ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 92-833
Gravity-Load-Designed Reinforced Concrete Buildings-
Part 1: Seismic Evaluation of Existing Construction
by Sashi K. Kunnath, Garret Hoffmann, Andrei M. Reinhorn, and John B.Mander
The seismic performance ofnonductile reinforced concrete frame buildings
in regions of low to moderate seismicity is evaluated. Several significant
aspects of nonductile detailing are modeled using rational simplifications
of expected member behavior at critical sections to facilitate a complete
inelastic time history analysis of the system. The detailing configurations
included in the analysis are: discontinuous positive flexural reinforcement,
lack of joint shear reinforcement, and inadequate transverse reinforcement
for column core confinement. Seismic evaluations of three-, six-, and nine-
story buildings are carried out under low- to moderate earthquake excita-
tions. The essential parameters of the response are presented with a view to
identifying vulnerability of such buildings to a potential seismic design
event.
Keywords: buildings; confined concrete; damage; ductility; earthquake-
resistant structures; joints (junctions); reinforced concrete; shear prop-
erties; strength.
Recent awareness of a potential seismic event in regions of
low to moderate seismicity have led to concerns of safety
and vulnerability of reinforced concrete buildings, in which
ductile detailing has not been provided explicitly in the de-
sign process. In some cases, for relatively taller buildings,
the design may have considered lateral forces due to wind
loads. While it is possible that the seismic demand, given the
higher period range for tall structures, may not exceed the
lateral capacity of a structure designed for wind loads, it is
still important to carry out a complete seismic evaluation,
since higher mode effects sometimes lead to soft-story
mechanisms in the mid to upper levels of the building.
Seismic activity in eastern and central United States is not
well defined, given the relatively smaller magnitudes and
considerably fewer occurrences. However, it should be not-
ed that, while the ratio of peak ground acceleration of maxi-
mum credible to maximum expected earthquake is about 5:4
in the Western United States (Whitman 1), the same ratio
could be as high as 6:1 on the East Coast (for critical facili-
ties). This amounts to saying that the degree of damage from
a maximum credible earthquake in a region of low seismicity
can be much higher than the induced damage of a maximum
credible earthquake in a region of high seismicity. Conse-
quently, investigation of seismic vulnerability of an existing
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1995
TECHNICAL PAPER
concrete building in which the nonseismic details of con-
struction are implicitly included in the evaluation procedure
is of immense value to structural engineers.
Limited experimental results are available on the perfor-
mance of lightly reinforced concrete connections. Tests of
scale-model components conducted at Cornell University
(Pessiki et al. 2) and the State University of New York at Buf-
falo (Bracci, Reinhorn, and Mander; 3 Aycardi, Mander, and
Reinhorn4) have characterized some of the basic hysteretic
force-deformation responses of lightly reinforced connec-
tions. These results have been utilized in both the component
property identification and nonlinear simulations presented
in this paper.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The potential risk of damage to concrete buildings from a
moderate earthquake in regions of low to moderate seismic-
ity is becoming a matter of growing concern to the practicing
community. A simple rational procedure to analyze existing
concrete buildings designed primarily for gravity loads is
presented. The procedure permits modeling of nonductile
detailing in an implicit manner, so that existing analytical
tools can be used to perform seismic evaluations of rein-
forced concrete (RC) buildings in eastern and central United
States, zones classified as regions of low- to moderate seis-
mic risk. The analyses presented in this paper provide engi-
neers with some preliminary data on the potential
performance of typical gravity-load-designed RC buildings
subjected to moderate earthquake motion. The results pre-
sented here can also be used as a guideline for setting up
damage-limiting criteria and for consideration of seismic up-
grading, if needed.
ACE Structural Journal, V. 92, No.3, May-June 1995.
Received Nov. 29, 1993, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copy-
right© 1995, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making
of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent dis-
cussion will be published in the March-April 1996 ACE Str~ctural Journal if received
by Nov. I, 1995
343

