteretic energy.
Limited experimental data are available for selecting appro-
priate hysteretic modeling parameters to describe the
nonlinear in-plane behavior of cast-in-place RC diaphragms.
The information in the literature that most specifically
addresses this issue is the work by Reinhorn, Kunnath, and
Panahshahi (1988) and Panahshahi et al. (1991). Therefore,
hysteretic parameters for the diaphragms used in this study
were selected to best match the analytical (Reinhorn, Kunnath,
and Panahshahi 1988) and experimental results (Panahshahi et
al. 1991) reported for a single-story 1:6-scale model structure
tested on a shaketable. Table 2 summarizes the hysteretic
parameters used for the nonlinear analytical models.
ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Each of the case study buildings was evaluated using the
linear static, linear dynamic, and nonlinear dynamic procedures
Fig. 3Basic IDARC Model (Park, Reinhorn, and Kunnath
1987).
620 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
following the FEMA 273 guidelines. Both the linear and
nonlinear models allowed for flexible diaphragm behavior.
The buildings were assessed for a 2% probability of exceedance
in 50 years event for Los Angeles, California (also termed
BSE-2 or MCE) with the lateral load applied parallel to the
short dimension of each building to induce diaphragm
response. Three performance levels were evaluated based on
the demands for this event: immediate occupancy (IM), life
safety (LS), and collapse prevention (CP).
It should be noted that FEMA 273 suggests that a desirable
rehabilitation goal (basic safety objective) would be to meet
both the LS performance level for basic safety earthquake
(BSE-1) demands and the CP performance level for BSE-2
demands. BSE-1 is defined as the lesser of a 10% probability
of exceedance in 50 years event or 2/3 of the BSE-2 motion.
Therefore, an evaluation for the 2% in 50 years event for the
IM and LS performance levels is more stringent than what
may be typical in practice. However, an owner has the option
of selecting an enhanced rehabilitation objective that is
intended to provide superior performance to the suggested
rehabilitation goal. For this study, the selected buildings
were evaluated using the more stringent criteria to assess
when diaphragm deformations should be considered for a
range of performance objectives.
The major results for each procedure are summarized as
follows in terms of base shear distribution, displacements,
and impacts of diaphragm flexibility. In addition, the
FEMA 273 diaphragm classification is noted.
Linear static procedure (LSP)
For the LSP, the design base shear (pseudo-lateral load V)
varies as a function of the performance level and the results
are reported for each of the three performance levels considered.
Base shear distributionThe flexible diaphragm model
distributed a larger percentage of the total base shear into the
middle frames as compared with the rigid diaphragm model.
The effect is minimal for the LSP, however, because the total
base shear resisted by each interior frame is still less than 1%.
The two end shearwalls resisted the remaining base shear.
DisplacementsFrame displacements and drifts were
recorded for each column line. The diaphragm flex was
computed by subtracting the displacement at the middle
frame from the displacement at the end wall. The greatest
amount of flex for each case study building, as well as the
highest drift percentage, occurred at the floor level immediately
below the roof level. The flexible diaphragm model resulted
in larger displacements for the interior frames as compared
to the rigid diaphragm model. The flexible diaphragm model
gave a 15 to 75% increase in the middle frame displacement
and a 9 to 41% increase in interstory drift, with the largest
increase observed for the three-story, 3:1 aspect ratio building.
Table 3 describes the FEMA 273 criteria for classifying
diaphragms as rigid, stiff, and flexible. Table 4 lists the
diaphragm flex, the ratio of diaphragm flex to the average
interstory drift of the story below the diaphragm (flex/drift),
and the FEMA 273 diaphragm classification for each case
study building and for each performance level. The
diaphragm flex is greatest for the 3:1 aspect ratio buildings
and for the three-story buildings. For the LSP analysis,
however, none of the diaphragms are classified as flexible. In
addition, all story drifts for the case study buildings are below
the standard 2% acceptable limit.
