Performance Based Design Atc-40
Performance Based Design Atc-40
Performance Based Design Atc-40
E!1
aTe
....\.. 0
TN
. t'L 4 . J..:U":l:.
~
A'Ic,S
.,
",
sse 96-01
...
ATC-4D
i,..<--
Concrete Buildings
Volume 1
by
PRlNCIPAL :INVESTIGATOR
Craig D. Comartin
CO-PRINCIPAL IN''"VESTIGATOR
PRQJECT DIRECTOR
Richard W. Niewiarowski
SENIOR ADVISOR
Christopher Rojabn
''l
..... ~
.,-~~
(
I
(
(
(
(
(
(
;-
1:
Preface
Proposition 122 passed by California's voters in
1990, created the Earthquake Safety and Public
Buildings Rehabilitation Fund of 1990, supported by a $300 million general obligation
bond program for the seismic retrofit of state
_
and local government buildings. As a part of
the program, Proposition 122 authorizes the
California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC).
to use up to 1% of the proceeds of the bonds, or
approximately $3 million, to carry out a range
of activities that will capitalize on the seismic
retrofit experience in the private sector to improve seismic retrofit practices for government
buildings. The purpose of California's Proposition 122 research and development program is
to develop state-of-the-practice recommendations to address current needs for seismic retrofit provisions and seismic risk decision tools. It
is focused specifically on vulnerable concrete
structures consistent with the types of concrete
buildings that make up a significant portion of
California's state and local government inventories.
Richard Conrad
Building Standards Commission
Ross Cranmer
Building Official
Roy Johnston
Structural Engineer
Frank McClure
Structural Engineer
Joel McRonald
Division of the State Architect
Joseph P. Nicoletti
Structural Engineer
Structural Engineer
Lowell E: Shields
Seismic Safety Commission
Mechanical Engineer
(
(
(
~
-e :
(
(
;.
S~ismi~
Safety
Commission Staff
Richard McCarthy
Executive Director
Fred Turner
Project Manager
Karen Cogan
Deborah Penny
Carmen Marquez
Chris Lindstrom
Ed Hensley
Ten DeVriend
Kathy Goodell
(
(
Iv
Ronald O. Hamburger
EQE International
William T. Holmes
Rutherford & Chekene
Jack Moehle
Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Thomas A. Sabol
Engelkirk & Sabol
N abih F. Youssef
Nabih Youssef & Associates
Maurice Power
Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.
N abih F . Youssef
Nabih Youssef & Associates
Geoffrey R. Martin
University of Southern Californ.ia
Marshall Lew
Law/Crandall, Inc.
Lelio Mejia
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Technical Editor
Gregory P. Luth
Gregory P. Luth & Associates
Wendy Rule
Richmond, CA
PUblications consultant
Gail Hynes Shea
Albany, CA
(
(
(
\
.~
(
.(
(
(
(
(
('
vi
Concrete Buildings
T bl
Volume 1
Preface
Glossary
Executive Summary
Chapter 1
Introduction
1. 1 Purpose
1.2
Scope
1.3
Organization and Contents
Chapter 2
Overview
2.1
Introduction
2.2
Changes in Perspective
2.3
Getting Started
2.4
Basic Evaluation and Retrofit Strategy
2.5
Evaluation and Retrofit Concept
2.6
Final Design and Construction
Chapter 3
Performance Objectives
3-.1
Introduction
3.2
Performance Levels
3.3
Earthquake Ground Motion
3.4
Performance Objectives
3.5
Assignment of Performance Objectives
Chapter 4
Seismic Hazard
4.1
Scope
4.2
Earthquake Ground Shaking Hazard Levels
4.3
Ground Failure
4.4
Primary Ground Shaking Criteria
4.5
Specification of Supplementary Criteria
Chapter 5
Determination of Deficiencies
5.1
Introduction
Table of contents
"
'
iii
xi
xv
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-5
2-1
2-1
2-3
2-6
2-11
2-14
2-19
3-1
3-1
3-1
3-8
3-9
3-12
4-1
4-1
4-1
4-2
4-5
4-12
5-1
5-1
vi i
_._--,-~.
~~.
(
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
:
5.2
10-1
10.2 Foundation System and Global Structural Model
10-2
10.3 Foundation Elements
10-7
10.4 Properties of Geotechnical Components . ~ ........................... 10-12
10.5 Characterization of Site Soils
10-20
10-28
10.6 Response Limits and Acceptability Criteria.. r
10.7 Modifications to Foundation Systems
10-29
(
Response Limits
11-1
(
11.1 General
11-1
11.2 Descriptive Limits of Expected Performance
11-2
11.3 Global Building Acceptability Limits
11-2
11.4 Element and Component Acceptability Limits
11-5
Nonstructural Components
12-1
(
(
5~3
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
viii
Table of Contents
12.1 Introduction
. 12.2. Acceptability Criteria
Chapter 13 Conclusions and Future Directions
13.1 Introduction .. "
"
13.2 Additional Data
13.3 Potential Benefits
13.4 Major Challenges
13.5 Recommended Action Plan
References
Volume 2-Appendices
Appendix A Escondido Village Midrise, Stanford, California
:
Appendix B Barrington Medical Center, Los Angeles, California
Appendix C Administration Building, California State University at Northridge,
Northridge, California
Appendix D Holiday Inn, Van Nuys, California
Appendix E Cost Effectiveness Study. _
"
'"
Appendix F Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
Appendix G Applied Technology Council Projects and Report Information
Table of contents
12-1
12-1
13-1
13-1
13-1
13-4
13-5
13-6
14-1
A-I
B-1
C-l
D-1
E-1
F-l
G-l
"-'.--.~
(
(
..
(
(
(
;
_.--~-_
..
---_._-' _.-
(..
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
~
(
Glossary
Acceptability (response) limits: Refers to
specific limiting values for the
deformations and loadings, for
deformation-controlled and forcecontrolled components respectively, which
constitute criteria for acceptable seismic
performance. .
Glossary
xi
- ..". -'-'--~.
(
\
xii
(
(
ctossarv
(
(
Glossary
(
(
(
computer model of the structure,
incrementally; i.e.- "pushing." the structure; and plotting the total applied
shear force and associated lateral
displacement at each increment, until the
structure reaches a limit state or collapse
condition.
Retrofit strategy: The basic overall approach
adopted to improve the probable seismic
performance of the building or to
otherwise reduce the existing risk to an
acceptable level.
Retrofit system: The specific method used to
implement the overall retrofit strategy.
Secant (effective) stiffness. The slope of a
straight line drawn from the origin of the
capacity curve for abuilding (or other'
structural element) to a point on the curve
at a displacement "d", beyond the elastic
limit, represents the secant or effective
stiffness of the structure (or.element) when
deformed by an earthquake to that
displacement. The secant stiffness will
always be less than the elastic stiffness of
the structure.
Secondary elements: Refers to those structural
components or elements that are not, or
are not needed to be, primary elements of
the lateral load resisting system. However.
secondary elements may be needed to
support vertical gravity loads and may
resist some lateral loads.
(
(
(
(
(
~
(
(
(
(
(,
t...
(
(
(
\
(
(
xiv
Glossary
Executive- Summary
II Existing concrete
buildings pose a great
chanenge in California
Executive summary
II Multipie
performance
xv
(
I
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
xvi
(
EXecutive summary'
~
(
new
II The
techn~lagies
require extensive
engineering jud.gment
A large team of earthquake engineering
experts compiled and generated the information in
this document. A panel of respected leaders in the
field periodically reviewed the development as
representatives of the Seismic Safety Commission.
Practitioners from throughout California voiced
their opinions at a series of"workshops on the
document: There is a consensus that the technical
procedures ate complex. There are several sources
and implications of this complexity.The nature of
the inelastic analysis itself requires a basic
understanding of the principles of structural
dynamics arid mechanics of materials. The scope
of the analysis typically requires computer-aided
solutions. While most competent engineers with
seismic design experience in California are capable
of dealing with these issues, traditional design
procedures commonly used in current practice do
not demand that they do. Unfortunately, in the
competitive .design environment, most uninformed
owners are not yet willing to pay larger fees for
the more time-consuming approach. Although the
benefits to owners in reduced construction costs,
more reliable building performance, and reduced
costs to repair damage due to future earthquakes
can justify the higher fees in many cases, this has
not yet been widely comniunicated. In the future,'
better communication and changes in the
Executive summary
to
changes
The need for technical peer review is only one
of the changes to conventional planning and design
processes. The design engineers themselves face
the challenge to develop and maintain their
technical skills beyond those that they currently
xvii
(/
(/
(
(
(
(
/
(
use in practice. Architects must recognize the
impact ofseismic risk on-building. function and-the .
importance of nonstructural damage to building
performance. Building officials are accustomed to
designs that can be easily checked against
prescriptive codes and standards. They must
expand or supplement their own skills and
implement procedures to monitor performancebased designs. As important as these changes for
design and buildingprofessionals are, they alone
will do little without the demand and support of
building owners for change.
The perspective of building owners is the key
to progress. If a buildingmeetsthe code under
which it was built and there is no legal
requirement to retrofit it, owners generally have
been satisfied. Few understand the risks they
actually face. Performance-based evaluation of
buildings can give them a picture of how
earthquakes impact their businesses and
investments, They can then begin to make
informed decisions to manage and reduce risks in a
cost-efficient way. The most basic change that
owners will face is the realization that they are the
decision maker. Engineers can advise them on .
relative risks, but acceptability rests with the
owner. This concept runs counter to the prevailing
attitude that it is the design professional who
decides on acceptable risk.
(
(
(
r
Cr
(
['
(
/
(
(
(
c.
;'
(
/
(
(
(
I:
(
r:
(
Executive Summary
Executive summary
(
:
(
(
('
(
I
Chapter 1
Introduction
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner
1.1
Purpose
1.1.1
ceneral
Chapter 1, Introduction
Architect
Bldg. Official
Engineer
AnalYst
(
(
(
(
1.1.2
..
..
...2
Scope
1.2.1
General
This document provides a comprehensive,
technically sound recommended methodology and
supporting commentary for. the seismic evaluation
and retrofit design of existing concrete buildings.
Althouzh
it is not intended for the design of .new
o
buildings, the analytical procedures are applicable.
The document applies to the overall structural
system and its elements (concrete fraines, shear
(
(
Ce..
(
(
(
b.t
( .
(
I
(
)
(
(
I
(
I
(
(
(
(i!
12
Chapter 1, Introduction
(
I
(
(
Chapter 1, tntroductlon
1.2.3
--~':Ei:="-.
c.
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
(
.:
(
(
1.2.4
Building Types .
Two specific types of older, cast-in-place
concrete buildings which were designed and
constructed prior to the late 1970s, when ductile
detailing requirements were first incorporated into
building standards, and which are common to
California state and local government building
inventories, will be the focus of the methodology:
1-4
(
I
(
(
(
(
(
'-<-""-(~
(
(
1.2.5
Alternative Analytical Methods
A variety of alternative analytical methods,
using either simple (linear, static) procedures,
approximate inelastic (simplified nonlinear static)
capacity procedures, or complex inelastic
(nonlinear time history) procedures, are available
for use within the overall evaluation and retrofit
methodology. The type of analytical approach
described in this document is simplified nonlinear
static analysis. Several methods of performing
nonlinear static analyses are presented, and the
Chapter 1, tntrcetuctlon
(
(
1..3
Organization and
Contents
1.3.1
Volume One Chapter summaries
The methodology has been organized into 13
chapters. The first seven address the more general
and conceptual aspects of the methodology, which
will be of interest to the broader range of the
expected audience of building owners and agency
representatives, architects, and building officials,
as well as structural engineers and analysts. The
next five chapters, 8 through 12, address the more
technical and analytical aspects of the
methodology, expected to be of primary interest
only to the structural engineer/analystmembers of
the audience. The last chapter, 13, provides
summary concluding remarks which are of interest
to the broader audience..The title page of each
chapter contains an audience spectrum bar to assist
the reader in assessing the appropriate level of
interest.
1.:5.1.1 Chapter 1: mtroauction
Chapter I provides a statement of
purpose
and scope of this document, followed by a brief
the
Chapter 1, Introduction
..
..
_._~.
---,-=-~.
(
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT
(
(
(
(
(
(
1~5.1_4
Deficiencies
Chapter 5 provides guidelines for a qualitative,
preliminary evaluation of existing cast-in-place
concrete frame and frame-wall buildings prior to
the performance of detailed or extensive analytical.
work. A description of the common characteristics
of these types of construction is provided, along
with a discussion of their past seismic performance
and typical deficiencies. Guidelines for collection
of as-built information, including physical testing
of materials and exploration of existing conditions,
appropriate to the level of detail of evaluation or
retrofit studies are provided.
Assessment of the seismic -characteristics of
existing buildings and determination of their
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
~
(
(
(I
(
C(
C
(
(
(~
Chapter 1; Introduction
Chapter 1 r tntroductlon
--~'
(
(
(
(
~(
(
the development of this Product. The conclusions
are presented in a.discussion of the.potential., .benefits of, and the challenges posed by, the
analysis and retrofit design methodology presented
in this document. Benefits are discussed in terms
of the engineer's improved understanding of
seismic performance of buildings as well as the
owner's enhanced options for implementing
seismic retrofit goals in their buildings. Challenges
are discussed in terms of both specific.technical
issues and broader practice issuesThe chapter
concludes with recommendations .,for future action,
. in terms of basic research to address the technical
challenges and training and communication
programs to address the practice issues.
1.3.2
1.5.2.2 Appendix E:
Cost EFFectiveness study
This section contains the report of a study
performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and
usability of the evaluation and retrofit
methodology. The approximate construction cost
of the various retrofit concept designs developed in
the four example building studies is estimated and
then compared to cost ranges from traditional
retrofit approaches and the estimated cost of
demolition and replacement. The cost effectiveness
relationships observed between the extent of
retrofit/improved seismic performance and
construction costs is discussed.' In addition; the ~
ease of use and consistency of application of the
proposed methodology, as demonstrated by the
four example building studies; is assessed and
discussed.
1.5.2.3 Appendix F:
Supplemental InFormation on
Foundation EFFects
This section contains a report of a review of
research on the affects of foundations on the
seismic performance of concrete, buildings.
Presented in a format similar to the Review of
(
(
(
(
I
(
(
(
(
(
I
('
\
(
(
C
(.
\
(
(
(
Chapter 1 r uitroduction
(
(
Chapter 2
Overview:
0.
:.
_
2.1
Introduction
Chapter 2, overview.
J;ngineer
AnalY5t
f!~"l
specific-factors. In the future, more direct and
definitive processes may emerge. The procedures
presented here are a step in the right direction.
The intended audience for this document
includes building owners, building officials,
architects, engineers, and others who may have a
direct or peripheral interest in the seismic
evaluation and retrofit of cop-crete. buildings. This
document is not a code, or even a comprehensive
guideline. In one sense it is a commentary with a
very broad perspective. Current technologies are
developed and placed in context within the larger
picture. Guidance on the selection of alternatives
is offered. The objective of the document extends
beyond the general, however, to the pragmatic.
Using it as a manual, qualified engineers can apply
the general principles to the evaluation and retrofit
of actual buildings,
Not every chapter of this document is meant
for detailed study by all readers. Within the
general methodology are some very technical
procedures of interest only to structural engineers '
and analysts. The audience interest spectrum
(Figure 2-1) is provided to assist the reader in
assessing the appropriateness of each chapter to his
or her particular perspective. The audience interest
spectrum bar for each chapter is also shown on the
respective chapter's title page. Within each
chapter. key points and basic concepts are
highlighted in sidebars, figures, tables, and
bulleted lists for the more casual reader.
(
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVAUJATIO'N AND RETROFIT
OF
CO'NCRETE BUn,DINGS
c
(
(
(
..... _ ..,._._..
Architect
Owner
1.
Introduction
overview
3.
Performance Objectives
4.
selsmle Haz~rd
Deficiencies
6.
Retrofit ~trategies
7.
Quality Procedures
~:
-
~i.:
....
..
_--
-.
.'-
--
.-
,.,
..
,',
" ,
..
. -
-:-- ..
-.
,"
..'
'.
..
- '.. -
'(
(
(
"
~~~
'
ji;_~~
~~
-~
".1:-
iJ
Analytical Procedures
9.
Modeling Rules
10.
Foundation Effects
11.
Response Limits
12.
Nonstructural
13.
Conclusions
(
(
~omponents
Foundation Supplement
key
(
(
(
(
(
('
(
(
(
Chapter 2, overview
('
(
(
.-
2.2
Changes in perspective
Chapter 2, overview.
dF'
CONCRETE Bun.DINGS
participate in post earthquake site visits to examine damage and study patterns' .
of building behavior.
(
..
..
(
(
(~
(
(
..
(
{
((
2.2.3
Building 'Officials
!
(
(
(
(
(
(!
(
(
Chapter "2, overview
(
(
---'Prescriptive
Building codes;
checklists
Umited
Routine
Performance ."
Basic Format
Owner's Choices
Familiarity of
Architects/Engineers
Directly applicable
New Buildings
Partially applicable
but limited-
Existing Buildings
Traditional .,
Review
Requirements
Design Effort/Cost
Safety/damage/downtime goals
for specific seismic hazard
MUltiple
Supplemental enhancement
to prescriptive
Fully applicable
Peer review
"normally required
(
(
(
(
(
(
\.
e
I
2.2.4
Engineers
For many years engineers have been using
unrealistic simplified static lateral force procedures
to design buildings to resist seismic forces and
displacements. While traditional methods can result
in adequate designs, they obscure a basic
understanding of actual structural behavior and
performance during earthquakes. Most engineers in
California, particularly those experienced in seismic
retrofit work, are capable of grasping the basic
principles of the hew procedures' emerging for
evaluation and retrofit. However, the majority are
still unfamiliar with these new methods. The
effective use of the new procedures requires a basic
understanding of structural dynamics, ductility, and
inelastic behavior of structural materials. Since
these procedures are relatively untested, peer
review becomes an important part of the process.
Many individuals are understandably anxious when
others review their work. For this reason, peer
review should happen early in the process with a
cooperative and collegial attitude on the part of all
involved..
.
Performance-based design requires effective
communication among the engineer, the architect,
and the building owner. The engineer must
carefully explain the alternatives for performance
objectives and the implications for costs. In many
instances, engineers are accustomed to "staying in
the back room" and deferring to their architectural
colleagues when it comes to communication with
the owner. This traditional arrangement impedes
the effectiveness of seismic evaluation and retrofit
projects.
Within many engineering offices, younger
engineers, more familiar with computer software
and structural modeling techniques than their
mentors, do the detailed structural analyses. The
complexity and uncertainty inherent in the behavior
of many structural elements and components of
(
(
2.3
(
I.,
(
(
(
i
T'
(
l
Getting started
(
(
(
~
(
(
(
(
I.
(
(
(
(
l
(
(
(
(
(
(
(i;
Chapter 2~ Overview
(
(
T
R
A
T
E
G
C
0
N
C
E
p
IT]
~
~
[1]
ffiJ
ffiJ
'r 2, overview
__.-
-- _.._...._..
Structural Engineer
Architect
Review Drawings
Visual Inspection
Prelininary Calculations
Formulate a Strategy
Simplified Procedures
Inelastic Capacity Methods
Complex Analyses
[I]
~
Chapters
Jurisdictional Requirements
Architectural Changes
Voluntary Upgrade
[[]
+ [9
D
E
[]
T
I
~Pertinent
Site Analysis
Material Properties
Construction Details
Modeling Rules
Force and Displacement
Verify Performance
Global Response Limits
Component Acceptability
Conceptual Approval
0
CB0
0CD
~
:D
0:D
CD
0
~
:D
(2)
,.
,.
27
for any
,
best" to follow a selection procedu, (sin
number .of reasons. Even if seismic performance...._:;+-- ---f.oll.owina:
.
. ,
0
.
improvement is the primary motivation, it is wise
1. Generate a list of potentially qual.. I. >
to consider a broader potential scope at the
candidates. This can be from past e. lerif
beginning ofthe project. Potential considerations
and general familiarity on the part ot
).s\0\include the following:
or from references from others who ha 'if
similar projects. Public agencies' may dex lOp
Fire and life safety improvements
request for qualifications announcement Wi .
Hazardous material abatement
minimum criteria specified.
\
Disabled ~ccess improvement
2. Request written submittals of statements of
Change in programmatic use
qualifications. The request should state the
preliminary
scope of the project to the extent
Functional improvements
'. possible.
BUildin~:~ysten;s improvements
3. Select several qualified candidates to submit
Historic preservation
formal proposals; In some cases's available
Some of these are voluntary and may simply
drawings or other documents might be
make sense to include. Others may be required by
provided to the proposers. Site visits are also
law when changes are made to a building.
beneficial.
Jurisdictional requirements vary, and it is prudent
4. Interview one or more of thri cmdidates on the
to make conservative assumptions early in the
. I
basis of a review of the proposals. The
process. Theactual scope may not emerge until
interview is an opportunity to imagine the.
later in the project, when more information
working relationship between an owner and tl
becomes available. The expert advice of design
. potentialdesign team. Are the personalities
professionals, including an architect and an
compatible? Even if qualifications are
engineer, is normally needed to finalize the scope
excellent, the relationship between the owner
of a project. -Table 2-2 is a guideline to issues
and the consultants must also be -conducive tc
pertinent to the rehabilitation and retrofit process
success.
,
scope of work.
5. Thoroughly check references on similar
projects. Ask references specific questions
Slf!lect Quali#ied
about the performance of the candidates and
pJ:oFessiDntlls
about the results of the job:
Some owners have ongoing relationships with
6. Make a selection and negotiate acontract,
design professionals whom they know and trust.
Keep in mind that the scope may change on
Others may never have dealt with architects or
the' evaluation and retrofit strategy is
engineers. Public agencies are required to select
developed in the initial stages'of the projec
project teams-according to prescribed procedures.
This'
selection process can be tailored to th
In any event, the careful selection of qualified
needs of individual projects. In most cases, at
professional assistance is more important with the
of design professionals led by either an archite
evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete
structural engineer is sought In some cases, a
buildings than with most other projects. This is
structural engineer might fill the role without
because of the complexity of the building type, the
architectural assistance. An example 'would be
uncertainties of earthquake technology, and the .
.
_:,.~.}Vp"en. a; Pr.~limi:p.ary,',S~dYi to determine deficit
lack of establishedprecedents indesign and"
and develop conceptual remedial structural
analysis methodologies. Therefore, it is usually
Chapter 2,
OVE
structural stability
Limited safety {structural>
Hazards Reduced (non structurall
Life safety
structural
Nonstru ctural
Damagecontrol
Immediate tcontlnuern Occupancy
Continued post earthquake function
Near fault
Ground failure possibility [landslide,
liquefaction, subsidence) Soft soil (long periods, amplification,
duration)
vertical discontinuity
soft story
Setback
Offset
Resistance elements
Plan discontinuity
Adjacency-pounding possibility
Dynamic resonance
Diaphragm flexibility
Torsion
Redundancy
Deformation compatibility
out-of-plane vibration
Unbalanced resistance
Resistance location
Driftlinterstory effects
strong column/weak beam condition
structural performance
Ductility
Inelastic demand
Constant or degrading stiffness
Damping
Chapter 2,OVerviEiJw
(
(
,(
Yield/fracture behavior
-. (
Mixed system
Repairability
Up-slope or down-slope conditions,
collapse-hazard buildinQs nearby
(
Cladding, glazing
Deformation compatibility
Mounting system
Random infill
Accessibility <lifelines, access/egress)
Height
Size effect
Architectural concept
(
- .~;:.~
(
I
ceiling attachment
Partition attachment
Rigid
Floating
Replaceable partitions
stairs
Equipment (Mech.lElec}Plumb.l
special equipment
Computer/communications
equipment
(
(
(
(
(
2-10
Chapter 2, overvieW
(
(
(
(:
~
..
..
Retrofit strategy
For the construction of anew project, the path
from start to finish is fairly clear from the
beginning. The owner has a good idea of what a
new building should be like, and with a little
advice, the cost is fairly easy to estimate.
However, the course of an existing building
evaluation and retrofit project is often very
different from that imagined at the outset. An
owner might have an idea about the desired
seismic performance, but rarely is it easy to
Chapter 2, overview
.Establish PerFDrmance
Dbjec-cives
At 'the beginning of an evaluation 'project, the
design team should meet With the building owner
to discuss seismic performance objectives. These
are presented in detail in Chapter 3. Thepurpose
primary of these initial meetings is to review with
the owner the various options for seismic
performance. It is important to remember that
attaining a performance objective consists of
achieving a certain level of performance for a
specific level of seismic hazard. Chapter 4
contains a detailed treatment of seismic hazard
from ground shaking and addresses the potential
for ground displacement due to liquefaction,
surface faulting, and landsliding.
The consequences of earthquakes on buildings
can be categorized into three types of losses:
Life Safety: deaths and injuries to building .occupants and passersby
211
-~~.
:
(
(
The level of performance for a building during.earthquakes is. measured.by, the.nature.and.extent ,.. .
of these potential losses. Obviously, the level of
performance is affected by the strength of each .
earthquake. It is reasonable to expect that a
building remain safe, i.e., not cause life loss, for
rare large earthquakes and that it remain usable for
more-frequent moderate events. A performance
objective is a goal that a building achieve a certain
level of performance for a specific level of seismic
ground shaking hazard. An owner might decide
that the goals for a 'building should' be to remain
life safe for the Maximum Earthquake hazard level
and functional after a Serviceability Earthquake'
hazard level event.
