ATC Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings Volume 1 OTC Applied Technology Council CALIFORNIA SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program Report SSC 96-01Applied Technology Council ‘The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a non: profit, vax-exempt corporation established in 1971 throogh the efforts of the Structural Engineers Asso- ciation of California, ATC i guided by a Board of Directors consisting of representatives appointed by the American Society of Civil Engineers. the Strue- tural Engineers Association of California, the Western States Council of Structural Engineers Assceiations, And four at-large representatives concerned with the practice of siriciural engineering. Fach director serves a three-year term. ‘The purpose of ATC is to assist the design practitio. ner in structural engineering (and related design spe- cialty fields such a5 seils, wind, and carthquake) in the task of keeping abreast of and effectively using technological developments. ATC also identifies 22d encourages needed research and develops consenstis pinions on structural engineering isqucs in a nenpro- prictery format, ATC thereby fulfills a unique role in funded information transfer Project management and administration are carried ‘out by a full-time Executive Director and support staf. Project work is conducted by 2 wide range of Inighly qualified consuhing professionals, thus incor- ‘porating the experience of many individuals from ‘academia, research, and professional practice who ‘would not be available from any single organization. Funding for ATC projects is obtained from govern ‘meat agencies and fram the private sector im the forrn of tax-deductible contributions. 1996-1997 Board of Directors John ©, Theiss, President ©. Mark Saunders, Vice Presiden [Bijan Moh Sectetary/Treasurer Edwin 7. Horton. Past Presicent Amthor NL. Chit don M. Coil Edwin T, Dean Robert G, Dean Douglas A. Foutch James R. Libby Kenneth A. Luraell Andrew T. Merovich Sea A. Stedman Jonathan. Shipp ‘Charles Thornton California Seismic Safety Commission ‘The California Seismic Safeiy Commission consists of fifteen members appointed by the Governor sn ‘(wo members representing the State Senate and Sue Assembly. Disesplines represented on the Commis sion include seismology. engineering, geology. fire protecnon, emergency services, public utilities, insur. ance, social services, ocal government, building code enforcement, planning and archivecture As @ nonpartisan, single-purpose body. the mission of the Commission i to improve the well being of the people of Califoria through costeffective measures that lower earthquake risks 19 life and property. It sponsors legislation and advocates building code changes to improve buildings and other facilities, provides « foram for representatives ofall public and private interests and academic disciplines related to ‘earthquakes, and publishes reports, poliey recommen dations, and guides to improve public safety in earth- guakes. |i. works toward Jong-term improvements inal arcas affecting seismic safety by: encouraging and assisting local governments, state agencies, and businesses 10 implement mitigation measures 10 make sure that they will be able to operate after earthquakes: establishing priorities for action 1o reduce earthquake risks; identi- Tying needs for eanhquake education, research. and legislation: and reviewing emergency response, re covery, and reconstruction efferts after damaging ccarthquakes s0 that lessons learned can be applied 10 future earthquakes. Current (1996) Commission Members Lloyd 8. Clu. Chairman James E Slosson, View Chairman “Alfed E. Alquist State Senator Dominic L, Corese, State Assemblyman Hal Bernson erry © Chang, oben Downer Frederick M. Herman Jeffrey Fohoson Corie Lee Gary L. MeGavin ame! Shapire Lowell E, Shields Pawicis Snyder Keitter M, Wheeler H.Roben Wise Disclamer While the information presented in this report is betieved to be correc. the Applied Technology Council and the California Seismic Safery Commission assume no responsibil for its accuracy or for the opinions expressed herein, The material presented in this publication should noi be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification ofits accu racy. suitability. and applicability by qualified professionals, Users of information fom this publi cation assume all Hability arising from such use. Cover Mutation: Sta OMe Bldg, 12nd N Ss, Sacramenc. CA. provided by Chas AmpATc-40 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings Volume 1 by APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite $50 Redwood City, California 94065 SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION State of California Products 1.2 and 1.3 of the Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Craig D. Comartin CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR PROJECT DIRECTOR Richard W. Niewiarowski SENIOR ADVISOR Christopher Rojaha Report No, SSC 96-01 ‘November 1996Preface Proposition 122 passed by Califomnia’s voters in 1990, created the Earthquake Safety and Public Buildings Rehabilitation Fund of 1990, sup- ported 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 range of activities that will capitalize on the seismic retrofit experience in the private sector to im- prove seismic retrofit practices for goverment buildings. The purpose of California's Proposi- tion 122 research and development programm is to develop state-of-the-practice recommenda- tions to address current needs for seismic retro- {it 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 invento- ries in 1994, as part of the Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program, the ‘Commission awarded the Applied Technology Council (ATC) a contract to develop a recom- ‘mended methodology and commentary for the seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing con- crete buildings (Product 1.2). In 1995 the ‘Commission awarded a second, related contract to ATC to expand the Product i 2 effort to in- clude effects of foundations on the seismic per- formance of existing concrete buildings (Product 1.3). The results of the two projects hhave been combined and are presented in this, ATC-40 Report (also known as SSC-96-01).. Two other repos recently published bythe Califomia Seismic Safety Commission, the Provisional Commentary for Seismic Rerrofit (1994) and the Review of Seismic Research Re- sults on Existing Buildings (1994), are Products 1.1 and 3.1 of the Proposition [22 Program, re- spectively. These two previous reports provide ihe primaty basis for tre developinent of the recommended methodology and commentary contained in this document, This document is organized into two volumes. Volume One contains the main body of the evaluation and retrofit methodology, presented in 13 chapters, with a glossary and a list of ref- erences. This volume contains al of the parts of the document required for the evaluation and retrofit of buildings. Volume Two consists of Appendices containing supporting materials re- lated to the methodology: four example building, case study reports, a cost effectiveness study related to the four building studies, and a review of research on the effects of foundation condi- tions on the seismic performance of concrete buildings. This report was prepared under the direction of ATC Seniot Consultant Craig Comartin, who served as Principal Investigator, and Richard W. Niewiarowski, who served as Co-Principal In- vestigator and Project Director. Fred Turner served as CSSC Project Manager. Overview and guidance were provided by the Proposition, 122 Oversight Panel consisting of Frederick M Herman (Chair), Richard Conrad, Ross Cran- mer, Wilfred Iwan, Roy Johnston, Frank McClure, Gary McGavin, Joel McRonald, Jo- seph P. Nicoleni, Stanley Scott, and Lowell Shields. The Product 1.2 methodology and commentary were prepared by Sigmund A. Freeman, Ronald O. Hamburger, William T. Holmes, Charles Kircher, Jack P. Mochle, ‘Thomas A. Sabol, and Nabih Youssef (Product, 1.2 Senior Advisory Panel). The Product 1.3 Geotechnical/Structural Working Group con- sisted of Sunil Gupta, Geoffrey Marin, Mar- shall Lew, aad Lelio Mejia. William T. Ho} mes, Yoshi Moriwaki, Maurice Power and Nabih Youssef served on the Product 1.3 Senior Advisory Panel.. Gregory P. Luth and Tom H. Hale, respectively, served as the Quality Assur- ance ‘Consultant and the Cost Effectiveness Study Consultant. Wendy Rule served as Tech- nical Editor, ane Gail Hynes Shea served as Publications Consultant Richard McCarthy CSSC Executive Director Christopher Rojahn ATC Executive Director & ATC-40 Senior AdvisorOversight Panel for Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program Frederick M. Herman, Chair Richard Conrad Ross Cranmer Seismic Safesy Comission Builing Standards Comnis- Building Official Local Governmens/Building sion Structural Engineer Official Roy Johnston Frank McClure Dr. Wilfred twan Suructural Brgineer Structural Engineer Mechenical Engineer Joel McRonald Joseph P. Nicoletti Gary MeGavin Division of the State Architect Structural Engineer Seisraic Safesy: Commission Architect Lowell E, Shields Selsmic Safety Commission Stanley Scout Mechanical Engineer Research Political Scientist Seismic Safety Commission Staff Richard McCarthy Fred Turner Execuive Director Project Manager Karen Cogan Chris Lindstrom Deborah Penny Ed Hensley Carmen Marquez Teri DeVriend Kathy GoodeltProduct 1.2 Senior Advisory Panel Sigmund A. Freeman Wiss, Jamey, Elstner & Asso- lates: Ronald O, Hamburger EQE huternationat William T. Holmes Rusherford & Chekene Jack Moehle ‘Thomas A. Sabol Charles Kircher Earthquake Engineering Re- Engethirk & Sabol Charles Kircher & Associates search Center Nabil. Youssef Nabil Youssef & Associates Product 1.3 Senior Advisory Panel William 7. Holmes Rutherford & Chekene Yoshii Moriwaki Woodward-Clyde Consular Maurice Power Geomatris Consutamns, Ine. Nabih F, Yousser Nabih Youssef & Associates Product 1.3 Geotechnical/Structural Working Group Sunil Gupta EQ Tech Consuttants Marshall Lew Law/Crandall, tne, ‘Quality Assurance consuttant Gregory P. Luth Gregory P. Lut & Associates Cost effectiveness Study Consultant Tom H. Hale Tiny R. Yew Consulting Engineers Geoffrey R. Martin University of Soubern California Lelio Mejia Woodward-Clyde Consuitanrs Technical Editor Wendy Rule Richmond, CA Publications consultant Gail Hynes Shea Albany, CASeismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings Products 1.2 and 1.2 of the Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Imorovement Program Table of Contents volume 1 Preface... Glossary Executive Summary . Chapter | Chapier 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter § ‘Table of contents Introdvetion oo. LL Purpose. 12 Sc0pe -oseessevee 7 1.3 Organization and Contents. Overview 2.1 Ingoduetion 2.2 Changes in Perspective... 23 2.5 Evaluation and Retrofit Concept 2.6 Final Design and Consiruction .. Performance Objectives... - 3.L Imoduk 3.2. Performance Levels 3.3. Barthquake Ground Motion 3.4 Performance Objectives... 3.5 Assignment of Performance Objectives. Seismic Hazard. Aa Scope 412. Eanhquake Ground Shaking Hazard Levels. 4.3. Ground Failure... 4.4 Primary Ground Shaking Coteria £5 Specification of Supplementary Crsria Determination of Deficiencies — 5.1 IntroductionSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS 5.2 Description: Typical Layouts and Devails 5.3. Seismic Performance 3.4 Data Collection 5.5 Review of Seismic Hazara 5.6 Identification of Potentia! Deficiencies 5.7 Preliminary Evalustion of Anteipated Seismic Performance 5.8 Preliminary Evaluation Conclusions and Reeonimendations Chapter 6 Retrofit Strategies . 