ACI member Sashi K. Kunnath is an assistant professor of civil engineering at the
University of Central Florida. He received his PhD from the State University of New
York at Buffalo. He is actively involved in research on nonlinear modeling and seismic
damage assessment of reinforced concrete structures. He is a member ofACI Commit-
tee 368, Earthquake Resisting Concrete Structural Elements and Systems; and joint
ACI-ASCE Committee 442, Response of Concrete Buildings to Lateral Forces.
ACI member Garret Hoffmann, MS, PE, is a structural engineer at Fait-Albert Asso-
ciates, Buffalo, New York. He received his MS from the State University of New York
at Buffalo in 1992. He currently specializes in bridge design, retrofit, and testing.
ACI member Andrei M. Reinhom, PhD, PE, is a professor of structural engineering
at the University of Buffalo. He specializes in evaluation and seismic retrofit of rein-
forced concrete structures using conventional and protective systems (such as supple-
mental damping and active control). He is a member of ACI Committee 368,
Earthquake Resisting Concrete Structural Elements and Systems.
ACI member John B. Mander is an assistant professor in the Department of Civil
Engineering at the State University of New York at Buffalo. He received his PhD from
the University of Canterbury, New Zealand. His research interests include experimen-
tal and analytical modeling of bridge and building structures, with particular empha-
sis on seismic peiformance.
DESCRIPTION OF TYPICAL BUILDING
The building configuration chosen for the study was a typ-
ical office building with symmetric floor plan and floor lev-
els of equal height to avoid any irregular behavior that might
cause difficulty in interpretation of the dynamic response.
Since the investigation included a subsequent study of rein-
forcement adequacy, it was necessary to assure that the mod-
el was free from any peculiar features that might obscure
discernability between results obtained from modeling of
separate reinforcing details (discussed in Part II of this pa-
per\
In all, three structures, representing three-, six-, and nine-
story-tall buildings, were modeled. A typical plan and eleva-
tion of the three-story building is shown in Fig. 1. The story
heights for the remaining structures were also kept at 12ft
each. All components were designed in accordance with
code requirements prescribed in ACI 318-89.5 Structural el-
ements were designed for a factored load of 1.4D + 1.7L,
where a uniformly distributed live load of 50 psf was used in
accordance with ANSI code provisions for minimum loads
for office buildings. Beams were treated as continuous T-
beams, required to resist factored shears and moments at crit-
• Kunnath, Sasbi K.; Hoffmann, Garret; Reinhom, Andrei M.; and Mander, John
B., "Gravity-Load-Designed Reinforced Concreie Buildings-Part II: Evaluation of
Detailing Enhancement," pending publication inAC/ Structural Journal.
I· 18' + 18' ·I· 18' ·I
Fig. ]-Typical building configuration used in study
344
ical sections only. Since gravity-load forces governed over
those from wind loads for beams, the reinforcing profiles of
the beams were identical, regardless of story level. Fig. 2
presents the beam-reinforcing profile, along with the corre-
sponding beam cross sections at the critical locations. For the
top story, it was assumed, for simplicity, that factored snow
loads and roof dead loads were of the same order as the grav-
ity loads. Columns were also designed to resist the worst-
case combination of moment and axial load occurring from
the governing combination of factored wind and gravity
loads. Column cross sections were redesigned every three
story levels. Fig. 3 shows the general profile of the columns,
along with specific detailing of each cross section corre-
sponding to the three sets of story levels. In all cases, the
concrete was assumed to have an unconfined compressive
strength of 4000 psi, while steel reinforcement was assumed
to have a yield strength of 40 ksi.
General aspects of gravity-load-designed building
The following features may be distinguished in typical
gravity load design of RC buildings:
1. Bottom flexural reinforcement is discontinuous at the
interior joints and is simply terminated in the core at the ex-
terior joints. ACI code provisions stipulate that one-quarter
of the positive flexural reinforcement be extended at least 6
in. into the support. This practice is more than adequate in
cases in which gravity load governs due to the support region
of beams being in negative flexure.
2. The ACI code makes no provision for assuring joint
shear strength in building design where significant lateral
loads from seismic forces are not predominant. Consequent-
ly, there are no transverse hoops within the joint, or any other
type of reinforcing mechanism to carry joint shear.
3. With regard to column core confinement, code provi-
sions require that stirrups be spaced at no more than one-half
the effective depth of the member. However, this is notre-
quired when the factored shear is less than one-half the shear
capacity of the concrete, as is often the case in columns
where shear forces, even including wind effects, are small.
4. Lap splices in columns are typically located in the po-
tential hinge region, just above the floor levels. Also, the two
bars in the splice are generally in contact with each other, ad-
versely effecting effectiveness of the bond between the bar
and surrounding concrete. Nonetheless, if the splice is fairly
well confined and the overlap is of sufficient length, it is not
,. 18'
·+ . + 18' 18'
---1
I ~ f ~ I !a I !:ZJ
ACI Structural Journal .I May-June 1995
 # 6 (bot.)
SECTION A-A
stirrups
9"
SECTION C-C
Fig. 2-Reinforcement details for beams
generally a significant problem and is not studied in detail in
this paper.
Modeling of specific aspects of these detailing configura-
tions for direct use in a nonlinear analysis program is dis-
cussed in the next section.
MODELING OF NONDUCTILE DETAILING
TJ;rree of the primary aspects of nonseismic detailing were
considered for detailed analysis in this study: 1) the effect of
discontinuous positive reinforcement, 2) the presence of in-
sufficient joint shear steel, and 3) modeling of the level of
confinement within beams and columns. The influence of ·
these factors was considered in an equivalent manner to uti-
lize existing inelastic analytical tools for performing a com-
plete seismic analysis of the structure beyond yield. Details
of the simplified modeling approaches are described in the
following sections.
Discontinuous positive reinforcement
The termination of the bottom steel in beams (positive re-
inforcement) within the beam-column joint will result in
these sections not being able to reach their yield moment un-
ACI Structural Journal/ May-June 1995
SECTION 8-8
2 #6
2 #5
der lateral load, because the bond between the positive rein-
forcement and joint concrete is insufficient to develop the
yield force in the steel. This allows the steel to gradually slip
through the joint on further seismically induced deformation
(displacement loading) until, ultimately, a "pullout" condi-
tion is reached. Fig. 4 is an illustration of an interior beam-
column joint subjected to discontinuous bar pullout. The re-
quired development length for flexural reinforcement can be
estimated from the following ACI-318 expressions
ldb = 0.04AJ/ Jt or ldb = 0.0004dJY (1)
Calculating the equivalent moment capacity of a member
prone to bar slip based on the yield force of the effective area
of the tension steel is proposed. We can assume that the ef-
fective area of tension steel is equal to the ratio of embed-
ment length to development length multiplied by the actual
steel area. Hence
(2)
345
 12"

