15

2.2 Effects of earthquakes on concrete buildings

2.2.1 Global seismic response mechanisms

A structure supported on the ground follows its motion during an earthquake, developing, as a result,

inertia forces. A typical concrete building is neither stiff enough to follow the ground motion as a rigid

body, nor sufficiently flexible to stay in the same absolute position in space, while its base adheres to the

shaking ground. As we will see in Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.4, the building will respond to the seismic

inertia forces by developing its own oscillatory motion. The amplitude, frequency content and duration

of that motion depend, on one hand, on the corresponding characteristics of the ground shaking and, on

the other, on the dynamic properties of the structure itself (see Section 3.1.1).

The base of the structure will follow all three translational and all three rotational components of the

motion of the ground it is supported on; accordingly, its dynamic response will be in 3D, with

displacements and rotations in all three directions. However, for a typical concrete building, only the

structural effects of the two horizontal translational components of the ground motion are worth

considering. The ˗ by and large poorly known ˗ rotational components are important only for very tall

and slender structures, or those with twisting tendencies very uncommon in buildings designed for

earthquake resistance. Concerning the vertical translational component, its effects are normally

accommodated within the safety margin between the factored gravity loads (e.g., the "persistent and

transient design situation" of the Eurocodes, where the nominal gravity loads enter amplified by the

partial factors on actions) for which the building is designed anyway, and the quasi-permanent ones

considered to act concurrently with the "design seismic action" (see Section 1.3.1). Important in this

respect is the lack of large dynamic amplification of the vertical component by the vibratory properties

of the building in the vertical direction.

 16

As we will see in detail in Chapters 3 and 4, a concrete building is expected to respond to the horizontal

components of the ground motion with inelastic displacements. It is allowed to do so, provided that it

does not put at risk the safety of its users and occupants by collapsing. Very important for the possibility

of collapse are the self-reinforcing second-order (P-Δ) effects produced by gravity loads acting through

the lateral displacements of the building floors: if these displacements are large, the second-order

moments (i.e., the overlying gravity loads times the lateral displacements) are large and may lead to

collapse.

Because the major part of lateral structural displacements are inelastic and, besides, they tend to

concentrate in the locations of the structural system where they first appeared, very important for the

possibility of collapse is the "plastic mechanism" which may develop in the building under the

horizontal components of the ground motion. Inelastic seismic deformations in concrete buildings are

flexural; they concentrate as plastic rotations wherever members yield in flexure (normally at member

ends). Once the yield moment is reached at such a location, a "plastic hinge" forms and starts developing

plastic rotations with little increase in the acting moment. The "plastic hinges" may form at the

appropriate locations and in sufficient number to turn the building structure into a "mechanism", which

can sway laterally under practically constant lateral forces ("plastic mechanism"). The two extreme

types of mechanism in concrete buildings are shown in Fig. 2.9. Of the two mechanisms, the one that

can lead to collapse is the "column sway" or "soft-storey" mechanism in Fig. 2.9(a). If the ground storey

has less masonry infills or other components with significant lateral stiffness and strength than the

storeys above, a "soft-storey" mechanism is more likely to develop there.

Mixed situations are very common, with plastic hinges forming at column ends at a number insufficient

for a "soft storey" mechanism, and in fewer beams than in a full-fledged "beam-sway" mechanism.

Strictly speaking, a mixed distribution of plastic hinges does not give a "mechanism" that kinematically
 17

allows sway of the building at little additional lateral force. Therefore, normally it does not lead to

collapse nor to notable residual horizontal drifts. A full mechanism of the types shown in Fig. 2.9

(especially the one in Fig. 2.9(a)) may lead to collapse, or to demolition because of large, irreversible

residual drifts.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 2.9 Side-sway plastic mechanisms in concrete buildings: (a) soft-storey mechanism in weak
column/strong beam frame; (b), (c) beam-sway mechanisms in strong column/weak beam frame; (d), (e)
beam-sway mechanisms in wall-frame system

2.2.2 Collapse

Collapses of "open ground storey" buildings are depicted in Figs. 2.10 and 2.11. Fig. 2.11 shows on the

left a very common type of collapse in multi-storey concrete buildings: the so-called "pancake" collapse,

with the floors falling on top of each other, trapping or killing the occupants.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.10 (a) Collapse of open ground storey building; (b) collapsed building shown at the background;
similar building at the foreground is still standing with large ground storey drift.
 18

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.11 Typical collapses of frame buildings with open ground storey; "pancake" type of collapse
shown on the right.