"
It is important that building owners understand,
that the process of seismic evaluation and-retrofit .
is a: risk-reduction process. The goals that owners
select for building performance are just "
that--goals. Qualified design professionals who
sense this Understanding in their. clients can be
extremely effective in helping owners to manage
risk and deal with uncertainty. They will be less
effective, on the other hand, for poorly informed
clients who try to transfer risk: and ,who expect
"guaranteed" building performance.
'
"_.,
Review Bunding
Conditions
Chapter 5 provides detailed guidelines for a
preliminary investigation' of a building by an
engineer. This process normally involves a site
visit to physically inspect the building and a search
for and review of existing drawings or other
documents that may describe the structural
characteristics of the building. The structural
engineer might also do some preliminary .
calculations to determine whether any of the
features of the building are potential seismic
deficiencies in terms of the preliminary
performance goals; Chapter 5 includes
recommendations on the types of information that
the engineer should compile. At this point, the
pc,mulelte'
(
(
(
(0
a stl'Dtegy
(
(
(
(
(
(
Small size
Chapter 2, overvie,:"
(
(
(
(
run..:..
B~,gin
the Approval
Process
Once a plan for the evaluation of the building
is formulated, the basic strategy should be
reviewed in detail with the building official. This
sequence is somewhat different from that for .
traditional design and construction, where the
building official sometimes is not:consulted until
the end of the design process, The complexity and
uncertainty inherent in the seismic evaluation of
concrete buildings demand much greater
collaboration between the design team. and the
building official. At this point in the planning
process, the extent of the required peer review for
the project should be discussed. The scope of the
peer review depends on' a number of factors,
including the complexity of the building itself ana
the proposed. evaluation procedures, the ability of
the building department to understand and review
the evaluation and retrofit design, and the
capability and experience of the structural engineer
and design team. In most cases it is advisable to
. have a peer review panel. engaged early to evaluate
the strategy for the evaluation and retrofit. In some
instances, however, it may be acceptable to forego
formal peer review until the completion of the
evaluation and a conceptual design. Chapter 7
covers some of the more detailed aspects of the
peer review process and other quality control
measures.
CDnduce DetD/led
Investiga~iDns
2.5
con:cept _
'
(
(
C
(
(
(
e
(.
".
(
(
(
(
( ;
214
("'
(
EI
t.,
Chapter 2, Overview
-.-.~,
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVAl.UATION AND RETROFIT' OF COrn:RETE BUILDINGS
":1
Earthquake
Displacement
v
Lack of Knowledge
on Earthquake
Demand and
Building Capacity
Historical Approach
Earthquake forces proportional to
building mass
'(V des =5-10% of WL),
(
(
(
(
=V
max.
I R)
Inelastic
Response
(
tJ.
yield
, Current Trend
Inelastic earthquake demand based on,
inelastic capacity of building
Resolution of demand vs, capacity
generates Performance Point
Sa
(
\-
_---tIl::--m--~m1mng
(
Design based on displacement,
A des
I
(
(
I
(
(
(
(
Chapter 2, overview
'.
Determine seismic:
. . . Demand
The capacity of a particular buildirig and the
demand imposed upon it by a given earthquake
motion are not independent. One source of this
mutual dependence is evident from the capacity
curve itself. As the demand increases the structure
eventually yields and, as its stiffness decreases, its
period lengthens. Conversion of the capacity curve
to spectral ordinates (ADRS) outlined in Chapter
8 makes this concept easy to visualize. Since the
seismic accelerations depend on period, demand
also changes as the structure yields. Another
source of mutual dependence between capacity and
demand is effective damping. As a building yields
in response to seismic demand it dissipates energy
with hysteretic damping. Buildings that have large,
stable hysteresis loops during cyclic yielding
dissipate more than those with pinched loops
caused by degradation of strength and stiffness.
Since the energy that is dissipated need not.be
stored in the structure, the damping has the effect
of diminishing displacement demand.
Chapter 8 devotes much attention to the
development and presentation of the Capacity
Spectrum Method. The Capacity Spectrum Method
characterizes seismic demand initially using a 5 %
damped elastic response spectrum as detailed in
Chapter 4. This spectrum is plotted in spectral
ordinates (ADRS) format showing the spectral
acceleration as a function of spectral displacement.
This format allows the demand spectrum to be
"overlaid" on the capacity spectrum for the
building. The intersection of the demand and . ' , " 1
capacity spectra, if located in the linear range of
the capacity, would define the actual displacement
for the structure; however this is not normally the
Chapter 2, ove~view
,..,.,.
Verify Performance
-~ -- -'--:--~.
(,
(
(
(
(
(
(
:
(
(
(
.
.Capacity-vs: -D'emaricf-c---------------.:-------.
(
(
(
~~
('
C.
(
(
(
S
'
(~
/Ra:uced
seismic
demand
(
(
Performance
point
(
(
(
(
(
(
,
Chapter 2, overview
Chapter 2, overview
(
(
((
(
(
(
:
,!,~n1..t~1' conse,uction,
-l,1u~/'ty-------------
._....
(
(
(
(
.(
(.
'f
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
2-20
Chapter i~ overview
(
(
.:
(
(
(
-----------------------------------------_\
(
(
(
cleanup should be expected, all equipment and
.machinery. should.be..working; Ho;wever,--.-external utilities, which may not be available
due to significant off-site damage, .must be
locally backed up. Contingency plans to deal
with possible difficulties with external
communication, transportation, and availability
of supplies should be in place.
Although this level is defined here,
development of design criteria must include
building-specific planning and back-up systems
and is beyond the scope of this document.
..
3.2.3
(
Ch~Pter
3,
,performan~e
Objectives
3=5 .
(
~"
OF'
COlNCR'ETE" BUILDINGS'
and
3-4
-,"",--,"=",,""'
---
(
:
(
(
(
are similar to those used in FEMA 273 (ATC
reparability is so undefined that the term is no
1996a) .. These descriptions are.also.similar in__
. _.mor.e..u.sefuLthan.Damage-Contr.oLIL is expected
concept, if not in terminology, to those proposed in
that many projects may have special demands for
the Vision 2000 Progress Report (SEAOC 1995b).
which criteria greater than Life Safety will be
appropriate. Although not a level, per se, it is far
.. Immediate Occupancy, SP-l: The
simpler
to reference this range ofperformance
post-earthquake damage state in which only
levels using a placeholder. within the context of
very limited structural damage has occurred.
standard designations (e.g. SP-2) than to formally
The basic vertical and lateral force resisting
define both levels and ranges.
systems of the building retain nearly all of their .
pre-earthquake characteristics and capacities.
.. Life Safety, SP-3: The post-earthquake
The risk of life-threatening injury from
damage state in which significant damage to
structural failure
.
the structure
is negligible, and
may have
the building'
occurred but in
should be safe for"
which some
unlimited egress,
margin against
ingress, and
. either total or
occupancy.
partial
structural
.. Damage Control,
collapse
SP-2: This term
remains, The'
is actually not a
level of damage
specific level but
is lower than
a range of
thatfor the
post-earthquake
Structural
damage states that
Major
structural
components
Stability
level.
could vary from SP-I, Immediate Occupancy to
have
not
become
dislodged
and
fallen,
SP-3, Life Safety. It provides a placeholder for
threatening life safety either within or outside
the many situations where it may be desirable
the
building. While injuries during the
to limit structural damage beyond the Life
may occur, the risk of
earthquake
Safety level, but occupancy is not the issue.
life-threatening
injury from structural damage
Examples of damage control include protection
is very low. It should be expected that
of significant architectural features of historic
extensive
structural repairs will likely be
buildings or valuable contents.
necessary prior to reoccupation of the
Commentary: The Damage Control range, also
building, although the damage may not always
sometimes called Limited Damage, is' defined to .
be economically repairable. This level of
allow reference to performance levels between
structural performance is intended to be less
Immediate Occupancy and Life Safety. Although not.
than the level of performance expected of fully
specifically defined in other current documents, the
code compliant new buildings.
expected performance of most new buildings for the
+- Limited Safety, SP-4: This term is actually
10 percent/50-year event (see Section 3.3) would
not a specific level but a range of
probably fall in this range (EERI 1994). A
post-earthquake damage states that are less
performance equivalent to that expected of new
than SP-5 ,
than SP-3, Life Safety and better
buildings is also sometimes called Repairable
Structural
Stability.
It
provides
a
placeholder
Damage, but economic or technological
Chapter 3,
Perform~nce
(
(
(
(c
~
~
Qbjectives
..
NP-A
operational
NP-B
Immediate
occupancy
Is,
NP-C
Life Safety
NP-D
Hazards
Reduced
NP-E
Not consloereo
Legend
~ombination of
';.2.1
and Ranges
Structural performance levels and ranges are
.ssigned a title and, for ease of reference, a
number. The number is called the structural
~L)erformance numberand is abbreviated SP-n
(where n is the designated number).
"-'
---------------------------------------
(
(
(
(
Chapter :5
. .
___ .
.__.c_.
~~.f-c;J r~~,~_~~_~~"j_~~tiJl.
~
s_
~__....
..._ c__~_..
._-----------/
,.-
,/f
AUdience
, Owner
Architect'
Interest spectrum
BIC/g. Official
. Engineer
Analvst
-.
3..1
Introduction
BII C
systems and several commonly used combinations (
of structural and nonstructurallevels, called
(
Building Performance Levels. Standard earthquake
hazard levels are introduced and the process of
(
selecting appropriate performance objectives is
described. A detailed discussion of seismic hazard
is contained in Chapter 4,"
3 ..2
Performance Levels
(
(
(
(
(
(
'"
.;rio:,r..,.
., . . . .
It
II
Qa
.(
(
(
(
(
.l
(
I
(
expectations by owners or tenants. Although
assignment of these,building,performance.levels
is not prohibited, the Not Recorrunended
designation was addedboth to avoid poor
decisions and to simplify Table 3-1.
3.3
EarthquakeGround
Motion
..
(
(
C
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
I
I
(
(
(
(
~ ..
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
3-B
(
(
-,
3.4
Performance Objectives
A dual- or multiple-level performance
A seismic'performance-objective is-defined by~- _....-. -o?jecti.:ve. c~- be created. by.selecting.two or more
selecting a desired building performance level for a
different desired performances, each for a
given level of earthquake ground motion, as shown
different level of ground motion, as shown in
in Table 3-2a.
Table 3-2b.
operational
Serviceability
EQ ISEl
-'-----~
\
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT
OF CONCRETE
BUILDINGS
(
(
','
(
(
Table 5-3. The Basic safety Performance Objective' ;
"
.(
(
(
Operational
serviceabilty
,.,
EO (SE)
(
(
(
/
3.4.1
3.4.2
(
(
("
(.
(
(
(
(
(
3-10
(
(-~
(
(
18
DE
ME
3C
18
1A
1C
1A
5E
18
DE
2C
ME
5E
3D
3C
1C
3D
3D
5E
DE
ME
5E
(
(
(
(
:
3.5
3.5.1
Assignment of
--Performance
Objectives
Initial performance Objective -
3.5.2
3.5.3
.'J.
Relationship to other,.standards
Or-Risk...Levels
'-
(
(
(
(
,r.
e
(
(
(
(
(
\
("
(
(
(
(
(
( -~
3-12
Low-Moderate (SE)
Moderate-Severe (DEl
Severe-Very severe (MEl
Notes: 1.
2.
3.
4.
.. -:
!:
(
(
(
I
(
i
( _.~
i
(
(
Chapter 4
Seismic Hazard
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner
4 ..1
Scope
Architect
Bldg. Official
Engineer
Analyst
4 ..2
Earthquake Ground
Shaking Hazard Levels
4.2.1
Serviceability Earthquake
The Serviceability Earthquake (SE) is defined
probabilistically as the level of ground shaking that
has a 50 percent chance of being exceeded in a 50year period. This ievel of earthquake ground
shaking is typically about 0.5 times the level of
ground shaking of the Design Earthquake.
-'"
(
:
(
(
Commentary: The SE represents afrequent
level of ground shaking that is likely to.be felt. .
during the life of the building. The SE has a mean
return period of approximately 75 years.
4.2.2
Design Earthquake
The Design Earthquake (DE) is defined
probabilistically as the level of ground shaking that
has a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in a 50year period.
Commentary: . The DE represents an
infrequent level of ground shaking that can occur
during the life of the building. The DE has a mean
return period of approximately 500 years. The DE
has the same definition as the level of ground
shaking currently used as the basis for the seismic
design of new buildings I7y the UBC and the CBC.
4.2.3
Maximum ~arthquake
The Maximum Earthquake (ME) is defined
deterministically as the maximum level of
earthquake ground shaking which may ever be
expected at the building site within the mown
geologic framework. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, .
this intensity of ground shaking may be calculated
as the level of earthquake ground motion that has a
5 percent probability of being.exceeded in a 50year time period. This level of ground shaking is
typically about 1.25 to 1.5 times the level of
ground shaking of the Design Earthquake.
Commentary: The ME has the same definition
as the Maximum Capable Earthquake (MCE)
required by the CBC for design of hospitals and l7y
both the CBC and UBC for design and testing of
buildings with base isolation systems. This
earthquake definition is intended to represent an
upper-bound on the level of ground shaking that
could be reasonably expected to occur at the
building site.
.
The definition of the ME ( and the MCE of the
UBC and CBC) is substantially different from the
definition of the Maximum Considered Earthquake
proposedfor both the 1997 NEHRP Provisions and
the FEMA Guidelines for rehabilitation .of existing
buildings. In probabilistic terms, the ME has a
4.3
Ground Failure
(
(
(
(
Liquefaction
Landsliding
Surface fault rupture
Liquefaction and landsliding are discussed in
the following sections, and guidelines (triggers)
are provided for determining when a detailed study
of these hazards might be warranted. In general,
surface expression of fault rupture below a
building is considered too remote a possibility to
warrant design consideration.
. Commentary: Although unlikely, buildings
sztuated very close to active faults could be
destroyed by the surface expression offault
rupture. It is recommended that special
consideration be given to buildings located within
the Special Studies Zone (Alquist-Priolo Act,
January 31, 1979). Relocation, rather than
retrofit, may be more appropriate for buildings
straddling the trace of an .active fault (CDMG'
1985).
4.3.1
Liquefaction
Liquefaction can occur in certain types-of
saturated soils that are shaken strongly enough and
long enough for the soil to lose a substantial
amount of strength (because; of high pore water,
pressure). Liquefaction can cause settlement as
well as lateral spreading or slides of certain soils.
In either case, permanent ground surface
deformation occurs that can cause the foundation
or a portion of the foundation, ofthe building to '
settle or displace downward and/or laterally.
The site's susceptibility to liquefaction is
typically described by the terms: very high, high,
(
(
r:
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
r.,
42
.__ Co!!.!.t:f.!:!lf!.J?J1.~l!l~_~rf.i/(?1Y.====-
====:::::::=====
very high
Any
0.15
0.2
High
0.15
Moderate
0.2
0.3
Low
0.4
very low.
is
(
1
(
Table 4-2. around shaking levels at Which landsliding should bl! Considered Possib,e.
.
.(
(
strongly cemented rock (crystalline
rock and well-cemented sandstone)
None
None
None
None
None
0.7
0.5
0.3
Any
(
(
None
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
Any
0.1
Any
Any
Any
,.
(
0.3
0.2
(
,.
(
strongly cemented rock (crystalline
rock and well-cemented sandstone)
None
None
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.1
Any
None
0.3
0.2
0.1
Any
Any
Any
None
0.1
Any
Any
Any
Any
Any
(
(
(
(
(
the ME is not required for ground shaking
analysis.
4.3.2
Landsliding
(
(
(
(
(
(~
44
..
...
...
4.4
primary Ground
Shaking Criteria
-/
(
(
Table 4-5. Soil profile Types
(
(
SA1
Hard Rock
Sa
Rocl<
Sc
So
Se 2
Sr?
Vs
> 5,000
Not APplicable
2,500 < Vs
s 5,000
Not APplicable
s 2,500
600
Vs
Vs
1,200
<
600
N >
15
50
s N s
50
N < 15
Su
> 2,000
1,000 ~
s~
s, s 2,000
<
1,000
Soil profile type SE also includes any soil profile with more than 10 feet of soft clay defined as a soil with PI > 20, WMC ~ 40 % and Su
500 psf. The plasticity index (PI) is determined in accordance with ASTM 04318-93 and the moisture content (WMC) is determined in
accordance with ASTM D2216-92.
See Section 4.4.1.2 for description of soils requiring site-specific evaluation.
"3
<
(-"',
(
4 ...6
(the N method)
.-
ds
:t~
1=1
ds
feet)
.
VS,i =
shear wave velocity of layer i, in
feet/sec.
The average standard penetration resistance,
N or N CH ' is determined by the 'following
formulas :'
t~
1=1
(4-2)
N,
(4-3)
where: d CB
i, in feet
N,
de .
s =-u
where: de
SU,i
(4-4)
!~
j;.,J
4.4.2
VSJ
N=~
(4-1)
where: d,
SU.)
4.4.2.1 cenerst
Seismicity characteristics for the site are based
on the seismic zone, the proximity of the site to
active seismic sources, and site soil profile
characteristics.
4.4.2.2 Seismic Zone
Each site is assigned a seismic zone in .
accordance with the requirements of the California
Building Code (CBSC 1995). Each structure is
assigned a seismic zone factor Z, in accordance
with Table 4-4.
Commentary: Traditionally, all of California
has been classified as either seismic zone 3 or 4,
although the ground shaking hazard at sites in
seismic zone 3 situatedfar from active faults may
be significantly overestimated by a seismic zone
factor ofZ= 0.3. For these sites, response spectra
based on contour maps or site-specific hazard
analysis would be expected to be significantly less
than response spectra based on Z= 0.3.
4.4.3
er al. 1996
4.4~5.1
- .---Speetral contour maps-for-reck-sites--developed---by the USGS for Project 91 (Frankel et al. 1996)
may be used to construct elastic response spectra
for a site, provided the basis for these maps is
consistent with the definition of the earthquake
level(s) of interest (Section 4.2).
For sites situated on soil type SB, the value of
CA should be taken to be equal to 0.4 times the
spectral response acceleration (units of g) at a
period of 0.3 seconds and the value of Cv should
be taken to be equal to 1.0 times the spectral
response acceleration (units of g) at a period of 1.0
second. Alternatively for sites situated on soil SB,
ME values of CA and Cv may be based on the
formulas:
(
(
(
(
(
(7
(
(
(
(
(
(
C A = O.48 MS :
c:;, = 8
M1
(4-5)
(4-6)
CL
(
where:
(
(
(
(
~.J
(
(
(
Chapter 4, seismic Hazard
<.
1.5
2.0
1.2
1.6
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.6
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
The near-source factor may be based on the linear interpolation of values for distances other than those shown in the table.
2
The location and type of seismic sources to be used for design shall be established based on approved geotechnical data (e.g., most recent
mapping of active faults by the United States Geological Survey Drthe California Division of Mines and Geology).
The closest distance to seismic source shall be taken as the minimum distance between the site and the area described by the vertical projection
of source on the surface (i.e., surface projection of fault plane). The surface projection need not include portions of the source at depths of 10
krn or greater. The largest value of the near-source factor considering all sources shall be used for design.
M::::: 7.0
SR::::: 5
Not Applicable
Not APplicable
M < 6.5
SR < 2
(=
j
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION IlND RETROFIT OF" CONCRETE gUU.DINCS
((
(
(
.. Table
.__
. - . - - .--".- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ..
-(
(
S8
0.08
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.40
1.O<ZENJ
Sc
0.09
0.18
0.24
0.33
0.40
1.0<ZENJ
So
0.12
0.22
0.2B
0.36
0.44
1.1(ZENJ
SE
0.19
0.30
0.34
0.36
0.36
0.9(ZENJ
SF
The value of E "used to determine the product, ZEN, -should be taken to be equal to 0.5 for the Serviceability Earthquake,
1.0 for the Design Earthquake, and 1.25 (Zone 4 sites),or 1.5 (Zone 3 sites) for the Maximum Earthquake.
2
Seismic coefficient CA should be determined by linear interpolation for values of the product ZEN other than those shown in the table.
(
(
(
(
Table 4-8. Seismic coeFFicient, C v
58
0.08
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.40'
1.O<ZENJ
Sc
0.13
0.25
0.32
-0.45
0.56
1.4(ZENJ
So
O.1B
0.32
0.40
0.54
0.64
1.6(ZENJ
SE
0.26
0.50
0.64
0.84
0.96
2.4<ZENJ
SF
,,0,
(
("
(
(
\
The value of E used to determine the product, ZEN, should be taken to be equal to 0.5 for the Serviceability Earthquake,
1.0 for the Design Earthquake and L25 (Zone 4 sites) or 1".5 (Zone 3 sites) for the Maximum Earthquake.
2
Seismic coefficient Cv should be based on the linear interpolation of values for shaking intensities other than those shown in the table.
4-10
(-
(
(
t
HIlHIHfl~IfIDt1M~,-.-
]-g~
.
tee
~L
..!!
Period
Researchers commonly display response spectra on a 3axis plot known as a tri-partite plot in which peak response
acceleration, velocity and displacement are all plotted
.
simultaneously against structnral period. Researchers
(Newmark and Hall, 1982) have found that response spectra for'
typical records can be enveloped by a plot with three distinct
ranges: a constant peak spectral acceleration (PSA), constant
peak spectral velocity (PSV) and constant peak spectral
displacement (PSD).
PSA
Response spectra contained in the building code
indicate the constant acceleration and velocity ranges
... plotted in an acceleration vs period domain. This is
convenient to the code design procedure which is
based on forces (or strength) which are proportional
., to acceleration.
21'C(PSV)/I'
Period - T
21'C(PSV)/I'
T2
(-~
~(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
"
(
4.4.5.2 Site-speciFic Hazard Analysis'
..- Studies. . ... .. .. --'---'-
(
....-..- .. -.-.r-:-=..-,.,..".--=,........,....."",...."..,.---.,..,....."....,.,..,.....",,----~
Construction of an Elastic
Response spectrum
An elastic response spectrum, for each
earthquake hazard level of interest at a site, is based
on the site seismic coefficients CA 'and Cv, defined
in the previous sections. The seismic coefficient CA
represents the effective peak acceleration (EPA) of
the ground. A factor of about 2.5 times CA
represents the average value of peak response of a 5
percent-damped short-period system in the
acceleration domain. The seismic coefficient Cv
represents 5 percent-damped response of a l-second
system and when divided by period defines
Control Periods
1 2 SCA I
..
i
Ts = Cyl2.5C A
TA
=D.2Ts
(
(
(
(
t I~PA=CAI
~.
..
,
,.
(
Period (Seconds)
(
(
I"!!
('"
(
4.5~
Specification of
supplementarv" Criteria
4.5.1
(
t,
(
(
(
,
4-12
Chapter 4, Seismic
Hazard
~
(
Table 49. Earthquake Records at Soil Sites crester Than 10 Km From Sources
l.
2,
7.1
1949
western washington
station 325
USGS1
6.5
1954
Eureka, California
station 022
USGS
6.6
1971
station 241
USGS
6.6
station 458
USGS
CDMG2
7.1
7.1
1971
,1989
1989
Gilroy #2
CDMG
7.5
1992
Landers, california
Yermo
CDMG
7.5
1992
Landers, california
Joshua Tree
CDMG
6.7
1994
Northridge, California
Moorpark
CDMG
10
6.7
1994
Northridge, California
CDMG
(=
(
(
(
((
:
c
(
--1
6.5
1979
USGS'!
6.5
1979
USGS
7.1
1989
corralitos
COMG2
7.1
1989
capitola
COMG
1992
Petrolia
COMG
6.9
6.7
1994
Northridge, california
COMG
6.7
1994
Northridge, California
svlmar Hospital
COMG
6.7
1994
Northridge, california
6.7
Northridge, California
LAOWP
10
6.7
1994
"1994"
Northridge, californi~
LAOWP
LAOWp3
.-,
,-(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
l.
2.
3.
(1:
Figure 4-2 is a plot of 40 percent-damped
response spectra of the two horizontal components
of each of the 10 earthquake time histories listed in
Table 4-9 and the mean and mean + 1 standard
deviation of these 20 spectra. A dampinglevel of
40 percent is used to represent the equivalent
viscous damping of a building that has yielded
significantly, as described in Chapter 8. Each of
the 10 pairs of horizontal components have been
scaled such that their 5 percent-damped response
spectra approximately match the response spectrum shown in Figure 4-1 for CA = 0.4 and,Cv =
0.6.
Figure 4-2 compares the response spectrum of
each' earthquake component and the mean (or
mean + 1 sigma) response spectrum of the
ensemble of all earthquake components.
Significant differences typically exist between
mean (or mean + 1 sigma) response and that of
individual components, even though each
component represents the same site and source
conditions and has been scaled to match a common
target spectrum. Figure 4-2 illustrates that
predictions of response (and performance) using
4.5.2
(
(
... \dO'.-... i
(
(I.
(
(
"
(-
414
-.
