Mora 2012

Structures Congress 2012 ASCE 2012 1620
SEISMIC RETROFIT OF A STEEL MOMENT FRAME CALIFORNIA

HOSPITAL BUILDING USING EXTERIOR VISCOUS DAMPED FRAMES
Christopher Mora1, Omar Garza2 and Ricardo Hernandez3

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by MISSOURI, UNIV OF/COLUMBIA on 08/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
1
Degenkolb Engineers, 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 1115, Los Angeles, CA
90071-3121, U.S.A., PH (213) 596-5000; FAX (213) 596-5960; email:
cmora@degenkolb.com
2
90071-3121, U.S.A., PH (213) 596-5000; FAX (213) 596-5960; email:
ogarza@degenkolb.com
3
90071-3121, U.S.A., PH (213) 596-5000; FAX (213) 596-5960; email:
rhernandez@degenkolb.com
ABSTRACT
California legislation requires acute-care hospital buildings designed prior to

the 1973 code to be evaluated, and if necessary, retrofitted to Life Safety (LS) in
order to keep providing acute care until 2030. Innovative and cost-effective solutions
are required in order to meet the requirements of the regulatory agency, namely the
Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), as well as the
owner expectations.
This paper presents a case study of a six-story steel moment frame structure
built in 1972 that is retrofitted using supplemental viscous damping. The building is
located near two major Southern California active faults. In addition, the building is
triangular in plan with non-parallel lateral force resisting systems. Because of the
retrofit methodology, Non-linear Dynamic Procedure (NDP) per ASCE 41-06 is
required. The building will be retrofitted by adding new primary external damped 3-
bay moment frames and modifying the existing moment frame base connections to
prevent brittle failure by allowing controlled frame uplift. The basic retrofit criterion
is to upgrade to LS under an earthquake with a 10% probability of exceedence in 50
years (475 year return period), namely BSE-1 earthquake.
This paper presents some of the challenges found by the authors from a
constructability perspective, as well as in the implementation of the NDP for a non-
conventional building geometry near two major fault lines while satisfying the
acceptance criteria delineated by OSHPD and ASCE 41-06.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
After the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, the California legislature enacted

Senate Bill 1953 (SB 1953) with the intent of assuring the public that acute care
hospital buildings would remain operational after a major seismic event. In order to
address high seismic risk buildings, all hospitals were required to perform an
Structures Congress 2012

inventory and evaluate their acute care buildings. Buildings deemed to be a potential
risk of collapse or pose significant loss of life were placed under the Seismic
Performance Category 1 (SPC-1); whereas buildings designed and built under
provisions of the 1973 (or later editions) of the California Building Code (CBC) were
rated SPC-3 or above. SPC-3 buildings constitute a special category comprised of
steel moment frames built after 1973 and before SB 1953 was enacted. SPC-1
buildings are required to retrofit (or be in the process of retrofitting) by January 1,
2013 per current state legislation. An SPC-1 building can only be upgraded to SPC-2
or SPC-5. SPC-2 buildings are currently allowed to continue to provide general acute
care services until January 1, 2030; whereas SPC-3 or higher buildings are allowed to
continue to operate indefinitely. The 2010 California Building Code allows for SPC-
2 retrofit by using ASCE 41-06 and satisfying LS at BSE-1 as the Basic Safety
Objective (BSO). For an SPC-5 retrofit the BSO is Immediate Occupancy at BSE-1
and Collapse Prevention at BSE-2, essentially making the retrofitted building
comparable in performance to a new hospital building. The subject building was
rated SPC-1 after a seismic evaluation performed in the late 1990s.
Chapter 34A of the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) is used as the basis
of the analysis. The CBC references ASCE 41-06 as the methodology for analysis;
however, amendments to the CBC require additional studies and/or agreements with
OSHPD be in place for a retrofit using NDP prior to its implementation. In order to
make this process feasible, the Engineer has to perform the building structural
analysis while concurrently negotiating with OSHPD. The final negotiated terms of
analysis are documented in a project-specific Design Criteria.
BUILDING AND SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject building is located in San Bernardino, California. The building