Impact of diaphragm deformationThe middle frame
columns are critical elements in terms of evaluating the
effects of in-plane diaphragm deformation. As the
diaphragms deform due to in-plane bending, the middle
frames pick up additional lateral load. The diaphragm
deformations can also lead to increased P- effects in the
middle frame columns. The maximum middle frame column
moment within each story was divided by the corresponding
column moment capacity to determine the demand-capacity
ratio (DCR). The DCRs were compared with the appropriate m
values for RC columns given in FEMA 273, where m is
defined as a demand modifier to account for expected
ductility of the deformation associated with a deformation-
controlled action at the selected performance level. If a DCR is
lower than the m value, then the column is acceptable for the
corresponding performance level.
Figure 4 shows the maximum DCR computed for the
middle frame columns in each story for each performance
level using the flexible diaphragm model. All column DCRs
for the five-story buildings and the three-story, 2:1 aspect
ratio building are below 2.0, and are within the limits for all
three performance levels. The columns for the three-story,
3:1 aspect ratio building, however, do not meet the criteria to
satisfy the immediate occupancy (IM) performance level.
For the IM performance level, the rigid diaphragm DCRs
for the three-story, 3:1 aspect ratio are 2.37, 1.53, and 1.16
Table 3FEMA 273 diaphragm classifications
Classification
(1)
Criteria
(2)
Rigid
DIAPH
< 0.5
STORY
Stiff 0.5
STORY

DIAPH
2.0
STORY
Flexible
DIAPH
> 2.0
STORY
Notes:
DIAPH
= maximum diaphragm deformation; and
STORY
= average interstory
drift of story directly below diaphragm.
Table 4Diaphragm flex for case study
buildings, LSP
Description
(1)
Performance
level
(2)
Flex, mm
(3)
Flex/drift
(4)
FEMA 273
classification
(5)
Five story,
2:1, 4th floor
IM 21
0.42 Rigid LS 26
CP 29
Five story,
3:1, 4th floor
IM 47
0.99 Stiff LS 57
CP 65
Three story,
2:1, 2nd floor
IM 17
0.52 Stiff LS 20
CP 23
Three story,
3:1, 2nd floor
IM 60
1.16 Stiff LS 72
CP 82
Table 2Hysteretic parameters used for case
study buildings
Structural element
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)
Postyield
stiffness
(5)
Beam 2.0 1.0
0.0 0.015
Column 2.0 1.0
Shearwall, flexure 3.0 1.0
Slab, flexure 1.0 0.5
Shear for shearwall, slab 0.02 1.0
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 621
for the third, second, and first story, respectively. The DCRs
for the columns in the lower two stories for the rigid
diaphragm model are below the IM performance level limits,
while the flexible diaphragm model produced DCR values
that exceed the IM limits for these columns. As a result, the
use of the flexible diaphragm model was critical for the three-
story, 3:1 aspect ratio building.
Summary of LSP resultsThe case study buildings
investigated with the LSP were classified as either rigid or
stiff according to the FEMA 273 provisions. The base shear
distribution to the interior frames was less than 1% in all
cases. Trends with aspect ratio and story height were
evident, although three of the four buildings were still
acceptable for the three performance levels for the 2%
probability of exceedance in 50 years event. The three-story,
3:1 aspect ratio building middle frame columns exceeded the
acceptance criteria for the immediate occupancy performance
level. This performance objective for a 2% in 50 years event,
however, is quite conservative. Therefore, the rigid
diaphragm model gave an acceptable design for the case
study buildings, although a flexible diaphragm model
appears more appropriate for the three-story, 3:1 case
study building.
Linear dynamic procedure (LDP)
For the linear dynamic procedure (LDP), the response
parameters for the four case study buildings were determined
for a suite of 10 synthetic ground motion records corresponding
to a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years event for
Los Angeles, California.