~ 0.6
c
o
0.4
Cii
o
o
<:(
ro... 0.2
ti
Q)
o,
en
0.0 +-----+-----+------1-----1
246
.(
(
{
(
-(
(
(
(
.(
(
(
i
(
(
(
(
t-
(
I
(
i
Chapter
Determination of Deficiencies
AUdience Interest spectrum
owner
5a'l
Introduction
Sa2
Description: Typical
Layouts and Details
Architect
Bldg. Official
5.2.1
t(
(
(
-(
.i.
'1
;:
(
-(
It
rr-~~~~LJ-~~~~LJ-~~~~Ll-~~~~Ll-~~~~LJ-~~~-l~~~~-l~~~~-n
II
I I
II
/I
I !
/I
II
I I
II
"
.1 I...
/I
/I
I ..L
/I
II
II
II
"
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
"
"
/I
/I
I I
"
"
"
II
II
I I
"
"
"
"
II
I I
"
II
II
II
/I
I I
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
II
II
II
"
II
II
II
/I
II
II
I I
II
II
II
II
II
I I
II
/I
II
"
II
"
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
/I
II
II
II
II
II
"
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
"
II
"
"
"
"
"
II
"
"
"
/I
"
"
"
"
"
II
"
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
"
II
II
II
II
II
II.
II
II
II
"
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
...__... .
!.I
II
. ! J.__..
I'
/I
H- - - - - H- - - - - H- - - - - H- - - - - H- - - - - H- - - - -H- - - - - -H- - - - - +4
,.,.- - - - - H- - - - - H- - - -- - H- - - - - H- - - .- - H- - - - -H- - - - - -H- - - - - +.J
(
(
(
[
i..
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
.1
(
(
Discontinuous
Reinforcement
Short lap
splice in high
stress region
(
(
(
(
(
(
~'
(
(
(
:..1- - - - -
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
II
II
~::
-.-e-_-
IL-I.'
...
------~-------
I
I
I
I
I
I I
II
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~---------
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
I
II
II
I I
I I
II
I I
II
I I
II
II
I I
II
II
I I
I I
I I
II
II
llII-a
~f- - - - -
---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:p:: : :: : :
II
II
I I
-~
'Hi,
II
II
I I
I I
II
II
I I
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
I I
I I
II
I I
I I
I I
II
I I
I I
I I
II
I I
I I
I I
II
II
II
II
II
II
I I
I I
II
I I
I I
I I
JJ
r .
I' ,
)0----
5.2.2
---~.
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
('
(
-----~
Open
Boundaty
v: element
. ---Without - - .__.--
confinement
Short lap
lengths
I
I
--1---------1"
'~'
~"
,'"
Minimal
reinfolCing
at openings
1
I
I
1
-T--------T-
----5
i-
,~
1
<,
"
r
J
.. 100.
....._
cu
.choiaga
,(
(
(
(
(
('
(
(
(
(~
(
(
(
(
'(
(
('
t
(
(
I"
5.3
Seismic Performance
5.3.1
csneral
The seismic performance of a structure is
dependent upon the performance characteristics of
its critical components. The critical.components
are those that are necessary for vertical stability
and those that comprise the seismic load path. In
all buildings.' seismic inertial forces originate in
the components of the structure and are transferred
through connections to horizontal diaphragm
systems. The horizontal diaphragm systems
distribute these inertial forces to vertical lateral
force resisting elements which in tum transfer
these forces to the foundations. When connections
or elements along this seismic load path are'
subjected to forces and/or deformations that
produce unacceptable damage states, deficiencies
exist. When the elements of the structure that
provide vertical stability can no longer maintain
that capability, deficiencies exist.
Through observation of building performance
in past earthquakes, a number of general building
characteristics have been identified that have been
responsible for localized component deficiencies.
These characteristics include a discontinuous
seismic load path, lack of redundancy in the
vertical shear'resisting system, vertical
irregularities (abrupt changes in stiffness, strength,
or mass), plan configuration irregularities, and the
presence of adjacent structures which may
potentially interact under seismic excitation. Any
of these characteristics could occur in concrete
frame or concrete frame-wall buildings. Detailed
analytical procedures can be used to establish to
what extent these building characteristics cause
unacceptable building performance, However, .
recognizing that these factors exist in a building is
a key consideration in developing an understandingof the building's expected seismic performance.
Component and connection seismic
performance can be thought of in terms of
response characteristics that are either force
controlled or deformation controlled. Force
controlled behavior is characterized by essentially
5.3.2
5.5..2. 1 General
Concrete frame construction has several
potential failure modes that directly threaten the
structure's ability to' sustain vertical loads and
maintain stable lateral behavior. The largest
concern.is a brittle c~lumn failure mode caused by
shear failure or compression crushing (due to
combined axial, flexural, and P-L1 effects) of the
concrete. Systems that exhibit some (limited)
yielding modes can also eventually form dangerous
collapse mechanisms as a result of stiffness or
strength degradation at sections without ductile
detailing. Punching shear failure in two-way slab
systems, for example, can instigate local collapse
of the floor. Also, localized concentrations of drift
due to-soft or weak story configurations are of
serious concern. The challenge for the engineer is
(
(
(
(
(
to identify all possible ways a frame building can
fail, .determine.the..sequence, of failure..and.then. .
find ways to preclude catastrophic modes of
response to seismic ground motion.
(
(
(
"I;
(
~>'
..
5.3.3
5.5..5.. 1 General
Historically, there have been relatively few
cases of the collapse or partial collapse of framewall buildings in past earthquakes. This generally
good seismic performance is largely due to the
presence of the relatively stiff walls that prevent
the frames from experiencing very large lateral
-~.
~~-
(
\
(
Vertical discontinuity
-- --(
Wall
infill
(
l;/
\(.l
Foundation
1.-
(
(
"
(
(
(
(
((
(
(
(
(
(
Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies
(
,
Coupling
.. beams
Shear
wall ..
Foundation
(
(
::
(
(
V Seismic shear
Reinforcement
Rapidly opening
cracks can lead to
spalling of concrete and
reinforcement buckling
when seismic fOrc~
reverse direction
~....,..,.........",=,...,,~_.
Shear wall
-- ~--'-------,---Diagonal crackpattern
r,
Foundation
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Ii
5-10
__ .
..__ ..
._.'
...
..
V-Seismic shear
--..-
.. _ r - - - - - - , . , ;
Shear wall
. ". __.
...
...
.._.. _ . __
.. -.
Diagonal crack
pattern
Reinforcement
Compressive
strut
Foundation
Figure
Compressive
forces exceed
concrete capacity
and a crushing
. - ' - - - ' - 1 - - - - - - - ' - - - , failure occurs
compression Failure
5-11
(
(
(
(
(
5-112
5.4
Data Collection
5.4.1
Introduction
l~(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
I
..
Foundation reports
..
5.4.3
Field Observations
It is of paramount importance that the
evaluating engineer conduct field observations of
the building. Though the extent will vary
depending on the evaluation requirements, primary
purposes and types of the field observations typical
for most projects are as follows:
Verification of the accuracy of the original
drawings or determination of basic building
information if no drawings are available
..
..
..
..
5.4.2
Table 5-1. inFormation Ilequir"ed For preliminary seismic Evaluation When original .
._co..nstructi~/!-,~~a.rJ!!!1!fls..~/:.eA.v.aj!F!P.!..f!!.
.__ _.
_.
.
(
.
._.
.
(
(
structural calculations
Foundation report
x
x
(
(
.X
Core testing
.x
Aggregate testing
Reinforcement testing
Nonstructural exploration
Table 5-2. Information Ilequired For prMiminary seismic Evaluation When original
Construction Drawings are Not Available
(
(
Table 5-5. Information eequired For a Detailed seismic Evaluation When Original
.
.._ . __.__ ....
.
constructfqn.p..r?.wiJ1g?-~rfE...-9.Yf!fJ?!lj!l..
__
Foundation report
x
x
x
structural calculations
site seismicity, geotech rpt,
.'
----.-.--
..
._ ---
x
x
l!I!alkthrough dtmenstonlns
Nonstructural wi:3lk through _
core testing
x
x
Aggregate testing
Each core
Reinforcement testing
optional
Nonstructural exploration
Table 5-4. Information eequired For a Detailed Seismic Evaluation When original
construction Drawings are-Not Available
.
.x
x
x
x
structural calculations
site seismicity, geotech rpt,
Foundation report
prior seismic assessmentreports
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
core testing
Rebound hammer testing
Aggregate testing
Reinforcement testing
Reinforcement location verification
Nonstructural exploration
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION' 4MD RETROFIT 'OF CONCRETE aUILDINGS
(
5.4.4
Materials Testing .
(
(
5-16
5.4.5
Detailed Field Investigation
. . ... If adequate coastruotion decume1.lts--are----.--- - .. .....
available, detailed field investigation is not
necessary for a preliminary evaluation, Welldeveloped construction drawings, as confirmed by
field observations, are generally adequate to
identify the seismic load path, identify reinforcing
configurations, calculate the weight/mass of
building systems, and
identify the anchorage of
nonstructural elements.
If construction
documents for the building
are not available, detailed
field investigations will be
necessary to collect the .
building data described
above. Field investigations
for the collection of
building data can be a
daunting task, especially in reinforced concrete
structures. The field investigation program must be
tailored to each specific project, striking a balance
between obtaining the necessary data and keeping
the cost of the investigation program reasonable. In
many cases the structural elements are covered with
architectural finishes, and some removal and/or soft
demolition may be required in order to obtain the
necessary information. Furthermore; it will not be
possible to perform a detailed investigation on each
element of the structural system. Sound engineering
judgment will be required to conservatively
extrapolate results from a representative sample of
detailed inspections to the global building system.
Detailed building survey data should be .recorded in
a set of drawings that depict the buildings primary,
vertical and lateral force resisting system.
To perform detailed analyticalevaluations, it is
necessary that a materials testing program, similar .
to the one described above, be used, whether
drawings are available or not. To predict seismic
performance using the analytical procedures in this
document, it is necessary that concrete and
reinforcing strengths be well defined.
Determination of the onset of force controlled and
5 ..5
Review
Hazard
of Seismic
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RtsTRDFIT OF CONCRETl'!f BUII.DINGS
((
(
5 ..6
Identification of
Potential Deficiencies
5.6.1
Introduction
5.6.2
(
extremely weak or brittle components. When
.components-on-the...seismie-Ioad.path-are.. subjected~- - .
to forces or deformations that produce unacceptable
damage, deficiencies exist.
To define the seismic load path, first locate the
principal mass elements. In concrete buildings,
floor and roof diaphragms usually account for most
of the mass, and the lateral load resisting system
.it;seIf accounts for much of the rest. Next, identify
shear-resisting elements in each story that "link the
"masses to each other, typically walls and frame
c~l~. Determine,~:the method(s) of connecting
vertical shear resisting elements to horizontal
diaphragms.
5.6.3"
seteetlon of Evaluation
Statements
(
(
(
(
(
(
E
(
(
(
\.
(
\.;.
5-18
5.6.4
_
Simplified Analysis
_. ._.
_._.._.._ _.
._.-. _.-- ----------.-.. -----~- ---. --.
5.6.4.1 General
A simplified analysis provides relative
quantitative data for the preliminary evaluation
discussed further in.Section 5.7. Simplified analysis
results can also yield
insights useful for
modeling elements and
components for
detailed analysis
(Chapter 9).
Commentary:
Because simplified
analyses with linear
elastic properties do
not account for
inelastic deformations,
degrading strength, or force redistributions,
.
component forces are best understood in relative .
terms. For example, where inelasticity is.
anticipated, simplified analysis results can indicate
which components have the highest demands or are
likely to hinge first, but can not reliably predict
absolute stresses or plastic rotations. In general,
the analysis procedures ofFEMA 178 are
acceptable-. Refer to Section 5.6.4.3 commentary.
5.6.4.2 Mass
Seismic forces are proportional to the inertial
mass of the structure. The simplified analysis
requires mass estimates at each level of the
structure, considering both structural and
architectural elements. The estimate should include
ceilings, roof coverings, floor toppings, wall
covering, and other items considered permanent
parts of the building.
Commentary: In general, simplified analysis for
identifying potential deficiencies requires relative
forces only" However, if a detailed analysis per
Chapters 8 through 11 is anticipated, the use of
dead load plus likely live load (see Section 9.2) for
this simplified analysis can avoid some duplication
of effort. Also, useful demand/capacity ratios for
columns and other components subject to axial-
".
C
\
C'
(
\-':'
5-20
(
Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies'
\,
_________.
Deformationcontrolled
, ..
behavior
--,.
._...,.
~Force
controlled
behavior
Deformation
5.7.2
Respons~
Scenario
If
... _...t_he.uroootti
e.propottum.ot.capacuy.use
if.
dfc
. ar.gtasity,
. 1oad.--._._
id.
I
..
1
vanes wz e y among cruica components, the .
sequence of hinging may be better approximated by
DEICE ratios as recommended by FEMA 178. 112 this
5.8
preliminary Evaluation
Conclusions and
Recommendations
5.8.1
General
5.8.2
Retrofitting Recommended
(
(
<
(
. (
5.8.3
Detailed Evaluation
Recommended -
5.8.4
Acceptable Performance
5.8.5
(
(
(
(
(
(
(J
f
(
(
other considerations
.-
(
5-22
(
(
Table 5-5. cenerst Characteristics of Nonstructural component (adapted From ATc;. 1996al
Exterior skin
Partitions
Adhered veneer
./
./
./
Glass blocks
./
./
./
prefabricated panels
./
./
./
Glazing systems
./
./
./
Heavy
./
./
./
./
./
Light
Interior veneers
Ceilings
./
./
./
Ceramic tile
./
./
./
./
Directly applied to
structure
Dropped, furred gyp.bd
./
./
./
-:
./
suspended jntegrated
Parapets and appendages
./
./
./
./
./
./
stairs
./
./
./
./
Equipment
storage vessels
./
HVAC eouio.usoiatern
./
HVAcequip.
tnonlsolatern
./
structural supported
./
./
Flat bottomed
High pressure piping
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
./
Fluid piping
Hazardous materials
Non-hazardous
DuctworK
(
('
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND' RETROi='IT OF CONCRETEr SUU.DINGS
:
(
(
-1'
(
(
(
(
Light fixtures
Ct
Recessed
Surface mounted
Integrated ceiling
(.
pendant
(
(
storage racks
.1
Bookcases
computer floors
cornputer/comrn. racks
Elevators
("
conveyors
('
(
('
(
('
(
('
(
('
(
(
Chapter 5 Determination of Deficiencies
ti
(
(
(
.........
_-_._ ..-
-.~'-_
Chapter
..
--_.._._.__
_.
etrofit strategies
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner
6 .. 'I
Intrcduction
6.1.1
General
Architect
Bldg. Official
.... ~.
l-
(
(
--
a. Unstrengthened building
((
(
(
6 ..2
-c('(
(
.
I
Alternative Retrofit
strategies
C
(
(
(
('
(
(
(
(
(
(:j
(
Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVA'LUAiION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE" 'BUIl.DINGS
v
,.,.,.
,.
,.
,.,.
ai
e0
,.,.
, ,.
u..
t-
al
m
.r:
1. .- - Immediate Occupancy
.>:
level
, ,.'
en
eS!
ttl
,,
...J
"iii
.;
ute
Safety level
,
,.,.
CollapseBll!>'
Unear
elastic
range
Damage
Control
"'...;L.-\J~
~:Pyr("-
I,'
d!,
(
Figu~e
'it.
.
.
Chapter 6. Retrofit strategies
;
C
1
(
(
(
(
(
/3:
~UIILDING$
.:
(
SEISMIC EVAI.UATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRE!TE BUILDINGS
(
(
::
Sar
/
F_ _ "_-
;:
2tr
1;
1;
Sdi
=;;;:s.
oU'
G)
0.
f})
'um
S '= VJW/
/~I
ai
S di -
!:lroof
/
Sa,g=-s.
t)
fI)
G)
a:
('
(
(PF X
I
tPI,roof )
Spectral Displacement - ~
Capacity Spectrum
(:b_
Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies
(
(
o ;.
~,
~'
......
'
,/1 "
(1)1'
C
f.., "
I
.Q
co
lii 0.6g
I.---
(jj
0.5g
"
Im,nediate Occupancy
I~vel
~
"0 0.4g
Ql
Collapse
6r 0.3g
0.2g
0.1g
3"
3.5"
4"
4.5'"
5"
5.5"
6"
6.5"
7"
Spectral Displacement, ~
(
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
(
(
(
(
j
~---
.......
II'
l..,,'
rn'"
r:=
o
'Ii
:n 0.69
Performance point
where capacity equals demand
0.59
(ij
\.
O.4g t - - - - +
..~/
\.
(
(
(.
a p=O.32g , dp=2.5"
Q)
c%
0.3g
---
0.29
0.19
-- ---
3..5" 4"
4.5"
S'
5..5" 6"
6.5"
7"
Spectral Displacement, Sd
(.
(
(
(
(
(
i
(
(
(
I
(
(~
6-10
(
(
j
6 ..11
Ii
...."",
_.. _. __ .~L .
g.,1
Elastic
- -- " -(
Demand
rJJ'"
"
~Gl
.----=-:-:-:----:-:-~--:-.._..
Reduceifdemand spectra
for strengthened structure
III
Performance
point - strengthened
structure
I
I
I
~s 0. 359
Periormance
point - original structure
rJJ
(-
7.sd:-
't' ::_-
C.
T' =_~~~.;.----
4"
6"
8"
Spectral Displacement,
10"
5.t
(
(
&-12
_.,
ilJl'
,II,'
Demand
"
1
1
...
Reducedl
Demand'
.~
"*g
Performance
point - stiffened
structure
"
~i
,,
.- .-- ....... ,.
.,,<3;'"
"\. ...
~~ ....
,,
,., seC _.
'"
C ..
"
"
'1:-.:'---
81
_---- I :
-.:_::-----------:----6
structure
A-fF-......::.:=.----+-------''-------'--'---+
1 __
0"
2"
4"
6"
8"
10"
12"
Spectral Displacement. Sd
__ -.:.-__.._..
u~.
.-::;:;;>""'-=a.':'=-.
(
\.
(
('
614
at
(
IJ,
q /
Elastic
Demand
t.. /
,
/
Reduced'
Demandt
l' ",'1_~_--
-- --
"
""
"
A -:.- -::::.::-----------
on
-~--.._-----
----6n
Spectral Displacement,
10"
5.t
(
(
(
~
(::-
(
(
(
(
(
I
(
(
(
(
(
.~
( ~~
(
(
(
(
(
iT=fseC .
I
I
I
0.60g
d ;=4"
d'p;=8"
I
/"
/"
uf
6 0.50g
!
-'-
"'"
"'" "'"
"'" "'"
f-~~~L.,
~ 0.40g
T'=2sec
0.30g
Family of reduced
demand spectra
depending on
maximum
displacement dfor
system without
isolators and d' for
system with
isolators.
o
w
S-
(
(
(
(
t:
0.20g
("
0.10g
4"
S"
12"
16"
Spectral Displacement,
20"
24"
ScI
6 ..18
,r
(
Family of reduced
.. - --demand-spectradepending on
maximum
displacement d for
system without
energy dissipators
and d' for system with
energy dissipators
0.50g
cIJ
c:
0
:;::
0.4Og
T'=2sec
-'
(J)
iii
0
0.30g
(J)
0.20g
ets
0-
Initial performance
point
(
(
(
(
(
f
(,
(
T'=3se~.
---
C/)
(
(
0.10g
(
4"
6"
SD
Spectral Displacement,
10"
&!
(::
(
(
(
(,
r
(
- (
(
(
(
tf
(
Ii
(
&-20
if
(~-
il
6.2.2
Management strategies
Management strategies are programmatic in
nature and are typically controlled by the building
owner rather than the design team. Management
strategies tend to be of two types: strategies that
affect the acceptability of the building's probable
performance and strategies that regulate the way in
which a technical strategy is implemented. They
include such approaches as occupancy change,
demolition, temporary retrofit, phased retrofit,
retrofit while occupied, retrofit while vacant,
exterior retrofit, and interior retrofit.
Commentary: While the engineer typically
does not have the latitude to select from among
management strategies, these are an important
consideration in the way a seismic risk reduction
project is executed and should be considered by
the engineer and discussed with the client. Often,
the client for a retrofit project, being unfamiliar
with these issues, may not be aware of some of the
alternative strategies that are available.
6.2.2.2 nemoutton
In some cases, the cost of improving a
building's seismic performance to the desired level
may exceed its economic value. In others, the
required structural modifications may render the
building undesirable for its intended occupancy.
The best approach to improving the seismic risk of
such buildings may be demolition. As an example,
consider the case of a large warehouse with many
large truck loading doors. The doors may render
the shear walls incapable of meeting the Life
Safety structural performance level. Retrofitting
would require a strengthening strategy, consisting
either of infilling selected truck doors or placing
new braced frames or shear walls within the
warehouse space. The building owner might
determine that the reduced truck access space or
loss of interior space would make the building
unrentable as a warehouse. This may trigger a
decision to demolish the structure and replace it
with a new building.
Commentary: The decision to demolish rather
than seismically retrofit a building is often the
result of a cost-benefit study. While nearly all
buildings can be successfully retrofitted to provide
acceptable performance, the cost ofperforming
such work may be prohibitively high and could
approach or even exceed the cost of constructing a
replacement facility. Unless a building is an
important landmark or contains functions that
cannot be taken out of service or relocated, it
(~
(.
(
(
"(
'\
(
I,
(
(,
e
(
r
(
\
~
(~
(.
(
(
(
(
6-22
"(
(
(
appearance. These concerns are particularly
important.for historic structures and..arcbitectural
landmarks.
In such cases, the owner may direct that all (or
nearly all) retrofit work be performed from inside
the building. In historic buildings, interior spaces
and fabric niay be as significant as exterior
features. Cases of this type usuallyrequire that
work be performed in spaces normally hidden
from public view or that new vertical elements of
the lateral force resisting system "are placed in the
same location as historic elements and are finished
to have the same appearance as the original
historic materials. As an example, an existing
hollow clay tile wall could be replaced with a new
reinforced concrete shear wall with plaster finishes
matching those of the original construction.
6.3
6..3.1
Code Requirements
(
(
(
(
(
f
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
",
(
(
(
(
(
6-24
(c;::-,
6.3.2
Performance Objectives
Project Budget
6.3.5
(
(
r
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
6.3.6
Permanent o~cupancy Impacts
Many retrofit strategies will result in some
permanent impairment of the future occupancy and
use of the building. As.an example, the installation
of vertical braced frames or shear walls within the
interior of a building will limit future traffic
patterns within. the building as well as limit the
possibility for placing partitions in certain areas.
The placement of frames or walls at the perimeter
of a building may reduce the amount of natural
light available and make office space less
desirable.
Seismic retrofitting can also confer an
occupancy benefit. A building that has been
retrofitted to provide immediate postearthquake
occupancy should have significantly more value to
tenants than a building which must be closed for
repairs following an earthquake. The extent of this
value will be related to the cost of finding
replacement space and the cost of relocating
equipment and contents within the building.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
{
(
(
(
6-26
fi
(
(
-----------------------------------,---,-~,~--,-------,----.-.=
project Risk
Typically the selection of a retrofit-strategy
and system occurs early in the design process and
must be based on only very limited study of the
various options. Consequently, at the time the
evaluation of the alternatives is made there are
likely to be a number of poorly. defined factors that
could affect the cost and even the feasibility of one
or more of the design alternatives evaluated. These
factors could include such things as unknown
materials strengths, undefined foundation
conditions, incomplete structural analyses, and
grossly estimated element sizes. The level of risk
associated with these undefined design conditions
should be evaluated independently for each
strategy and system. In general it will not be the
same for all of the alternatives.
Another source of project risk that should be
considered is construction risk. Although seismic
retrofit design projects typically include some
exploration of the existing condition and
configuration of a building, it is not usually
feasible to verify all conditions that will be
encountered during construction. One of the
largest sources of project delays and cost overruns
on retrofit construction projects is the discovery of
unexpected conditions when selective demolition is
performed during construction. Retrofit systems
that require frequent attachment to the existing
structure generally have a greater risk in this
regard.
Commentary: The risk associated with
discovering unanticipated conditions during the
construction phase can not be overemphasized.
The unanticipated conditions can include such
things as framing that does not conform to original
construction documents, materials that are
substantially different than expected, and similar
features that could affect the feasibility of
constructing the design as intended. In order to
minimize such risks, it is extremely important that
there be an appropriate program of investigation
of the building during the design phase.
There are several ways to include potential
project risk in an evaluation of alternative retrofit
6.3.7
SA
Strategy Selection
-'-'"
--Table 6-1. Checklist ofRetrofit Design CORsider-ations- _. --- - --- .. -.- --"
Performance
objective
project cost
structural level_
for_ % in 50 years
Nonstructurallevel_for
_ % In 50 years
constr: $,-other: $
(
(
(
f'
_
_
(
(
project schedule
Construction,
occupancy
_ _ _ months
Building vacant
Partial occupancy
Full occupancy
Hazardous materials
none known
known present
Intended remediation
(
6
Building appearance
(,
May be altered
MUstbe preserved
(
t.
