"

Seismic evaluation and retrofit.

of concrete buildings
Volume 2-Appendices

Applied Technology Counr:;;i

CALIFORf\IIt1. SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION

Proposition 122 Seisn lie Retrofit Practice8 impr<Jvement Program
Report sse 96-01
" .
'oh·

,'. 4.183~
G8 ~
'" /

.j
 • .....,

I-:';':~::,;~::;:;"1 unci} California Seismic Safety Commission

) is a non- The California Seismic Safety Commission consists

\ /"U" I :d in 1971
ineers Asso-
of fifteen members appointed by the Governor and
two members representing the State Senate and State
1 I
~llivel'5ity
of Roorkee
1 Board of
ppointed by
Assembly. Disciplines represented on the Commis-
sion include seismology, engineering, geology, fire
, the Struc- protection, emergency services, public utilities, insur-
I I I, the Western
,ssociations,
ance, social services, local government, building code
enforcement, planning and architecture.
\ I oed with the
}irector As a nonpartisan, single-purpose body, the mission of
\ Call No ........... · .. ·· ..• ·····•····· \ the Commission is to improve the well being of the

. :. .=. .\
people of California through cost-effective measures

I' i
In practitio-
design spe-
L~:c~:.=~.= .1quake) in
vely using
lentifies and
_ • s consensus
opinions on structural engineering issues in a nonpro-
prietary fonnal. ATC thereby fulfills a unique role in
funded infonnation transfer.
Project management and administration are carried
out by a full-time Executive Director and support
staff. Project work is conducted by a wide range of
highly qualified consulting 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-
ment agencies and from the private sector in the form
of tax-deductible contributions.
that lower earthquake risks to life and property. It
sponsors legislation and advocates building code
changes to improve buildings and other facilities,
provides a forum for representatives of all public and
private interests and academic disciplines related to
earthquakes, and publishes reports, policy recommen-
dations, and guides to improve public safety in earth-
quakes.
It works toward long-term improvements in all areas
affecting seismic safety by: encouraging and assisting
local governments, state agencies, and businesses to
implement mitigation measures to make sure that they
will be able to operate after earthquakes; establishing
priorities for action to reduce earthquake risks; identi-
fying needs for earthquake education, research, and
legislation; and reviewing emergency response, re-
covery, and reconstruction efforts after damaging
earthquakes so that lessons learned can be applied to
future earthquakes.

1996-1997 Board of Direetors Current (1996) Commission Members

John C. Theiss, President Lloyd S. Cluff, Chairman
C. Mark Saunders, Vice President James E. Slosson, Vice Chairman
Bijan Mohraz, Secretaryffreasurer Alfred E. Alquist. State Senator
Edwin T. Huston, Past President Dominic L. Cortese. State Assemblyman
Arthur N. L. Chiu Hal Bernson
John M. Coil Jerry C. Chang
Edwin T. Dean Robert Downer
Robert G. Dean Frederick M. Herman
Douglas A. Foutch Jeffrey Johnson
James R. Libby Corliss Lee
Kenneth A. Luttrell Gary L. McGavin
Andrew T. Merovich Daniel Shapiro
Scott A. Stedman Lowell E. Shields
Jonathan G. Shipp Patricia Snyder
, S:;harles Thornton Keither M. Wheeler
H. Robert Wirtz
Disclaimer
While the information presented in this report is believed to be correct, the Applied Technology
Council and the California Seismic Safety Commission assume no responsibility for its accuracy or
for the opinions expressed herein. The material presented in this publication should not be used or
relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accu-
racy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of information from this publi-
cation aSSume all liability arising from such use.

Cover IllustratIOn: SLate Office Bldg, 12'h and N St.. Sacramento. CA, provided by Chris Arnold.
b
lmissio:
n consists
morand
! and State
Cornmis-
,ogy. fire
ities, insUl ATC-GO
,ilding cod

~ mission c
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
ng of the
! measures
of Concrete Buildings
Jerty. It .
g code
volume 2-Appendices
cilities.
public anI
related to
recommer
ory in earth
~~D TECHN~LOGY COUNCIL
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 550
Redwood City, California 94065
in all areas
md assisti" Funded by
iinesses to
ure thaI Ihl
!stablishinl
risks; iden!
!arch. and
)onse, re-
maging
! applied I( SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION
State of California
bers Products 1.2 and 1.3 of the Proposition 122
Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program
n

lblyman PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Craig D. Comartin

CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PROJECT DIRECTOR
Richard W. Niewiarowski

SENIOR ADVISOR
Christopher Rojahn

logy
lracyor Report No. SSC 96-01
,sed or November 1996
its accu-
; publi-
 preface
Proposition 122 passed by California'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 a range
of activities that will capitalize on the seismic
retrofit experience in the private sector to im-
prove seismic retrofit practices for government
buildings. The purpose of California's Proposi-
tion 122 research and development program is
to develop state-of-the-practice recommenda-
tions to address current needs for seismic retro-
fit 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.
[n 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
•eismic evaluation and retrofit of existing con-
~rete buildings (Product 1.2). In 1995 the
:::ommission awarded a second, related contract
:0 ATC to expand the Product 1.2 effort to in-
:lude effects of foundations on the seismic per-
'ormance of existing concrete buildings
Product 1.3). The results of the two projects
lave been combined and are presented in this
\TC-40 Report (also known as SSC-96-01).
rwo other reports recently published by the
:a1ifornia Seismic Safety Commission, the
'rovisional Commentary for Seismic Retrofit
1994) and the Review of Seismic Research Re-
'ults on Existing Buildings (1994), are Products
.. 1 and 3.1 of the Proposition 122 Program, re-
.pectively. These two previous reports provide
he primary basis for the development of the
ecommended methodology and commentary
:ontained 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 all 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
A TC Senior 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. Nicoletti, 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. Moehle,
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 Martin, Mar-
shall Lew, and Lelio Mejia. William T. Hol-
mes, Y oshi Moriwaki, Maurice Power and
Nabili 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, and Gail Hynes Shea served as
Publications Consultant.
Richard McCarthy
CSSC Executive Director
Christopher Rojalm
ATC Executive Director & ATC-40 Senior
Advisor
III
 Oversight Panel for
proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices S
Improvement program
Frederick M. Herman, Chair Richard Conrad Ross Cranmer c
Seismic Safety Commission Building Standards Commis- Building Official
Local Government/Building sion Structural Engineer
Official
Roy Johnston Frank McClure
Dr. Wilfred Iwan Structural Engineer Structural Engineer
Mechanical Engineer
Joel McRonald Joseph P. Nicoletti
Gary McGavin Division of the State Architect Structural Engineer
Seismic Safety Commission
Architect Lowell E. Shields V
Seismic Safety Commission Ii
Stanley Scott Mechanical Engineer
Research Political Scientist

Seismic Safety commission Staff

s
1
Richard McCarthy Fred Turner
Executive Director Project Manager
~
1
Karen Cogan Chris Lindstrom
Deborah Penny Ed Hensley
Carmen Marquez Teri DeVriend
Kathy Goodell c

Iv
 Product 1.2 Senior Advisory Panel
IS Sigmund A. Freeman Ronald O. Hamburger William T. Holmes
Wiss. Janney. Elstner & EQE International Rutherford & Chekene
Associates
Jack Moehle Thomas A. Sabol
Charles Kircher Earthquake Engineering Engelkirk & Sabol
Charles Kircher & Research Center
Assocates
Nabih F . Youssef
Nabih Youssef &
Associates

Product 1.3 Senior Advisory Panel

William T. Holmes Maurice Power
mission Rutherford & Chekene Geomatrix Consultants. Inc.

Yoshi Moriwaki Nabih F. Youssef

Woodward-Clyde Consultants Nabih Youssef & Associates

Product 1.3 Geotechnical/structural working Group

Sunil Gupta Geoffrey R. Martin
£Q Tech Consultants University of Southern California

Marshall Lew Lelio Mejia

Law/Crandall. Inc. Woodward-Clyde Consultants

Quality Assurance Consultant Technical Editor

Jregory P. Luth Wendy Rule
'Jregory P. Luth & Associates Richmond. CA

:ost Effectiveness study Consultant Publications Consultant

rom H. Hale Gail Hynes Shea
fimmy R. Yee Consulting Engineers Albany. CA

v
p

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings

products 1.2 and 1.3 of the proposition 122

seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program

Table of Contents
Volume 1
Preface ................................................................................................... iii
Glossary ................................................................................................. xi
Executive Summary ................................................................................... xv
Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................... \-1
1.1 Purpose ........................................................................ \-\
1.2 Scope .......................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Organization and Contents ................................................. 1-5
Chapter 2 Overview .............................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Introduction ............................................................ : ..... 2-\
2.2 Changes in Perspective ..................................................... 2-3
2.3 Getting Started ............................................................... 2-6
2.4 Basic Evaluation and Retrofit Strategy ................................. 2-11
2.5 Evaluation and Retrofit Concept ........................................ 2-14
2.6 Final Design and Construction .......................................... 2-19
Chapter 3 Performance Objectives ............................................................. 3-1
3.1 Introduction .................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Performance Levels ......................................................... 3-\
3.3 Earthquake Ground Motion ................................................ 3-8
3.4 Performance Objectives .................................................... 3-9
3.5 Assignment of Performance Objectives ................................ 3-12
Chapter 4 Seismic Hazard ...................................................................... .4-1
4.1 Scope ......................................................................... .4-1
4.2 Earthquake Ground Shaking Hazard Levels ............................ .4-1
4.3 Ground Failure .............................................................. .4-2
4.4 Primary Ground Shaking Criteria ........................................ .4-5
4.5 Specification of Supplementary Criteria ............................... 4-12
Chapter 5 Determination of Deficiencies ..................................................... 5-1
5.1 Introduction .................................................................. 5-1

·able Of contents vii

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

5.2 Description: Typical Layouts and Details ............................... 5-1

5.3 Seismic Performance ....................................................... 5-5
5.4 Data Collection ............................................................ 5-12
5.5 Review of Seismic Hazard ............................................... 5-17
5.6 Identification of Potential Deficiencies ................................ 5-18
5.7 Preliminary Evaluation of Anticipated Seismic Performance ...... 5-20
5.8 Preliminary Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendations ....... 5-21
Chapter 6 Retrofit Strategies .................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction ................................................... ~ .............. 6-1
6.2 Alternative Retrofit Strategies ............................................. 6-4
6.3 Design Constraints and Considerations ................................ 6-24
6.4 Strategy Selection ......................................................... 6-27 \
6.5 Preliminary Design ....................................................... 6-30
Chapter 7 Quality Assurance Procedures ..................................................... 7-1
7.1 General. ....................................................................... 7~1
7.2 Peer Review .................................................................. 7-2
7.3 Plan Check ................................................................... 7-8
7.4 Construction Quality Assurance ........................................ 7-10
Chapter 8 Nonlinear Static Analysis Procedures ............................................ 8-1
8.1 Introduction .................................................................. 8-1
8.2 Methods to Perform Simplified Nonlinear Analysis ................... 8-3
8.3 Illustrative Example ....................................................... 8-34
8.4 Other Analysis Methods .................................................. 8-54
8.5 Basics of Structural Dynamics .......................................... 8-57
Chapter 9 Modeling Rules ....................................................................... 9-1
9.1 General ......................................................................... 9-1
9.2 Loads ............. : ............................................................ 9-2
9.3 Global Building Considerations ........................................... 9-4
9.4 Element Models ............................................................. 9-7
9.5 Component Models ....................................................... 9-19
9.6 Notations .................................................................... 9-46
Chapter 10 Foundation Effects ................................................................. 10-1
10.1 General. . .. .... . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. 10-1
10.2 Foundation System and Global Structural Model .................... 10-2
10.3 Foundation Elements ..................................................... 10-7
10.4 Properties of Geotechnical Components .............................. 10-12
10.5 Characterization of Site Soils ........................................... 10-20
10.6 Response Limits and Acceptability Criteria .......................... 10-28
10.7 Modifications to Foundation Systems ................................. 10-29
Chapter 11 Response Limits .................................................................... 11-1
11.1 General. ..................................................................... 11-1
11.2 Descriptive Limits of Expected Performance ......................... 11-2
11.3 Global Building Acceptability Limits ........... '" .................... 11-2
11.4 Element and Component Acceptability Limits ........................ 11-5
Chapter 12 Nonstructural Components ....................................................... 12-1

viii Table of Contents T

~S SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

12.1 Introduction ................................................................ 12-1

12.2 Acceptability Criteria ..................................................... 12-1
Chapter 13 Conclusions and Future Directions .............................................. 13-1
13.1 Introduction ................................................................ 13-1
13.2 Additional Data ............................................................ 13-1
13.3 Potential BenefIts .......................................................... 13-4
13.4 Major Challenges .......................................................... 13-5
13.5 Recommended Action Plan .............................................. 13-6
References ........................................................................................... 14-1

volume 2-Appendlces
Appendix A Escondido Village Midrise, Stanford, California .............................. A-I
Appendix B Barrington Medical Center, Los Angeles, California ......................... B-1
Appendix C Administration Building, California State University at Northridge,
Northridge, California .. : .......................................................... C-l
Appendix D Holiday Inn, Van Nuys, California .............................................. D-l
Appendix E Cost Effectiveness Study ........................................................... E-l
Appendix F Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects ............................. F-l
Appendix G Applied Technology Council Projects and Report Information .............. G-l

I Of contenl'able Of contents Ix
f
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

APpendix A
Example Building Study
Escondido village Mldrlse
stanford, California
prepared by
EQE International
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94104

'1Il1endlx A, Escondido village Mldrlse A-'

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................. A-5
1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................... A-5
1.2 Scope of Example Building Study ....................................................... A-5
1.3 Summary of Findings ..................................................................... A-5
2. Building and Site Description ............................................................................ A-7
2.1 General ...................................................................................... A-7
2.2 Structural Systems and Members ....................................................... A-8
2.3 Soil and Seismicity ........................................................................ A-9
2.4 Building Performance During the Lorna Prieta Earthquake ........................ A-9
3. Preliminary Evaluation ................................................................................... A-9
3.1 Summary .................................................................................... A-9
3.2 FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements ..................................................... A-II
3.3 Elastic Analysis ........................................................................... A-I4
4. Evaluation by Product 1.2 Methodology .............................................................. A-IS
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................ A-IS
4.2 Analysis Methodology ................................................................... A-IS
4.3 Structure ryIodeling ....................................................................... A-IS
4.4 Pushover Analysis ........................................................................ A-22
4.5 Performance Point. ....................................................................... A-27
4.6 Performance Assessment ................................................................ A-31
5. Conceptual Retrofit Designs .......................................................... , ................. A-33
5.1 Performance Objectives ................................................................. A-33
5.2 Retrofit Strategies ........................................................................ A-33
5.3 Retrofit Systems .......................................................................... A-34
6. Assessment of the Product 1.2 Methodology ......................................................... A-36
6.1 Damage Prediction ....................................................................... A-36
6.2 Comparison with Preliminary Evaluation Findings ................................. A-36
6.3 Comparison with Inelastic Time-History Analysis .................................. A-37
6.4 Conclusions ................................................................................ A-37
7. Foundation Analysis ...................................................................................... A-38
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................ A-38
7.2 Varying Soil Parameters ................................................................. A-38
7.3 Comparisons with Inelastic Time-History Analysis ................................. A-42
7.4 Conclusions ................................................................................ A-43
8. References ................................................................................................. A-43

I!Ipendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse

--- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
APpendix A
Example Building Study
Escondido village Midrise
stanford, California
1. Introduction
1.1 purpose
The purpose of this example building study is
to illustrate and evaluate the techniques outlined in
products 1.2 and 1.3 of Proposition 122 as a tool
for the evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete
buildings. Titled Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Existing Concrete Buildings, Volume 1, the
document is referred to herein as the .
Methodology.
1.2 scope of Example Building study
This study presents the evaluation and
conceptual retrofit design of a concrete building
located on the Stanford University campus,
following the recommendations of the
Methodology. This study was performed
;oincident with the various draft stages of
:ievelopment of the Methodology and feedback
from this study was used to affect final
nodifications of the Methodology. Our scope
neluded:
• Preliminary evaluation (Section 3 of this
report)
• Modeling, analysis, and assessment by
nonlinear pushover analysis (Section 4)
• Conceptual retrofit (Section 5)
• Assessment of the Methodology (Section 6)
• Foundation analysis (Section 7)
1.3 summary of Findings
The tools currently available to the structural
ngineer for seismic evaluation and retrofit of
Ippendlx A, Escondido Village Mldrlse
existing concrete structures are essentially limited
to the building codes for new construction and the
FEMA-178 document. In comparison with these
existing tools, the Methodology appears to
represent a significant enhancement in the state of
practice. Based on the Escondido Village Midrise
(EVM) case study, the Methodology appears to
provide a realistic and conservative, if not
completely accurate, approach to seismic
evaluation of complex reinforced concrete
structures yet also permi ts the engineer to develop
retrofit strategies that are significantly more cost
effective than were traditionally utilized in the
past.
FEMA-178 evaluations of the EVM buildings
indicate an inability to satisfy the life safety
performance level for the design earthquake, due
to a lateral force resisting system comprised of
discontinuous shear walls, with inadequate shear
capacity. Prior to development of the
Methodology, the standard approach for mitigation
of such deficiencies would have been the
introduction of an extensive number of
supplemental shear walls to the structure. This
would have great architectural and economic
impact on the building. In comparison, the
Methodology identified that the existing walls
essentially provide adequate drift control for the
structure, but that several other vulnerabilities
related to shear capacity of the lower story
columns and punching shear capacity of the floor
slabs exist. Retrofit of these vulnerabilities, which
were not specifically identified by the FEMA-178
approach, was found to be possible with much less
architectural impact on the buildings and at
A-5
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Table 1.$·1. ComparIson Of flOOf DlsPlacemen.;;;ts~ _ _
significantly reduced cost compared to alternative
approaches suggested by the FEMA-178
evaluation. These retrofit modifications have
actually been constructed, within a time period of
approximately 3 months and while the buildings
remained nearly completely occupied.
Compared to existing approaches, the
Methodology does require more complex and time
consuming work on the part of the structural
designer. However, the additional level of effort
required is well within the capability of the
average practicing engineer in California, who has
the familiarity with the basic concepts of structural
dynamics and inelastic behavior of structures that
is essential to being able to design effective
seismic resistant systems, either for new or
existing buildings. In the case of the EVM
buildings, the additional effort and cost invested in
the evaluation and analysis of the structure resulted
in a very substantial reduction in retrofit
construction costs, and consequently in overall
project costs.
Notwithstanding the above, it can not be
overemphasized that this Methodology does not
provide an "exact" tool for the seismic evaluation
of structures, and that in fact, such an "exact" tool
does not exist within our current technological
capabilities. In the EVM case study, target
displacements were determined by two alternative
methods encompassed by the Methodology, the
Displacement Coefficient Method and the
A-a
Capacity-Spectrum approach; as well as by two
other approaches that are commonly cited in the
literature - the so called "Equal Displacement
Approximation" and non-linear response history
analysis, in which the average result for 20
different response histories is shown. Table 1.3-1
indicates the range of computed roof displacement
obtained by these alternatives methods, and also
provides a normalized index that consists of the
ratio of the displacement computed by each
method to the maximum displacement predicted by C
the nonlinear response history analyses. il
As can be seen by evaluating the data b
contained in Table 1.3-1, the various approaches \I
for estimating the maximum roof displacement
produced in the building vary by as much as
+ 25 %, to 35 %. The method with the largest
variation, and the least conservative estimate, is
actually the use of the average of the series of
non-linear response history analyses. The two
methods contained in the methodology; the
displacement coefficient approach and capacity
spectrum approach, produce the most conservative
estimates. This apparent conservatism would
appear to be the result of the way in which the
various approaches treat the pinched hysteretic
response. The equal displacement rule and
response history analyses both neglect the effects
of hysteretic pinching. Both the displacement
coefficient and capacity spectrum techniques
account for this effect. Although the research
Appendix A, EscondidO Village Midrise A~
 - SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

'oof

(zed,to
'fIum
onse
'ory - - ,-
/8 .. ~.
1
34 1
JO r- .. ·[X
33
25 'c>ZIl" I I·

: by two · I· ...•... ·1 ... iii' ... , . ~ ., "W

ed in the
ement ",",L_',.~. . . .:. . .
IX :
- - - . - - - - " - - - . ..............-"'1
10'-7"
.... C
e history
: 20
· L ...... ~ .. .1.. T. 8'-3-
- - - . B

able 1.3-1
· ~ ... l ' .. I I . . . . . . . . . " .... ' . s·..•. W
splacemen 12' . 12' 12'_7" 12' '2' '2' 12' : 12' :

and also
,ts of the Figure 2.1,1. Typical Floor Plan
!ach
)redicted 1:community is currently divided with regard to the 2. Building and Site
importance of pinched hysteresis to overall Description
Ita building response, it would seem pruden~ given the
pproaches wide range of variation in the response history 2.1 Ceneral
Icement analyses to take the conservative approach as has
The Escondido Village Midrise buildings are a
lch as been done by the methodology. Such conservatism
set of five, similar, reinforced concrete shear wall
,argest is further warranted, given that our ability to
structures. The buildings were constructed in two
timate, is Iccurately estimate the ground motions that a
phases. The first phase, designed in 1961,
!ries of milding will be subjected to is quite limited.
consisted of three structurally identical buildings -
'he two As noted earlier, although the Methodology
Abrams, Barnes, and Hulme. The second phase,
; the Ippears to provide conservative estimates of
designed in 1964, consists of Hoskins ll?d .
capacity lUilding response, compared to other approaches,
McFarland, which are also structurally Identical to
;onservativetrofit designs developed using the Methodology
each other. The two phases of construction were
would ICtually appear to be quite cost effective and
designed by the same designers and have nearly
hich the :conomical relative to the designs commonly
identical floor plans. The primary difference
ysteretic Iroduced in the past using more traditional
between the two phases is in the layout of
and pproaches.
the effects basement areas.
cement • The buildings have overall plan dimensions of
niques 65 feet by 109 feet, and are approximately
esearch rectangular in plan (Figure 2.1-1). They are

lIIage Mldr!bpendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse A·7

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

, , "
,! : . ' , " " " " " " .' ,'.j j•
.. ':'.:i

•
t;.:.·_':.":~.::.:~::_·: ..;.'.:":.:; ;.... .'_ .. _.
•

{COO: -060000000 0 ' :0000 A

Figure 2.2,1. Typical Floor Figure 2.2-2. Typical Connection
Slab constructfon Of Floor to wall

arranged in random directions on the Stanford
campus, but are all located at the northeast corner
of the site, near EI Camino Real and Stanford
Avenue.
Each building is 8 stories tall, with a
mechanical equipment penthouse and a full
basement. The typical story height is 9'-1" (the
basement story height is 12'-7"). The basements
are only partially embedded within the ground,
with the first floor located about 4 feet above
adjacent grade.
2.2 structural systems and Members
Gravity IDad-reslstlng system
• 12" one-way concrete core slabs (7" diameter
hollow cores spaced 9" apart) carry floor loads
to walls and columns (Figure 2.2·1)
• Strips of slabs aligned with column lines are
solid and provide a beam-like element at the
columns
• 10" concrete walls at stairs, elevators, and
perimeter of typical floors
• 12" concrete walls at basement
• 15x24 interior concrete columns, 15x22
re-entrant corner columns, i Ix II balcony
columns
• Continuous strip footings support walls
• Isolated spread footings support columns
LaterallDad-reslstlng system
• Load-path: rigid slabs, through shear walls, to
foundation
Materials
• Per original design drawings, specified 28-day
concrete strength: 3000 psi for slabs, beams,
and walls; 3750 psi for columns
• Per test program conducted in 1989, tested
concrete strength: 2470 psi for slabs
• Concrete strength used in analysis: 2470 psi
for slabs, beams, walls; 3000 psi for columns
• Specified steel reinforcing: "intermediate" (40
ksi) grade for slabs, beams, and walls; "hard"
(60 ksi) grade for columns
Concrete shear walls are typically reinforced
with two curtains of reinforcing steel. Vertical
steel is lap spliced at each floor level. Floor slabs
are doweled to the wall, as indicated in
Figure 2.2-2.
Above the first floor level, the walls are of
uniform layout in all of the buildings, as shown in
Figure 2.1-1. There is a substantially larger

A-a Appendix A, Escondida Village Midrlse

;S SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
umber of walls in the basements of the buildings
~an there is in the upper stories, and the two
phases of construction have slightly different
arrangements of basement walls. Figure 2.2-3
shows the arrangement of typical basement walls
in the first increment of buildings.
2.3 5011 and seismicity
The Escondido Village is underlain be
approximately 200 feet of alluvial soils over
Franciscan formation bedrock. As reported in
various project geotechnical reports'·'·J ..·" the
alluvial soils are generally dense interbedded
layers of clayey sands, sandy clays, sands, and
gravels. Woodward-Clyde Consultants" developed
estimates of the force-deformation relationships
for shallow spread foundations, like those for the
valls Escondido Village Midrise buildings, founded on
lumns these soils. These force-deformation properties,
that were evaluated at loading rates similar to
those expected during an earthquake, are presented
II in Figure 2-3.1.
:ar wa s, I As indicated in the figure, an effective
subgrade modulus of 800/B tons/ft2/ft is estimated.
Initial stiffness of footings founded on this material
is estimated as being 4K,A, where A is the area of
ified 28-da the footing and J(, is the subgrade modulus.
)s, beams, Ultimate permissible bearing pressures are
estimated by Woodward-Clyde as being on the
9, tested order of 15 tons/ft'. It is projected that the
)s foundation conditions could vary from 2/3 to
. 2470 . 150 percent of the stiffness projected in the figure.
: I pSI The Escondido Village Midrise buildings are
orcouIDIlJlocated on the Stan.or ~ dU" .
mverslty campus In
nediate" (4northern California. The western border of the
alls; "hardcampus along Junipero Serra Boulevard is
approximately 4.0 miles northeast of the
reinforcedmid-peninsula segment of the San Andreas fault,
Vertical and the eastern border along El Camino Real is
Floor slababout 5.5 miles northeast of the fault.
n safety performance objective upon more detailed
2.4 Building Performance During the
lls are of Lama Prieta Earthquake
as shown i The Escondido Village Midrise buildings were
larger jamaged during the October 17, 1989 Lorna Prieta
lIIage Mldril'ppendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
Earthquake. This included moderate but
widespread cracking of the cast-in-place concrete
walls, including both shear cracking in classic
diagonal "x" patterns, flexural cracking consisting
of cracks that were approximately horizontal near
the bases of the walls, and horizontal cracking
along the construction joints present at floor
levels. The walls around the stair towers
experienced the heaviest damage. Most damage to
the walls was repaired shortly after the earthquake
with the injection of epoxy grout.
3. Preliminary Evaluation
3.1 summary
As recommended in Chapter 5 of the
Methodology, a preliminary seismic evaluation of
the Escondido Village Midrise buildings was
conducted using the procedures contained in
FEMA-178" to determine if nonlinear analysis is
warranted. The FEMA-178 evaluation procedure
was developed with national consensus of the
engineering community and is intended to serve as
a preliminary screening tool to determine if a
building is a potential unacceptable risk to life.
The procedure contains a series of checklists,
organized by model building type, that guide the
evaluator through examination of important
structural features of the building, relative to
earthquake performance. In some cases, rapid
approximate calculations of capacity are
performed. The premise of the procedure is that
most building failures in earthquakes can be traced
to a relatively limited number of critical flaws,
that the checklists are designed to specifically
explore. Failure of a building to pass the screening
test of the checklist does not necessarily indicate
that a life safety hazard exists. It is expected that
some buildings that fail the checklist screening can
be demonstrated to be adequate to a substantial life
evaluation.
A·9
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

,~ .
- -, - -

....-t- -- J - _11_ --
- --- --- -, .. ,---------.
-- -

r
. ---

I
-- - -- --r---......,I--"""i
- - -
-.~.-

~I~ _J .. . 10'-7~

-+-+-.~
rlr ---
....._
II
. . .~_l_______ _
. )1:
... :-,' ..
12' 12' 12' 12' '2' 12'

Figure 2.2·/1. Basement Floor Plan

16 B_ feet .. Jolm

I'

12
i2'
.[ 10

! 8
• Note - "B" is the footing width

£, 6

"
·cc
.I! 2

0
0 O.OS 0.10 O.IS
Foundation DisD]acement rfeetl
Figure 2./1·1. $011 Force·Deformatlon Relationships

A-10 Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse

 ,
f
~---------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
,
-
G) G) G) 0 (0 (0 0 0 G) GD
, W23

_J
I"'"W20 I -
~1~r~1
...1 , J.
-
, - - 1 W26 -
W31
-. ><
i5<J •
-ill iI -

W41
-
10'·7"

--0

.
Stair #2 .
-. - - .. - - -iII- -ill - -. -- - - -iI

W1.1:.
;.. - -
L
___~.....I_wiii,·..'_ _j,---~,___
. ., _ _ __ " _

12' ' 12' 12'.r 12" 12' ' 12' 12'_7" ' '2' '2'

