Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Assessment of low-rise building with transfer beam under seismic

forces
J.H. Li, R.K.L. Su , A.M. Chandler
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong Kong, China

Received 28 October 2002; received in revised form 12 May 2003; accepted 16 May 2003

Abstract

An overview of the structural performance of a transfer structure in Hong Kong under potential seismic actions is presented. A
hypothetical but realistic low-rise building model has been developed comprising a seven-storey reinforced concrete frame structure
with reinforced concrete transfer beams at first floor level. Structural design has been based on the British Standard BS8110 and
local practices. Parametric analyses of the momentcurvature relationship of each component have been conducted. By adopting
the displacement-based (DB) approach, various seismic assessment methodologies, including response spectrum analysis (RSA),
manual calculation, pushover analysis (POA) and equivalent static analysis (ESA) have been implemented. The deformations induced
by the predicted seismic actions in Hong Kong are compared with those arising from POA in terms of average lateral drift ratios
and maximum interstorey drift ratios arising in the building. Factors influencing the performance of this form of transfer structure
are highlighted and discussed. This paper also provides a general indication of seismic vulnerability of common low-rise transfer
structures in regions of low to moderate seismicity.
2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Earthquakes; Wind; Transfer structure; Low-rise buildings; Spectral displacement; Drift

1. Introduction
Hong Kong, like other mega-cities including Singa-
pore, Shanghai, Bangkok, London and New York, is not
located at the high seismicity region. Transfer structures
are widely used, for both low-rise and high-rise build-
ings, to provide flexibility in different architectural
arrangements above and below the transfer structures.
Transfer structure can be defined as either flexural or
shear structures which transmit heavy loads from col-
umns or walls acting on its top and redistribute them to
the supporting columns or walls. Various forms of trans-
fer structures are introduced in high and low-rise build-
ings, examples being transfer plates (TP) or transfer gir-
ders (TG) employed for high-rise residential and
commercial buildings, whilst transfer beams (TB) are
commonly used for low or medium-rise buildings. Exist-
ing buildings in Hong Kong, following the traditional
Corresponding author. Fax: +852-2559-5337.
E-mail address: klsu@hkucc.hku.hk (R.K.L. Su).
design codes, have not been designed for seismic resist-
ance. The safety of those buildings is therefore as a mat-
ter of concern under a potential earthquake with moder-
ate levels of design ground shaking. Seismic engineers
and researchers [13] pointed out that under cyclic earth-
quake loads, concentrated stresses and large lateral dis-
placement demands may occur at locations in a structure
where there is significant change in lateral stiffness. For
this situation, seismic codes often require the use of
more elaborate methods of dynamic analysis together
with more stringent detailing requirements for the trans-
fer structures, to ensure that the high levels of drift and
ductility demands are sustainable without major damage
or collapse.
The China Academy of Building Research Institute,
CABRI [4] presented detailed design and construction
practices for transfer structures in high-rise commercial
and residential buildings in Hong Kong and the neigh-
bouring cities of Shenzhen, Guangzhou, along with Beij-
ing. More than 20 transfer structure buildings with dif-
ferent forms such as plates, beams, boxes and trusses
were reviewed. Various design procedures for transfer