No obstruction
Obstruction allowed
(
{
(
I(
(
building owner will typically have noidea as to
how much the project could or should cost. ,
However, most owners will be able to determine a
maximum cost beyond which the project would not
proceed. An understanding of this limit will assist
in eliminating some strategies from consideration.
Construction schedule may be nearly as
important as cost. Often retrofit projects are
conducted simultaneously with other
improvements to a building, such as modifications
to accommodate a new tenant. Some strategies
may require a significantly longer design and
construction duration than others 'andmay
therefore be eliminated quickly through
consideration"of this constraint.
'\
,r
c-(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
&-28
~(
Importance
10
10
system completion
system strengthening
and stiffening
10
10
259
10
10
228
10
10
228
10
224
10
221
Exterior buttresses
10
10
231
10
10
215
Not viable
Demand reduction
Base isolation
Enhanced damping
NotviabJe
Mass reduction
Not viable
( -=
(
the structure is incapable of meeting the desired
constraint. In this particular case, a system
streng~ening_strategy_consisting
o f the installation. _.... _ performance.objectives.at.the performance.point;
of extenor shear walls was rated the most
than the specific deficiencies should be identified.
Structural performance is most closely tied to the
favorably. For other projects, however, each
de~ign cons~~~would be ~signed a different
lateral deflection induced in the building by the
~elght and individual strategies would have
earthquake ground motions. If the performance
different scores.
predicted for the unretrofitted structure is
Commentary: The specific design constraints
unacceptable, the capacity curve for the structure
that are contained in the evaluation matrix will be
should be evaluated in order to determine a target
unique to each project, as will the relative weights
lateral displacement at which acceptable
that are assigned to them. The specific evaluation
performance can be attained. Data required for use
criteria used, and their relative assigned weights,
in performing a preliminary design of retrofit
should be based on discussions with the client
elemerits can then be obtained by adjusting the
agency, the building occupants, and other
capacity and demand spectra in an appropriate
stakeholders.
manner relative to the retrofit strategy, as
explained in previous Sections of this Chapter, and
by then obtaining data on the required
6 . .5
Preliminary Design
supplemental
strength, stiffness, period or
Once a retrofit strategy has been selected, it is
effective
damping
from the adjusted curves. The
necessary to develop a preliminary retrofit design.
following
sections
describe the application of this
A preliminary design should include the
technique to specific retrofit strategies.
approximate sizes and preferred locations for all
major elements of the retrofit strategy including
braced frames, shear walls, buttresses, base
isolators, and energy dissipation units. The
preliminary design may be used for several
purposes including coordination. between the
various design disciplines, for example
architectural, mechanical, and electrical;
development of preliminary cost estimates; and,
development of the strategy evaluation matrices
(described in the.previous Section). The
preliminary design also provides a basis upon
which to perform a structural verification analysis
used to ensure that the design approach is capable
of meeting the project performance objective and
for determining forces used in the final detailing of
the retrofit structural elements. .
The first step in the preliminary design process
is to prepare and overlay demand and capacity
spectra for the unretrofitted structure, using the
procedures described In Chapters 4 and 8. The
performance point for the unretrofitted structure
should be determined and the behavior of the
structure at this performance point understood. If
6.5. '1
('
(
(
(~
(
['
(
(
(
(
(
(
6-30
= 1/2 sec
T'
Elastic displacement
line
,,
I
dol=2"
0.70g
.e
0.60g
"*oo
0.50g
<:(
OAOg
U>
,,,
I
d ,=4",
"
/l""'1f-'r.------j
&.
U>
Family of reduced
demand spectra
depending on
maximum
displacement d.
~~c----I
----'------
0.30g
0.20g
I
I /
Performance
point - original
structure
-.-
0.10g - T-I/-----------_~
I
/
/-
0"
T' = 2 sec
-'
Desired performance
point for retrofit
I
I~,
Target displacement
at desired performance
- - -
2"
4"
- - -
T'
= 3 sec
--- -- -
---;"',-'---J.-------.-j
6"
8"
10"
12"
Spectral Displacement, S d
Vrequi red
S'
= S au Vu
(6-1) .
au
T=032 Sd5%
-- - - S'
.- - . - -- .- (6-2).
a5%
Kr=K{~r
(6-3)
(
(
.(
(
(
.~
C'
{'
(
(.
(
(
(
(.
(
(
(
6.5.2
Base Isolation
Most base isolated buildings have a period that
ranges between two to three seconds and effective
viscous damping ratios that range from fifteen to
twenty-five percent. Consequently, in order to
(
(
(
&32
,
""J;'
5% damping
~4r;/
.<:,:,
,
en"
,,
c
o
,,
~0>
Approximate structural
performance point
(j)
o
o
<l:
20% dampif'g
~
ti
0>
0-
,,
,
,,
Target performance
point
en
0.17g
,,
A'
,r.r
....'
.. -
----0"
T':::: 3
----
I
1
-- t- -- --
s~
---
4"
8"
12"
16"
20"
24"
Spectral Displacement, Sd
(=
,"
(
I"
(
,
(;:I
......
1/1
t.,,'
5% damping
,
I
I
I
200/0dampirg
Target performance
, point
A'
0.179
,
___,!,-==- s~_-------
I
I
>" - - - - - -
---------~------
4"
8"
12"
16"
20"
24"
Spectral Displacement, Sd
Figure 6-12. preliminary Determination of strengthening and stiFFeningl Base Isolated structure
(
"'
(
(
(
Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies
~~
c;
I
::
V=Sa20%W
(6-4)
-c=
c
(
SEISIIIIUC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE
BUI~DINGS
(
(
(
r
(
(
5% damping
(
20%
(
(
(
A'
>:----_---------r-=:~5~-------
~:-=--~
4"
aa
12a
16"
20"
24"
/.
Spectral Displacement. Sd
(
Figure 6-13. preliminary Design of RetroFit With Energy Dissipation Units
(
EDDs capable of providing the indicated damping
were to be installed.
The demand spectra for the different effective
viscous damping ratios can be obtained using the
procedures of Chapter 8 and values for the
coefficients SRA and SRvobtained from Table 6-3.
Table 6-5. Values of the coeFFicients
SRA
andS~v
5%
1.0
10%
0.77
1.0
0.82 .
20%
0.55
0.65
30%
0.42
0.55
40%
0.33
0.48
fe,
iiifJ
(
Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies
Existing frame
6.5.4
other strategies
(
(
Chapter 7
Proce ures
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner
Architect
Bldg. OFficia;
Engineer
Analyst
11t.III_r~~f:'{;;;\W.i"':;!.;1
7.1
Ceneral
..
..
7.2.1
7.2
Peer Review
(
f
(
purpose
(
(
(
(
(
(
(~~(
J,-
C.(
(
~
(
(
7.2.2
Objectives
"
( .
..
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Chapter 7, Quality Ass'urance procedures
(
..
..
7.2.3
Requirements
("
(
~.
,;
G
(
Er
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
f-
(
(
(
Drawings/cales submitted;
reviewed by individual; written
. comments returned
Not required
Not reviewed
Detailed review
Basic Process
Qualifications of Reviewer(s)
Equal to
engineer-of-record
Should be reviewed .
Consensus required
Conceptual Design
Construction Documents
Primary focus
Code Compliance
Not explicitly
considered
Seismic Performance
Not considered
Included in permit
fees
Secondary focus
(Primary focus
f0-
e
Construction Cost Control
Cost of Review
Additional but
normally reasonable
(-
Conflict Resolution
~F.
CONCRETE BUILDINGS
7.2.5
Schedule for Peer Review
The project peer review team should be
selected, and the peer review initiated, early in the
7.2.6
Scope
The scope of the peer review must be
sufficient to serve the purposes and desired
objectives described above. The owner (and in
some cases the building official), in consultation
with the structural engineer of record, should
determine an appropriate scope for the project peer
review. The level of peer review effort required
will vary depending on the individual project; and
may range from no review to a comprehensive
independent check similar to that required for the
design of new hospitals. Factors influencing the
scope of the peer review include the complexity of
the proposed evaluation procedures and retrofit
schemes and the capability and experience of the
design team. The scope should be sufficiently
broad to enable the project peer review team to
gain a thorough understanding of the project
constraints and context.
(
The following list contains possible scope
items. It is intended to be comprehensive and to
encompass a wide range of items that could be
included in the scope of the peer review depending
on the requirements of any specific project.
III
Acceptance limits
Nonstructural systems
..
76
..
Review the proposed construction phase testing and inspection plan developed by the
structural engineer of record.
Review plan check scope, meet with the
structural engineer of record and the plan
check engineering team to review and discuss
the plan check methodology and to assist in
identifying conditions that warrant special
attention.
(
(
(
('
(
(
(
(
t~
, -(
(
(
C;>
{.
(
( >0
(.
(
(
((
(
(
(
Chapter 7, Quality Assurance Procedures
(
.:
7.2.1
Reporting
Specific form and timing of report(s) are to be
determined by mutual agreement in coordination
with the design team, the project peer review
team, and the owner. It may be desirable for the
review team to produce progress reports at major
milestones in the design process.
Each report should include the following: .
Scope of review
~
..
7.2.9
Peer Review Agreement
There should be a written agreement between
the owner and the project peer review team
defining the terms and conditions under which the
peer review will be performed. Such an agreement
should address the following:
.. The specific items of scope to be addressed by
the peer review
( ~,
(
.:>
(
(
~(
(
..
..
..
Compensation
..
7.3
Plan Check--
..
(
~
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
\
(.
(
(
..
7.3.2
(
(
( >
~..
Requirements
(
(
(
(
(
7.. 3.3
7..3.4
Iij
lit
\11
7.3.5
Scope
t-
+'
et
..
1..3.6
Process
The plan checker should prepare a written
report summarizing the scope of the review, the
specific elements checked, and the results of the
check. p.~ red-lined check set should accompany the
report. The structural engineer of record should
respond to all items noted by the plan checker,
either by revising the calculations and affected
drawings or, where appropriate, clarifying and/or
verifying the intent of the original design.
Corrections must be resubmitted-to the plan
checker for back checking.
Commentary: It is imperative that there be
good communication between the structural
engineer of record and the plan check team. To the
extent possible, questions that are raised during
(
(~<
.(
~'
~
the plan check should be discussed prior to redlining in order to minimize misunderstandings.
7.3.7
7 ..4
cans_tructlon Quality
Assurance
In order to ensure that the constructed project
conforms substantially with an-design
requirements a three-tiered quality assurance
program should be utilized during the construction
phase of -all projects. The three tiers are' as
follows:
-
7.4.1
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(~
c.
(
(
(
Chapter 7, Quality Assurance procedures
(
..
7.4.1.2 Heporting
The structural engineer of record should
provide documentation in the form of written field
reports, of
site visits, including the items
observed or discussed with the construction team
and any conditions requiring corrective measures.
The contractor's quality control personnel should
be responsible for notifying the independent testing
and inspection agency when the corrective
measures are completed. The agency should be
responsible for verifying and reporting the
corrective measures.
all
"].4.2
..
..
..
7.4.2.3 Reporting
The testing and inspection agency should
submit formal reports using standard forms to
facilitate subsequent retrieval of archived
construction information. All reports should be
submitted to the owner and the structural engineer
of record in a timely fashion to facilitate any
corrective measures that are required.
7.4.2.4 Coordination
The procedures contained in the testing and
inspection program should include provisions for
coordinating with the contractor's quality control
program. For example, where the contractor's
quality control program requires the use of pour
checklists, the independent testing and inspection
agency should collect and maintain record copies
of the checklists.
7.4.3
(
~.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(..
(
(
7-12
Chapter 8
anlin
nal
1t_I
du
AUdience mterest spectrum
Owner
8 ..1
iintroducti~n
Architect
Bldg. Official
Engineer
Analvst
("
(
(
(
r,;\:-
.:
(
(
(
Analytical Procedures
Elastic
(8.4.1)
Other Nonlinear
Simplified Nonlinear
(8.4.2)
Code Procedures
Demand Capacity
Ratios
Secant Method
Time History
(
(
Capacity
Force,
(8.2.1)
The central focus of the simplified nonlinearprocedure is
the generation of the "pushover" or capacity curve. This
represents the lateral displacement as a function of the
force applied to the structure. This process is
independent of the method used to calc;u/atethe Demand
and provides valuable insight for the engineer.
(
(
Displacement, 0
Demand
The Displacement
Coefficient Method
(8.2.2.2) modifies 0""",- with
coefficients to calculate a
TiJ.fj}efDisplacement, 0t'
(8.2.2)
a,
(
(
Sa
(
(
(
\( -".
(.-
Performance
(8.2.3)
Using the Performance Point or Target Displacement,
the global response of the structure (Table 11-2) and
individual component deformations (11.4) are
compared to limits in light of the specific performance
goals for the building.
Ifrom dpor&
Load
tLtbE
A.
( ---
Component Deformation
(
(
(
(
"(
8-2
BUILDING~
8 ..2
Methods to perform
Simplified Nonlinear
Analysis
~
~
(
(
(
(~
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
8-4
-c
-.
(
(
I-
as
CD
.c
tJ)
CD
UJ
as
Capacity curve
Roof Displacement
(::
(
I
First point of significant
strength degradation.
Stop capacity curve #1 at
this point. revise model to
reflect degraded
elements and start new
capacity .curve, capacity
Cf,Jrve#2..
Point at which
structure as modeled
for capacity curve #3
reaches an ultimate
limit, such as,
instability; excessive
distortions, or an
element (or group of
elements) reaching a
lateral deformation
level at which loss of
gravity load carrying
capacity occurs. Stop
curve at this point. "\
m
.c
CD
fI)
CD
UJ
OJ
Roof Displacement
(
(
(
(
8-6
Degraded "sawtooth"
capacity curve shown
with solid line
I-
co
~
~
Roof Displacement
(
Extend initial stiffness line up to
intersect elastic response spectrum.
Read elastic spectral displacement,
d elasli et as ordinate of intersection point.
The Equal Displacement Approximation
estimates that the inelastic spectral
displacement is the same as that which
would occur if the Structure remained
perfectly elastic.
" d
= delaslic = d inelastic
Spectral Displacement
(
(
,1.
j~
(
(
88
..
"LC-Wiil) I g
PFl=
i=l
N
(8-1)
"L(Wi~l) I g
i=1
(8-2)
Sa = V IW
(8-3)
(Xl
A root
Sd=---PF 1 rproot.1
(8-4)
v = aSaW
PF 1proof,1 = 1.6
PF1proof,1 = 1.4
~~~Arom
~rom
a=O.7
a=O.8
a=O.9
Amm
a= 1.0
Figure 8-5. Example Modal participation Factors and Modal Mass CoeFFicients
where:
PFl= modal participation factor for the
first natural mode.
modal mass eoefficient for the first
natural mode.
= mass assigned to level i.
Wi /g
Pil = amplitude of mode 1 at level i.
N = level N, the level which is the
uppermost in the main portion of
the structure.
V = base shear.
W = building dead weight plus likely
live loads, see Section 9.2.
roof displacement (V and the
associated 6.roof make up points on
the capacity curve).
Sa = spectral acceleration.
Sa = spectral displacement (Sa and the
associated Sa make up points on
the capacity spectrum).
Section 8.5 provides general information on
structural dynamics and more information on the
derivation of these equations. It is helpful to have
some physical understanding of the relationship
t.
(
(
8-10
In ADRS format,
lines radiating from
the origin have
constant periods.
C
as
"oeD
iii
U
u
________________________________0;;(.
n;
--------------------0.- ---- -----------------=""--Q)
I-
Co
en
Spectral Displacement
ADRS Spectrum
(Sa versus Sd)
Traditional Spectrum
(Sa versus T)
Demand spectrum
I--..J..-.--t----------- - - -
--
- -00------ __
;gC -+---1---/
E
eD
iii
u
_ B
.:l
:.;__......_~~
Spectral Displacement
Traditional Spectrum
(Sa versus T)
ADRS Spectrum
(Sa versus Sd)
Figure 8-7. capacity spectrum superimposed over Response spectra in Traditional and ADRSFormats
(
('
s,
1
1
1
1
Sai
- -
-1-
--
'""-'-
--
--.,.---_..P.'d
Sdi
SalK =
2n-s."
11
Sdi
1;
=-s."
2n-
s:::
.i
(.
{Ii
s - Il roofI
Q)
u~co
=ViIW/
;fa!
ai
di -
RoofDisplacement - 4-
Capacity Curve
(PE;. X If'l,roo! )
fa-
Spectral Displacement - Sd
Capacity Spectrum
(
(
8-12
Note:
1. K( = Initial Stiffness
2. Area A 1 = Area A2
Basic Equation
T=21t'/Sd'Sa
Point 1
1.0...---..--.-/----.--...,
m0.8-1---.,.....--1----1
Sa=O.8
Sd=1.95
T=21t'r-:.B
"'""'*::""'3:=a=6.'""'"
4 = 0.50 sec
1."""'"95=""..,...,0"""'
Point 2
Sa=0.S2
Sd=1.29
T=21tJ"'""i.-=29=-1"'-:0'-:.5=2-=*-=38=6~.4 = 0.50 sec
:;:;
~
0.6;+--_1-l--'.--l--~-1
Q)
ai
o
~ O.4-1---I-++--~~=---1
Point 3
Sa=O.4
Sd=3.95
T=21tJ=3-::=.9'='"S..,.."0==-.4-=-=-"3=8=6"""".4 = 1.00 sec
"'li1it) O.2+-1--~-----.:::::....,..+_-_+_-.=-.-.=----,------,
Q)
0-
O.O~--l---+_-_+_--+--_+_----l
10
12
i
c ap'4---f-----
.2
1\1
:D.
iiy
Qi
o
o
<C
i1inear Representaf n
Capacity Spectrum
m
aU
Q)
Co
rn
. dy
dpl
Spectral Displacement
Note:
1. ~ = Initial Stiffness
2. Area A 1 = Area A 2
Bilinear representation
based on capacity
spectrum associated
with the point api' d pl
dy
dp1
Spectral Displacement
(
\l'
ED
=Area of parallelogram
Bilinear representation
of capacity spectrum
41t Eso
8.,,14
/30 = _1_
ED
(8-5a)
4n Eso
where,
ED= energy dissipated by damping
Es o = maximum strain energy
The physical significance of the terms ED and
Es o in equation 8-5a is illustrated in Figure 8-11.
;; Elpi
c
o
E ~----GJ
(Day
ay) . . dy
A2 = (ay . . d y) /2
A3 = [(~ - ay) . . (d pi - d y ) ]
ba
CD
ai
Co)
ay-l----I~
o
<C
ca
J..
.....
e
Q)
a.
en
dy.
Spectral Displacement
= 4(aydpi - dyapi)
Referring to Figure 8-11, the term Eso can be
derived as
Es o = apidpi /2
Commentary: Note that Es; could also be
written as keffectivedp//2.
Thus , ~o can be written as:
f3 0 = _.1_ 4 (aydpi - dyapi) = ~ aydpi - dyapi
471:
apidpi
/2
71:
apidpi
dyapi)
apidpi
Dampingl ED
130 =
63.7(a yd pi - dyapi)
apidpi
(8-6)
dyapi)
+5
(8-7)
apidpi
(-
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
:
(
-.
';:l
~CJ
SR"C,/T= Cv!(TBJ
~ CA
E
'0
Q)
a.
en
Reduced response
spectrum
Spectral Displacement .
8-16
(~
apidpi
>16.25
1.13 _ 051(a yd p i
dyapi)
apidpi
Type B
~25
0.67
0.845 0.446(a ydpi
>25
dyapi)
apidpl
rvoe c
1.
2.
Any value
0.33
vstuest
= ~::
3.21- O.68ln(f3eff)
(8-9)
Bs
2.12
3.21- o.68In[63.77C(aydpi - dyapi) +
apidpi
2.12
2 Value in Table 8-2
5]_
1.
2.
rvpes
0.44
0.56
TypeC
0.56
0.67
Values for SRA and SRv shall not be less than those
shown in this Table
See Table 8-4 for structural behavior types.
(8-10)
5]
= -----=--------=
1.65
2 Value in Table 8-2
K:
~ 1.00
, --~
ci 0.90
(j O.SO
ca
Structural
Behavi~rT''DeB:
- - -- - -;- f- -: __
U. 0.70
C
o 0.60
~ 0.50
+:
--
-:
- ---
0.00
10
16.25 20
25
45
40
30
:a 35
."t@J'
:;:::;
Co)
Q)
in
3D
. [ 25
-:
20
15
10
5
<,
.
-----
~ ---
----
Q)
0.40
0.20
IIlorTypeC
---Stru ~raI!Beha
-- ... -- ;;----;.
~,
~rif:seha ~iorTVp.n
50
60
0.00
30
10
40
45
50
to.
40
:g
0.60
c
o
I~:: . ro ____
Q)
en
0.80
(j
co..
tl.
a:
Q. 0.10
:::I
en 0.20
1.00
"C
'
~ 0.30
.:
.................
..... ":
------ .. :.::~- --r-- -- --- - ---- -----
0.40
1.20
en
r-----
rl
-:
/'
_.....Js
~
r g\ ee't\,!!\
_
~"';"
"'"
c:.\f'
'';''':
~f!\!'!':
=Sa
ZEN=OA
CA=OA
.\I"I'''t~pec
./
/: -- -- --.e>
./
..~i5' ~l
Cv=0.4
.. - -!
63.7(l!ydp, -
dAJ
",,-
20
10
4fj
40
3D
50
60
r::t
en
1\.......
0.90
oS
0.80
0.70
..:
(,)
'\,.....
","
(j 0.50
-6
0.40
a:
0.30
- .. --
......
0.60
.....
--
:~~IJ~al
tr
ae ~a",...L,
c ____
__ .;.
ruetura'R.. . '
<: ructura'&1 ;:.:;;:~~ l'L __
<, .......
Q)
o~~~~::==jl
o
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
0.20
:..r!!~
---
_ '-':'YPe4
0.10
0.00
10
20
30
40
45
50
60
BIlI18
Chapter 8, Nonlinear
GO
1.
2.
SRA
SRv
= 1/ Bt
SRA
J30 tpercenn
J3eff
(1/85)
(1/8tJ
J3eff
(1/85>
(1/8tJ
l3eff
(1/B5)
(1/BrJ
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
10
0.78
0.83
0.83
0.87
0.91
0.93
15
20
0.55
0.66
15
0.64
0.73
10
0.78
0.83
25
28
0.44
0.57
22
0.53
0.63
13
0.69
0.76
35
35
0.38
0.52
26
0.47
0.59
17
0.61
0.70
~45
40
0.33
0.50 2
29
0.44
0.56
20
0.56
0.67 2
1.
2.
3.
4.
Short
Type A
Type 8
Type C
Long
rvce s
Type C
Type C
O.B
'ii
0.6
~CD
0.4
8.
0.2
en
and 40%
12
~~
c(
f
'0
U
U
40%
c,,~0.4
1.0
CD
c
o
=Se
"~
~ ~ ::---.
-~
0.0
0.5
1.5
-2.5
3.5
Period (seconds)
4.
10
14
(
(
820
d, ~
Spectral Displacement
Procedure A:
Procedure B:
Analytical method
.. Simpler than procedure A because of simplifying
assumptions (that may not always be valid)
.. Most convenient for spreadsheet programming
.. Reasonably transparent application of
methodology
Users of this method should fully understand the
inherent assumptions
II
Question: Which
capacity spectrum
procedure should I use?
Answer: It largely
depends on personal
preference, but these
guidelines may help.
Procedure C:
..
..
Graphical method
Most convenient method for hand analysis
Not as convenient for spreadsheet programming
Least transparent application of methodology
(
(
h
Spectral Displacement, inches
(
(
4:
(
(
8 ..22
tn
r::n
C
C
.2
.9
10
'Q)
Q)
apl
ay
e
e
~ Capacity spectrum
Co
(J)
Mesl
-~'-----:,,--capacity spectrum
<~..f--.:,---#---J.-\
'0
CD
'-
Q)
~ ~'+-----t'-.
n;
(j
10
....
0-
Bilinear representation
of capacity spectrum
ely
d p1
1.
Figure 8-28. capacity Spectrum procedure A After
step 6
~ Capacity
spectrum
(
:
8 ...24
30%
(
(
Demand Curves for l3etl = 50/0, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30%
(
Spectral Displacement, inches
usn AFter
30%
~eff =
Bilinear representation
of capacity spectrum
d'
d* - d y
= Il.pi - .av-
(8-12)
dpi - d y
*d *a
ay
d,
api - ay
(8-13)
dpi - dy
-' _ (a * - a-)(dpi -
apr -
d* - d y
dy )
+ ay
(8-14)
30%
ely
cr
Spectral Displacement, inches
IS,
,
63.7(a ydpi
apl dpi
-
dyapi)
aud
8-26
(
(
r
(
(
(
(
30%
~eff
30%
rc: After
stepS
.(J
(
('
(
:
Demand Curves for 13eft = 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30%
INate:
(
('
CD
C
.2
iii
aQ)
iiiCo)
Co)
Bilinear representation
of Capacity spactnim
BpI
10
10
12
16
21
30
37
40
Sy
11
14
18
23
31
37
40
13
16
20
25
33
37
40
16
23
28
34
37
40
16
19
19-.