6.1 Introduction. 6.2 Altermuive Retrofit Swategies.. 6.3 Design Constraints and Considerations 64 Strawegy Selection 6.3 Preliminary Design Chapter? — Quality Assurance Procedures . 3.1 General 7.2 Peer Review... 7.3 Plan Check 7.4 Construction Quality Assurance Chapter § Nonlinear Static Analysis Procedures aes 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Methods to Petform Simplified Nonlinear Arnal ysis 8.3 Mlustrative Exarmple 8.4 Other Analysis Methods 85 Basis of Sita Dynamics Chapter 9 Modeling Rules : 9.1 Genera. 9.2 Leads . 9.3 Global Building Considerations... 9.4 Element Models 9.5 Component Models .... 8.6 Notations... Chapter 10° Foundation Effects, 10.1 Genera nce 10.2 Foundation Systers and 10.3. Foundation Elements 10.4 Properties of Geotechnical Components 10.5 Characterization of Site Soils. 30.6 Response Limis and Acceptability Criteria, 10.7 Modifications to Foundation Systems... ‘Chapter 11 Response Limi - 1A General. . — 11.2 Deseriptive Limits of Expected Performance 11.3 Global Building Acceptability Limits 114 lem and Component Acegailiy Limits. Chapter 12 Nonstructural Components... . vii ‘Table of contents,SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS I21 Introduction ..ss.cssscssesenssstessestnntssticenessetense 12.2 Acceptability Criteria. Chapter 13 Conclusions and Future Directions, 13.1) Insroduetion 13.2. Additional Data... 13.3 Potential Benefits. 13.4 Major Challenges. 13.5 Recommended Action Plan. References acer - - Volume 2—Appendices Appendix A Escondido Village Midrise, Stanford, California Appendix B_ Barrington Medical Center, Los Angeles, Califomia Appendix © Aaminincaton Bing, Calfomia Sie Universi at «Nong, Northridge, California Appendix D Holiday Inn, Van Nuys, Califor Appendix E Cost Effectiveness Study. Appendix F Supplemental Information on ‘Appendix G Applied Technology Council Projects and Report information. ‘Table of contentsSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Glossary Acceptability (response) limits: Refers to specific limiting values for the deformations and loadings. for deformation-controlled and foree- controlled components respectively, which ‘consticue criteria for acceptable seismic performance, Brittle: see nonduccile. Capacity: The expected ultimate strength (ia flexure, shear, or axial loading) of a structural component excluding the reduction (@) factors commonly used in design of concrete members. The capacity ‘usually refers to the strength at the yield point of tie element or structure's capacity ‘curve. For deformation-controlled ‘components, capacity beyond the elasti> limit generally includes the effects of strain hardening, Capacity curve: The plot of the total Lateral foree, V, ona structure, against the lateral defection, 4, of the roof of the structure. ‘This is often referred to as whe “pushover curve Capacity spectrum: ‘The capacity curve transformed from shear farce vs. roof Aisplacement (¥ vs. coordinates into spectral acceleration vs. spectral displacement (S. vs. 5} coordinates Capacity spectrum method: A nonlinear static analysis provedure that provides a graphical representation of the expected seismic perfornance of the existing or retrofitted structure by the intersection of tbe siructure’s capacity spectrum with a Clossary response spectrum (demand spectrum) representation of the earthquake’s displacement demand on the structure. The interseetion is the performance point, and the displacement coordinate, a, of the performance point is uve estimated displacement demand on the structure for the specified level of seismic hazard, Components: The local concrete members that comprise the major structural elements of the building such as columns, beams, slabs. wall panels, boundary members. joints, ete Concrete frame building: A building with a ‘monolithically east concrete structural framing system composed of horizomal and vertical elements which support all vertical gravity loads and also provide resistance 10 al} lateral loads through bending of the framing elements. Concrete frame-wall building: A building with a ‘suuctural system composed of an ‘essentially complete conerete frame system to support al) gravity loads ané conerete walls to provide resistance to lateral loads, primarily in shear. Deformation-controlled: Refers to components, eletnents, actions, oF systems which can, and ate permitted 10, exceed ther elastic limi in a ductile manner. Force or stess levels for these components are of lesser importance than the amount or extent of vp tae Le se safe" 0 account for uncertainty a ve rthguake demand and Bailing Repo ulling capacity “Traditional Code Bass va + Elastic eathquake forces eluced foe tineae design we, aries bated on typical inastic expanse of structural types + Reduction justi by expected aug. 3 Response Cogent Teed a Demand Rrdaced Based Inch tartigaeke demand based on sa Tekst Capcie “ \ of Builcding, Inelastic of buiing + Relation af demand vs capacity severates Performance Pint Desipn dase on displacement, 2-16 Chapter 2, overviewSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS ‘When an earthquake displaces the building laterally. its response is represented by a point on this curve. A point on the curve defines a specific damage state for the building, since the deformation of all ofits components can be related to the global displacement of the struceure Determine Seismic Demand “The capacity of & particular building 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 B inakes this concept easy 0 visualize. Since tie seismic accelerations depend on period, deriand also changes as the structure yields. Another source of mutual dependence between capacity and demand is effective damping. As a building yieles in response (o seismic demand it dissipates energy ‘with hysteretic damping. Buildings that hove large, stable hysteresis loops during cyclic yielding. dissipate moze than trose with pinched loops ‘caused by degradation of strength and stifiness. Since the energy that is dissipated need noc be Stored in the structure, the damping has the effect ‘of diminishing displacement demend. Chapter 8 devows much attention to the ‘development and presentation of the Capacity Spectrum Method. ‘The Capacity Spectrum Method characterizes seismic demand initially using a $% damped elasic response spectrum as detailed in Chapter 4. This specirum is plowed in spectral ‘ordinates (ADRS) format showing the spectra acceleration as & function of spectral eisplacement. ‘This format allows the demand spectrum (0 be “overlaid” on the capacity spectrum for tie tuilding. The intersection of the demand and. capacity spectra, if located in the linear range of the capacity, would define the actual displacement for the sicuciure: however this is not normally the ‘Chanter 2, overview ‘ase as most analyses include some inelastic nonlinear behavior, To find te point where demand and capacity are equal the engincer assumes a point om the cepacty speciram ws an inital estimate. Using the spectral acceleration and displacement from this point, the engincer then can calculate reduction factors ca apply 10 the 59% elastic spectrum 10 account forthe hysteretic energy dissipation associated with the specific point. These eduction factors have the effect of pulling the demand spectrum down. IF she reduced demand spectrum imersecis the capacity spectrum ator near the intial assumed point, then itis the solution for de unique "performance point” where capacity equals demang. Ifthe intersection is not reasonably ctose (o the inital point. then the engineer can assume a new point somewhere between and repeat the process until a solution for the performance point is reached. Chapter 8 also presents an altemative for estimating the "performance point” where capacity and demand aN equal for a given eanhquake motion. The proposed federal uidelines (ATC, 1996a) presents one of these called the Displacement Coefficient Method. uses a series of coefficients to modify the hypothetical elastic response ofa building (o estimate its inelastic displacement demand. FE) verity perrormance (Once the performance point for a demand earthquake is estimated, the engineer checks the resulting performance of whe building using the acceptability criteria in Chapters 10 and LL. The performance is checked on two levels. First there are global limits for displacement of the structure for each performance objective. For example, Ure roof of a building migh: move four inches during ‘an earthquake for which it should be life safe. For the same building the total roof displacement ‘might be limited to (wo inches for a more frequent ‘earthquake in order to meet @ damage controlSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Capacity vs. Demand ‘Demand and capacity are mutually dependent. ‘As displacements increase, the petiog of the ‘Siructure lengthons. This is reflected directly in the ‘capaciy spectrum. Inelastic csplacemontssncrease damping and reduop demand. The capacity specitum method reduces demand ta find an inlersection with, the ‘capacity spectrum whore the digplacermont is consistent with the implied damping. Inia gaisio ‘demand 248 cnapter 2, overviewSEISMIC EVALUATION AND TROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS performance goal Sioierly, he engineer checks individual structural elements against accepiabilty limits witich depend on we global performance soal. The nature of the clement acceptability bimits vary according (othe specific element, Inelastic rotation js the acceptability parameter for beams. for example. The limits on inelast¢ rotation are recommended based on observations from tests and performance in past earthquakes. similar, though somewhat more qualitative procedure measures the acceptability of nonstructural components, ‘The nonlinear static procedures, including the Capacity Spectrum Mettod, ean appear 10 some 10 be tedious and complicated compared to traitiona) ‘design procedures. There are, however, some distinct benefits Firs, the entire process of generating the ‘capacity curve and dealing diveouy with the interdependence of capacity and demand gives the engineer a greatly enhanced understanding of the actual performance of te specific builaing, This enables the engineer to apply the necessary experience and judgment at a much more refined level than traditional procedures. ‘Also advantageous are the significantly more useful results of the analysis. The performance point at which the seismie capacity equals the demand characterizes performance as a specific building damage state for a specific earthquake intensity. The probability of occurrence of the ‘earthquake intensity defines the risk of occurrence for the damage sae Although the accuracy ofthis estimate is limited by unavoidable uncertainues, this explicit relationship between performance and risk is superior tothe implicit intem of evrrent code procedures. Componem deformations, directly related to darsage. are a much better parameter than forces for performance evaluation. In contrast 0 force-based traditional methods, te damage state from nonlinear staie procedures characterizes Ue | _oceupancy MPC Uressfery |e 2c | uresatew | ac se BC NPD Hozaras >| 20 420 30. 