Figure 3.2·1. Typical Floor Plan

It should be noted that the ground motion 3.2 FEMA·178 Evaluation statements
criteria used in FEMA-178 is substantially less The FEMA-178 methodology utilizes a series
than projected by Woodward-Clyde for the of Evaluation Statements that can be answered as
Stanford campus. Therefore, FEMA-178 may not true or false. Typically, these statements are based
be suitable for use as a life safety hazard screening on qualitative issues regarding the building's
tool at this site. This evaluation was performed for construction. In some instances, limited
the Escondido Village Midrise buildings primarily calculations are performed to determine the
to ensure that all important critical flaws were appropriateness of a statement. An answer of false
identified, prior to proceeding with more detailed typically indicates a potential seismic deficiency.
analyses. For this study, FEMA-178 Evaluation
For the Escondido Village Midrise buildings, Statements are used as a preliminary evaluation
the FEMAc 178 Evaluation Statements identified a tool in accordance with Chapter 5 of the
number of deficiencies in the original design. Methodology. No detailed analysis was performed
Primary concerns include: to verify potential deficiencies. No testing of
• Vertical discontinuity in major shear resisting materials was performed. Non-structural elements
elements were not considered. This evaluation is based on
• Inadequate boundary reinforcing in shear walls review of the original structural drawings and a
site walkdown.
• Inadequate overturning resistance of False FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements
foundations. indicating potential seismic deficiencies include:
General
Weak Story. The story strength at each story
is at least 80 percent of the stories above,

Ullage MldrllPpendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse A-n

 SEISMIC EVALUATION ANIi RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
8tbfloor
7tbfloor
-i!-- TypicallrUllverK wall
(Walll3t and 41)
6th floor
sthnoor
Typical comer wall
4tbfloor
3rdfloor
~- n'....'tinu·"" at lhear
2ndfl"", 41
Buemcnt
n... .......
Figure S.2·2. Discontinuity at Transverse Shear
Walls (Walls S1 and 41J
however, there are local discontinuities in some of
the vertical elements of the lateral force resisting
system. These are located at stairways #1 and #2
and at the primary shear walls along lines 1 and
10, designated as W31 and W41, respectively in
Figure 3.2-1. Figure 3.2-2 presents an elevation of
walls 31 and 41, indicating the discontinuity
condition that occurs at the first floor level in these
walls. The effect of this discontinuity is to create a
severe condition for the boundary elements of
these walls.
Figure 3.2-3 presents partial plans of stairway
#1 at the basement, first floor and typical floors.
The primary lateral load resisting components of
this stairwell core are designated as walls "a",
"b", "en, "d" and "e". Wall "a" is offset below
the second floor and walls "CO, "d" and "e" have
large door openings in the mid length of each wall
at the basement level. The discontinuity of wall
"a" is not believed to represent a severe problem
because the return walls "c" and "d", that serve as
the flanges of wall "a" under flexural behavior,
are continuously connected to the wall above, and
are continuous themselves through the zone of
A-12
discontinuity. Therefore, it is believed that an
adequate load path exists across this discontinuity.
The openings in walls "c", "d", and We" are not
considered significant because there are an
extensive number of additional shear walls present
in the basement, and the portions of these walls
that are removed are not critical to the flexural
behavior of this element.
Figure 3.2-4 is a plan of stair way #2. Primary
walls resisting lateral load are indicated as walls
"f", "gH, "h", "iH and "j". Wall "f", along
column line 6 is discontinuous at the first story,
where it is replaced by a column at grid coordinate
D-6. This represents both a shear and flexural
discontinuity, but is primarily a concern because
of the flexural condition. The column at D-6 and
boundary element at B-6 must resist all of the
overturning demands delivered by wall "f" above.
• Vertical Discontinuities. As described above,
under "Weak Stories", there are three
conditions of vertical discontinuity - the
transverse walls (W31 and W41), stairway #1,
and stairway #2.
• Deterioration of Concrete. Many of the floor
slabs have horizontal cracks present. These
cracks appear to be a result of drying
shrinkage of concrete that was cast too wet.
• Concrete Wall Cracks. The buildings
experienced significant cracking in the Lorna
Prieta Earthquake of 1989. Nearly all such
cracks have been repaired with epoxy
injection, except at the basement, where some
cracks with widths as much as 4mm width
were observed. It is not believed that these
cracks are detrimental to the building's future
•
behavior, however.
Complete Frames. The concrete shear walls
•
resist a significant portion of the building's
total weight.
Shear Walls
Shearing Stress Check. The maximum
calculated stress in the walls, when the
Appendix A. Escondido Village Midrise App.
~
, ---------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

,"', ,i' /-', "

(~;

f,-
Wall"b"
itan ',;!) ',~; Wall"b" + \!: Wall"b"
C~) . (~) :,~,'
mtinuity,
are not Wall Wall

In
<!:l. 'd' (~l :j': 'd'

Wall
Is presen 'c' Wall
Wall 'd' Wall an
! walls Wall"a" 'e' 'e' an e'
an c'
!xural c'
Wall "a" Wall "a"
i,~)' (~l ~
t. Primar 1.,
is walls' T~!:' Aoor
Basement

ong
t story, Figure ~,2-~. Partial Floor Plans at stairway NO. 1
coordinru '
!xural (~
~ (7
because (if All .". ~.
D-6 and I
of the
;'f" above Wall Wall Wall Wall Wall all all Wall
'r 'g' 'h' "g" "h' . "f' g' "h'
Jed above
'ee
. the
,~. '1' .-I' .,,'1
:airway #1
Wall "I"
<if ...._ _ _ _ _•
Wall 'I'
~ LL-J. Wall"i"

Jf the flrnJ TYPical

Floor '"
FI(ItI(
Basement

t. These
19 Figure ~.2·4 partial Floor Plans at Stairway NO.2
too wet.
ngs
the Lorna
building is evaluated in accordance with the provided with special boundary reinforcing
all such
FEMA-178 Quick Check procedure is.125 psi, for overturning demands.
,xy
Nhere som which is substantially in excess of the 50 psi • Coupling Beams. Coupling beams are
n width specified as the limiting value. However, the generally poorly reinforced and have no
lat these walls are well reinforced for shear and the stirrups.
ing's futu~ computed value is well within ACI 318 limits.
• Column Splices, Longitudinal reinforcing

;hear walls
• Overturning, Many of the building's walls
have slenderness ratios that substantially
steel in wall boundary elements are spliced
with 24 diameter lap lengths. These are not
,uilding's exceed the indicated amount, with the ratio on adequate to develop the reinforcing steel. Bar
some walls approaching 10: 1. Major walls of splices are staggered with not more than
the building in the transverse direction have a 50 percent of the bars spliced at a given
ratio of 5: I, while walls in the longitudinal location. Therefore, the effective bar splice in
,imum direction have a ratio of 3.5: 1. Walls are boundary elements is equivalent to the strength

IlIlage Mldr/Ppendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse A-15

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

of 50 percent of the longitudinal reinforcing capacity of Foundations he

provided. (This was an assumption made
during the initial evaluation, see Section 4.3.4
for additional discussion.)
• Conrmement Reinforcing. Ties provided at
boundary elements of shear walls are #3 at 12
inch spacing. However, ties are provided with
1350 hooks, so that confinement could be
considered of intermediate quality.
• Reinforcing Steel. The typical reinforcing
pattern for walls provides a ratio of 0.0023
times the gross cross sectional area.
• Reinforcing at Openings. Trim bars are
typically provided at openings, however, these
are not confined with special ties.
Diaphragms
• Plan Irregularities. Re-entrant corners occur
at column locations B-3, B-7, G-4, and G-8.
Special chord bars have not been provided in
these areas. However, the distribution of shear
walls throughout the building is such that
diaphragin flexural demands are moderate and
slab reinforcing is generally adequate to handle
corner stresses.
• Transfer to Shear Walls. Dowels provided
between the floor slabs and walls are not
adequately embedded to fully develop their
yield strength. Consequently, the connection
of diaphragms to walls cannot develop the
diaphragm strength. In addition, most walls do
not extend the full length of the diaphragm,
and collector reinforcing has not been provided
to drag diaphragm loads into the walls.
Vertlcalcor.nponents
• Shear Wall Boundary Columns. As
previously described, the lap splice of wall
boundary reinforcing is not adequate to
develop the reinforcing strength.
• Overturning. The ratio of the effective thl
horizontal dimension, at the foundation level bu
of the seismic force resisting system, to the thl
building height exceeds 1.4Av . Neglecting on
near-source effects, A. for the Stanford m:
campus is 0.4 and the ratio is 0.56. In the an
transverse direction, the ratio of foundation re
width to building height is 0.38.
3.3 Elastic Analysis
Elastic analysis is the conventional method of
evaluating the seismic demands on elements of a 4.
structure used in both design of new structures and
detailed evaluation of existing structures. For this Iy
project, a dynamic response spectrum method m
analysis was performed. Using the ETABS21 bl
software package, a three-dimensional computer M
model was constructed and analyzed. The resulting is
displacements are a reasonable estimate of those d)
that the real structure would see, if it remained In
elastic. Forces calculated for individual elements fo
by this technique are also a reasonable estimate of pI
the maximum demands on these elements if the e~
structure were to remain elastic. W
The primary benefits of the elastic analysis is su
that it provides a rapid method of determining the d(
strength of the building relative to current code m
requirements, the distribution and locations of m
large strength demands on the structure, and the of
overall level of lateral displacement the building stl
would experience in the design earthquake. ei
Buildings with limited displacement demands, well m
distributed elastic strength demands, and relatively bI
moderate conditions of strength deficiency relative di
to current code can generally be judged to provide th
acceptable performance. di
On the basis of the elastic analysis, using
cracked section properties and accounting for th
elastic flexibility of the foundation system, the su
Escondido Village Midrise buildings are Sl
demonstrated to have strength in the longitudinal in
direction, comparable to that required by the n(
current UBC. Strength in the transverse direction, df

A·'4 Appendix A. Escondido Village Midrise

~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION ANO RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
--------------------------------------------

however, is substantially less than that required by
the current UBC. The effective periods of the
e
building are 0.83 and 0.71 seconds respectively in
1 level
the transverse and longitudinal directions. Based
.0 the
on the elastic response spectrum analysis,
:ting
maximum elastic interstory drifts of l. 2 percent
d
and I percent are estimated in these directions
the
respectively.
lation
4. Evaluation by Product
1.2 Methodology
ethod .of
nts of a 4.1 Introduction
:tures ali A series of simplified inelastic analyses of the
For this type known as static pushovers were performed to
:thod more accurately evaluate the behavior of the
IS" buildings in response to strong ground motion.
,mputer Most design of buildings for earthquake resistance
e resultin is based on an elastic analysis of the building's
)f those dynamic response to the expected ground motion.
nained In such analyses, it is assumed that the amount of
~lements force induced in an element is directly
stimate (j proportional to the amount of deformation it
.s if the experiences in response to the ground motion .
While all buildings behave in this manner when
nalysis is subjected to low levels of loading, most structures
nining the do not have adequate strength to respond in this
nt code manner when subjected to intense levels of ground
.ons of motion. In reality, when subjected to such levels
, and the of ground motion, individual elements of the
building structures will be stressed to a point at which they
Ike. either yield - that is continue to deform while
nands, we maintaining a relatively constant stress state, or
,d relativel break. Following such yielding or breaking, the
ncy relatil distribution of both deformations and stresses
I to provid throughout the structure can be significantly
different than predicted by an elastic analysis.
. using Elastic design and analysis procedures, such as
ing for those contained in FEMA-178 incorporate
[em, the substantial factors of safety in the permissible
re stress states and configuration limits they specify,
mgitudinal in recognition of the fact that the elastic analysis is
by the not accurately predicting the distribution of
;e directiordemands at high load levels. Inelastic analyses,
such as that outlined in the Methodology allow for
more accurate prediction of the demands on
individual elements of the building and therefore
permit lower factors of safety to be used in
evaluating the adequacy of specific structural
components. Many buildings that appear to be
highly deficient when evaluated by elastic analysis
methods can be demonstrated to be only modestly
deficient, or perhaps completely adequate, when
evaluated to these more accurate approaches.
4.2 Analysis Methodology
The static pushover technique is one of the
simpler types of inelastic analyses. Essentially it
consists of a series of elastic analyses of successive
models of the building that have been
progressively modified to represent the stiffness of
the structure at a given stage of lateral
deformation. In other words, as structural
components yield, the stiffness of the structure is
reduced to reflect that yielding.
For the example building study, tl1e following
basic steps were implemented based on the
Metl1odology:
• Structure modeling (Section 4.3 of this report)
• Pushover analysis (Section 4.4)
• Performance point (Section 4.5)
• Performance assessment (Section 4.6)
4.3 Structure Modeling
4.$.1 Software Limitations
The static pushover analyses of tl1e Escondido
Village Midrise buildings were performed using
DRAIN-2DX software. As with any software
package, limitations can significantly affect the
nature of the analysis. Some of the limitations
imposed by the DRAIN-2DX software include:
• No Inelastic Panel Elements. Walls subject to
potential flexural and shear yielding were
modeled as column elements. See
Section 4.3.4.

'lIIage Mld~pendlx A, Escondido Village Mldrlse A·15

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Stair #1
W20
I
W31
WIO
• • •
WI3
FIgure 4.$-1. wall Element Numben
• No Degrading Elements. All yielding
elements maintain their strength, but the
Methodology requires degrading for elements
with high ductility demands. See Section 4.4.2.
• Two-Dimensional Modeling. The program
allows for two·dimensional modeling only;
resulting in the loss of torsional effects.
• No Graphics or Post-Processing. This limits
the efficiency of the analysis.
4.$.2 Materials
The same material properties used in the
elastic analysis (see Section 2.2) were used for the
nonlinear static analysis:
• Existing Concrete Strength. 2470 psi for
slabs, beams, walls; 3000 psi for columns
• Existing Steel Reinforcing Strength. 40 ksi
for slabs, beams, walls; 60 ksi for columns
4.$.$ structural systems
DRAIN 2DX is capable only of analyzing two
dimensional structures. Therefore, independent
analyses of the building response were performed
for the longitudinal and transverse building axes,
using different models. Figure 4.3-1 is a typical
floor plan for the building, indicating the
numbering scheme used for various walls
A-'.
W23
W16
I>"?J • • •
W41
I
• • WI7
Stalr#Z
contained in the buildings. Figure 4.3-2
schematically represents the model developed for
the longitudinal axis of the building.
The principal disadvantage of using
two-dimensional models to represent the building
is that torsional effects are lost, as are the co
combination of effects from simultaneous loading cal
in different directions. The elastic analysis, sti,
previously performed, demonstrated that the W
building is torsionally quite regular. Therefore, it the
was not felt necessary to model its torsional reI
response characteristics. Modeling of the effects of f01
combined response in two directions on those co
elements of the lateral system which participate in an
both directions could not be captured. In addition 26
to the inability of the two dimensional approach to we
capture this behavior, it was not possible to sui
develop constitutive models (force-deformation ch
the
curves) for the infinite number of combinations of
#2
loadings about the two axes of these walls that are
re~
possible.
As seen in Figure 4.3-2, the longitudinal
model essentially consisted of 7 stick type
sub-models interconnected at each floor level by reI
e1c
rigid translational links. Each stick represents one
or more vertical elements of the lateral force fie
in
resisting system. Individual sticks were provided
to represent each of the major shear wall be
Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
 ---------------------------------------------------
•

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

.
i:,"

U
;- W23
.
W13
_ ..
WLO
, W20
WL7
W26 ~~-l!~
~- ,
J• •-'
"
W70', Frame
Roof

8th

•~;,'
~, 7th
flexural elements '-1

6th
shear elements , -
p, 5th
1c"

4th

3rd

2nd

1st

- Foundation
soil springs

Figure 4.~·2. Non-linear Model-Longitudinal Direction

JUilding
configurations contained in the buildings, flexure. Each stick is also provided with a rigid
loading categorized by response direction. Thus, a single beam a,t its base, supported by a series of inelastic
s, stick was provided to model both walls W13 and soil springs. The soil springs are preloaded with
the W23, the long rectangular walls along the sides of the calculated dead load soil pressure under the
efore, it the building (Figure 4.3-1). Since the stick foundation and are set with compressive spring
Lal represented two identical walls, the rates. The springs have null tensile stiffness.
effects d force-deformation relationship for the stick Stair #2 has the additional complication of the
lose consisted of a composite of both walls stiffness vertical irregularity at the first story, previously
cipate in and capacity characteristics. Walls 10, 17, 20, and described in Section 3. This was modeled by using
lddition 26, all of which are identical "L" shaped walls, altered flexural stiffness properties for this wall at
)roach to were combined into two different stick the first story.
to sub-models, each sub-model representing the A horizontal linear translational spring is
lation characteristics of these walls when pushed in either attached to the model at the level of the first floor.
ations of. the positive or negative direction. Stair #1, Stair This spring represents the shear stiffness of the
; that are #2, and the elevator core (W70) each have unique numerous additional concrete wails present in the
response characteristics and were provided with basement story of the buildings (Figure 2.2-3).
nal separate models. The value of this spring was calculated as the
As shown in Figure 4.3-2, each of the sticks difference in stiffness of the basement story of the
:vel by representing the shear walls is comprised of two building in the linear elastic ETABS model, and
:ents one~ elements at each story. One element represents the the DRAIN model constructed without this spring.
,rce flexural behavior of the walls and is infinitely rigid A final sub-model stick was provided to represent
rovided in shear. The second element represents the shear the stiffness of the concrete frame (beams and
behavior of the walls and is infinitely rigid in floor slabs) and the smaller walls within the

Ie Mldrl' AIIpendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse A-17

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Roof

8th

7th

6th

5th

4th

3rd

2nd

1st

- Foundation
soil springs fo
an
Figure 4.8·8. Nonlinear Model· Transverse DirectIon Cc
co
building that do not contribute significantly to the was modeled by running two columns, each re
lateral load resistance. The initial stiffness of this representing the boundary element properties of
stick was chosen such that the initial stiffness of the wall, through the basement and first stories of 4.
the entire inodel matched that of the elastic the building. These boundary element columns
analysis model. Based on evaluation of the elastic were linked together by a rigid beam at the
analysis results, a lateral deformation was selected underside of the second story. The rigid beam was cb
for each story at which flexural yielding of the provided at the underside of the second story since us
frame would commence. This information was the first story wall would not be completely pe
than used to construct an elastic-purely plastic effective due to the discontinuity below. To m
representation of the frame stiffness at each story. illustrate, Figure 4.3-4 shows an assumed effective se
The model for the transverse building response axial zone of the first story wall panel relative to sp
was constructed in a similar manner to that for the the door and louvre openings at the basement df
longitudinal direction. A schematic diagram for level. Because of the modeling of this to
that model is presented as Figure 4.3-3. An discontinuity, the transverse model was judged to se
important difference between the two models is the be slightly more flexible than the real structure, bf
way in which the discontinuity at the base of the but of adequate accuracy to investigate the w
main transverse walls was handled in the concentrations of demands likely to occur in the aI
transverse model. This problem was previously real structure at this area of discontinuity. Vl
discussed in Section 3.2 and illustrated in It should be noted that coupling beams between c(
Figure 3.2-2. At this discontinuity, the wall the main transverse walls and comer walls were fr
boundary elements are the only continuous not modeled. From the elastic analysis, it was Pl
components. The behavior at this discontinuity c(

A-'8 Appendix A, Escondido Village Midrlse

 •,
--.... --- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
--.... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

transverse wall

effective '. "

area of wall -t------H~Jl...
i,
/ \ :
2nd floor

comer
wall, typo

1st floor
basement wall

Foundation
door opening
louvre opening vertical shear
crack forms at
wall, typo
Figure 4.S·4. Effective Axial zone at Discontinuous Transverse wall

found that these beams would be highly stressed
and would fail early during a severe earthquake.
Consequently, these beams were judged to
contribute minimally to the building's lateral-load
i1 resistance.
.es of
lries of 4.So4 structural Elements and
mns components
Wall Element Flexural Properties. Flexural
,am was: characteristics of wall elements were determined
Iry since, using the software package BIAXI7. This software
y permits the development of non-linear
o moment-curvature relationships for concrete
effective' sections of arbitrary cross section, subjected to
tive to specified axial load. The program was actually
ent developed for use in analyzing columns as opposed
to walls and incorporates the Euler assumption that
dged to·. sections that are plane prior to initiation of
cture, bending remain plane after bending. Since the
walls in the Escondido Village. Midrise buildings
in the are quite slender, this assumption is thought to be
valid. The program has several concrete
s bet'lVeri. compressive behavior models programmed into it,
s were from which the user may choose. These include
was parabolic stress-strain distributions for both
confined and unconfined models.
For this project, moment-curvature curves
were generated based on an unconfined model with
an ultimate compressive strength (f' c) of 2470 psi,
matching the findings from previous testing
conducted at the buildings. The comer L-shaped
walls, elevator C-shaped walls, and stairwell walls
were each modeled as complete walls with entire
flanges assumed effective. All concrete was
assumed to be unconfined.
As previously described in Section 3.2, the
splices of boundary reinforcing for the shear wailS
are inadequate to develop the tensile strength of
the bars. General notes on the original
construction documents indicate that lap splices in
continuous bars should be staggered. It was
judged, therefore, that 50 percent of the
longitudinal boundary bars would be fully effective
in tension at any horizontal section through the
walls. Therefore, in the BIAX models, only
50 percent of the boundary steel was incorporated.
Assumed strength of the steel is 40 ksi, based on
the notes contained in the drawings.
It should be noted that there was some
uncertainty with regard to these assumptions. Lap
splice details for chord reinforcing in walls are not

Ie Hllrlrl,;' Appendix A, Escondido village Mldrlse A-1.

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

300000
-+-Iongitudinal Mlls
~ comer .:lis
-M- comer 'Mll1-X
1-.
.....,&- elevator
-4-ltair#l +:1
-+-Itair 4H -x
_ 200000 "L.~!" -B-Itair #2 +x
___ .tair #2 -x
~
;! 150000
Looooo
'0000

o~--~-----+----~----~----+---~-----+----~
O.OOBofOO 2.00E-04 4.00&.04 6.00E-04 8.00B-04 1.00E·03 1.20E'()3 1.40E-03 1.60E·03
Curl'8ture [radlaa5llncb}

Figure 4.11-5. longitudinal Moment-curvature Relations lOr First Floor wails

specifically shown on the drawings, while column with minimal steel reinforcing. Professor Jack
splices are. In details for column reinforcing Moehle at the University of California, Berkeley, +
splices, all of the bars in a column are lap spliced recommended that the initial effective stiffness of di:
just above each floor level. There was some the wall elements be one-half of the gross sectional de
possibility that the boundary steel for the shear value. Based on the moment-curvature relations pr
walls was spliced in a similar manner. This would from BIAX, the initial effective stiffnesses were rei
result in lower flexural capacity for these walls. generally on the order of 25 percent of the gross 60
There was also some uncertainty with regard to the sectional value.
strength of the reinforcing used for the boundary Figures 4.3-5 and 4.3-6 present the moment pr
elements of walls. The general notes on the . curvature relationships for each of the major walls m:
construction drawings indicate that Intermediate of the building, acting respectively in the the
Grade steel, with a yield strength of 40 ksi, was to longitudinal and transverse directions of the co
be used for all reinforcing except longitudinal building. These curves are based on the ea
column bars, where Hard Grade steel, with a yield assumption of 40 ksi boundary steel with staggered on
strength of 60 ksi was specified. It was possible lap splices. The curves were computed for the stl
that the Hard Grade steel was also used for the dead load axial stress condition at the base of the is
boundary elements of walls. In such a case, the lap walls. They have been terminated at peak concrete
splices provided for the bars would be even less compressive strains of 0.005, as suggested in the the
adequate. Commentary of Section 9.5.4.2 of.the \ir
After the completion of our analyses, it was Methodology. ac
subsequently learned, through x-ray photography Examination of the curves for the longitudinal Ie'
and minor destructive testing, that the boundary direction (Figure 4.3-5) indicates that the primary 10
element reinforcing had lap splices just above the lateral load resistance for the structures in this w,
floor level. Chemical and tensile testing also direction is provided by the main longitudinal ca
confirmed the reinforcing to be Intermediate Grade walls (W13 and W23, Figure 4.3-1), and the walls as:
steel. around stairways # 1 and #2 and at the elevator fu
It should also be noted that BIAX tends to core. The wall at stairway #2 has substantially 51
under-estimate the flexural stiffness of elements greater strength and deformation capacity in the afl

A-20 Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse

 •
----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

400000 .......... transverse walls

-+- comer "'03.1.15 +y
",","*,,-comer walls-y
350000 -6-eievator +y
- . - elevator-y
-+- stair #1
t~:..:-a-a-~
-y
300000 -+- stair -#1 +y
d2S0000~ -B-nair-#2+y
_5tair#2 -y
1-
~ 200000
1l
~ 150000
:Ii

o~----~----~------+_----~----~------+_----~
O.OOE..oo 2.00E-04 4.()(JE.Q4 6.00E-04 8.00E-Q4 l.OOE-03 l.20E·03 1.40E·Q3
Curwture [radlansllncb.]