. - !>
#3
#6 BAR (typ)
STIRRUP
r-- (SPA. VARIES)
a) Columns Sup~orting
Less than 4 Floors
#3 stirr ups
........._
(spacing varies r--.... 0
based on I
confineme nt) N

r
D
--, D #3
#6 BAR (typ)
STIRRUP
(SPA. VARIES)
b) Columns Supporting
4 to 6 Floors

- 15"
, :.

-- l....._

l
#B BAR (typ)
#3 STIRRUP
(SPA. VARIES)
c) Columns Supporting
Over 6 Floors

SECTION D-D

Fig. 3-Reinforcement details for columns

The "pullout" moment capacity can be calculated using
this effective area in the usual manner. It can, therefore, be
shown that, for typical T -beams prone to bar slip in positive
bending, the moment at initiation of slip is approximately
equal to the ratio of the embedment length to development
length multiplied by the yield moment
(3)
For example, the beam cross section B-B shown in Fig. 2
has a calculated positive moment capacity of 540 k-in., as-
suming full anchorage of the bottom reinforcement. Actual-
ly, the discontinuous bottom reinforcement (two #6 bars) has
an embedment length of 7.5 in. The necessary embedment
length for full development of yield strength for a #6 bar is
taken as the greater of the lengths calculated from Eq. (1)
l db -- 0 •041t (0.75in.) 2 40000 -- 11 .2"m. or
J current computer programs are unable to model joint panel
4 4000
ldb = 0.0004 (0.75 in.) (40,000) = 12.0 in. (governs)
The corresponding "pullout" capacity is
Mpullout = 7:i~oi~~. (540 k-in.)= 338 k-in.
1
Joint shear capacity
Lack of transverse reinforcement within the joint region is
characteristic of gravity-load-designed RC structures. It is
widely accepted that the longitudinal steel running through
the joint is not efficient at resisting shear and is commonly
neglected when computing shear capacity. This lack of a
·shear-resistance mechanism can lead to nonductile failures
once the shear capacity of concrete has been exceeded. Fig.
5 illustrates the joint shear failure that occurs when trans-
verse hoops are insufficient to resist the large shears induced
by transmission of axial forces induced by the steel and con-
crete internal couple.
To avoid the complexities of modeling degrading inelastic
behavior of a reinforced concrete joint (beside the fact that
deformations effectively), an approximate approach was
used to account for possible joint shear failure. Flexural

346 ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1995

 Continuous bar development
length adequate to prevent
pullout.

rb-m~~~~~~
; -
flexural cracks
;
~
cb__..=!if~~eltt:-!:1:11,_--
~Large crack at joint face due to
bar pullout, restrained by load .
redistribution. (exaggerated for clanty)
Void due to bar slip.
(exaggerated for clarity)
Bond & bar deformation
shear stresses.
Development length insufficient to
prevent bar slip.

Fig. 4-Discontinuous bar pullout

Tc
Hoops inadequate to
prevent joint failure
in shear.