0141-0296/03/$ - see front matter 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0141-0296(03)00121-4
1538 J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549
structures under seismic loads were suggested. Ng and
Liu [5] presented the seismic design procedure using
both response spectrum and time-history analyses for the
design of a medium-rise building with TP in Beijing.
Tsang [6] conducted a comprehensive survey of TP
high-rise buildings in Hong Kong, which found that the
thickness of those TP is ranging from 2 to 4 m. Further-
more, the superstructure constructed above the TP level
was found to be typically 3050 storeys high, with an
average of 40 storeys. The structural forms above and
below the TP often consist of either shear walls or core
wall plus mega-columns. Su et al. [3,7] have conducted
seismic assessment of a high-rise residential building
with transfer structure using various methods comprising
equivalent static analysis (ESA), response spectrum
analysis (RSA) and pushover analysis (POA). Their
results indicated that RSA provides the most reliable and
accurate of all the seismic assessment methods. Based
on the above-mentioned studies, it is found that most of
the seismic assessments of transfer structures in Hong
Kong and China have focused on high-rise buildings
with TP. No studies have been conducted to date on low-
rise buildings with TB. Such structures are also a very
common arrangement in Hong Kong for schools and
shopping complexes in multi-storey podiums.
The aims of this paper are (i) to determine the most
appropriate seismic assessment methodology for low-
rise buildings with TB amongst various different
approaches which can be undertaken within the
resources generally available in a design office, (ii) to
highlight and discuss factors influencing the response
behaviour of such transfer structures, and (iii) to provide
a general indication of their seismic vulnerability under
moderate levels of ground shaking.
In the present study, particular emphasis has been
placed on the potential development of the soft storey
effect. In conducting this displacement-based (DB)
assessment, the corresponding seismic displacement
demands for the structure (built either on rock or deep
soil sites) were determined based on the design response
spectra of Lam et al. [8] and Chandler et al. [9]. The
deformations induced by the predicted seismic actions
in Hong Kong are compared with those arising from
POA in terms of the average lateral drift ratios and
maximum interstorey drift ratios of the building. The
critical failure mechanism and most vulnerable regions
of the structure are thereby identified. Different load pat-
terns for POA have been considered, and it is found that
the POA procedure is sufficient to assess the displace-
ment capacity of a low-rise building when more than one
load pattern has been introduced for the analysis.
2. Structural details of the seven-storey TB
building
2.1. Overall structural layout
A hypothetical but realistic two-dimensional seven-
storey reinforced concrete structure model (as shown in
Fig. 1a) has been developed with reference to a local
school building (Fig. 1b). This model consists of a low-
rise framed structure 28.9 m high and 23.7 m wide with
a TB at its first floor. Base columns are assumed to be
fully fixed at ground level, with vertical span of 8.05
m. Detailed arrangements of the columns and beams are
shown in Fig. 1a. The design wind load is derived in
accordance with the Hong Kong Wind Design Code [10]
for a 50 year return period. Static load analysis has been
conducted using the commercial program ETABS Ver-
sion 7.22 [11]. It was found that the design is controlled
by the load combination of dead plus live loads and not
by wind load as would be the case of high-rise buildings
[3]. The distributions of bending moment and axial force
for the building under such load combination are shown
in Fig. 2.
2.2. RC details of columns and beams
Based on the British Standard BS8110 [12], all col-
umns and beams have been designed and the results for
typical members are given in Table 1. The reinforcement
concrete (RC) details of a typical base column in accord-
ance with Hong Kong construction practice (which does
not require explicit consideration of seismic actions) are
shown in Fig. 3a. Each 6751600 mm rectangular col-
umn is reinforced along the section by totally 28 num-
bers 40 mm diameter high tensile steel reinforcement
(with yield strength of 460 MPa), which gives a longi-
tudinal reinforcement ratio of approximately 3.3%. Note
that the lateral concrete confinement of columns in Hong
Kong, based on current design practice, is generally very
low, as there is no provision for seismic detailing. A
typical base column is confined by 10 mm diameter rec-
tangular links at a uniform spacing of 300 mm centres,
which is equivalent to only 0.07% transverse reinforce-
ment volumetric ratio. The external frame columns
above the TB are 600900 mm rectangular columns
reinforced by totally 12 numbers 32 mm diameter high
tensile steel reinforcement, and confined by 10 mm
diameter rectangular links at a uniform spacing of 300
mm centres (as shown in Fig. 3b), which gives approxi-
mately 1.8% longitudinal reinforcement ratio and 0.04%
transverse reinforcement volumetric ratio. The RC
details of columns are symmetric about their principal
geometric axes. Beams, however, have asymmetric RC
details about their principal geometric axes. The RC
details of the typical TB with label B2 at mid-span (see
Fig. 1a) is shown in Fig. 3c. TB B2 is reinforced by four
 J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549 1539

Fig. 1. Example transfer buildings: (a) idealized model, (b) local school building.

Fig. 2. Force distributions under the critical load combination: (a) moment distribution, (b) axial force distribution.

layers of totally 50 numbers high tensile steel reinforce-
ment with one additional layer of hanger bars at the top
of beam with 5 numbers 20 mm diameter high tensile
steel. The total longitudinal reinforcement ratio of the
TB is approximately 1.6%.
3. Ductility capacity of columns and beams
3.1. Momentcurvature analyses
Extensive momentcurvature analyses for columns
and beams have been conducted using the computer pro-
gram RESPONSE [13] under ultimate and working load-
ing conditions. Table 2 summarizes the yield curvatures
and ultimate moment capacities of the momentcurva-
ture relationships under ultimate vertical (axial) loading
conditions. Fig. 3 shows example results for the base
column, typical external column and the TB at mid-span.
The idealized momentcurvature relationships (adopting
the procedure recommended by ATC-40, [14]) for the
columns and TB at ultimate axial loading, are shown in
Fig. 3 and will be used for the subsequent POA. Five
points labelled A, B, C, D, and E are used to define the
momentcurvature response of the critical section of a
plastic hinge. The response begins from the unloaded
condition A, and is linear to an effective yield, B, fol-
lowed by yielding (possibly with strain hardening) to
point C, followed by strength degradation to point D,
and then final collapse and loss of gravity load capacity
 1540

Table 1
Result of RC design for typical members

RC columns

Member Section B D Area (mm2) Ultimate axial force (MN) Ultimate Shear (MN) Reinf. req. Reinf. prov. % Link
moment (mm2) (mm2)
(MNm)

Base column 6751600 1,080,000 17 7.9 2 34,560 35,280 28(T40) 3.27 T10300
External typical column 600900 540,000 7 1.6 1 7200 9646 12(T32) 1.79 T10300
Internal typical column 600900 540,000 6 1.3 0.6 9000 8038 10(T32) 1.49 T10300

RC beams

Member Section B D Area (mm2) Ultimatea moment (MNm) Shear (MN) Reinf. req. (mm2) Reinf. prov. % Link
(mm2)

B1 17002100 357104 11 (top) 7 15,369 16,380 13(T40) 0.46 T10300 D.S.

