Impact of CHB Infill Wall Configuration on the Seismic Behavior of Soft-Story Buildings
DISCUSSION
The numerical simulations conducted using SAP2000, as guided by the methodology of Que
et al. (2024), provide compelling evidence that the configuration of CHB (concrete hollow block) infill
walls has a substantial impact on the seismic behavior of soft-story reinforced concrete (RC)
buildings.
Section 2.2 of the study presents the methodology used to evaluate whether a building
configuration exhibits soft story irregularity, which is a critical structural weakness that can severely
impact seismic performance. This condition occurs when the lateral stiffness of a particular story —
commonly the ground floor — is substantially lower than the stiffness of the floors above, rendering
the structure vulnerable to lateral forces such as those generated during an earthquake.
To determine the presence of soft story irregularity, two analytical criteria derived from the
National Structural Code of the Philippines (NSCP) are utilized:
1. First Story Stiffness Ratio: This method assesses whether the lateral stiffness of the first
story (𝑘𝑖 ) is less than 70% of the stiffness of the floor directly above it (𝑘𝑖 + 1)
2. Average Stiffness Comparison: The second method verifies whether the first story's
stiffness is less than 80% of the average stiffness of the three floors above.
These stiffness-based classifications are directly linked to Table 2.1, a table that assesses
whether each building configuration meets the criteria for soft story irregularity. In this table, models
are categorized into three distinct classifications:
• None – The model meets both stiffness criteria, confirming the absence of soft story
irregularity.
• Low – Only one stiffness criterion is violated, indicating a potential concern that may require
reinforcement.
• High – Both stiffness criteria fail, confirming the presence of a significant soft story
irregularity.
MODEL CODE VARIED PARAMETER SOFT STORY CHECK
Regular None None
HI-1 1 story height increased to 4m (no infill walls)
st
Low
HI-2 1st story height increased to 5m (no infill walls) High
HI-3 1st story height increased to 6m (no infill walls) High
IP-1 (Reg) Continuous masonry CHB infill wall placement None
IP-1 (HI-1) on upper Low
IP-1 (HI-2) Low
Floors (2nd to 5th floors)
IP-1 (HI-3) High
IP-2 (Reg) Non
IP-2 (HI-1) Continuous masonry CHB infill wall placement Low
IP-2 (HI-2) on all floors High
IP-2 (HI-3) High
TABLE 2.1. Soft story irregularity check results (Que et al., 2024)
The table clearly shows that as the height of the first story increases (HI models), the building
becomes more vulnerable to soft story irregularity. The Regular model serves as the baseline,
exhibiting no soft story irregularity. As first-story heights increase in HI-1, HI-2, and HI-3 models —
ranging from 4m to 6m — their lateral stiffness decreases, leading to a greater likelihood of structural
weakness. HI-1 is classified as "Low," suggesting mild irregularity, whereas HI-2 and HI-3 are marked
"High," confirming severe soft story conditions.
The table also examines the influence of masonry CHB infill walls, particularly in IP models,
which attempt to counteract soft story effects. Models with partial infill on upper floors (IP-1) still
exhibit soft story concerns, as the ground level remains structurally weaker. In contrast, IP-2 models,
which incorporate infill walls throughout all stories, display improved stiffness distribution,
effectively mitigating soft story irregularities. This data underscores how increased first-story height
exacerbates vertical stiffness disparities, while infill walls serve as a reinforcement strategy to
enhance overall stability.
MODEL CODE HIGHEST BASE FORCE (kN) HIGHEST DISPLACEMENT (m)
Regular 9103 0.222
HI-1 6954 0.232
HI-2 5616 0.262
HI-3 4719 0.286
IP-1 (Reg) 9342 0.600
IP-1 (HI-1) 7108 0.600
IP-1 (HI-2) 5737 0.600
IP-1 (HI-3) 4813 0.600
IP-2 (Reg) 9435 0.109
IP-2 (HI-1) 7871 0.600
IP-2 (HI-2) 6414 0.600
IP-2 (HI-3) 5439 0.600
TABLE 2.2. Resulting Capacity Curve Data (Que et al., 2024)
The table presents key structural performance metrics, specifically the highest base force
(kN) and highest displacement (m) observed for different model configurations. The Regular model,
with balanced stiffness, exhibits relatively high base force and moderate displacement, indicating
strong seismic resistance. However, as first-story heights increase in models HI-1, HI-2, and HI-3,
the base force decreases while displacement increases, demonstrating that taller first stories
compromise lateral stiffness, making these structures more prone to excessive movement under
seismic forces.
Models classified under IP-1, which incorporate partial masonry CHB infill walls, show some
improvement in stiffness but still exhibit noticeable displacement levels. In contrast, IP-2 models,
with continuous masonry infill across all floors, display significantly higher base force and reduced
displacement, indicating a stronger lateral resistance and improved overall stability. The data
suggests that models with lower base force and higher displacement are more vulnerable to seismic
forces and require structural reinforcement, while fully reinforced masonry configurations provide
greater resilience against earthquake-induced motion. This highlights the importance of soft story
mitigation strategies, as buildings with weaker lower levels and flexible upper stories experience
more severe lateral deformation, increasing their risk of failure in seismic events.
Plastic hinge formation is a critical concept in seismic engineering, as it determines how a
structure dissipates energy during extreme loading conditions. Engineers typically analyze plastic
hinge development using pushover analysis, a nonlinear static procedure that evaluates how
structures respond to increasing lateral loads (Caprani, 2011). The formation of plastic hinges is
governed by moment-curvature relationships, where sections of beams or columns undergo yielding
and allow rotation without immediate collapse (Modern Physics, 2023). Research has shown that
fiber-based plastic hinge models provide accurate predictions of hinge locations in reinforced
concrete structures, helping engineers assess failure mechanisms (ResearchGate, 2020).