Tb ----n=~==itj ld~!ii4~._ '1,

~vt,
~
~~~--~--~~~----Tb
Crock size exaggerated
for clarity
Cc Tc

Fig. 5-Joint shear failure

properties of the members framing into the joint were adjust-
ed to reflect the capacity of the joint. This amounts to a sim-
ple reduction of the capacity of flexural members to reflect
the moment value that would induce a joint shear equal to the
calculated joint shear capacity. Following the derivations of
Paulay,6 it can be shown that the limiting beam and column
moments to prohibit joint failure are
Using this procedure, the equivalent moment to induce
joint shear failure for various interior and exterior joints can
be established. Values for horizontal and vertical joint shear,
as well as the equivalent member end moments required to
induce joint shear failure (in terms of joint shear capacity),
are presented in Table 1. Also, the equation recommended
by ACI-ASCE Committee 3527 was used to better illustrate
the variation in joint shear strength induced by axial load and
level of confinement

(6)

A slight modification of the y term was used to increase

(5) the joint strength obtained from transverse joint confinement
linearly from 1.0 to 1.4, as the ratio of transverse beam area
to joint face area increased from 0 to 1.

ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1995 347

 Table 1-Summary of induced joint shear
Location Joint shear Moment to induce joint shear failure*
of joint
12-in. columns 15-in. columns
(Zc ~ 9 in.) (Zc ~ 12 in.)

2Mb 2Mb M• $9.0 (V1.) u Mb$9.1 (VJh)u

vJ• = yb-
z,( 1- f)b
Interior
joint 2M, 2M, M, $4.7 (V1,) u M, $ 6.4 ( V1J "
VJ, = y- (
' l 1-~
h)
b l,

Mb M• Mb $ 18.0 (V1.)" Mb $ 18.1 (Vih)"

v .• = - -
} zb 1,( 1- f)b
Exterior
joint V. =2M,._ M, M, $4.6 (Vi,)" M, $6.2 (V1,)"
1' z' I
b
( 1-~ h)
I,

2Mb Mb Mb $8.5 (Vih)" M• $8.5 (V1.)"

vi.= y-
Interior
b
1,( 1- f)b
top floor
joint M, M, M, $9.5 (Vi,)" M, $12.8 (Vi,) u
v), = z,.-
zb( 1- ~)
Mb M• M• $18.0 (V1•) u M•$17.0(V1.),
vi. = z- 21 (1---"h)
b
Exterior ' lb
top floor
joint M, M, M, $9.2 (V1J" M, $ 12.4 cv1,)"
vi,= z-- ( h)
' 21 1-~
b I,

*Note: lb = 216 in., lc = 144 in., Zb = 16 in., hb = 18 in., h, = 12 and 15 in.

Effectiveness of column core confinement
The influence of confining steel was considered in terms
of its effect on the ductility capacity of the hinge region. In ·
years past, the effect of transverse steel on ultimate curva-
tures was estimated primarily using empirical correlations to
volumetric reinforcing ratio. This would still prove to be a
good representation of the effect of hoop steel; however,
more refined formulations based on recent research were
used in this study. Specifically, a computer program employ-
ing a comprehensive fiber model analysis was used to cap-
ture the effects of varying the transverse reinforcing ratio on
ultimate curvature. The program, developed by Mander, 8
separates a cross section into a finite number of lamina con-
sisting of a portion of cover concrete, core concrete, and lon-
gitudinal steel. The procedure uses a new stress-strain model
for confined concrete (Mander, Priestley, and Park9 ), in
which the effects of confining steel are explicitly included.
The moment-curvature envelopes obtained from the analysis
were used as input for the inelastic seismic analysis.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The three building structures were analyzed using the
computer program IDARC (Kunnath, Reinhorn, and
Lobo 10). Input consisted of building topology and trilinear
moment-curvature envelopes for all component cross sec-
tions. Computed strength and ductility capacities were based
on proposed modified values for nonductile connections, as
detailed in previous sections. Hysteresis behavior of the
plastic hinge regions was obtained from identification stud-
ies of available experimental results on such connections
(Aycardi et al} Pessiki et al. 2). The buildings were each sub-
jected to a series of different ground motions expected to
characterize both expected and maximum credible earth-
quakes in low- to moderate seismic zones. Pertinent details
of the evaluation procedure are summarized.
Selection of ground motion
The primary purpose of the study was to establish seismic
vulnerability of nonductile buildings subjected to maximum
credible earthquakes or the worst-case scenario. In an at-
tempt to obtain meaningfully comparable results, accelero-
grams were selected with a broad range of fundamental
periods within the amplified region of the response spectra.
Four separate earthquake records were selected for use in
this study.
It has been suggested that the 1985 Nahanni earthquake,