B2 17002100 357104 36 (bottom) 0.5 57,837 57,960 50(T40) 1.62 T10300 D.S.
B3 600650 390,000 0.6 (bottom) 0.6 2861 3216 4(T32) 0.82 T10300 D.S.
1.4 (top) 0.6 8078 10,048 8(T40) 2.58 T10300 D.S.
B4 600650 390,000 0.05 (bottom) 196 233 1608 4(T25) 0.41 T10300 D.S.
J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549

0.1 (top) 196 615 1608 4(T25) 0.41 T10300 D.S.

Note: D.S., double stirrup; S.S., Single stirrup. Material properties: concrete grade 40D (fcu = 40 MPa); modulus of elasticity EC = 24 GPa; highly deformed bar (fy = 460 MPa) is adopted for
all steels including longitudinal and transverse reinforcement.
a
The produced moment under ultimate load combination.
 J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549
Fig. 3. Reinforcement details and idealized momentcurvature
relationships: (a) base column, (b) external column, and (c) TB.
at point E. In particular, the abscissa at C corresponds to
the deformation at which significant strength degradation
begins. Beyond this level of deformation, continued
resistance of lateral forces can no longer be guaranteed.
For brittle components, this deformation is the same as
the deformation at which yield strength is reached. For
ductile components, this deformation is larger than the
yield deformation. By comparing Tables 1 and 2, the
results indicate that all the columns and beams under the
worst loading condition (dead and live load combination
with appropriate partial safety factor) have nearly
reached their characteristic strength moment. Therefore
collapse is assumed once the deformation exceeds point
C in the definition of member hinge properties employed
in the subsequent POA.
1541
3.2. Manual calculation of ductility capacity
A manual checking procedure has been undertaken to
assess the limiting curvatures in the base column arising
at different stages of loading. At ultimate conditions, the
curvature of the critical cross-section in the column can
be determined in accordance with the depth of the neu-
tral axis and the dependable ultimate compressive strain
(ecu) of concrete, based on the following expression
[1517]:
ecu 0.004 1.4(rshfyheshu / fcc) (1)
where fyh, yield strength of the link reinforcement (460
MPa); eshu, limiting tensile strain of the link reinforce-
ment at the maximum stress condition (=0.06); fcc,
maximum compressive strength of the confined concrete
( 1.5fc or 1.5 34 MPa = 51 MPa);
rsh volumetric ratio of the link reinforcement (2)
4Abh / sDc 0.07%
Abh, area of a single 10 mm diameter link bar (79 mm2);
s, spacing of the link reinforcement (300 mm); Dc, diam-
eter of the confined concrete (area enclosed by the rec-
tangular link) ~1460 mm (Dp).
It is noted that the link reinforcement provided is used
to resist shear and torsion stresses in the columns as well
as to prevent preventing premature buckling of the main
reinforcing bars, when subjected to reversing inelastic
strains. Eqs. (1) and (2) provide an estimate of ecu as
0.0044, which is not significantly greater than the thres-
hold value of 0.004 for unconfined concrete. Thus, the
link reinforcement provides a very low level of con-
finement, which results in a negligible enhancement in
the ductility of the potential plastic hinge. Given from
analysis that the neutral axis is positioned at 1120 mm
from the extreme compression fibre (0.7Dp), the ultimate
curvature (fu) is accordingly equal to 0.0044/(0.71.46
m), or 5.0 radian/1000 m (0.004 radian/m).
The incipient yield curvature (when first yielding
occurs) at the plastic hinge (fy) is expected to be asso-
ciated with the compressive yielding of concrete, as
opposed to the tensile yielding of the reinforcement. The
incipient yield curvature may be expressed as:
fy ecc / (0.7Dp) (3)
where:
ecc incipient yield strain of concrete fc / Ec (4)
fc characteristic compressive strength 34 MPa
Ec tangential Youngs modulus 5000(fc)
(5)
30,600 MPa [18]
Eqs. (4) and (5) give ecc=0.0012, which is then translated
to fy = 0.0012 / (0.7 1.6 m) = 1.07 radian / 100 m
 1542

Table 2
Summary of the momentcurvature analyses

Columns

Member (see Fig. 1) Load condition Effective (notional) yield Ultimate yield curvature fu Curvature ductility ratio fu /fy Ultimate moment capacity
curvature fy (radian/1000 m) (radian/1000 m) (MNm)

Base Ultimate axial load (=17 MN) 2.2 5.7 2.6 8.0
Exterior Ultimate axial load (=7 MN) 4.2 9.8 2.3 2.0
Interior Ultimate axial load (=7 MN) 3.8 9.1 2.4 1.7

Beams

Axial force Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative Positive Negative

B2 0 2.7 13.8 7.1 22.5 2.6 1.6 37.3 3.6

B3 0 8.4 9.5 92.2 27.4 11.0 2.9 0.84 1.7
B4 0 6.0 6.0 76.7 76.7 12.8 12.8 0.2 0.2
J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549