consists of six stories above grade and a rooftop mechanical penthouse. The building
is triangular in plan with typical 20 ft. on center grids parallel to each side. Each floor
has approximately 20,000 ft2, for a total of 120,000 ft2 of occupied space. The
existing lateral force resisting system consists of pre-Northridge steel moment frames
that extend to the roof level of the structure. The moment frames are positioned such
that one 6-bay moment frame is located at each of the three sides of the structure
along the perimeter, and one 4-bay moment frame is located 20 ft. directly interior
and parallel with each 6-bay moment frame. This configuration provides 6 frames
total (three 6-bay frames, and three 4-bay frames) within the structure. The building
foundation consists of grade beams supported by cast-in-place concrete piles. The
horizontal framing consists of one-way 4 thick lightweight concrete slabs spanning
to steel beams. The calculated as-built building fundamental mode of vibration is 2.4
seconds. Figure 1 shows a typical floor plan.

6-BAY 4-BAY
FRAME, TYP. FRAME, TYP.
Figure 1. Typical floor plan
The existing building major structural seismic deficiencies include strong

column-weak beam, first floor soft story, brittle column base connections, weak
column splices, weak panel zones, and unreinforced cast-in-place concrete piles.
The building has two sides that are relatively open and accessible. The third
side is occupied with adjacent structures that were built later in time. These
structures are identified as A and B in Figure 2. Structure A is a concrete shearwall
building built under the same permit as the subject building, while structure B is a
steel moment frame built in 1986 under OSHPD jurisdiction. Structures A and B are
currently rated SPC-2 and SPC-3, respectively.
The site is located approximately equidistant (5 km +/-) from two active major
Southern California fault lines, namely the southern San Andreas and the San Jacinto.
The predominant fault directions only diverge by about 10 degrees from each other.
Figure 2 shows the relative orientation of the faults with respect to the building.
Figure 3 shows the site relative to the fault lines. The Site Class is D with very low
potential for liquefaction. The seismic parameters Ss and S1 per ASCE 7 are 1.85 and
0.84, respectively. In 2007, USGS estimated a 90% chance of a Mw6.7 earthquake
by 2037 for this geographical region.

B
BUILDING
WELL
Figure 2. Site constraints, faults relative to site
SAN
ANDREAS
SAN
JACINTO
Figure 3. Site near-faults

RETROFIT SCHEME
An interior retrofit scheme was studied in 2006 using supplemental viscous

dampers. This option, while analytically feasible, proved to be too disruptive for the
continuous operation of the hospital. This scheme would have also reduced the size
of the already small patient rooms. The owner requested an alternate external
solution be studied to minimize the disruption to the interior of the building.
As shown in Figure 2, the biggest challenge was how to provide an external

system on the west side of the structure given the adjacent buildings. Upon studying
the adjacent structures, the design team focused on a one-story portion of building B
that housed non-critical hospital functions. In consultation with the architect and the
contractor, the owner decided to relocate the functions underneath this area and
demolish it. This structural well provided just enough space to place a 3-bay frame
symmetric to the other two sides of the building; however, the available space for a
pile cap was limited to about 7 wide x 80 long. In addition, building B has a
basement which the new pile cap abuts.
Preliminary BSE-1 results indicated the base shear force for each new external
frame was approaching 3,500 kips, about 30% of the building seismic mass. In
consultation with the Geotechnical Engineer, it was determined that a traditional cast-
in-place concrete pile solution was not feasible given the small amount of space at the
well, the soil quality, and the trailing pile effects. A driven pile solution was also
not feasible because of vibration concerns and because the pile rig would not fit into
the well. A proprietary pipe piling system is being specified that torques 12 +/-
diameter pipe piles with a welded drilling tip into the ground. In order to satisfy the
lateral load demands, the piles require a 3:1 batter. Group analysis was performed by
the Geotechnical Engineer with a specific pile layout. Constructability studies were
conducted to confirm that there is sufficient horizontal and vertical clearance for the
equipment to install the piles. The maximum estimated geotechnical lateral force
capacity for this foundation system is about 4,000 kips for each side.
As the superstructure concept developed, a balance between new frame
stiffness and supplemental viscous damping had to be achieved which would not
generate foundation demands beyond 4,000 kip lateral capacity while at the same
time satisfying component deformation capacities per ASCE 41-06 LS criteria.
Lastly, it was desired to minimize potential retrofit in the interior of the building, such
as strengthening the existing beams that acted as drags and retrofitting the existing
column splices.
After numerous iterations, a final new frame layout as shown in Figures 4, 5
and 6 was reached. The configuration provides the proper balance of supplemental
viscous damping and frame stiffness while aiming to achieve a cost-effective and
constructible design. The retrofitted building fundamental period is 1.7 seconds.
This implies that the new 3-bay frames make the structure globally about (2.4 / 1.7)2
2 times stiffer. Cost-efficiency was achieved by utilizing a top and bottom haunch
connection to simplify the detailing of the gusset connections to the frame elements.
Additional cost-efficiency was achieved by avoiding full scale experimental
component testing required by OSHPD as long as the authors assured that the new
panel zones remained elastic.

