Aspects on the performance of buildings with soft and weak storeys

Daniel Stoica Associate Professor, PhD, Technical University of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil,
Industrial and Agricultural Buildings, e-mail: stoica@utcb.ro
Esa Kujansuu - Senior Lecturer Tampere University of Applied Sciences (TAMK) ICT Engineering
e-mail: esa.kujansuu@tamk.fi
Ion Mierlus-Mazilu Associate Professor, PhD, Technical University of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil,
Industrial and Agricultural Buildings, e-mail: mmi@utcb.ro

Abstract: Many of the existing buildings, in areas with seismic activity, built and designed
without the principles of seismic design and affected by the passing years, the successive
interventions on the resistance structure or earthquakes that occurred, are now in an advanced
state of degradation, showing a high seismic risk vulnerabilities. Today in our country there are
many buildings built before 1990, but after that can be classified as soft and weak storey
buildings. The paper try to find the modern and rapid ways to put in safe these kind of
structures.
Keywords: soft, weak, stiffness, dampers

1. Introduction
Among increasing need for flexibility and functionality of the built space, there were still
many situations where one or more levels, usually those at the bottom of the building, where
are functions with different characteristics compared to current levels, for which was used
more often mixed structural solutions. Mixed nature of these structures, known structures with
ground weak (soft & weak story - soft as stiffness and weak as strength), resulting from the
adoption of a structural system with structural walls (honeycomb or cellular) at all current
levels and a frame system (frames or dual) for the lower levels. This paper aims to treat
multifamily buildings, multi-storey, common both in Bucharest and in other cities, with
ground open for business activities.
2. Study cases
These buildings acts as an inverted pendulum that by rocking forward and back produce a big
effort in these columns which are not able to undertake these efforts or does not have
sufficient ductility. They can suffer serious damage which may even lead to the partial and
general collapse of the building. This phenomenon is called inverted pendulum. One key
problem is that the current practice of design, the rigid walls of masonry from the higher
floors are not taken into account in the design calculations and therefore inverted pendulum
problem is not rectified. In this paper two building cases were studied with 5 and 9 levels,
with frame structures, in which the first level is a soft and weak level and for all the others
there are masonry panels.
For each of this one five studies was carried out:
- The initial case (Initial);
- Retrofitting steel brace systems with:
o X braces (R1);
o Inverse V braces (R2);
o Combined braces (R3);
- Retrofitting with viscous dampers (R4).

3. Structural system responses

In the following figures (Fig 1-37) and tables (1) the paper presents the structural system
responses, for all 10 study cases which were carried out.

Fig. 1 5 levels structure layout

Fig. 2 Initial longitudinal elevation

Fig. 3 Initial transverse elevation

Fig. 4 1st longitudinal retrofitting variant

Fig. 5 1st transverse retrofitting variant

Fig. 6 2nd longitudinal retrofitting variant

Fig. 7 2nd transverse retrofitting variant

Fig. 8 3rd longitudinal retrofitting variant

Fig. 9 3rd transverse retrofitting variant

Fig. 10 4th longitudinal retrofitting variant

Fig. 11 4th transverse retrofitting variant

Fig. 12 5 levels base relative stiffness [kN/m]

Fig. 13 Longitudinal absolute displacements [mm]

Fig. 14 Transverse absolute displacements [mm]

Fig. 15 Longitudinal relative drift ratios []

Fig. 16 1st Transverse relative drift ratios []

Fig. 17 9 levels structure layout

Fig. 18 Initial longitudinal elevation

Fig. 19 Initial transverse elevation

Fig. 20 1st longitudinal retrofitting variant

Fig. 21 1st transverse retrofitting variant

Fig. 22 2nd longitudinal retrofitting variant

Fig. 23 2nd transverse retrofitting variant

Fig. 24 3rd longitudinal retrofitting variant

Fig. 25 3rd transverse retrofitting variant

Fig. 26 4th longitudinal retrofitting variant

Fig. 27 4th transverse retrofitting variant

Fig. 28 9 levels base relative stiffness [kN/m]

Fig. 29 Longitudinal absolute displacements [mm]