23
27
33
36
39
16
19
22
25
29
31
33
1.5
13
16 -
18
20
23
24
24
1.25
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
-::t
iii
a-
t,;
Q)
e-
dy
c:fp1
.-
perro
8-28
(
('
(
10
10
12
16
23
27
29
11
13
17
24
27
29
10
12
15
19
25
27
29
11
14
17
21
25
27
29
12
14
17
21
25
27
29
25
12
14
16
19
22
24
1.5
1.25
11
12
10
14
10
15
11
17
18
18
12
13
13
10
10-
14
17
20
11
15
18
20
10
12
16
18
20
11
13
16
18
20
10
11
13
16
17
19
10
11
12
14
15
16
1.5
1.25
8
7
10
11
11
11
'9
...5:!. =z.o
~I
0:L
=5%,10%,15%,20%,25% and
30%
ely
i!r
d,
3!!. -1
_i!r
__
~
ely -,
=0.3
Q)
Bilinear representation
of Capacity spectrum
.s
-;
dpl
"CD
iii
e
(JI
Bpi
~ Capacity spectrum
2y
0:=(
"iii
lt)
CD
0-
~-1
en
a.,
1---+--1-_
- d - - =0.5
...::e!. -1
dy
=5%,10%,15%,20%,25% and
30%
Line #1
OJ
c::
Bilinear representation
of Capacity spectrum
Qj
a pl
Qi
0
0
By
c;t
e'0
IlJ
0.
en
30%
en
c::
Bilinear representation
g
E
IlJ
Qi
0
0
~
of Capacity spectrum
~I
By
e0
IlJ
o,
en
dpi).
30%
30%
T
4
(
(
(
(
1. Thus"mthe
(
(
(
(
(
(
8 ..30
by
bt
Roof Displacement
Figure 8-4:5. Bilinear nepresentettan of Capacity Curve for Displacement coefficient Method
(
Table 8-8. Values For ModiFication Factor Co
1.
1.0
1.2
1.3
5
10+
(
(
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
Immediate
. occupancy
1.5
life safety
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
collapse
prevention
1.5
1.0
1.2
1.0
Te=TI
~x.
1.
2.
(8-16)
where:
Tr = elastic fundamental period (in seconds)
in the direction under consideration
calculated by elastic dynamic analysis.
Ki = elastic lateral stiffness of the building
in the direction under consideration
(refer to Figure 8-43).
Ke = effective lateral stiffness of the
building in the direction under
consideration (refer to Figure 8-43).
3. Calculate the target displacement, (Ot) as:
Te 2
8t = COClC2C3Sa--2
4n-
(8-17)
Co
B-32
..
..
..
CI -
where:
Te
_l
To -
("
(
(
(
(
Sal
R=-/-gg- ~
V~Co
C2 =
C3 =
(8-18)
I I(R - 1)3/2
C3 = 1 + a
t:
.
(8-19)
..
..
Displacement
The following steps should be followed in the
performance check:
1. For global building response verify the
following:
+ The lateral force resistance has not
degraded by more than 20 percent of the
peak resistance
(
5. The strength and deformation demands at the
structure's performance point shall be equal to
or less than the capacities given in Chapter 11
considering all co-existing forces acting with
the demand spectrum.
Commentary: As indicated in Chapter 9,
no-load factors are applied to gravity loads.
6. The performance of structural elements not
carrying vertical load shall be reviewed for
acceptability for the specified performance
level.
7. .Nonstructural elements shall be checked for
acceptability for the specified performance
level.
8.2.4
other Considerations
8.3
Illustrative Example
(
(
(
(
Chapter S. Nonlinear Static Analysis proceC:lures
,~
period, T
(seconds) "
0.880
0.288
0.164
0.106
0.073
Period ratio,
T/Tm
1.00
3.05
5.37
8.30
12.05
participation
Factor,
PFRm, at Roof
1.31
-0.47
0.24
-0.11
0.05
Effective mass
coefficient, am
0.828
0.120
0.038
0.010
0.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
at
0.938
0.550 -0.059
-0.852
-1.749
story Levels
0.839
-0.056
-0.942
-1.080
0.194
(normalized)
0.703
-0.631
-0.921
0.526
1.674
lj>im
0.535
-0.961
-0.034
1.259 -1.068
8.3.1
0.351
0.933
0.883
-0.088
-1.139
0.188
-0.625
0.990 -1.150
1.310
Characteristics
This section provides the modal properties for
the example building and demonstrates a modal
analysis of the building. The modal analysis
provides more information than is actually
required to perform the pushover analysis, obtain
the capacity curve, and convert it to the capacity
spectrum. The complete modal analysis is included
here to provide background and to provide a
clearer picture of the relationship between modal
analysis and the pushover analysis. The equations
used in the modal analysis are given in
Section 8.5.2. The modal properties actually
needed to create the capacity curve (with a
pushover analysis) are the masses at each level and
the first mode shape. The information needed to
~~.
(
(
::
(
(
(
(
\
(
7
43.78
.0794
3.48
.36~
0.0747
3.27
0.244 -0.235
0.0684
2.99
0.205
0.120
.448
45.34
.0745
3.38
.340 0.0411
1.86
-0.18
0.001
-0.007
.364
45.34
.0666
3.02
.304 -0.0042
0.013 -0.0644
-2.92
0.188
-0.113
.325
45.34
.0558
2.53
.254 -0.0471
-2.14
0.101
0.148 -0.0630
-2.86
0.180
-0.111
45.34
.0425
1.93
.194 -0.0718
-3.26
0.234
0.226 -0.0023
-0.10
0.000
-0.004
.298
45.34
.0279
1.27
.127 -0.0697
-3.16
0.220
0.219
0.0604
2.74
0.166
0.106
.275
56.83
.0149
0.85
.068 -0.0467
-2.65
0.124
0.147
0.0677
3.85
0.261
0.119
.201
-6.27
1.000
3.52
1.001
:E
PFRF
oem
eq 8-21
aRF
eq/8-22
Vm
e~ 8-24
0.828
VmlW
0.001
.314
CIi',I-...
-0.19
0.276)( 10.539
0.2359
3.522/327.31
1.000> = 0.038
.448g
2498
kips
0.229
0.060
0.019
0.237
10,540 kips
8-36
(~
t-
= 2408 kips
8.3.2
capacity curve
Figure 8-45 shows the capacity curve resulting
from a pushover analysis of the example building.
Forces were applied in proportion to the first mode
shape. The initial set of forces are shown in
column 7 of Table 8-12 for a base shear of 2408
kips. The analysis showed that some beams may
require significant post-yield deformation capacity,
because elastic moments exceeded beam strengths.
65.7
7 .0745
57.0
6 .0666
48.3
5 .0558
39.6
4 .0425
30.9
3 .0279
22.2
2 .0149
13.5
8.7
508
1460
.205
495
1460
.184
443
1460
.154
371
1460
.117
282
. 1460
.077
185
1830
.052
125
0
10,540
0
1.000
0
24081(
1,002
8.7
1,445
8.7
1,816
8,7
8.7
8.7
13.5
Ground
2,098
2,283
2,408
4,420
.014
4,420
.338
.214
13,137
.303
.192
25,709
.254
.161
41,508
.193
.122
59,761
.127
.080
79,623
.068
.043
112,131
8,717
12,572
15,799
18,253
19,862
32,508
.022
.031
.039
.042
.037
.043
112,131
Level wtrkipsJ
Roof
1410
7
1460
1460
6
5
1460
1460
4
1460
3
1830
2
Ground
story
Roof
7
6
5
4
3
2
Grouna
1
0.360
0.338
0.303
0.254
0.193
0.127
0.068
0
-330
-188
19
216
329
319
267
0
2
SRSS
5
629
170
-10
529
-166
473
-163
459
6
433
156
400
219
367
0
0
1
508
1,002
1.,445
1,816
2,098
2,283
2,408
SRSS
1
5
0.121 0.446 0.228
-0.007 0.362 0.214
-0.114 0.324 0.192
-0.112 0.315 0.161
-0.004 0.297 0.122
0.107 0.275 0.080
0.120 0.201 0.043
'0
0
0
a
-0.234
-0.129
0.013
0.148
0.225
0.219
0.146
5
170
160
-6
-169
-175
-19
200
SRSS
-330
-518
-499
-283
46
365
632
:5
0.003
0.000
-0.003
-0.003
0.000
0.002
0.003
0
SRSS
0.229
0.214
0.192
0.161
0.123
0.081
0.044
0
1
0.014
0.022
0.031
0.039
0.042
0.037
0.043
1
2
629
0
0
1,139
4,420 -2,871
1,529 13,137 -7,378
1,846 25,709 -11,719
2,106 41,508 -14,181
2,312 59,761 -13;781
2,498 79,623 -10,605
112,131 -2,073
2
0.007
0.010
0.009
0.005
0.000
0.005
0.010
's
0.003
0.003
0.000
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.003
SRSS
0
0
1,479
5,474
2,871 15,338
2,819 28,394
.1,349 43,884
-174 61,330
-339 80,327
2,361 112,175
SRSS LJo/LJh
0.016 0.0018
0.024 0.0028
0.032 0.0037
0.039 0.0045
0.042 0.0048
0.037 0.0043
0.044 0.0033
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF COINCJlETE, BUILDINGS
(
:
(
1ST MODE
2ND MODE
Sal=0.276 g
S;;;;:O.50 g
T1=O.880 sec
T.,=:O.288 sec
2.74r-------J1'
2.57
2.30
1.93
1.46
.96
.52
Roof
7
6
5
4
3
2
.19
.11
SRSS
(~
2.75r-------JII
2.57
-.01
230
1.93
1.48
.97
.53
-.12
-.18
-.18
-.12
(
(
(
Ground.
wICk)
(::
1410
7
1460
6
1460
5
1460
4
1460
3
1460
2Ground 1830
.360r--------fI
.338
Roof
.446r-----~
362
.324
.315
.297
.275
.303
.254
.193
.127
.068 l':'-
.201
_ae_
~~
Roof
7
6
5
4
3
2
2!L.
629r-------:;011
529
65.7'
57.0'
48.3'
39.6'
30.9'
22.2'
13.5'
473
459
433
400
367
Ground
Roof
7
6
4
3
2
Ground
&.
8.7'
8.7'
8.7'
8.7'
8.7'
8.7'
13.5'
508.
1002
1445
629
1139
1529
1846
1816
2098
2283
2408~
__f__
_I___f_=:..._
2106
2312
~~
_=:.;;~'__
2498
.....l
Roof
7
6
5
4
3
2
Ground
mo
13137
o
25709
1~
28710
2819
1349
41508
59761
79623
1121311----....;;::,-- -2073
5~
15338
28394
43884
-174
61330
-339
80327
2371 e-+-----1l2175
Roof
7
6
5
4
3
2
Ground
0.16
0.25
0.36
0.45
0.48
0.43
0.321.-_ _--<
0.03
0.031-_ _-'
0.001-_ _-,
0.03
0.02
0.01
-=~_'*_-----=~
0.02
__&_
__
~=~
838
4000
3000
In
Co
g
a-
m 2000
.c
en
1000
A: (2200, .51)
Q)
In
"'"
V
o
10
12
.~
(
1.2
-----
bD
I:tt
r::n
,"0.8
d'
0
.~
0.6
-e
0.4
ta
J::l
o
0
I:J.c
("
0.2
r::n
10
12
s:
(
Table 8-14. Conversion of V and OR to Sa and Sd
2200
2.51
0.209
1.31
0.828
0.254
1.9.2
0.88
2600
3.60
0.247
1.28
0.800
0.309
2.81
0.96
2800
5.10
0.266
1.35
0.770
0.346
3.78
1.06
3000
10.90
0.285
1.39
0.750
0.380
7.84
1.45
*Note: PF's and a.'s change because the mode shape is changing as yielding occurs.
(
(
(
8 ..40
(
,(
..
T= 1.0
1.2
c:
T= 1.5
0.8
Q)
Q)
0.4
~.
o
0.2
T=2.0
en
0.8
iii
iii
0.6
c:t
OA
0
0
T= 1.5
T=2.0
"
Q
Q)
0-
0.6
o
o
c:t
D~=e::4-+--+--1--l--+--+--+--+--+--+-+--+-;
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
0.2
Q)
0-
en
8.3.3
Demand Check:
9 10 11'
~2
13 14 15
T= 1.0
..2
0.8
CD
0.6
iii
Q)
T= 1.5
0:(
tG
....
o
(D
T=2.D
0.4
0.2
0-
l4 4 l' G
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
:
0.8
iii
0.6
e
CD
T=2.0
OA
e'0
a,
0.2
CD
a-
O~T-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-I--il---ll-l-+-+--I
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(
(
Cv = 0.22
Capacity spectrum
0.5
....----.---r-----.---..........---,---4----.
0.4
c:
o
~
"-
0.3
;----1I----+-T-~~_+-+---+----l
'ii
g
o
0.2
Bilinear representation
0.1 + - - - r - I - - - + - - of capacity spectrum
CD
1)
( -
CD
D-
en
O-t<-----j;..---+---+---+----I----t
345
8 ..42
--~----_--:...=
.33
* 3.4
.33 * 3.4
:
c:
0
:;::;
0.6
0.4
o
Q)
T= 1.0
SRA=O.BD
~~~~~~SRv=O~
T= 1.5
0.8
as
Q;
Gi
o
()
Demand spectrum
T=2.0
i!p1
C\-
0.2
a-
10 11 12 13 14 15
not
1.2
tl
2 Y 3 p14
12.8
+ 5 = 9.2 %
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT. OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
sc
0
:;::=
0.8
CIl
0.6
Gi
Co)
Co)
<t
eU
CIl
0.4
<!p,
8y
0.2
Q.
C/)
2 dY3
4 5 P"S 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Spectral Displacement (inches)
SRA
SRv
2 dya
5 P"S
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(
8 ...44
;r = 0.5
soil type So
T= 1.0
Demand spectrum
1.2 .,..-.,-.,--Jrl--r--, SRA 0.66
SRv = 0.74
1 +--+--l-+-If--lt--+--.
T= 1.0
T= 1.5
0.8
T= 1.5
0.6
T=2.0
0.4
ap2
T=2.0
ay
0.2
O-l"='-+---++~--I--+---ll---'I--+---+---+-~""';---I---I---1
2 Y3
dp
:as
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
o~:q---!+"+--+--I--!l--,--,--";"--r----,.---,""":-..----r--l
Figure 8-56.
f3eff =
ap2, dp2
SRA
3.21- 0.68ln(14.4)
2.12
SRv
2.31- 0.41ln(14.4) 0
= .74
1.65
Sa = 2.5SRAC A
Ts
+ 5 = 14.4%
= 0.6
= 2.5*0.66*0.44 =
2 dy3
sdP'\i
10 11 12 13 14 15
ProcedureS
0.73g
= SRyCy/(2.5SRACA)
= 0.74*0.64/(2.5*0.66*0.44)
=
0.65 seconds
Sd at Ts = SaCT/2rri
= 0.73*386.4*(0.65/2ni
= 3.02 inches
Plot the demand spectrum associated with point
ap 2 1 dp2 for soil type D as shown in Figure 8-57.
As the figure shows the demand spectrum
intersects the capacity spectrum essentially at the
trial performance point ap2 1 dp 2 and thus the
solution has been found. Therefore, the demand
displacement calculated for soil type Dusing
Procedure A is 5.9 inches.
I
(
(
Ts = SRvCv/2.5SRACA
Samax
Ts
Samax
5c!s
T> Ts
SRvCvlT
SaIT/21t)2
5%
1.00
1.00
0.40 sec
0.58 sec
10%
0.78
0.83
0.43 sec
0.62 sec
15%
0.64
0.73
0.45 sec
0.66 sec
1.00
0.78
20%
0.55
0.66
0.47 sec
0.69 sec
Ts=0.40
1.0p
1.5.7
Ts= 0.43
0.78
1.38
0.50
0.80
1.95
0.50
0.66
1.62_
0.60
0.67
2.35
0.60
0.55
1.94
5%
1.00 g
1.10 g
1.57 in
3.65 in
10%
0.78 g
0.85 g
1.38 in
3.22 in
15%
0.65 g
0.71 g
1.28 in
2.98 in
20%
0.55 g
0.61 g
1.22 in.
2.83 in
0.80
0.50
3.13
0.80
0.41
2.59
1.00
0.40
3.92
1.00
0.33
3.24
1.20
0.33
4.70
1.20
0.28
3.89
1.40
0.29
5.48
1.40
0.24
4.54
1.60
0.25
6.26
1.60
0.21
5.19
1.80
0.22
7.05
1.80
0.18
5.83
2.00
0.20
7.83
2.00
0.17
6.48
2.25
0.18
8.81
2.25
0.15
7.29
2.50
0.16
9.79
2.50
0.13
8.10
2.75
0.15
10.77
2.75
0.12
8.91
3.00
0.13
11.75
3.00
0.11
9.72
(
(
(
(
8-4&
0.65
0.55
0.71
0.61
Ts=0.45
0.65
1.28
Ts=0.47
0.55
1.22
Ts=0.66
0.71
2.98
Ts=0.69
0.61
2.83
0.50
0.58
1.42
0.50
0.53
1.28
0.80
0.58
3.64
0.80
0.52
3.29
0.60
0.48
1.71
0.60
0.44
1.54
1.00
0.47
4.55
1.00
0.42
4.11
4.93
0.80
0.36
2.28
0.80
0.33
2.05
1.20
0.39
5.47
1.20
0.35
1.00
0.29
2.85
1.00
0.26
2.57
1.40
0.33
6.38
1.40
0.30
5.75
1.20
0.24
. 3.42
1.20
0.22
3.08
1.60
0.29
7.29
1.60
0.26
6.57
1.40
0.21
3.99-
1.40
0.19
3.59
1.80
0.26
8.20
1.80
0.23
7.39
1.60
0.18
4.55
1.60
0.16
4.11
2.00
0.23
9.11
2.00
0.21
8.21
1.80
0.16
5.12
1.80
0.15
4.62
2.25
0.21
10.25
2.25
0.19
9.24
10.27
2.00
0.15
5.69
2.00
0.13
5.13
2.50
0.19
11.39
2.50
0.17
2.25
0.13
6.40
2.25
0.12
5.78
2.75
0.17
12.53
2.75
0.15
11.29
2.50
0.12
7.12
2.50
0.10
6.42
3.00
0.16
13.66
3.00
0.14
12.32
2.75
0.11
7.83
2.75
0.10
7.06
3.00
0.10
8.54
3.00
0.09
7.70
1.10
Ts=0.58
0.80
0.85
1.10
3.65
Ts=0.62
0.85
3.22
0.80
5.01
0.80
0.66
4.15
1.00
0.64
6.26
1.00
0.53
5.19
1.20
0.53
7.52
1.20
0.44
6.22
1.40
0.46
8.77
1.40
0.38
7.26
1.60
0.40
10.02
1.60
0.33
8.30
1.80
0.36
11.28
1.80
0.29
9.33
2.00
0.32
12.53
2.00
0.26
10.37
2.25
0.28
14.10
2.25
0.24
11.67
2.50
0.26
15.66
2.50
0.21
12.96
2.75
0.23
17.23
2.75
0.19
14.26
3.00
0.21
18.79
3.00
0.18
15.56
1.00
C
0
0.70
as
I-
0.60
GJ
"iii
0.50
U
U
0.40
ca
0.30
oct
0-
en
'"
"',,"'"-
'1''\
........
.......to..
I-"'<::
I-'"
0.20
:--....:
...V
0.10
r-
0.0
1.0
2.0
"-
I-..
1/
0.00
3.0
-.. -.........
I-r-.
5.0
4.0
6.0
ee
r--
7.0
0.60
GJ
0-
&
0.90
"*o
0.70
0.60
oct
0.50
ca
:s
0.40
GJ
0.30
~
I(,)
tli
0.80
1\
,,1"1"-
and 20%
_...-
r-,
1/ ......
I-
GJ
iii
t"rr-
I"'r-
-;-
/.
0.20
0.10
1i1 0.30
r-t-
---
/
0.00
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0 8.0
9.0
r--.
II
:0
6.0
5.0
8.0
7.0
.....
/
V
CD
1/:
,
,
/Jeff
++
~~
....... ['...1
lh~
r- :---....
........
I---t--......
I
I
-- ---I"-
I--.
I
I
1.0
r-.
0.00
0.0
>l\:
\\
0.10
en
;\
Soil typeS B
C A = 0.40, Cv=0.4O
-- - -- - 1\"/~ ~ r
point
I'---- ;'-- lPerformance
..... at Sd = 3.4 inches
~
1--~ "r--..' ~
I'----
g 0.20
0-
0.0
r\
oct
\ \ \ \ I\.
iV-/ j
0.40
1'.....
'"r-
S
.2
r-,
r-...
(
0.50
r-
r--
~:
r-.
I--
Peff= 5%,10%,15%
I"
C A =0.44
I\.
4.0
3.0
(-
I-
10
"0>1
I
I
Cv = 0.64
'\
II,
~r-...
r-~
<,
Capacity
spectrum
.
\
"
2.0
'"'",.........
I'...
CII,
. 1.0
Soil type So
C A = 0.44, Cv = o.64
toJJeff = 5%, 10%, 15 %
and 20%
r-,
.....
-:::::;;-
1/ ~
.,
0.0
Soil type So
1\
f"
rr
0.20
0,0'0 V
8.0
~5~
<,
,'- [,0-/
r-..
__ J.
I rr-....
- - ""r-...
en 0.10
1.20
Bilinear representation~
1.10
1.00
!\ t-,
0.40 aE=~~
-~ 1=0
oct 0.30
-- r-- - -
r-.
.""'"
f\.
0.70
5
~GJ
iii
g
-,
0.80
Sa
C A = 0.40
Cv = 0.40
Poff= 5%, 10%, 15%
and 20%
r\
\1\
l-
eGJ
Soil type
0.80
1\
0.90
----
2.0
3.0
4.0
6.0
5.0
B.O
7.0
(
(
0.80
c
o
0.40
_0._1- ~.,....:'-
0.30
"iii
oct
eg
\ \
-
-~I='y.~!- -
"I'P
,"\
'-t-
~~
I'.. --
\:J.~~......
Bilinear representation
" . . . . . f capacity spectrum
'~
i"
'"
i'--.
r-.... r-.
I-Capacity i"/ I
<, r-,
I"'--.. "0.20 r-spectruml;/'V~lf-I-+-t~r1"oo:::::+--P"'-4::::::-+-;-t-f""-;
/:
0.10
fir
"": :
'ii,
~~~~~r-.~
~I
II:
-r--r-=:~I---r--::-I--
l-V-A--1---l-~-!--!-~-f--f--+--+--+--+--+--+--j
"0,
"0'
1
0.00 --...l--\---L----j:;-.L--l--!l--!---L.--f-'--+--'---;---L.-;
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
848
0.70
0.60
~GJ
eg
0.30
1"//
,
- -
-- - - -
0.20
Co
UJ 0.10
I/
0.00
0.0
_J.
- -
'1-= ~ =-,.-
1./~
I
I
I
I
{-
~" r-,
:r
and 20%
'''', N
-/
0.50
iii
u 0.40
u
-, -,
=O.64
I~ P'JJ = 5%,10%,15
%
elf
1'\
1\
Soil type So
C A = 0.44, Cv
e-,
<,
I'--.r-.
~~
f'..
Performance point
<,
<,
t>
r--r--l -- I-t--
at Sd =6.1 inches
(-
I
I
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
2.5
0.29
7.0
4.5
0.34
12.7
3.0
0.31
8.5
5.0
0.35
13.4
3.5
0.33
9.3
5.5"
0.36
13.9
4.Q
0.36
9.8
6.0
0.37
14.3
4.5
0.38
10.1
6.5
0.38
14.6
5.0
0.40
10.2
7.0
0.38
14.8
0.50
0.40
i"-
"iii
f'0
-, ~
<,
<,
0.00
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
(~1" dp~)
. . . . f'... (0.35 g, 4.5 in)
i"'--. I""-
- -- -- -----
-... r---...
(/)
..L-
t--
Bilinear representation J
of capacity spectrum
I I I
I , I
CD
a.
........
/
/
0.10
<,
"\
"r-....
"I'-.
0.20
<C
-,
~ """"" ~
'/>-
CD
\ '\
Soil type Sa
C = 0.40. Cv =0.40
\ 1'\ j3sff
=5%, 10%. 15%, andI 20%
,
\ \
4.0
5.0
= O.30g
dy
= 2.3 inches
;--.
6.0
7.0
8.0
apl _
0.50
0.40
\
U~e#1
\ \
~ \
c
o
"CD
.J
iii
2..... 0.20
CD
a.
"'-
I..L-
I
I
(~t.. d p1)
(0.35 g, 4.5 In)
-, ,- ------ - --r-
r-- r-
j'-"
//
~Une#3
;--.
r-
-....;
;--.
Pelf = 13%
0.00
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.50
\\ \
~
: 0.40
c
o
0.30
I-
1/ \
g 0.20
<C
f'0 0.10
/
:/
CD
0-
r-,
'I.
,..-,:
I
_e--
I'-
(Bp~, dpo/
.......
""""
"", ~'
........
~ ....
--... :--
---- -- -- ---......
I'-...... ........
r"\..
--... :--
-.
-.