which occurred in northwest Canada, may be considered
typical of an East Coast earthquake. 11 Inclusion of an earth-
quake "typical" to eastern North America was necessary to
verify the assumption that existing nonseismically detailed
RC structures are under a significant risk of suffering severe
damage from moderate earthquakes. This should not be mis-
interpreted to mean that existing eastern U.S. structures are
only at risk from seismic events of a moderate magnitude,

348 ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1995

 1.2~--------------.

-z '
0 0.8
s
r.~ NAHANNI
"l'lj-------------.-........
·~·
-.. ---------............ ---........ -.. ---... --.. -.... --- ........•.•..•.........

~s:
~ ~n
I Ill
,,~TAFT
•:
a: ~ IJ !: ELCENTRO
w
_J '·· ~.:
.. \j ,.I

w 0.4
.• . ··lot·~ I ·--~························································•·············

() ..;,,:,• #,....._
\ \J I
\
·' · . . ,-·vv~·. ~sc '
()
<(

0.~.0
'--.. . -= =--=---:s.--:-:-=c
"""'-- . ~...-... ...-~ .:::::-----__

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

PERIOD (SEC)
Fig. 6-Response spectra of accelerograms used in seismic analysis

such as the Nahanni earthquake. On the contrary, it is sug-
gested that numerous seismically vulnerable sites in the East
are under risk from earthquakes of significantly higher ener-
gy content_ll
Two of the remaining three records selected were recorded
motions from the West Coast, viz., El Centro (1940) and Taft
(Kern County, 1952). These records represent earthquakes
with significantly higher energy content, and, given the lack
of seismic data for the region, the possibility of such events
cannot be ruled out The fourth and final record selected for
the study was an artificially generated accelerogram simulat-
ed to correlate with the 1988 UBC design spectrum.
For this study, all records were scaled to a peak ground ac-
celeration (PGA) of 0.20 g (with the exception of the artifi-
cial accelerogram, where a PGA of 0.15 g was used) to
correspond to the maximum "credible" earthquake in re-
gions of interest in the eastern United States. The response
spectra for all accelerograms are displayed in Fig. 6.
reinforced frame structure tested by Bracci et aL 3 Compari-
son of analytically predicted time history responses and
force-deformation hysteresis with experimentally observed
values shows satisfactory performance of the inelastic struc-
tural modeL Further discussion and details of the calibration
are presented in Hoffmann et aL 12
Damage modeling
The damage model developed by Park, Ang, and Wen 13
has been incorporated into the IDARC computer program to
assess the level of damage induced in the structure, both at
the component and story levels. This model assigns a dam-
age index value between 0.0 and 1.0, with 0.0 indicating an
elastic response (or no damage) and 1.0 representing total
collapse (or failure). Damage is expressed as the linear com-
bination of deformation and strength damage (due to cyclic
dissipated energy) as follows

Inelastic analysis (7)

As indicated earlier, the computer program IDARC was
used in seismic evaluation studies. IDARC is a nonlinear
analysis program for frame-wall structures subjected to seis-
mic excitations. The program requires specification of mem-
ber behavior in terms of moment-curvature envelopes and an
associated hysteretic rule that characterizes the cyclic force-
deformation loops. The primary curve for each component
cross section is specified as a nonsymmetric trilinear enve-
lope with three hysteretic degrading parameters, as shown in
Fig. 7. The three main characteristics represented in the hys-
teretic model are stiffness degradation, strength deteriora-
tion, and crack-closure/bond-slip or pinching. The control
parameters can be combined in various ways to achieve a
range of hysteretic patterns typical of reinforced concrete
sections. In the present study, these parameters were cali-
brated directly from experiments of a one-third-scale lightly
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1995
Story level damage indexes are determined using a
weighted average of individual component damage indexes
D; as follows
(8)
The damage index used within the program IDARC has
been calibrated based on correlations made by Anagnosto-
polous, Petrovski, and Bouwkamp; 14 Park, Reinhorn, and
Kunnath; 15 and Bracci et aL 16 Based on these descriptions of
the degree of damage of various concrete members (their vi-
sual appearance and usability), a scale of damage indexes
349
 M

Trilinear Moment-Curvature Envelope

(a) Degrading Stiffness (b) Deteriorating Strength (c) Pinching/Bond-Slip

Fig. 7-Modeling of degrading hysteretic behavior of members