Figure 4.~·6. Transverse Moment·curvature Relations for First Floor Walls

ack
:keley, +X direction than in the -X because of the It should also be noted that by using BIAX, the
less of discontinuity in the first story, previously modeling rules for flexural properties in shear
;ectional described. The two main walls (W13 and W23) walls presented in Chapter 9 of the Methodology
.tions provide more than 50 percent of the total lateral were ignored. This is allowed per Commentary in
were resistance in the + X direction and more than Section 9.5.1 of the Methodology.
gross 60 percent in the -X direction. Wall Element Shear Properties. As noted
In the transverse direction (Figure 4.3-6) the above, each wall element in the DRAIN model was
)ment primary lateral resistance is provided by the two built with two elements - a flexural element and a
or walls main walls (W31 and W41, Figure 4.3-1) and by shear element. Shear properties used in the DRAIN
the walls around the two stair wells. The model were computed based on the shear capacity
Ie configuration of the stairwell walls is such that of the wall as calculated per ACI 318. Although
each stairwell has substantially more resistance in shear friction capacities per ACI 318 were
;taggered one direction than the other. Stairwell # 1 is typically less than wall shear capacities, shear
: the strongest in the + Y direction, while Stairwell #2 walls generally do not fail at their construction
l of the is strongest in the -Y direction. joints when sufficient dead loads are applied to the
concreW Manual calculations of the shear capacity of walls. Strain-hardening was not included in the
:I in the the walls indicated that they are, in general, modeling of these shear elements. The inclusion of
limited by the shear friction capacity of the walls strain-hardening would have slightly increased the
across the construction joints present at each floor overall shear capacity of the building, but not the
gitudinal level. Typically, this capacity is approximately deformation capacity. By not including
primary 10 percent less than the nominal capacity of the strain-hardening, we could more easily account for
1 this walls derived using UBC formulas without shear degradation in the wall elements. (See
!inal capacity reduction factors (cp). It was arbitrarily Section 4.4.2 for discussion on shear degradation.)
the walls assumed that a 114 inch displacement is required to Foundation Rotational Stiffness. Non-linear
,vator fully mobilize the shear friction strength. A springs were used to model the rotational stiffness
ltially . 5 percent strain hardening factor was permitted of foundations beneath the major shear walls.
r in the after attainment of the 114 inch initial slip. Initially, the stiffness assumptions provided by

Ige Mldrll', Appel1C1lx A, Escondido Village MIClrise A-21

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Therefore, the computed shear capacity of these T

, Linear !tOil tprinp
~;=Jm.... "",......on LoDgIh
DdI ..........
basement walls was programmed into the DRAIN d
model to simulate this failure mode.
As determined by the DRAIN analyses, initial cl
inelastic behavior of the structure was dominated 4
by foundation rotation and liftoff effects. It was tl
expressed by Stanford Facilities Management that d
the stiffness suggested by Woodward-Clyde for the P
soil springs appeared to be significantly larger than CI
revealed by previous plate load test data for b
various locations on the campus. Therefore, a
series of sensitivity analyses were performed in
which the spring stiffness and ultimate capacities ~

FIgure 4.$-7. DetermlnatiDfl OF Effective of the soil compression springs were evaluated for tl
Foundation length 150 percent, 67 percent and 25 percent d
respectively of the values suggested by u
Woodward-Clyde. It was found that these b
Woodward-Clyde were used as the basis of the assumptions had negligible effect on the overall a:
model. Finite vertical translational soil springs behavior of the model. The predominant factor in fl
were incorporated into the model. Each spring the inelastic behavior of the foundation, as IT
represented the stiffness of a length of the wall predicted by the model is the liftoff of the
foundation, equivalent to its width. Beams, with foundation on the tension side. This appeared to be
springs representing the foundation stiffness were independent of the compression spring stiffness
provided beyond the width of the shear walls, with assumed. The total effect on structural elements of tJ
linear elastic properties corresponding to a section the model, for the various assumed soil stiffness n
comprised of the basement walls, the strip properties, was a change in demands of d
foundations and a portion of the first floor slab. approximately 2 percent. Therefore, it was p
The effective width of the first floor slab was concluded that the structure's behavior is fc
taken based on the limitations for flange widths in insensitive to the spring stiffness of the soils sl
"T" beams contained in the ACI code. beneath the foundations, but is quite sensitive to P
The length of the foundation systems effective the ability of the foundations to rock about their b
in resisting shear wall overturning was taken based bases. c
on independent, beam-on-elastic foundation type c
analyses. These analyses are schematically 4.4 pushover Analysis d
TI
represented in Figure 4.3-7. The effective
foundation length was taken as the point at which 4.4.1 Deriving and Applying Pushover C

foundation uplift was produced beyond the FOl'Ces SI

compressive side of the shear wall. Per Section 8.4 of the Methodology, the o
In performing visual surveys of the buildings, Escondido Village Midrise buildings were TI
evaluated based on a Level 3 pushover analysis. [
it was noted that some of the basement walls have
vertical cracks through them. It was surmised that Level 3 is prescribed as the basic level of analysis
these cracks may be the result of shear failures, for the Methodology. Lateral forces are applied in s·
induced in the walls by the Lorna Prieta proportion to the product of story masses and first p
Earthquake, as they attempted to spread mode shape of the elastic model of the structure. c
overturning demands from the shear walls. c

A-22 Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse

-- ~-~==~-----------------------­
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

--
~se This distribution is obtained from the initial
AIN dynamic DRAIN-2DX model in each direction.
Although the fundamental mode shape will
nitial change due to changing stiffnesses (see Section ~Yield
ated 4.4.2 below), the initial load distribution was used
vas throughout the analyses for each respective
t that
for the
~r than
direction. Changing the load distribution would
probably yield a slightly more accurate pushover
curve. However, the overall effect on the building
behavior and evaluation results was judged to be
r residual strength

a negligible.
I in The effects of higher modes on the structure Deformation
:ities were also ignored in this study. Evaluation of
FIgure 4.4,1. TYpical Force-Deformation
~ed for these higher modes may result in additional Relationship for Model Elements
damage to the building that was not discovered by
using just the fundamental mode. However,
because the building is relatively regular in plan curves. Each increment was defined at the
:rall and stiffness (with the exception of the basement displacement that a critical element reached its
;tor in floor), higher mode effects are anticipated to be degradation point. The degraded element would be
minimal. replaced by a similar, weaker element (with a new
4.4.2 Model Degradation yield strength that was 20 percent of the original
ed to be yield strength per Methodology Table 9- 10). With
ness Element properties can be characterized by a
this new element, the pushover analysis would
Jents of typical elastic-plastic force-deformation
then be started again and continue until the next
Jness relationship with strength degradation at high
critical element reached its degradation point.
ductility demands as shown in Figure 4.4-1. As
In addition, it should be noted that not only
previously indicated, the flexural
was the strength of the degraded element reduced
force-deformation relationships for the concrete
to 20 percent of the initial undegraded element,
Is shear walls were obtained using the software
but the degraded stiffness was also similarly
ive to program BIAX. For walls exhibiting ductile
reduced to 20 percent of the initial. The
: their behavior with strain-hardening, force-deformation
Methodology provides no quantitative guidance
curves were terminated at a peak concrete
with respect to post-yield shear stiffness, axial
compressive strain of 0.005. For walls with
strength, axial stiffness, or degradation rate as a
degrading strength at large rotations prior to
function of ductility demand.
reaching a concrete compressive strain of 0.005,
In the case of our building models.
Shover, curves were terminated at the point of initial
consideration of a ductile model with no strength
: strength degradation. As a result, we constructed
degradation would have overestimated the
he Our own component force-deformation
maximum pushover base shear by less than
relationships that were implemented into the
10 percent. Although this is not significant, the
alysis. , DRAIN-2DX models.
implementation of a degraded model, per
analysis( Unfortunately, DRAIN-2DX does not have
requirements of the Methodology, would more
.pplied in; strength degradation capabilities built into the
accurately determine a building's seismic
and first; program. Consequently, the continuous pushover
behavior. In some buildings, the effect of
ructure.! curves shown in Figures 4.4-5 and 4.4-6 were
degradation may be significant.
} constructed from a series of incremental pushover

ge Mldrt!'; Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse A-25

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

r
-
2!iOO

hingefi ~tion
at floor
2000
7
~

/ \
"-
, . / - hmge fonnation at
basement waDs

/
o
o , 10 20
bor DI.pJ.cement. d [Incher]

Figure 11.11,2. LDngltudlnal PushDver Curve fDr EXlst/ng structure

2000

lr ;inge !ormati n'l

floor beams
I
I
I
~

,
1>00

1000
ex
~
I
I to
su
\
!
'00
/ ~ hinse fomation ~lstnoor
and buem:nt w:
I,i
I
th
pt

o
1/ II sh
re
o 10
I'
Roor DllpI.CUltDt. d [IDdlel]
20 25 re.

sh
Figure II.II·S, Transverse PushDver curve fDr EXisting structure ro
po
4.4.S Pushover Force-Displacement potentially life threatening because of the lack of ob
Curve adequate development of the bottom reinforcing of ca·
Figures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3 show the pushover the beams through the beam column joint. Hinging tho
curves for the existing (unstrengthened) Escondido of the beams - first in positive flexure and on the co
Village Midrise buildings, when pushed in the return cycle in negative flexure - will result in aI
longitudinal and transverse directions, formation of a vertical crack through the beam ex
respectively. As can be seen, the first critical column joint. Following such behavior the floor to
events consist of hinging of floor beams systems would rely on the catenary behavior of the be,
throughout the frame. This is considered di!

A-24 Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse

 r
----- "

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

r
2500
hinge fonnatio at
floor beams
-~
2000 . • I
~

'01
~ 1500
Y{J
./

compression failure at "toe" ~

\ /
:;.

j
~"

!
1000 / \ Lhing fonnation at
ofbaserrent orner walls

compression failure
~#2 J
I
500 / bas, frent walls baserrent stairs #1 a

o
t!
o 5 10 15 20
Roof Displacement, d [inches]

Fll/Ure 4.4·4. Longitudinal Pushover curve For strengthened Building

top reinforcing steel in the beams for vertical
support. However, because there are no stirrups in
the beams, there is potential for this top steel to
pull free of the slabs, resulting in floor collapse.
In addition to the hinging of floor beams,
shear failure of first floor columns occurs at
relatively small roof displacements. This also
results in significant collapse hazard.
Because the beam hinging and the column
shear failure mechanisms form at relatively small
roof displacements (3.5" to 4.0"), a performance
point as defined by the Methodology cannot be
lack of obtained since the demand spectrum and the
orcing oI capacity spectrum do not intersect. This indicates
. Hinginl' that the structures, as they are, present significant
Ion the collapse hazards when subjected to the demands of
Iltin a large magnitude earthquake. Furthermore, the
beam existing structure does not present a good example
e floor to evaluate the procedures of the Methodology
'ior of tIt, because of the high collapse potential at small
displacements. Consequently, for the purposes of
this example building study, it is more
instrumental to follow the Methodology using the
life-safety retrofit concept.
To create a more stable structure and allow the
pushover analysis a chance to develop some
ductility, the problems of the hinging beams and
shear critical columns were initially addressed.
The retrofit concept is discussed in Section 5 of
this report. For the purpose of continuing our
discussion of the pushover curve, assume that the
hinging of floor beams and the shear failure of
first floor and basement columns are adequately
addressed with structural upgrades.
Figures 4.4-4 and 4.4-5 present the pushover
curves for the strengthened building. Significant
events in the progressive lateral response of the
building are annotated on the figures, and more
fully described in Tables 4.4-1 and 4.4-2. Critical
events listed in the tables are indicated in italics.

Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse A-25

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

2000
rocking oH undation at
7
hinge fonmtion at

V- \
stair II 1

-----Ie
floor bearna
/'ompreSSion til ure at
J500

v:r
.•un"
-0; ""l"""'"
mpression failure at
W~ \

i b~ement transverse" aDs co~res ion failure at

i JOOO '-- shear failure of .. emont and

base_ t elevator core

II>

!
sao / 1st floor inteno coluIIIlS

hin e fonnation at bas e lOnt

1/
~

and 1st floor walls

a
o 5 JO J5 20 25
Roof Dlaplac:ement, d [lnche.]

Figure 4.4·5. Transverse pushDver curve IDr strengthened Building

4
4

SI
11 compression failure at "toe" of basement corner 12.84 te
walls
E
S

A-2G Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse A

 r
~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------

I
Table 4.4,2 Transverse Pushover Events
.... ...........
. ·····EVent<·. ....
•.

.
...

. .
/toOl p/sP!acement
I. (inCheS)< ..
.Description·
1 hinge formation at basement stair #2 1.55
2 hinge formation at basement stair #1 1.80
3 hinge formation at 1st floor elevator core 2.00
4 hinge formation at basement corner walls 2.29
5 hinge formation at 1st floor corner wailS 2.45
6 hinge formation at 1st floor stair #2 3.21
7 hinge formation at 3rd·8th floors beams 3.78
8 rocking at transverse walls 4.04
9 hinge formation at 2nd floor beams 4.10
10 shear failure of 15x241st floor colUmns 4.23
11 shear failure Of 15x221st floor colUmns 4.90
12 hinge formation at roof beams 5.10
13 shear failure of 15X24 basement COlumns 5.15
14 Shear failure of 15X22 basement COlumns 5.96
15 shear failure of 1st floor transverse wailS 6.10
16 hinge formation at basement transverse walls 6.81
17 compression failure of basement transverse walls 10.11
18 hinge formation at 2nd floor stair #2 10.11
19 rocking Of foundation at stair #2 12.01
20 shear failure of 11x11 basement colUmns 13.73
21 rocking of foundation at stair #1 14.90
22 shear failure of 11 X11 1st floor columns 15.58
23 compression failure of basement corner walls 16.81
24 compression failure of basement elevator core 23.11

4.5 Performance point 4.5.2 Capacity spectrum

4.5.1 Perfol'l11ance Objectives
Per Section 3.4 of the Methodology, various
performance objectives can be selected in the
; evaluation of a structure. In this example building
study, the owner selected a performance objective
!.to satisfy Life Safety requirements for a Design
! Earthquake ground motion that is defined in
, Section 4.5.3.
The force·displacement pushover curves
shown in Figures 4.4-4 and 4.4-5 are converted to
spectral coordinates per Section 8.3.2 of the
Methodology. The capacity spectra for the
longitudinal and transverse directions are shown in
Figures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2, respectively.
Tables 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 show the conversion for
the longitudinal and transverse direction pushover
curves respectively. Since the loading function was

MldrlSl~ AppenCllx A. EsconClIClo Village MIClrise A-27

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

,.,r--------------,---------------,--------------,

rr
1'' 1/
,
'.00 ~_-------_+----------__+_--_----___i
SpeClnll DI.plaeemeat. Sd
"
(ID~UJ
" -
Figure 4.S·1. Longitudinal capacity Spectrum as
afi
ef
0.30 ,----- ··_--1
4.

-
I
TI
I, pa
---
:; 020

II'" ! I M
bt
!
/, !,
!
i
•
I
'.00
"
SptdJ1ll DI.pI.ceraut. Sd (ladle.] " "
•
•
Figure 4.S·2. TranSverse capacity spectrum
•
Table 4.S·1. conversion Of v and d,.., to So and Sd for Longitudinal Direction
•
A 1633 2.07 0.138 1.449 0.653 0.211 1.43 0.83
B 1756 3.08 0.148 1.449 0.653 0.227 2.13 Q98
sp
2011 11.37 0.170 1.449 0.653 0.260 7.85
o 2052 12.84 0.173 1.449 0.653 0.265 8.86 1.85
E 2011 18.08 0.170 1.449 0.653 0.260 12.48 2.H

A-28 Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse

---- f
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table 4.5,2. conversIon 01 V and d,.., to Sa and Sd lor Transverse DIrection

point " V'klpil d""" fln.1 .,j,/W PIT"", " 0/"'< 1"'5.'91'" Sdfln.1 T,seCI '
A 1137 1.80 0.096 1.451 0.671 0.143 1.24 0.94
8 1258 2.29 0.106 1.451 0.671 0.158 1.58 1.01
C 1354 3.28 0.114 1.451 0.671 0.170 2.26 1.17
0 1478 6.10 0.125 1.451 0.671 0.186 4.20 1.52
E 1790 14.10 0.151 1.451 0.671 0.225 9.72 2.10
F 1824 17.02 0.154 1.451 0.671 0.229 11.73 2.29
G 1839 23.11 0.155 1.451 0.671 0.231 15.93 2.65

assumed to remain constant throughout our
analysis, the participation factor (PFroof) and the
effective mass coefficient (CXm) remain constant.
4.5.S Demand Spectrum
The 5 percent damped spectrum is derived from
parameters described in Chapter 4 of the
Methodology. For the Escondido Village Midrise
buildings, the following parameters were used:
• Soil Profile Type = D for stiff soil
(Methodology Table 4-3)
• Seismic Zone, Z = 0.4 for seismic zone 4
(Methodology Table 4-4)
• Near Source Factor, N = 1.18 for seismic
source type A, linearly interpolated between 5
and 10 kIn (Methodology Table 4-5)
• Seismic CoeffIcient, CA = 0.47 for shaking
intensity larger than 0.4 (Methodology
Table 4-7)
• Seismic Coefficient, Cv = 0.76 for shaking
intensity larger than 0.4 (Methodology
Table 4-8)
Based on the capacity spectra, the demand
spectra can be reduced with the modification
factors SR. and SR, as calculated by the following
relations (see Chapter 8 of the Methodology):
SR, = - -1 - ( 3.21- 0.681n [63.7 K(a'P"
d ' - d a)
pi + 5
])
2.12 ap;d p;
SR, = - 1 ( 2.31- O.4l1n[63.7 K(a,d - d,a + 5] )
p; p.)
1.65 ap;d p;
By guessing the maximum displacement of the
capacity spectrum, the values of dp; and ap; (based
on the capacity spectrum) can be calculated.
These, in turn, effect the values of SR, and SR,.
Through an iterative process of adjusting the value
of dp; until the capacity spectra intersects the
demand spectra at dp, a performance point can be
determined. Figure 4.5-3 shows the relationship
between api, ay, dp; and dy.
For the longitudinal direction, the total
spectral roof displacement at the performance
point was Sdmox=9.51" (see Figure 4.5-4), which
corresponds to a total roof displacement of
d.,.,= 13.8". For the transverse direction, the total
spectral roof displacement at the performance
point was Sdmox= 11.2" (see Figure 4.5-5), which
corresponds to a total roof displacement of
d.,.,=16.2".

'Idrlse i Appendix A, Escondido Village Mid rise A-29

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

api·
ay - _._._.-
,.
I
I

.. .. . .. .. .
r actual
pushover curve
. _. _. _. _ .•J. _. _. _. _. _. _.:-................. ................ ..

idealized
pushover curve

dy dpi
Displacement
4.
Figure 4.5-$. Idealized Bilinear RepresentatIon of MDt/al Pushover curve

de
pc
de
of
1.0 fo
0.0 CL

0.'
bl
s~
~ 0.1

r··
.ll 10
in
0.'

-< 0.4 4.
i 0.'
0.2 P(
0.1 ac
0.0
Ie
0 2 , • 7 o 10 11 12 13 C(
4 14
" M
C(
Figure 4.5-4. Demand vs. capacity Spectra Showing performance point PI
for longitudinal Direction PI
4

N
s:

A-SO Appendix A. Escondido Village Midrlse

- ~--------------------------------------------

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

~--------------------------------------------

1.0

0.'
---7--··_·····_···_···_·_····
0.8
,
dpi=3.0"
~ 0.7 i
•
~

I
0.'

0.' i
< 0.'
~ 0.3
l
~
0.2

0.1 m Sd=l1 "

0.0
0 4 ,. 6 1 8 9 10 II. 12 13 14 IS
Spectul D11p1aeement,Sd [Inches]

Figure 4.5·5. Demand VS. capacity spectra showing performance point for Transverse Direction

4.5.4 Performance point this report) satisfy the Immediate Occupancy

The intersection point of the capacity and
demand spectra is the performance point. This
point represents the expected level of seismic
demand on the structure. The spectral coordinates
of the performance point can be converted back to
force-displacement coordinates on the capacity
curve. For the Escondido Village Midrise
buildings, the performance point occurs at a base
shear of 2010 kips and 13.8 inches in the
longitudinal direction, and 1750 kips and 16.2
inches in the transverse direction.
4.6 Performance Assessment
Component deformations at the performance
point displacements must be checked against
acceptable limits. The acceptable deformation
levels for various structural elements and
components are presented in Chapter II of the
Methodology. Individual evaluation of these
components is required to determine not only the
performance level of the component, but also the
performance level of the entire structure.
4.6.1 Drift Limits
Based on story drifts, the Escondido Village
Midrise buildings (as strengthened with the Life
Safety Objective scheme presented in Section 5 of
performance level criteria in the longitudinal
direction and the Life Safety performance level
criteria in the transverse direction.
4.6.2 Component Deformabllity
Walls. With the exception of basement walls,
typical concrete shear walls are flexure critical.
Adequacy of these walls are based on plastic hinge
rotations. In general, existing shear walls satisfy
immediate occupancy requirements (Methodology
Table 11-7) with the exception of some first floor
walls that satisfy the Life Safety performance level
as shown in Table 4.6-1. Basement walls are
checked by drift ratios shown in Methodology
Table 11-8. Because of the large number of walls
in the basement level, deformations are small and
meet Immediate Occupancy requirements.
The inability of the transverse walls to transfer
required shears at the first floor level is due to the
door and louver openings which reduce the
number of dowels that make the required shear
transfer. In the degraded model these walls are
allowed to resist only 20 percent of their yield
shears. As shown in the pushover curve, there is
still substantial strength after the "failure" of these
walls. Per requirements of Methodology

Ildrlse Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse A-31

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table 11.6-1. NumerIcal Acceptance criterIa for Plastic Hlnlle Rotations In ReInforced concrete walls and h(
wall sellments CDntrolled by Flexure
th
c!
M
ot
Zf
SI

sl
T,
Sf
n(
/I

d,

1. {A,-A,)f,+P ; assume A.i = Ax" flY = 19.5". I", = 25' 2. v

•
t,..lwfr' .J.g
t•
3. N.A. (Not Applicable): Deformations remain elastic.
•
Table 11-9, the expected sliding displacement using the secondary member performance criteria.
satisfies the Life Safety performance level. Because of the lack of adequate confining steel.
Columns. Columns were initially checked these first floor and basement columns fall under b,
using simple SAP90 stick models. These models the category of Columns controlled by shear, other fa
were displaced at each floor level based on the cases in Methodology Table 11-4 and are judged a(
final building displacements at the performance to be unacceptable. e1
point. Since columns were determined to be shear Shown below is a simple calculation of the plastic th
critical. only shear capacities were checked. hinge rotation at an interior 15x24 first floor el
Columns typically had adequate shear capacity to column:
resist required demand which indicates that 5
columns generally remain elastic. Nevertheless.
tota I h'mge rotatlon
. = "t
n LI
=L t
first floor and basement interior 15xZ4 columns
were found to have demand-to-capacity ratios .. . LIVL2 s.
ranging form 1.4 to 2.0. Consequently. these elastic hmge rotatIOn = 8. = L' = 12EI
columns would not remain elastic and can be plastic hinge rotation
evaluated per the Methodology. As noted
N
= 8 = 6 -6 _ 1.148 34.4(109)2 0.00997 P,
previously. the beam-column frame system does
pt. 109 12(3490)(17280) al
not contribute significantly to the
hi
lateral-load-resisting system. but rather goes along since ~- 4~1.8) = 03n 0.1 and C
for the deformation "ride". Therefore. columns A gf. 360 3.750
n(
that undergo inelastic deformation were checked

A-32 Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse AI

 f'
~ -----------------------------------------
--- SEISMIC EVALUATION ANO RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------
. d 22
=12"~2=1l=
- hOoP spacmg 11",
the column member falls in the other cases
category for columns controlled by shear. Per
Methodology Table 11-4 for secondary elements in
other cases. the allowable plastic hinge rotation is
zero for both the Life Safety and Structural
Stability Performance Objectives.
Beams. Floor beams are checked using the
slab-column connection criteria in Methodology
Table 11-6. As noted above. these beams are
secondary elements. In general. these beams do
not satisfy the Structural Stability requirements.
4.6.S Summary of Deficiencies
For a Life Safety Performance Object.
deficiencies are summarized as follows:
• • Lack of confining steel in first floor and
basement columns render them unacceptable
for any level of plastic deformation.
• Lack of adequate reinforcing in floor beams
result in significant hinging and potential
collapse of most beams above the first floor
eria. level.
:1. As previously mentioned. the hinging of
der beams and shearing of columns were significant
other failures. These were assumed to be included and
~ed addressed in retrofit schemes so that the inelastic
evaluation could continue. It is interesting to note
!tic that these deficiencies were not apparent in the
elastic FEMA-178 evaluation.
S. Conceptual Retrofit
Designs
5.1 performance Objectives
Retrofit designs for the Escondido Village
Midrise buildings were developed for two
Performance Objectives: the Life Safety objective
already described and used for evaluation. and a
higher Damage Control objective. The Damage
Control objective is to limit structural and
non-structural damage to the building in the event
drlse Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
Table 5.1-1. Required Retrofit Work for
Different performance Objectives
LifeSSfetY oblectlile.:> Damag:e c(Jntrol .....
in. DesIgn Earthquake ,. ObJectfve., '.
. ~ : ~~i.V:: . ' ," ,," " :'In DesIgn Earthquake ,r:
Reinforcement of shear Reinforcement of shear
critical columns critical columns
Floor beam supports Floor beam supports
Discontinuity at New concrete shear walls
transverse Shear walls New pile foundations
Shear wall boundary
elements
of a large magnitude earthquake causing strong
ground motion at the site. For the purposes of this
study. only the Design Earthquake with soil type
D was considered .
, two
The required structural work for the
objectives is summarized in Table 5.1-\'
S.2 Retrofit strategies
After determining that an existing structure is
unable to resist design earthquake demands. the
engineer often evaluates a number of alternative
retrofit concepts to determine feasibility.
applicability, and cost. Technical strategies, as
well as management strategies. are employed to
obtain the required seismic risk reduction.
The advantage of using a nonlinear. pushover
analysis is the ability to determine the potential
failure mechanism of the building as it deforms.
As a result. the engineer can focus his retrofit
design solely on the elements that are deficient so
that the building can reach the desired
performance level without changing the entire
behavior of the structure.
Using conventional elastic evaluation
techriiques, the retrofit of the Escondido Village
Midrise structures would probably include the
addition of new concrete shear walls. While this
solution is included in the Damage Control
objective retrofit work. the addition of shear walls
would not have addressed the most critical
structural deficiency. As shown in the Table 5.1-1.
A-!!
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
even with the addition of shear walls, additional
upgrade schemes must be incorporated to address
the shear critical columns, and hinging floor
beams.
5.3 Retrofit systems
A combination of technical issues and
management issues were considered in the design
and implementation of the seismic upgrade
schemes. Some of those issues are discussed
below.
5.5.1 RetroFit FDr the LIFe saFety
Objective
Reinforcement of Shear Critical Columns.
To retrofit the first floor and basement columns,
either the shear capacity could be increased or
addition confinement could be provided. The
provision of bolted steel jackets would provide
additional confinement as well as added shear
capacity. However, Stanford required the building
to remain functional during the entire construction
process which meant drilling of concrete would be
limited to keep noise levels at a minimum for
residents. Consequently, the first floor columns
were confined with fibrewrap reinforcement.
Unfortunately, basement columns were typically
built into adjacent concrete walls. The use of
fibrewrap reinforcement is impossible. Therefore,
bolted steel jackets are used in the basement area.
Drilling of concrete would be required at only
three column locations.
Floor Beam Supports. To strengthen the floor
beams at each level to resist expected earthquake
demands would be impractical from an
engineering, as well as a construction perspective.
Since the performance criteria is for life safety,
significant damage that required repair after a
large earthquake would be acceptable as long as
the structure did not collapse. Therefore, the
approach was to allow the beams to hinge and
form vertical cracks at the slab-column joints, but
provide secondary vertical support to prevent the
beams and slabs from collapsing.
A·54
A steel corbel around each interior column
was devised to provide secondary vertical support. \\
Initially, this was to be a series of welded steel jl
angles bolted to the concrete column directly sl
below the floor slab. However, this was judged to (
be unacceptable on two counts. This type of b
connection required a large number of anchors tI
drilled into the existing concrete column. P
Installation of such anchors would have been n
extremely difficult since existing column n
reinforcing could not be damaged. In addition, \\\
Stanford had the low noise requirement previously II
mentioned. I~
Nevertheless, the corbel idea was not el
abandoned. Instead of relying on tension and shear I n
of bolts embedded into the concrete column, we 5
decided to try friction collars. These collars will I~
derive vertical support through friction between
the steel tubes directly below the slab and the
existing concrete columns. No drilling of concrete
will be required. Since this friction collar concept
is an unproved method, a testing program was S
setup to verify the adequacy of these restraints.
Through the testing program, we were able to
determine an appropriate friction coefficient that
enabled the design of the final friction collars.
Discontinuity at Transverse Shear Walls.
The discontinuity created by the door and louver
openings greatly reduce the effectiveness of the
transverse shear walls. The transverse walls
reached their shear capacity prior to the
performance point. The limited displacement of
the walls satisfied the Life Safety performance
level. Nevertheless, in the interest of ensuring
ductile behavior, bolted steel jackets at the
columns will provide additional confinement and
shear resistance.
Shear Wail Boundary Elements. As
mentioned in Section 4.3.4, the shear wall
boundary elements were assumed to contain
intermediate grade (40 ksi) steel reinforcement
with staggered lap splices. Concrete at one of
these boundary elements was chipped away to
reveal the steel reinforcement and splices. After
chemical and tensile testing, the steel was
Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS
-----. --
umn confirmed to be 40 ksi steel. However, lap splices New Concrete Shear Walls. New concrete
SUppOrt, were not staggered, but instead were all located shear walls provide additional stiffness and shear
;reel just above the floor slab. In addition, these lap resistance to the buildings. As a result,
:ly splices lacked adequate development length. deformations are reduced as well as demands on
dged to Consequently, the actual building would not other shear walls.,'
If behave as modeled. After consideration, we felt New Pile Foundations. New cast-in-place
10rs that the modeled building behavior met drilled concrete piers are required to support the
performance objectives and the building should be new concrete shear walls for overrurning forces.
:n retrofitted to behave as the model. Therefore, Because the new walls are significantly more rigid
reinforcement in boundary elements are to be than other walls, earthquake loads will tend to be
ion, Iwelded or lengthened to provide adequate splices. resisted by these walls resulting in substantial
:viously In addition, boundary elements at the first floor overturning forces. The piers are anticipated to be
level would be provided additional confinement to on the order of 30" diameter by 50' long with
ensure ductile performance since this was the about 40 piers required for the four new walls.
ld shear region of most significant wall hinging. Figure Despite eliminating the need for boundary element
1, we 5.3-1 shows a typical floor plan of this life safety reinforcing and jacketing of basement transverse
swill level retrofit scheme. walls, the addition of new shear walls still requires
ween the provision of column collars throughout the
5.~.2 Retrofit for the Damage Control building (except the roof level) and column jackets
he
Objective (fibrewrap)at the first floor. Furtherfnore, these
oncrete
oncept Reinforcement of Shear Critical Columns. walls greatly alter the architectural appearance of
",as See Section 5.3.1. the buildings and require new pile foundations.
ints. Floor Beam Supports. See Section 5.3.1.
, to
It that
lTS.
ails.
ouver
"~'''I''~
fthe
s ., ...

~-_--";'r--rt---I
,. . . . -~--'~~'--.ji··:··
··ir'

. .. .. "
.: .......
~.~: G
EJj)
nt of , .' .... , ... a-........."",'. CV
nce
ing .111.. I

l.q.pllce ' 18''''"

It and
. ~ .. (i),' ... @,' . . . I ...
liJ ...,: ~I..I"IJ" ..... (Q)
~ 10'-7"
11---.' . . . '. . . '!''''!''!' ~oIl., '!P: . :. . . . . . . . ... ..0
_______1 - - _. . . . . , . . . J--1'-_L~L---.oI ...•·.3·. G
I
10--__- -.....:----.01..... :.... :....: .. ~'~'. CAl
lent
of
to 12' 12' • 12'-7" 12' 12' 12' , 12' 7" 12' '2'
\fter
Figure 5.:1,1. TYpical Floor Plan Showing strengthening for Life Safety

Mldrlse Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse A-IS

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

6.!

to I
pre
ace
dir
... , giv
fau
ree
coli. typo
spe
/ "·3· ~ wo
II ..... "'"
~ onl

,.. 'N· ,..

