SEAONC/SEAOC 2020 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards

FEMA P-2006 Example Application Guide for ASCE/SEI 41-13 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Existing Buildings with Additional Commentary for ASCE/SEI 41-17

Summary of Examples Covered in the Guide

Evaluation/
Chapter FEMA Risk Level of Performance Analysis Retrofit
No. Building Type Catagory Location Seismicity Objective Procedure Procedure
6 PC1 II Anaheim, CA High BPOE LSP Tier 1 and
Tier 2
7 W1a III San Jose, CA High BPOE and LSP Tier 1 and
Partial Retrofit Tier 3
8 S1 II San Francisco High BPOE LSP,LDP, Tier 1, 2, 3
Bay Area, CA NSP
9 S2 III Charlotte, NC Moderate Immediate LSP, NSP Tier 1 and
Occupancy at Tier 3
BSE-1N
10 C2 II Seattle, WA High BPOE LSP Tier 3

11 C2 II Seattle, WA High BPOE NSP Tier 3

12 URM II Los Angeles, CA High Reduced Special Special

Procedure Procedure
13 URM II Los Angeles, CA High BPOE LSP Tier 3

Introduction to the Guide Detailed Examples

FEMA, through the ATC-124 project series, and with assistance from
SEAOC, sponsored development of an Example Application Guide offering
guidance on the interpretation and use of ASCE 41-13. The Guide is co-
branded with FEMA and SEAOC. SEAOC members assisted in determining
the scope of the Guide and reviewed examples.
The purpose of the Guide is to provide helpful guidance on the interpretation
and the use of ASCE 41-13 through a set of examples that cover key selected
topics. The comprehensive, two-volume, 936-page Guide covers topics
that commonly occur where guidance is believed to be beneficial, with
topics effectively organized and presented such that information is easy to
find. Commentary provides context, rationale, and advice.
Audience/Goals
The target audience for the Guide is both practicing engineers and
building officials who have limited or no experience with ASCE 41 and
those engineers and building officials who have used these documents in
the past but have specific questions. It is assumed that the user has seismic
design experience and a working knowledge of seismic design concepts.
The document includes guidance for lower and higher seismic hazard levels.
Project Approach and Development
To ensure success of the Guide, the project team:
• Reviewed sample precedent documents
• Organized a user survey (initial stage) and focus group (draft review
stage) to gain insight into usability of the document
• Engaged a consultant to develop consistent graphics for use within the
Guide
Design for Ease of Use
hapter 11survey resulted in 100+ recommendations
• User
– Consistency in example presentations/use of standard format
– Topics vs. full design examples: both shorter topic examples
together with longer full-building examples
– Commentary: some level of commentary without excessive
amount of text or overly opinionated discussion
– Flowcharts that would be nice to have in ASCE 41-13
– Clarification of primary vs. secondary elements and
force-controlled vs. deformation-controlled actions
– Matrix relating ASCE 41-13 sections to the Guide
• Focus group from the target audience of engineers with seismic
experience but no or little ASCE 41 experience evaluated document
organization and user aids, writing clarity and style, and design example
presentation Subdiaphragm chord evaluation in the roof of the tilt-up building example Examples show evaluation of all the various components and Tier 1 screening deficiencies for URM building Flowchart to illustrate in-plane URM wall evaluation
connections in the braced frame building example
Detailed Examples
For each of the detailed examples, there is a standard presentation approach NSP with Fixed Base NSP with Nonlinear Springs
which includes a description of the building, site seismicity, weight takeoffs,
performance objective and analysis procedure selection, data collection
and material testing, and determination of forces and displacements. The
buildings are located in different parts of the United States to present a
range of seismicity. The focus is on the linear static procedure (LSP) as this
is the most common analysis procedure, although some examples include
the linear dynamic procedure (LDP), and the nonlinear static procedure
(NSP). Most examples use the Basic Performance Objective for Existing
Buildings (BPOE) as this is the most common Performance Objective,
but the URM Special Procedure example and an Enhanced Performance
Objective for the steel braced frame are included.
Examples were done with both fixed-base and flexible-base foundations to show the differences. In this case, the braced frame met the Primary vs. secondary elements Force-controlled actions (FCA) vs. deformation-controlled
Figures shown to the right illustrate the detailed example buildings in the
acceptance criteria in the flexible-base model, but not in the fixed-base model. actions (DCA)
Guide and some of the issues covered.

Concrete Shear Wall (C2)