As we will see in detail in Sections 4.5.2 and 5.4.2, a stiff vertical spine of strong columns or large

concrete walls promotes "beam-sway" mechanisms of the type in Figs. 2.9(b) to (e) and helps avoid

"soft-storey" ones per Fig. 2.9(a). Walls are quite effective in that respect: in Fig. 2.12(a) the walls in the

middle of the lateral sides and at the corners with the back side have failed at the ground storey (one is

shown inside a yellow frame), but have prevented the collapse of columns all along the front side from

triggering "pancake" collapse; in Fig. 2.12(b) perimeter walls may have failed terminally, but have

prevented collapse of the building.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.12 Role of walls in preventing pancake collapse of otherwise condemned buildings.

The dismal performance of walls in the earthquake of February 2010 in Chile has shown that walls are

not a panacea. Wall buildings were a success story in past Latin American earthquakes, leading

designers to extremes in their use in high-rise construction: in recent practice, very narrow, long walls,

bearing the full gravity loads are used in tall buildings, in lieu of columns and non-load bearing
 19

partitions. These walls were subjected to very high axial stresses due to gravity loads and failed at the

lowest level in flexure-cum-compression, sometimes with lateral instability. A typical case is that of the

building on the cover of this book, depicted in more detail in Fig. 2.13.

Fig. 2.13 Collapse of Alto Rio wall building in Concepción, Chile; February 2010 earthquake (structural
walls are shown in black in the framing plan).

In all the examples shown so far, as well as in Fig. 2.14, the ground storey was critical. Fig. 2.14(c)

depicts the typical case of a concrete frame building with masonry infills, which have suffered heavy

damage at the ground storey but may have saved the building from collapse. Figs. 2.10 to 2.14 may be

contrasted to Fig. 2.15, where the top floors or an intermediate one have collapsed, but the underlying

ones withstood both the earthquake and the collapse of the floors above. Such exceptions to the rule are

most often due to an abrupt reduction in the lateral resistance of a floor, because that floor and those

above were thought to be non-critical. Higher modes of vibration (see Section 3.1.4, 3.1.5), which are

more taxing on certain intermediate floors than on the ground storey, may have played a role as well.
 20

(a)

(b) (c)
Fig. 2.14 Typical concentration of failures or damage in ground storey with role and damage to infills
shown in (c).

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.15 Collapse of top floors in Mexico City (1985) or of an intermediate one in Kobe (1995)

Twisting of the building about a vertical axis is more often due to the horizontal eccentricity of the

inertia forces with respect to the "centre of stiffness" of the floor(s) than to the rotational component of

the motion itself about the vertical. In such cases, twisting takes place about a vertical axis passing

through the "centre of stiffness" which is closer to the "stiff side" in plan and produces the maximum
 21

displacements and the most severe damage to the perimeter elements on the opposite, "flexible side".

The example in Fig. 2.16 is typical of such a response and its consequences: twisting about the corner of

the building plan where the stiff and strong elements were concentrated (including a wall around an

elevator shaft, the staircase, etc) caused the failure of the elements of the "flexible side"; the seismic

displacements on that side, as increased by twisting, exceeded the ‒ otherwise ample ‒ ultimate

deformation of these columns.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2.16 Collapse of flexible sides in torsionally imbalanced building with stiffness concentrated near
one corner.

The collapse of the strongly asymmetric one-storey building in Fig. 2.17 demonstrates the opposite

effect: calling the side in Fig. 2.17(a) as front, the vertical elements of the back side were shear-critical

"short columns", developing higher shear forces than the columns on the front, owing to their much

larger stiffness and short length. However, they did not have sufficient shear strength to resist these

forces. They collapsed, pushing out the columns of the front side as well.

The remark about "short columns" brings up the effects of earthquakes on typical concrete members:

columns, beams, the connections between them ("joints") and walls.

 22

(a)

(b) (c)
Fig. 2.17 Shear failure of short columns on stiff side (inside red rectangle) causes collapse of flexible
side as well.

2.2.3 Member behaviour and failure

Typical seismic damage or failures of columns, joints, beams and walls are shown in Figs. 2.18 to 2.23

and are commented in the following.