'--I--
,.. - fo"-- -'
,.. ,..
1~ ,~ ,~.~
usi
ele
Figure 5.6·2. TypIcal Floor Plan ShowIng StrengthenIng For Damage Control Ra
ela
Figure 5.3-2 shows a typical floor plan for this damage was accurately predicted to be in the stair
Damage Control retrofit scheme. towers. However, damage due to shear cracking tin
was not predicted. Perhaps this is due to the fact pre
The additional work does not seem warranted for that shear capacities in the model are based on the hy:
the limited reduction of damage. combination of concrete shear capaci ty and steel pre
shear capacity. Diagonal cracking of concrete bel
6. Assessment of the shear walls does not indicate that concrete walls wi
product '.2 have reached their calculated capacities. as~

The Lorna Prieta event was only a moderate bel

Methodology
short duration earthquake for the Escondido is :
Village Midrise buildings; consequently, damage di!
6.1 Damage Prediction
to the interior columns and beams did not occur.
The Escondido Village Midrise buildings were
T
damaged during the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta 6.2 comparlsori with preliminary D
Earthquake. This included moderate but Evaluation Findings
widespread cracking of the cast-in-place concrete FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements accurately
walls, including both shear cracking in classic indicated the problems associated with the vertical
diagonal "x" patterns, flexural cracking consisting discontinuity in the transverse shear walls and the
of cracks that were approximately horizontal near Ti
inadequate boundary reinforcing in shear walls. A
the bases of the walls, and horizontal cracking The Evaluation Statements, however, failed to
along the construction joints present at floor fII
discover the inadequacy of the beams and o
levels. The walls around the stair towers

-
columns. P
experienced the heaviest damage. Most damage to Therefore, for this example building study, N
the walls was repaired shortly after the earthquake nonlinear pushover analysis prescribed by the
with the injection of epoxy grout. Methodology proved to be a very useful tool in
Pushover analysis predicted flexural yielding predicting damage and focusing retrofit efforts.
of concrete shear walls. The most significant ill.

A·36 APpendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse

~ ----------------------------------------------------------
---- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS
---------------------------------------------------------------

6.3 Comparison with Inelastic maximum compares well with the Methodology,
Time·History Analysis as shown in Table 6.3-2. However, shears and
Limited time-history analyses were performed overturning moments in the main transverse walls
to determine the accuracy of the performance point are substantially different. The shears obtained in
predicted by the Methodology. Five near-field the time-history evaluation are more than 5 times
acceleration records, each with components in two larger than those obtained through analysis per the
directions, were selected. For each record, the Methodology. The overturning moments from the
given components were transformed to time-history analysis are only 30 percent larger
fault-parallel and fault-normal components. These than that from the Methodology.
records were then scaled so that the average The large difference in shear and smaller
spectral acceleration of the ten time-histories difference in overturning moment indicates that
would be O.64g for a structure with a period of higher mode effects are significant in the
one second. transverse direction of the building. The
The time-history analyses were performed discontinuity in the transverse walls may be a
using DRAIN-2DX. These models did not include significant contributor to the need for evaluating
element degradation or pinched hysteretic curves. the structure for higher mode effects. In fact, the
Rather, the element constituitive models presumed Methodology does suggest that irregular buildings
elastic-purely plastic behavior. (vertical discontinuity makes this an irregular
~ stair Table 6.3-1 compares the average maximum building in the transverse direction) should be
king time-history displacements with the displacements evaluated based on a Level 4 or Level 5 approach
fact predicted by the Methodology assuming similar that does include the contribution of higher modes.
)n the hysteretic behavior and with the displacements Also note that the shear and overturning
:teel predicted assuming pinched and degrading moment demands for the transverse walls are in
:e behavior. Comparison of the time-history results the elastic range. Although forces in the
alls with the Methodology are good, when the same time-history average and in the Methodology vary
assumptions are made with regard to hysteretic significantly, the transverse walls do not yield in
rate behavior. However, when more realistic behavior either case. In other words, the Methodology did
is assumed, the Methodology predicts larger not miss any significant yield event. Consequently,
nage displacements, as would be expected. the overall building behavior determined by the
cur. Methodology remains consistent with that
Table 6.S·1. comparison of Maximum Roof determined by time-history analysis.
'Y Displacement
6.4 Conclusions
ately The following broad are reached conclusions
~rtical regarding the use of the Methodology:
td the • The Methodology adequately predicted the
Time-History 7.5" 8.3"
lls. Average shear wall damage observed after the Lorna
to Prieta Earthquake.
MethOdology wlo 7.5" 10.2"
Degredatlon and • The Methodology also determined failure
Pi
mechanisms that were not readily apparent in a
Iy,
conventional elastic evaluation, such as the
e hinging of beams and shearing of columns.
in
For shears and overturning moments in the Also note that the shear and overturning moment
'Is.
main longitudinal walls, the time-history average demands for the transverse walls are in the elastic

Ildrlse Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse A-57

 SEISMIC EVALUATION ANO RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Table 6.6'2. Comparison Of Shea' and overtumlnll Moment
I. Longitudinal wall forces are taken from first floor elements of the main longitudinal walls (W13 and W23).
2. Transverse wall forces are taken from second floor elements of the main transverse walls (W3l and W41).
range. Although forces in the time·history average
and in the Methodology vary significantly, the
transverse walls do not yield in either case. In
other words, the Methodology did not miss any
significant yield event. Consequently, the overall
building behavior determined by the Methodology
remains consistent with that determined by
time-history analysis.
7_ Foundation Analysis
7.1 Introduction
As an additional part of our study, effects of
various foundation parameters on the expected
building behavior were evaluated. The large
number of shear walls in the basements of the
Escondido Village Midrise buildings essentially
provide a fixed base foundation at the first floor
level. Consequently, varying soil properties had
negligible effect on structural behavior.
Because the Escondido Village Midrise
buildings were not very sensitive to varying
foundation effects, the DRAIN·2DX models were
modified by removing the spring at the first floor
level representing the additional basement walls.
In this manner, we produced a model that could be
affected by varying soil parameters. It should also
be noted that element degradation was not
considered in the foundation evaluations presented
here.
7.2 Varying Soli Parameters
Eight independent DRAIN-2DX models (four
in each direction) were constructed to evaluate the
effects of varying soil parameters. These models
included:
A-sa
• Fixed base model
• Stiff soil model (with soil stiffnesses and
yields that were 100 percent greater than the
average values)
• Average soil model
• Soft soil model (with soil stiffnesses and yields
. that were 50 percent less than the average
values)
Figures 7.2-1 and 7.2-2 show the pushover
curves for each of these models in the longitudinal
and transverse directions, respectively.
As shown in these figures, it appears that soil
stiffness and yield only effect the initial portion of
the pushover curve. Regardless of the soil
parameters, all curves seem to converge after
yielding of members. This indicates that soil
stiffness can effect the response of the building
prior to yielding of structural elements. Once
structural elements start yield, soil stiffness has
negligible effect on building behavior.
A more detailed evaluation of soil effects was
performed for models in the longitudinal direction.
Table 7.2-1 presents the roof displacement and
base shear data points along the pushover curves
where wall hinge formation initially occurs. In
general, as soils become less stiff, hinge formation
at basement walls occurs at larger displacements
and shears. Figures 7.2-3 and 7.2-4 show the point
of hinge formation of basement longitudinal walls
and stair #1 walls, respectively, with various soil
parameters. In addition, as shown in Table 7.2-2,
the estimated performance point also moves
further down the pushover curve for softer soils,
resulting in larger expected displacements and
shears for the same design earthquake.
-
Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse
-
IPU8C1C1y
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

eUUOj~p
UIJOjl~
~!A\
'l~qul1J
UllOjl~d
llalfl Aq
)ds~lJOJ 2000
,
'!lUA ~lfI 1800 !
ljj!d ~-t
,,40'" I
1600
.....-:;:.,
.J>. -'" !
"00
(!.,. ,.'.. ,-
J
,. ..,
/~'
,. Ii
,
I.v'/-fu base

I!\,~ ,tiff, II
600

400
i': .."'~,avclll e soil
:: ,

200
§/
,
",--, soil
,
I
o
0.00 '.00 10.00 u.oo
Root Dilplacemenl [lnchell

Figure 7.2,1. Longitudinal Pushover curves wIth Various Sail Parameters

1600 -

1400
....J,:
...... -
-~
!
1200
\" fucd base
~
~ ..
1000
'," ..... I,
I!
i
a
j 800
(~l
i'- .' ,i
~'/ i
JI~S

JI~S
.
'"~
600 'i,-~
/

1/,..",,-
""'- stiff s il I
!
,,
O~eAa13
400
i ". average s il !
,I
JaUJOJ
.i~~
, I
n~!6uO' 200
.' soft soil

o
. I,
0.00 '.00 10.00 15.00
RoorOllplacemeDt [inebes]

Figure 7.2,2. Transverse Pushover Curves with various Sail parameters

-
IAr:'Delndli]( A, Escondido Village Mldrlse A-39

•
----------------------'-----------------_ eslAPI
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

'sJ'
2000 ! 'z-,
1800
i nO!
sIle,
' \ 1.86". 1337 k
..,... - .. - .. - .. I
,

, ..- .
1600
lu!od
'\2.59". 1~37k. Sl1
\
., .' j
<
1400 U0!lll

i 'f'f IZ 1.. !
liL' ;:-
1200 S;l,
• I "-5.67". 1319k
11.
J 1000
I .. ~ 3.25" 1316k I
!'" 800
I// Y---- fuo dbase !
i
'UOp
seN
h(,~ stiffs il 1 S
600
!
i/'..~~,avera e soil
:: I
400
J,;:',I
II • ~s soil !j
200
.,1
I i
!
o
0.00 5.00 10.00 IS.00 JO t
RoofDllplacemeat {Inebel] nO!

Figure 7.2-S. Longitudinal pushover curves showing Hinge Formation 11lU!

at Main Basement Longitudinal Walls fW1S and W2S)

2000
v- 3.28".1455k I SP!<l'
1800 i
_.. ' !I
1600
~ 1.65".I225k
/ Ir 4.45 ".1494k
.
L.., - .- .. -". !

\ y:, ..L ., . ".- ' - - 10.33".1628 k ! ;II

. ,. ..
1400 ;
I •

,..
• I

'iLi
I •

/,i/ Y---- fuo d base ,,

1

,1~.z.,"-. stiffs n I
600

400
i/ ,..~~,avcm c soil
::
I
I
:,.'
200 '. I". ~s soil I
Ii l
~
o
0.00 5.00 10.00 IS.00

Figure 7.2-4. Longitudinal pushover curves showing Hinge Formation

at Basement stair #1 Walls

A-40 Appendix A. Escondido Village Midrise

-
-
laaay ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILOINGS
-----------------------------------------------------------

rallle 7.2,1. comparison of wall Flexural Yield poInts for Varying Soli Stlffnesses
SOft Soil I
; ....., drool.·.· .\~.." ~;'.V_.,. ·.drDDf .. ','··V.... .••.. drDDI ">11'..... .
'..•.•.. ' " . > . " .1" (iff.} '1' (kips} . ..' (In.,..' I·· (kips) . . .. flnJ. (kips) (In.) .. (kips)
LOngitudinal wailS 1.86 1337 2.59 1337 3.25 1316 5.67 1319
corner wails 2.33 1407 2.76 1388 3.16 1293 3.84 992
Elevator Core 1.70 1263 2.67 1362 3.63 1404 6.82 1439
stair #1 1.65 1225 3.28 1455 4.45 1494 10.33 1628
stair 62 2.10 1375 3.03 1449 4.04 1462 7.98 1534

2000
9.7".I600k \ r 11.0".I650k
1800
~\
'~'-"-"-L
9.3". 1620k
1600
, .. ;....
14.4". 1720 k ..J
-
1400
(
,.
•
!
I
"
; ,.. /

~ 1200 ,.
j 1000
/{/ I
•
:
I

!'" 800
Il/~M d base
600
/!/,,~ stiffs il
400
/!.;i~~.vera esoil
200
iN.'
1/ •
'. I
~sc ft soil
ji
o
0.00 '.00 10.00 IS.CO
RoofDllplacement [Inchel]

Figure 7.2·S. longItudinal pushover Curves ShowIng performance Points

Figure 7.2-5 shows the pushover curves for and nonstructural elements. For the modified
the various longitudinal models with their Escondido Village Midrise buildings, only the
corresponding performance points as determined comer basement walls at the basement experience
by the Methodology. As shown, it is apparent that compression failure within the expected
performance points for models with softer soils are performance points for the cases with average and
further out on the pushover curves soft soil stiffnesses. The compression failure at
With larger expected roof displacements at the toes of comer walls occurs at approximately 10.3"
performance point for softer soils, larger and 11.5" for the average soil and soft soil
deformation demands will be placed on structural models, respectively. No walls experience
-,
Appenalx A. Esconalao Village Mldrlse A-41
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

compression failures for the fixed base and stiff
soil models.
Additional lateral deformations throughout the
building due to softer soils will also result in the
building's inability to satisfy required performance
objectives. In the fixed base case, the building
satisfies the Methodology's Immediate Occupancy
Objective when based on the maximum drift. (The
building satisfies the Life Safety Objective when
based on the inelastic drift.) On the other hand, the
soft soil case can only meet the maximum drift
requirements for the Life Safety Objective. It can
be inferred that perhaps for other buildings, stiffer
soil assumptions may result in satisfaction of
higher performance objectives as compared to the
same building with softer soils. (Note that the
example models evaluated here meet the
Methodology's Life Safety Objective only because
of the inelastic drift requirements.)
It was previously shown that the shear critical
columns at the first floor and basement levels
req~ir~d strengthening to satisfy the Life Safety
ObJective. Because of larger interstory drifts at all
levels with the soft soil assumption, additional
columns in floors above the first floor would
require .strengthening. The beam supports would
be required regardless.
7.3 Comparisons with Inelastic
Tlme·Hlstory Analysis
A series of time-histories were ran for the
fixed base (no basement wall spring) model as well
as the average soil stiffness (no basement wall
spring) model. For average soil stiffness, the
Methodology predicts a maximum roof
displacement of 17.7" which is substantially larger
than the 9.72" calculated as the average for the
time-history analysis. A comparison of
time-history average demands and Methodology
demands at the basement level of main longitudinal
walls (WJ3 and W23) is shown in Table 7.3-1.
The overturning moment at the longitudinal walls
calculated by the Methodology compares well with
that calculated from the time-history analysis.
However, the shear at these walls as calculated by
Table 7.~1. Comparison Of Time-History Average 7
Demands and Methodology Demands (with
Average So/I stiffness) at Basement Level of Main
LongitudInal Walls fW1S and W2SJ
st
CI
Time·Hlstory 1280 364,000
•
Average
•
Table 7.S·2. Comparison Of Time-History Average
•
Demands for Fixed Base and Average soli
Models at Basement Level Of Main Longitudinal
walls fW1S and W2SJ
I
I.
the Methodology is approximately 30 percent of
the time-history average value. As previously
noted in Section 6.3 of this report, the longitudinal
walls do not yield in flexure or shear at this level
2.
of demand. Consequently, the apparent
discrepancy in the Methodology is not considered
critical in determining the overall building
behavior.
Table 7.3-2 presents the shear and overturning 3
moment demands for the time-history averages of
the fixed base model and the average soil stiffness
model. As shown, the shear demand in the fixed
base model is larger than that in the average soil
4
model. This is consistent with the fact that a more
rigid structure would attract more lateral loads. It
is interesting to note that the fixed base
overturning moment is slightly lower than the
average soil overturning moment. This indicates 5
that higher mode effects are more dominant in a
structure with a flexible base. Also note that the
maximum roof displacements are 7.26" and 9.72"
for the fixed base model and the average soil
model, respectively.

A-42 APpendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

-
verage 7. 4 conclusions • Additional structural and nonstructural
~ Based on limited analysis of varying soil elements will fail with softer soils because of
alMaln larger deformation demands for the same
stiffness and yield strength, the following
conclusions were made: design earthquake.
'i!menf • Soil stiffness controls a building's initial • Higher mode effects were increased with a
~ stiffness until major structural components more flexible foundation.
start to yield. • Desired performance levels may not be
• Walls tend to yield at larger roof reached as foundation assumptions became
, displacements as foundation assumptions more flexible.
became more flexible.
• Roof displacement and base shear at the
'verage expected performance point for a design
earthquake typically increases as soils became
Idinal less stiff.

8. References
I. Woodward-Clyde-Sherard & Associates, 6. Gilbert, Forsberg, Diekmann, Schmidt;
Report: "Soil Investigation for the Married Structural Drawings. "Stanford University
ent of Student's Housing Project Stanford Married Student Housing" December 15,
Isly University, Stanford, California", January 1961
gitudinai 27, 1958 7. Gilbert, Forsberg, Diekmann, Schmidt;
is level
2. Abbot A. Hanks, Inc., Report "Foundation Structural Drawings. "Stanford University
Investigation for Married Student Housing Escondido Village Increment 2" April 1,
lsidered
Increment 2 Buildings 134, 135, & 136 1964
Stanford University", March 16, 1962 8. Campbell & Wong & Associates;
murning 3. Gribaldo, Jones and Associates, Report Architectural Drawings; "Stanford
rages of "Foundation Investigation for Escondido University Escondido Village Increment 2"
stiffness Village, Increment III; Stanford, California", April 1, 1964
~ fixed October, 1970 9. Meserve Engineering; Letter Report "Barnes
ge soil Hall Slab Cracking"; October 27, 1989
t a more 4. Gribaldo, Jones and Associates, Report "Soil
loads. It Investigation for Escondido Village, 10. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. "Evaluation
Increment IV; Phases I & II Stanford, of Site Response and Design Earthquake
1 the
California", July, 1970 Ground Motions, Stanford Urtiversity, Palo
dicates 5. Gribaldo, Jones and Associates, Report "Soil Alto, California" December 2, 1991.
nt in a Investigation for Escondido Village, 11. Building Seismic Safety Council;
hat the Increment V; Stanford, California", FEMA-178, "NEHRP Handbook for the
nd 9.72" February, 1969 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,"
soil June 1992.

Ie Mldrlse Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse A·45

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
12. Department of the Army, The Navy, and The
Air Force. "Techriical Manual for Seismic
Design Guidelines for Essential Buildings
TM-5-809-10, NAVFAC P-355.2, AFM
88-3" 1986.
13. American Concrete Institute. "Building Code
Requirements for Reinforced Concrete - ACI
318-92" Chicago, IL. 1992.
14. Prakash, V.; Powell, G.H.; and Fillipou,
F.C., "DRAIN-2DX" Report No.
UCB/SEMM-92/30, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, December 1992.
15. Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Report: "Soil
Spring Evaluations - Escondido Midrise
Buildings" February, 1994.
16. Newmark, N.M. "Dynamic Response of
Structures to Earthquakes" EERI, 1980.
17.
Moehle J.P. and Wallace J. W. "BIAX: A
Computer program for the Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Sections" Department
of Civil Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, Report No.
UCB/SEMM-89/12, July 1989.
18. Merovich A. and Zsutty T.C.: "Boundary
Element Behavior in Shear Walls".
Proceedings of the Structural Engineers
Association of California 1993 Annual
Meeting. Scottsdale, AZ.
A-44
19. International Conference of Building
Officials. "Uniform Building Code"
,.
20.
Whittier, CA. 1991.
Iwan, W.O. "Estimating Inelastic Response
I
Spectra from Elastic Spectra". Journal of E
Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics. Vol. 8. 1980. L
21. Computers and Structures Inc. "ETABS-
Three Dimensional Elastic Analysis of PI
Building Structures". Berkeley, CA.
22. Aboutaha, S.M., Engelhardt, M., Jirsa, J.~.
and Kreger, M.E. "Seismic Retrofit of RIC
Columns with Inadequate Lap Splices" 1994
ASCE Structures Congress, Atlanta Georgia.
23. Aboutaha, S.M., Engelhardt, M., Jirsa, J.~.
and Kreger, M.E. "Seismic Shear
Strengthening of RIC Columns Using
Rectangular Steel Jackets" 1994 University
of Texas, Austin.
24. Aboutaha, S.M., Engelhardt, M., Jirsa, J.~.
and Kreger, M.E. "Seismic Retrofit of RIC
Columns Using Steel Jackets". Proceedings
of the 1994 American Concrete Institute
spi-ing Convention. San Francisco, Ca.
25. Priestly, M.J.N., Seible, F. "Seismic
Assessment and Retrofit of Bridges" ,
Department of Applied Mechanics and
Engineering. University of California, San
Diego. July 1991. .
Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse
~
,
--------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~ --------------------------------------------------------------

IlPpendlx B

;ponse
Example Building Study
Iof Barrington Medical Center
II
LOS Angeles, California
3S -
f prepared by
Rutherford & Chekene
;a, J.O. 303 Second Street, Suite BOON
fRIC San Francisco, California 94107
" 1994
eorgia.
a, J.O.

!rsity

a, J.O.
fR/C
dings
te

San

~Idrlse: Appendix B. Barrington Medical center a-'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents
I. Introduction .................................................................................................. B-5
1.1 Intent of Example Building Study ........................................................ B-5
1.2 Scope of Example Building Study ........................................................ B-5
1.3 Summary of Findings ...................................................................... B-5
I. 4 Update ........................................................................................ B-6
2. Building and Site Description ............................................................................. B-9
2.1 General ....................................................................................... B-9
2.2 Structural Systems and Members ...................................................... B-lO
2.3 Soil and Seismicity ....................................................................... B-lO
3. Preliminary Evaluation .................................................................................. B-lO
3.1 Summary .................................................................................... B-lO
3.2 FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements ..................................................... B-ll
3.3 Elastic Analysis ........................................................................... B-12
4. Evaluation by Product 1.2 Methodology .............................................................. B-12
4.1 Summary ................................................................................... B-12
4.2 Scope ....................................................................................... B-13
4.3 Structure Modeling ....................................................................... B-13
4.4 Pushover Analysis ........................................................................ B-18
4.5 Identifying Limit States on the Capacity Curve ...................................... B-21
4.6 Determination of Demand and Performance Point. ................................. B-23
4.7 Performance Assessment ................................................................ B-26
5. Conceptual Retrofit Designs ............................................................................ B-28
5.1 Performance Objectives ................................................................. B-28
5.2 Selection of Retrofit Elements .......................................................... B-28
5.3 Comparative Evaluation by Product 1.2 Methodology ............................. B-31
6. Assessment of the Product 1.2 Methodology ......................................................... B-32
6.1 Damage Prediction ....................................................................... B-32
6.2 Comparison with Preliminary Evaluation Findings ................................. B-34
6.3 Comparison with Inelastic Time-History Analysis .................................. B-34
7. References ................................................................................................. B-36

Appendix B. Barrington Medical center a·J

,...------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~---------------------------------------------------------------
APpendix B
Example Building Study
Barrington Medical Center
LOS Angeles, California
1. Introduction
1.1 Intent of Example Building study
Product 1.2 of the Proposition 122 Seismic
Retrofit Practices Improvement Program, entitled
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Concrete Buildings, is referred to here as the
Methodology. Example Building Studies were
executed primarily to "test" draft versions of the
Methodology and to provide feedback to its
developers.
This study also illustrates techniques described
in the Methodology and attempts to convey the
scope of work and the level of engineering
judgment involved in evaluating an actual
building. However, since the study ignores some
Methodology requirements for brevity, it does not
represent a complete evaluation or retrofit design.
This report assumes that readers are familiar with
the basic Methodology scope and terminology.
This study was completed by Rutherford &
Chekene in several phases, in parallel with
development of the Methodology. This report
describes work done in the last phase, in
March-April 1996. Some references to the latest
Methodology requirements, equations, or scope
may be out of date. Section 1.4 updates principal
results to the latest Methodology requirements.
1.2 scope of EXample Building study
This study presents the evaluation and
conceptual retrofit design of an actual concrete
building in Los Angeles, following the
recommendations of the Methodology. Topics
include:
Appendix B. Barrington Medical center
• Preliminary evaluation (Section 3 of this
report)
• Modeling, analysis, and assessment by
nonlinear pushover analysis (Section 4)
• Conceptual retrofit (Section 5)
In addition, Section 6 of this report provides a
limited assessment of the Methodology.
Practical implementation of pushover analysis
is also discussed. Issues include:
• Idealizations and simplifications (Section 4.3
of this report)
• Modeling shear-critical components
(Section 4.4.3)
• Modeling stiffness and strength degradation
(Section 4.4.4)
• "Effective" yield point for performance point
calculation (Section 4.6.4)
1.3 summary of Findings
This study confirms the anticipated value of
the Methodology as an analytical tool. Compared
with conventional elastic analysis, the
Methodology provides a more complete
description of expected structural performance,
allowing and encouraging better understanding by
the engineer. Except in rare cases where elastic
analysis clearly reveals exceptionally good or bad
behavior, such an understanding is essential, and a
nonlinear Methodology is worthwhile.
The Methodology is valuable even where it
relies on judgment or approximation, as it demands
explicit consideration of expected inelastic
response. Though software limitations and
8-5
 SEISMIC EVALUATION ANO RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

bookkeeping requirements may make the assumptions or approximations. For this Bal
Methodology more difficult to implement than example building, acceptability was heavily an
elastic analysis, these hurdles will certainly be influenced by assumed soil type, assumed bel
lowered with time and widespread usage. foundation properties, and deformation limits dUl
Specifically, the Methodology can be assessed sensitive to assumed building conditions. COl
by comparing its results with other perfonnance Judgment and "envelope" techniques should be bel
estimates (see also Section 6): applied where equally reasonable assumptions is ~

• The Methodology's modeling rules adequately yield very different conclusions.

predicted the exterior column damage observed spe
after the Northridge earthquake. (Interior walls 1.4 Update dis
were not inspected after the earthquake.) Some Methodology requirements have been em
significantly revised since this study was first Fi~
• Evaluation Statements, supported by del
executed. This Section briefly discusses the most
engineering experience and to a lesser extent soi
critical changes.
by elastic static analysis, probably would have pel
led to a retrofit scope similar to that indicated 1.4.1 Modeling is :
by the Methodology's inelastic pushover The Methodology now includes an explicit 4.S
analysis. However, the pushover analysis discussion of techniques for modeling degradation spe
provides a more detailed understanding of in its Section 8.2.1. The recommended technique, dis
expected building and component resulting in a "sawtooth" composite curve, is very typ
performance. Additionally, the Methodology similar to the approach taken for this study Co
addresses the relative significance of potential (described in Section 4.4.4), although there may chi
damage (by defining multiple performance be some minor differences. The previously
levels) and discusses retrofit approaches. determined capacity curves are assumed to comply pel
• Limited time-history analysis suggests that with the latest Methodology requirements. ori
pushover analysis can overestimate de!
displacement and underestimate base shear.
1.4.2 Del'lvlng Pel'fol'mance Points on
See Section 6.3 for further discussion. The Methodology offers several different inc
procedures for deriving bilinear capacity curves, 75'
Key findings regarding implementation of the
performance points, and/or target displacements. the
Methodology are also worth noting here. Each is
Among these are the displacement coefficient rel!
discussed more fully in the text below. These
method and the capacity spectrum method (CSM). 2iJ
findings are not intended as criticism of the
This study originally used a hybrid of what are
Methodology. Rather, they should remind the
now called Procedures A and B of the CSM. poi
prospective engineer that better analytical tools do
Updated performance points tabulated below were del
not remove the need for engineering judgment and
careful work. derived with Procedure A. Also, the revised am
Methodology now specifies use of the most Ag
• Substantial engineering judgment may be appropriate yield point for the bilinear gO(
required in applying modeling rules and representation. This corresponds to the
deformation limits. hig
"subsequent yield" discussed in Section 4.6.4. bel
• Engineering judgment and approximation may The most significant revision to the CSM dis
be required where available software can not involves assignment of Structural Behavior Types pre
directly model anticipated behavior. and corresponding Damping Modification Factors Wit
(lC) and Spectral Reduction Factors (SRA and SRv).
• Some of the Methodology's demand and
capacity estimates may be sensitive to With reference to Methodology Table 8-4,

B-G APpendix B, Barrington Medical Center Api

~
r ---------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

s Barrington Medical Center would be classified as Table 1.4·1. Changes In Design Earthquake
lvily an "Average Existing Building" and assigned performance point displacements due to
ed behavior type B or C depending on expected Methodology revisions finches}
limits duration of shaking. If retrofit, it might be . .••..••• COndition···· 'Behavlor' From TO
,l. considered an "Essentially New Building" with original building
lould be behavior type A or B. (Note that the behavior type Fixed Base
lptions is assigned on the basis of primary elements only.)
Soil Type B B 2.7 3.4
With corresponding K values and limits on
spectral reduction, performance point C 2.7 4.7
displacements increase significantly, in many cases Soil Type 0 B 5.4 8.1
,een enough to affect acceptability. For example, C 5.4 12
st Figure 4.6-4 below shows the performance point Soft Foundation
most derivation for the fixed-base original building on Soil Type B B 3.6 5.0
soil type D in a Design Earthquake. The
C 3.6 6.4
, performance point spectral displacement, dp or Sd,
Soil Type 0 B 7.2 10
is 3.45 inches, and the actual roof displacement is
cit 4.9 to 5.4 inches (see Table 4.6-2). With limited C 7.2 14
dation spectral reduction, however, this expected roof RetrOfit Building
lique, displacement increases to 8.1 inches with behavior Fixed Base, A 2.0 3.0
s very type B or about 12 inches with behavior type C. Soil Type 0
Comparison with Figure 4.4-2 suggests that such a B 2.0 4.8
may change can have significant impacts. soft Foundation A 4.3 5.4
Table 1.4-1 summarizes the increases in Soil Type 0
omply performance point roof displacements for both the B 4.3 6.7
original building and the retrofit building
described in Section 5. For the original building
on soil type B, Methodology revisions have
increased displacements by 1 to 3 inches (25 to
yes, 75%) depending on behavior type. On soil type D,
!nts. the increase is 3 to 7 inches (50 to 120%). For the
t retrofit building on soil type D, the increase is 1 to Table 1.4·2, comparison Of Design Earthquake
:SM). performance pOint displacements calculated by
2 inches (30 to 100%). various methods (Drlglnal building only) finches/
Ie Table 1.4-2 compares the updated performance
point displacements (Table 1.4-1) with those
were derived using the displacement coefficient method
and the equal displacement approximation.
Agreement between the three methods is very
good for soil type B, but the CSM appears to give
higher values for soil type D. Also, structure
behavior types B and C lead to CSM
displacements significantly higher than those
ypes predicted by displacement coefficients, especially
ctors with soil type D (12" vs. 5.5", 14" vs. 9.5").
SRv).