Base shear distribution and building periodFor the
LDP, the flexible diaphragm model distributed more of the
total base shear into the middle frames as compared with the
rigid diaphragm model, as was the case for the LSP. The
amount of base shear distributed to the interior frames is
slightly larger for the LDP than for the LSP; however, the
values are still less than 1% for each interior frame. Table 5
provides the fundamental periods of the structures for the
rigid and flexible diaphragm models, along with the ratio of
the flexible model period to the rigid model period. The most
significant change in the building period was for the three-
story, 3:1 aspect ratio building, which had a 20% increase
in the fundamental period when the flexible diaphragm
model was used.
DisplacementsFrame displacements and drifts at each
floor level were computed using the LDP for all four case
study buildings. The flexible diaphragm model generally
resulted in larger average displacements for the interior
frames as compared with the rigid diaphragm model, with a
2 to 81% increase in the middle frame displacement and a
0 to 125% increase in interstory drift. Again, the largest
increase was observed for the three-story, 3:1 aspect ratio
building. Table 6 lists the average and maximum diaphragm
flex, the average and maximum ratios of diaphragm flex to
the average interstory drift of the story below the diaphragm
(flex/drift), and the FEMA 273 diaphragm classification for
the ground motion history producing the greatest effect
based on the average flex/drift ratio. Again, the longer aspect
ratio buildings and the buildings with fewer stories had the
largest diaphragm flex and interstory drifts. Although the
LDP resulted in more displacement and diaphragm flex than
for the LSP, none of the diaphragms are classified as flexible
for the LDP.
Impact of diaphragm deformationMaximum forces
were computed for the middle frame columns for all case
study buildings for each time history analysis using the LDP.
The maximum column moment from each ground motion was
computed and the corresponding average value was determined
for each column member. The corresponding maximum
DCRs were then computed for each story in a building and
compared with the appropriate m values in the same
manner as for the LSP. Figure 5 shows the maximum
column DCRs in each story for all performance levels.
Fig. 4Maximum middle frame column moment DCRs, LSP.
Table 5Fundamental period of case
study buildings
Description
(1)
Rigid diaphragm, s
(2)
Flexible
diaphragm, s
(3)
Flexible/rigid
(4)
Five story, 2:1 0.51 0.53 1.04
Five story, 3:1 0.61 0.66 1.08
Three story, 2:1 0.34 0.37 1.09
Three story, 3:1 0.40 0.48 1.20
622 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004
The middle frame column demands for the three-story, 3:1
aspect ratio building exceed the FEMA 273 acceptance
criteria for all performance levels. The demands for one
column in the five-story, 3:1 aspect ratio building exceed
the immediate occupancy criteria, but are within the
limits for life safety performance. The demands for the
other five-story building columns and for the three-story,
2:1 aspect ratio building columns were within the limits
for all performance levels.
The flexible diaphragm model resulted in larger DCRs
than determined for the rigid diaphragm model. When a rigid
diaphragm model was used for the three-story, 3:1 aspect
ratio building, only the third-story columns had demands
that were not within the limits for all performance levels. In
addition, the demands for the second-story columns
exceeded the immediate occupancy criteria. When using a
rigid diaphragm model, the demands for the middle frame
columns in the other three case study buildings were found
to be acceptable according to the FEMA 273 criteria.
Summary of LDP resultsThe analyses of the case study
buildings by the LDP with a flexible diaphragm model did
not exhibit significant diaphragm flexibility. No diaphragms
were classified as flexible according to FEMA 273, and
the base shear distributed to each interior frame is less than
1% in all cases. The use of a flexible diaphragm model,
however, did impact the evaluation of the middle frame
columns in the three-story, 3:1 aspect ratio building. The
LDP procedure indi cates that a rigid diaphragm assumption
in design is reasonable for all case study buildings except for
the three-story, 3:1 aspect ratio building. This is more
evident for the LDP as compared to the LSP.
Nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP)
The nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP) consisted of
inelastic time history analyses of the four case study structures
using the strong motion portion of the same 10 synthetic ground
motion data sets used for the LDP. The reported frame reactions
and displacements correspond to the time of maximum base
shear, while the reported column plastic rotations are from
maximum values that occurred during the time history analyses.
Base shear distributionThe base shear distributed to the
interior frames for the NDP using a flexible diaphragm
model varied between approximately 1.7 and 2.7%. A
slightly higher percentage of base shear is resisted by each of
the interior frames for the NDP as compared with both linear
procedures, where each interior frame resisted less than 1%
of the total base shear. The flexible diaphragm model did not
result in a significant increase in base shear distribution to the
interior frames when compared with that for a rigid
diaphragm model.
DisplacementsThe diaphragm flex was determined at
the time of maximum base shear for each case study building
and ground motion record. Table 7 lists the average and
maximum diaphragm flex, the average and maximum ratios
of diaphragm flex to the average interstory drift of the story
below the diaphragm (flex/drift), and the FEMA 273
diaphragm classification for the ground motion history
producing the greatest effect based on the average flex/drift
ratio. The largest diaphragm flex for all four buildings was at
the second suspended floor level. The flex for the NDP was
less than the flex for both linear procedures and all of the
diaphragms were classified as rigid. The story drift, however,
was greater for the NDP than for both linear procedures.
Fig. 5Maximum average middle frame column moment
DCRs, LDP.
Table 6Diaphragm flex for case study
buildings, LDP
Description
(1)
Perfor-
mance
level
(2)
Flex, mm Flex/drift
FEMA 273
classifica-
tion
(7)
Aver-
age
(3)
Maximum
(4)
Average
(5)
Maximum
(6)
Five story,
2:1, 4th
floor
IM 23 37
0.41 0.46 Rigid LS 28 44
CP 32 51
Five story,
3:1, 4th
floor
IM 79 120
0.81 1.07 Stiff LS 96 146
CP 110 167
Three story,
2:1, 2nd
floor
IM 26 51
0.55 0.64 Stiff LS 32 61
CP 37 70
Three story,
3:1, 2nd
floor
IM 91 158
0.93 1.07 Stiff LS 110 192
CP 126 220
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 623
Impact of diaphragm deformationThe acceptance criteria
for the NDP involves plastic rotation limits. The average
maximum plastic rotation for the 10 ground motions was
determined for each middle frame column for all case study
buildings. The maximum value within a story was then
compared with the FEMA 273 plastic rotation limits (refer to
Fig. 6). The maximum plastic rotations for all of the middle
frame columns in all of the case study buildings were within
the limit for the immediate occupancy performance level.
Therefore, the performance of all middle frame columns is
considered acceptable for the NDP. For the five-story build-
ings, the longer aspect ratio results in larger plastic rotations
in the middle frame columns. This trend, however, is not
noticeable for the three-story buildings.
Summary of NDP results Diaphragm flexibility is not a
significant issue for the case study buildings for the NDP.
The base shear distributed to the interior frames is the same
for both rigid and flexible diaphragm models, and all
diaphragms were classified as rigid based on the displacement
response for the NDP. The performance of all middle frame
columns was determined to be acceptable according to the
FEMA 273 plastic rotation criteria and the NDP analysis.
The evaluation using the NDP differs from that for the linear
procedures. This is likely due to the use of different acceptance
criteria for the linear and nonlinear procedures, along with
differences in the linear and nonlinear analytical tools
and models.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Four case study buildings designed using a rigid
diaphragm assumption were evaluated using the FEMA 273
linear static procedure (LSP), linear dynamic procedure
(LDP) and nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP) with a flexible
diaphragm model. The basic structural layout of the buildings
was selected to maximize the in-plane deformation of the
diaphragms to allow an evaluation of the potential impact of
diaphragm flexibility on low-rise rectangular RC structures.