Note: The RC details of columns and beams are symmetric and asymmetric, respectively, about their principal geometric axes.
 J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549
according to Eq. (3). In particular, for rectangular cross-
sections, the initial yielding of the reinforcement (located
furthest away from the neutral axis) occurs at a curvature
well below that of overall yielding of the entire cross-
section, the latter indicating the formation of the plastic
hinge mechanism. It is estimated that the notional yield
curvature (fy) is in the order of twice the incipient yield
curvature (fy) [19]. Thus, fy is taken to be approxi-
mately 2.1 radian/1000 m.
Note that the above assessment implies an extremely
low curvature ductility capacity of ~2.5 (i.e. 5.0 / 2.1).
An alternative procedure to determine curvature ductility
based on research in New Zealand can be found in Wat-
son et al. [20] which was based on the original work of
Mander et al. [18]. However, a much higher curvature
ductility ratio of 8 was obtained. The discrepancies high-
light the need to exercise caution when applying empiri-
cal relationships, which can be based on very different
parameter ranges and assumptions.
The result from hand calculation is in good agreement
with the notional yield curvature fy (~2.56 radian/1000
m) obtained from the RESPONSE [13] analysis. This
indicates that using RESPONSE to evaluate the curva-
ture ductility capacity of structural members is reason-
able. However, the approach for evaluating the ductility
capacity of the entire structural system of the low-rise
building is different from a high-rise building [3]. It is
shown in the failure collapse mechanism (Fig. 4) that
plastic hinges are formed not only at the base columns
but also at those columns which abut upon the TB. Fur-
thermore, the internal frame column abutting onto the
TB (labelled 1 in Fig. 4) is the first to reach its ultimate
capacity. In contrast, the base columns of the high-rise
building [3,7] were found to yield and then reach their
ultimate capacities, but the structural walls above the
transfer structure remained elastic and no plastic hinges
formed. For such kind of high-rise buildings [3], their
ductility capacities are associated with the soft storey
effect occurring at the base of the buildings. Hence, the
ductility capacity of the whole system can be determined
Fig. 4. Failure (collapse) mechanism by POA.
1543
by the lateral drift capacities of the base columns. Thus
the assessment of the ductility capacity of the low-rise
building has found to be more complicated whilst and
the simplified method derived in Ref. [3] for the TP
high-rise buildings cannot be adopted for the analysis of
a low-rise transfer structure.
4. Seismic demands imposed on building
4.1. Modified lateral stiffness of building
Determining the actual stiffness of reinforced concrete
is not straightforward, as it depends on a number of fac-
tors including the strain rate, aging, steel ratio and extent
of cracks in concrete under tensile loads. Typical elastic
modulus of concrete can be determined either from
codes of practice or from a uni-axial compressive test.
The effects of transient load application and aging may
increase the modulus by approximately 40% and 10%,
respectively [12,21]. In addition, the elastic modulus of
reinforced concrete may be slightly increased by 10
20% due to the presence of reinforcement. It was pointed
out by Priestley [22] and Priestley and Kowalsky [19]
that section stiffness may not be considered as a funda-
mental section property. The stiffness of the section
would be altered by changes in axial load ratio or flex-
ural reinforcement content, due to the non-linear behav-
iour of the reinforced concrete and the reduction of the
effective sectional area for cracked sections. The stiff-
ness of vertical members have therefore been modified
herein, under ultimate conditions, with the factors
applied to the stiffness of columns and beams being 0.8
and 0.5, respectively. After the modifications, the stiff-
ness can be regarded as effective flexural rigidity (EFR).
These factors were derived according to design values
presented in the above references, modified appropri-
ately to allow for the relatively low levels of seismic
displacement demand, as discussed in the following
paragraphs. To take into account all the above contri-
butions, the elastic modulus of the RC structural mem-
bers has been increased by 3040% when compared with
the values stipulated in the design code [23].
By using the structural model with modified section
stiffness, free vibration dynamic analysis was carried
out. The vibration periods and cumulative effective mass
factors in the X-direction (see Fig. 2), for the first five
modes, are given in Table 3. It is noted that the funda-
mental vibration period of the building is 1.40 s. The
effective mass factors for the first and second modes are
equal to 75% and 17%, respectively. The accumulative
effective masses for the first and second modes contrib-
ute 93% of the total cumulative effective mass. Although
the second mode possesses around 20% of the accumu-
lative effective mass, it contributes only 5% of the forces
by the square-root-of-the-sum-of-the-squares (SRSS) to
1544 J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549

Table 3
Modal parameters from dynamic analysis

Mode Period Accumulative effective Percentage of effective

number (s) mass factors (%) mass factor (%)

1 1.40 74.69 74.7

2 0.43 91.83 17.2
3 0.25 99.17 7.3
4 0.16 99.94 0.8
5 0.10 99.99 0.05

the whole system, and furthermore leads to only a small

difference between the deflection profiles for first mode
only and those for all modes under the same loading (as
further discussed below). This result indicates that higher
mode effects in low-rise buildings are relatively insig-
nificant, in accordance with expectation.