Fig. 30 Transverse absolute displacements [mm]

Fig. 31 Longitudinal relative drift ratios []

Fig. 32 1st Transverse relative drift ratios []

Fig. 33 5 levels model

Fundamental vibration periods [sec]

Fig. 34 5 levels model

Fundamental relative vibration periods

Fig. 35 9 levels model

Fundamental vibration periods [sec]

Fig. 36 9 levels model

Fundamental relative vibration periods

Case

Tlong

Ttransv

Initial

100%
63%
63%
68%
55%

100%
66%
57%
60%
53%

100%
65%
60%
64%
54%

R1
R2
R3
R4

Table 1 - Fundamental relative vibration periods

averages

Fig. 37 - Fundamental relative vibration periods

averages

4. Conclusions
Analyzing the results of this study, it appears that the interventions to strengthen of RC
structures on the first floor with low rigidity, the use of steel braces or dampers have a
satisfactory result, reducing the absolute and relative displacements under gravity and lateral
loads, and significantly increasing of the level stiffness.
Any of the four solution cases presented is technically feasible and affordable in terms of
material and can be performed without affecting the functionality of the building and more for
the upper floors.
It is very simple to find in the figures 15, 16, 31 and 32 that for the initial building structure
the largest values of drift ratios are at the first floor,
Using dampers has proven to be the most effective solution for RC frames, reducing by
approximately 95% values of the lateral movements, but it's also the most expensive solution,
and the largest maintenance costs.
Recommendations to avoid the vertical irregularities - the problem of soft and weak floors, in
the design phase - for buildings with vertical irregularities like buildings with soft and weak

floors consisting in open spaces, vast parking, and shops required calculations for sizing
especially since the design stage to increase lateral resistance and stiffness elements of these
floors.
A dynamic analysis of the building is indicated to perform taking into account the stiffness of
the masonry panels at the upper floors:
Soft and weak columns and beams floors must be designed with a greater ability to
take over the shear force and bending moment level of seismic loads.
Just before the appropriate sizing columns, masonry walls should be placed
symmetrically as stiffness and strength in both directions, as far as possible to the
center of the building, and they must be calculated and sized to take the shear force
from the seismic loading.
Recommendations for soft and weak storey existing buildings:
For the existing buildings, even it is more difficult, it is feasible to use steel braces to
increase the lateral stiffness and strength of the soft and weak level as appear in this
paper:
o X braces (R1);
o Inverse V braces (R2);
o Combined braces (R3);
o The use of rolled diagonals and viscous damper (R4) to strengthen and stiffen
the RC frames located on the soft and weak storeys is a viable solution for
buildings with low-rise (4-5 floors) commonly found in cities the province, and
that the medium-rise (8-10 floors) common in Bucharest.
The steel braces and dampers use need always the RC frames joints verifications.
The retrofit of soft and weak storey will always be associated with retrofitting and
interventions on the existing foundations structural system.

Fig. 38 - 5 levels building Normalized longitudinal

displacements due to 1st initial level [%]

Fig. 39 - 5 levels building Normalized transverse

displacements due to 1st initial level [%]

Fig. 40 - 9 levels building Normalized longitudinal

displacements due to 1st initial level [%]

Fig. 41 - 9 levels building Normalized transverse

displacements due to 1st initial level [%]

It appear that, for all study cases (R1-R4) the normalized displacements due to the first level
initial drift ratio are less than 25% and the R4 solution seem to be the best one. But anyhow,
instead of the classic solution meaning to rebuild the masonry panels at the first floor
similar to the other upper levels all the R1 to R4 retrofitting solutions seems to be feasible.
The future step of this study may use the nonlinear structural computation in order to obtain
more information concerning these type of building structures.

References
Daniel Stoica - Constructii civile. Probleme si solutii moderne Editura Matrix 2014
Daniel Stoica Structuri din zidarie. Probleme si solutii moderne Editura Matrix 2015
Daniel Stoica, Nicolae Alexandru Florea - Aspecte privind comportarea i soluii posibile de consolidare la
cldiri cu niveluri slabe disertatie 2015 - UTCB