:enter Appendix B. Barrington Medical center a-7

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Note that Framing Type 2 was used for the
displacement coefficient calculations; if Type I had
been assumed, the predicted displacements would
be 10% higher, still significantly less than those
predicted by the CSM.
1.4.8 performance Assessment
Given revised performance point displacements
in Table 1.4-1, the assessments and retrofit
requirements in Section 4 must be reviewed. Many
conclusions have changed. Table 1.4-3 summarizes
the revised conclusions with reference to report
sections below. Clearly, the revised Methodology is
more conservative than the earlier versions with
which this study was originally conducted. Note that
the effects of Methodology revisions have been
checked for the Design Earthquake only.
Table 1.4-$. Changes In performance
assessments due to MethodoltIIIY revisions
(check olllle saFety performance In Design
Earthquake onlyl
1.4.4 Retrofit Requirements
With the updated performance assessments
come updated retrofit requirements. These are
summarized in Table 1.4-4, with references to
report Section 5 below.
1.4.5 Methodology Assessment
Section 6.3 and Figure 6.3-1 below note that for
the soft-foundation model on soil type D, the
reported Design Earthquake performance point
was higher than those predicted by inelastic
time-history analysis but was still near the
mean-plus-one-standard-deviation of 14
time-history results. By contrast, the updated
performance point displacement (10 to 14 inches
per Table 1.4-1) exceeds the mean time-history
result by two or three standard deviations. This
Table 1.4-4. Changes In retrofit requirements
due to MethodolOflY revIsions (desilln lor soli
0 ..'",,, onlyl

4.7.2 columns: ok with Column performance is
soli type B, not ok with not ok with either soli
soli type D. type. Exception: barely
ok for fixed-base mOdel
on soli type BIf behavior
B Is assumed.
4.7.2 Walls: limit of 5 Barely ok with soli type B
Inches Ok for all cases: 14.7' vs. 5'); not ok with
soli type D IS' or 12' vs.
5').
4.7.2 Pile slip: soil type soli type B: .70-1.0', soli
B: .25-.50', soli type D: type D: 2-4', depending
1.0-1.25'. on assumed behavior
type. With 4' Slip, pile
mOdel Is suspect.
4.7.3 5011 type B unreliable and
deficiencies: unreliable unacceptable ext. frame
exterior frame columns columns. walls
only. marginally acceptable.
4.7.3 5011 type D Walls unacceptable;
defiCiencies: Walls other deficiencies same.
marginally acceptable.
5.1 Original building wails not ok. Columns
meets Economic not ok.
objective. only soli type dis
D considered. val
Table 5.1-1, Flxed·base same, but tighter rec
model wi either requirement on frame bel
column deformation. me
Table 5.1-1, Flxed·base Add: limit deformation
his
model WI Economic In frame columns; (i.€
Objective Strengthen or add
wailS. bel
Table 5.1-1, 50ft-Fdn confirm pile model. am
model WI Economic bel
objective bui
5.3 Check retrofit on Fixed base Ok assuming
soli type Bagainst behavior A13.0" vs. 3.S"),
column L5 deformation not ok assuming
limit: fixed base easily behavior B14.S' VS. 3.8").
ok, soft foundation Soft foundation not Ok
I I 15.4-6.7" vs. 4.2").
5.3 Beams adjacent to Not checked.
retrofit Inflll panels ok.

a-8 Appendix B, Barrington Medical Center Api

--- r ----------------------------------------------------
--- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~----------------------------------------------------

Its
'e .,- ----------[-----------i
:0 (ElINFlll PANEL. EDGE OF 2ND I
TYP, AT J PIfCES FLOOR ROOf ~
, ,,
l--+--+--t--------@----@----.
. , .. ,,
for 20'-5" ,,
,
nt
104'-0"
20'-5"

}-+-+-...... ----.-.,-.-.
i i i

!
ckl' ·-t·-·-·--~·· --~--.-.-
ELEVATOR •
!

•
!

;
20'-5"
! ~ ! ! ([)8" WAll
:hes ! ! ! ! G~OUP, TYP.
'ry 8}-+--+-.. ·-·-·-·-·~N~·~~:;t~:·-·-~·-·-·-·-i·-·-·-·-~·-·-· -.-.
lis
21'-4\1. i TYP. FRAME C'olU~N: 12"x42" I ! !
! TYP. FRAME BEAM (NOr SHOWN): 8"x84" !

~s
22'-4" 21'-6" 21'-6" 21'-6" 21'-6" 22'-4"
,1/

-
1~tfl,~
130'-8"

Figure 2.1·1. Plan of OrigInal BuIlding

ns
discrepancy arises from pushover analysis with K 2. Building and Site
values significantly less than 1.0 and from spectral Description
reduction limits imposed on buildings with
me behavior type B or C. Even if a structure is
n. 2.1 General
modeled with degraded strength and stiffness, time
tion Prior to its demolition in 1994, Barrington
history analysis with DRAIN-2DX assumes full
Medical Center was a six-story reinforced concrete
(Le. not pinched) hysteresis loops associated with
office building in West Los Angeles. Although the
behavior type A. Therefore, such time history
building footprint was rectangular, a substantial
analyses may not account adequately for the poor
setback of the northeast comer above the second
behavior expected from some existing concrete
floor resulted in the L-shaped plan shown in
buildings.
Figure 2.1-1. The building had a 17-ft first story
ling (plus 1'-10" to top-of-pile cap), five 12·ft stories,
3.8"),
a small (about 2000 sf), light penthouse with steel
3.8"), diagonal braces, and no basement.
tok Barrington Medical Center was designed in
1963. Damage sustained during the Northridge

-
:enter Appendix B. Barrington Medical center
Earthquake of January, 1994 is described in
Section 6.1. No records of damage from previous

B·9
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

earthquakes were available for this study, but the exterior spandrel beams were deep, they shortened dist
building is assumed to have been in good condition and stiffened the exterior columns. Bec
at the time of the Northridge earthquake. Further, the strength and stiffness of piles los!
Documents available to this study are listed under relative to the walls they supported is unclear. as-t
References. Original calculations and drawings do Finally, the L-shaped typical floor may have given Stat
not cite a specific building code. rise to torsional force distributions. defi
con
2.2 structural Systems and Members Materials
Barrington Medical Center was constructed of • Specified 28-day concrete strength: 3000 psi 3.2
cast-in-place concrete. Typical elements included: for slabs, beams, columns, walls, and grade
beams; 2500 psi for pile caps and piles exi~
Gravity load-Resisting System (see Stat
Figure 2.1·1) • Reinforcing was called out as "intermediate
all'
grade deformed bars. "
• 7 1/4" two-way flat slabs carrying floor loads Fall
to walls, frames, and columns· apl
2.3 Soli and Seismicity
FEI
• 8-inch wall groups at stairs and elevators The original soil report shows "moderately
• Perimeter frames of deep rectangular spandrel firm" sands and silts to a depth of about twenty Stat
beams and columns feet, with somewhat firmer sands below and no accl
water encountered for fifty feet. The description is anal
• Round interior columns with 4-foot diameter consistent with Uniform Building Code Soil Type
capitals defi
S2: "dense or stiff soil." The 1963 report does not rest
• Under interior columns and walls, pile caps address site seismicity. Located at the intersection wer
and friction piles 26 to 43 feet long of Olympic and Barrington in West Los Angeles, FEI
• Under perimeter frames, grade beams and the building was about 5 km from the trace of the avai
36-foot long piles Newport-Inglewood fault in the COMO Beverly full
Hills quadrangle. . dra1
lateral load-ResIsting system (see
Figure 2.1·1) :I. preliminary Evaluatlan indi
• Load-path: relatively rigid slabs, through shear
walls and frames, to foundation 3.1 summary Gel

• East-west direction: interior shear walls and

perimeter frames
• North-south direction: interior walls,
perimeter frames, and three perimeter frame
bays infilled to form de facto exterior walls
Structural calculations from 1963 show that
the shear walls and frames were both expected to
resist earthquake forces. However, the distribution
of forces and ultimate behavior of this building are
unclear from a visual review of drawings. The
interior shear walls were configured as stiff boxes,
but were lightly reinforced in some areas and were
softened by numerous openings. Because the
Methodology Chapter 5 recommends a
preliminary evaluation to determine if nonlinear
•
analysis is warranted. Such a preliminary
evaluation identifies potential deficiencies using
FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements and static •
elastic analysis. For Barrington Medical Center,
Evaluation Statements identify a number of
deficiencies in the original design. Some of
these-particularly poorly-confined, shear-critical
columns-require retrofit if structural damage in a
Los Angeles Design Earthquake is to be avoided.
Without substantial analysis, however, Evaluation
Statements are unable to predict aspects of actual
•
behavior such as elastic and post-yield force

B·1D Appendix B, Barrington Medical Center

L
~ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jrtened distributions, hinge patterns, or ductility demands.
Because it does not account for post-yield stiffness
es loss in perimeter frames, elastic analysis of the
If. as-built structure adds little to Evaluation
: given Statement findings and is still unable to quantify
deficiencies. The preliminary evaluation is thus
conclusive in a qualitative sense only.
) psi 3.2 FEMA·178 EValuation Statements
'ade FEMA-178 is a methodology for evaluating
existing structures by responding to Evaluation
Statements. When the appropriate Statements are
iate
all True, no analysis is required. When some are
False, elastic static analysis is used to determine if
a particular condition is a real seismic deficiency.
FEMA-178 force levels check life-safety only.
:ly For this study, FEMA-178 Evaluation
nty Statements are used for preliminary evaluation in
no accordance with Methodology Chapter 5. No
lion is analysis was performed to verify potential
Type deficiencies. No testing or field investigation
es not results were available. Non-structural elements
!clion were not considered. It is important to note that
!les, FEMA-178 evaluation relies heavily on the
fthe availability of design drawings; for this study, a
'rly
full set of original structural and architectural
drawings was available.
False FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements
on indicating potential seismic deficiencies include:
Ceneral
!ar
• Vertical Discontinuities. Elevator and stair
wall cores have significant setbacks,
discontinuities, and/or openings.
ng
• Torsion. If the exterior frames are weak or
shear-critical (as suggested by False
er,
Evaluation Statements below), the center of
rigidity after one frame yields is unclear. Also,
the L-shaped plan and full second floor
tical
complicate predictions of two-dimensional
>in a
response.
led.
ltion
:ual
• Shearing Stress Check. Depending on the
distribution of story shear between walls and
frame columns, shears under FEMA-178 loads
!nter Appendix B. Barrington Medical Center
may be significantly higher than 60 psi in
frame columns and 50 psi in shear walls.
Frames
• No Shear Failures. Exterior frame columns
with clear heights reduced to 5' -0" by deep
beams are probably shear-critical, but only if
the Methodology's shear capacity is used. That
is, the columns' nominal shear capacity, as
defined in FEMA-178, may be enough to
develop their flexural strength. The degrading
shear capacity defined in the Methodology,
however, indicates shear-critical behavior at
expected deformation levels.
• Strong Column/Weak Beam. Columns can
not develop the strength of deep frame beams.
• Detailing. Tie spacing, stirrup spacing, joint
reinforcing, and bar splices are all potential
deficiencies. Typical ties in columns and joints
are #2@12" and are drawn (but not specified)
with 135-degree hooks. No special ties are
provided at hinge regions, joints, or splice
zones.
• Flat Slab Frames. Slabs have #5 bottom bars
spliced over columns. With typical column
capital, however, splice is two feet from
critical section at edge of capital.
Shear Walls
• Wall Overturning. Interior core wall hll
ratios exceed 4.
• Coupling Beams. Effective coupling beams
over wall openings are not specially
reinforced.
• Confmement Reinforcing. Boundary elements
have only typical ties: #2@12".
• Reinforcing Steel. Typical wall steel ratio
(#4@12"e.w.) is less than .0025.
• Reinforcing at Openings. Typical detail calls
for only 2#5 trim bars around door openings.
Evaluation Statements requiring analysis or
field investigation for a complete response are
B-11
 SEISMIC I!VALUATION AND RI!TROFIT OF CONCRI!TI! BUILDINGS

conSidered Unknown. Among the Unknown

conditions are:
4. avaluatlon by Product
1.2 Methodology
•
• General pre-earthquake condition of concrete
Walls, columns, or frame components. 4.1 summary
•
• D~ft check. Drift is usually not an issue in Specific technical findings are given in Tables
bUIldings with concrete shear walls, but with 4.5-1 and 4.6-2. Deficiencies are summarized in
shear-critical frame elements, small drifts may Section 4.7.3. General assumptions, conclusions,
be Sufficient to cause damage. and lessons regarding the Methodology include: sub
• Stirrups and tie hooks. Bar details are drawn
with 135-degree hooks but do not specify hook
• Consideration of element inelasticity in the
structure model allows a more complete and
bey
eva
angles or extensions. useful understanding of expected performance pro
through a full range of lateral movement than eng
• FOUndation settlement or deterioration.
is generally available from linear elastic
• Lateral force on deep foundations. Pile 4.~
analysis.
bending and shear transfer to soil not checked.
• LiqUefaction potential. • Evaluation may be unable to satisfy some
Methodology requirements because of software
jus1
her
3.3 limitations. In particular, three-dimensional pre
Elastic Analysis inelasticity and multi-linear load-deformation invi
. Elastic analysis of existing buildings has been relations are difficult to model. EVI
wlde!y accepted because it is procedurally
consIstent with building code requirements for new • Engineering judgment is required to determine
an appropriate model scope. A full inelastic
in (
ana
construCtion. Elastic analysis can complement
model accounting for all potential failure mal
Evaluation Statement responses by predicting
modes is often unfeasible, but reduction to sei!
stresse.s and small deformations. Computerized
oversimplified "equivalent" models may miss
:malysls can also account for peculiar structural rep
key points of the Methodology.
Irregularities. However, elastic analysis does not ana
acco~~t for post-yield force redistribution or
ductIlIty demands. • Engineering judgment may be required where
building conditions are not directly addressed
pot
bas
For this study, a three-dimensional elastic by available modeling rules. In particular,
computer model, built and analyzed with ETABS
soft~are, was used only to assess potential
post-yield capacity of shear-critical and •
torsIOnal effects in the L-shaped structure.
degrading elements (likely to be found in
existing concrete buildings) is not fully
•
Member stresses were not checked. addressed. Over-simplified or careless •
When the elastic model is subjected to
east-w~St loads, torsional effects have no
modeling can cause misleading analysis
results.
•
ap~reclable effect on response and can reasonably
be Ignored. Loading in the north-south direction, • Engineering judgment may be required when
categorizing elements as "primary" or
•
however, indicates significant torsion. "force-controlled, " when setting deformation
limits, and when comparing limits to expected 4.!
performance point displacements. Relative
4.. ~
sensitivities, sources of uncertainty, and error
magnitudes must be considered.
nor
gen

a·12 Api
Appendix B, Barrington Medical Center
~ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
c:t • Assumed soil type can control the most basic
evaluation conclusions.
• Soil-structure interaction, represented by a
reasonable range of foundation models; can
abies significantly affect the global nature of
j in building performance.
ons, While the Methodology still requires
de: substantial engineering judgment, it goes well
le beyond the practical limits of linear elastic
md evaluation procedures. Also, the Methodology
lance provides for a peer review process as a check on
than engineering judgment.
scope
4.2
The complete Methodology involves more than
just the nonlinear pushover analysis described
ftware ' here. Methodology Chapter 5 recommends a
lal preliminary evaluation including field
:tion investigation, material testing, execution of
Evaluation Statements, and limited elastic analysis
rmine in order to determine the need for nonlinear
tic analysis. For this study, field investigation and
material testing were not possible, and site-specific
:0 seismology data was not available.
miss Preliminary evaluation (see Section 3 of this
report) suggested that a nonlinear pushover
analysis to quantify wall-frame interaction and
'here
potential column failure may be warranted. The
ssed
basic steps of a pushover analysis are:
• Structure modeling (Section 4.3 of this report)
• Application of pushover forces (Section 4.4)
• Determination of limit states (Section 4.5)
• Determination of inelastic demand and
expected performance point (Section 4.6)
'hen • Assessment of building elements and systems
at the performance point (Section 4.7)
Ition
ected 4.3 structure Modeling
'e
!rror 4.s'1 SoFtware Considerations
For an existing building, the point of a
nonlinear pushover analysis is to assess conditions
generally avoided in new designs. Unfortunately,
:enter ' Appendix B. Barrington Medical center
these are often the same conditions ignored by
commercial analysis programs. The limitations of
currently available software can significantly affect
the level of effort required to model and analyze
the building, the nature of analysis results, and if
not understood by the engineer, the correctness of
analysis results as well. However, this does not
necessarily reflect on the value of the
Methodology; in time, more comprehensive
software will be available.
For this study, DRAIN-2DX was used for the
nonlinear pushover analysis. Among its limitations
relative to requirements of Methodology Chapter 9
are:
• No Inelastic Panel Elements. Walls subject to
potential flexural or shear yielding were
modeled as columns. See Section 4.3.4.
• No Shear-Critical Elements. Only flexural
yield can be simulated with a simple model,
but the Methodology requires consideration of
all relevant failure modes. See Section 4.4.3.
• No Degrading Elements. All yielding
elements maintain their strength, but the
Methodology requires degrading for some
elements with high ductility demands. See
Section 4.4.4.
• Limited Post-Yield Behavior. Upon yielding,
the program modifies flexural stiffness only,
not flexural strength on subsequent cycles
(degrading), shear strength or stiffness, or
axial strength or stiffness.
• Two-Dimensional Framing Only. As noted
above, the east-west direction is reasonably
approximated by two-dimensional models, but
a two-dimensional study of north-south loading
would require special modifications to account
for torsion. Methodology Commentary 9.3
questions the utility of three-dimensional
inelastic analyses.
• Limited Model Size. The Methodology
recommends modeling joints, stairs, gravity
framing, and other elements of uncertain
rigidity, but this quickly increases model size
a-13
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
and analysis time. Also, premature failure
modes such as shear can be modeled with
multiple elements in series, but this can double
the model size.
• No Graphics OR Post-Processing. This
affects the efficiency of the analysis.
Other Methodology requirements that are
handled by DRAIN-2DX but might not be in other
software packages include:
• P-delta effects or geometric stiffness
modifications.
• Unlimited range of rigid end offsets.
• Explicit modeling of shear stiffness (but not
shear yield) in primarily flexural elements.
• Eigen solution at any point of the pushover
4.s'2 Materials
Material test results were not available for this
study, so strength data was taken from available
design documents. Structural materials were
modeled with the following assumptions:
• Existing concrete strength: 3600 psi = 3000
psi design strength factored by I. 2 to reflect
higher in-situ values (See Methodology
Commentary 5.4.4.1.) The 1.2 value is a
matter of engineering judgment only.
• Concrete Young's modulus, E = 3400 ksi.
The value reflects the increased strength.
• Ultimate compression strain (per Methodology
Section 9.5.2.2 and Commentary 9.5.4.2):
. 005 for most elements, .003 for poorly
confined boundary zones subject to high
compression.
• Existing reinforcing strength: 40 ksi.
(Methodology table 9-2 indicates a strength of
60 klii for "intermediate grade" bars. The use
of 40 klii was an error left uncorrected.)
• Reinforcing strength increases: 25 percent per
Methodology Section 9.5.4.1, ignoring the
40 percent increase recommended in
Section 9.5.4.2.
B-14
• Reinforcing rupture strain: .05. Refer to
Methodology Figure 9-8.
• Initial stiffnesses: Per Methodology table 9-3
with two exceptions per Section 9.5.3
Commentary. First, no reduction from gross
stiffness for shear-critical frame columns.
Second, reduction by .75 factor, not .50, for
frame beams expected to stay below yield.
4.8.8 structural Systems
Three-Dimensional Effects. Only the
east-west lateral load-resisting system was
modeled for this study, in part due to software
limitations. Elastic analysis confirmed that torsion
is reasonably ignored for east-west loads.
However, torsion may be more significant than
elastic analyses indicate because the perimeter •
frames are brittle; if frames on opposite sides of
the building yield at different times, the system
could become subject to torsion. Even without
torsion, bi-directional effects (ignored here) should
be considered in a real building evaluation. These grie
eaSi
could affect corner columns, corners of wall
assemblies, and the perimeter frame columns Mel
which have little strength out of plane. as t
"eq
Idealized Fixity. Rigid diaphragms were
con
assumed. This simplifies the model by reducing
the number of elements and degrees of freedom. gra'
mOl
For a long narrow floor plate, this assumption
might be inadequate. The small piece of slab
pari
between the reentrant corner at grid D-4 and the
nearby stair shaft is an area of potential concern Sec
bay
whose strength should be confirmed by hand .
thrf
Other idealized fixity assumptions included:
mOl
• Horizontal translation fixed for all ground
floor nodes, assuming infinite soil stiffness. 4.3
• For fixed-base models, all walls and columns
fixed at ground floor against rotation and
vertical translation. loae
stue
• For foundation models, bottom end nodes of rela
piles fixed, otherwise ground floor nodes free Lin
in rotation and vertical translation. In ~
wit!
Appendix B, Barrington Medical Center
~
f --------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---------------------------------------------

--. .. --
Ie 9-3 1 1
...
gross
"C
I
I
"C
• • ...
ca ca
IS.
0
I

..9 •

!L-""
l, for ...J I

I
Id.
. - --
I

- I
I
-- -~
I
0 0
Deformation Deformation
are Figure 4.S·1. toad'Deformatlon Relations for Deformatlon'Controlled and DegradIng Elements
torsion Methodology RecommendatIon {•• •J and Model SImplificatIon {-J

han 9.5.5.7, using the material idealizations listed

• Beam-column joints rigid and infinitely strong
ter above. Most elements were modeled with a yield
over full beam depth and column width. (For
~s of overshoot tolerance of 5-10 percent in accordance
shorter beams, Methodology Section 9.4.3.2
tern might have applied.) with Methodology Commentary 8.2.1. Unique
)ut modeling aspects included the following.
should Secondary Elements. Gravity framing along
grid lines B, C, D, and E was modeled as Beams. No provision was made for hinges
These within the beam span, but this was adequate for
I east-west slab-column frames in accordance with
Methodology Section 9.4.2.2. Slabs were modeled this building where column hinging limited beam
IS forces to less than yield. Because the beams were
as beams framing directly into columns; that is,
"equivalent frame" stiffnesses from ACI were not fairly deep, shear stiffness was included. Shear
'e strength of each beam type was computed per
cing computed. Some later models eliminated the
gravity framing on line E in order to reduce the Methodology Section 9.5.4.3; a value of k = 1
iom. was used because beams were expected to remain
on model to an executable size.
Nonstructural elements such as stairs and essentially elastic. In each case, the shear strength
b was found sufficient to develop the full yield
i the partitions were not modeled, despite Methodology
Section 9.3.1. Had there been solid infills of frame strength of the beam in reverse curvature, so
cern careful monitoring of beam shears during pushover
:I. bays in the east-west direction, as there were in
three north-south bays, these would have been was unnecessary. Although design drawings show
modeled as shear walls. longitudinal bars spliced within the column depth,
nd splice and development length were judged to not
less. 4.$.4 structural Elements and control beam strength.
lumns components Columns. Since columns were not loaded
d The Methodology cites a generalized within their clear height, hinging was anticipated
load-deformation relation in its Figure 9-15. This at member ends only. The column clear
study used a simplified elastic-perfectly plastic span-to-depth ratio was small, so inclusion of
es of relation; the "Lateral Resistance Deformation shear stiffness was essential. Flexural yield
's free Limit" was monitored by hand. See Figure 4.3-1. strengths were computed as for beams, and a yield
In general, elements were modeled in accordance curve accounting for P-M interaction was specified
with Methodology Sections 9.5.5.2 through for each column type.

center Appendix B. Barrington Medical center a-15

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
For each column type, shear capacity was
checked against the shear associated with flexural
yield. For typical frame columns, Methodology
equations 9-3 to 9-5 with k = 1 give a shear
capacity sufficient to develop the nominal moment
capacity. However, the columns are the first
components to yield and may be subject to high
ductility demands. If so, this would require the use
of k = 0 in the shear strength equations, reducing
the shear capacity and making the columns
shear-critical. In a large enough earthquake, then,
the columns may yield in flexure on one or two
cycles, then yield at a low shear value on
subsequent cycles as cracks open and shear
strength degrades. Refer to Section 4.4.4 of this
report.
. . Joints. Beam-column joints were modeled as
ngld zones, without separate model elements. Had
the columns been stronger in shear, it might have
been necessary to check the shear in the joint,
es.pe~ially considering that tie spacing is large
Within the panel zone. Note that separate modeling
of the joints would have increased the model size
substantially.
. Slabs. Two-way slab behavior was modeled
With one-way beam elements. Potential hinge
locations were limited to the face of column
capita\. Despite the recommendations of
Methodology Section 9.5.5.6, slab column
C?nn~ctions were not explicitly modeled; all slab
Yleldmg was limited to simple flexural yielding of
the Slab. This was considered appropriate because
the slab-column "frames" were secondary
elements that did not control overall performance.
Walls. Because DRAIN-2DX does not offer an
inelastic panel element, wall groups were modeled
as eqUivalent columns (see Figure 4.3-2). The
three wall groups at grid C-3, 0-3, and C-S.S
were modeled. For each variation in a wall
~roup's reinforcing and geometry, a P-M
mteraction diagram was developed with PCACOL
software. For some wall groups,
moment-curvature relations were also developed to
confirm that yield moments did not violate
assumptions of ultimate concrete or steel strain.
Lintel sections over stair and elevator doors
are expected to behave as (unintended) coupling
beams but are not properly reinforced. To account
for these conditions, the concrete and steel area .
input to PCACOL was limited to that which could
be developed by the lintel in shear. This resulted
in reduced model wall capacities that represented
potentially non-ductile failure modes. In general,
inelastic deformations in idealized model walls
must be checked for local effects at critical
locations such as openings. This building's walls
were found to be shear-critical, so it was not
necessary to consider local stresses associated with
flexural yielding.
Wall shear capacities were calculated by
Methodology equations 9-6 to 9-8, using a beta
value of 0.58. Capacities were such that,
depending on the interaction of walls and
perimeter frames at different stories, the wall
might have been controlled by shear, so careful will
monitoring of wall forces during pushover was moe
necessary. Where shear con trolled, wall flexural COUI
strength was modi fied to simulate a shear yield at moc
the proper stage of the pushover. Potential sliding 9.3,
failure along construction joints was not modeled; pre)
this deformation mode is expected to occur before to fI
wall shear capacity is reached, but is further suff
expected to stiffen or strain-harden, allowing sucl
development of wall nominal strength. is IT
The wall properties described above were perl
assigned to single equivalent columns at wall mee
centroids. To maintain deformation compatibility
with adjacent components, artificially rigid and inte
strong "outrigger" beams were provided (see pro'
Figure 4.3-2). As noted in the commentary to soft
Methodology Section 9.4.3.1, this equivalent COlT
column approach can be kinematically incorrect. prel
For this building, however, yielding was either Wer
shear controlled or concentrated in the piles. Also, and
walls are not rotationally linked to each other or to elas
other primary lateral load-resisting elements, so moc
the Methodology's concern was not prohibitive. on ~
Pile
AppendIx B, BarrIngton MedIcal tenter
~
f -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

14TH

~~
ain.
)ors ~ TRIBUTARY FLOOR 9'
ling LOAD + WALL
;COunt
3RD WEIGHT. TYP. :1. C1..l.
.rea ~ RIGID OUTRIGGER, ~4TH
could TYP.
2ND
Ilted 4-~9 ..l.

mted ~ EA H CORNER
EQUIVALENT COL.
.eral. CI~TYPE I, ETC
1ST
lis 8-~9
EA H CORNER
~alls
<~~~

:d with, x~ ~,~ 1ST

R '-'~>

eta
Figure 4.$·2. Idealization of Wall croup as Equivalent column

II Foundations. This study considered models with additional spring elements. Rotational
:ful with and without foundation elements. In some stiffness under shear walls did not require
las models, wall and column bases were fixed. In modeling because pile groups at each wall end
~ural counterpart models, foundation elements were provided rotational resistance as a couple.
eld at modeled in accordance with Methodology Sections
liding 9.3,9.3.2. and 9.4.6, and recommendations ,
ieled; prepared specifically for this study. It is important
Jefore to remember that the foundation model is not 0

sufficient to assess specific foundation components

,, such as piles; rather. foundation and soil stiffness f K = 2EA
L/
/'
~

'e
I
is modeled primarily to assess potential impacts on
performance of the superstructure and its ability to
meet given Performance Objectives.
E
ci.
0
!d.
V K =.5EAlL

~
bility
md
e
A range of model parameters for friction piles,
intended to envelope actual properties, was
provided as shown in Figure 4.3-3. Only the
(ij
!§
0
/iI Tenston capac tty
:0' soft-weak relation was fully analyzed for may be limned by
It comparison with fixed-base models. Results from bar strength.
rect. preliminary analyses with the stiff-strong relation Displacement
ler were about half way between the soft-foundation
Also, and the fixed base-models. Piles were modeled as Figure 4.$·$. Force-Displacement RelatIons for
elasto-plastic axial elements. Grade beams were Friction Plies (stlff·strong and SOft-Weak). ((hit
r or to
provided In soli report. see References.)
, so modeled as spanning between piles; direct bearing
ive. on soil was not modeled. Rotational stiffness of
pile groups under frame columns was modeled

center Appendix B, Barrington Medical center B-17

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

,Shape: IO!~ 0.00; 0.16 l.3 0.47 O.~ 1 i

,~a~__~4.f~~'. 8~~0~.OO~'~11.2~3.~
1~.~~2.67~1~.6II,~(M~~~~~1~8l.~5~~1~2~ o.n
. 79 __~4-~~~
1.45
:hape: ~ 0; l.OI:" ; i.() -,

Pl .. ,028
: = 01a

,"6f~106
..
i~::i .~ ~~"~'~::'Hr i~:: !:Ei~
4; o.oo,!