4.2. Ductility and drift demand of the building

The displacement demand on a single-degree-of-free-

dom (SDOF) structure is simply the spectral displace-
ment (at the initial period, assuming notional 5% of criti-
cal damping). However, it is important to point out that
the displacement spectrum must account for the potential
effects of soil resonance, which is very sensitive to the
depth of the soil sediments and the impedance contrast
between the soil and bedrock. Such effects can be esti-
mated by non-linear wave analysis of soil column (e.g.,
using computer program SHAKE [24] or alternatively
by a new and simple manual procedure known as FASA
[25,26]). Existing empirical response spectrum models
which do not explicitly parameterise sediment depths
might not have fully accounted for the soil resonance
effect, which is particularly detrimental to non-ductile
structures (including transfer structures) as commonly
found in low to moderate seismicity regions.
It is outside the scope of this paper to address seismic
hazard modelling or response spectrum modelling in
detail. Nevertheless, acceleration response spectra and
displacement response spectra for rock and soil sites esti-
mated for 2500-year return period far- and near-field
events affecting Hong Kong are shown in Fig. 5a,b,
respectively [8,9,27]. The soil spectra employed herein
were originally generated by Chandler et al. [9] based
on the typical Shau Kei Wan reclamation site on Hong
Kong Island with soil depth of 52 m. It is found that the
2500-year return period large magnitude far-field event
is the critical case affecting the considered structure (see
Fig. 5) on both rock and soil sites. Therefore only the
corresponding displacement and drift results for the
building will be presented in the following sections.
A reduction factor is often used to allow for hysteretic
energy dissipation arising from the inelastic excursions
of the structure to the ultimate condition. This adjust-
Fig. 5. (a) Response spectral acceleration RSA (5% damping) for
Hong Kong rock and soil sites (after Chandler et al. [9] and Lam et
al. [8]). (b) Response spectral displacement RSD (5% damping) for
Hong Kong rock and soil sites (after Chandler et al. [9] and Lam et
al. [8]).
ment factor can be based on artificially increasing the
viscous damping to emulate hysteretic energy absorption
[15]. Alternatively, empirical inelastic response spectra
have also been used in deriving suitable adjustment fac-
tors to account for inelastic behaviour [28]. However, it
was shown earlier in the paper that the capacity of the
TB structure to respond in the inelastic range is very
limited. Thus the hysteretic energy dissipation associated
with the inelastic response is expected to be very small.
By using the model with modified section stiffness as
well as assuming notional 5% viscous damping, a
detailed RSA was implemented herein using the well-
known computer program package ETABS [11]. The
elastic seismic displacement demand profiles have been
determined (Fig. 6a). Comparisons of the results for
mode one only with those for all modes, as previously
mentioned, indicate that higher mode effects can be
ignored when analysing the low-rise building. Hence,
only the results for the fundamental mode have been dis-
played in Fig. 6a for comparison purposes. The
maximum seismic roof displacement is 144 mm (far-
field earthquake affecting soil site) and gives an average
 J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549
Fig. 6. (a) Displacement profiles under different seismic loadings
(from RSA). (b) Interstorey drift ratios under different seismic loadings
(from RSA).
building (roof) drift ratio of 1/200 (0.5%) (defined as the
ratio of roof displacement to the total building height h).
For the bedrock site, the corresponding maximum seis-
mic roof displacement is 27 mm with an average drift
ratio value of 1/1070 (0.1%). It is also found that at the
buildings effective height, taken according to [29] as
0.75Hb (in which Hb is the total building height), the
displacement demands determined by RSA are 108 mm
giving an effective drift ratio of 1/268 (0.4%) for the
soil site, and 20 mm with effective drift ratio of 1/1445
(0.07%) for the bedrock site. The displacement at TB
level is 16 mm and gives a drift ratio in the base columns
of 1/500 (0.2%) for the soil site, and 4 mm with 1/2000
(0.05%) for the bedrock site. However, besides these
values of average lateral drift ratio, it is important to
ascertain what are the maximum values of interstorey
drift ratio (ratio of interstorey drift displacement to sto-
rey height). This is because the maximum interstorey
drift ratio better reflects the onset of non-structural
1545
component damage, as well as the potential structural
damage [29]. The maximum interstorey drift ratios of
the building, founded on the bedrock and soil sites, are
shown in Fig. 6b. The maximum seismic interstorey drift
ratios occur in the 3rd and 4th storeys rather than at the
effective height or at TB level, and have values of 0.1%
and 0.8%, for bedrock and soil sites, respectively. These
maximum interstorey drift ratios are significantly higher
than the corresponding average lateral drift ratios, by the
same factor of 1.6 for both rock and soil sites. This may
due to the dynamic amplification.
5. Overall ductility and drift capacity of building
As an alternative to manual calculation described in
Section 3.2, the displacement capacity of building struc-
tures as a whole may be obtained by static POA [30
33]. POA is a simple tool for evaluating the behaviour
of structures responding in the inelastic range. Essen-
tially, a lumped mass SDOF system is created and under
lateral loading, the correct ratio of its mass and initial
stiffness is determined such that initial period of
vibration matches the fundamental natural period of
vibration of the original multi-degree-of-freedom
(MDOF) model. The initial natural period matching will
automatically result in the response displacement time-