:--
Bilinear repr.esentation
of-capacity spectrum
1/
0.00
0.0
=
=
'\
\
x.,
CD
Soil type Sa
CA 0.40, Cv 0.40
Pelf 5%. 10%, 15% and 20%
r-\ \
(lay" dy)
(0.27 9, 2.1 in) \.
iii
(/)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
"
5.0
6.0
7.0
= 0.30
ay
dpl _
s,
= 0.17
45 _ 1
2.3
"'une~""""""- .
..........
1'-.,,r........
'V ~ ~
"
)- r-, <,
line #2 with
lP'
--
0.35 _ 1
~ v-: V
,.V
S 0 i1typ e S B
CA = 0.40, c, =0.40
)<
,V/ v Poinlon ~
Q 0.10
en
I
.\.
i-Intersection
atSd 3.5" [\.1
~ 0.30
slope ratio
(~
(
8.0
(
I
8-50
Chapter 8,
N~~linear
0.50
0.40, Cv = 0.40
\ I\. C~e" == 5%.10%,15%
and 20%
\
Li~efh
.,V
I I I
J
I I
,~
r-,
_Intersection ~~l\. --::
(~,~~ I
atSd= 3.4" r\J ~ fo1l
(O.33 9, 3.5 in)
"'I'--~ /rl "'-,
Line #2
7L- V "'~ <, -.........., r-o.- i'- r-o.-_
c:
Q)
0.20
<,
//
t) 0.10
Q)
0-
tn
/ /
"iii
a;.-
t/
iJ
Point on
line #2 with
J3efl 9.5%
"'-
c-
<,
<,
I'-r-.
~Line;
I
I"-
--
r-.
-- -- ---
0.00
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
Soil type SD
0.80
::
1\ r-,
c: 0.60
-.
~
.s
CG
(jj 0.50
r-.
a;
U
Q)
0.10
I/
<,
1\
/V
0.00
0.0
and 20%
<,
I'-..
0.20
= 0.44, Cv =O.64
I'"~Ok'10%. 15 %
r-,
Sl~
0-
f!)
CA
.""
0.70
<,
r--..
~"'
.....
......
-- --"'"'" r-
r--
I-I--
'~Bilinear representation
of capacity spectrum
II f I I I
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
slope ratio
+-
\.
iii
ap2 _
0.40
~
0.30
a;.-
g
<
Soil type Sa
\\ \
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
a,
= 7.8 = 3.25
2.4
slope ratio
0.38 _ 1
_a_y_ _ = 0.32
dp 1
0.3 3 _ 1
_a_y__ = 0.27
= 0.3 3
d p 2 -1
35 _ 1
dy
2.1
apl _
d p 2 = 3.5 = 1.67
d2.1
= 0.08
7.8 _ 1
2.4
8=51
(
SEISMIC EVJlLUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
I
::
0.70
'jj)
a
a
0:(
0.50
0.40
0.20
en
0.10
a.
[Y
Line #1
!\
1/
>IV
17
IL V- I--
0.00
0.0
r-..
"'-
1.0
I-'"
Line #2 ~ L....- v
l.- I--Point on _
~I-line #2 with
13afl= 16.5%
3.0
4.0
"-
~ kV~
7 rr-- r---r;r
V
\
1/
,-~2p1'. dp1~':::::: I--~0.38
2.0
u~
"
r....-
\
<,
~ r-- r-,
Ie.....
<, r-, ~
1/ r-,
:--..
~
./
<,
0.30
e
g
-,
Intersection
atSd =6.3"
= 0.44, Cv = o.64
~SIf = 5%, 10%, 15 %
and 20%
r~ CA
r'\.
1\ !'-- /
a 0.60
~CD
Soil type S D
0.80
9, 7.8 in)
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0.80
0.70
5
:;:;
0.60
~ 0.50
CD
1\
:..Bilinear representation'-of capacity spectrum
I
'1
1\
e DAD -(",,~) ~.
(,)
<C
O.3(t
'S
0.20
CI)
:/
Q.
en 0.10
=5%, 10%, 15 %
and 20%
<,
.."....-
(~2'? --
----
r-
~~
dp 2
dy
1.0
2.0
3.0
5~O
4.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
~
Gi
0.50
<C
f\.
1\
0.70
0.60
Intersection
atSd 6.0"
I
0.40
(IJ
0.10
V
-- V
1.0
= 6.3
= 2.62
2.4
'"
-, V "- r-,
1/ K
2.0
3.0
~~
v R
I--
lJm pp
t--
-n 6.,
\ (2p~, d
line #2 with
5.0
#3
:-.
13rlf =,15~o
4.0
Line
i-r-... ~ :--.. ~ i"-- "I-....
1.."....1~#2 I>"polnt
cin-- V
and 20%
1\
6.0
7.0
Soil rype s
in)
8.0
ap2 _
dy
0.44, Cv =o.64
1""- ltJ3c0ffA ==5%,
10%, 15 %
vI--"
ILE'0.00
0.0
I __ V
gE 0.20
Do
Line #1-
0.30
(---
0.3 7 _ 1
Soil type So
0.80
--:8
i--
1:-
3p2 = O.3?g
ay = 0.32g
dy = 2.4 inches
.......... -...
/-' "'f
<,
......
K.
t.-.....
<,
<,
........ r-....
'-
==
I~ L....-
0.00
0.0
V ......
"V
<,
= 0.44, Cv = O.64
slI
-, t-..
II
tIIiI
I I I/~
r'\.
r-,h.BC
= 0.10
('
2.4
(
(
('
8 ..52
4000
t/)
Co
1.20
.2 0.80
1U
3000
->
32
ca
Q)
Qi
(jj
0
0
~
2000
ca
..c:
Q)
Q)
I \ \
~'L.-:. Q..!:~f
0.60
_.a::::.!l.:.4
0.40
f\--~
, "-
--~ ~
iiil
tO l
l
m
ml
0.20
0:II;
0-
en
ca
I-
(J)
OJ
1.00
f/)
0.00
0.00
1000
15
10
i, =
Ti~ K, = O.88~876
= 0.88
seconds.
.
K;
876
The target displacement, Ot, is calculated using
equation 8-17.
1-1
0.50
1.00
1.50
Period (seconds)
2.00
2.50
Co
CI
C2
(:3
Sa
Sa
~ oil Profile T pe B -
Co
----
Oo--l--l--l--l--l--l-+--~~~'--l'--l--l'--l
Profile Type D
(
(
.:
(
Te
= 0.88
seconds
Table &15. comparison ofperFormance Point
Displacements from Various Methods
Ot
.
= 5 . 1 In.
S8
4tr
So
spectral
Actual
3.4"
4.5"
3.4"
4.5"
spectral
Actual
5.5"
7.5"
5.9"
8.1"
3~4n
N.A.
4.5"
3.4"
4.5"
6.1"
8.4
6.0"
8.2"
N.A.
11
5.1"
8.3"
8.4
(
\~
C"
8.4.1
8 ...54
BUILD&NG~
DCR procedure: 0
D+L+E
C
-peR:::; m
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
:
8.4.2
(
(
(
(
(
('
(
(
856
Conversion of Coordinates
Seismic demand
8.5
Basics of structural
Dynamics
8.5.1
General
This section presents background information
on basic principles of structural dynamics.
Equation formats and symbols may be different
from those used elsewhere.
8.5.2
Modal Analysis Equations
The quantities used in modal analysis models
are described below. Note that the modal
quantities are usually calculated by computer
analysis; they are presented here as an aid to
understanding modal analysis and as a tool for
back-checking computer results.
~"
1.
(8-20)
where:
aim
where:
PFm
witg
<j>im
N
=
=
4.
Fim =
St~ry
mode
ID.
5.
6.
Vm = rimSam.W
(8-24)
where:
Vm
8 ..58
where:
(8-20a)
(8-21)
= Amplitude at level i
cf>im
=
=
(8-22)
am
Modal period:
T m = 2n~r--Sdm-j-(-Sam-g-)
modem,
where:
bim
Sdm
Sam (T/21ttg).
Using equation 8-25 and the relationship
Sdm = Sam(Tm/21t)2g, displacements can also
be calculated by equation 8-26:
biro = PFmq>imSam(Tm/21t)-g
(8-26)
...
0.;""
T m = 2n ~(LWi oTm) + (g
r.;
Oim)
(8-27)
Tm =
2n;~8im
8.5.3
where:
8.
(8-29)
Wi
tr: g)
(8-28)
Sv =
(
SEISMIC EVAI.U'ATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDIHGS
:
ISav.T/
/Sav. Sell
1.2
(
Sa = l.Og
ao.G
tW
D.2
.sa
_sc
-so
So.s
OJ
-SE
Q.4
.SB
_sc
-so
_SE
D.2
0
10
21
40
ScI(inch)
(
(
50
Sd.= 4O.0in
40
r::l
Sd= 3O.0in
-SB
~:L~
E;J
.so
_SE
"V
c;r,
0
ITripartiteI
60
~
.sa
.so
Iis
.so
ill
.. SE
0. 1 '--...1.--L-L...L.u.u.L---''--'-..I...1..LLW---L....JW...l...LLJ..lJ
0.01
0.1
10
Period (sec)
~
.sa
.so
-so
40
,.
.SE
21
Parlcd (sec)
(
Figure 8-74. Formats of Response spectra
8-60
M
F=Foroe
W=Weight
M=Mass
(j =DisplQoement
K=Stiffnes9
g-Gravity
---=--:--..
~~181)
\
+6'
n----7\---r,..:...,.-\-r\--- .
_~~~)
Time.
\} I
(sec.)
;;.::
Vibrates "'"
8..5..4
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
m7
K7
m6
q>s2
DJ5 .
K4
<1>62
K6
Ks
<1>72
m4
ID3
K3
ID2
K2
nn
Kt
~
Multi-mass
system
Fundamental
Mode
Second
Mode
Third
Mode
8-&2
0reor= PFR1S d
V=SP"lW
W = (m, + m2 + ...+ m7)g
W*.=r:J.}W
a. Fundamental mode of
a multi-mass system
(Tl17 Cf71
m5 0/61
1111 qifj)
8.5..5
(~
(
(
(
1
0.9
1.2
0.86
1.3
0.82
1.35
10 and greater
0.78
1.4
Sa =
Sd
(~)(;)
OROOJPFROOF.1
(
(
8 ...64
663.8
0.235
463.2
1.000
0.929
0.219
392.8
0.822
0.194
321.1
0.684
250.7
0.518
~V=2408
518.2
0.229
1.000
498.6
0.215
0.938
0.192
0~837
441.3
367.0
278.2
0~V=2408
tn
C
1. elastic response
1. Elastic response
2. Secant elastic response
a. displacement increases
b. acceleration constant
3. Inelastic response
Co acceleration decreases
d. displacement decreases
a. displacement increases
b
ID
Qj
b. acceleration decreases
3. Inelastic response
Co acceleration decreases
d. displacement decreases
u
<C
e
U
ID
C.
en
Spectral Displacement, Sd
Spectral Displacement, Sd
(
(
(
Thus,
T=2
{
8.5.6
JZ
-Q8'8
- . sec
Explanation of Inelastic
Response Reduction (SIU, SRv)
An elastic response spectrum can be reduced
to an equivalent inelastic response spectrum. This
topic has been the subject of much research.
Figures 8-79 and 8-80 illustrate a simplified
explanation of why there is an inelastic reduction,
in other words, why inelastic response is generally
less than elastic response.
On each figure, point 1 represents the elastic
demand. If there is reduction in stiffness of the
II
II
(
(
(
(
(
(
8 . . 66
.
.
procedu~es
(
(
Chapter 9
lin
I
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner
9 ..1
General
Architect
Bldg. Official
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
9.2
Loads
9.2.1
Cravity Loads
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
--
13.6
Clerical area
16.9
Lobby
9.4
Conference room
11.1
File area
43.7
storage area
28.9
library
34.6
All rooms
17.8
1.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
92
G
(a) Beam span
and loading
!! ! !
Beam
s:t
E
G = Gravity load
E=
COlumnE
Earthquake load
Negative plastic
moment strength
Marks assumed
plastic hinge
location
Mp
Moment
Shear
High G
Low G
Curvature,
l'
-_.~.
(
(
(
(
9.2.2
Lateral Loads
Lateral loads should be applied in
predetermined patterns that represent predominant
distributions of lateral
inertial loads during
critical earthquake
response. Chapter 8
defines relevant lateral
load patterns. Lateral
loads commonly may be
lumped at floor levels.
Lateral loads should be
applied in increments that
allow the engineer to track
the development of the
inelastic mechanism.
Gravity loads should be in place during lateral
loading. The effect of gravity loads acting through
lateral displacements, the so-called P-t1 effect,
should be modeled.
Commentary: As a structure is displaced
laterally, its lateral load stiffness usually
decreases with increasing lateral displacement. At
large lateral displacements, the lateral load
resistance may decrease with increasing
displacement. Some computer programs for static
inelastic lateral load analysis require that the
lateral forces increase with each loading
increment, a condition that cannot be met for a
structure whose true strength is degrading.
Therefore, the program might stop at the
9 . .3
Global Building
Considerations
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
P column
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Building Elements
(
Structural Elements
frames
., walls
diaphragms
(
Non-structural Elements
elements that influence
structural behavior
elements whose damage
_
(
Foundation Elements
soil components
structural components
(
(
(
I
(
(
9 .. &
9.il
Element Models
9.4.1
General
An element is defined as either a vertical or a
horizontal portion of a building that acts to resist
lateral and/or vertical load. Common vertical
elements in reinforced concrete construction
include frames, shear walls, and combined framewall elements. Horizontal elements commonly are
reinforced concrete diaphragms. Reinforced
concrete foundations are elements with both
vertical and horizontal aspects. Elements comprise
components such as beams, slabs, columns, joints,
wall segments, and others. Section 9.5 describes
component modeling.
9.4.2
Concrete Frames
Concrete frame elements should be classified
as either beam-column frames or slab-column
frames. Slab-column frames may include capitals,
drop panels, and drop caps. In the following
discussion, frames are considered planar elements,
although it should be recognized that intersecting
frames interact with one another. In a typical
planar model of a building, interaction effects
from intersecting frames should be taken into
account indirectly.
Commentary: Waffle slabs, shallow pan-joist
systems, and slabs with "embedded beam"
....._ _
. _ _ -" .L!:
"'_-....~J
(
(
(
(
1-.
---
III
-- --
9 ..8
(
(
~G
~
F~[]5t
Beam
.
s.
-
COIU~~-E
(b) Initial
assumption
G=
Gravity load
E=
Earthquake load
Mp+ =
Positive plastic
moment strength
Mp - = Negative plastic
-----
momentstrength
-_/
(c) Revised
plastic
hinging
Marks assumed
plastic hinge
location
------
-_/
(
(
(
(
9 ..10
(
(
I
\
(
( -~.
(
(
(
.:
I
I
I-
!J
!I
!J
. I
..
;,
~
(a) Loading
e= M
, where M is the
K
moment and K is the rotational stiffness of the
spring.
Considerations in modeling the response of a
column are similar to those for beams, described
above. A widely held misconception is that column
flexural yielding is not possible if the sum of the
column strengths exceeds the sum ofthe beam
strengths at all connections. While it is true that
strong columns promote formation of beam-sway
types of mechanisms (Figure 9-4), column flexural
yielding at the foundation and at intermediate
levels is still possible. Therefore, the analytical
model should allow for column hinging at all levels
of the building. Inelastic flexure along the
unsupported length of the column is not usually a
consideration because there is no significant
lateral load applied along the unsupported length
of the column. The possibility of shear, splice, or
development failure along the column length
should not be overlooked, however.
As a building is loaded laterally, column axial
loads will change, especially for perimeter
~ETROFIT
OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
\
..
~7
(a) Actual slab-column frame
r::;=COlumn
s earn
-1'"""----r
~----~
connection
spring
Column
Beam
(
(
{
(
(
L
(
(
9-12
(
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
(
9.4.3-
(
(
(
(
(
I
Frame
Perforated Wall
(Framed Wall)
(
(
(
(
9 ..14
E(
(
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION: AND RETR'OFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
;
(
(
9 ...16'
(
(~
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
9.4.4
Combined Frame':Wall Elements
The analysis model for. a combined frame-wall
element should represent the strength, stiffness,
and deformation capacity .of the wall, the frame,
and the interconnections. Considerations for the .
walls and the frames are in Sections 9.4.2 and
9.4.3.
9.4..4.1 Overall Geometry
The analytical model should properly represent
the interconnection between the frame and wall
sub-elements. In most cases, beams will frame into
the edge of the wall; where the wall is modeled by
using a line element at the wall centerline, a rigid
or nearly rigid offset should be provided to
represent the fact that the beam connects to the
wall edge. Refer to Sections 9.4.2 and 9.4.3 for
details on frame and wall modeling.
9.4.5
(
f
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
9 . . 18
t
(
(
9.4.6
Foundations
The analytical model should allow assessment
of soil and structural foundation components and
should represent the nonlinear response of the
foundation system. The response of the foundation.
system can be represented with simple elasto
plastic models. For simplicity, foundations may be
represented as rigid footings, flexible strip
footings, pile foundations, or drilled shafts.
Appropriate models for equivalent linear stiffness
and strength should be employed depending on the
foundation type. The effects of foundation
deformations on structure response should be taken
into account. Chapter 10 presents details on
foundation effects.
9 ..5
Component Models
9.5.1
General
(
\.
(
f'
(
(
(
(
1---------rE
(
Lateral Deformation
(
(
'.
9 ..20
(
/
(
(
load-deformation
relation:
..
Point A corresponds
to the unloaded
condition. The
analysis must
recognize that
gravity loads may
induce initial forces
and deformations
that should be
accounted for in the
model. Therefore,
lateral loading may
commence at a point
other than the origin of the load-deformation
relation.
I
I
Lateral Deformation.
I
I
I
"0
aj
I
I
I
I
--I
>..
+-'
'S:
aj
:s...
CD
Lateral Deformation
..
B~ILDIN.GS.
(
(
..
c
(
9-22
is reached, it may be
acceptable to exclude it
from the model
altogether.
The point at which
degrading occurs is not
entirely predictable; it
may depend on
detailing, member
proportions, and the
relative magnitudes of
moment, shear, and
axial force. With
reference to Figure 9-6,
Figure 9-11, and Table 9-4, a rough approach is
to assume that the component will be fully
degraded at a ductility demand of 4. Fully
degraded properties can be represented by lateral
load resistance equal to about 20% of the
undegraded strength. An intermediate partially
degraded state, assigned at a ductility demand of
2, may also be assumed. Conclusions based on
these analyses should be appropriate to the rough
nature of analysis assumptions.
9.5.2
Material Models
9.5.2. 1 General
The material models should consider all
available information, including building plans,
original calculations and design criteria, site
observations, testing, and records of typical
materials and construction practices prevalent at
the time of construction. Chapter 5 describes
procedures for identifying material properties.
Default assumptions may be required in certain
cases where information is unavailable.
Commentary: Successful application of the
methodology requires good information about the
building. In general, material properties should be
established by inspection and testing.
9.5.2_2 Concrete
Evaluation of concrete material properties
should involve determination of compressive
(
SEISMIC EVA'LUATION AND RETROFIT IF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
:
<; =0.005+0.1,,0"
r.tf: :::;0.02
(9-1)
924
'SI'J.I1I..........
(
(
(
(
__
It. ....,Ult....., ..
Table 92. Minimum Tensile properties of Concrete Reinforcing Bars (ATe 1996aJ
proprietary shapes
Tensile
1900- strength, ksi
1919
33 to 35
Yield strength,
ksi
1920 1949
Yield strength,
ksl
1950 1969
1970 1996
55 to 70
70 to 85
80 min
55 to 70
70 to 85
80 min
33
ASTM A1514
40
ASTM A15-14
50
ASTM Ai5-14
33
ASTM A15-14
40
ASTM A15-14
50
ASTM A15-14
70
ASTM A-iS
118
ASTM A-432
ASTM A-31
40 to 45
60
75
ASTM A-15 3
ASTM.432
40 to 45
60
Tensile
strength, ksi
Tensile
strength, ksi
Yield strength,
ksi
Tensile
strength, ksl
Yield strength,
ksi
Intermediate-grade reinforcement established as the single standard for billet-steel in 1928 (approx.),
Bend test determined that these early high-strength bars were often brittle.
This grade has been generally phased out for use as primary tensile reinforcement but is often used for stirrups and ties.
--
120
e---
Grade E
100
/'
"iii 80
of 60
t/)
Grc de4Q.../"-
ti) 40
---
20
o
o
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
Strain
Figure 9-8. ReinForcing steel stress-strain Relations
9.5.3
(
(
(
(
9 ..26
(
(
('
(
~It~~il~llli~~::
Beam, non-prestressed'
....-.~-=!""!'
O.5Eclg
O.4EcAw
Eclg
O.4EcAw
Columns in compression
O.7Eclg
O.4EcAw
Columns in tension
O.5Eclg
. O.4EcAw
walls, uncracked
O.8Eclg
O.4EcAw
Walls, cracked
O.5Eclg
O.4EcAw
see discussion
O.4EcAw
in Section 9.5.3
O.4EcAw
Beam, prestressed'
EsAs
I
I g for T-beams may be taken twice the I g of the web alone. or may be based on the effective section as defined in
Section 9.5.4.2.
For shear stiffness, the quantity OAEc has been used to represent the shear modulus, G.
3 For shear-dominated components, see the discussion and commentary in Section 9.5.3.
RET~OFIT
OF CONCRETE' BUILDINGS
"
\
(
Flexure
Shear
Reinforcement Slip
Sliding
('
(
(
(
928
(
(
(
component strength
9.5.4. 1 General
Actions (forces and associated deformations)
in a structure are classified as either deformationcontrolled or force-controlled. Components are
similarly classified for each action they experience
(e.g. columns in flexure, columns in shear). Thus,
all components are classified as either primary or
secondary (see Chapter 11) and as deformation- or
force-controlled. Unless noted otherwise , the
following discussion refers to primary elements
and components only.
Deformation-controlled actions are permitted
to exceed elastic limits under applicable
earthquake loads. Strengths for deformationcontrolled actions should be taken equal to
expected strengths obtained experimentally or
calculated by using accepted mechanics principles.
Expected strength is defined as the mean
maximum resistance expected over the range of
deformations to which the component is likely to
be subjected. When calculations are used to define
mean expected strength, expected materials
strengths including strain hardening are to be taken
into account. The tensile stress -in yielding
longitudinal reinforcement should be assumed to
be at least 1.25 times the nominal yield strength.
Procedures specified in ACI 318 may be used to
calculate strengths, except that strength reduction
factors, lP, should be taken equal to 1.0, and other
procedures specified in this document should
govern where applicable.
Force-controlled actions are not permitted to
exceed elastic limits under applicable earthquake
. loads. Strengths for force-controlled components
should be taken equal to lower bound strengths
obtained experimentally or calculated by using
established mechanics principles. Lower-bound
strength is defined generally as the lower 5
percentile of strengths expected. Where the
strength degrades with continued cycling or
increased lateral deformations, the lower-bound
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
(
(
,
(
(
930
<2
2 t04
>4
~",.-~.~'
\.,
(
\.
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE ,BUILDINGS
\"
--------- Data
-Backbone
... ... .. Idealization
--------- Data
- - - Backbone
... ... .. Idealization
(
\,
(
Lateral Deformatton
Figure 9-10. construction of a Backbone'LoadDeformation Relation for a Deformationcontrolled Action
9-32
Lateral Deformation
Figure 9-11. construction of a Backbone LoadDeformation Relation for a Force-controlled Action
( .
~
(
\
I
..
..
(
:
9 ..34
(
(
(9-4)
(9-5)
Vs
A"fyd
0.68
(.
(
\
where
v, =2:tgt wl w
V
A v f3 nf y 1w
= ----"--
(9-7)
(9-8)
t. = :;'. f
(9-9)
fS
(
(
(
(
= 2500
1 sf
db e
y
(9-10)
~......
h~Tc:! ~ulr1pr1
in
~P;~Tl1;("
_.a.
y
TPtTnfit Tl1~V
J
.&.
A.
.-......-
(
(
(
(
(
(
hp...."
9=36
fs
50,000
Tensile Stress in Column Longitudinal Steel, psi
Seam-Column Connections
Shear strength in beam-column joints can be
calculated according to the general procedures of
CONCR~TE
BUILDINGS
v" = Ar fl A j , psi
(9-11)
i;
(
(
(
(
. <0.003
12
10
~O.003
20
15
15
12
(
increased shear strength, the data on the whole do
not show a significant trend.
The procedures for estimating joint shear are
the same as those specified in ACI 318 and
ACI352.
9-38
r-
Figure 9-15. Nonuniform Flexural Action of a Slab-Column Connection Under lateral Deformations
Shear
stress
c
Figure 914. Nominal Shear Stresses Acting on a Slab critical section (AC/199SJ
9 ..39
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
C
(
Type II
Type I
Q/Qc
E!!
2
cU
...J
1.0
---t-':-:1c 1
- -
fB
_1-
'AII
d
'L1y
I
Lateral Deformation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I----------.E
(
Lateral Deformation
Ll
Lateral Deformation
9.5.5
component Deformability
9.5.5.1 General
The analysis should be capable oftracking the
nonlinear load-deformation relation of
components. Component load-deformation
relations are generally composed of continuous
linear segments. The general form of the loaddeformation relation is discussed in Section 9.5.1.