0.00; 1.'~: 1.66! 2.s8

:

3.584.61,4.5;
4.5~ 4~'·4.5E

17:60;;;;"'''''"'-·.-:

18.13:12.43
.
0.13

1-"· 2'·'!"~'0·e· "-·;····0:74

,
1.00 '

i-:- ...:-~,~'i-:--:-. ~. ~j-~

0.76.
..... "'1:4S:

;.461
;

;Shape: '.' 'O~~.' 0' 00: '1.01 .' .. . :

; =~, 6: 00': ' 4.51 4.56. 4.56: 0.1: 1.00
15ha1le:03b • EFf;;.7 00, 0.09. O. . 0.38 0.56 0:79. --,:Qi . , ,
~ ~ !, 6,1'=.7 "Ii:OO~ I 2.14 3.2E4.45: -4':51;.-'_1:.:61.=;..24·_..:.111;.::1.0:::.77:....1._"::::::~---':.::!!.~
0.69. '{4'7!
fShaP8: lOab ?iT=.9 o:oo:-o.oe O. 0.39 0.59 0.79, "1.iii .
!
3.3~· 4.4 4.51"---=
i
03b '·(f;;.9 0.00' 0.461 1.21 2.21 24 . -~-~II'"IC'"'.'2""3;"-"-.:·=+-·-·---~=J
16I.'.:d 0.611; 1.45'
,
i SShhaa~~':: ~,03b~~_~8
~. ~.,
, ~~•.I~.~~.OO~'
a . T=I. .00:. ~_~~~~'
l ~~)~.4
0.62~
'!j[T=2 ..
9.IT=2.11
!.3~... ~0~.61L~~+,~I~.0~I,·;==~~~t:
3.41 4] i! 4.56'16.n =J[!4==J~~t==Ig~i_
.00.' 0.23i
::[OOi 1.74,
11.57: 0.70.
).54 0.69 o.SSi --,:oc,
13.C! 3.91 4. it5l"--....::=
1.451
--.
201 . 2~4:......:,1:!.:41. 2::::;....:_::::
O~" __~:L_ ;:42.
-,
'ShaP&: i03br 3'T=7. o:Dii: 0.24! ["'"OM 0.70 0.15' TI' i .,.. . " ···1
.... .. .... ..' O:ibr .. .. 3t~7.4 . 0.00 . . i:8oi2.2~, . 3.07 i3:9:l·4.794.5i: "'20.39 .... 0.84 1.42:

Figure 4.4-1. spreadsheet calCulation of Changing Pushover Forces, alpha, and PF from clven Masses and
calculated First Mode shape, Flxed·/lase Model

4.8.5 Masses and cravlty Loads from separate analyses needed to capture
For pushover analysis, masses are needed only degradation effects in some elements. The
to derive mode shapes and pushover forces. following sections describe derivation of these
Because floor nodes were slaved together as curves.
assumed rigid diaphragms, only lumped floor
4.4.1 SoFtware Considerations
masses were needed for the eigensolution. Model
masses are shown in Figure 4.4-1. Solution strategies of different software
Conservative dead loads were applied to packages can affect analysis efficiency and, if not
appropriate model elements as gravity loads. The understood by the engineer, correctness of analysis
conservatism (estimated as 10-15 percent) is results. The first issue, as discussed in
expected to make up for exclusion of "Typical Methodology Section 8.2.1, involves a choice
Service Live Loads" recommended by between direct nonlinear analysis and a series of
Methodology Section 9.2. linear analyses. This study used DRAIN-2DX for
direct nonlinear analysis. The Methodology
4.4 pushover Analysis requires software capable of P-delta analysis and
Capacity curves resulting from the pushover eigensolution. Other useful features for pushover
analysis are shown in Figures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3. analysis, some of which are offered by
Each curve is actually the composite of curves DRAIN-2DX, include:

a-'8 Appendix B, Barrington Medical center. App

1
----..,.' r .------------------------------------------

-
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

3000
/'waIiO 3
Shear
WaY 10
I
oiLS
W.II~
I olSS
Wall sr
2500 Canae Iv I' J/\)~,
03br
~,d:'!-
=
. l&~
1:36 2' _<Ft c- pasO Max[
--;-.."
8 ~
"

1.43 ~ -7 Oe 6 Ma
't 2000
------y
1~45:
---:----.
'"
Ii
~
1500
~ {3b
W II Oe amatl n Limit
Tool ~ M chanls
"
10 =Irnme ~lal. 0 cupan y
~
--r---i Wan LS = Life afety
·····.. ···--f .t:
I~ Fn me Yield In SS = Stru tural S obllRy
1.46 (J) 1000
---:----., .," "" 'W"'W Pe ~ormar ~e Pol s. •
Gis '"
m Oe ~ = O. Ign EQ Max = Maxim mEQ
500
1".001
--1. N. e: Col mno. eluatac as Se ondary
Model 10 EI manta
1".47' 0
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10
Roof Displacement [in1

Figure 4.4'2. Annotated Capacity curve for Fixed·Base Model

(see Update section 1.4.2 regarding performance point displacements)
1.42:

1.42:

'and 3000

I
ColA
PII. , 1:ld /
Wall
Pile' 1.1 :;y !/all C·
lie Vie
./
$v-
Pu.
Mach "ism

,;
2500
2' l S
Ico
!se
0
0
"'.2000
,"
,
'icol L
-
"~.~--'
I~
'"
Ii I
." 0.s6 Max
"D';"4'0 MaxD
~ I 2,.113 14a
1500
~
lii I Da10 "",lion ImH.
if not , "
.t: J 10 = mmedla Ie Occ pancy
.'"
(J) 1000
Fn me LS = en. sa .'Y, .... = ".ru ItU18' :
malysis;,

ce
"
m
500
.' HI glng
Perla rmance Points

6=S 011 Ty," 6,0= SOIlT 'Pe 0

• ,~

!S of I
Mode 110 Colu"" seval ated a S.con dalY Eh menta
IX for 0
Note:

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10
land Roof Displacement [in1
lover
Figure 4.4·S. Annotated capacity curve for Soft·FOundatlon Model
(see Update Section 1.4.2 regarding performance point displacements)

Appendix B, Barrington Medical center a-,.

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

• Displacement controlled solution or other column degradation and resulting wall-frame

interaction). The wall flexural properties were then
I Ta,
co.
stability controls If

• Event-to-event strategies
revised so that "yield" would occur at the proper
stage of the pushover. Iien
• User-controlled yield tolerances or overshoot
factors 4.4.4 Modeling strength Degradation
In DRAIN·2DX
I
!,
Axl
• Graphics and data extraction tools for
post-processing Barrington Medical Center had potentially MO
shear-critical frame columns and walls. In lin'
4.4.2 Deriving and ApplyIng Pushover accordance with Methodology Sections 9.5.4.1 ShE
Forces and 9.5.4.3 Commentary, shear-critical columns
Pushover forces were derived in accordance (but not walls) are subject to degrading strength at Yle
with Methodology Section 8.2.1. First, the initial,
elastic mode shape was computed by DRAIN-2DX
and the value at each floor was multiplied by the
corresponding floor mass to derive an initial set of
moderate to high ductility demands. Degrading
behavior is reflected in Methodology equation 9-4
and Figure 9-11. As discussed in Methodology
Section 8.2.1, degrading components must be
-lin·

(rep
disp
floor forces (see Figure 4.4-1). Only the relative modeled different from ductile yielding
values of forces from one floor to another, not the first
components. When ductile components yield, they
absolute values, are important. The initial force secc
maintain their internal forces through additional
pattern is used throughout the pushover even as the floo
displacements. When degrading components yield
structure model yields and the first mode shape disp
and reach a critical ductility demand, they release
anOI
changes (refer to Methodology Section 8.2.1). For their internal forces to adjacent components. If
this study, a series of analyses was required to toge
degrading elements are modeled as ductile, the
capture degrading effects. This provided Figl
model will overestimate base shear by the amount
opportunities to update the mode shape and degl
held in all such elements. For this building, ductile
pushover forces between analyses (see modeling of degrading frame columns would have
moe
Figure 4.4-1). Despite an effective mass dem
overestimated the pushover base shear by 30 to
coefficient at times as low as 70 percent (see initi
50 percent.
Figure 4.4-1), only the first mode was used for recc
DRAIN-2DX does not offer an element with
this study. (Refer to Methodology Section 8.2.4.) may
degrading strength. In order to model degradation,
critical elements had to be removed from the
4.4.8 Monitoring Shear-Critical typi,
model and replaced with softer, weaker versions
Elements In DRAIN·2DX degl
(see Table 4.4-1 and Figure 4.3-1). The pushover
Barrington Medical Center had potentially Met
analysis would then start again with the revised
shear-critical frame columns and walls. Because wit!:
model and continue until more frame columns
DRAIN-2DX does not offer a shear-yielding strel
became critical (i.e. ready to degrade). A series of
element, it was necessary to monitor column and func
models was thus used to represent the degrading
wall forces at each stage of the pushover and to Tab
nature of the building.
adjust the model where necessary. The process of onl)
For example, consider Figure 4.4-2. The first
monitoring degrading frame columns is described portion, starting at the origin, is valid until a
in Section 4.4.4. For the fixed-base walls, 4.5
group of frame columns reaches a ductility
modeled as equivalent columns, initial pushover demand of 2. Analysis results indicated that frame
results showed that first story walls would columns in stories 3 through 6 yield in flexure 4.5.
probably reach their shear capacity before their when roof displacements are between 0.20 and
flexural capacity (depending in part on the level of 0.35 inches and reach twice the yield drift Figl

a-20 Appendix B, Barrington Medical center App

~f~----------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~' ~------------------------------------------------------------------------

,e Ta,,'e 4.4,1. properties Used to Model Frame not significantly reduce the structure's lateral
Columns With Degrading strength and stiffness stiffness. A noticeable turn in the capacity curve
~re then
-roper Model property Initial partiallY " FullY occurs only when either walls (Figure 4.4-2) or
, ,.' .', " .. Degraded Degraded piles (Figure 4.4-3) yield. This supports the
-E Iksil 3400 3400 3400 decision to treat exterior frame columns as
ftion Axial area Iin'l 504 250 250150%) "secondary" elements. Yielding of slab-beams at
(50%) gravity columns does not control and is not shown.
lly Mom of Inertia 74088 7400 3700 (5%) Other premature failure modes, such as bar
lin') 110%) buckling or splice failure, were not explicitly
4,1 snear Area Iin'J 504 300 100120%) modeled and were assumed not to control based on
amns (60%) visual review of design details. Bar buckling in
ngth at YleJd Moment 2016 1200 400120%) this building should be carefully checked,
ling lin·kl 160%) however, since ties in wall boundary elements are
on 9-4 small and widely spaced. This concern may be
Jgy partly mitigated by limiting allowable compression
(representing a ductility demand of 2) at roof
Je strains to low values in deriving element
displacements of 0.40 to 0.60 inches. Thus, the
properties. Sliding along wall construction joints
i, they first partial curve is valid until D" = 0.60". A also was not modeled (refer to Section 4.3.4).
second model, with partially degraded columns at
anal Mechanism. For the fixed-base model
floors 3 through 6, does not apply until the roof
; yield (Figure 4.4-2), a story mechanism is created when
displacement is about 0.60" and is valid until
elease all three of the first story wall groups reach their
another set of columns becomes critical. Taken
.If shear or flexural capacities. In the soft-foundation
together, the series of partial curves shown in
the model (Figure 4.4-3), a pile mechanism develops
Figure 4.4-2 approximate the behavior of a single
mount instead. Although a mechanism indicates
degrading model. While it is impractical to change
ductile essentially no remaining lateral stiffness, it does
models whenever individual columns reach
d have not necessarily represent the end of the pushover.
) to demands of exactly 2 or 4, jumping from the
Deformation controlled elements may sustain
initial model to a final fully-degraded model is not
displacements beyond mechanism as long as they
recommended either because intermediate models
with remain stable with respect to gravity loads, that is,
may represent key points in the analysis.
dation, as long as they do not collapse from P-delta
Table 4.4-1 gives model properties of the
effects. For this reason, me capacity curve can
;ions typical frame column in its initial, partially
extend beyond mechanism.
degraded, and fully degraded state. The
hover
Methodology provides no quantitative guidance 4.5.2 Building Limits
sed
with respect to post-yield shear stiffness, axial Methodology Section 11.3 sets limits for
ns
cries of ' strength, axial stiffness, or degradation rate as a overall building response. Section II. 3.2 limits
function of ductility demand. Thus, values in degradation to "20 percent of the maximum
ding
Table 4.4-1 are based on engineering judgment resistance of the structure." As noted above, frame
only. columns would account for one fourth to one third
e first
I of the structure's base shear capacity if they did
4.5 Identifying limit states on the not degrade. Because the columns are judged to be
capacity Curve secondary elements (see below), this apparent
frame
Ire 4.5.1 EVents violation may be overlooked.
nd Drift limits are given in Methodology
Yielding. As shown in Figure 4.4-2 and
Table 11-2. Barrington Medical Center has a
Figure 4.4-3, initial frame column hinging does

center. Appendix B, Barrington Medical center B·21

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

typical story height of 12 feet and a roof height of Table 4.5'1. RDDf DIsplacements CO"espondlntl ineio
about 79 feet. The Life Safety drift limits (at 0.02 to Deformation Umlts wou
in/in) are thus 2.9 inches in each story and 19 Stat
inches at the roof. This is well beyond yield,
mechanism, and the expected displacement pusl
demand (derived below), so the drift limit does not Life
control the evaluation. For Immediate Occupancy, (Me
the roof drift limits are 9.5 inches total or 4.7 fran
inches beyond the effective yield displacement. acce
While this limit might be reached, it would not 60 i
control the evaluation. A rough check at the colu
Structural Stability performance level gives a drift Sh01
Primary WailS, no yield no no yield
limit of .05 or a roof displacement of 48 inches. EQulv. Flexure yield
stor:
inch
4.5.$ Element and CompDnent Limits the:
Categorization. Methodology Section 9.5.4.1 secondary elements but were earmarked for
defines force- and deformation-controlled actions. gravity load retrofit regardless of expected are:
For this building, the walls are deformations. "eql
deformation-controlled primary elements. Slabs Limits. The Basic Safety Objective (see tabl.
and gravity columns are secondary elements. The Methodology Section 3.4.1) requires checks of tang
piles, not specifically addressed by the both Life Safety and Structural Stability com
Methodology, are primary elements where they deformation limits. Roof displacements equi
support the walls and are considered corresponding to stages in the pushover analysis inel:
deformation-controlled because slipping of friction where deformation limits are reached are
piles is expected to be repeatable over many summarized in Table 4.5-1 and noted on Figures plas
cycles. However, as noted above, the foundation 4.4-2 and 4.4-3. (Me
was modeled to assess overall softening effects, Columns. Frame columns are checked as wall
not to evaluate specific foundation components. secondary elements controlled by shear. is re
The exterior frame columns, because they Methodology table 11-4 allows inelastic the I
degrade and become shear-critical, are considered deformations depending on column details and Stab
force-controlled. They would normally be axial load. Although tie spacing is less than d/2, it are I
considered primary elements due to their is still large by current standards. Also, the ties are reml
significant initial stiffness. As force-controlled small, lack substantial cross ties, and have (poc
primary elements, however, their early yielding unknown hooks and extensions. Table 11-4 also rota'
would stop the pushover before the walls could allows inelastic rotation in columns with small chee
develop full strength. This was considered an axial loads; the critical third story columns have was
unreasonable representation oCthe building's P/A.f, values of .07 to .11, at or near the table an a
capacity, so the exterior frame columns were limit of .10. Because the frame columns barely cap,
allowed to deform as secondary elements as they comply with either table condition, engineering rupt
could support gravity loads. The Methodology judgment must be applied here. For this study, the
provides no guidance regarding post-yield axial columns are treated as eligible for inelastic Met
capacity of shear-critical columns, so engineering rotation, but are earmarked for gravity load retrofit rota:
judgment on this point is critical. For this study, regardless. Were the columns not eligible for high
degrading columns were kept in the model as long inelastic rotation, or were they needed as primary Why
elements, then by Methodology table 11-4 no than

a-22 Appendix B, Barrington Medical Center

~ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~ -----------------------------------------------------------------------

---
1ng

_raJ
~lIlty

,8"
inelastic, rotation would be allowed and their yield
would mark both the Life Safety and Structural
Stability limit states.
Table 4.5-1 is constructed from detailed
pushover analysis results. For example, with a
Piles. The Methodology provides no limits for
slip of friction piles. Instead, engineering
judgment is applied to pile slip at the performance
point (see Section 4.7.2). The emphasis is not on
the piles themselves but on the impact of pile yield

-
3"
Life Safety inelastic rotation limit of .01 radians
(Methodology table 11-4), and considering that
frame rigid zones will force all drift to be
on overall behavior.
Slab Beams. Slab plastic hinge rotations did
not approach the limits of Methodology table 11-6
accommodated within the column clear height of for secondary elements with Continuity

-'
2"
60 inches, the inelastic drift limit for typical frame
columns is 0.6 inches per story. Analysis results
Reinforcement. However, these elements were not
carefully modeled.
-' show that this inelastic drift is reached for most

-
field 4.6 Determination of Demand and
stories when the roof displacement is about 3.8
inches in the fixed-base model, about 4.2 inches in Performance point
the soft-foundation model.
Walls. Walls modeled as equivalent columns
4.6.1 Performance Objectives
are most conveniently checked against This study evaluates Barrington Medical
"equivalent" hinge rotation limits in Methodology Center relative to the two-part Basic Safety
table 11-7. Table 11-8, which is based on Objective defined in Methodology Section 3.4.1.
of tangential drift with an inelastic shear drift Expected performance in both the Design
component, can not be used effectively because the Earthquake (DE) and the Maximum Earthquake
equivalent column model is unable to reflect (ME) must be determined.
ysis inelastic shear drift. Table 11-9 was not checked. Elastic Response spectrum
4.6.2
For the fixed-base walls, the Life Safety
The 5 percent damped demand, called the
ures plastic rotation limit is .0033 to .0040 radians
elastic response spectrum, is derived from
(Methodology table 11-7), depending on each
parameters described in Methodology
s wall's axial load and shear when flexural capacity
Section 4.4.2.4. For this building, the Seismic
is reached. All three walls reach their limits when
Zone Factor, Z, is 0.4, and the Near-Source
the roof displacement is about 5 inches. Structural
Factor, N, is taken as 1.0, although a factor of 1.2
ld Stability rotation limits of .0060 to .0080 radians
or 1.5 may be warranted. Two soil types, B and
i/2, it are reached at about 8 inches. It is important to
0, are considered for this study. Table 4.6-1 gives
:ies are remember that the wall details in this building
coefficients; Figure 4.6-1 shows elastic response
(poorly confined boundaries, etc.) may limit
spectra.
Iiso rotation and ultimate compressive strength. To
~I check this, a separate moment-curvature relation
ave was derived for the critical wall at grid 0-3 with
Table 4.6-1. Seismic Coefficients for Elastic
ble
!Iy
an axial load of 850 kips. It showed a curvature
capacity of 2.4E-4 radianslinch Iim:ited by bar
= =
Response spectra (Z .4, N 1.0, 596 dampedl

ng rupture (with concrete strain at only .002).

y, the With a plastic hinge length of Ill" (per Design CA = .40 CA = .44
Methodology Section 9.5.5.7), the ultimate
Earthquake Cv = .40 Cv = .64
E = 1.0
retrofit' rotation capacity is .027 radians, substantially
Maximum CA = .50 CA = ,55
higher than the Methodology's limits. It is unclear Earthquake Cv = .50 Cv = .80
mary why the Methodology limits are so much smaller E = 1.25
than a moment-curvature analysis suggests.

:enter Appendix B. Barrington Medical center a-25

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

1.4

"
MaxD
12 MaxB

"
:§i
c: 1.0

~
GJ 0.8
DOBa
\ "'\
"- DeaD

~
~
"" ............
r---.....
)
iii
~
/Ji
0.6

0.4

02
B= Sol Type B
D;; Sol TypeD
"-...
"'- " I'-..
-
..............
r-......
r--....
--I-
Del= t 0019" ee ,,"quake E=1.0 FIgure 4.6·1.
Max = M axlmum anhqua ., E=1. 5
0.0
Elastic RespDnse spectra
o 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(Z=.4, N= 1.0,59(, damped)
Spectral Displacement [in]

4.E

cap
per
is c
sho
par
coe
for
sho
cal!
Fig
con
PF
poi:

FIgure 4.6,2. PartIal spreadsheet calculatIon for ConversIon of capacIty curve to capacIty spectrum,
Flxed·Base Model

B-24 Appendix B. Barrington Medical center. ApI

l
~\
r -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~
~~ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0.30

0.25
Fixed-Base
:§
<: 0.20
I / ~~ .J

~ ~I,,-S1 ,. ---
-'
IV
//,,, .,.--- f-- - -1 - - - -
~ 0.15 Soli Foundation
,.
~
~
i
,, "V
~
BV

,re 4.6-1.'
'Spectra'
rtampel/J'
en
0.10
,
I
Blllne r Represen ~tlon Contra Points
IV = If.cllve Inltl I Vleld
SV = ~lfecllve Su sequent Vie d
0.05 U=E fectlve URI, ",te, at Sd > 6"
I FI ed-Base: SI = .22g
S II-Foundallo ~: Sa = .18g
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Spectral Displacement [in]

Figure 4_6-S_ Capacity spectra, Fixed Base (-) and Soft Foundation (- -) Models, With control PoInts for
Bilinear RepresentatIon

4.6.S Conversion of Capacity Curve to 4.6.4 Bilinear Representation of

capacity spectl'Um
J For comparison with demand spectra, the
capacity curve is converted to spectral coordinates
per Methodology Section 8.2. The converted curve
is called the capacity spectrum. Figure 4.4-1
shows the first mode shape with calculated modal
participation factor (PF) and effective mass
coefficient (alpha) at various stages of pushover
for the series of fixed-base models. Figure 4.6-2
shows some of the corresponding conversion
calculations. Converted curves are shown in
Figure 4.6-3. The somewhat jagged nature of the
converted curves is due to the fact that values of
PF and alpha were computed at a few discrete
points only.
capacity Spectl'Um
One Methodology procedure for determining
effective damping and corresponding demand
spectra is based on a bilinear representation of the
capacity spectrum. The bilinear representation
requires three points: the origin, an effective yield
point, and an ultimate point that represents either
collapse or any stage of pushover beyond expected
demand. The area under the bilinear representation
should approximate the area under the capacity
spectrum.
For buildings with degrading stiffness, the
"yield" point at the "corner" of the capacity curve
(or capacity spectrum) may be different on each
cycle. This effect is represented by the partial
curves in Figure 4.6-3. Each model has an "initial
yield," which may best represent behavior in

Appendix B, Barrington Medical center B-25

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-

Ca =:0.44 I : TalJ
cv =:0.64 I Ji"'., 'fFla iii:,) "-
... \ k ...,...
~
(SeE

.!!!
0.50

0.40
JIS., ,FI.4: 1,1 for 5

II not .hown 1....1 V

Ell jotl. '" V
/'
/'
Vidy =,
ay =:
ii,
. ".p'n OJ

du
au
' PoI~t
~.~.'

DeSI

~
c
0.30 , ...........-
~
(ip';!
,nee. Point!
3.45
. 1.42.
coel= 3.99
Ma~

,
I .,= ....... o.~ .....
., -- r-...
l.--"'" SRa=; 0.23
I 0.20 /< cf' ;. SAY=: .. 0.41

i'" -
..
.......... ~=
'

0.10 SAd=; 0.53 Des

!
I fo.'ors
· ..•.
apla{;; ... 1'09 . .... •. E=
0.10
i! ~:;~I
I.-,i ,., '.:=~~, r:'~.h
!