Additionally, studies on plastic hinge behavior in RC walls confirm that hinge formation is influenced
by stiffness irregularities, such as those found in soft story buildings (ResearchGate, 2018).
MODEL CODE 1ST PLASTIC HINGE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION
Regular
1st story corner and edge columns (left side) and
HI-1
center columns
HI-2
HI-3 1st story corner columns (left side)
IP-1 (Reg) 1st story corner columns (left side) and center
IP-1 (HI-1) columns
IP-1 (HI-2)
1st story corner columns (left side)
IP-1 (HI-3)
IP-2 (Reg) 1st story center columns
IP-2 (HI-1)
IP-2 (HI-2) 1st story corner columns (left side)
IP-2 (HI-3)
TABLE 2.3. 1st plastic hinge [severe damage] location (Que et al., 2024)
The table presents the first plastic hinge development locations for various structural
models, highlighting how different configurations influence the initial damage points under seismic
loading. The Regular model exhibits plastic hinge formation at corner and edge columns on the left
side, as well as center columns, indicating a balanced distribution of stress. As soft story severity
increases, models HI-1, HI-2, and HI-3 show hinge formation shifting primarily to corner columns,
suggesting that weak-story behavior concentrates stress at the edges rather than the center. For IP-
1 models, which incorporate masonry CHB infill walls on upper floors, hinge locations remain similar
to their bare-frame counterparts, reinforcing that column flexibility remains a dominant factor in
structural failure despite the added stiffness from infill walls. IP-2 models, which feature continuous
masonry infill across all floors, exhibit hinge formation at center columns, demonstrating that full
infill reinforcement redistributes stress more evenly, reducing vulnerability at the edges.
MODEL CODE 1ST PLASTIC HINGE DEVELOPMENT LOCATION
Regular 1st story edge columns (right side)
HI-1 1st story edge columns (right side) and center
HI-2 columns
HI-3 1 story center columns
st
IP-1 (Reg) 1 story corner columns (right side)
st
IP-1 (HI-1) 1st story edge columns (right side)
IP-1 (HI-2)
1st story edge columns (left side)
IP-1 (HI-3)
IP-2 (Reg)
1st story corner columns (right side)
IP-2 (HI-1)
IP-2 (HI-2) 1st story corner column (left side)
IP-2 (HI-3) 1st story edge columns (left side)
TABLE 2.4. 1st collapse hinge [collapse] location (Que et al., 2024)
Collapse hinge formation is a critical concept in structural analysis and seismic engineering,
as it determines how a structure reaches its failure state. Engineers typically analyze collapse hinge
development using plastic analysis methods, pushover analysis, and mechanism formation theories
(ResearchGate, 2018). Studies on plastic hinge formation and collapse mechanisms confirm that
hinge locations shift based on structural irregularities, particularly in soft story buildings
(ResearchGate, 2020). Research on final collapse hinge formation in open ground story (OGS)
buildings highlights how failure patterns change depending on stiffness distribution and
reinforcement strategies (ResearchGate, 2021). Additionally, engineering guides on plastic analysis
and plastic collapse provide insights into collapse load factors, failure mechanisms, and hinge
behavior in reinforced concrete structures (EngineeringSkills, 2019).
Table 2.4 presents the first collapse hinge locations for various structural models,
highlighting how different configurations influence the final failure points under seismic loading. The
Regular model experiences collapse hinge formation at edge columns on the right side, indicating
that compression-side elements are the first to fail under extreme lateral forces. As soft story
severity increases, models HI-1, HI-2, and HI-3 show collapse hinges shifting toward center
columns, suggesting that higher first-story heights concentrate stress on core load-bearing
elements rather than edge columns. For IP-1 models, which incorporate masonry CHB infill walls on
upper floors, collapse hinges form at corner columns (right side) and edge columns (left side),
demonstrating that stress redistribution occurs due to infill reinforcement. In contrast, IP-2 models,
which feature continuous masonry infill across all floors, exhibit collapse hinge formation at corner
and edge columns on the left side, indicating that while infill walls improve overall stiffness, they do
not eliminate weak-story effects entirely.
REFERENCES:
De La Salle University. (2024). Numerical investigation on seismic performance of soft story vertical
irregular RC buildings with infill walls. DLSU Research Congress 2024. Retrieved from
[Link]
proceedings/2024/[Link]
National Council of Structural Engineers Associations (NCSEA). (2024). Seismic provisions guide.
Retrieved from [Link]
Studocu. (2024). NSCP vertical structural and plane irregularity. Retrieved from
[Link]
structural-and-plane-irregularity/110101862
Caprani, C. (2011). Plastic analysis in structural engineering. Retrieved from
[Link]
Modern Physics. (2023). Plastic hinge concept in structural analysis. Retrieved from
[Link]
ResearchGate. (2020). Development of plastic hinge in reinforced concrete structures. Retrieved
from [Link]
50-c-CR-60-d-CR-70_fig25_333229849
ResearchGate. (2018). Plastic hinge development in RC walls. Retrieved from
[Link]
walls_fig6_324414211
ResearchGate. (2018). Plastic hinge formation and collapse mechanism. Retrieved from
[Link]
mechanism_fig8_284188067
ResearchGate. (2021). Final collapse hinge formation in OGS buildings. Retrieved from
[Link]
with-fixed-base-and-flexible-base_fig7_352090647
EngineeringSkills. (2019). Plastic analysis and plastic collapse – A complete guide. Retrieved from
[Link]