ASCE 41-06, Section 9.3.1 requires evaluation of dampers for forces,

velocities, and displacements associated with BSE-2 earthquake records; however,
the BSO for SPC-2 upgrade only requires LS at BSE-1. This requirement was
clarified in the OSHPD Design Criteria, by allowing analysis results only be
considered up to a 5% story drift ratio. The amplitude scale factor given by the
Geotechnical Engineer to convert BSE-1 to BSE-2 records was 1.75, demonstrating
the high seismicity of the site.
WELL
EXTERNAL
FRAME, TYP. HORIZONTAL
TRUSS
Figure 4. External frame layout
The new external frames are tied back to the structure at each level using a
horizontal steel truss. The steel truss consists of HSS sections connected by means of
horizontal gusset plates. This horizontal steel truss is designed to resist the maximum
of the BSE-1 demands.

WELL
NEW 3:1
BATTER PILES
Figure 5. Three-dimensional view of retrofit layout
Three different damper sizes are used, namely 330 k, 220 k, and 100 k.
OSHPD required the damper force-velocity exponent be explicitly stated in the
project Design Criteria. The dampers require a velocity exponent =0.4. To account
for cumulative effects of aging, ambient temperature, creep, and exposure to moisture
and damaging substances the analysis is required to be bounded by assuming a 15%
deviation from the basic damper force velocity curve. The project Design Criteria
also requires a thermal and weather protection membrane be provided around the
dampers. Lastly, prototype damper testing is required that demonstrates the dampers
remain within the 15% deviation for the extreme site historical ambient
temperatures. The dampers will likely be supplied by Taylor Devices, Inc. Figure 6
depicts a typical new frame elevation.

DAMPERS
Structures Congress 2012 ASCE 2012

T&B
TYP.
HAUNCH,
Figure 6. Typical new frame elevation

1627
ANALYTICAL MODEL
A three-dimensional model of the existing building and the new damped
moment frames was generated using CSIs Perform 3D. This model included only
the lateral force resisting elements. Existing gravity elements were not modeled
except where the new damped moment frame at the Well connects with the existing
building at gravity columns. Section sizes & geometry were based on the existing
drawings, and the material properties were based on results from a Materials Testing
Program. The mass was placed at the calculated center of mass and consisted of the
computed translational mass and mass moment of inertia at each level. At the roof
level, the mass of the penthouse was added to the roof mass. The existing
diaphragms were modeled using rigid diaphragm constraints over the extent of the
existing diaphragm. The horizontal truss was also explicitly modeled to capture any
differential movement between the new and the existing frames. See Figure 7 for a
three-dimensional view of the analytical model.
Figure 7. Three-dimensional view of analytical model in Perform 3D
The analysis was performed using a suite of 7 ground motions each consisting
of two horizontal components corresponding to Fault-Normal (FN) and Fault-Parallel
(FP) directions. The records were scaled such that the average of the FN components
exceeded the BSE-1 level design spectra within the period range of interest in
accordance with 2010 CBC; however, the ground motions were not spectrally-
matched to the design spectra. For analysis, the ground motion pairs were oriented
such that the FN component of the records was in line with the average FN direction
of the two main adjacent faults (See Figures 2 & 3). OSHPD then required that the