!
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00
Spectral Displacement rll1)
4.00 5.00 6.00
slODe a =,' 0.60]
sloDe
" .. •.
b =; 0.005
. . ····,A"',,;;,
de =: 2.85
............ "e.= ! . -0.. 1.6

21%
;
-
resp
E=

disc
Figure 4.6-4. partial Spreadsheet GraphIcal CIIlculation 01 perFormance pOint, Flxed·Base Model (Z = .4, E= 1.0, roof
N= 1.0, Soli Type D, InItIal YIeld} (see upaate section 1.4.2.1
(Tal
events with one or two dominant pulses, and a limi
• With Z = 0.4, ME displacements are about are i
"subsequent yield," which may be better for long 50 percent higher than DE displacements.
events with many inelastic cycles and potential so tI
degradation. (See Methodology Sections 4.5.2 and • Soil type D doubles the displacements relative Objl
9.5.4.1.) It is generally conservative to use the to type B.
4.7.
subsequent yiel(,l for computing demands. (See Using.the subsequent yield instead of the
Update Section 1.4.2.) initial yield increases the performance point
spectral displacement by little more than the
4.6.5 Derivation of Demand spectrum difference between the two yield values: about 0.4
and Performance Point inches with a fixed-base, about 0.6 inches with the (the
(See Update Section 1.4.2.) soft-foundation. of3
Iterative procedures are needed to find the Earl
unique "performance point." Figure 4.6-4 is a 4.7 performance Assessment dem
sample performance point calculation from a (See Update Section 1.4.3.) inch
spreadsheet written to aid the necessary iteration. Performance point displacements (Table 4.6-2) soft-
Performance point displacements are summarized must be checked against limits (Table 4.5-1). com
B 01
in Table 4.6·2 and noted on Figure 4.4-2 and
4.7.1 Global Building Performance perf
Figure 4.4·3. Table 4.6-2 illustrates a few trends
for performance point roof displacements in this The building as a whole must be checked for coni
building: stability, strength degradation, and excessive
deformation (see Methodology Section 11.3). agai
• Displacements are about 113 higher with the simi
Pushover analyses showed no instabilities with
soft-foundation than with a fixed-base. the,
type

B-26 Appendix B, Barrington Medical center, ADD

l
-------l--
, SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
I
~, --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.6,2. Performance point spectral Displacements and corresponding Roof Displacements
(see update section 1.4.2.1
Flxed·Base Model .'
Yield point '.' SOilt"/Pe,S . .
, ..
soi/TYpeD ,
-Design Earthquake Initial 5, ~ 1.5" Drf = 2.2" 5, ~ 3.5" Drf = 4.9"

E ~ 1.0 Subsequent 5, ~ 1.9" Off = 2.7" 5, ~ 3.8" D" ~ 5.4"

Maximum Earthquake Initial 5, ~ 2.2" D" ~ 3.1" 5, ~ 5.2" D" ~ 7.4"
E ~ 1.25 Subsequent 5, ~ 2.6" D" ~ 3.7" 5, ~ 5.6" 0" ~ 7.9"
Soft;FoundlltIDnMOde/ .,<.","" '. :''i.e'·'"'' 1"'\'.';"»""'." ,I."',""""""",•• , I":,"; , <

Design Earthquake Initial 5, ~ 2.0" D" ~ 2.9" 5, - 4.5" 0" ~ 6.3"

E = 1.0 Subsequent 5, ~ 2.6" D" ~ 3.6" 5, ~ 5.1" 0" ~ 7.2"
Maximum Earthquake Initial 5, ~ 2.9" D" ~ 4.2" 5, ~ 6.6" 0" = 9.4"
E = 1.25 Subsequent 5, = 3.5" 0" ~ 5.0" 5, = 7.3" 0" ~ 10.4"

respect to gravity loads. Degradation was
discussed in Section 4.5.2. All performance point
E=1.0,
roof displacements in the Design Earthquake
(Table 4.6-2) are less than the 19 inch Life Safety
limit, and the Maximum Earthquake displacements
lbout
are less than the 48 inch Structural Stability limit,
ts.
so the building as a whole meets the Basic Safety
'elative Objective.
Le
4.7.2 component Force and
Deformation Checks
(See Update Section 1.4.3.)
out 0.4 Columns. The fixed-base Life Safety limit
vith the (the capacity) was reached at a roof displacement
of 3.8 inches (Table 4.5-1). The Design
Earthquake performance point displacement (the
demand) is 2.2-2.7 inches on soil type B, 4.9-5.4
inches on soil type D (Table 4.6-2). For the
: 4.6-2) soft-foundation model, a capacity of 4.2 inches
). compares with a demand of 2.9-3.6 inches on type
B or 6.3-7.2 inches on type D. Expected
~e performance therefore depends on site soil
,d for conditions.
e Checking the Structural Stability capacity
). against the Maximum Earthquake demand yields
'ith similar conclusions: with either foundation model,
the capacity falls between the soil type B and soil
type D demands.
Walls. For the fixed-base model, the Life
Safety roof displacement limit of 5 inches exceeds
the Design Earthquake demand. With soil type B,
the building has some margin, but on soil type D,
the capacity just matches the demand. Similarly,
the Structural Stability capacity of 8 inches is
sufficient on soil type B but barely acceptable on
soil type D.
With a soft-foundation modeled, the walls do
not reach their shear or flexural capacity, so
Methodology deformation limits do not apply.
Instead, pile actions should be checked.
Piles. Piles are modeled to assess potential
softening of building response, not to evaluate
specific foundation components in the way that
columns or walls are evaluated. The important
questions are whether the assumed bilinear pile
model applies at the performance point and
whether modeled pile behavior affects the
building's ability to meet a given Performance
Objective. From the pushover analyses, maximum
soft-foundation pile slips corresponding to
different performance points are:
• Design Earthquake, Soil Type B:
.25 to .50"; Type D: 1.0 to 1.25"
• Maximum Earthquake, Soil Type B:
.50 to .75"; Type D: about 2"

center Appendix B, Barrington Medical center a-27

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS
These are judged to be within the bounds of
the simple bilinear pile model (Figure 4.3-3),
although a 2 inch slip probably approaches the
limit of plastic behavior. Had slip values been
much higher (on the order of a foot or more), the
bilinear model would not apply, and analysis
results might have been invalid.
Most importantly, development of a pile
mechanism in the soft-foundation model protects
the walls from demands requiring their full shear
or flexural capacity. This conclusion can
significantly impact the scope and cost of retrofit
and even the decision to continue occupying the
building. Confirmation of the pile model is
therefore warranted.
4.7.S DeFiciency summary
(See Update Section 1.4.3.)
With respect to a Basic Safety Performance
Objective, deficiencies are summarized as follows:
With Soil Type B
• Because of expected degradation and unknown
tie details, the post-yield gravity load carrying
capacity of exterior frame columns is
unreliable.
With Soil Type 0
• Expected deformations in exterior frame
columns are unacceptable.
• Because of expected degradation and unknown
tie details, the post-yield gravity load carrying
capacity of exterior frame columns is
unreliable.
• Expected deformations in interior wall groups
are only marginally acceptable with a
fixed-base model. (A soft-foundation may
protect the walls.)
• The bilinear pile model requires confirmation
if its beneficial effects are to be accepted.
a·28
I
5. conceptual Retrofit
Designs
I
.,-
Tal
(SeE
5.1 performance Objectives
(See Update Section 1.4.4.)
!I i,\l4
>--'Z'<§':"'"
Retrofit designs for Barrington Medical Center ! FIXE
were developed for two Performance Objectives: !
the Basic Safety objective already described and
used for evaluation, and a lower, "economically
driven" objective as described in Methodology SOf
table 3-4c. For brevity, only the Design ion
-•
Earthquake with soil type D is considered here.
The "Economic" objective requires only
Structural Stability in the Design Earthquake.
Tables 4.5-1 and 4.6-2 show that the building as
designed might meet this standard already. The
walls are acceptable. With a fixed-base model, the
secondary frame columns are barely acceptable as
well. With the soft-foundation model, however,
the Structural Stability roof displacement limit of
6.2 inches (the capacity) is exceeded by the
expected Design Earthquake roof displacement of
6.3-7.2 inches (the demand). Column detailing
•
remains a likely deficiency as well.
Required structural work for the two
objectives is summarized in Table 5.1-1.
5.2 Selection of Retrofit Elements
5.2
5.2.1 Structural Considerations
Retrofit requirements can be met with a shol
variety of structural schemes. Considerations infil
include: CODI
• Because the building is already stiff, additional adv:
frames or coupled piers will not be as effective
as additional walls deep enough to match
•
existing stair and elevator cores. As an
alternative, diagonal steel braces forming an •
"exoskeleton" may be sufficiently stiff.
• If the soft-foundation is an accurate model,
then ultimate behavior is controlled by pile
yielding. Therefore, where walls are stiffened •
or added to limit frame deformation, they may
require foundation strengthening.
APpendix B. Barrington Medical Center ,
l
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

t
Table 5.1,1. Required Retrofit work for Different performance Objectives (Soli Type 0)
(see update section 1.4.4.1
.... .• llaslc Safety Objective ;,. "EConomiC" Objectlve- -
· . .···",odei 2 .. '(l.kesaFtJty in Design Earthquake) .•.•...... (structura/stablllty In· DesIgn Earthquake)·
I Center' Fixed·Base Enhance gravity resistance of frame columns. Enhance gravity resistance of frame columns.
:tives: Limit deformation in frame cols. Assume foundation ok.
I and strengthen or add walls .
.cally Assume foundation ok.
ogy sofHoundat Enhance gravity resistance of frame columns. Enhance gravity resistance of frame columns.
ion Limit deformation in frame eols. Limit deformation in frame cols.
lere.
confirm pile model with tests. Accept pile model.
y
:e.
ng as • If walls are added, column deformations in the • Perimeter infill walls provide an opportunity to
The stiffened building may be acceptable. If not, deal with torsion and bi-directional issues
jel, the i supplemental gravity load-carrying elements, ignored for this two-dimensional study.
able as such as steel columns, can be designed to pick
~ver,
• Although some strengthening may be required,
up gravity loads as the concrete columns crack
mit of existing grade beams at perimeter frames
and lose integrity.
provide convenient footings for new infill
lent of • Alternatively, frame columns can be wrapped panels.
ling or plated to maintain integrity after cracking.
Or, part of each beam-column connection can 5.2.3 preliminary Sizing with the
be cut, effectiv\!ly lengthening the columns and Capacity spectrum
making them less shear-critical. These For this study, new walls are proposed; they
approaches are beyond the scope of this study. will add capacity and limit column deformations as
required. A preliminary approach to sizing these
5.2.2 Practical Considerations walls uses hypothetical capacity spectra to find
Wall strength and stiffness can be added by performance points within required deformation
shotcreting against existing core walls or by limits. Spectral values at the hypothetical
1S infilling exterior frame bays with cast-in-place performance point are then converted back to
concrete. The latter approach has practical absolute values, and the required strength of
ditional advantages: additional shear walls can be determined. Further
ffective • Effectiveness of shotcrete on core walls is assumptions include:
:h limited by openings and setbacks. • The new mode shape matches the existing
mode shape. Assume modal PF = 1.4; choose
• Interior walls are probably limited by pile appropriate alpha for hypothetical new
capacity already, so strengthening these walls
performance point from evaluation data.
may require foundation work for which access
del, will be difficult. • Initial and post-yield stiffness of the
pile hypothetical capacity spectrum match those of
• At the interior walls, coordination with the original building.
ffened mechanical and elevator systems may be
ey may difficult.

I center Appendix B. Barrington Medical center B-29

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
-

0.40
Hypo hetical
Perfo manca Pc int
~
at Sd < 2.7" ......
.9 0.30
c:
0
I'.:.....
:;::

r
I!!
~
CD
l:l
«
0.20

"
\ Hypothet cal billne ar
"" "" ............. r-
-I!!
u
CD
Co
capacity spectrum Slopes
match or ginal bUil ~ing (Fig
en 0.10 I ... u-.. " ., Y'''''U .. w
ultimate apacltiet are
raised as necessa
IV'
0.00
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Spectral Displacement [in)

Figure 5.2-1. Hypothetical capacity spectrum for preliminary sizing Of Retrofit Elements

• For the hypothetical strengthened building, the
initial yield point is appropriate.
• New walls have approximately the same yield
displacement as existing walls.
• Effects of new wall weight and material
properties can be ignored.
For the fixed-base model, the Life Safety roof
displacement of 3.8 inches corresponds to a
spectral displacement limit of about 2.7 inches.
Figure 5.2-1 shows a hypothetical capacity
spectrum that satisfies this requirement. The
hypothetical performance point acceleration is
.26g. With alpha = .83 at the hypothetical point,
this corresponds to a base shear of about 2900
kips, about 600 kips more than the pre-retrofit
capacity. Similarly for the soft-foundation model,
the limiting spectral displacement is about 3.0
inches, the hypothetical performance point requires
.27g, and the new shear capacity required (with
=
alpha .83) is 3000 kips, about 1000 kips higher
than the original capacity. By comparison,
achieving the "Economic" Performance Objective COl
as!
requires even less additional capacity.
Figure 5.2-1 suggests that a minimum scheme eat
might still rely on substantial inelastic behavior.
S.l
Because new infill panels will engage poorly
confined and lightly reinforced existing columns as
de facto boundary elements, high compressive
strains should be avoided. Therefore, while two
Sol
panels may be sufficient for the "Economic"
Objective, four panels are assumed for a wa
bu
conceptual Basic Safety retrofit scheme. Four
panels also provide reserve capacity against cal
ev:
potential torsion and should be able to
accommodate exits, windows, or other
architectural requirements. New piles and pilecaps
will also be required. Figure 5.2-2 shows the

a-so Appendix B, Barrington Medical center lip

~;
T-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

F l---t------r~.....,..~-I--~~-i_ - - - - - - - --I
® (N) 'NFILL WALL
® TYP. I ® (N) SHOTCRETE WALL
21'-4\:1.
®TYP.
© (N) PILE & PILE CAP
E @-.@- ® (N) TS COLUMN

~~
NOTE SOME (E) ELEMENTS NOT SHOWN
20'-5"

0 }-J-----1.--l-
}-J-----1.--l- ~
104'-0"

¢t»."t[J~· -
20'-5"

20'-5" , '~OL .. TYP., ~) 8" WALL, TYP.

8 J-+---+---E!!!l' - @- . - @- @- - . @- @-
21'-4\;. © ~E)Ol.,EXTTYP. I'
A
22'-4" 21'-6" 21 '-6" 21'-6" 22'-4"

® 5 6

'ith
gher Figure 5.2·2. conceptual Plan of Basic safety RetrOfit Scope Of work

!ctive conceptual Basic Safety retrofit scope of work, Actual design must comply with Building Code
assuming that similar work will be required in force levels, strength reduction factors, and
;cheme each direction. allowable deflections that may differ from those in
vior, the Methodology. The analyses presented here
5.3 comparative EValuation by merely apply the same Methodology procedure to a
y
Product 1.2 MethodolOgy hypothetical upgrade.
umns as
ive (See Update Section 1.4.4.) Relative to the original building, the retrofit
: two Figure 5.3-1 shows the fixed-base and models include:
." soft-foundation capacity curves with four infill • New wall elements, as described in
wall panels together with the curves of the original Figure 5.2-2, modeled as equivalent columns.
,ur building. It is important to note that the retrofit
capacity curves represent "comparative • Existing columns engaged by new infill panels
evaluations" more than they do retrofit designs. and acting as boundary elements: checked for
ultimate concrete compression strain of .003.

lilecaps
he

II center Appendix B. Barrington Medical center a-S1

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

4000 L _
;.. Ret pill Fix. d-Basa
JlIfIIIT
/ DeaD
3500
V
~ 3000
~
~ 2500
/ ,, - .8iIIiI!r-
DeaD
1-- Retrol Solt-, oundat on

Orlllin I Fixe. Ba ••

~
g 2000
I / --, ---~
---
"'DeaD
..2!ISlnal S It-Fou dallon

~ 1500
'/1. r ," -- DeaD

-
., I

~ 1000 ,
J
,, Pe orman e Poln
De D = De Ign EC , Soli , ype D
500 ,
o
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Roof Displacement [In)

Figure 5.11-1. capacity Curves and perFormance points lor Original and Retrofit structures
(see Update Section 1.4.2 regardIng performance point dIsplacements.!

• Separate material properties for new elements: must be checked against limits in Methodology
table 11-3. At the calculated performance points,
i'
f'c = 4 ksi, fy = 60 ksi. . I, deg:
bearns actmg as secondary elements were found to
• Additional pile stiffness and strength at ends of
new walls, for the soft-foundation model.
be acceptable. I sho'
SOUl
Figure 5.3-1 also shows performance points darr
G. Assessment of the
for the two retrofit models. With four panels, the
product t.2 I buc:
fixed-base model's expected performance requires
MethodologV
! buci
a roof displacement of 2.0 inches, less than half X-c
the expected displacement for the original building colt
and well below the column Life Safety 6_1 Damage Prediction . and
deformation limit. The soft-foundation roof Barrington Medical Center was inspected twice : the
displacement is 4.3", about two-thirds of the after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, classified as elen
original building value but not yet below the "unsafe," closed, and later demolished.
column LS limit of about 4.2". With a soft, Figure 6.1-1 shows typical severe column damage the
yielding foundation that controls overall behavior, along the south facade. Exterior frame columns in for
additional walls alone are of marginal value unless the second, third, and fourth stories are visibly Stat
foundations are also strengthened. With exterior cracked within their clear height in classical Wer
frame bays stiffened by infill, beams in adjacent X-patterns indicative of shear failure. North and haVI
bays become subject to high local rotations and west side columns show similar damage to a lesser loss

Appendix B, Barrington Medical center i

~,
r --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---J --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIgure 6.1,1. EXterIor Column Damage on LIne A 'rom January 1994 Northridge Earthquake
ogy
oints,
lUnd to degree. Beams and connection panel zones do not
show damage. As shown in the photographs, the
southwest corner colurrm (grid A-I) is severely
damaged, with extensive spalling, shortening, and
buckled reinforcing. Shortening of colurrms and
buckled window mullions indicate that typical
X-cracks extend through the full width of the
colurrms and that the colurrms have lost both axial
and shear capacity. No information is available on
:d twice the performance of interior walls or foundation
ified as elements.
In terms of Methodology performance levels,
lamage the observed damage is beyond the level acceptable
mns in for Life Safety and is at or near the Structural
bly Stability limit. Although the interior shear walls
I were not observed, some of the exterior colurrms
1 and have clearly shortened, indicating at least a partial
1 lesser i loss of gravity load resistance. However, they did
not collapse, and they may still be capable of
holding their loads through additional lateral
deformations. Note that assessment relative to
Performance Objectives requires some knowledge
of ground motion at the site.
Pushover analysis predicted flexural yielding
in third and fourth story frame columns under
relatively small displacements, followed by
strength degradation and shear-critical behavior.
However, no significant flexural cracking is
visible in available photographs. Second story
colurrms, with greater flexural strength, were not
expected to be as critical as photographs suggest
they were. Actual yield strength of 60 ksi, as
opposed to the erroneous model value of 40 ksi,
may explain why frame colurrms appear to have
been even more shear-critical than the model
assumed.

I Center I Appendix B, Barrington Medical center a-JJ

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
The pushover analyses showed that exterior
frame columns, while the first to yield, were not
as important to overall building response as the
interior walls. With no inspection of these walls, a
full assessment of the Methodology's damage
prediction capabilities is not possible.
6.2 Comparison with preliminary
EValuation Findings
FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements (if coupled
with engineering judgment regarding concrete
column shear capacity) uncovered all of the
deficiencies found by inelastic pushover analysis,
except for effects of a potentially soft, weak
foundation. However, the Evaluation Statements
and elastic analysis use a broad brush, pointing to
high shears and low reinforcing ratios, but nearly
missing the shear-critical degrading columns and
failing to distinguish their impact on building
performance. By contrast, the Methodology's
pushover analysis showed that the columns yield
early and degrade, controlling performance even
as secondary strength elements. The inelastic
analysis also quantified potentially significant
soil-structure effects.
Although software limitations and other
practical considerations preclude assessment of
some complex behaviors (e.g. potential torsion or
higher mode effects), the Methodology's nonlinear
static procedure are still expected to provide a
more complete and more useful picture of
expected performance than is linear elastic
analysis.
6.3 Comparison with Inelastic
Tlme·History Analysis
(See Update Section 1.4.5.)
Limited inelastic time-history analyses were
executed as a rough check of performance point
displacements predicted by the Methodology. Four
near-field acceleration records, each with
components in two directions, were selected. For
each record, the given components were
transformed to fault-parallel and fault-normal
components. Scale factors were computed so that
a-:54
-
the average spectral acceleration of the eight
histories would be O.64g for a structure with a
I-second period. That is, the records used as time
history input were scaled to match a single
representative point on the elastic response
spectrum for the Design Earthquake on soil
type D.
Time-history analyses were executed with
DRAIN-2DX. Five percent damping was assigned
to the first two modes. Only the soft-foundation
model with fully-degraded frame columns was
analyzed due to two software limitations:
• Potentially shear-critical walls modeled as
equivalent columns. In a pushover analysis,
critical conditions are apparent, and flexural
capacities are easily adjusted to simulate shear
yield at the proper stage of loading. In
time-history analysis, this can not be done, so
results for fixed-base models (which require
adjustment) are not reliable.
• Capacity curves were constructed with a series
of models in order to capture degradation
effects. In time-history analysis, this can not
be done. Only the fully degraded model was
analyzed, meaning that the model began each
time-history run with already reduced dis
stiffness. psc
Figure 6.3-1 shows the soft-foundation rei:
capacity curve with combinations of maximum COl
roof displacement and base shear taken from the sca
time-history analyses. or
The Design Earthquake performance point, am
also shown, appears to overestimate displacement ste
and underestimate base shear. Possible
explanations for this discrepancy involve both the for
relative and absolute precision of pushover and PUi
time-history analysis. For this study, whether the in 1
pushover or the time-history results are closer to ele
the "truth" is unclear. dUI
The most likely explanation for the dru
discrepancy is that higher mode effects are Sir
considered in the dynamic time-history analysis del
but are ignored for this static pushover. Unl
del
Appendix B, Barrington Medical center ,
l
--f,
. '--------- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---i-
,

a
time 3500
g. h V Mea n+1 sla~dard
! ...":'
dey tion a 14 pol Is
3000 -- ...... ..... - .
I~ .g
:;;- ·h
I.
0
2500
:. In I I
0
h "' ~m
igned "ri
.m
:.h
~

.. . . . . ..
. ..... . .. - .. --~
ion "
~
2000
.. '" .-
• ~:
-'
~Parfor lnanee oint,
IS g .'1 ~-' ~:I~I~
EQ,
.
~
1500
; 'n.. 0

IS
;is,
Q)
.r=
rn
. : .s

,
Q)
1000
lral
shear
III
In I Time~ Istory F eak Re ponse
g,h Cppltola
I
•
500
I m,n ! ylmar
Ie, so S,I R naldl
lire 0
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10
Roof Displacement [in]
series
1
FIgure 6.~·1. capacIty Curve wIth peak Responses from Nonlinear TIme HIstory Analyses (Scaled and weIghted
not to O.Ug at T= 1.0 sec), soft·Foundation Mode/(see Update Sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.5.1
was
each Other factors contributing to the observed Three observations about the reliability of
discrepancy may include: inapplicability of inelastic analysis for this example building:
pseudo-acceleration, velocity, and displacement • The simply modeled piles would typically
relations, implicit in the pushover analysis, to yield in compression but not in tension. This
m conditions of high damping; use of time-histories led to "ratcheting" inelastic displacements that
the scaled to the design spectrum at one period only; are probably not realistic. If displacements
or numerical inaccuracies in the time-history ratchet in one direction, it raises a question
nt, analysis due to rough overshoot tolerances or time about the meaning of "maximum
ment steps. displacement" and which peak values should
In the end, if the Methodology underestimates be used to gauge the pushover results.
h the force levels, it is only unconservative when the
nd pushover analysis predicts nearly-elastic behavior • Even with the soft-foundation model (whose
r the in buildings governed by force-controlled walls do not yield in pushover analysis),
:r to elements. When the analysis indicates high time-history results gave wall forces much
ductility demands in force-controlled elements, higher than the expected wall capacities,
damage will be indicated regardless of force level. leading to peak base shear values well above
Similarly, where performance is governed by the pushover curve. This indicates that the
'sis deformation-controlled elements, an time-history analyses were probably invalid for
underestimated force level is not important since this building.
deformation levels determine acceptability.

Appendix B, Barrington Medical center a-Is

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
• However, even if this building had had
stronger walls, its capacity curve (controlled
by pile yielding) would have been the same,
and valid time-history results would have been
off the curve. This suggests that pushover
analysis can underestimate component forces
and/or overestimate roof displacements.
,_ References
General references (e.g. FEMA-!78) are given
in the Methodology. Documentation for
DRAIN-2DX, ETABS, and PCACOL is widely
available. Only available documents specific to
Barrington Medical Center and this study are listed
here.
I. "Barrington Medical Center." Cover sheet,
ten architectural drawings, and seven
structural drawings by Charles Wormhoudt
AlA Architect & Associates and Eugene D.
Birnbaum and Associates, Structural
Engineers. February 17, 1964.
2. "Olympic Barrington Medical Building."
One volume of structural calculations by
Eugene D. Birnbaum & Associates.
Variously dated from 8/63 to 2/64 with
additions 9/64 and 10/65.
B-3&
-
AI
E:
At
C.
a1
3. "Report of Foundation Investigation,
Proposed Building, Olympic Boulevard and
Barrington Avenue, Los Angeles, pre
California." Cover letter and 5 page report
with Appendix, by LeRoy Crandall &
Associates. September 20, 1963.
4. "City of Los Angeles Department of
Building and Safety Rapid Screening
Inspection Form." Two forms for 11665 W.
Olympic Boulevard. Dated 1-17-1994 and
1-19-94.
5. Letter from Craig Comartin regarding
Foundation Effects for Case Study Buildings.
January 16, 1996.
Appendix B, Barrington Medical Center
__...r_------------------------------------
,
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-------------------------------
--...:.
~

APpendix C
Example Building Study:
Administration Building
california State University
at Northridge
i and
prepared by
'port Nabih Youssef & Associates
800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 510
Los Angeles, California 90017

55 W. '
md

ldings.

center: Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN c·,

f-----------
~
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

~' --
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .................................................................................................. C-5
1.1 Intent of Example Building Study ........................................................ C-5
1.2 Scope of Example Building Study ........................................................ C-5
1.3 Summary of Findings ...................................................................... C-6
1.4 Update ........................................................................................ C-7
2. Building Description ....................................................................................... C-8
2.1 General ....................................................................................... C-8
2.2 Structural System ........................................................................... C-8
3. Observed Earthquake Damage ........................................................................... C-9
3.1 1994 Nortbridge Eartbquake .............................................................. C-9
4. Preliminary Evaluation .................................................................................... C-9
4.1 General ....................................................................................... C-9
4.2 Dynamic Characteristics of Building .................................................. C-lO
4.3 Elastic Analysis ........................................................................... C-lO
5. Evaluation Of Existing Building By Product 1.2 Metbodology ................................... C-l1
5.1 General ..................................................................................... C-II
5.2 Structure Modeling ....................................................................... C-l1
5.3 Pushover Analysis ........................................................................ C-13
5.4 Seismic Demand ......................................................................... C-16
5.5 Response Limits .......................................................................... C-17
5.6 Performance Objectives ................................................................. C-17
5.7 Performance Evaluation ................................................................. C-18
5.8 Evaluation of Foundation Effects ...................................................... C-19
5.9 "Limited" Nonlinear Time History Analysis ......................................... C-20
6. Evaluation Of Strengthened Building By Product 1.2 Metbodology ............................. C-20
6.1 Retrofit Scheme ........................................................................... C-20
6.2 Dynamic Characteristics of Strengtbened Building .................................. C-21
6.3 Evaluation of Strengthened Building .................................................. C-21
7. Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... C-21

AppendIx C, Administration Building, CSUN C·I

r~--------------------------
,,
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~--------------------------------------
APpendix C
Example Building Study:
Administration Building
California state university
at Northridge
1. Introduction
1.1 Intent of Example Building Study
This example building study is an application
of the analytical procedures incorporated in
Volume 1 of the document Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings to a real
concrete building, the Administration Building of
the California State University at Northridge. The
primary intent of this study is to validate, or "test"
the (draft versions) Methodology, and to provide ,
feedback to its developers, Secondarily, the study
also demonstrates the use of the Methodology and
provides an evaluation of its applicability.
1.2 scope of Example Building study
This example building study report presents an
I illustration of the use of the Methodology for the
seismic evaluation and retrofit of an existing
concrete building. This report describes work
performed in earlier phases of the development of
the Methodology up to March-April 1996.
Accordingly, some references to Methodology
requirements, equations and scope may be out of
date. Section 1.4 provides a limited update of
principal results to the latest (final draft, August
1996) Methodology requirements.
A seismic evaluation of the Administration
BUilding (pre-Northridge Earthquake) is performed
Using the Methodology. The methodology requires
a nonlinear analysis of the building to determine
the force-displacement characteristics of the lateral
"ppendlx C, Administration Building, CSUN
force resisting system. The seismic hazard of the
building site, determined from site soil conditions
and the proximity of the site to seismic sources
determines the seismic demand. The force- '
displacement characteristics and the seismic
demand are used to predict the performance of the
building. The predicted building performance is
compared with the desired performance objective
to determine if seismic retrofit is required. ,
In this study, the structural behavior of the
building predicted by the Methodology is
compared to the observed earthquake damage. An
elastic response spectrum analysis is performed
and the results compared to that of the
Methodology to determine whether it produces
more useful results and greater insight into the
behavior of the building.
A conceptual retrofit strategy is developed
using the Methodology to satisfy the selected
Performance Objective.
The deformation and movement of foundations
can significantly affect the seismic response and
performance of structures. The effects of
foundations on the building response is
investigated using a simplified two-dimensional
model of a portion of the building, where the
stiffness and capacity of the foundation and soil
materials are considered. A pushover analysis of
the "fixed" base and "flexible" base models are
performed to determine the effects of the
foundation on the building performance.
c·s
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Limited nonlinear time history analyses are
also performed to determine the reliability of the
results produced by the Methodology. The
"average" response of a set of time history
. analyses is compared to the response predicted by
the methodology.
1.3 summary of Findings
The subject building is highly susceptible to
torsional response which complicates the
application of the Methodology. In order to
account for the torsional effects using the proposed
methodology, a three-dimensional pushover
analysis is required. At present there is no readily
available (and reliable) computer code that has the
capability of performing automated 3D nonlinear
pushover (nonlinear static) analysis similar to the
currently available 2D codes (such as Drain-2DX).
Therefore, for this case study, a three-dimensional
piecewise linear analysis of the building was
performed. In a piecewise linear pushover
analysis the demand and capacity of every critical
element needs to be updated and checked at each
step of the analysis. Members that have yielded
need to be identified and "removed", and the
model updated at each step. This process involves
a tremendous bookkeeping effort. Based on the
level of effort experienced in this study, the
absence of analytical tools capable of performing
three-dimensional nonlinear pushover analysis
makes the direct application of the Methodology to
three dimensional analysis of torsionally
susceptible buildings impractical to implement at
this time. Alternative approaches, using two
dimensional nonlinear analyses, perhaps combined
with three dimensional linear analyses, will be
more practical.
The proposed Methodology relies on the
results of a pushover analysis to approximate the
post-elastic capacity of the structure. The
analytical tools most commonly used to perform
this analysis (DRAIN-2DX) implicitly assumes
that all components have elasto-plastic behavior
i.e., they are assumed to perform in a ductile
fashion with no strength and stiffness degradation.
e-G
Therefore, simplifications in the component Thi
behavior are required in developing the analytical sim
models. The results of analyses based on such app
simplified modeling assumptions requires careful Thf
review and significant engineering judgment . mo:
The Methodology addresses the issue of global pIa:
strength degradation (Section 8.2.1) and cautions she.
that the modeling of this behavior requires mo.
considerable judgment, as strength and stiffness efff
degradation depends on the magnitude of the
response, and the number of loading and unloading ana
cycles an element experiences. Strength and insi
stiffness degradation can have a significant effect ide]
on the nonlinear seismic response and the level of the
damage that older concrete buildings experience. yiel
Limited nonlinear time history analyses were pos
performed on a 2D model of a portion of the
building. Comparison of results obtained from 1.11
nonlinear time history analysis and the
Methodology indicates that the methodology earl
predicts higher roof displacements and lower base the
shears than the time history analyses do. This stU(
discrepancy may be attributed, in part, to the brif
lateral load distribution used in the pushover Ihei
analysis (Level 2: code distribution without the
concentrated force at the roof level, described in dis]
Section 8.2.1 of the Methodology). The actual dell
load distribution is probably significantly affected AUI
by higher mode effects, related to the torsional add
mode of response and the irregular mass bui.
distribution found in this building, which is COl
accounted for in the time history analysis. The ApI
results of a pushover analysis are sensitive to the the
lateral load distribution used. Therefore, ana
modifying the load distribution to include higher dra
mode effects (see Levels 4 and 5 in Section 8.2.1 "fil
or the recommendations of Section 8.2.4 of the
Methodology) may result in better correlation
between the results from nonlinear time history
analysis and the Methodology.
The Methodology does predict the damage to
the shear walls and coupling beams that was
observed after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.
The extent of damage, however, appears to be
underestimated by the proposed methodology.
Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN i
L
~~----------------------
'1--- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~I __------------------------------------------------------------
r

It This discrepancy is the cumulative effect of the A summary of the results is tabulated below.
alytical simplifying assumptions that had to be made to
mch apply the proposed ~ethodology. to this bu.ilding. Method' ,........ '.. Roof Displacement (In.)
:areful The specific assumptIOns we belIeve contrIbuted CSM (Earlier draft) 1.05
1t. most to this "discrepancy" are the bilinear (elasto-
CSM (Finall; Type B, K-0.67 0.9
If global • plastic) component behavior model that ignores
CSM (Final>; Type C, K-0.33 1.3
utions shear strength degradation and the fundamental
mode load distribution that ignores higher mode Displacement coefficient 4.1
fness Method
effects
Ie The Methodology, using nonlinear static Equal Displacement 0.9
Approximation
110ading: analysis procedures, does provide important
td ! insight into the building's seismic performance by
effect ! identifying failure mechanisms and accounting for As can be seen in the table, the roof
:vel of i the redistribution of forces during progressive displacements computed using the final version of
!ence. yielding. This level of understanding is not the CSM differs from that computed using the
were possible using traditional linear, elastic analysis. earlier draft version. These changes are due to the
.e introduction of a correction factor, 1(, to
:om 1.4 Update specifically account for the type of structural
This case study was performed based on behavior expected of the building's primary lateral
I earlier versions of the Methodology. Revisions to force resisting system. For this building,
,r base: the Methodology have been made since the case structural behavior of type B or C is expected,
his study has been completed. This Section provides a requiring use of 1(=0.67 or 1(=0.33 respectively
brief update of the most significant revisions and (compared to an implied value of 1(= 1.0 in the
r I their effect on the results of the study. earlier draft version). This factor reduces the
the The performance point and the associated roof amount of effective damping which can be
:d in displacement of the existing building has been assumed, limiting the reduction of the seismic
ual determined based on the revisions contained in the demand spectrum, and increasing the expected roof
fected August 1996 Final Draft of the Methodology. In displacement. For the poorer, type C behavior, the
nal addition, the target displacement of the existing predicted roof displacement shows the expected
building was calculated using the Displacement increase. However, for type B, "average,"
Coefficient Method and Equal Displacement behavior a decrease in the computed displacement
rhe Approximation. The following table summarizes occurred. We believe that this discrepancy can be
) the the roof displacement results from the various attributed to our use of a graphical approach in our
analyses; including results from both the "earlier earlier studies to determine the performance point
~her draft" version (as reported in this study below) and (and roof displacement) compared to our use of
U.l "final" draft version of the CSM. the more rigorous "Procedure A" for the final
the version.
n The equal displacement assumption yields
>ry target displacements which correspond very well
with those calculated using the final version of the
~e to CSM. It should also be noted that the actual
differences in predicted displacements (between the
ke. various CSM procedures) is quite small, and does
Ie not result in revision of any significant conclusions
regarding evaluation or retrofit of the building.