Table 2-Correlation of damage indexes and damage states

Limit state
Damage (service) damage
Usability * Degree of damage t state index Appearance+
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Undamaged Undeformed/uncracked
0.00
Usable Slight Serviceable Moderate cracking
0.20-0.30
Minor to moderate Repairable Spalling of concrete cover
Severe cracking
0.50-0.60
Temporarily unusable Moderate to severe Irrepairable Buckled bars, exposed core
Collapse > 1.00
Unusable Collapse Loss of shear/axial capacity
' Anagnostopoulos et al. 14
t Park et al. 15
+Bracci et al. 16

has been defined and is presented in Table 2 for reinforced
concrete beams and columns subjected to cyclic loading.
SUMMARY OF SEISMIC EVALUATION
The relevant seismic properties of the three buildings are
given in Table 3. These include the fundamental system pe-
riod and lateral load-carrying capacity in terms of building
weight. It is observed that the frames are relatively more
flexible than would have resulted from a typical seismic de-
sign. This already provides preliminary indication of the ex-
pected response of the buildings under various earthquakes.
Maximum interstory drift demands are presented in Table
4, from which it is evident that a maximum story drift of 4.4 7
percent occurs during the Taft earthquake in the six-story
building. This drift occurred between the third- and fourth-
story levels, as did the 2.67 percent maximum drift from the
analysis performed using the El Centro ground motion. This
region, just above the third-story level, i"s the location of a

350 ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1995

Table a-Fundamental periods and base shear Table 4-Maximum interstory drifts, percent
coefficients Artificial
Maximum base shear earthquake, Nahanni, El Centro, Taft, PGA =
Building type Fundamental period, s coefficient Building type PGA = 0.15 g PGA=0.20 g PGA=0.20g 0.20 g
Three-story 0.79 0.056 Three-story 0.53 0.31 1.16 3.06
Six-story 1.15 0.037 Six-story 0.95 0.51 2.67 4.47
Nine-story 1.48 0.028 Nine-story 0.63 0.61 1.17 1.83

uj : I
> : I El Centro
~ 2 ,-----:-
1 : Art Eq.
>- I :
o:: r ·: Nahanni
~ : ra~
~Qi~~-----~=--~~--------~--~~~---------~~---------==="~
.00 0.25 0.50 0. 75 1.00
BEAM DAMAGE INDEX
a) 3 STORY FRAME

6 ~-~~-~!~--:~:--·=------------------------~-------~8-~--w-,
I : ••••
5
I
lr
II
-'-····t···
:

'
Art Eq.
II ! Nahanni
~ 4-
!:i
:
I
::
::
il I Taft

3 ... - -'t--·····~ ... --. ----;-----,

~ ! : ! :
~~ 2 h-... ····'
I:
I:
. ---t--1
I
I
:
:
I
:·-.· 'ill
_:: I:q II

8.oo 0.25
BEAM DAMAGE INDEX
0.50 0.75 1.00

b) 6 STORY FRAME

...
8
... EJCenao

: Art Eq.

.-----·-
:
7 Nlhmi
I

I
Tal!
:r ....... . I

.. _____ ,
I

:I
:I
•n r.nr.n~···-:
I
I : I
--~..-.~ ,----~
'

... .... -, I

---·
I I
!•...... I
I
3 ,.~
I
I I

2 •......,...:
: I
I : I

: I
1 1• .,..................:
• I I

!I i
0. 5 0.50 1.
BEAM DAMAGE INDEX

c) 9 STORY FRAME

Fig. 8-Damage distribution for beams in gravity-load-designed frames

ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1995 351

 ,.,
-' ..:: ::
2 .
·r--·····:. . r-- I I I:

I
. .
.......
'J I :
.: --
.... ---------..: ....
I I : EICernro
1 r-
i
"'
lf.oo
I
I
0I
oI
I I I I
I Art Eq.
-- - 1.00
-
Nahlnli
0.25 0.50 0.75
COLUMN DAMAGE INDEX Taft

a) 3 SlORY FRAME

6 : :: I: :
I :1
5 .. -- .....,...:- .....-1,1-------+--r-------
I :
:
: I +--,
:
II
I :
- -"j···:-··~
I
I
:

'
:
:
:
!I
I
I
::····T-----···
: ···• I
~...;..--"""T---""1
:,.._-_----~
1
~

i --:
i

~r-----
'
-------:--
r--- _, El Can1ro

~~Eq.
Nahanni
:I
:I
t :
I
l: Taft

8.oo 0.25 0.50

COLUMN DAMAGE INDEX
0.75 1.00

b) 6 STORY FRAME

I
.
.
:
:
.,.~
I
I
----:--.
I '
• I
El Can110

Art Eq.
I
I :
I :'
:
:!
,
.... ,
I
I
N81anni
I :
I :
I ···~
:i ,. .. I Taft

I
I
:
:
'!1"•"
:
:
.,
I
I

I
II

: I I :
~ ---, .. -------,--------- H---.
: I
: I
! r--
• I
: I
2 .:r
: I
: I
:.fl
'I
iI
0. 5 0.50
COLUMN DAMAGE INDEX

c) 9 STORY FRAME

Fig. 9-Damage distribution for columns in gravity-load-designed frames

column size transition. The fourth story comprised a soft-
story mechanism, as evidenced by complete column hinging
and sudden excessive drifts. Further discussion on failure
mechanisms may be found in the second part of this paper.
The maximum drift observed from analyses performed us-
ing the two moderate ground motions was 0.95 percent, also
occurring in the six-story structure in the apparent weak zone
between the third- and fourth-story levels. Observations
made from complete story drift profiles indicate that maxi-
mum story drifts were consistently greater than 0.4 percent
during the artificial earthquake and greater than 0.3 percent
during the Nahanni earthquake.