ground motions also be rotated orthogonal to this direction and the analysis be rerun.
Figure 8 shows the BSE-1 site specific spectra.
AVERAGE FN
COMPONENTS
TARGET FN
BSE-1
SPECTRA
Figure 8. BSE-1 Site Specific Ground Spectra (5% Damped)
The existing base connections are very weak and, under relatively low seismic
demands, have concrete break-out as the governing mechanism. The authors,
recognizing the advantage of uplift in the existing columns as a beneficial energy
dissipating mechanism, proposed to allow uplift of the interior columns, while
providing a tuned ductile uplift mechanism at the end columns. As part of the
retrofit work, upward vertical restraint of the interior columns will be removed by
removing nuts from the existing base plate. At the existing end columns, a tuned
connection will be used to provide a sufficient amount of flexural and tensile capacity
to ensure that concrete break-out failure does not occur. At both interior and end
columns, snubbers will be provided to transfer horizontal seismic forces to the
existing grade beam.
Two separate procedures were used for the modeling of the existing column
base at the grade beam interface. Existing interior moment frame columns were
modeled as fully pinned (i.e. no rotation restraint) at the base while allowing
movement in the upward direction by means of a gap element between the column
element and the grade beam element. In the downward direction, movement was
restrained by a compression-only pile element. At the existing end column base plate
the base plates were modeled as rigid elements that span between the new fuse
anchor bolt locations.

The existing piles were verified to be unreinforced during the Materials

Testing Program. Consequently, the existing pile modeling consisted of two elements
in parallel to represent a rigid pin in the downward vertical direction and an open
gap in the upward vertical direction. At some existing piles, uplift bars are
specifically noted on the existing structural drawings. At these locations, the tensile
capacity of the piles at the grade beam interface was based on the yielding of the
specified uplift bars. Where uplift at the existing grade beam to existing pile
element occurred, the piles shear resistance was neglected.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
The ultimate goal of the retrofit program was to limit the drift of the existing
structure to reduce rotational demands on the pre-Northridge moment connections
while limiting the amount of base shear within the new frames to accommodate
foundation constraints within the Well area. In Figure 9, drift plots for the center of
mass, the north (Frame 32), south (Frame FF), and west (Frame K) existing frames
have been provided. The drifts at the frames are measured in the direction of the
frames, and the drift at the center of mass is measured perpendicular to the west frame
(Frame K) which is in approximate alignment with the fundamental mode direction.
The retrofitted structure experienced an average drift of approximately 2.0% under
the baseline modeling conditions neglecting center of mass offsets and damper
variations. The final damping ratio was estimated at 25-30% of critical. When the
model was run with -15% damper force variation (case denoted variant in Figure 9)
and an assumed center of mass offset, the average drift slightly increased for several
of the frames due to less damping energy dissipation.
The analysis revealed that the new exterior frames resist approximately 90%
of the total base shear of the entire structure with a maximum frame base shear of
approximately 3700 kips. Therefore, the proposed pile group capacity was adequate.
Additionally, minor contribution of the existing frames allowed the authors to
consider the existing moment frame components as secondary elements.
Due to the proximity of adjacent structures and the potential detrimental
effects of pounding, the drift of the main structure was monitored. Where estimated
inelastic drift of the existing building and Building A towards each other exceeded
the available existing seismic joint, it was proposed to remove a portion of the
existing overhanging slab to increase the available seismic joint.
Under the suite of records, the maximum uplift that occurred at the existing
frames was approximately 1 at the southeast corner of the structure, while the
remainder of existing frame end columns uplifted less than . As previously
mentioned, the existing unreinforced piles below were not considered to contribute to
base shear resistance where uplift at the grade beam-pile interface occurred.

Figure 9. Averaged peak story drift ratios
EXPECTED SEISMIC PERFORMANCE
Structural engineers often use terminology that means something to us, but is
unclear to many owners, planners, architects, and other design professionals.
Although codes specify that life safety performance must be met, anyone who has
performed post-earthquake observations knows that life safety performance is not a
defined performance point, but rather a wide spectrum of performance. Often times,
what structural engineers would define as life safe performance is considered
unacceptable performance by an owner. When a displacement based analysis is done
on a building, the structural engineer has the opportunity to consider the specific
consequences of the movement on the various elements and predict the performance
in global terms that the owner can understand. For the project at hand, the expected
design level earthquake is anticipated to cause the following damage
:
1. Structural damage: We expect the design level earthquake to cause negligible
permanent drift (i.e. leaning) in the order of less than 0.25% due to permanent
distortion in the panel zones of the existing columns, at the ends of some new
beams, and at the base of some new columns. There is expected to be little to
no permanent distortion in the new steel horizontal truss. Additionally, there
is expected to be local damage to the slab-on-grade surrounding the existing
columns that may locally disrupt functionality until clean-up is provided.