histories at any point on the MDOF structure that are
proportional to that of the SDOF model, provided that
the response is governed by a single fundamental mode.
The linear and non-linear behaviours are sensitive to the
chosen pattern of lateral force. The force patterns
adopted may not give good estimates of dynamic inter-
storey drift ratios over the entire height, since different
load patterns may induce different localized yield mech-
anisms in a structure, and furthermore the demands will
depend on the frequency characteristics of the ground
motion and hence determine which, if any, of those
localized mechanisms will be activated and amplified in
an earthquake. Bearing in mind the above consider-
ations, three of the trial load patterns were found, based
on the outputs of roof displacement and maximum inter-
storey drift ratio, to be critical and have been employed
in the present case study in the POA.
The first load pattern (P1) was determined by iteration
such that its shape is proportional to the deflected shape
of the building throughout the elastic range of response.
The second load pattern (P2) attempts to capture the soft
storey effect and provides an essentially constant loading
above the TB level, being linearly decreased to zero
from the TB level to ground level. The third load pattern
(P3) attempts to capture the higher mode effects and is
proportional to the SRSS combination interstorey shear
obtained from the RSA discussed above. The shapes of
those three load patterns are shown in Fig. 7a.
Program ETABS [11] with consideration of P-delta
1546 J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549
Fig. 7. (a) Lateral capacity curves (from POA). (b) Displacement pro-
files (from POA). (c) Interstorey drift ratios (from POA).
effects has been used to implement the POA described
above. Fig. 4 shows the failure (collapse) mechanism, in
which label 1 refers to ultimate stage (beyond point C
in Fig. 3), and labels 2 and 3 stand for the status
immediately prior to collapse (just before or at point C
in Fig. 3). The POA again indicates that columns in the
levels above or below the TB may exceed their effective
yield capacities (and then reach their ultimate capacities)
before other parts of the structure reach yield capacity.
Hence, both levels are vulnerable to the development of
a soft storey, which is different from high-rise buildings
with structural walls above the transfer structures that
induce a soft storey only at the lower levels (below the
transfer structures).
The ultimate displacement capacities (du) at the roof
of the building have been calculated and the resulting
lateral capacity curves are shown in Fig. 7a. Labels I,
II, III and IV stand for different stages in the POA.
Label I refers to the stage of reduction of a small part
of the system stiffness due to initial concrete cracks aris-
ing in some structural members; label II implies the
initial formation of plastic hinges of some beams and
columns in order to cause the effective yielding of the
whole system. Label III refers to the status just prior
to collapse. The segment between labels II and III
indicates the ductility capacity of the building. Label
IV refers to the collapse of the building.
The lateral displacement response profiles at effective
(notional) yield and ultimate limit states are shown in
Fig. 7b, and the corresponding interstorey drift ratios are
shown in Fig. 7c. It is found that the ultimate roof dis-
placements, which are sensitive to different load pat-
terns, range from 204 to 220 mm. Those at effective
height range from 157 to 168 mm and at TB level range
from 23 to 34 mm. Load pattern P2 gives the smallest
ultimate roof displacement capacity, but gives the largest
displacement at TB level. Pattern P3 gives the smallest
value of 23 mm at TB level, which is in close agreement
with the value 22 mm predicted by hand calculation for
ultimate axial load. The displacement ductility capacity
for all load patterns is rather low and less than two. This
indicates that using only one load pattern to carry out
the POA is not sufficient to predict the critical case, and
hence at least two patterns (such as P2 and P3 described
above) are recommended.
6. Comparison of seismic displacement demand
with capacity
The comparison of the maximum interstorey drift
demand and capacity over the entire height of the build-
ing is an effective way to identify any local distortional
effect and hence determine any local exceedance of drift
limit at particular levels. The RSA reveals that a rela-
tively high seismic interstorey drift demand occurs at the
 J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549
3rd and 4th storeys rather than at TB level, roof level,
or at effective height. The maximum lateral displacement
demand at TB level as determined by RSA with 5%
damping ratio is 16 mm (Fig. 6a) corresponding to a
2500-year return period, far-field earthquake at the soil
site. The corresponding ultimate displacement capacity
from POA is 23 mm (Fig. 7b), which agrees well with
the value of 22 mm estimated by using manual calcu-
lation. When comparing the maximum expected seismic
displacement demand with capacity, a safety margin of
1.4 can be found. Also the same safety margin of 1.4 is
attained when comparing the lateral displacement
demands with the ultimate displacement capacities at
both roof level and effective height. Hence, the building
has a relative low probability of collapse in the form of
a soft storey failure under seismic action in Hong Kong.
It is found that all the displacement shapes from POA
are similar to those predicted by RSA. This result
matches the finding of Krawinkler and Seneviratna [31]
who highlighted the fact that the deflection profiles
obtained by POA and by dynamic analysis are closely
correlated for low-rise structures. The results clearly
reveal that the POA described above can produce
reliable results for situations where higher mode effects
are minor and the soft storey effects are slight.
7. Equivalent static lateral load analysis (ESA)