60 Redurea WPE se Not censiaeres 5 4e | structurat stably kegend Commonly referenced Building Performance Levels (SP-NP) Other possible combinations of SP. NP i [Not recommended combinations of SP-NP combination of a structural performance level and a nonstructural performance level and are designated by ihe applicable number and lever combioation suchas I-A. 3-C, fe. as shown in Table 3-1 3.2.1 Structural Performance Levels and Ranges Structural performance levels and ranges axe assigned a tlle and, for ease of reference, 2 ‘number. The number is called the structural performance number and is abbreviated SP-n ‘Gubere n is the designated number), 3-2 “The Structural Performance Levels— Tenmediate Occupancy, Life Safery, and Structorah Stabiliey—are diserete damage states and can be used directly in evaluation and reofi procedures to define echnical criteria, The oer structural performance designacions~ Damage Contot, Limited Sefer, ana Not Considered —are imponant placeholders in the qumbering sebeme to allow direct reference to the wide variery of building performance levets tia might be desirable to owners for evaluation or retrofit Commemary: These descripions of ‘acceptable dentage at various performance levels chapter 3, Performance objectivesSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS are siitar 10 those used in FEMA 273 (ATC 1996q). These descriptions are also sinular in concept, if nor in terminology, to those proposed in the Vision 2000 Progress Report (SEAOC 1995b}.. + Immediate Occupancy, SP-1: The post-earthquake damage state in which only very limited structural Gamage has occurred. “The basic vertical and lateral force resisting systems of the building retain nearly all of their pre-carthquake characteristies and capacities ‘The risk of life-threatening injury from structural failure reparabilicy is so undefined thar the term is no more useful than Damage Control. It is expected that many projecis may have special demeads for which criteria greater than Life Safery will be appropriate, Alihough nor a level, per se, iis for simpler 10 reference this range of performance levels using a placeholder wain the comext af standard designations (e,g. SP-2) than io formatly define both levels and ranges + Life Safety, SP-3: The postearthquake ‘damage state in which significant damage (0 the strueture is negligibie, and may have the building ‘occurred but in should be safe for ‘which some ‘unlimited egress, Perfo - margin against ingzess, and Bulaing Performance evel citer toil or ‘occupancy. ‘Structural Performance Level parti ‘+ Damage Contrel, * sumuctural SP-2: This term collapse is actually not 8 Nonstructural Performance Level remains. The specific level but devel of darage a range of post-earthquake ee damage states that ‘could vary trom SP-1, Immediate Occupancy 1 SP-3, Lite Safety. 1 provides a placetiolder for the many situations where it may be desirable (o limit structural damage beyond the Life Safety level, but occupancy is not the issue. Examples of damage control include protection of significant architectural features of historic buildings oF valuable contents. Commentary: The Damage Conirol range, also sometimes calied Limised Damage. is deflaed 10 allow reference 1o performance levels berween Immediate Occupancy and Life Safery. Alshough not specifically defined in other eurrem documents, dhe expected performance of most new buildings for the 10 percent/S0-yeor event (see Section 3.3) would probably fallin this range (EERI 1994). A performance equivalent 60 shar expected af new buildings is also sometimes calted Repairable Damage. but economic or technological ‘cnapter 5, Performance objectives Stability evel, Major structural components have not become dislodged and fallen. ‘reatening life safery either within or outside the building. While injuries during the eanhguake may ocevr. the tsk of life-treatening injury from structural damage is very low. I should be expected that ‘extensive structural repaits will ikely be necessary prior © reoceupation of the building, although the damage may not always be economically repairable. This level of structural performace is intended to be less than the level of performance expected of fully code compliant new builings, ‘+ Limited Safety, SP-4: This erm is actually nota specific level but a range of post-eanlhguake damage stales tat are tess Avan SP-3, Life Safety and bewer than SP-s. Suructurat Stability. It provides a placeholderSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS for the situation where a retrofit may not meet all the structural requirements of the Life Safe level. but is better than the level of Structural Stability. These circumstances incfude cases ‘when the complete Life Sarery level is not cost effective, or whem only some critical structural deficiencies are misigated (The nonstructural performance Jevel used ia his range varies and will depend on the intent fof the damage contral) © Structural Stability, SP-S: This level is the limiting post-earthquake struervral damage state in which she building's structural system is on the verge of experiencing partial or total collapse. Substantial damage to the structure has occurred, potentially including significant degradation in dhe stiffness and strength of the Jateral force resisting system. However, all significant components of the geavity load sesisting system continue to carry their gravity demands. Although the building retains its overall stability, significant risk of injury due to falling hazards may exist both within and oulside the building and significant aftershocks ‘may lead to collapse. It should be expected that significant major steuctura repaie will be necessary prior to reoecupancy. In the older cconerete building types considered in this document, itis very likely hat the damage will ‘no be technically or economically repairable. Falling Hazards are not specifically prevented to achieve this performance level Therefore NP-E (nonstructural perfoerance not considered) is normally combined with SP-5. Commentary: This ievel is provided primarily 10 enable a specific verification of continued structural stability for the maxima eartiquake ‘growid muorions. Aithough suck performance is ‘implied (SEAOC 1990) for new buildings in Colifornio, and is considered desirabte in all seismic regions, there has previously been no formalized method of verification. The cantbination lof this strectural performance level with earthquake (ground shaking iess than the maint showid be done with caution, as this could inply a high probability of collapse for any targer event + Not Considered, $P-6: This is nov a performance level, but provides a placeholder for situations where only nonstructural seismic evaluation or retrofit is performed. Commentary: Alihough unusual. nonstructural seismic improvements are sometimes made with no review of the soructure. This might ‘occur in locations of high and obvious mulnerabiliry, such as ar a compuser room or for important equipment. The explicit inclusion of a ‘Not Considered structural performance tevel in the building performance level is also a useful communication too! between designer and owner. 3.2.2 Nonstructural Performance Levels Nonstructural performance levels ae assigned a ttle and, for ease of reference, a ener. The teter is called the nonstructural performance lever and js abbreviated NPen (wire n is the designated Jewer). “The aonsimenural performance levels - Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life Safe, and Hazards Reduced - are discrete damage states and ean be used diretly in evaluation and retrofit procedures to define technical crtetia. The other nonstructural pesformance designation ~ Not Considered - isan importanc placeholder 10 allow ieeet ceference to the wide variety of building performance levels that might be desirable 19 ‘owners for evaluation or retrofit Commentary: Performance levels have been selected to allow combinations with structural levels har will correspond 10 single performance levels proposed by FEMA 273 and Vision 2000 and provide tne flexitility 10 formalize de facto ‘combined performance fevels commonly used in practice. + Operational, NP-A: The postcarthquake damage sate in which nonstructural elements land systems are generally in place and functional. Alchough minor disruption ane chapter 3, Performance objectivesSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS cleanup should be expected, all equipment and machinery should be working. However, external wilites, which may aot be aveilable dive to siggifican offsite damage, must be locally bucked up. Contingency plans to deal ‘wih possible difficulties with extemal communication, transponation, and availability Of supplies should be in place. Aldhough this level i defined here, development of design criteria must inclode building specific planning and back-up systems and is beyond the scape af this document. ‘+ Immediate Occupancy, NP-B: The ost-carthquake damage state in which onstrucaural elements and systems are generally in place, Minor disruption and cleanup should be expected, particularly due 10 damage or shifiing of contents. Although equipment and machinery are generally anchored or braced, ther ability to function after strong shaking is not considered and some limitations om use oF functionality may exist. All extemal utilities may not be locally backed vp. Seismic safety status should not be affected, + Life Safety, NP-C: This posceardhquake damage state could inlude considerable damage to nonstructura! components and systems but should not incde collapse or falling of items heavy enough to cause severe injuries either within or outside the bulléing. Secondary hazards from breaks jn high-pressure, toxie, or fire suppression piping shoul! not be present. Nonstructural systems, ‘euipment, and machinery may not be Funetional without replacement or repair. While inguries during the earthquake may occur, the risk of lfe-hreatening injury from nonsteucrural damage is very low. 4° Reduced Hazard, NP-D; This post-eartnquake damage stive could include extensive damage to ronsiracrural components and systems but shoul not include collapse o falling of large and heavy tems dat could cause significant ‘chapter 3, performance objectives injury to groups of people, such as parapeis, masonry exterior walls, cladding, or large, heavy ceilings. While isolated serious injury ‘could occur, risk of failures that could put large numbers ef people at risk within or ‘outside the building is very low. Commentary: Nonstructural elements have ‘not been considered in any systematic manner in ‘mast reirafit work 10 dave. Major hazards. ‘however, are most ofen mitigared. This level is therefore an attenpi to formaitze commen practice. ¢ Not Coasidered, NP-E: Nonstructural ‘elements. ocher than those uhat have an effect on structural response, are not evaluated. Commentary: This is not a performance level, ‘bat provides @ designation for the common case where nonstructural elements are not surveyed or evaduated unless they have a direct effect on structural response, such as infil masonry walls or ‘other heavy partitions. The designation is needed 10 accurately describe the Building Performance Level of Structural Stability for which bionstruciural elements are, in fact, not considered. Also, iis included wo alfow ir to be coupled with siractural level SP-4, a building performance level often encountered. Furthermore choosing Not 10 consider nonstructural elements may sometines be @ risk management approach used in combination with other higher strwctaral performance levels. The explicit inclusion of the NP-E, Not Considered nonstructural performance level in a buitding performance ievel is also a tusefil communication fool beeween designer and owner/operator. 323 ing Performance Levels Combinations of a structural performance levet ‘and a nonstructural performance level form a Building Performance Level to completely describe the desired limiting damage state for a building. Possible combinations are shown in Table 3-1. The four most commonly referencedSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS building performance levels ae given titles and are deseribed below. Commentary: The four building performance levels: Operational. Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, and Struciural Stability: are given ries consistent with te tiles oftheir strictural and nnonsrructirai components. Reference cam also be sade to their SP-NP desiquations. JA, 1B, 3. cand 5-B, Rather than developing titles forall osker combirarions, some of which wit seldom be employed, itis recommended thatthe SP-NP esignavions be used. + Operational, 1-A: This is the performance level eluted to functionality. Damage to the ‘uilding’s siructue is limited so that continues safe occupancy is notin question, and any Tequired repairs are minor and can be carried ‘out wahout significant disruption to oecupants. Similarly, damage (o nonsirucaral systems and Contents related to functionality is miaor and will not jeopardize functions inthe building. Most importantly, vita services from outside the building suck 9 wiles, transportation, or commanications must be provided with back-up {peites or planning as requited to allow funcvons to continue if these services are unavailable, Since important aspects of this performance objective involve contingency planning and design of back-up systems. ‘development of acceptability criteria is not ipeloded inthis document 4 Immediate Occupancy, 1-8: This corresponds to the most widely used criteria for essential facilis. The building's spaces and systems are expected to be reasonably usable, but continuity of all services, either primary oF backup, is not necessarily provided. Contents may be damaged Commentary: Although most codes reauire foirly complete and effective seismic anchorage and bracing for bling systems ard equipment, the Actual operational aspects ofa factlty are normally developed by the owner-operacor. Aiough some ‘operational aspects, such as requirements for more 36 complete back-up wiry systems could be puri codes for use of building designers, it nay not be practical auain an Operator butleing performance level withesa siguificant {facilty-specifc input from the owner-operator. ‘Life Safety, 3-C: Ths level is intended to achieve a damage state that presents an extremely low pronability of threats 9 fe safety, elder from struczural damage or from falling oF tipping of nonstructaral building components, User-furnished contents, however, are not controlled, and could create falling hazacds or secondary hazards, such as chemical releases or fire. This performance level is intended 1 be less than the perfomance that is expected of code designed ew buildings, + Structural Stability, 5-E: This damage state addresses only the main building frame or vertical load carrying system and requires only stability under vertical loads. No margin against collapse in aftershocks may be available. Life dyeatening external or internal falling hazards trom cladding, nonstructural finishes, or even structural damage may have occurred. Review of performance of nonstructural elements from expected forces oF structural drifts isnot required so their performance can be highly unreliable + Other Commonly Used Combinations ‘© Building Performance Level 3-D: ‘This level combines life safes structural performance with the reduced hazard nonstrucnial performance. thus actepting a slight risk to life safety from nonstructural systems, Although large and highly vulnerable nonstruetucal elements ‘should remain in place, the majority of ‘nonstroctual elements such as rmechanicalielectrical equipment andSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS ings and light fixrares have not been. braced or anchored and could be highly disrupted and produce falling hazards. Commentary: The vast majority of all retrofits completed to date have been designed 10 provide performance simitar 10 this level for the code prescribed 10 percent/50 year earihquake ground "motion. A coninon desigh criteria has incorporated 75% of the tarerat force required for new buildings. Aithough most of these retrofits were designed to prescriptive provisions and were therefore not performance based, the iment was 19 achieve ‘structural life safety, and included mitigation of uajor and obvious falling hazards such as parapers or heavy decorative ceiting in large rooms. Exensive surveys of ouker nonsirctural elements rarely have been included. ‘+ Building Performance Level 3B: This level presents a risk of structural damage ‘hat could prevent the building from being occupied. However, nearly complete ‘nonsinzctural protection will prevent significant internat disruption. particularly in low levels of shaking. Although only seldom applied to a whole building, this level is more commonly applied 10 particular areas or rooms, such as compute: facilities. Commentary: Building Performance Level 3-B might be assigned to buildings where occupancy and/or function is imporcant, but the cost of providing more structural protection is high, or if the suractare already ineers the Life Safety performance level. Jn these cases, serucnural work ‘may be extremely wdesirable, but added nonstructural protection is judged cost effective. ‘+ Other Less Common Combinations © Building Performance Level 1-C: This combination might represent the desire to avoid a red oF yellow tag structurally, but the willingness to accept considerable ‘cleanup before the building's spaces are fully usable. (lc is unlikely that SP-1 would bbe combined with less than NP-C. ‘chapter 5, Performance objectives ‘+ Building Performance Leveis 2-A, 2-B, 2-C, 2-D: Within the broad stuctural performance range of Damage Control, an ‘equally wide range of nonstructural protection migit be appropriate. [tis unlikely, bat possible, to find it desrable to-combine seructural Damage Comtrel ‘with less thorough nonstructural protection than NP-C. Iv is necessary 0 develop building specific criteria for these cases 19 suit the systems needing special protection + Building Performance Level 3-A: This building eode tequiremems For new buildings is generally thought to be intended to provide seismic performance similar (0 Performance Level 2C for the 10 pereen/30 years ground motion. ‘+ Building Performance Level 3-E: This level might be used if structural work is minor of localized. ori limited funding precludes expendivues for extensive nnonscrucrucal operading + Building Performance Levels 4C, 4D, 4-E: Similar to SP-4, these levels are priroarily placeholders for structural risk eduction that does not meet 2 predescribes level. A variety of ponstructural improvements may also be made. ‘+ Building Performance Levels $-C, 5-D, 6-C, 6-D: In some cases, improved nonstructural performance may be desirable with liule or no consideration of structural performance. As mentioned previously, use of the SP-NP designation Forces recognition of structucal risks when such decisions are made. Not Recommended Combinations: Certain ‘conibiaations of structural and nonstructural performance levels will seldom, fever, be cost effective because of an imbalance in effort fon structural and nonstructural systems. Such imbalances may also ereate misperceptions of 37SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS expectations by owners of tenants. Although assignment ofthese building performance levels isnot prohibited, the Nor Recommended ‘esignation was added both to avoid poor decisions and to simplify Table 3-L. 3.3 Earthquake Ground Motion Earthquake ground riotion is combined with a desired performance level 10 form a performance objective. The earthquake ground motion ean be expressed either by specifying a level of shaking associated with a ttiven probability of securrence (a probabilistic approach), ‘or in terms of the rmaximem shaking, expected from a single event of a specified magnitude on a specified source fault (a deterministic approach). ‘The level of ground ‘motion is expressed in terms of engineering ccharaeterisies for use in ‘design. A response spectra or an equivalent series ‘fF simnalated recordings of earthquake motions are ‘sed for this purpose ‘The following three levels of earthquake ground ‘motion are defined in Chapter 4. + The Serviceability Earthquake (SE): Ground ‘motion with a $0 percent chance of being ‘exceeded in a 50-year period ‘¢ The Design Earthquake (DE): Ground motion ‘with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in & 50-year period ¢ The Maximum Earthquake (ME): Maximum level of ground motion expected within the known geologic framework due 10 4 specifiee single event (median atrenuation}, or the ground or: Earthquake Ground Motion = engineering characteristics of the shaking at the site For a given earthquake a level of shaking thar has a certain probability of occurring ‘onion with a $ percent chanee of being excseded in a 50-year period Commentary: The ground motion wih @ 20 percent chance of beg exceeded i 50 years has also been used in some projects. This ground ‘motion typically represents abou: two-thirds 10 three-quarters of the demand of the more siandard DE of 10 percenti30 years. This reduced seismic demand is roughty equivaten: to the fower design force level often used in the past for evaluation ‘and retrofit of existing buildings. e.g., ATC-14 (ATC 1987), FEMA 178 (BSSC 1992), the San Francisco Building Code Section 104 F (City and County of San Francisco 1991} ‘slihough the recommended systent of creating and assigning performance objectives allows and encourages use of many levels of performance and round motions, a Gammon measure is needed 10 enable comparison of performance cijectives with thar expected from aniligr designs, such as new buildings, Fe most ‘coniman and consistent thread for designs for the fast 20 years is the 10 percens/50 years ground ‘motion and itis recommended that this motion be tmainained for the basic Design Eariquake. Lower criteria thar have often been used fr existing buitding, usually ty considerovion of the high cost of retrofit, should be token ino account directly by sexing appropriate performance levss. ‘As noted earlier, the Life Safety Performance Level is imended to be a lesser criteria thaw the code for ‘new buildings and 10 accomplish « purpose similar Jo the use of smalter design forces. However, with performance based design, itis hoped that communication of expectations 10 Owners an tenants witl Be more straighsforward. ‘chapter 3, Performance objectivesSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS 3.4 Performance Objectives A ua: mull eel performance abjective can be creaced by selecting two or more A seismic performance objective is defined by selecting a desired building performance level for a _‘fferent desired performances, each for a given level of earthquake ground motion, as shown ‘ferent leveh of ground motion, as shown in in Table 3-22, Table 3-2. Table 5-22. Definition of a Performance objective ‘Defining a Performance objective ‘Building Performance Level FO rou “immediate ‘seructural ‘Motion overationa | occupaney | sitesafery | seaninty + Serceabinry £O(SE) Design COTE > 7 ‘Maximum €0 1 Table 3-20. Definition of a DuatLovel Performance Objective Definiig a DuarLavel Performance Objective _ ‘Buitéing Perrarmance Level 0 cround tmmeniaee ‘Seructurat ‘Motion Operational | Occuwancy | ue safety | stapiity v v Sevviceanuty > ez OIE f DergnEOwe > ri Maximum £0 Me} Chapter 5, Performance Objectives a9SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Table 3. the Basle Safety Performance Objective a The Basie rety OolectWve ‘ulaing Pertormanee Lover Berane ‘mmneotote |, Brack ‘Motion nerationas | Decaroncy | tite sarecy | —Seablity ¥ » Senceabity Eo cet Daion oes >] i ay watrwumE0 > her 3.8.1 Basic Safety Objective ‘The Basie Safety Objective, shown in Table 33, isa dual-level performance objective defined as performance achieving the Ballcing Performance Level Life Safety, 3C, forthe Design Earthquake level of ground motion and the Building Performance Level Strvcrural Subiliry, S-E, for the Maximum Earthquake level of ground ‘motion. Commentary: This perfarnunce objective is intended 0 be an ewtaiced substtue forthe Subsiansiat Life Safery performance goet shown in Table } of Policy on Aecepiable Levels of Earthauuake Risk in State Buildings (CSSC 19910) Consideraxion of seismic performance for the ME hos been included in several codes f4rmy 1986; Tle 24 Jor hospitals (CBSC 1995), but has Deen inetfecruo! due o lack of adequate criteria as well as tack of clarity as 10 intent. I hs often been suagested for use nationally r0 aecount for the relatively large variation in the ratio of DE to ME across the country. Primarily dve to the ack of relibiliny and te poentfai brittleness of many sem in existing or retrat buildings, its included in FEMA 273 for the nationally reconuended Baste Safety Objective. A complete set of acceprebitty criteria forall materials has «also been developed. The duat-level check may prove wnnecessery tn California for small, simple butldings or buildings with no britle elemares or at sites with small 310 difeerences berween the DE and the ME. However, in complex buildings that incorporate laverat force resisting elements of widely different character- istics, the range of performance from Life Safery co Structurai Stability damage levels is tkety ro be inconsistent and unpredictable, and a specific check agoinse collapse is probably warraned. such of the central valtey of California is characterized by a significan difference beneen the DE and the MB, based on actual probabilistic values for the DE (Code seismic zones for these ‘areas are artificially high), This would suggest that a specific check against coltopse for a rare large event (ME} should be macte f the actuat probabilistic values are used for the DE. The detaits of exceptions 10 a duat level criteria for the Basic Safety Objective cannot be developed prior to completion of addluiona? ial designs and fine neing of verification criteria 3.4.2 other Performance Objectives ‘The wide variety of building performance levels (Table 3-1) can be combined with various levels of ground motion to form many possible performance objectives. Performance abjectives for any building may be assigned using functional, policy, preservation, or Cost considerations. Commentary: Combinations that have been used as performance objeciives in the past or that ‘otherwise may form fogical objectives are shown in Tables 34a, 3-4, and 3-4e. (chapter 3, Performance objectivesSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Table 5-40, sample Performance objectives for important Buildings ‘Source oF Sample Solsmic |Teervizes | california vA aenar Gener arard | “essentiot | wospessent. | Hospital sramplea | Example 8 Combined Performance Cevel = 7 DE 5 7 7% We 3 Eg ay 1 ‘Source of samipie selene ‘current Common | —examate: Hah | example: Minimum, azard_| Now eulsings |“ Rotronie ‘ccupancy ‘aowntime. Combined Performance Level = | be ze = ra 7 ME se 30 ‘Source oF sample Selsmic Nazard_|_Exampio a: shore Term ‘Buample ‘Beamplee Combined Performance Level = D> oF ME 3 ‘chapter 3, performance objectives m1SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS 3.5 assignment of Performance Objectives 3.5.1 initial Performance objective ‘A-complete performance objective will be assigned by the building's owner (For a private building) oF the ste oF local goverament agency acting a8 the aver (for a public building) for each ‘niling prior wo evaluation or rerofining. The engineer of record should provide technical assistance (0 se awner to provide better assurance {hat the assignment of the inital performance objective is the result of an informed decision process and is appropriate tothe existing conditions, Preparation of a statement defining the seismic goals and expectations for the evaluation or retrofit project can help the owner and design team reach ‘agreement on performance objectives that are reasonably inline with available resources. Table 2-5. a modification of similar form cconcained in Architectural Practice and Farihquake Hazards (CSSC 1992), presents an example ofa form that may be used to begin preparation of such a preliminary seismic performance expectations statement. 55.2 | Performance Obje ‘The initial objective may be revised or refined by the owner, in consultation with the engineer of record and tie owner's peer reviewer, in response. 10 considerations of cost, historie preservation, remaining life of the building, or other conditions ‘or constraints. The final periormance objective used in the evaluation of retrofi design should be stated in the evaluation report and on the retrofit drawings, respectively. along with an Acknowledgment Wat achievement of the objective should not be considered guaranteed, 3-12 3.5.3 Relationship to other Standards or Risk Levels Rapid expansion in development of both the philosophical and technica) aspecis of performance-based design has created the porential for inconsistencies or conflicts between documents, Verification criteria should not be interchanged without careful review of the definitions of performance, seismic hazard, ant he assumptions used for die development of criteria Performance levels and performance objectives, similar to those defined above, have been defined oF described in several other documents, including Guidietines and Commentary ‘for the Seismic Rehabilizarion of Buildings, FEMA 273 (ATC 19964), Vision 2000 Progress Report (SEAOC 19950), and the predecessor of tis document, Provisional Commentary for Seismic Rewroft (CSSC (8842). Alinoogh substantive differences are not apparent, consensus has not been reached on all terminology or exact definitions. Until such time as standard terms and definitions ean be determined, care must be taken to mainiain internal consistency when using any ‘one of these documents, ‘The performance levels and objectives ia this document are intended to be used as targets for performance in funure earthquakes and serve a5 a ‘means of setting engineering oesign and verification eviteria. They are not imended 0 describe or imply dhe probable performance of existing concrete buildings in California. Furthermore, they were not developed ro establish, priorities for retrofiting. Other sources, such as Stare Buide Seismic Progrant, Report and Recommendations prepared by the Division of the State Architect (CDGS 1994), must be consulted for such priorities. ‘Chanter 3, Performance opjectivesSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Table 5-5. selsmic Rersormance Expectations ‘A, Earthquake Performance of Structural systems ‘Damiae/RI5k oF klar? ‘earthquake ‘ser 302 05 54 sr ertects very winor- | slgnitteane | ataforextensive | substantia! mo mitted | Moderate colianse) ‘megligitie | Minortow tow Mmoaerate Significant Lowmoaerate Se) Moderate Severe (OB) Severe Very Severe (we ‘&. Auproximate Time to ReOccuny * ‘Earthquake ‘immediate | __ short | Moderate zone Very Lon ettects *? ‘ours! | aweeks- | tmontns-t | arorecnans | perhaps months! year? year never) Towsnoaerate Se Moderate Severe (oe) Severe very severe (HE) Earthquake Performance of Nonstructural SYst6ms ‘Damage ‘Earthquake eA new wee NED APE erreces? ‘negligible | minor. | moderate | extensive wo | Not considered Moderate | considerable |_majer Cotiapse! Tow-ioderate 56 ‘Moderate Severe (El Severewvery severe wich ‘2 Function continuance: NORSEructural SYSEGME* ‘earthquake ‘immediate | shart ‘Mocerate tong. ‘Not conshaerad ettects ‘trours or | rewasys. | imontns? | imoreeman7 | (wernaps next aay) | one month) | year! year) never) Lowarederate 5 moderatesevere el Severevery Severe we (Now 1 Grund Mason cos of Nearby Eardquavs Tim-Modene Sats: (SE) Sensei Eandguks S00 yr) Modkrae-Severe Shaking. CDE} Devin Bani (105/50 ys. Severe Very Severe Shing" (M:) Maina Eau (8/50 y= 2. Chest of anyon eis and ene of cigs dace nay be moe by se conion-—ue x ass, un ae pono valerable ace segres—hch wy eh SORE sake med peter cenag= 3. Theo eocapy ting Yn necessity ate wo spn satu retormance fl 3. Timeto fener crs mat mesa ele 0 see rst prformane eve chapter 3, Performance oblectivesSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Chapter 4 Seismic Hazard 441 Scope ‘This chapter provides guidelines for quantifying seismic hazard at site due to ground shaking for each ofthe three earthquake hazacdl levels: +The Serviceabilty Earthquake (SE) +The Design Earthquake (DE) + The Maximum Earthquake (ME) Commentary: Seismic ground shaking is defined using site ssl factors and omer terms thar shave been developed iy the SEAOC Seismology Commitcee as part of @ code change propasal {4CBO 1996) for the 1997 Ealtion of the Uniform Building Code or UBC (ICBO 1994}. Irs expecied ‘hat this propasal ofer review and refinement ull ‘he adopted both for ihe 1997 UBC and for relared ‘divions of the Califorta Butlding Cade or CBC (CBSC 1995}. ‘This Section also provises guidelines for Aetermining when the seismic hazard due 10 rund failure warranis consideration, although the evatuaon of such hazards is beyond the scope of this document Commentary: The focus of this document is on ground shaking shuce gromid shoking is the predoniinant cause of earthquake damage to ‘buildings. Grown fature hazard is also included, since ground failure sould also be considered for chapter a, seismic Hazara Auslence interest Spectrum owner anaiys sites susceptible 0 liquefaction, tondstiding or surface rapture, 2 urthquake cround Shaking Hazard Levels ‘Three levels of earthquake hazard are used 10 define ground shaking; the Serviceabiliyy Earthquake. the Design Earthquake, and the ‘Maximum Earthquake. These levels of earthquake hnazard are defined below in the fallawing sections. Commentary: The Design Earinquake and Maximum Earthquake hazard levels are based on UBE (and CBC) definitions af ground shaking sha will likely remain unchanged umil somesime after the year 2000. Other definitions of seismic criveria have been developed for incorporation into the 1997 edition of the NEHRP Provisions ( BSSC 1996) for design of new buildings and will also Ukely be adopted by the FEMA Guidelines (ATC 1996a} for seisniie rehabilitation of existing buildings 42.1 Serviceability Earthquake ‘The Serviceability Earthquake (SE) is defined probabilisticlly as the level of ground shaking that has a 50 percent chance of being exceeded in a 50- year period, This level of earthquake ground. shaking is typically about 0.5 times the level of ‘ground shaking of the Design Earthquake,SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Commentary: The SE represents a frequent 4:v0l of ground shaking thar is likely so be felt uring the life of the building. The SE has a mean returh period of approximately 75 years. 4.2.2 _ design Earthquake “The Design Earthquake (DE) is deticed probailisieally as the level of ground shaking that hnas& 10 percent chance of being exceeded in a $0- year period Commentary: The DE represents an ‘infrequent lovel af ground shaking that can occur during the life of te buitding. The DE has a mean retur period of approximately $00 years. The DE thas she some cefntion cs the levet of ground shaking eurrenily used as the basis for the seismic: design of new buildings by the UBC axa the CBC. 4.23 Maximum Earthquake ‘The Maximum Earthquake (ME) is defined Adetecministically as the maximum level of ‘earthquake ground shaking which may ever be ‘expected atthe building site within the known geologic framework. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, this intensity of ground shaking may be calculared as the level of earthquake ground motion that has 5 percent probability of being exceeded in a 50- year time period, This level af ground shaking is typically about 1.2510 4.5 times the level of ground shaking of the Design Eartnquake. Commentary: The ME has the same definition 2s the Maximum Capable Earthquake (MCE) required by the CBC for design of hospitals and by ‘both the CBC and UBC for design and testing of buildings with base isolarion systems. This carthquake definition is intended 1a represery an tupper-bound ow the level of gronnd staking that could be reasonably expected ro occur atthe bulding site The defition of the ME ( and the MCE of the URC and CBC) is substansially different from the definition of the Maximum Considered Earthquake proposed for beth the 1997 NEHRP Provisions and the FEMA Guidelines for rehabilitation of existing buildings. tn probabilistic terms, the ME has a a2 reuarn period of about 1,000 wars, whereas the Maximum Considered Earthquake has a return period of about 2,500 years (i.e, grovnd shaking ‘with a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years) 4.3 Ground Fallure Ground failure can be the result of the following hazards: 4 Liquefaction © Lansiiaing 4+ Surfiee fault rupture Liquefaction and lanésliding are discussed in the following sections, and guidelines (iggers) 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 poss! ‘warrant design consideration. GCommencary:.Aitkough ilikety, bttdings situated very clase to active felis coud be aesirayed by the surface expression of faule rupture. tt recommended that speciat ‘consideration be given to buildings ioceted within the Special Studies Zone (Aiquisi-Priolo Act, January 31. 1979). Relocation, rosher than retrofit, may be more appropriate for buildings siraddling the trace of an active feulr {DMG 1985). 1 Liquefaction Liquefaction can occur in certain types of saturated soils that are shaken strongly enough and Jong enough for the soil to lose a substantial amount of strength (because of high pore water pressure). Liquefaction ean cause settlement as well as lateral spreading or slides of certain sais In either case, permanent ground surface deformation occurs that can cause the foundation, ora portion of the foundation, ofthe building «0 settle or displace dovmvvand and/or laerally “The site's susceptibility ta liquefaction is ypically described by the terms: very high ih yo Chapter 4, Seismic HazaraSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUII NCS Table 4-1. Ground shaking Levels at Which Liquefaction should Be Considered possible or Ukely _Fefective Peak acreteration Level @) Liquefaction suscepeioiity ‘iawetaction i Roskore “iguotaction is kely very nigh any ons migh on 02 oserate 02 os iow m7 NOt consiaered ikely very ow "NOE COnsIGEreS BOSSTONE NOt considered Hew tmoderate, low, and very low. Table 4-1 (acapted from NBS 1996) provides guidance for determining the level of ground shaking at which liquefaction should be considered. The level (or levels) of ground movion used to evaluate the Uikeinood of liquefaction should be the same as that (hose) used 1 perform ground shaking analyses. Liquefaction should be considered possible at ang level of ground shaking when the site has a very high susceptibility to liquefsetion, and conversely, liqueiasion should not be considered possible (or likely) even. for high levels of ground shaking when the site has a very low suscepuibility {0 liquefaction. For sites of moderate liquefaction susceptibility, Table 4-1 indicates that the effective peak accelerstion (EPA) of the ground most be at least 0.28 for tiquefsction to be considered possible and a least 0.3g for liquefaction co be considered likely, ‘The guidance given in Table 4-1 is based on the work of Liao, Veneziano, and Whitman (1988) as modified and incorporated Ino the nasional cactiquake loss estimation methodology being developed by the National Insiute of Building Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management ‘Agency (NIBS 1996). The EPA Jevel at which liquefaction is considered “possible” is che tevel at ‘which, approximately, a 15 percent or greater chance of liquefaction bas been determined (0 exist al the site Similarly, the EPA level at which liquefaction is considered co be “likely” is the ‘chapter 4, seismic Hazard level st which 2.50 percent or greater chance of liquefaction has been determined to exist, These EPA levels have been determined based on the assumpaions that the site as 2 relatively high ‘water table (vithin 10 - 20 feet of the surface) and. that shaking is cue (oa relatively Farge mnagnitude event (Me 2 6.5). Small magnitude events are not expected to shake the ground tong enough 10 trigger significanJiquefaction. Liquefaction susceptibility may be identified from maps developed by the California Division of Mines and Geology (and others), ainough suscepuibility maps are nos yet available for most areas within California. For areas that do not have ‘existing liquefaction suscepsibility maps, liquefaction susceptibility may be estimated on the basis of the soit ype and geologic conditions of the site, A method for rating relative liquefaction susceptibility on the basis of the general depositional environment and the geologic age of deposits has been developed by Yous and Perkins 14978). ‘A geotechiical enginger would be required 10 determine soil/geologic conditions a the site and {determine the liquefaction susceptibility. For sites where liquefaction is considered to be possible or likely. the geotechnical engineer should bbe required to evaluate the amount of permanent ‘ground deformation expected at the sie and its effect on the foundation of the building. is recommended that the geotechnical engineer investigate liquefaction effects for the ME, even ifSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROF! ‘Table 4.2, Ground Shaking Lovels at Which tanasilaing Shouta be Considered Possible ‘Errective Peak Acceleratlan (gat Slope ANBIES: ‘Geologie croup oF | #10 | 10-18 | 19°26 | asmaw | sear | 5 ae ‘Bry conditions (croundwater Below Level CF Slope) ‘SUOnGIy cemented rock ccrstanine | Wone | None | Wone | O7 Os os] An rock and wellcemented sandstone) ‘weakly cemented rock and soi Wane | none | 5 oy a2 or | any ‘andy alls and pearly cementect sandstone ‘argulaceous rack enales, cayeyson, | none | 08 | O2 a7 [amy [Any | Any existing lanasies, pooriy compacted fils) Wet Conditions (Grounetwater Level AE Ground SurFace) ‘strongly cemented rock crystating | None | wane | 05 0a 32 or | Any rock ana weltcementeg sandstone) ‘Wok cemTentea rock and son nore | 08 02 or | Any) Any | Any 'sanay sols ané pooriy cementec sanostane) ‘argliaceous rock shales, Gaveysol, | Wore | 07 | any | any | Any) Any | Any ‘exssting langsides, poorly compacted ils he ME is not required for ground shaking analysis. 43.2 Landstiding Earthquake-induced landsliding of a slope ean ‘cur when earthquake and gravity forces within the slide mass temporarily exceed slope stability. ‘The value of ground acceleration within the slide ‘mass required to initiate slope instability is called the critical or yield acceleration. Landslidng can cause relatively minor slides or affect a large billside, Typically, slide displacement accunrutates {gets larger and larger) with each cycle of earthquake shaking dat exceeds the critical acceleration level. Large landslides can affect boildings situated om the slide mass as well as buildings just below the slide a4 Whether landsliding should be considered in the design depends on the site’s susceptibility (0 landsliding, which depends on the soil/geatogic conitions, the slope angle, and the critical acceleration (i.e., the level of shaking required to initiate landsliding). Table 4-2 (adapted from NIBS 1996} provides guidance for determining when landsliding should be considered; the factors to be considered art site susceptibiity and shaking level ‘The level (or levels) of ground motion used to evaluate landsliding should be tbe same a drat (Ghose) used to perform ground shaking analyses According to Table 4-2, landsliding should be considered possible in strongly cemented rock ‘with dry slope conditions} only when the EPA exceeds 0.7g for 15°- 25? slopes, 0.58 for 25°» 35° slopes, and 0.38 for 35° 45° slopes: and it shoul bbe considered possible for all EPA values when chapter 4, Seismic HazardSEISMIC EVALUATION AND ROFIT OF CONCRETE @UILDINGS slope angle exceeds 45°. Conversely, Table 42 indicates tht landsliding should be considered possi in exiting landslide areas (with wer slope conditions) for all significant EPA levels, except for sits that are essentially Na (ve., witha slope angle less than 5°. “The guidance given above is based on relationships developed by Wilson and Keefer (1985) a5 modified and incorporated into the ‘ational earthquake loss estimation meihodology (NIBS 1996). The work of Wilson and Keefer conservatively represents the most landsTide- suscepible geologic types likely 10 be found ina geologic group and may be considered te represeat a shaking level (EPA) tat has about a 25 percent chance of producing a landslide ata given ste ‘A geotechnical engincer would be required 10 determine the soil/gcologic conditions atte site and to determine the landsliding suscepsiilty. For sites where itis considered pasible to have landsliding, the geotechuies! engineer would be required 10 evaluate the exven of landsliding expected and the effect of such landsiaing an the foundation of tie building Ivis socommetved tha the geotechnical engineer investigate landsliding effets for the ME, even if the ME is not required for ground shaking analysis. 4.4 Primary Ground Shaking Criteria ‘This section specifies the primary ground sheking criveria for the evaluation of buildings. Primary ground shaking criteria are those criteria that vill be required for the design of all buildings. Primary criteria include the following '¢ Site geology and soil characteristics + Site seismicity characterisies + Site response spectra ‘chapter a, selsmic Wazard Commentary: Site geology and soit characteristies and site seismicity characteristics ‘ore based direcily on she requirements proposed by the SEAOC Seismology Commince (ICBO 1996} Jor the 1997 UBC. These requirements are ‘repeased (ith edizoriat modification) in the {following sections. 4.4.1 site Geology and soil Charaeteristies 4.4.1.1 General Each site is assigned a soil profile type based ‘on properly substantiated geotechnical data using the site categorization procedure of Section 4.4.1.3. Exception: When the soil properties are not Jonown in sufficient derail 10 determine the Soil Profile Type. Type So may be used. Soil Profile Types Scor Se need not be asswined unless the building offciat determines thar Types Sror Se may be present ar the site or in the event that Types Se or Sere established by geotechnical data, 4.4.1.2 Soll Profile Type Soil Profile Types Ss, $2, So So, Se ate defined in Table 43 (adapted from ICBO 1996) Soil Profle Type Sris defined os scils requiring site-specific evaluation, as follows 4+ Soils vulnerable to potento’ failure or collapse under seismic loading, suchas liquefable soils. quick and highly sensitive clays, and collapsible weaily cemented soils 4 Peats andor highly organic clays where the thickness of peat or highly organic clay exceeds 10 feet 4¢ Very high plasticity clays with aplastic index greaier than 75 (PI > 75) and where the depth of clay exceeds 25 feet + Very sick sofimediumstiff clays where the epi of clay exceeds 120 fect asSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Fable 4-3. Sol Profle Types ‘Average Soil Properties for Top 100 Feet of Sal Profile ‘Standard Penetration soit ol Pro‘ite shear Wave Test, Wior No for protie | namescenerie vetoctty, ¥, | conestontess soli ayers) | Undrained shear Type Description Wteotseconty ‘lows/toot! Strength, (pst? 30 | HararROCR % > 5,000 ‘wor Applicable = | Rowe 2,500< ¥ 35,000 ‘NOC ADpHCADIE % | Veryoense solland | 3,200 5. 