2. Nonstructural Damage: The buildings nonstructural elements are expected to

experience maximum story drifts of up to 2% and maximum floor
accelerations of up to 0.60g. Drift sensitive nonstructural elements such as
interior nonbearing partitions, exterior facades, and mechanical
/electrical/plumbing distribution systems without adequate separation and/or
flexibility will experience moderate levels of damage that will require repair.
Functionality of doors may be inhibited, if nonstructural walls are
permanently distorted. Acceleration sensitive nonstructural equipment such

as appendages, medical equipment, mechanical/electrical/plumbing equipment
and distribution systems with adequate separation/flexibility, elevators, and
adequately anchored contents (e.g. office cabinets, etc.) will be reusable or
might require minor repair. However, nonstructural elements that are
compliant with a minimum Nonstructural Performance Category 3 (NPC-3, a
legislated nonstructural performance category for critical care facilities that
are expected to maintain functionality following a moderate earthquake as
well as provide emergency services to critical care areas of the hospital) are
expected to perform well since the code prescribed NPC-3 design
accelerations may be up to 175% larger than anticipated during a major
seismic event due to the supplemental damping.
Based on the structural and nonstructural damage state described above, we

expect the building to receive a green-tag after a major earthquake, thus resulting in
limited disruption in its operations and its continued participation in the emergency
response of the region. In fact, we expect that the strengthened building will perform
better than most SPC-3 buildings (See Introduction & Background Section) since the
proposed seismic strengthening has effectively prevented fracture of the existing
moment frame welded connections. See proposed Recommendations Section for
additional information.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In the authors opinion, it is recommended the following items be considered
for future research and updates to ASCE 41 and ASCE 7 provisions:
1. Ground Motion Application: For sites within close proximity of significant
seismic sources as the one presented here, the effects of ground motion
directionality are expected to be significant as documented by numerous
researchers. Assuming properly scaled Fault Normal (FN) components, the
authors propose consideration of only one orientation of the ground motion
pairs that aligns the Fault Parallel (FP) components with the general direction
of the predominant faults. As an additional measure to confirm that the near
fault source governs the seismic demand at the site, a site-specific spectra,
neglecting the near faults, can be generated. If the average spectra generated
by the FP components of the ground motion pairs is greater than the target
spectra without the near faults, then one can assume that the FP components
adequately captures the expected earthquakes demands from far sources.
See Figure 10 for additional information.

AVERAGE OF FP
COMPONENTS
TARGET
SPECTRA
EXCLUDING
NEAR
FAULTS
Figure 10. Comparison of average FP spectra excluding near faults
2. Damper Design/Testing Parameters: The intent of the provisions is to assure

the dampers provide a factor of safety against lockup in the event that the
ground motions exceed those expected. Lock-up occurs where the actual
damper stroke exceeds the available stroke clearance and the damper begins to
act like a strut. Excessively high safety factors beyond the project-specific
BSO may result in design strokes larger than a manufacturer can provide, and
can lead to elimination of supplemental damping as a cost effective
strengthening solution.
3. Accidental Torsion Provisions: The current 5% mass offset provision needs

further research and update. For NDP, the uncertainty associated with the
post-yielding behavior is greatly reduced. The 5% offset may be excessively
high for an analysis using NDP. A standardized methodology for deriving
project-specific mass offsets applicable to any floor plate shape is
recommended.
4. Nonstructural Component Evaluation and Design: For structures with

supplemental viscous damping, the authors recommend performing
nonstructural evaluation and design using the floor accelerations obtained
from the NDP analysis results. The provisions currently stated in Section

11.7.6 of ASCE 41-06 and ASCE 7 Chapter 13 are not explicit enough to
allow for straightforward implementation of the NDP results.
INNOVATIONS
This paper has illustrated the innovative application of the rehabilitation

guidelines of ASCE 41-06 considering amendments legislated by the 2010 California

Building Code, plan review by OSHPD, and a third-party peer review to seismically
strengthen an existing SPC-1 building to meet a minimum level of Life Safety
performance, namely SPC-2. The strict oversight by OSHPD confirmed that the
design met the intent of the SB 1953 legislation, while the peer reviewer confirmed
that the design met the spirit of the ASCE 41-06 standards and the standards of the
practice.
Specifically, it is noteworthy to highlight the following innovations:

1. Establishing governing design parameters at an early design phase:
Communication with the owner, the Design/Build contractor, and with the
architect was paramount in establishing the design parameters. The authors
achieved efficiency and productivity by sitting with the owners to understand
their needs of limited disruption during the construction period especially in
critical areas. Where disruption was required at the Well, the owners
ability to accommodate out-of-the box solutions illustrated how open
communication and an appreciation for the overall retrofit goal can achieve
limited disruption on a global level. The Design/Build contractor provided
critical input to generate solutions that accommodated sequencing
requirements and details that allowed for flexibility to account for variable
field conditions. The architects also played a significant role by successfully
integrating the external new frames into the architectural expression of the
existing building.
2. Open early phase communication with the geotechnical engineer to obtain
design recommendations: The communication with the geotechnical engineer
was most critical, because of the limited solutions at the Well. A clear
understanding of the structural design parameters helped the geotechnical
engineer provide pile group recommendations that facilitated implementation
into the analytical modeling.
3. Careful balance of supplemental damping and stiffness to mitigate existing
building deficiencies: This careful balancing act illustrated that the adage
Bigger is better is not always true. Due to physical constraints at the
Well, large foundations were not possible. Carefully studying the impact of
various damping/stiffening/strengthening schemes provided the authors with
an in-depth understanding of the weak links of the existing system. The
external retrofit solution provides sufficient stiffness and supplemental
viscous damping to limit drift demands to the existing frame, thereby
eliminating the need to strengthen beam/column elements, panel zones,
splices, and moment frame connections. At the same time, the external

retrofit frame and dampers are finely tuned to limit the amount of seismic
shear and overturning to the new foundation piles.
4. Modifying and strengthening the existing column base plate connections by
using a fine-tuned retrofit connection: The existing force-controlled (i.e. non-
ductile) column base plate connections presented a significant challenge to
meeting the building LS performance goals. After carefully studying the
weak links in the base plate connection, a finely tuned retrofit connection
helped ensure that the existing columns continued to resist a portion of the
seismic shear, yet provided a fuse to limit the demands to the existing
frame. The retrofit scheme helped to limit interior disruption to the first story
of the building and protect the remaining floors from disruption. The
authors were able to obtain additional energy dissipation by allowing a
controlled amount of uplift at the existing columns.
5. Designing for elastic behavior at the new frames to eliminate the need for full-
scale experimental testing: As structural engineers, the authors appreciate the
energy dissipation that inelastic behavior within beams and panel zones
provide. In this case, connections were not prequalified and would have
required costly and time consuming full scale testing. Sacrificing the inelastic
behavior at the new externally damped moment frame panel zones helped
eliminate the need for full scale testing while only slightly increasing material
and erection costs. The result was considerable savings in the cost and
schedule to help meet the SB 1953 deadlines for compliance. This savings is
especially notable in using the haunch connections in double-duty to
provide a sufficiently strong/stiff new moment frame connection while at the
same time serving as the connections for the new dampers.
6. Efficient damper configuration: The dampers were oriented horizontally to
enhance the energy dissipating efficiency. An exhaustive study that
considered damper variations due to temperature and aging along with
variations in the account for center-of-mass offsets helped to provide a level
of confidence that the damper configuration will provide the minimum LS
performance at the BSE-1. Although widely used for numerous bridges
around the world, dampers have not been traditionally used for building
seismic retrofits in exterior configurations. Where it is required to minimize
the disruption to building operations, this exterior damper placement provides
an alternative to a traditional internal retrofit.
7. Limiting penetrations to address waterproofing at the exterior faade:
Collaboration and communication with the Architect and Design/Build
contractor resulted in a horizontal steel truss that was robust enough to
transfer the seismic shears to the new external moment frame, yet detailed in
such a way to limit horizontal penetration in the new faade to accommodate
proper waterproofing and avoid the possibility of future issues regarding mold
and water intrusion.
8. Frequent communication and collaboration with review jurisdictions and peer
reviewer: The frequent meetings with OSHPD and the peer reviewer in
establishing the design criteria at an early stage helped to ensure that the
reviewers concerns were understood and addressed in the final retrofit