• The project team determined the following would lead to ease of use:
– Detailed examples Project Participants
with Nonlinear Static Procedure
– Substantial use of over 275 graphics including 3-D pictures of
FEMA Oversight Working Group
deficiencies Mike Mahoney Ryan Bogart
Andrew Herseth Lawrence Burkett
Guide Content and Layout William T. Holmes Casey Champion
Overview Alex Chu
The Guide is organized via the following topics: ATC Management and Jie Luo
chapter provides discussion and example application of the Tier 3 Oversight
• Introduction
2E/2N 1E/1N Example Summary ASCE 41-17 Revision
matic evaluation and retrofit procedures of ASCE 41-13 (ASCE, 2014) Steve Patton
Revisions have been made to the Jon A. Heintz Kylin Vail
e same •
1950sGuidance
three-storyon Use shear
concrete of ASCE/SEI
wall building41-13
studied in Building Type: C2
1.0 Tier 1 and Tier 2 procedures in Ayse Hortacsu
ter 10 of Performance
• this Objectives
Example Application
0.9
andtheSeismic
Guide using Hazards
linear static Performance Objective: BPOE Illustrator
ASCE 41-17 to address concerns Veronica Cedillos
• Analysis
edure (LSP). Procedures
The example0.8 in this chapter applies the nonlinear static Risk Category: II of some professionals that the Chris Tokas
• Foundations
edure (NSP) 0.7 as NSP is another analytical approach of the
to the building, Location: Seattle, Washington ratio of the BSE-1E to BSE-1N was Project Technical Committee
E 41-13• Tier 0.6evaluation procedure. The following
3 systematic
Detailed Full-Building Examples so small that evaluations Bret Lizundia, Project Technical SEAOC Reviewers
0.5 Level of Seismicity: High
mation regarding
• Changes the building
from isASCE
provided in Chapter
41-06 10 and41-13
to ASCE will not be conducted only using the BSE-1E Description of soft story deficiencies in the tuckunder example Three-dimensional model and force-displacement curve used to determine target displacement in the concrete shear wall Director | Rutherford + Chekene Russell Berkowitz
0.4 Analysis Procedure: Nonlinear
ated in this chapter: building
• FEMA 0.3 description
P-2006 vs. ASCE (Section
41-1310.2.1),
IndexTier 1 Seismic Hazard Level would be building example building Michael Braund Jonathan Buckalew
Static (NSP)
ning and mitigation strategy
0.2 (Section 10.2.2), seismic design parameters significantly less conservative Jim Collins Lachezar Handzhiyski
0.1 Evaluation Procedure: Tier 3 than those done using ASCE Kari Klaboe
Performance
TheObjective
Guide’s(Section
rements (Section 10.3).
physical
0.0
10.2.3), and data
layout collection
is also vital to Reference Documents: 31-03 and not provide the General Advice, Tips, and Guidance Ron LaPlante
Jeremiah Legrue
meeting the goals of the project in that it commensurate performance at
Brian McDonald
ACI 318-14 Mark Moore Dion Marriott
exampleenables
demonstrates
ease three-dimensional
of use via the nonlinear modeling of
following: the BSE-2E Seismic Hazard Level Based on experience with using ASCE 41-06 and ASCE 41-13, the following general advice, tips, and guidance are offered. Some examples include the following:
FEMA 440 Rose McClure
orced concrete
• Wide shear wall structures,
margins determination
on pages to allowof the
fortarget
blue as the BPOE indicates. • ASCE 41 is not always organized in a sequential way, nor were the provisions holistically developed (with the exception of the Special Procedure for Unreinforced Masonry). Project Review Panel
acement forboxes
the NSP, performancesummaries,
evaluation of reinforced concrete For example, in New Madrid,
Ben Mohr
providing useful tips and An evaluation is performed on a component-by-component basis, which often requires jumping between chapters for analysis provisions, component strengths, and acceptance David Biggs Brian Olson
walls and columns with the NSP, and three-dimensional explicit Missouri, for Site Class D and Anthony Court
commentaries. Green Ratios
Figure 3-4 margin boxes
of BSE-2E to identify
BSE-2N and BSE-1E to BSE-1N for criteria. In the examples of this Guide, the starting point in ASCE 41 and reference sections related to the next steps are indicated. Jim Reber
eling of foundation components, including kinematic
short periodtointeraction
spectral and short period spectral acceleration,
key changes from ASCE 41-13 ASCEacceleration
41-17 at various cities where the BSE-1E to BSE-1N ratio • It is important to read all associated text and table footnotes in the associated chapter in ASCE 41 rather than simply applying the equations. For example, there are many Roy Lobo Andrew Shuck
tion damping soil-structure interaction effects.
assumingAdditionally,
Site Class D. the seismic James Parker
and their implications. is 0.16, the BSE-2E to BSE-1E instances where the text and footnotes significantly alter m-factors or when certain equations are not applicable. Fred Turner
rmance of shear wall elements is compared between the LSP and1E/1N
2E/2N NSP,
• Ample, but judicious use of graphics to ratio is nearly 8, while the ratio Robert Pekelnicky
ell as NSP results obtained from fixed-base and flexible-base models. • ASCE 41 uses displacement-based design. Thus, the inelastic response of a building is primarily about deformation compatibility and ductility on a component level. Section Focus Group
illustrate calculations and comments and of Collapse Prevention to Life Example flowchart in the Guide to illustrate Peter Somers
sections of this chapter are
1.0organized as follows: Safety m-factors is 1.3. This is 2.2 of this Guide discusses this in more detail. Williston Warren Marshall Carman
reduce sole reliance on text. foundation modeling methods in ASCE 41
Section 11.2: This section 0.9highlights the following aspects of a three- addressed in ASCE 41-17 by • Understanding component behavior and whether an element is classified as force-controlled or deformation-controlled are essential. Joseph R. Jones
• Flowcharts 0.8have been used in the Guide to requiring the use of the BSE-2E
imensional analytical model for the reinforced concrete shear wall • Wood evaluation and retrofit design in ASCE 41 requires determination of various failure limit stats and can take more effort than ASCE 7. Valerie Martin
illustrate more
0.7 complicated issues or the Seismic Hazard Level for the
uilding: 0.6 • Boundary conditions can make a significant difference in resulting behavior mechanisms and analysis results. Ryan McDaniel
proper sequence of steps to follow. BPOE in the Tier 1 and Tier 2
0.5
o Fiber section for reinforced concrete shear walls procedures. • Some seemingly straightforward equations actually require detailed iteration and parallel calculations to complete, such as determination of target displacement for the Meghann Riedner
• See examples 0.4 to the right.
nonlinear static procedure.
o Nonlinear constitutive
0.3stress-strain relations for concrete and
0.2
reinforcing steel materials