Fig. 8 and 9 display calculated damage in the beams and
columns, respectively, at each story level for all four earth-
quakes used in the study. These plots easily identify the lo-
cation and severity of the damaged members, as well as

352 ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1995

giving a comparative indication of the difference in damage Finally, it must be indicated that site characteristics were
intensity between a moderate (say, Nahanni) and severe (say, not explicitly considered in the evaluations. In this case, two
Taft) earthquake. As can be seen from the figures, high lev- separate issues may also need to be addressed: 1) if the build-
els of damage were present in both the beams and columns ing is located on soft soil, the spectral characteristics of the
after analysis using the severe earthquakes, Taft and El Cen- earthquake will be vastly different, with higher amplitudes in
tro. For both these ground motions, it was seen that damage the longer period ranges, resulting in a different damage sce-
in all levels, except the upper floors, was in the order of 0.5 nario; 2) proximity of the building to other tall structures
or greater. The computed damage for all structures subjected may dictate special requirements, since otherwise acceptable
to "severe" ground motions corresponds to a damage state in drifts of 0.5 to 1.0 percent may still lead to pounding prob-
a range from irreparable to collapse. lems with adjacent structures.
It is further seen that when the buildings were subjected to
a moderate level earthquake, such as Nahanni or the spec- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the National
trum-compatible earthquake, the buildings suffered signifi- Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (supported by the National
cant but not severe damage. Damage indexes in the order of Science Foundation) and the State of New York for making this study pos-
0.10 to 0.30 were observed in all three structures, corre- sible.
sponding to a repairable damage state based on the afore-
mentioned damage correlations. It is interesting to note that NOTATION
Ab area of individual bar
the beams were slightly more damaged than the columns, ex-
Aeff effective area of joint in direction of shear force
cept in the lower story levels of the nine-story structure,
Ag gross area of joint resisting gravity load
where beam damage was much greater than column damage.
A5 tension steel area provided
The small column damage in the lower levels of the nine-sto-
A* effective area of tension steel in beam
ry structure is a clear result of the high column-to-beam b;ff effective joint width normal to direction of shear force
strength ratio in this region. This tends to indicate that inad- db diameter of longitudinal bar
equate positive moment strength and beam ductility is of deff effective joint depth parallel to direction of shear force
greater concern than joint shear strength or column confine- fc' unconfined compressive strength of concrete
ment. However, in the upper story levels, where beam and fy steel yield strength
column strengths are much closer, similar damage values in- /db development length
dicate that the damage contribution of beam bar pullout, joint lemb embedment length provided
shear failure, and poor beam or column confinement is not D damage index scaling structural damage from 0 to I
clearly discernible. Ei total energy absorbed by each component
Mpullout effective moment capacity due to pullout
My yield moment of beam section assuming no pullout
OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
Nu axial load transmitted through joint
In summary, the evaluation considered two types of earth-
Py yield strength of member of interest
quake: one pair representing a design or typical earthquake
( vjhl" horizontal joint shear capacity
of low- to moderate energy content, and the other represent-
ing a maximum credible event with higher energy content. ( v1,l" vertical joint shear capacity
An overview of the damage plots and computed maximum zb internal moment arm of beam
story drift for each of the buildings indicates the following. Zc internal moment arm of column
Buildings will perform satisfactorily when subject to a ~ 1.0 (Type II joints)

moderate earthquake with low-energy content, though some
degree of repairable damage may be inflicted throughout the
structure.
Buildings are susceptible to severe damage if subject to an
intense ground-shaking at peak ground accelerations within
the design spectra, but with an energy content comparable to
typical West Coast earthquakes.
Seismic design in general requires that: 1) the failure
mechanism maintain service load capacity; 2) members fail