Following the procedure described in the United
States building code UBC [34], ESA for the building
has been carried out. To take into account the stiffness
contributions of the non-structural components, the fun-
damental period of structure is decreased by 30% [35]
and gives Tn = 0.98 s. The period is found to be consist-
ent with that estimated from the empirical formula of
frame structures given in the UBC code (Tn =
0.0731h 3 / 4, h = 28.9 m) which predicts Tn = 0.91 s. The
modal mass Me (=2074 tonnes) of the building is
assumed to be 85% of the actual mass of the building.
Referring to Fig. 5a, the spectral acceleration RSA for
soil site at period Tn is found to be 2.78 m/s2. The base
shear determined by the formula V = M e RSA is equal
to 5.8 MN. The distribution of the equivalent static lat-
eral shear at each floor can be accomplished by the codi-
fied expressions:
n ings is not suitable for low-rise buildings.
V Ft Fi (6)
i1
Ft 0.07TnV0.25V (7)
wihi
Fi (VFt) (8)
n
wihi
i1
where Ft is the lateral force applied at the roof (in this
1547
case, equal to 0.07V), n is the total number of storeys,
wi is the weight at a particular level and hi is the height
of a particular level above the base. At each floor, the
force Fi is located at the mass centre.
The lateral displacement demand profile by the ESA
has been superimposed shown in Fig. 6a, and the corre-
sponding demand on interstorey drift ratio is shown in
Fig. 6b. It is observed that both the displacement and
drift ratio profiles match reasonably closely those by
RSA. It is, however, found that the displacement value
determined by ESA is significantly overestimated by
161% at the roof level when compared with those by
RSA with damping ratio of 5%. Furthermore, the drift
ratio predicted by the ESA overestimates by 158% the
values given by RSA with damping ratio of 5%. The
results reveal that the ESA, although matching the over-
all displacement patterns from dynamic RSA, tends to
overestimate the deformations and internal forces when
analysing low-rise buildings.
8. Conclusions
This paper has provided, for the first time in Hong
Kong, a rigorous and comprehensive structural seismic
assessment of a typical low-rise transfer structure
designed to local codes and practices.
The major conclusions of this study are as follows:
1. Design of a low-rise building in Hong Kong is con-
trolled by dead and live loads rather than wind force,
which is different from high-rise buildings. Therefore
it is not appropriate when assessing the capacity of
low-rise buildings to simply compare the seismic dis-
placement demand with that from the design wind
load.
2. Caution should be exercised when assessing the cur-
vature ductility capacity of member sections used in
HK buildings. Empirical-based equations or computer
programs (e.g., RESPONSE adopted in the present
paper) for calculating those capacities should be care-
fully checked before their application. Also, it is com-
plicated to evaluate the ductility capacity of low-rise
buildings by hand calculation, but the simplified
method derived by Su et al. [3] for high-rise TP build-
3. Structural seismic assessment for Transfer Structures
in Hong Kong requires specific account to be taken
of the acute lack of ductility arising in columns sup-
porting the TB as well as the frame columns above
TB level. The failure mechanism (see Fig. 4) shows
that the short spanned beams, which are not controlled
by gravity load, connecting between columns are
prone to form plastic hinges, and may therefore reach
their ultimate capacity or even collapse under lateral
1548 J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549
seismic force. Concerns on the design of those beams
should be given.
4. POA procedure is sufficiently accurate to assess the
displacement capacity of a low-rise building since the
deflection shapes produced match well with those
from RSA (due to minor higher mode effects), whilst
for high-rise building static POA is not recommended
[3]. It is also found that using only one load pattern
to predict the critical displacement and drift capacities
of the building is not sufficient. Two loading patterns,
namely a uniform loading pattern (P2) and SRSS pro-
portional loading pattern (P3), are recommended her-
ein.
5. The acute lack of ductility of Hong Kong transfer
structures, at both member and global levels indicates
that the ratio of ultimate and notional yield displace-
ment capacities (~2) is relatively low. The possibility
of sudden brittle-type failures of those columns of
such structures, under excessive seismic displace-
ments, is therefore a matter of some concern.
6. Comparisons among interstorey drift ratios computed
from various analyses indicate that detailed local
checks are required when assessing the performance
of a low-rise transfer building rather than only
focussing concern on the roof level, the effective
height level and the TB level.
7. The building has a low probability of ultimate col-
lapse in the form of a soft storey failure under seismic
action in Hong Kong when taking the damping ratio
as 5% of critical.
8. Although the displacement and drift ratio profiles by
ESA match those by RSA, the former tends to over-
estimate the deformations and internal forces when
analysing low-rise buildings.
Acknowledgements
The methodology described in this paper forms part
of the outcome of a major strategic research program to
address seismic risk in Hong Kong. This program,
directed by the second and third authors, has been under-
taken at the University of Hong Kong since 1998, as has
received continuous funding from the Research Grants
Council (RGC) under grants HKU7023/99E and
HKU7002/00E. The authors wish to thank the RGC for
their generous support. Grateful thanks are also given to
research collaborators at The University of Melbourne,
Australia, and in particular to Dr. Nelson Lam.
References
[1] Pappin JW, Kwok MKY, Chandler AM. Consideration of
extreme seismic events in the design of structures in Hong Kong.