solution. This close communication helped to avoid costly rework and

achieved a collaborative resolution that met the intent of the code and the
standards of practice.
Overall, the implementation of the state-of-the-art analysis techniques coupled
with an expertise of how buildings behave in seismic events, helped the owner
achieve compliance with the state legislative requirements while limiting disruption
to current operations. Most importantly, the project helped the owner understand the
vulnerability of the existing structure and established an expectation of seismic
performance of the retrofitted building during a major seismic event.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Degenkolb Engineers acknowledges the following entities in helping to

achieve the success of this project: Client (confidential), Clark Construction, RBB
Architects, AMEC (geotechnical), Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development, Button Engineering, Taylor Devices Incorporated, and Substructures
Support, Incorporated. Additionally, the assistance of the many Degenkolb Engineers
and mentors that have provided guidance and production on this project: Richard
Franco, Chris Poland, Mark Sinclair, Silvia Mazzoni, Tim Graf, Alfred Tran, and Jeff
Shoemaker.
REFERENCES
California Building Standards Commission, 2010 California Building Code,

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2, Sacramento,
California.
AMEC Geomatrix (2010/2011) Geotechnical Investigation Report Proposed Seismic
Retrofit [] and Addendum 1-Ground Motion Hazard and Geotechnical
Evaluation []
Americal Society of Civil Engineers (2007). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06 w/Supplement No. 1, Reston, Virginia.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (2000). FEMA 355D, State of the Art
Report on Connection Performance, FEMA 355D.
Krawinkler, H. (1978), Shear Design of Steel Frame Joints, Engineering Journal,
AISC, Vol. 15, No. 3.
American Institute of Steel Construction (1999), Modification of Existing Steel
Welded Moment Frame Connections for Seismic Resistance, Design Guide
12.

Mora 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mora 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Structures Congress 2012 ASCE 2012 1620

SEISMIC RETROFIT OF A STEEL MOMENT FRAME CALIFORNIA

Christopher Mora1, Omar Garza2 and Ricardo Hernandez3

California legislation requires acute-care hospital buildings designed prior to

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

After the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, the California legislature enacted

Structures Congress 2012

BUILDING AND SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject building is located in San Bernardino, California. The building

Structures Congress 2012

Figure 1. Typical floor plan

The existing building major structural seismic deficiencies include strong

Structures Congress 2012

Figure 2. Site constraints, faults relative to site

Figure 3. Site near-faults

Structures Congress 2012

An interior retrofit scheme was studied in 2006 using supplemental viscous

As shown in Figure 2, the biggest challenge was how to provide an external

Structures Congress 2012

ASCE 41-06, Section 9.3.1 requires evaluation of dampers for forces,

Figure 4. External frame layout

Structures Congress 2012

Figure 5. Three-dimensional view of retrofit layout

Structures Congress 2012

Structures Congress 2012

Figure 6. Typical new frame elevation

Figure 7. Three-dimensional view of analytical model in Perform 3D

Structures Congress 2012

Figure 8. BSE-1 Site Specific Ground Spectra (5% Damped)

Structures Congress 2012

The existing piles were verified to be unreinforced during the Materials

element occurred, the piles shear resistance was neglected.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Structures Congress 2012

Figure 9. Averaged peak story drift ratios

EXPECTED SEISMIC PERFORMANCE

Structures Congress 2012

2. Nonstructural Damage: The buildings nonstructural elements are expected to

permanently distorted. Acceleration sensitive nonstructural equipment such

Based on the structural and nonstructural damage state described above, we

Structures Congress 2012

Figure 10. Comparison of average FP spectra excluding near faults

2. Damper Design/Testing Parameters: The intent of the provisions is to assure

3. Accidental Torsion Provisions: The current 5% mass offset provision needs

4. Nonstructural Component Evaluation and Design: For structures with

Structures Congress 2012

This paper has illustrated the innovative application of the rehabilitation

guidelines of ASCE 41-06 considering amendments legislated by the 2010 California

Specifically, it is noteworthy to highlight the following innovations:

Structures Congress 2012

Structures Congress 2012

solution. This close communication helped to avoid costly rework and

Degenkolb Engineers acknowledges the following entities in helping to

California Building Standards Commission, 2010 California Building Code,

Structures Congress 2012

You might also like