Deformation limits corresponding to loss of lateral
load resistance and corresponding to loss of
gravity load resistance should be defined.
Figure 9-15 illustrates a generalized loaddeformation relation applicable to most concrete
components. As shown, there are
ways to
define deformations:
Type I:
In this curve, deformationsare
expressed directly using terms such as strain,
curvature, rotation, or elongation. The parameters
a and b refer to those portions of the deformation
two
9-40
'S2~!!
~
COlumn~E
Beam
G = Gravity load
E = Earthquake load
Marks locations
where nonlinear
springs are inserted
into model to
represent nonlinear
response
9.5.5.2 Beams
Beams may be modeled with concentrated
plastic hinge models, distributed plastic hinge
models, or other models whose behavior has been
demonstrated to adequately represent important
characteristics of reinforced concrete beam
components subjected to lateral loading. The
model should be capable of representing inelastic
response along the component length, except
where it is shown by equilibrium that yielding is
restricted to the component ends. Where nonlinear
response is expected in a mode other than flexure,
the model should be able to represent that mode.
Monotonic load-deformation relations should
be according to the generalized relation shown in
Figure 9-15. The generalized deformation may be
either the chord rotation or the plastic hinge
rotation. Values of generalized deformations at
points B, C, and E may be derived from
experiments or rational analyses and should take
into account the interactions between flexure and
O~
CONCRETE" BUILD-INC!:
---------------------------------------_---:--::-;.
(
;
(
(
9.5..5.3 Columns
Columns may be modeled with concentrated
plastic hinge models, distributed plastic hinge
models, or other models whose behavior has been
demonstrated to adequately represent .important
characteristics of reinforced concrete column
components subjected to axial and lateral loading.
Where nonlinear response is expected in a mode
other than flexure, the model should be able to
represent that mode. Where there are significant
axial force variations under the action of -
"
(
(
(
(
(
(
type I.
E(
9 . .42
9..5..5.4
seam-cotumn Joints
Better performance is expected when beamcolumn joints are stronger than adjacent framing
components. If joints are stronger than the
adjacent components, the joint region may be
modeled as a stiff or rigid zone. If joints are not
stronger than the adjacent components, the
analytical model will have to represent the
nonlinear load-deformation response. Joints may
be modeled by using concentrated spring elements
connecting beams to columns, or other models
whose behavior has been demonstrated to
adequately represent important characteristics of
reinforced concrete beam-column joints subjected
to lateral loading.
Monotonic load-deformation relations should
be according to the generalized relation shown in
Figure 9-15. Values of the generalized
deformation at points B, C, and E may be derived
from experiments or rational analyses.
'
Alternatively, where the generalized deformation
is taken as total shear angle in the joint, the total
rotation capacities may be as defined by Table 9-8
(end of chapter). In this table, the parameters c, d,
and e, refer to the measurements in Figure 9-15,
type II.
Commentary: Probably the most direct way to
model a joint with currently available computer
programs is as a concentrated spring with
nonlinear properties. The spring may be assigned
a rigid stiffness to the yield point, with nonlinear
response thereafter.
Joint shear-rotation capacities can be obtained
from tests. Alternatively, shear distortion
capacities suitable for use with the methodology
can be read directly from Table 9-8, where the
quantity d corresponds to the total shear angle at
which significant degradation occurs, and the
quantity e corresponds to the total shear angle
where gravity load capacity should be assumed to
be lost.'
9.5.5.5 one-Way Slabs
One-way slabs may be modeled with the
general procedures for beams identified in
Section 9.5.5.2. Where the slab is part of a twoway slab system, the recommendations of
Section 9.5.5.6 may be used.
9.5..5 .6
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUI.LDINGS
(
(
(
Rotation
Plastic
hinge
length
(
(
(
(
(
(9-12)
where My is the yield moment of the wall or wall
segment, which may be calculated as the m0II?-ent
at which reinforcement in the boundary zone (or
outer 25 % of the wall length) yields, EJ is the
flexural rigidity according to Section 9.5.3, and lp
represents the assumed plastic hinge length, which
may be taken equal to 0.5 times the flexural depth
of the component, but less than 50 % of the
segment length for wall segments. The plastic
hinge rotation capacities within the same length Ip
are defined by Table 9-10 (end of chapter). In this
table, the parameters a, b, and c refer to the
measurements in Figure 9-15, type 1.
Where the wall or wall segment is governed by
shear, it is more appropriate to use shear drift ratio
(Figure 9-18) as the deformation measure. Shear
drift ratio capacities are defined in Table 9-11. In
this table, the parameters c, d, and e refer to the
measurements in Figure 9-15, type II. Where
sliding along a construction joint controls overall
performance (see Section 9.4.3.1), the parameters
in Table 9-11 may still be applied, but the story
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
944
(
(
Shear
Figure 918. Shear Drift Ratio for Walls and Wall
segments Governed by Shear
(.
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
g .. G
a
Ag
Aj
As
A~
Av
Aw
Notations
-
bw
Cl
C2
d
db
s:
,
/c
fcc
Is
JY
G
h
slab tbiclmess
he
hw
Ig
=
-
K
1
=
=
lJ
lb
('
946
ld
le
lp
=
=
t;
A1
f3
f3n
rp
rp
rpu
curvature
</>Y
yield curvature
L1
deformation,
4v
yield deformation
cu
lj
Jl
e
~,
flexural component
9p
p
p
pbaJ
pn
p-p
Pbal
Transverse
eemeorcements
/:
/I
bwdfl
::;;0.0
~3
0.025
0.05
0.2-
::;;0.0
~6
0.02
0.04
0.2
~0.5
~3
0.02
0.03
0.2
~0_5
~6
0.015
0.02
0.2
~O.O
NC
~3
0.02
0.03
0.2
~O.O
NC
~6
0.01
0.015
0.2
~ 0~5
NC
~3
0.01
0.015
0.2
NC
~6
0.005
0.01
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.2
----------;--------0.01
0.2
0.0
0.02
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.015
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0.03
0.2
When more than one of the conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 occur for a given component, use the minimum appropriate
.
numerical value from the table.
Under the heading "transverse reinforcement," "C" and "NC" are abbreviations for conforming and non-conforming
details, respectively.. A component is conforming if within the flexural plastic region: 1) closed stirrups are spaced at
::;d/3, and 2) for components of moderate and high ductility demand the strength provided by the stirrups (Vr) is at
least three-fourths of the design shear. Otherwise, the component is considerednon-conforming.
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
V = design shear force
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
(
(
9-48
i!~!f~~ifi~?!I~:
1. Columns controlled by flexure 1
P
Transverse
ReinforcementZ
Agf~
bwdR
~0.1
~3
0.02
0.03
0.2
s 0.1
<::6
0.015
0.025
0.2
2:0.4
53
0.015
0.025
0.2
2:0.4
<::6
0.01
0.015
0.2
~0.1
NC
53
0.01
0.015
0.2
~0.1
NC
<::6
0.005
0.005
<::0.4
NC
53
0.005
0.005
2:0.4
NC
<::6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.015
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
_.
1 5
or - - , 50.1
Agfc
other cases
s an
0.01
0.02
0.4
0.0
0.01
0.2
0.015
0.025
0.02
0.0
0.0
0.0
Hoop spacing
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
When more than one of the conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 occur for a given component, use the minimum appropriate numerical
value from the table.
Under the heading "transverse reinforcement," "C" and "NC" are abbreviations for conforming and non-conforming details,
respectively. A component is conforming if within the flexural plastic hinge region: 1) closed hoops are spaced at 5 d/3, and 2)
for components of moderate and high ductility demand the strength provided by the stirrups (Vr) is at least three-fourths of the
. design shear. Otherwise, the component is considered non-conforming.
To qualify, 1) hoops must not be lap spliced in the cover concrete, and 2) hoops must have hooks embedded in the core or must
have other details to ensure that hoops will be adequately anchored following spalling of cover concrete.
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
P = Design axial load
V = Design shear force
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
-:....,.,-..~.
-~.
((
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CON.CRETE BUILDINGS
(
(
(
(
Table 9-8. Modeling Parameters for Nonlinear procedures-Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints
1. Interior joints
P
Transverse
Reinforcement1
Agf;
C
C
C
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
~0.1
~0.1
~
0.4
0.4
s 0.1
s 0.1
~
0.4
0.4
v
-V
::; 1.2
0.015
0.03
0.2
1.5
0.01'5
0.03
0.2
s 1.2
0.015
0.025
0.2
1.5
0.015
0.02
0.2
~1.2
0.005
0.02
0.2
1.5
0.005
0.015
0.2
s 1.2
0.005
0.015
0.2
~1.5
0.005
0.015
0.2
~1.2
0.01
0.02
0.2
1.5
0.01
0.015
0.2
~1.2
0.01
0.02
0.2
. 0.2
(
(
2. other joints
P
rransverse
Reinforcement1
Agf;
0.4
C
C
C
C
NC
NC
NC
;;;: 0.4
NC
::; 0.1
s 0.1
~
0.4
;;;: 0.4
s 0.1
s 0.1
~
Vn
0.01
0.015
::;1.2
0.005
0.01
0.2
0.005
0.01
0.2
::;1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.
Under the heading "transverse reinforcement," "C" and "NC" are abbreviations for conforming and non-conforming details,
respectively. A joint is conforming if closed hoops are spaced at ~ hd3 within the joint. Otherwise, the component is
considered non-conforming. Also, to qualify as conforming details under condition 2, 1) hoops must not be lap spliced in the
cover concrete, and 2) hoops must have hooks embedded in the core or must have other details to ensure that hoops will be
adequately anchored following spalling of cover concrete.
2.
The ratio
-!,.
is the ratio of the design axial force on the column above the joint to the product of the gross cross-sectional .
Agfc
area of the joint and the concrete compressive strength. The design axial force is to be calculated considering design gravity
and lateral forces.
....
~ is the ratio of the design shear force to the shear strength for the joint.
.::l.
The ratio
4.
5.
950
( .~
vn
(
(
.-
Table 9-9. Modeling Parameters for Nonlinear procedures-Twa-Way Slabs and Slab-Column Connections
0.2
0.2
continuity
Rei nrorcement'
Yes
0.02
O.OS
Yes
0.0
0.04
0.02
0.0
0.2
No
0.02
0.4
NO
0.0
0.2
..I
#1
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
O.01S
Jr-----.--------0.03
A
0.2
&
44
4f ;
When more than one of the conditions 1, 2, and 3 occur for a given component, use the minimum appropriate numerical value
from the table.
Vg = the gravity shear acting on the slab critical section as defined by ACI 318, Vo = the direct punching shear strength as
defined by ACI 318.
Under the heading "Continuity Reinforcement," assume '''Yes'' where at least one of the main bottom bars in each direction is
effectively continuous through the column cage. Where the slab is post-tensioned, assume "Yes" where at least one of the posttensioning tendons in each direction passes through the column cage. Otherwise, assume "No."
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
(
(
(
(
(0
(
/
Table 9-10_ Modeling parameters for Nonlinear procedures-Walls and wall segments Controlled by
Flexure
twlwt
twlwfi:
::;; 0.1
::;;3
0.015
0.020
0.75
C
C
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.010
0.015
0.40
l'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Boundary
Element?
(As -A:)fy + P
::;; 0.1
2:6
~0.25
::;;;3
~0.25
2:6
s 0.1
::;;;3
::;;0.1
2:6
~0.25
::;;3
~0.25
2:6
0.009
0.012
0.60
0.005
0.010
0.30
0.008
0.015
0.60
0.006
0.010
0.30
0.003
0.005
0.25
0.002
0.004
0.20
As = the cross-sectional area of longitudinal reinforcement in tension, As' = the cross-sectional area of longitudinal
reinforcement in compression, fy = yield stress of longimdinal reinforcement, P = axial force acting on the wall considering
design load combinations, tw = wall web thickness, till = wall length, andfl-' = concrete compressive strength.
V = the design shear force acting on the wall, and other variables are as defined above.
The term "C" indicates the boundary reinforcement effectively satisfies requirements of ACI 318. The term "NC" indicates
the boundary requirements do not satisfy requirements of ACI 318.
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
Table 9-11. Modeling parameters for Nonlinear procedures-Walls and Wall segments
Controlled by Shear
(
(
(
0.0075
0.02
0.4
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
(
(
I
952
(
(
(
(
Longitudinal reinforcement
and transverse
relntorcement'
b,flfi
conventional longitudinal
reinforcement with
~3
0.025
0.040
0.75
conforming transverse
reinforcement
2:6
0.015
0.030
0.50
conventional longitudinal
reinforcement with non-
~3
0.020
0.035
0.50
conforming transverse
reinforcement
2:6
0.010
0.025
0.25
Diagonal reinforcement
N/A.
0.030
0.050
0.80
Longitudinal reinforcement
and transverse
rei nforcement'
1.
2.
3.
4.
bwd.fl
conventional longitudinal
reinforcement with
s;3
0.018
0.030
0.60
conforming transverse
reinforcement
2:6
0.012
0.020
0.30
Conventional longitudinal
reinforcement with non-
~3
O.O1~
0.025
0.40
conforming transverse
retnrorcernent
2:6
0.008
0.014
0.20
Conventional longitudinal steel consists of top and bottom steel parallel to the longitudinal axis of the beam. The
requirements for conforming transverse reinforcement are: 1) closed stirrups are to be provided over the entire length
of the beam at spacing not exceeding d/3; and 2) the strength provided by the stirrups (V~) should be at least threefourths of the design shear.
V = the design shear force on the coupling beam in pounds, b- = the web width of the beam, d = the effective depth
of the beam, andji = concrete compressive strength in psi.
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
-~.
(
(
(,
Chapter 10
n ff
s
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner
10..1
Genera!
Architect
Bldg. Official
of
~ ... --.~~,
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
i
::
10."2
10..2..1
10...2
Small displacements
protect frame from
damage
Stiff/Strong Foundation
Foundation
yielding and
rocking protects
shear wall
/I
FlexiblelWeak Foundation
(
SEISMIC EVALUAT'ION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
;
10-4
High
Slender shear
wall-frames
Slender bearing
shear walls
rut
Narrow frames
Short shear
wall-frames .
Short bearing
shear walls
' Moderate
h/l < 2
Long frames
1.
Low
10.2.2
BUILDiNG~
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCREYE BUILDINGS
(
(
Actual Structure
Model A
K'
vI
III
ModelB
~m:E~5liiEl~~lIfii=m~~..
106
Geotechnical Components
Mz
s.1y 1 to 5
1=
a. Foundation Actions
10",3
Foundation Elements
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
.-
(
(
(
(
10-8
10.3.1
Moment,
M
Pi
~tely
strong soil
Pl
2
2Qu w
I
---->I
.
PI
I(
)f
w
Rotation,
CD
qw<qu w
Elastic prior to uplift@I-Y_i_eI_d-'p_n_o_r_t_o_u.....
p_lif_t
1<
1<
CD Elastic at uplift
CD
quw
0_Y_i_eI_d_af_t_e_r_u......
plli_.._I
qw<qu w
Elastic after uplift@rIn_el_a_sti_oc_l_iro_l_"t
qw < q uw
1<
1<
quw
quw
_
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION, AND. RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
::
(
(
Colnmnlwall
(
(
Pile/pier cap
(
(
(
Vertical geotechnical components
. End bearing of pilelpier
. Skin friction of pile/pier
ID-10
<
(
I
(
/
(
Distrubuted vertical
geotechnical
components
representing pile/pier
skin friction
resistance
C~NCRETE
BUiLDINGS
Horizontal geotechnical
component representing
passive resistance on
pile/pier cap
~DiStriDuted
horizontal
geotechnical components
representing passive
resistance on pile/pier
Vertical geotechnical
components
representing pile/pier
end bearing
resistance
10.3.2
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
(
(
Force, Q
(
Stiffness,
K = .Q.
.11
(
(
upper Q"
lower Q"
Actual Behavior
(
Displacement,
10.. 4
properties of
Geotechnical
components
10..12
(
(
(
(
10.4.1
....r
(length)
X
y
(J.wJ
Plan
d
(thickne
~l
(depth)
Ky
the effects of the depth of
bearing by multiplying by
ky = L d
embedment factors (see
k = Kx
Table 10-3), et, to
x
B d
generate the uncoupled
K
total embedded
k ex = _9:<:_
stiffnesses, Ki.
Ix
3. Calculate individual
distributed stiffness
intensities, Iq, by dividing
the uncoupled total
embedded stiffnesses, Ki,
by the corresponding area of contact or
moment of inertia.
4. Compare the vertical stiffness intensities k
k()y, and kex. In general, these will not be.. . '
equal. In a two-dimensional analysis, one of
the rotational intensities normally will not be
used. If the difference between the vertical
translational stiffness intensity, kz, and the
vertical rotational stiffness intensity, ke, is
small, then either, or a representative average,
may be used in Step 6, below. If the difference
is large, then one or the other may be used in
Step 6 if the footing is acting primarily in
either vertical translation or rotation. If the
difference is large and the actions are highly
coupled, then the approximate procedure in
Step 5 may be used to refine the component
stiffnesses.
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
(
Table 10-2. Surface stiffnesses for a Rigid Plate on a Semi-infinite Homogeneous Elastic
Half-space {adapted From Gazetas 19911 1
Vertical Translation, Kz'
(
(
(
(B)O.85]
GL
- [ 2+25 2-v
L
GL
- [ 2+25 (B
-
.2-v
)O.85J -
("'B)]
GL [ 01 .1-0.75 -v
. L
Rotation, Kex'
(about x axis)
Rotation, Key'
(about y aXIs)
1.
(
(
f'J
Vertical Translation, ez
Horizontal Translation,
(toward long side)
ey
[ (fJ!
[(D-~}6(L+B)drl
[ (fJ!
[(D_~}6(L+B)d
1+ 052
1+015 2D
Horizontal Translation.
(toward short side)
ex
1+015 2D
L
1+052
(
(
BL
LB
r)
(
Rotation, eex
(about x axis)
d,-O.20( -B
fOJ
L
d ( 1+2d ( - )
1+252B
B D
RotatJon, eey
<about y axlsi
(2dfO( (2df"(df60J
1+092 -
15+ -
(
\
10-14
L
(length)
;:::-V' ;;1......
B
(width)
6.8 G
-....,--...--
k:
end
kmid
k md
End Zone
.Middle Zone
t,
~'
Ie
k eru1
End Zone
13
"
....
Is
I.:
Ie
'1
r,
4'
'1
kmid =
(l-V)B
o. 73
(l-V
)B
Component Stiffuesses:
(force/unit length )
K,
=B
Ii
Ks
Geoteclmical Components
5.
6.
B~ILDINGS
(
\
(
estimated on the basis of the anticipated maximum
ground acceleration in accordance with Table 10-5,
'0.40
0.35
to 90%)
Nearly dry sands, stiff
clays; rock
0.25
G=----
2 (1 + V)
Poisson's ratio for typical soils is shown in
Table 10-4.
The initial shear modulus, Go , is related to
the shear wave velocity at low strains, vs, and the
mass density of the soil, p, by the relationship
Go = P
v/
Go = - v s
0.50
Ratio of
effective to
initial shear
modufus (G/Gol
0.81
0.64
0.49
0.42
Ratio of
effective to
initial shear
wave velocity
(v'slvs)
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.65
\I
Notes:
1.
Site specific values may be substituted if documented in a
detailed geotechnical site investigation.
2.
The value ofE used to determine the product. ZEN, should
be taken as equal to 0.5 for the Serviceability Earthquake,
1.0 for the Design Earthquake, and 1.25 for the Maximum
Earthquake.
3.
Linear interpolation may be used for intermediate values.
(
\
"\
(
(
t.
(
\
10-16
Chapter 10,
Foundation Effects
(
I
EI
L4
< 10 ksv B
10.4.2
Rectangle
1.0
BN
1+-.:.:.!l..
L Ne
1.0
1.0
1 +- tan
L
l/J
"B
1 - 0.4L
1.3 G
B(l-v)
Strip
= c Nc ~c
+ r D Nq
~q
+ 1/2 r B Ny
~y
In this expression:
cohesion property of the soil
c =
He = cohesion bearing capacity factor
depending on angle of internal
friction, 0/, for the soil (see Figure
10-10)
Nq = surcharge bearing capacity factor
depending on angle of internal
friction, ~'" for the soil (see Figure
10-10)
N; = density bearing capacity factor
depending on angle of internal
friction, , for the 'soil (see Figure
10-10)
~c, ~q,
S" =
Circleor
square
N
Ne
1 +..=.3.
tan cjJ
0.6
~.
(
(
:/
z
~-
100
'0
ca
LL
~
0
ca
0.
ca
10
0)
c:
0i::
ca
Nc=~g-~cot
1/1
...,
:;it
?:"'1 I
~.;
::. tnmJtP
I ~ Nq-e
tan
1--l-r-..
I
I
I ...
/f
-~-~--:- - ~ - ~- ~--~-{ , -
I
AI
I
I
I
) ...
I
I
J
I ... J,
I
J
I
I
'1 / I N
2{N -k)tann. 1
Y I 'Y ~ q
'1';
./1
I
I
z( -m
45-r::t'
. ._ 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
J
I
I
1 ~~-4--~-~-~-~--~-~-~
1/
Q)
II'
1
/ I
I _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
O.1+t+H-H-i-H-f++i-t-l-hH-t-l-'i-t+t-H-iH-t-l-'i-t+t+++-f-of+H+++H-H-!-
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
10.4.3
Qtotal
Ll
K = (EA)pue
Z
L
At the other extreme, a purely friction
pile/pier implies that the force at the tip is zero.
This is also consistent with the assumption of a
very small tip displacement. For zero tip
displacement and a uniform total transfer to the
soil by skin friction, the axial stiffness of the
pile/pier approximates:
K = 2(EA)Pile
Z
10"'18
Q 'DlaI = Qf+Q t
Force in pile/pier
Length,
L
Qf . total
distributed
skin
friction
{-
a. Pile or Pier
Figure 1011.
b. Force Distributiom
<
K
Z
<
2(EA) pi'Ie
L
c. Axial Displacement
10.4.4
-:-..... ~.~~.
c
SEISMIC EVALUATION AN"D RETROFIT OF CONCR-=TE BUILDINGS
:
(
the shaft. There are three general types of pile/pier
behavior pertinent to vertical load capacity:
1. Predominantly End Bearing: Some
pile/piers are installed primarily to advance
through poor material to underlying bearing
strata. For example, piles might be driven
through saturated weak clay into firm
alluvium. Although the pile might penetrate a
depth of a few diameters into the alluvium, it
is predominantly point bearing and its capacity
is largely dependent on the bearing capacity of
the material at its tip.
2. Intermediate: Pile/piers installed into
granular or well-graded soils generally rely on
both friction and end bearing resistance.
Friction normally increases with depth,
primarily reflecting increases in overburden
pressure. Tests indicate that the frictional
resistance of these types of piles typically
represents more than half the total capacity for
downward load. For uplift, however, the
frictional resistance is less than for downward
load.
3. Predominantly Friction: Pile/piers installed
in fme-grained silts and clays often rely
primarily on skin friction for vertical
resistance. Although the tip offers some
resistance, the strength and stiffness of these
materials in bearing is usually small compared
with the friction. Frictional. resistance to uplift
in silts and clays is" nearly the same as for
downward loads.
The capacities of pile/piers are difficult to
determine even in the best of circumstances. In
the absence of specific geotechnical data, the
procedures illustrated in Figures 10-12 and 10-13
may be used, for granular or cohesive materials
respectively, to calculate preliminary estimates of
capacity. Ranges of typical values of parameters
for use with these procedures are presented in
Section 10.5. These all have been adapted from
NAVFAC (1986). For friction resistance in
granular materials the top 3 to 5 diameters of
pile/pier length are often neglected. The upward
frictional capacity of pile/piers in cohesive
10-20
10.. 5
("
(
(
(
Characterization of Site
Sails
E(
(
(
C"
(
(
(
Soil Profile
~+
Q cap(-)
Thickness Wt.
Angle of Shearing
Density
Resistance
Zone ofnegligible
resistance
Zone of increasing
resistance
Total
length,
L
etc.
Zone of constant
resistance
etc.
B, Diameter
t-l
Downward Capacity
Qcap (-) = P, N q At
F di Pi tan 0i as L i
i=l
Where P t
t -1
Pt =
i-
L;,
ri s P
Lo + 20 B
pi=L
q=
as
Ljrj
~P@Lo+20B
.j=O
Friction angle between pile/pier and soil at depth i (see Table IO-8c)
Surface area of pile/pier per unit length
t-l
Upward Capacity
Qcap (+)
Fui Pi tan
s, as
i:
i=1
Where F Ui = Effective horiz. stress factor for upward load (see Table lO-8b)
other parameters as for downward capacity
Figure 10-12.
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
:
QCBp(+) ,
Soil Profile
Cohesion
Total
length,
L
Zone ofnegligible
resistance
Zone ofconstant
resistance
etc.
etc.
\,
B, Diameter
(
t-l
Downward Capacity
Qcap (-)
= Ct
N c At +
eai as
Li
i=1
Where c t =
Nc =
At =
cai =
as =
(
(
\
i-I
Upward Capacity
Qcap (+)
= .E
Cai
as
Lt.
i=1
Figure 10-15.