In: Proceedings of Conference on Construction Challenges into
the Next Century. 1999. p. 98105.
[2] Scott DM, Pappin JW, Kwok MKY. Seismic design of buildings
in Hong Kong. Trans Hong Kong Inst Eng 1994;1(2):3750.
[3] Su RKL, Chandler AM, Li JH, Lam NTK. Seismic assessment
of transfer plate high rise buildings. J Struct Eng Mech
2002;14(3):287306.
[4] CABRI, China Academy of Building Research InstituteStruc-
tural Division. Design of transfer structures in high-rise buildings
with practising cases, 1993 [in Chinese].
[5] Ng HK, Liu SW. Seismic design of a tall building in Beijing,
recent developments in earthquake engineering. In: Annual Sem-
inar 2001/02, 17 May. The Hong Kong Institution of Engineers
Structural Division & The Institution of Structural Engineers (HK
Division); 2002. p. 7590.
[6] Tsang ACM. Seismic drift demand assessment for high-rise
buildings (II). Final year project, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, The University of Hong Kong, 2002.
[7] Su RKL, Chandler AM, Lam NTK, Li JH. Motion induced by
distant earthquakes: the assessment of transfer building struc-
tures. In: International Conference on Advances in Structural
Dynamics (ASD2000), 1. The Hong Kong Polytechnic Univer-
sity; 2000. p. 24956.
[8] Lam NTK, Chandler AM, Wilson JL, Hutchinson GL. Response
spectrum predictions for potential near-field and far-field earth-
quakes affecting Hong Kong: rock sites. J Soil Dyn Earthquake
Eng 2002;22:4772.
[9] Chandler AM, Lam NTK, Sheikh MN. Response spectrum pre-
dictions for potential near-field and far-field earthquakes affecting
Hong Kong: soil sites. J Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng
2002;22:41940.
[10] Building Development Department (BDD). Code of practice on
wind effects: Hong Kong1983. Hong Kong: Government of
Hong Kong, 1983.
[11] Habibullah AE. TABS (version 722) three dimensional analysis
of building systems, users manual. Computers & Structures
Inc, 1999.
[12] British Standards Institution (BSI). Code of practice for design
and construction (BS8110 Part 2). British Standard, Structural
Use of Concrete, 1985.
[13] Collins MP, Mitchell D. Prestressed concrete structures. Canada:
Response Publications, 1997.
[14] ATC-40. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings.
vol. 1. Redwood City, California: Applied Technology Council;
1996.
[15] Priestley MJN. Direct displacement seismic assessment of exist-
ing reinforced concrete buildings. Bull N Z Nat Soc Earthquake
Eng 1996;29(4):25672.
[16] Priestley MJN, Calvi GM. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on
Seismic Design Approaches for the 21st Century, Slovenia, June.
Concepts and procedures for direct displacement-based design
and assessment. 1997.
[17] Kowalsky MJ, Priestley MJN, MacRae GA. Displacement-based
design of RC bridge columns in seismic regions. J Earthquake
Eng Struct Dyn 1995;24:162343.
[18] Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. Theoretical stressstrain
model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng, ASCE
1998;114(8):180426.
[19] Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ. Aspects of drift and ductility
capacity of rectangular cantilever structural walls. Bull NZNSEE
1998;31(4):24659.
[20] Watson S, Zahn FA, Park R. Confining reinforcement for con-
crete columns. J Struct Eng, ASCE 1994;120(6):1798824.
[21] Lee PKK, Kwan AKH, Zheng W. Tensile strength and elastic
modulus of typical concrete made in Hong Kong. Trans Hong
Kong Inst Eng 2000;7(2):3540.
[22] Priestley MJN. Brief comments on elastic flexibility of reinforced
concrete frames and significance of seismic design. Bull
NZNSEE 1998;31(4):24659.
 J.H. Li et al. / Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 15371549
[23] Buildings Authority Hong Kong, HKSAR. Code of practice for
structural use of concrete, 1987.
[24] Idriss IM, Sun JI. Users manual for SHAKE-91. Maryland,
USA: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Davis,
USA: Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Uni-
versity of California; 1992.
[25] Lam NTK, Wilson JL, Chandler AM. Seismic displacement
response spectrum estimated from the frame analogy soil ampli-
fication model. J Eng Struct 2001;23:143752.
[26] Sheikh MN. Simplified analysis of earthquake site response with
particular application to low and moderate Hong Kong seismic
regions. MPhil Thesis, The University of Hong Kong, SAR,
PRC, 2001.
[27] Chandler AM, Su RKL, Sheikh MN, Lam NTK. In: Motion
induced by distant earthquakes: effect of sediments and recla-
mation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances
in Structural Dynamics (ASD2000), 1. The Hong Kong Polytech-
nic University; 2000. p. 18592.
[28] Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacityspectrumdemand methods
based on inelastic design spectrum. J Earthquake Spectra
1999;15(4):63756.
1549
[29] Priestley MJN. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Pacific Conference of
Earthquake Engineering, Melbourne. Displacement-based seismic
assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings. 1995. p.
22544.
[30] Calvi GM, Pavese A. In: Displacement based design of building
structures. European seismic design practice. Rotterdam: Balk-
ema; 1995. p. 12732.
[31] Krawinkler H, Seneviratna GDPK. Pros and cons of a pushover
analysis of seismic performance evaluation. J Eng Struct
1998;20(4-6):45264.
[32] Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS. Static pushover versus dynamic col-
lapse analysis of RC buildings. J Eng Struct 2001;23(5):40724.
[33] Park, R. A static force-based procedure for the seismic assess-
ment of existing R/C moment resisting frames. Proceedings of
the 1996 Technical Conference of the New Zealand National
Society for Earthquake Engineering, Plymouth, 22-24 March,
1996:5467.
[34] Uniform Building Code (UBC). Earthquake Design, Chapter 23,
Part 3. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997.
[35] Mayes R. Interstory drift design and damage control issues. J
Struct Des Tall Build 1995;4:1525.