22.500 Ros > 2000 Soft Rock ‘S| SUIFFSON Prof 600 < 5, 21200 as 2h eso 71000 %, #2000) 3 | sottsonrrotie % < 600 Ness Bu < 1.000 = “Sol Requiring sitespeciic EvaNation 1 Soi pole ype Sate ok is a ppb owen Clem, Sstonlnce wih ASTM D236 92 Sci pro yp Se 0 icles sy 0 roe wath mons a 10 fa fs ay diode wih SO pr The sy vd Pi eerie i acon with ASTM DA3IS.93 ad he ie 20, woe ead ant, < fre deerme 3 Se Sian 2 Jer deseo oss eau St sie walation 4.4.1.5 site Categorization ‘The soil profile type for the site is established by using the following procedure. Step 1: Check for the four categories of Soil Profile Sr requiring site-specific evaluation. 1f the site corresponds to any of these categories, classify the site as Soil Profile Sr and conduct a site-specific evaluation. Step 2: Check for dhe existence of a total thickness of soficlay > 10 fl, where a soft clay layer is defined by: undrained shear strength, 5p < 500 psf, moisture content, wwe 40 percent, and plasticity index, PL > 20. If all of these criteria are satisfied, classify the site as Soil Profile Type Se ‘The plasticity index (PI) is determined in accordance with ASTM D4318-93 and the moisture content {wuc) is determined in accordance with ASTM 2216.92. Step 3: Categorize the site using one of We following three methods with average soil profile properties computed in all cases in accordance ‘with Section 4.4.1.4 and the eritera of Table 4 4 Use ¥y forthe cop 100 feet of the soil profile Aihe Fe method) + Use Kor the top 10 fees of the soil profile (the N method) 4+ Use Ney for cahesiontess soil ayers (PL < 20) and §, for cohesive soil layers in the top 100 feet ofthe soil profile. IF Ney and ‘Sycriteria differ, the soil profile with the iarger seismic coefficient is used for design (Sy method) “The shear wave velocity for rock (sil profile type $0) is either measured on site or estimated by a geotechnical engineer or engineering geolagisseisologist for competent rock with moderate fracturing and weathering. Softer and more highly fractured and weathered rock is either apter 4, seismic HazaraSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS measured on site for shear wave velocity or classified as soil profile type Se “The soil profile type should not be taken as rock (soil profile type So) if there is more than 10 feet of soil between the ack surface and the bation of the spread footing or mat foundation. 4.4.1.4 Average Soil Properties Average soll properties are calevated by using the formulas ofthis section. Soil profiles i disincly different soi layers should be ded ino those layers. Each sol layer is designated by a number that ranges from i = 1 at the 10p 101 = nat the bowtom, where there ae a total of distinct layers in the upper 100 fet of the soil profile. “The average shear wave velocity, Vy. is determined by the following formula: wen thickness of layer i, in feet where: d= dy = toual thickness of soil profte {100 fee) qo = shear wave velociey of layer i, feeu'sec ___ The average standard penetration resistance, N or Ney, is determined by the following formulas 2 we ay fa Fy, where: doy = 10% thickness of all eohesionless soil layers, in feet den; = thickness of cobesionless soil layer i. in feet N= standard penetration resistance of layer i, directly measured in the field without corrections in accordance with ASTM DIS86-84, but not to exceed 100 blows/it chapter 4, Seismic Mazard ony = standard penetration resistance of cobesionless soil layer direcly measured inthe Feld without corrections in accordance with ASTM D1586- ‘84, but not (0 exceed LOO diowsih. “Tne average uncrained shear strength, 8, is etermined by the flowing forma: oy where: de = total thickness of cohesive soll layers, inthe top 100 feet (100 dow Sor = undrajned shear strength, in pst, measured in accordance with ASTM D2166-91 or D2850-87, but not 10 exceed 5000 psf. 4.4.2 Site Seismicity Characteristics 4.4.2.1 Cenerat Seismicity characteristics for the site are based fon the seismic zone, the proximity of Ue site 0 active seismic sources, and site soi profile characteristics. 442.2. Selsnile Zone Each site is assigned a setsmic zone in accordance with the requirements of the California Building Code (CBSC 1995). Bach structure is assigned a seismic zone factor Z, in accordance with Table 4-4. Commentary: Traditionaily, ail of Catifornia dias been classified as etter seisiuic zone 3 or 4, although the grownd shakineg hazard at sites in seismic zone 3 situated far from active faults may be significantly overestimated by a seismic zone factor of Z= 0.3. For these sites, response spectra ‘based! an contour maps or site-specific hazard analysis would be expecied ro be significant less than response speci based on Z= 0.3. a7SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS 4.4.2.3 Near-Source Factor Each site is assigned a near-source factor in accordance with Table 4-$ (ICBO 1996) and based on seismie source type, as specified in Table 46 ICBO 1996). Commentary: Vaives of te near source factor given in Table 4-5 may significantly underestimate ground shaking ot certain nenr-source sites. [nthe direction normal tothe plane of fault rupnere, ground shaking may be as much as 50 percent sreater than thar predicted using the N factors of Table 4-5 (Somerville 1996). 4.4.2.4 Seismic Coetficients For each earthquake hazard level, the surveture is assigned a seismic coefficient Ca in accordance with Table 4-7 (ICBO 1996) and a seismic coefficient Ce in accordance with Table 4-8 (ICBO 1996). tn lien of a site-specifie seismic hazard analysis, the seismic coefficient, Ca, may be taken to be the default value of the effective peak aceelerationt (BPA) of the ground. 4.4.3 Elastic Site Response spectra Elastic response spectra fora site are based on estimates of Cs and Cv using one, or more. of the following: 4 Site seismic coefficients (Tables 4-7 and 4-8) ‘¢Specizal vomour maps (Geveloped by the USGS for Project 97 (Frankel etal. 1996)) 4 Site-specific hazard analysis studies ‘The constcvetion of elastic response spectra tasing estimates of Ca and Cy is deseribed in Section 4.4.3.3 Commentery: In alt cases. taste se response specrra are described by 0 standard (rv domain) shape defined by the coeficients Cr and x. Elastic response spectra are described by a siondard shape to simplify the application of these “spectra to nonlinear sieste analysts procedures (Chapter 8) a8 4.43.4 Spectral Contour Maps (usc) ‘Spectral contour maps for rock sites developed by the USGS for Project 97 (Frankel etal. 1996} may be used 19 conscruct elastic response spectra for site, provided the basis for these maps is consistent with the definition of the earthquake level(s) of imezest (Section 4.2), For sites situated on soit type Sa. the value of a should be taken to be equal to 0.4 times the spectral response acceleration (unis of g) at 2 period of 0.3 seconds and the value of Cv should be taken co be equal to 1.0 times the spectral response acceleration (ents of g) ata period of 1.0 sevond. Alternatively for sites situated on sil Se, ME values of Cs and Cy may be based on the formulas Cy = 04S ye 5) Sy 4-6) where: Sy: ~ spectral acceleration in the short- period range for Site Class 8 for MCE, as prescribed by 1997 NEHRP Provisions (BSSC 1996). Sua, = spectral acceleration at a 1.0- steond period for Site Class B for MCE, as prescribed by 1997 NEHRP Provisions (BSSC 1996). For sites situated on other soil types, the values of Cx and Cv based on soil Jype Se should bbe increased ie proportion to the increase in the site coefficients of Tables 4-7 and 4-8, sespectively, for he soil type ofthe site. ‘The values of Cy and Cvshou'd not be taken as Jess than 80 percent, and need not be taken to be greater than 100 percent, of the values specified in Table 4-7 and Table 4-8, respectively. ‘chapter 4, Setsmic HazaraSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Table 4-8. Selsmie Zone Factor 2 zone [ 1 [za Tae Ts [ « 2 freors os 20 fo 30 fae 9 Sseie ams 24 a 20 ene arts oe in Car, ‘selsmie ‘Closest Dietance to known Selemic Source™? Source a2em sum 104m zee ree ie me m ~ % me ~ * A 7 20 12 18 19, 2 xy 10 5 3s 7 70 3 10 19. 38. 70) c 30 10 70 70 19 19 30 70 1 He acesawee itor mae mised Ue tear epi fv stances tera has ho the be 2 The loeb al ype of sen omer 19 be ws for design sl be essed based on approved gece te recent pg fcr uy te Une Stes Geslgial Srv te Cala Dion of Mines and Ceol 2 Tyestessidienee w sree oneal BM 8 the aint ie Rewer sted by thc vical pest farce on fess fi. rac preetin offal plane. Th sfce pra ned ol ele prions tess td» 10 Ensor pet "The laren vo of ena sour fator cade vars hall bused sien. able 4.6. selsmle Source Type “Selsmle Source Definition ‘Selsmie ‘maximum Moment | Slip Rate, sR Source Tree Seismic Source Description ‘Magnitude, Mt tramuyear) a Fauits that are capable of producing large magnitude ‘events ad wich nave aigh rate of selsmicactlsity me70 sees ‘Al fauns oiher than tyes Aang e Notanoncable | Notaparteabte Faun that are not capable of producing iarge ‘magnitude eartnquakes ang that nave a relative low mess seed Fate of selsmic actviySEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE SUILDINGS Table 47. selsmic covtticlent Ca ‘Shaking intensity, Zan ‘Soliprofiie type | = 00781 = O15 020| = 050) = 040 > 040 & 0s O78 020 020 a0 | oR = 003 oo 028 O38 a0 | OREN = a2 oz 028 036 aa | _azeNr a 0:19 030 034 036 036 | ose a “Sitegneaife geotechnical investigation required t0 GeterTmine Ca 1 The lug wee dever the ea, ZEN. shoul he memo Be eal 1.5 forthe Sera rugs Ute aoa Egmhoube ad 1.28 ane cong 3 ane 3 Te the Mein 2 Senne sutcunt Cs shal be determin by Waster fo value fe pace ZEN oer han hse sown in abe Table a8. solemle coottctent, C+ ‘shating wensity, ZEN? ‘Sav protie type | = 0075 |= 075 020 0.30 7.4 | > 0.80 & 008 Ors 020 030 0.80 or © ons 025 0m, os 056 “azo = are 032 020 oy 0 “een Se 026 250 oat ee 0% aren & sSitespecific Geotechnical investigation required to determine Ge 1 The salaroF Ease deine th ret, ZEN. shld heen 0B og 0. fori Services Earhqube {tore Desig Estate nd 128 (Zane 4 51S (lane 3 Ss Tete Maxine Fardabe Sere some C snl tae be Heat eration of sales for einen ater Hh hse ses In be ble 210 chapter 4, Seismic nazaraSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Ground Motion & Response Spectra Grand ton emtings (acteeograms) nee tt proved Shing ianenteaey complex waneorm coring oioony ‘movin compenens ove a bos geo eqcaie, By petoeming me nary analysis scr {eis youte gate th pea slr, els afd gba fe acts espa 1 2 pound natn soc ayes a pone ot 2 res of ape dee of ealom sae. seh hog Late ped 7nd te peak response seein eos ss ilacemca apse va he erin of th eetues te mel prs we sored peel aerator vlc end Response per could ite blag ode Inca te conte clon sod wel eg ‘eplacosel poe eee, ose como diy eons pci ons spl itowo ar parte plesn wise pe sponse Aecclron seit and arisen’ tal ed Sirulaaeoiy egal sme pooe Resch: (evs aed Hel 1982) ave Hound bl epee oe "ype? ede an be evcopc bya ius det ‘ngs: const pet etd eceeton PSA conant sk apn vel (PSV) and emt ook peed ‘plcenen (PSD). reese oot ee ode Ses produ wih 5 : mine