2.2.3.1 Columns

Columns may be damaged or fail in flexure, as shown in Fig. 2.18. Flexural damage or failure

phenomena are concentrated in horizontal bands at the very top or bottom of a column in a storey (where

the bending moments are at maximum). Such regions are the physical manifestation of flexural "plastic

hinges", where the plastic rotations take place. It is clear from Fig. 2.18 that "plastic hinging", although
 23

essential for the seismic design of the building for ductility and energy dissipation (see Sections 3.2.2,

3.2.3 and 4.6.3), is not painless: it implies damage, normally reparable, but sometimes not (especially if

it is accompanied by irreversible residual horizontal drifts). Flexural damage always includes a visible

horizontal crack and loss of concrete cover, often accompanied by bar buckling, opening of stirrups or

partial disintegration of the concrete core inside the cage of reinforcement; sometimes one or more

vertical bars rupture or the concrete core completely disintegrates. The cyclic and reversed nature of the

deformation imposed on concrete elements by the earthquake plays an important role on its response:

the opposite sides of the element are cyclically subject to tension and compression; when in tension,

transversal cracking occurs but, then, when the force changes to compression the crack closes and the

concrete cover may be lost (if the compressive strain is too large). Additionally, if the lateral restraint of

the longitudinal bars is insufficient, the bars on the compressed face may buckle outwards, rupturing the

stirrups and accelerating the loss of the concrete cover. Note that the Bauschinger effect decreases very

sharply the buckling resistance of bars that have yielded previously in tension.

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2.18 Flexural damage (a) or failure (b, c) at column ends

A column may fail in shear anywhere between its two ends, the end regions included (since the shear

force is essentially constant along the height of the column). The signature of a shear failure is a
 24

diagonal crack or failure zone (Fig. 2.19); sometimes such cracks or zones form in both diagonal

directions and cross each other. If the column carries a low axial load relative to its cross-sectional area,

the inclination of the shear failure plane to the horizontal is about 45 o; it is steeper, sometimes over 60o,

if the column is heavily loaded. In columns engaged in two-way frame action, the shear failure plane

may be at an inclination to both transverse directions of the column. Stirrups intersected by the diagonal

failure band(s) may open or break. The concrete may disintegrate all along the diagonal failure zone or

across the full core inside the reinforcement cage (especially if failure is not due to one-way shear,

parallel to a single transverse direction of the column). For shear, the cyclic and reversed nature of the

earthquake effects on the elements is even more important than for flexure. In fact, as the direction of

the shear alternates, two “families” of diagonal cracks form, intersecting each other and leading to a very

fast disintegration of the concrete. Additionally, since the horizontal stirrups are in tension for both

directions of shear, diagonal cracks do not close upon reversal of the force; hence, the cracks become

wider ever more, causing a very fast degradation of the lateral stiffness and strength of the column,

denoting a so called brittle failure.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Fig. 2.19 Shear failure of columns, including a captive one between the basement perimeter wall and the
beam (c) and short columns due to mid- storey constraint by a stair (d) or a landing (e) supported on the
column.

Cases (c) to (e) in Fig. 2.19 are "short columns", which develop very high shear force demands and are

very vulnerable to shear; the one in (c) is made "short" by design: those in (d) and (e) unintentionally, as
 25

the secondary elements supported by the column between its two ends split its free height to two shorter

ones. The back side columns in Fig. 2.17, whose failure triggered the global collapse of the building,

were also short.

Except for the one in Fig. 2.18(a), all columns in Figs. 2.18, 2.19 have essentially lost their entire lateral

resistance and stiffness: they will not contribute at all against an aftershock or any other future

earthquake. However, except for the column in Fig. 2.18(c), they all retain a good part of their axial load

capacity. Note that the "quasi-permanent" gravity loads normally exhaust only a small fraction of the

expected actual value of the axial load capacity of the undamaged column. On the other hand, the

overlying storeys, thanks, among others, to their masonry infills, can bridge over failed columns

working as deep beams. So, buildings with many failed columns or a few key ones in a storey are often

spared from collapse. For example, very few columns were left in the building of Fig. 2.20 with some

axial load capacity. Another example are the six storeys above the failed corner column in Fig. 2.21(a),

which survived by working as a 6-storey-deep multilayer-sandwich cantilever beam, with the concrete

floors serving as tension/compression flanges or intermediate layers and the infills as the web

connecting them.