The following conclusions were made:
1. For almost all analyses of the case study buildings, a
flexible diaphragm model produces more frame displacement
and interstory drift than a rigid diaphragm model. This is
especially evident for frames that are closer to the middle of
the building. The case study building diaphragms, however,
were not classified as flexible based on the FEMA 273
criteria. The diaphragms for the five-story, 2:1 aspect ratio
building were classified as rigid for the three analysis
procedures. The diaphragms for the five-story, 3:1 aspect
ratio building and the three-story, 2:1 and 3:1 aspect ratio
buildings were classified as stiff for both linear procedures
and as rigid for the NDP;
2. When comparing the rigid and flexible diaphragm
model analyses, the distribution of base shear to the interior
frames and fundamental period change were not significant
for the case study buildings. The use of a flexible diaphragm
model, however, leads to a less favorable evaluation of the
three-story, 3:1 aspect ratio building for the FEMA 273
linear procedures;
3. The FEMA 273 analysis procedures can differ in the
acceptance of structural elements according to the criteria for
the three performance levels used in this study. For example,
the middle frame columns in the three-story, 3:1 aspect ratio
building met all performance levels for the NDP, met only
the life safety and collapse prevention performance levels for
the LSP, and did not meet any performance levels for the
LDP. This is difference is likely due, in part, to the use of
different acceptance criteria for the linear and nonlinear
procedures, along with differences in the linear and
nonlinear analytical tools and models; and
4. The use of the NDP indicates that all performance levels
are met based on the criteria evaluated in this study and the
use of a rigid diaphragm model is adequate for the design of
the case study buildings. It is noted, however, that the evaluation
using linear procedures did show some inadequacies for the
three-story, 3:1 aspect ratio building, especially for the LDP.
It is not clear which procedure gives the most accurate
performance-based assessment. Therefore, it is recommended
that the use of a flexible diaphragm model be considered in
the design and evaluation of similar low-rise RC structures
having an aspect ratio of 3:1 or larger.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the
Civil Engineering Department at Texas A&M University, where this research
was conducted. The authors wish to thank ACI Committee 374, particularly
Ron Klemencic and Jeff Dragovich, for providing input that helped to de-
fine the case study buildings. The authors also wish to thank Sashi Kunnath
for his help in making the IDARC2 program available for this research.
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views or policies of the sponsor.
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 1999, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 391 pp.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2000, Prestandard
and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA
Publication 356, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA,
Washington, D.C.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1997a, NEHRP Guidelines for
the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA Publication 273, Building
Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1997b, NEHRP Commentary on
the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA
Publication 274, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
Barron, J. M., 2001, Performance Based Evaluation of the Seismic
Resistance of Structures with Concrete Diaphragms, masters thesis,
Table 7Diaphragm flex for case study
buildings, NDP
Description
(1)
Flex, mm Flex/drift
FEMA 273
classification
(6)
Average
(2)
Maximum
(3)
Average
(4)
Maximum
(5)
Five story, 2:1, 2nd 10 18 0.14 0.41 Rigid
Five story, 3:1, 2nd 61 77 0.37 0.73 Rigid
Three story, 2:1, 2nd 12 28 0.16 0.48 Rigid
Three story, 3:1, 2nd 41 61 0.37 0.50 Rigid
Fig. 6Middle frame column rotation, NDP, for all
performance levels.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2004 624
Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station,
Tex., 176 pp.
Chen, S. J.; Huang, T.; and Lu, L. W., 1989, Diaphragm Behavior of
RC Floor Slabs, Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, V. IV, No. 6-5-20, Japan Association for Earth-
quake Disaster Prevention, Tokyo, pp. 565-570.
Corley, W. G.; Cluff, L.; Hilmy, S.; Holmes, W.; and Wight, J., 1996,
Concrete Parking Structures, Earthquake Spectra, Supplement C to
V. 11, Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994 Reconnaissance Report,
V. 2, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, Calif.
Hamburger, R. O., 1996, Department Store, Northridge Fashion
Center, 1994 Northridge Earthquake Buildings Case Studies Project,
Seismic Safety Commission, State of California, Proposition 122: Product 3.2,
Sacramento, Calif., pp. 83-100.