reruns fr | vaelon ons seo ich pop Selon: ‘chapter 4, Selsmc Hazard For ona anlys, boa oad defo ‘ac haporuot Toor, per ae pos aan ‘edlenion vs, dspace dete wash bas been terra ADRS acelin pace! pone po) (Giahney ot 1985). Perod nthe ADRS are epoca by sacs of aa ine sending, ‘Hom be ongin ol De pt Sei Comer 1 ADRS Speci in hope peesvyr arSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS 445.2 Site-Specitie Hazard Analysis Stuates Site-specific hazard analysis studies should be performed for buildings simzed on site soil profile ‘ype Sr, and are recommended for buildings on site soit profile ype Se. Site-specific studies should also be performed for certain buildings situated near active sources and for buildings with spectal design requirements (¢.g., hospitals, base-isolated buileings). In al eases, the assumptions and ‘methods used in the site-specific studies should be consistem with the definition of the earthquake ‘harard Jevel(s) of interest given in Section 4.2. ‘The site specific studies should develop estimates of shor and long-period response for cach hazard level of interest. The value of Cx sould be taken to be equai 10 0.4 times the spectral response acceleration (units of g) at a period ef 0.3, seconds. The value of Cv should be taken (© be ‘equal to the greater of either 1.0 times the spectral response acceleration (in units of g) at a periog of 1.0 seconds or 1/Tertimes the specteal response acceleration (in units of g) at we effective period Tarot the building. The effective yeriod Turis based fom the secant stifiness athe point of maximum response, as deseribed in Chapter 7. For each hazard level of interest, the values of Ca and Cv shouid not be taken as less than 80 percent, and need not be taken to be greater than 100 percent, of tne values specified in Table 4-7 ‘and Table 4-8, respectively. 443.3. Construction of an Elastic Response Spectrum ‘An elastic sponse spectrum. for each ‘earthquake hazard level of inerest ata site, is based on the site seismic coefficients Cx and Cv, defined inthe previous sections. The seismic coefficient Cy 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-periog system in the agceleration domain, The seismic coefficient Cy represents 5 perceni-damped response of @ i-second system and when divided by period defines az 286, [EPA=6, ‘pcr Acneaion 8) Fs pases saconse ‘Figure 4-1. construction of a 5 Porcent amped ‘laseie Reswonse spectrum acceleration response in the velaciey domain. Figure 4-1 illustzates the construction of an elastic response spectrum. .5 Specification of Supplementary Criteria 5.1. Acceleration Time Histories When required for analysis, not less than three pairs of horizontal ime history components should be selected from eardiguake ground motion records A set of seven or more pairs of time history Components is recommended and would be necessary for the design to be based on the average (rather than the maximum) value of the response uantity of iierest. Recorded earthquakes should be selected 10 have a magninide, source characterisics, and distance {fom source to site that isthe stme a8 (or consistent with) the magnitude, source characteristics and source-vo-site distance of the ‘event chat dominates Ue ground shaking hazard at the building site. Recorded earthquakes should aso be selected 10 have site conditions dhat are the same as (or consistent with) the site conditions of the building. When three appropriate recorded ground ‘chapter a, Seismic HazaraSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Table 49, earthquake Records at Soll sites Greater Than 10 Kin from Sources ae, Barenaake Records 36 Sot sites crester Tan 10 Kin from Seurces_ ‘Earthquake source ‘areiquake wecording wo_| Magnitude | Year | eerenquaxe ‘station mame owner a 74 71989 | Western weshingron station 325 uses" z 65. 4954 | Eoreka, California Station OF 08 5 36 1371 | se0 Fernando, calfornia | Station 24 sos 2 65 7a71__| San Fernando, cafornia | station #5 S65 5 7 1883 [ Loma Prieta, Caurornia Holster, south & pine cower 5 7 1889 | toma Prieta, cafornis ‘oy #2 ‘ONG 7 75 “992__| Wanders, calfornia ‘Yermo ONG: @ 75 "es2 | landers, canfornia osha Tee ‘cone 3 a7, 71584 | Northriage caltorala ‘Moorpare ‘come 70 67 65a | worthricge,Calforoia entury clo LAceNarTn ‘come 2 USGS: Liked State Geog Survey 2 CBNG: Cem Dien of Mics a Geog motion time history pairs are aot available, appropriate simulated ground motion time history pairs may be used to make up the total number required. “The insem of shese requirements is that cach pair of time hisiory components have an appro priate duration, contain near-source pulses (for sites within 10 kim of active faults) and inehude ‘er time domain characteristics that represent the {round shaking expected at the building site Each pair of horizontal ground motion components should be scaled in the time domain such that the average value of the spectra ofall scaled time history components matches the site response specirum over the period range of iimerest. The period range of imtrest includes. but isnot limited to, periods at or near the effective period of the building associated with the performance point determined by the nonlinear stati analysis procedure (Chapter 8). If higher- rose effects are being considered, then the peri range of interest should also include periods af or near each higher-mode period of interest. Commentary: A ground motion expert should assist re structural engineerin the selection onc scaling of appropriate time histories chapter 4, Selsmic Hazara 45.1.2. Earthquake Ground Motion Records ‘Two sets of 10 earthquake records each have Deen identified as suitable candidates for time history analysis. One set contains records at sites at least 10 km from fault ruptuce and the oder set contains records at sites near fault suprure (e.2., sites within about 5 km of fault rupture). Tables 49 and 4-10 list reve earinquake records, respectively, and summarize key auributes. Al) ground metion secords listed in Tables 4-9 and 4-10 meet ne following criteria: ‘© Free-fieid station (or ground floor of a small building) ‘¢Suff or medium soil site conditions + Large-magaitude earthquake (M2 6.5) ‘¢ Peak ground acceleration of at least 0,28 (before sealing) ‘These records, after appropriae sealing, are suitable for time history analysis of buildings at all sites (except soft er very soft soil sites} for ground shaking of 0.2 or greater EPA.SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Table 4-70. sarthauake Records at Soil Stes Near Sources Earthquake Source arenguake Recording mo. | Magnitude | Year | Serthouake Station name ‘ouner 7 65 7373__| imperial vavey, calfornia | el Centro Array stauon 6 USGS" 2 6s 7973__| imperial vai, cauroma | el Centro array station 7 uses 3 Ta 7969 | coma pret calforaia | corraitos come a Pa 77989 | coma Prieta, california | capitol COME 3 69 “1992 | cape Mendocino, calfornta | Petrol ‘cOMG 6 67 “994 | northridge, camoma | Newhall Fire Staton ‘Come 7 o “sa__| Mortnriage, Calrornia | svintar Hospital come = oF y984__| Northridge, Calfornia | Svimar Converter Station ADWP 2 57, "asa [ Northrioge. Cahtornia | Svimar Converter sta, east 1A 70 67 "99a | noricge. calfornia___| alnaldl Treatment Plant TADWE 1 USGS: United Sets Gest Samey 2 COMG: Calon sino Wines aod Gesiey 3. LADWP Les Arges Deporte af Wate nd Power Figure 4-2 isa plot of 40 percent-damprd response spectra of the wo horizontal components of each of the £0 earthyuake time histories listed in ‘Table 4-9 and the toean and mean + | standard Geviation of these 20 spectra. A damping Jevel of 40 percent is used to represent the equivalent viscous damping of a building that has yielded significantly, as deseribed in Chaprer 8. Each of the 10 pairs of horizontal components have been scaled such that their $ pereent-damped response spectra approximately match the response spec- trum shown in Figure 4-1 for Ca = 0.4 and Cy 06. igure 4-2 compares the response spectrum of cach earthquake component and the mean (or mean + 1 sigima) response spectrum of tne ensemble of all earthquake components, Significant differences typically exist bewween mean (or mean + | sigma) response and that of ingividual components, even though each Component represents the same site and source conditions and has been sealed to match a common target spectrum, Figure 4-2 illusiraces that Predictions of response (and performance) using 4 smooth design spectra can significantly tunderpredict or overpredict response (and performance) that Ue building actually experiences suring the design earthquake. 8.2 crit shaking ‘The duration of ground shaking should be considered when selecting time histories and when ‘determining an appropriate fevel of effective damping for the structural systetn, Effective ‘damping is used to determine the response level of ‘demand spectra, as destribed in Chapter 8. Siruetural systems that degrade with repeated ‘cycles of high seismic demand will have reduced energy absorption (damping) capacity. The amount ‘of degradation and the associated reduetion in effective daring increases with the number of ‘cles ator near the peak demand level ‘Two distinetly different earthquake scenarios stiould be considered wher evaluating duration effeeis an potential structural degradation and reduction in damping capacity. ‘The first for Duration of Ground Chapter 4, Selsmie HazaraSEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Woon of z0Specie Moan +1 sigma ot 20 Specie, ‘Specie! Duplecomen ree) Flgure 42. Response Spectra 140% Damping! of the Earthquake kecords Usted In Table 4:9 earthquake scenario is important for sites near a seismic source (Fault), Jn this case, a relatively short duration of very strong shaking would be expected betause ofthe proximity ofthe ste to favit rprure. The ground may shake fora considerable period of time (depending on she eariake magnitule), but there would ikely be ‘only a few eycles of very strong pulses atthe level of response described hy the site spectrum (i.e, large spectral demand over a relasivly short aration). For the purpose of éetermining an appropriau: level of effeecive damping (Gection 8.2.2) shes with a near-souree fetor, N 21.2, may be assured 10 have shox-duration ground shaking The second earthquake scenario is imporsant fo sites far from fault rupture {far foro the

You might also like

• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4610)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (540)
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (608)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (401)
• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5813)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (844)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (822)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1716)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (897)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1898)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (348)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1092)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (441)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2104)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3811)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2521)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4203)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1850)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (104)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1947)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1018)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (792)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (807)