Fig. 2.20 Despite complete failure of columns across the ground storey, their residual axial load capacity
still supports gravity loads.
 26

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2.21 Shear failure of beam column joints

2.2.3.2 Beam-column joints

As explained in Section 4.4.3.1 with the help of Fig. 4.12, an earthquake introduces very high shear

stresses to the core of a beam-column joint. These stresses are parallel to the plane of frame action.

Effects of such shear stresses are shown in Fig. 2.21: in (a), complete diagonal failure of an unreinforced

joint; in (b), (c), diagonal cracking in reinforced joints. These effects are clearly manifested in exterior

joints, especially corner ones (Fig. 2.21(a), (b)). Interior joints profit from the confinement by the slab

on all four sides and by the beams in any direction they frame into the joint.

The joints provide also the anchorage zone of beam bars, whether they terminate there (as in corner

joints, see Fig. 2.22(a)), or continue into the next beam span across the joint. The next sub-section

addresses this issue.

2.2.3.3 Beams

Beam bars with insufficient anchorage in a joint may pull out in an earthquake. Such a failure of bond

and anchorage shows up at the end section as a crack through the full depth of the beam (Fig. 2.22(a)). A

characteristic feature of a pull-out crack is its large width, well in excess of the residual crack width

typical of yielding of the steel (which is a fraction of a mm or around 1 mm). The impact of this type of
 27

bond failure on the global behaviour is not dramatic: the beam cannot develop its full moment resistance

at the end section and the force resistance and stiffness of the frame it belongs to drops accordingly. The

damage is reparable, although the original deficiency, namely the poor anchorage of beam bars in the

joint, cannot be corrected easily.

(a) (b)

(c)
Fig. 2.22 Typical features of beam behaviour: (a) pullout of beam bars from narrow corner column, due
to short straight anchorage there; (b) wide crack in slab at right angles to the beam at the connection
with the columns shows the large participation of the slab as effective flange width in tension; (c)
failure, with concrete crushing and bar buckling at bottom flange next to the column.

Beams are designed to develop flexural plastic hinges at the ends and are expected to do so in an

earthquake. The loss of beam anchorage highlighted above is part of such flexural action (although it

prevents a proper plastic hinge from forming). A standard feature of a flexural plastic hinge in a beam is

its through-depth crack at the face of the supporting beam or column, with a residual width indicative of

yielding of the beam bars; that crack often extends into the slab and travels a good distance at right
 28

angles to the beam, sometimes joining up with a similar crack from a parallel beam (Fig. 2.22(b)). The

length and the sizeable residual crack width of such an extension show that the slab fully participates in

the flexural action with its bars which are parallel to the beam, serving as a very wide tension flange.

Flexural damage is mostly associated with cracking and spalling of concrete and yielding of the

reinforcement. By contrast, flexural failure comes with disintegration of concrete beyond the cover,

often with buckling (or even rupture) of bars. Such effects (demonstrated in Fig. 2.22(c)) happen only at

the bottom flange of a beam, because the slab provides the top flange with abundant cross-sectional

areas of concrete and steel reinforcement. Larger amount of top reinforcement at the supports also result

from the design for the hogging moments due to the factored gravity loads (the "persistent and transient

design situation" of EN 1990). Note that a bottom reinforcement smaller than the top one, is unable to

close the crack at the top face (as it is unable to yield the top reinforcement in compression): the vertical

crack at the face of the support, across the full depth of the beam, tends to remain open and increase in

width for each cycle of deformation; bottom bars may buckle and then rupture under the large cyclic

excursions of strain across the open crack.

2.2.3.4 Concrete walls

Flexural or shear damage and failure phenomena in walls (Fig. 2.23(a) and (b)) are similar to those in

columns, but take place almost exclusively above the base of the wall, and very rarely in storeys higher

up. One difference concerning flexure is that spalling and disintegration of concrete are normally limited

to the edges of the wall section (Fig. 2.23(a)). Owing to the light axial loading of the wall section by

gravity loads, diagonal planes of shear failure are normally at about 45 o to the horizontal (Fig. 2.23(b)).

Walls have lower friction resistance than columns, owing to their lower axial stress level and vertical

reinforcement ratio; so, they may slide at their through-cracked base section, which happens to coincide

with a construction joint (Fig. 2.23(c)).

 29

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 2.23 Typical failures of concrete walls: (a) flexural, with damage in shear; (b) in shear; (c) by
sliding shear.