International Code Council, 1998, International Building Code 2000,
Final Draft, July 1998, International Code Council, Falls Church, Va.
Jain, S. K., and Jennings, P. C., 1985, Analytical Models For Low-Rise
Buildings with Flexible Floor Diaphragms, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics , V. 13, No. 2, pp. 225-241.
Ji, X.; Chen, S. J.; Huang, T.; and Lu, L. W., 1985, Deflections of
Waffle Slabs Under Gravity and In-Plane Loads, Deflections of Concrete
Structures , SP-86, G. Sabnis, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., pp. 283-294.
Karadogan, H. F.; Huang, T.; Lu, L. W.; and Nakashima, M., 1980,
Behavior of Flat Plate Floor Systems Under In-Plane Seismic Loading,
Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference of Earthquake Engineering,
V. V, pp. 9-16.
Kunnath, S. K.; Panahshahi, N.; and Reinhorn, A. M., 1991, Seismic
Response of RC Buildings with Inelastic Floor Diaphragms, Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 117, Apr., pp. 1218-1237.
Nakashima, M.; Huang, T.; and Lu, L. W., 1982, Experimental Study
of Beam-Supported Slabs Under In-Plane Loading, ACI JOURNAL, Proceed-
ings V. 79, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 59-65.
Nakashima, M.; Huang, T.; and Lu, L. W., 1984, Effect of Diaphragm
Flexibility on Seismic Response of Building Structures, Proceedings of
the Eighth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. IV, Jan.-
Feb., pp. 735-742.
Panahshahi, N.; Kunnath, S. K.; Reinhorn, A. M.; Lu, L.W.; and Huang, T.,
1990, Inelastic Modeling of RC Buildings with Flexible Floors, Proceedings
of the Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, V. II,
pp. 369-378.
Panahshahi, N.; Reinhorn, A. M.; Kunnath, S. K.; Lu, L. W.; Huang, T.;
and Yu, K., 1991, Seismic Response of a 1:6 Scale Reinforced Concrete
Scale-Model Structure with Flexible Floor Diaphragms, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 88, No. 3, May-June, pp. 315-324.
Panahshahi, N.; Reinhorn, A. M.; and Kunnath, S. K., 1994, Earthquake
Simulation Study of a One-Sixth Scale-Model RC Building with Flexible
Floor Diaphragms, Proceedings of the Fifth U.S. National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, V. II, pp. 641-650.
Park, Y. J.; Reinhorn, A. M.; and Kunnath, S. K., 1987, IDARC: Inelastic
Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame Shear-Wall Structures,
Technical Report NCEER-87-0008, Department of Civil Engineering,
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y., July.
Phillips, R., 1996, Santa Monica College, Precast Concrete Parking
Structure, 1994 Northridge Earthquake Buildings Case Studies Project,
Seismic Safety Commission, State of California, Proposition 122: Product
3.2, Sacramento, Calif., pp. 137-142.
Reinhorn, A. M.; Kunnath, S. K.; and Panahshahi, N., 1988, Modeling
of RC Building Structures with Flexible Floor Diaphragms (IDARC2),
Technical Report NCEER-88-0035, Department of Civil Engineering,
State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, N.Y., Sept.
SAC, 1997, Development Suites of Time Histories, Draft Report,
Subcontractor: Woodward-Clyde Federal Services Pasadena, Calif.,
http://quiver.eerc.berkeley.edu:8080/studies/system/ground_motions.html.
SAP2000, 1999, Integrated Finite Element Analysis and Design of
Structures: Getting Started, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, Calif.
Trifunac, M. D., and Brady, A. G., 1975, A Study on the Duration of
Strong Earthquake Ground Motion, Bulletin of the Seismological Society
of America, V. 65, No. 3, pp. 581-626.