in a ductile manner and avoid a brittle fracture type of fail-
ure; 3) ductility capacity in plastic hinge zones withstand
large rotations without crushing of concrete in the compres-
sion zone.
It is unlikely that a gravity-load-designed building will
satisfy the preceding criteria if subject to a maximum credi-
ble event. However, given the expected return period and
probability of occurrence of such an earthquake, it may not
be economically viable to upgrade existing RC buildings un-
less they are critical to maintaining essential services to the
community following such an event.
~h rate of strength degradation
y 1.0 to 1.4 (based on transverse confinement)
lim maximum deformation of structural element of interest
liu ultimate deformation of element of interest under monotonic
loading
"-i energy weighting factor
fdE dissipated hysteretic energy
REFERENCES
1. Whitman, R. V., "Thoughts Re Seismic Building Code Requirements
for ENAM," Proceedings: Symposium on Seismic Hazards, Ground
Motions, Soil-Liquefaction and Engineering Practice in Eastern North
America, Technical Report NCEER-87-0025, State University of New
York at Buffalo, 1987, pp. 70-79.
2. Pessiki, S. P.; Conley C. H.; Gergely, P.; and White, R. N., "Seismic
Behavior of Lightly Reinforced Concrete Column and Beam-Column Joint
Details," Technical Report NCEER-90-0014, State University of New York
at Buffalo, 1990.
3. Bracci, J. M.; Reinhorn, A. M.; and Mander, J. B., "Seismic Resis-
tance of RC Frame Structures Designed Only for Gravity Loads: Part III-
Experimental Performance and Analytical Study of a Structural Model,"
Technical Report NCEER-92-0029, State University of New York at Buf-
falo, 1992.
4. Aycardi, L. E.; Mander, J. B.; and Reinhorn, A.M., "Seismic Resis-
tance of RC Frame Structures Designed Only for Gravity Loads: Part II-

ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1995 353

Experimental Performance of Subassemblages," Technical Report
NCEER-92-0028, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1992.
5. ACI Committee 318, "Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318-89/ACI 318R-89)," American Con-
crete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 353 pp.
6. Paulay, T., "Equilibrium Criteria for Reinforced Concrete Beam-Col-
umn Joints," ACI Structural Journal, V. 86, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1989, pp.
635-643.
7. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, "Recommendations for Design of Beam-
Column Joints in Monolithic Structures," ACI JOURNAL Proceedings V. 73,
No.7, July 1976, pp. 375-398.
8. Mander, J. B., "Seismic Design of Bridge Piers," PhD thesis, Depart-
ment of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New
Zealand, 1983.
9. Mander, J. B.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., ''Theoretical Stress-
Strain Model for Confined Concrete," Journal of Structural Engineering,
ASCE, V. 114, No.8, pp. 1804-1826.
10. Kunnath, S. K.; Reinhorn, A.M.; and Lobo, R. F., "IDARC-Ver-
sion 3.0, Inelastic Damage Analysis of RC Structures," Technical Report
NCEER-92-0022, State University of New York at Buffalo, 1992.
11. Papageorgiou, A. S., "Estimation of Earthquake Strong Ground-
Motion in Eastern North America: Preliminary Estimates Vis-A-Vis Exist-
354
ing Data," Proceedings: Symposium on Seismic Hazards, Ground Motions,
Soil-Liquefaction and Engineering Practice in Eastern North America,
Technical Report NCEER-87-0025, 1987, pp 282-299.
12. Hoffmann, G. W.; Kunnath, S. K.; Reinhorn, A. M.; and Mander,
J. B., "Gravity-Load Designed RC Buildings: Seismic Evaluation of Exist-
ing Construction and Detailing Strategies for Improved Seismic Resis-
tance," Technical Report NCEER-92-0016, State University of New York
at Buffalo, 1992.
13. Park, Y. J.; Ang, A. H-S.; and Wen, Y. K., "Mechanistic Seismic
Damage Model for Reinforced Concrete," Journal of Structural Engineer-
ing, ASCE, V. 111, No.4, 1985, pp. 722-739.
14. Anagostopolous, S. A.; Petrovski, J.; and Bouwkamp, J. G., "Emer-
gency Earthquake Damage and Usability Assessment of Buildings," Earth-
quake Spectra, EERI, V. 5, No.3, Aug. 1989, pp. 461-476.
15. Park, Y. J.; Reinhorn, A. M.; and Kunnath, S. K., "IDARC: Inelastic
Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame-Shear Wall Structures,"
Technical Report NCEER-87-0008, State University of New York at Buf-
falo, 1987.
16. Bracci, J. M.; Reinhorn A.M.; Mander J. B.; and Kunnath, S. K.,
"Deterministic Model For Seismic Damage Evaluation of Reinforced Con-
crete Structures," Technical Report NCEER-89-0033, State University of
New York at Buffalo, 1989.
ACI Structural Journal I May-June 1995