10-22
(
(
(
SA
Hard Rocl<
> 5000
S8
Rock
2500 to
5000
Sc
Dense Soil
Stiff Soil
120
140+
20,000
50,000+
25
120
15,000
40,000
GW,GP
1200 to
2500
:> 50
> 2000
120 -140
> 40
25
8,000
32,000
SW,SP,SM
600 to
1200
15 to 50
1000 to
2000
100 -130
33 - 40
5,000
20,000
< 600
< 15
< 1000
90 -120
< 33
< 1
2,000
15,000
Soft Rocl<
So
SC,
GM,GC
51:
soft Soil
CL,ML,MH
,CH
SF
Special
study
OL,GH, PT
2.
3.
Soil Profile Type in Zone of Influence may differ from that used to determine ground shaking parameters.
Zone of Influence extends below a shallow footing to approximately three times its width.
Ranges of values are provided for use in initial parametric studies. Site-specific geotechnical investigations are recommended for any structure
sensitive to foundation effects.
4.
Maximum capacities assume bearing at a minimum depth of 1 foot below adjacent grade and a minimum width of footing of 3 feet.
l.
Table 10-8a. Typical pile/pier capacity Parameters: Bearing capacity Factorsr He;
(adapted from NAVFAC; 1986J
......."""'!!"~"'!"!'!!"-~~-.
Driven Pile
10
15
21
24
29
35
42
50
62
77
86
120
145
Drilled Pier
10
12
14
17
21
25
30
38
43
60
72
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
:
Driven H-pile
0.5
1.0
0.3
0.5
Drive straight
prismatic pile
1.0
1.5
0.6
1.0
1.5
2.0
1.0
1.3
0.4
0.9
0.3
0.6
Drilled pier
0.7
0.4
steel
20
concrete
0.75 ep
Timber
0.75ep
(
Table 10-Sd. Typical Pile/Pier capacity parameters: cohesion, Ct andAdhesion, ca (PSF)
(adapted from NAVf~C, 19S6)
10.5.1
(
(
(
(
(
J
t,
_. -
__
T.abla.10~LJ!Qgr-es$ive..Scop.aa:E
G.e.otecbni.caLSite_In.v-sstigatiDn
1. Initial
(minimum)
Inexpensive
Existing reports
Drawings
Construction
records
2.
supplemental
(as needed)
3. Advanced
{as needed}
Inexpensive to
moderate
Moderate to
expensive _
Soil profile
selection
(SA, Sa .. J
Regional mans .
Type and
condition of
existing footings
Soils classification
Visual inspections
Generic stiffness
and capacity (see
Tables 10.7 & 10.8)
Moisture contents
standard
penetration test
(SPT blow counts)
Approximate
densities
Angle of shearing
resistance
Borings
Refined strength
and stiffness
Undisturbed'
samples
Laboratory tests
Theoretical analyses
Low
Moderate
Modest
Structural Stability,
Life safety (LS) for
simple, foundation
insensitive, buildings
Average
LS for buildings with
some sensitivity to
foundation effects .
Cohesion
Cone penetrometer
te5ts{CPT/SCPTI
Enhanced
LS for very
foundation sensitive
buildings
(
Records may also be available indicating
ultimate pile capacities if load tests were
performed. Construction records can be important,
since footing characteristics are often changed in
the field by the geotechnical engineer on the basis
of actual subsurface conditions. Finally,
information on the existing loads on the structure
is needed to determine the amount of existing dead
load on foundation elements to be included in the
analysis.
In addition to reviewing existing documents,
the structural engineer, with the possible assistance
(
(
(
(
10-26
10.5.3
Advanced Investigations
(
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUII.DINGS
(
;
Foundation Influence on
structural Response
The results of preliminary analyses using the
force-displacement envelopes of Section 10.4
indicate the sensitivity of a building to foundation
effects. Generally two analyses are required-one
assuming stiff/strong geotechnical components and
the other assuming flexible/weak. If the results of
each analysis indicate that performance objectives
are met for both assumptions, then further
refinement of geotechnical properties is
_
unnecessary. Similarly, if both assumptions lead to
the conclusion that retrofitting is required for
essentially the same deficiencies, then it is
normally sufficient to correct the deficiencies
without reducing the uncertainty in geotechnical
parameters. If the two assumptions lead to
.-- -. -- - - -
10.6.2
Permanent Foundation
Displacements
(
(
(
(
10-28
10.7 Modifications to
.-..-_..__..--- -----Foundation-Systems----- ....-Foundation modifications might be required
because of inadequate capacity of existing
foundations to resist the effects of seismic shaking.
New structural improvements, such as new shear
walls or the strengthening of existing shear walls,
might also require foundation modifications or
additions. Improvements might also address site
hazards other than shaking, such as liquefaction or
landslides. These objectives might be accomplished
by one or a combination of the basic construction
techniques as summarized in Table 10-10.
10.7.1
10.7.2
10.7.3 Underpinning
Underpinning is a common solution to increase
the stiffness and strength of existing foundation
elements. The objective of underpinning is to
transfer the foundation loads to a deeper, more
competent bearing zone. This can be accomplished
in a number of different ways. Pits can be
excavated beneath existing footings and then filled
with concrete. This is done segmentally to
minimize temporary shoring. Piles, or more
commonly drilled piers, can be installed adjacent
to and tied to existing footings or pile caps.
Drilling equipment for large-diameter piers often
cannot access the interior of existing buildings.
Micropiles ranging in size from 3 to 8 inches in
diameter can be installed with portable equipment.
Depending on the specific soil conditions, these
small-diameter shafts can carry fairly large loads
(100 to 200 kips).
Underpinning can be designed to resist both
compression and tension loads. The design and
construction of underpinning should also address
effective load transfer. In some cases, preloading
using jacks ensures that loads are transferred to the
underpinning without excessive displacement.
Often it is necessary only to install nonshrink grout
between the existing footing and the new elements.
common alternative
Common alternative
Grouting
Common alternative
underpinning
conventional block
common alternative
Not applicable
Not applicable
Piles or Piers
Not applicable
Slabs
Not applicable
Grade BeamslWalls
spread Footings
Not applicable
Piers/Piles
structural Additions or
Modifications
Base Isolation
10.7.4
structural Additions or
Modifications
10..30
Not applicable
.-
oj
_ _ _ _ _
0_ _
_ _
__
__
(
(
Chapter 11
imits
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner.
11..1
Ceneral
Architect
. Bldg. Official
Engineer
Analyst
~,~~~~~'
--~-"-""'-
( =
11.3.1
Gravity Loads
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
11..2
.
(
(
(
Table 11-1. Representative Damage Descriptions for Elements and Components in Nonductile Concrete Frame and Frame-Wall Suildings
Beams
limited spalling
Very limited spalling
around beam column around beam column
joint. Limited flexural
joint. very limited
cracking in hinge
flexural cracking in
region. No permanent
hinge region. No
deflection. Gravity
permanent
capacity maintained.
deflection. Gravity
capacity maintained.
Slabs
Limited cracking
adjacent to beamcolumn joint or other
supports. Gravity
capacity maintained.
walls and
Pilasters
(Piers)
Foundations
No evidence of
differential
settlement between
two adjacent
columns.
No evidence of
differential
settlement between
two adjacent
columns.
Differential settlement
approaching U150 between
two adjacent columns.
(3
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
\
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
f
1.1.3.3
Element and
Component Response
Check all components for:
Strength
Deformation capacity
Lateral Deformations
(
(
\,
(
(
\
C
Maximum
total drift
Maximum
inelastic
drift
0.01
0_005
. 0.01
0.02
0.005 0.015
0.02
( -
O.33~
r,
no
limit
no limit
(
(
(
(
11..4
(
(
.e.x,c_e,:-c!-~~qu~ti~~:?}~'-\Yl1ere_~ is the_!o!..al_ .
I
11 ..4
Element and
Component
Acceptability Limits
11.4.1 General
Each element must be checked to determine
whether its individual components satisfy
acceptability requirements under performance
point forces and deformations.
Section 11.4.2 defines primary and secondary
components and presents general information on
strength and defonnability checks. Sections 11.4.3
through 11.4.7 present specific recommendations
for various elements and the components that
typically compose those elements.
Commentary: Together with the global
requirements of Section 11.3, acceptability limits
for individual components are the main criteria for
assessing the calculated building response.
Section 11.4 defines those components and actions
that must be checked and recommends specific
limits. As described in Chapter 9, elements
(frames. walls, diaphragms. and foundations) are
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
:
, (
(
.'."'"7
(
. ('
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Chapter 11, Response Limits
"
11.4.3
..
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETRDFJT OF CDNCRETE BUILDINGS
' - _ - - - Ufe
O/Qc
------...:--~-.I4-~.:..!:!...t..-
o
-J
~
~
- ..- ---
1.0 ----------,8
safety performance
-,evel---------------------------- --- -.
Structural stability
performance level
'A:
-4
(
(
.6.
Lateral Deformation
('
/1
Lateral Deformation
(-
(
(
(
( -
11-8
..
11.4.4
..
..
..
Foundation uplift
e = ey + ep
where ey = yield rotation = (MIEI)/p
and
ep =
11 ..9
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
'(
J.4--~-- interstory
drift
(
- .-.(plastic-hinge-r-(}tations-in-waU~-tangential-dr-ift-- "... _.. --('"
ratio in walls or wall segments, and slip along the
(
construction joint) recommendedfor these
(
components in Chapter 9. Refer to Section 9.4.3.1
, (
commentary for a discussion of construction joint
(
slip. .
(
Tangential drift is "the drift due to
;'
\
actual shear andflexural distortion of the
(
wall, not including drift due to rigid body
(
rotations (which may be caused by
foundation yield or hinging at the wall
base): Tangential drift ratio, in radians,
(
is calculated as the tangential drift
(
divided by the wall or story height.
..
Foundation uplift
..
(-
Bgl!LDn'IC~
ch 0 rd rotatio n = Q
In
..
+ Foundation uplift
Inelastic response should be restricted to those
components and actions identified for the separate
wall and frame elements, as described above.
Commentary: Discontinuous walls supported
on columns have contributed to damage and
collapse of numerous structures during strong
earthquakes. The primary causes of collapse are
compression. failure of the column due to
overturning action of the wall on the column, or
soft-story failure itt either column shear or flexure
11.4.6
..
11-12
..
..
..
on
Table 11-$. Numerical Acceptance Criteria For Plastic Hinge Rotations in ReinForced
.
~~~-~-;,.;;..~~~
.~'?'!~t:e~_~e~!!1s'_!!!_r!!J!!?.!!~
_.
p-p
Trans.
Rein~.2
bwd.fi:
Pbal
:;0.0
:;3
0.005
0.02
0.025
0.02
0.05
:;0.0
~6
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.04
~0.5
:;3
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
~6
0.005
0.005
0.015
0.015
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.5
NC
:;3
0.005
0.01
:;0.0
NC
~6
0.0
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.015
0.5
NC
:;3
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.015
2 0.5
NC
26
0.0
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.02
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.005
0.01
:;0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.02
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.005
0.01
.1
e
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.
0.01
0.01
0.015
'-0-.0-2---r--0.03
When more than one of the conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4 occur for a given component, use the
minimum appropriate numerical value from the table. See Chapter 9 for symbol definitions.
Under the heading "transverse reinforcement," "C" and "NC" are abbreviations for conforming
and non-conforming derails, respectively, A component is conforming if within the flexural
plastic region: 1) closed stirrups are spaced at::; d/3, and 2) for components of moderate and high
ductility demand the strength provided by the stirrups C~) is at least three-fourths of the design
shear. Otherwise, the component is considered non-conforming.
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
10 = Immediate Occupancy
LS = Life Safety
SS = Structural Stability
V =Design Shear.
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
./
/
\.
(
Table 11-4. Numerical Acceptance Criteria For Plastic Hinge Rotations in ReinForced
Concrete columns, in radians
pS
Trans. Reinf. 2
Agfc'
~0.1
V6
bwdE
C
(
~3
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.015
0.03
~0.1
~6
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.01
0.025
~0.4
C
C
NC
NC
Nt
NC
~3
0.0
0.005
0.015
0.010
0~025
~6
0.0
0.005
0.01
0.01
0.015
~0.4
~0.1
~0.1
~0.4.
~0.4
~3
0.005
0.005
0.01
0.005
0.015
~6
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
~3
0.0
0.0
0.005
0.0
0.005
~6'
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.015
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
P
Agfc
o r - - . ~0.1
other cases
0.0
0.02
0.0
0.01
0.0
0.0
0.005
0.005
0.01
Allother cases
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
11...14
When more than one of the conditions 1.2, 3, and 4 occur for a given component, use the minimum
appropriate numerical value from the table. See Chapter 9 for symbol definitions.
.
Under the heading "transverse reinforcement." "C" and "NC" are abbreviations for conforming and
non-conforming details, respectively. A component is conforming if within the flexural plastic hinge
region: 1) closed hoops are spaced at =:;; d/3, and 2) for components of moderate and high ductility
demand the strength provided by the stirrups (lTs) is at least three-fourths of the design shear.
Otherwise, the component is considered non-conforming.
To qualify. 1) hoops must not be lap spliced in the cover concrete, and 2) hoops must have hooks
embedded in the core or must have other details to ensure that hoops will be adequately anchored
following spalling of cover concrete.
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
10 = Immediate Occupancy
LS = Life Safety
SS = Structural Stability
P = Design axial load
V = Design shear force
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
(
(
Table 11-5. Numerical Acceptance criteria for Total Shear Angle in ReinForced
Concrete seam-Column Joints, in radians
1. Interior joints
Trans.
Reinf. 1
Agic'
V
Vn
s;; 0.1
s 1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.02
0.03
::; 0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.015
0.02
;::: 0.4
C
C
s 1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.015
0.025
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.015
0.02
::;1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.015
0.02
s;; 0.1
NC
NC
;::: 1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.015
0.4
NC
::;1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.015
;::: 0.4
NC
z 1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.015
;:::0.4
s 0.1
1.5
2. other joints
Trans.
Reinf. 1
--
Agfc'
V
Vn
s 1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.015
0.02
C
C
;::: 1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.015
;::: 0.4
::;1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.015
0.02
0.4
;::: 1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.015
s 0.1
NC
::; 1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.005
0.01
::; 0.1
NC
;::: 1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.005
0.01
;::: 0.4
NC
::;1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NC
;::: 1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
s 0.1
s 0.1
0.4
1.
Under the heading "transverse reinforcement," "e" and "'NC" are abbreviations for conforming and
non-conforming details, respectively. A joint is conforming if closed hoops are spaced at::;; hc/3
within the joint. Otherwise. the component is considered non-conforming. Also. to qualify as
conforming details under ii., 1) hoops must not be lap spliced in the cover concrete, and 2) hoops
must have hooks embedded in the core or must have other details to ensure that hoops will be
adequately anchored following spalling of cover concrete.
2.
The ratio
3.
4.
5.
6.
p
Agf~
is the ratio of the design axial force on the column above the joint to the product of
the gross cross-sectional area of the joint and the concrete compressive strength. The design axial
force is to be calculated considering design gravity and lateral forces.
The ratio V/Vn is the ratio of the design shear force to the shear strength for the joint.
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
10 = Immediate Occupancy
LS = Life Safety
_
SS = Struct:rrrai Stability
For lightweight concrete. use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
No inelastic deformation is permitted since joint yielding is not allowed in a conforming building.
(
;
. " . _..
Table 11-6. Numerical Acceptance Criteria For Plastic Hinge Rotations in ReinForced
TfJ!!..o:YJlJ!.Y S!!.~s t!.!!t!....S!~-'!::..f.o~.J!1n SP!J.!!ecti0lJ.?t in rat!iaJ!L
..
---::.a..::..,o!!.cr~!!!.
..
(
(
(
Vg
continuity
Reinforcement3
('
Vo
s;0.2
Yes
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.03
0.05
0.4
Yes
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03
0.04
s;0.2
No
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.015
0.02
~0.4
NO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.01
0.0
1
0.02
0.03 .
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
When more than one of the conditions 1, 2, and 3 occur for a given component. use the minimum
appropriate numerical value from the table.
Vg = the gravity shear acting on the slab critical section as defined by ACI 318. Vo = the direct
punching shear strength as defined by ACI 318.
Under the heading "Continuity Reinforcement," assume "Yes" where at least one of the main
bottom bars in each direction is effectively continuous through the column cage. Where the slab
is post-tensioned, assume "Yes" where at least one of the post-tensioning tendons in each
direction passes through the column cage. Otherwise, assume "No."
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
10 = Immediate Occupancy
LS = Life Safety
SS = Structural Stability
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
(
(
11-16
t{
(
(
Table 11-7. Numerical Acceptance Criteria for Plastic Hinge Rotations in Reinforced Concrete Waifs
(As - A~)fy + p
v
1
tjwfc'
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
twlwR
;;~~~;;;;;;
Boundary
stement'
::;; 0.1
::;;3
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.015
0.020
:::; 0.1
~6
0.004
0.008
0.010
0.010
0.015
2= 0.25
:::;3
0.003
0.006
0.009
0.009
0.012
2= 0.25
2=6
0.001
0.003
0.005
0.005
0.010
::;; 0.1
:::;3
0.002
0.004
0.008
0.008
0.015
::;; 0.1
2=6
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.006
0.010
2= 0.25
:::;3
NC
NC
NC
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.005
2= 0.25
~6
NC
0.001
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.004
= the cross-sectional area of longitudinal reinforcement in tension, At' = the cross-sectional area of longitudinal
reinforcement in compression, fy = yield stress of longitudinal reinforcement, P = axial force acting on the wall
considering design load combinations, lw = wall web thickness, llV = wall length, andfl-' = concrete compressive
strength.
V = the design shear force acting on the wall, and other variables are as defined above.
The term "en indicates the boundary reinforcement effectively satisfies requirements of ACI 318. The term. "NC"
indicates the boundary requirements do not satisfy requirements of ACI 318.
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
10 = Immediate Occupancy
LS = Life Safety
SS = Structural Stability
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
Ar
(-~
\
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
:
(,
Table 11-8. Numerical Acceptance Criteria for Tangential Drift Ratios for Reinforced concrete
.
_
(
.. - -.... f..
0.004
0.015
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
10 = Immediate Occupancy
LS = Life Safety
SS = Structural Stability
(
(
(
Table 11-9. Numerical Acceptance Criteria for Shear Sliding Displacements for Reinforced
Concrete Walls and Wall segments Controlled by Shear, in inches
(
(
1.
cases
0.8
(
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
10 = Immediate Occupancy
LS = Life Safety
SS -= Structural Stability
11 ..18
Table 11-10. Numerical Acceptance Criteria for Chord flotations for eeinforced Concrete coupling
~f!E!1!!, jn._rC!f!if!.!J.~_ .
._ ._
___ _._
....
- -.
bwd..Jl
~3
0.006
0.015
0.025
0.025
0.040
::::6
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.015
0.030
~3
0.006
0.012
0.020
0.020
0.035
::::6
0.005
0.008
0.010
0.010
0.025
Diagonal reinforcement
N/A
0.006
0.018
0.030
0.030
0_050
3.
4.
bwd..Jl
~3
0.006
0.012
0.015
0.015
0.024
;:;:6
0.004
0.008 -
0.010
0.010
0.016
~3
0.006
0.008
0.010
0.010
0.020
;:;:6
0.004
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.012
1.
2.
Conventional longitudinal steel consists of top and bottom steel parallel to the longitudinal axis of the beam. The
requirements for conforming transverse reinforcement are: 1) closed stirrups are to be provided over the entire
length of the beam at spacing not exceeding d/3; and 2) the strength provided by the stirrups ("Vs-) should be at least
three-fourths of the design shear.
V = the design shear force on the coupling beam in pounds, bw = the web width of the beam, d = the effective
depth of the beam, andfi' = concrete compressive strength in psi.
Linear interpolation between values listed in the table is permitted.
10
Immediate Occupancy
LS = Life Safety ..
SS = Structural Stability
For lightweight concrete, use 75 percent of tabulated values (see Section 9.5.2.2).
f~
\
(
(
(
\,
'-----,------------_._-_._-
(
(
(
(
(-
Chapter 12
st
ral
n
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner
12..1
Introduction
12.2
Acceptability criteria
Architect
Bldg. Official
..
12..1
--
~.
..,.,.,...:....-~.
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
Table 12-1. Items to be Investigated for the LiFe saFety NonstructuraJ perFormance L6vel*
-- --------- .. "
-~
..
..
..
..
Masonry partitions
..
..
..
..
..
..
Traction elevators
..
..
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
* The items listed in this table include all items listed in Table 12-2.
** To be investigated regardless of location.
(
('
12-2
('
(
(
Or
CONCRETE BUU.DINGS
(
,..
(
(
(
(
-. -- . -..Chapter-13----
n
AUdience Interestspectrum
Owner
13..1
Introduction
Architect
Bldg. Official
13..2
Additional Data
13.2.1
13-2
..
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVAI.UATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUII.DINGS
..
13-6
(
(
13.5.2
Increase Awareness
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
----(-f
(
(
(
(
13-8
(
(
(
(
,eon
References
._._ _.
14-2
\(
r'
('
References
(
References
csse,
14-3
CONCR~TE
BUILDINGS
Detroit, Michigan.
Kitayama, K., S. Otani, and H. Aoyama, 1991,
"~evelopment of Design Criteria for
R~info~ced ~oncrete Interior Beam-Column
Jo~ts~ De~lgn of Beam-Column Joints for
Seismic Resistance, James O. Jirsa, ed, ACI
Special Publication 123, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
Goel, ~. ~., and A. K -, C~opra, 1991, "Inelastic
SeISmIC Response of One-Storey, Asymmetric-.
.
Liao, S. S., D. Veneziano, and R. V. Whitman,
Plan Systems: Effects of SystemParameters
and Yielding," Earthquake Engineering &
1~88, "R~gression ~?de~~ for Evaluating
Structural Dynamics, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 201Liquefaction Probability, Journal of the
222.
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,
voL 114, no. 4, pp. 389-411.
Graf, W. P., and M. Mehrain, 1992, "Analysis
Luke, P. C., C. Chon, and J. O. Jirsa, 1985,
and Testing of a Flat Slab Concrete Building, "
"Use of Epoxies for Grouting Reinforcing Bar
Tenth World Conference on Earthquake
Dowels in Concrete," ACI Structural Journal.
Engineering, Vol. 6, Madrid, Spain.
Luo, Y., A. J. Durrani, and J. P. Conte, 1994,
Hawkins, N. M., 1980, "Lateral Load-Design
"Equivalent Frame Analysis of Flat Plate
Considerations for Flat
Plate Structures , "
.
Buildings for Seismic Loading, " Journal' oj
Proceedings, CSCE-ASCE-ACl-CEB
Structural Engineering, vol. 120, no. 7, pp.
International Symposium on Nonlinear Design
2137-2155.
of Concrete Structures, University of Waterloo
Lynn, A. C., J. P. Moehle, and S. A. Mahin,
Press, Waterloo, Ontario, pp. 581-613.
1995, "Evaluation of Existing Reinforced
Hwang, S.-J., and J. P. Moehle, 1993, An
Concrete Building Columns" EERC
Experimental Study of Flat-Plate Structures
Newsletter.
Under Vertical and Lateral Loads,
Mahaney, J. A., T. F. Paret, B. E. Kehoe, and S.
UCB/EERC-93/03, University of California,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
A. Freeman, 1993, "The Capacity Spectrum
Berkeley, California.
Method for Evaluating Structural Response
During the Lorna Prieta Earthquake," National
lCBO, 1994, Uniform Building Code, International
Earthquake Conference, Memphis.
Conference of Building Officials, Whittier,
Martin, G. R., and 1. P. Lam, 1995, "Seismic
California.
Design of Pile Foundations: Structural and
lCBO, 1996, Code Change Item 178 - Committee
Geotechnical Issues," Third International
Action and Challenge 1, Building Standards,
Conference on Recent Advances in
Part III, pp. 148-172, International Conference
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil
of Building Officials, Whittier, 'California, Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri.
14-4
References
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
\
("
References
(
:
--
References
(
(
(
(
.:
_ _
~l!g!~~~rjDg-R~:;>[email protected]{JJ?-,J:lQtsd4ID,J~:~~w_
York.
Vanderbilt, M. D., and W. G. Corley, 1983,
"Frame Analysis of Concrete Buildings,"
Concrete International, American Concrete
Institute, pp. 33-43.
Vulcano, A., V. V. Bertero, and V. Colotti, 1989,
"Analytical Modeling of RIC Structural
Walls," Proceedings, Ninth World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering, Japan Association
for Earthquake Disaster Prevention, Tokyo,
Japan, vol. VI, paper 9-1-7, pp. 41-46.
Wallace, J. W., and J. P. Moehle, 1992,
"Ductility and Detailing Requirements for
Bearing Wall Buildings," Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE, vol. 118, no. 6, pp.
1625-1644.
Wilson, R. C., and D. K. Keefer, 1985,
"Predicted Areal Limits of EarthquakeInduced Landsliding," in Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region,
United States Geological Survey Professional
Paper 1360, J. 1. Ziony, ed. pp.317-493.
Wood, S. L., 1990, "Shear Strength of Low-Rise
Reinforced Concrete Walls, " A CI Structural
Journal, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 99-107.
References
14-7
<-
c
(
(
\
(
{,
(
"
....
_._ ..
- - - - - - - - - - -