, CSU,., Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN C·7

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS

The displacement coefficient method predicts a specified for the first floor columns and walls in I.
roof displacement which is significantly higher the main tower area of the building. All concrete
than those calculated using the other methods. We reinforcement in the building was specified as
believe this discrepancy may be due to the unique "intermediate grade" reinforcement that has a 3.1
features of this building, i.e., significant torsional nominal yield strength of 40,000 psi.
(higher mode) response, very short period, and The typical floor framing consists of a 4" thick
the
very irregular mass distribution (40% of total reinforced concrete one-way slab spanning
EaJ
building mass occurs at the second floor level), between 7-112" wide by 15" deep concrete pan
spe
which are not adequately accounted for by these joists. The concrete joists are supported by .
bee
generalized, and simplified, nonlinear static reinforced concrete beams varying in size from
fun
procedures. 10" to 24" wide and 24" to 80" deep. Typical
In I
columns are rectangular in cross-section (l8"x24")
stn
2. Building Description with 16-#11 at the 2nd floor and 4-
tOll
#9 at the 5"' floor. All columns above the first con
2.1 General floor of the main building are laterally tied 10\\
The subject building is located in Northridge, columns (#3 at 10" or #3 at 12 "). A few columns eral
California and was constructed in 1963. The at the first floor have spiral reinforcement (112"$ - obs
building has five floors above grade in the 3"). loc:
rectangular main tower segment and one floor The lateral resistance in both directions for the seci
above grade in the attached north and south wings. building. is provided by concrete shear walls. A obs
The east wing has one floor above grade and is a few brick walls at the first floor also act as shear thn
separate structure. Plate I shows the northwest walls. The concrete floor acts as a rigid diaphragm bui
building elevation. to collect and transfer the lateral forces to the
The combined first floor has an area of walls. All shear walls in the buildings are lightly bui
approximately 70,000 square feet and measures reinforced (#4 at 12" centers). The shear walls dee
400 feet by 260 feet. Figure 1 shows the floor plan range in thickness from 8" to 14". In the east.west and
of the first floor level. The upper floors measure direction of the building the shear walls are app
74 feet by 227 feet and provides an area of typically 8" thick concrete, while those in the reir
approximately 16,500 square feet per floor. The north-south direction are typically 10" thick The
floor plan of the typical tower floor level is shown concrete. A number of discontinuous shear walls at d
in Figure 2. There is a partial basement floor level are located in the tower. The most prominent of cral
below the north wing. these are the east-west running corridor walls in aw~
the tower and the west facing wall at the main PIal
2.2 Structural System entrance of the building. The discontinuous walls con
The building's foundation system consists of are supported by concrete columns at the first suff
drilled, cast in place, concrete piles, grade beams, floor. The columns supporting the corridor walls buil
and pile caps. All piles are specified as 3000 psi have spiral reinforcement while the other columns bea
concrete. The piles are either 21 inches or 24 are tied.
inches in diameter. The first floor slab is cast on huil
grade, and is 6" thick in the main tower area and con
5" thick for the one story wings. floc
The construction drawings specify that the the
concrete used for construction of the floor slabs, eXte
beams, columns, girders, and walls were typically
2500 psi. However, 3000 psi concrete was

c·a Appendix C, Administration Bulldlnll, CSUN App

---r
---'
------S-E-IS-M-IC-E-V-A-L-U-A-T-I-O-N-A-N-D-R-E-T-R-O--FIT-O-F--C-O-N-C-R-E-T-E-a-U-IL-D--IN-G-S---
-------------------------~~---
f
Is in J. Observed Earthquake
Icrete Damage
as
a 1994 Northridge Earthquake
I 3.1
~" thick.' The building site is located within two miles of
the epicenter of the January 17, 1994 Northridge
Earthquake, moment magnitude (Mw) 6.7. The
Jan
spectral acceleration at the site is estimated to have
been anywhere between 1.3 to 1.7g in the
'om
fundamental building period range of the structure.
al
In general, the building suffered substantial
;nx24"} t
!, structural damage but was not at risk of partial or
total collapse. The damage was primarily
:st
concentrated in the concrete shear walls of the
tower and included moderate to severe diagonal
~/;:. '. cracking, crushing and spalling. Cracks were
Y observed in most of the concrete shear walls
for the located in the interior of the building from the
second to fifth floor. The most severe damage was
;.A observed at the east end of the tower. Plates 2
shear
through 4 show the damage at the east end of the
Jhragm' building.
Ie The concrete shear walls at the east end of the
ghtly building are linked over the exit door opening by
ills deep (lO"x60"), lightly reinforced (2-#8 bottom
st-west and 4-#8 top) coupling beams. These beams do not
appear to have ties but instead had vertical
reinforcing which terminated at the bottom steel.
These coupling beams suffered significant damage
walls at the second through fourth floor levels. The
lt of cracking was so severe that the concrete spalled
Is in away in many areas exposing the reinforcing steel.
lin Plate 4 shows a damaged coupling beam. The
walls concrete walls adjacent to these beams also
'st suffered some of the most severe cracking in the
walls bUilding. No damage was observed in any other
)Iurnns. beam element.
The exterior walls at the east end of the
building displayed signs of lateral sliding at the
construction joint above the beam at the second
, floor line. There was evidence of lateral sliding at
the construction joint at several locations of the
exterior stair tower wall. The reinforcing steel
IIl1l1endlx C, Administration Building, CSUN
dowels across these joints were exposed in some
locations. Similar damage was noted in the stair
tower between Grid 10 and 11.
No damage was noted to any of the columns in
the building, including the columns supporting the
discontinuous shear walls.
The elevated floor slabs adjacent to the heavily
damaged shear walls on the second and third floors
contain moderate to severe cracking. The slab
cracking appears to extend through the full depth
of the slab. This damage can be attributed to the
introduction of a 10" thick concrete wall along
Grid line 11.5 below the third floor. The
introduction of this wall increases the shear
demand on the slab, as the slab has to transfer the
shear load from the wall at grid line 14 to the wall
at grid line 11.5.
4. preliminary Evaluation
4.1 General
The preliminary evaluation of the building was
based on a comparison of the demand placed on
the structure by earthquake ground motion and the
ultimate capacity of the structural system. The
comparison of strength versus demand was made
using the concept of ductility demand. Generally,
most structural elements have sufficient ductility to
allow demands greater than their calculated
capacity. The measure of ductility demand is
known as the Inelastic Demand Ratio (lOR) or as
sometimes referred to as the Demand Capacity
ratios (OCR). Chapter 8 of the methodology
describes this approach. The lOR allows the direct
examination of the amount of ductility needed to
meet force demands for various structural
elements, and provides a direct measure of
probable building performance.
A three-dimensional linear elastic computer
model of the fixed base building was developed
using the computer program ETABS. This model
was developed to study the overall distribution of
c·g
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

4.2 Dynamic Characteristics of cou

Building exc,
The building periods of vibration were dan
determined from an eigenvalue analysis using late
ETABS and are presented in Table 3. The enti
fundamental period in the transverse direction obs,
(north-south) is 0.36 sec. and in the longitudinal pro'
direction (east-west) 0.19 sec. Figures 4 through 6 def;
show the fundamental mode shapes of the eart
building. It is evident from the eigenvalue analysis tow
that the building exhibits highly torsional behavior. foUl
This behavior can be attributed to the high anal
concentration of shear walls in the north-south wha
direction near the west end of the building. This
Table 2. story Mass Distribution
disproportionate distribution of stiffness places a valr
higher displacement demand on the walls at the disc
east end of the building. In the post-elastic range, suff
the torsional behavior becomes more pronounced onl)
once the coupled shear walls yield. Elastic analysis !)let
does not provide any insight into the probable
behavior of individual elements, and thus the

the lateral force and drift response of the building.

building as a whole, in the post-elastic range.
-• Tal
V0......0.:..:..
Stt
The structural model included all elements
believed to contribute to the lateral resistance of
the building. This consists of all shear walls in the
building, columns under discontinuous walls and
coupling beams. Figure 3 shows the three-
dimensional computer model of the building. The
seismic base of the building was assumed to be the
ground/first floor level. Tables 1 and 2 show
member stiffness properties and mass distribution
4.3 Elastic Analysis
A linear elastic response spectrum analysis of
-•
used in the analysis, respectively. Note that the the building was performed using the 5 percent
wall stiffness properties used here differs
somewhat from the default stiffness values
damped default site spectrum (presented in
Section 5.4.2 of this report). The maximum roof
--•
included in Chapter 9 of the methodology. The
values selected here are believed to be more
displacement measured at the center of mass and at
grid line 14 was 2.4 inches and 3.6 inches, --
representative for this building. The transverse
walls have been assigned lower stiffness values
because they are expected to have significantly
higher stress levels than the walls in the
respectively. This result reflects the torsional
behavior of the building. !DRs' (see chapter 8 of
the methodology for definition) were calculated for
critical elements of the lateral system.
- •
longitudinal direction. Table 4 gives the !DRs' for selective elements i --
of the building. The !DRs' of the shear walls and
,

I
C·1D Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN i App,
1
~~----------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---: ~-----------------------------------------------------

coupling beams on the east end of the building 5. Evaluation Of Existing

exceed acceptable levels, suggesting severe
damage and probable complete breakdown of their
g lateral resisting capability. This result is not
entirely consistent with the actual damage
observed during the Northridge Earthquake which
on
linal produced ground motions comparable to that of the
)Ugh 6. default spectrum. Although, the most severe
earthquake damage occurred at the east end of the
lalysis ' tower (line 14) where the structural elements were
lavior .. found to be most highly overstressed in the elastic
analysis, the damage was significantly less than
th what one would expect from the high lORs' .
:his No column had an lOR which exceeded a
es a value of 1.0. The columns supporting the
:he discontinuous shear walls were found to possess
mge, sufficient strength to meet the force demand, and
nced only minor damage is anticipated to occur in these
lalysis : members.
e The determination of the strength/capacity of a
Table 4. IDRS DF selected structural Elements
• Coupling Beam @ Line 14
)k1Mi~j t Roof 4.2
Building By Product 1.2
Methodology
5.1 General
The seismic performance of the building was
evaluated using the Capacity Spectrum Method
(CSM) presented in Chapter 8 of the
Methodology. This method of evaluation considers
two aspects in the performance of a structure, the
demand placed on the structure during a seismic
event, and the strength/capacity of the structure.
The performance of the building is measured by its
ability to withstand the force demand imposed on
it during a seismic event. This is accomplished
qualitatively by comparing the anticipated
performance of the building to a predetermined
performance objective.
building requires a pushover analysis to be
performed on the lateral force resisting system of
the building. The pushover analysis determines the
levels of building lateral forces and corresponding
roof displacements that are associated with
successive stages of the development of yielding in
the major building members.

_:
--, 5th 5.2
4th 5.1 The determination of the seismic demand on a
-- structure requires a quantification of the seismic
3rd 3.9
hazard at a site due to ground shaking for various
2nd 2.0
earthquake hazard levels. The seismic hazard at a
• Wall L·P t2nd·3rd) @ Line 14 site considers the local geology and soil
Shear 2.1 characteristics, and the seismicity chanicteristics
is of
Shear@C.J. 3.7 of the site.
nt
:, Flexure 3.7
5.2 structure Modeling
oof 1 • Wall Q·K t2nd·3rd) @ Line 14
mdat I, Shear 1.9 5.2.1 computer Models
, Shear@C.J. 2.6 A total of three different "base" models were
Flexure S.1 developed for this study, a three·dimensional
lof elastic model, a two·dimensional elastic model,
:d for: • COlumns Supporting
Discontinuous Shear Walls and a two-dimensional inelastic model.
< 1.0
lents
and

CSUN Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN c·n

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table s. 2·D wall Models for studY Of Foundation were modeled with vertical spring elements. To "spe
'Hem account for the uncertainty of the soil properties, over
upper and lower bound values were used for the gain
siiffness and capacity of the foundation. The strai
stiffness and capacity of the foundation system was In th
determined by a geotechnical engineer. A total of "ex~
three models were used to study the foundation appr
effects, a "fixed" base model and two "flexible" 25 p
base models. Table 5 list the models used. Ho....
A DRAIN-2DX model of the wall and coupling rein1
Table 6. Assumed Properties Of Clmstruction beams along grid line 14 was developed to and
Materials perform nonlinear time history analyses. This calc\
~~
model is analogous to the "fixed" base SAP90 colU!
model used in the evaluation of foundation effects. valUl
The shear walls were modeled using beam/column
elements and joint elements in series. The dicta
beam/column elements were used to represent the joint
flexural behavior of the walls, and were infinitely thee
rigid in shear. The joint elements were used to earli
represent the shear behavior of the walls, and were and,
infinitely rigid in flexure.
All other strength 40 ksl The DRAIN-2DX model was "validated" by 5.3
calculations performing two simple analyses. The capacities of
5.S.
all of the elements were arbitrarily increased to
I
"linearize" the system, then an eigen-analysis was
performed, and the results compared to that of the dete!
To determine the strength/capacity of the the I,
building a pushover analysis was required. The SAP90 model. A pushover analysis was also
performed, and the results compared to that of the The
preliminary evaluation of the building indicated dime
that the building is highly susceptible to torsion. In piecewise linear analysis. In both cases the results
from the DRAIN-2DX model compared favorably thet
order to account for the torsional effects in the capa
building response, a three-dimensional piecewise with the equivalent SAP90 result.
push
linear pushover analysis was performed. The 5.2_2 Modeling Assumptions piecf
ETABS model of the building, which was used in
The values for the material properties, used in
the preliminary evaluation of the building, was state
this study are given in Table 6. The methodology
used in the pushover analysis. thet
only gives default strength values for
A simplified two-dimensional model of a stol)
reinforcement (see Section 9.5.2 of the ,
portion of the Administration Building was also proc,
methodology) which differs somewhat from those I
developed to investigate the effects of foundation top.
assumed in this study. The values assumed here are I
on the seismic response. The wall and coupling (Seci
the expected strength of the material and are
beams along grid line 14 were modeled for this Alth,
normally greater than the minimum "specified" !
purpose using the SAP90 computer program. The SUch
values called out in the construction document.
properties used in this model were analogous to stren
Specified values of material strength are used in
those used in the 3-D ETABS model. The the ~
design and reflect the minimum value. The
structural properties of the foundation and soil it im
"expected" values are always larger than the

I
C·12 Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUIII ,j lIpPI
~r ----S-E-.S-M-.-C-E-V-A-L-U-A-T-.-O-N-A-N-D-R-E-T-R-O-F-'T-O-F-C-O-N-C-R-E-T-E--B-U-'-LD-'N-G-S---
-----II __----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To "specified" values because of inherent
ties, overstrengths in the original material, strength
the gained over time, and increase in strength due to
, strain rates that are expected during earthquakes.
'm was: In the absence of in-situ test results, the
tal of ' "expected" strength of concrete was assumed to be
Ion approximately 20 percent higher and reinforcement
ble" 25 percent higher than the "specified" values.
However, the "expected" values of the
ing reinforcement were used to calculate only the axial
and flexural strength of the members. For all other
is ! calculations such as shear strength of beams,
~O columns, shear walls, etc., the specified minimum
ffects. ; values of the reinforcement were used.
olumn ; The limit state of most of the walls were
dictated by the shear capacity at the construction
nt the joint. The effect of gravity loads were included in
nitely the calculation of the friction capacity. As noted
to earlier, "expected" values were used for the steel
d were and concrete strength to calculate all capacities.
" by 5.3 Pushover Analysis
ties of .
I to
5.501 Procedure
is was A pushover analysis was performed to
of the determine the force-displacement characteristics of
the lateral force resisting system of the building.
of the The pushover analysis was performed in three-
'esults dimensions to account for the torsional behavior of
Jrably I the building. In the absence of analytical tools
capable of performing three-dimensional nonlinear
pushover analyses, the analysis was performed in a
piecewise linear fashion.
[sed in The analysis proceeded in sequential stages. As
)Iogy stated earlier, the lateral forces were applied, in
the transverse direction of the building, to each
story in proportion to the 1991 UBC code
those procedure without the concentrated FT force at the
lere are top. This is described in the methodology
(Section 8.4) as Level 2 pushover analysis.
ed" Although theoretically other levels of sophistication
:nt. such as direct inclusion of higher modes and
din strength and stiffness degradation can be used for
the pushover analysis, lack of analytical tools make
it impractical to implement at this time.
g, CSU" Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN
Furthermore, the methodology is not clear as to
how to include higher mode effects. The results
presented herein based on force distribution
representing fundamental mode response and no
post-yield strength and/or stiffness degradation
should, therefore, be viewed with some judgment.
Member forces were calculated for the
required combinations of vertical and lateral load.
The lateral force level was adjusted so that an
element was stressed to within 10 percent of its
member strength. Once an element reached its
member strength, the element was considered to
be incapable of taking additional lateral load . The
base shear and roof displacement were recorded.
In the next stage, the yielding element was
removed from the model. Increments of lateral
load were applied to the revised model until
another element yielded, and the increment of
lateral load and the corresponding increment of
roof displacement was added to the previous totals
to give the accumulated values of base shear and
roof displacement. This sequence continued until
either a failure mode or mechanism was obtained.
The procedure followed is consistent with the
Methodology guidelines ..Table 7 is a sample of
the spreadsheet used to track the demand and
capacity of individual structural elements at each
stage of the pushover analysis.
5.502 Results
The results of the pushover analysis indicate
that the walls and coupling beams along grid line
14 are the first elements to yield. The walls
between grid lines G and K yield in flexure, the
walls between grid lines Land P yield in shear at
the construction joint, and the coupling beams
yield in flexure. This behavior is consistent with
the results of the elastic response spectrum
analysis.
As the structural elements of the building
yields the center of rigidity of the tower floors
shift westward. At the last stage of the pushover
analysis, the center of rigidity of the 3rd floor
shifted 92 feet (40 percent of the tower length)
from its original (undamaged) position. The shift
C-1S
 SEISMIC EVALU~TION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-

Table 1. samPle oF Spl"eadsheet used In Pushover Analysis

•
Tal

J~I
Wal
wal
wal
Wal
11]
wal
wal
~
--bITS

wal
wal
\I)
wal

-
Wal
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

, -Taj
i,q,?~
--..

--
-
...
C-14
APpendix C, Administration Building, CSU'" Ap~
-r
-1-
,
-----S-E-.S-M-.C-E-V-A-L-U-A-T-.-O-N-A-N-D-R-E-T-R-O-F-.T-O-F-C-O-N-C-R-E-T-E-B-U-.L-D-.-N-G-S---

TallIe 7. (continued) Sample Of Spreadsheet used in pushover Analysis

1. Structural Element - Structural element and limit state being tracked.

2. Element Capacity· Computed capacity of element. Updated at each stage of analysis.
3. Element Demand· Force demand on element (from ETABS).
4. Demand/Capacity - Demand-capacity ratio. Shaded cell indicates elements which have yielded.
5. Scaling Factor - Scaling factor used for scaling forces and displacements.
6. Remaining Capacity - Element capacity at end of stage. used to update element capacity at subsequent stage.

~,CSUN Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN C·1!

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

of the center of rigidity accentuates the torsional Table 9. FaCtors IIsed tD Determine
behavior of the building. SeIsmIc Hazard Ta
Eight stages were necessary before a ~

mechanism was formed in the structure. The

results of the pushover analysis are presented in
I
~

Wi
Table 8.
Wi
A capacity curve was developed from the
results of the pushover analysis and is shown in we
Figure 7. The capacity curve represents the force- W,
displacement characteristics of the lateral force N - 1.2 Type B. <
Be;
Skm
resisting system of the entire structure (Chapter 8). Be,
The capacity curve is a plot of the base shear vs. C. - 1.0·ZEN
= 0.6 Bel
roof displacement at the various stages of the
Cv - 1.6·ZEN Bel

-
analysis.
- 0.96 Be;
A capacity curve was also developed for the
wall along grid line 14. It was assumed that the NOI
wall supports 30 percent of the total tower weight.
5.4.2 Demand Spectrum
The assumed distribution of weight is in direct
proportion to the effective stiffness of the wall. A default 5 percent damped site response fac
The normalized base shear was computed based spectrum was developed using the procedures of bui
upon the story shear at the 2nd floor level and the Section 4.4.3.3 of the Methodology. The building Pu!
displacement at the roof level of grid line G. site has a stiff soil profile corresponding to a SD stit
Figure 8 shows the capacity curves computed at Soil Profile Type and is located in seismic zone 4, bui
the center of mass and at grid line 14. The figure seismic zone factor (Z) of 0.4, from Table 4-4 of res]
illustrates the torsional nature of the building the Methodology. The seismic sources used for bui
response and suggests that the displacement design are Type B and are located within 5 km of
demand on the wall governs the performance of the site for a near-source factor (N) of 1.2, froni 5.5
the building. Table 4-5 of the Methodology. An E-factor of
1.25, corresponding to ME, was used to determine leVI
5.4 Seismic Demand the shaking intensity, ZEN. used in Tables 4·7 and rOll
4-8 of the Methodology. The default value of the at e
5.4.1 Seismic Hazard Level effective peak ground acceleration (C.). from rOll
For this study, the earthquake hazard is Table 4-7 of the Methodology, is 0.6g. The value perl
represented by a Maximum Earthquake (ME), as of the seismic coefficient (Cv), given in Table 4-8 of t
defined in Chapter 4 of the Methodology. This of the Methodology, is 0.96. The coefficients and COl
level of seismic hazard is defined deterministically factors used in the development of the site 0.9
as the maximum level of earthquake ground response spectrum are presented in Table 9. flex
shaking wh'ich may be expected at the building site Figure 9 is a plot of the default 5 percent damped 2.5
within the known geological framework. The ME site response spectrum used in this study. limi
represents an upper bound level of ground The default site response spectrum is C.P
shaking, which for this site may be taken as the transformed into the default demand spectrum
level of earthquake ground motion that has a using spectral relationships. The demand spectrum rota
10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 100 used in this study was constructed from the default alor
year time period, which corresponds to a return 5 percent damped site response spectrum using Thil
period of approximately 1000 years. spectrum reduction factors (Chapter 4). These anal

c-nl APpendIx C, Administration Building, CSUN

 r
---r SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

-----
Parks' .
Table 10, Chord RotatIon of structural Elements Along Grid tine 14
/,Imlt Stage 1

--
'Soil

_.
-.
l e4
:. EO
S, <
:m
-:

_i
!
Note: Additional walls are introduced at the lower level of the building. This resulted in the walls between Grd. and 2nd floor to
remain essentially elastic.

factors account for the "effective" damping of the
: of
building above 5 percent of critical. The modal
ding pushover curve is used to calculate the effective
So stiffness and the total energy dissipated by the
ne 4, building. These characteristics of the building
4 of
response define the effective damping of the
Jr building,
n of
om 5.5 RespOnse Limits
f The response limits of the various performance
:mine levels were determined by considering the chord
7 and
rotations of the concrete walls and coupling beams
the at each stage of the pushover analysis. These
rotations were compared to the maximum
alue permitted chord rotations presented in Chapter 11
; 4-8 of the Methodology. These limits are as follows:
and Coupling Beams: 1.0. = 0.5 percent, L.S. =
0.9 percent, C.P. = 1.4 percent; Walls with
flexural limit states: 1.0. = 0.5 percent, L.S. =
ped 2.5 percent, C.P. = 3.0 percent; Walls with shear
limit states: 1.0. =0.5 percent, L.S. = 1.0 percent,
C.P. = 1.5 percent.
As can be seen from Figure 8, the chord
trum rotations of the walls at the east end of the tower
;fault along grid line 14 govern the response limit states.
g This is consistent with the results of the elastic
analysis and the observed earthquake damage, as
these walls experience high displacement demands.
Table 10 contains the chord rotations of the
structural elements along grid line 14 at every
stage of the analysis. Table 11 summarizes the
response limits as determined from the pushover
analysis.
Table 11. Response limits For BuildIng
performance Levels
Immediate Occupancy 0.98
Life Safety 1.92
structural Stability 2.6
5.6 performance Objectives
5.6.1 Structural performance Level
A SP-l Structural Performance Level -
Immediate Occupancy (Section 3.2.1) was
assumed for the ME. The immediate occupancy
performance level assumes that the structure
experiences very limited structural damage. The
basic vertical and lateral force resisting systems of
the building retain nearly all of their pre-
earthquake characteristics and capacities. The risk

CSUN Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN c-"

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

of structural failure is negligible and the building analysis techniques (Chapter 8). The wa
should be safe for unlimited entry. transformation was limited to the fundamental me
mode of vibration in this analysis. Table 8 all
5.6.2 Nonstructural PerFormance provides the results of the transformation. the
Level pre
An Immediate Occupancy (NP-B) 5.7.2 PerFormance Point hal
Nonstructural Performance Level (Section 3.2.2) The performance point of the building was are
was assumed of the ME. At this performance determined assuming a ME event for the site. The dis
level, nonstructural elements and systems are CSM diagram and the procedure outlined in the bili
generally in place, minor disruption and clean-up Methodology was used to establish the stn
should be expected. performance point. For the existing configuration
of the building, the performance point corresponds 5.1
5.6.8 Building Performance Level to a spectral acceleration of 0.9g and spectral
Based upon the SP-l structural performance displacement of 1.3 inches. 5.1
level and the NP-B nonstructural performance The performance point was transformed from
level that has been assumed, the overall values of spectral acceleration and spectral car
performance level for this building is I-B, from displacement to values of force-displacement. The pel
Table 3-1 of the Methodology. Thus, the building transformed performance point has values of 7260 the
is considered an essential facility (continuous kips and 1.05 inches. exi
occupancy) where the spaces and systems are Th
presumed reasonably useable after a ME event, but 5.7.8 sulldlng Performance stn
continuity of lifeline service, either primary or The performance of the building is evaluated sti!
backup, is not fully provided. based upon where the performance point lies rna
This more restrictive performance objective relative to the performance goal. Figure 10 shows
was selected to demonstrate the applicability of the the performance point along wi th the performance 5.1
proposed methodology in selecting a retrofit levels plotted on the capacity curve. As stated
scheme. A more representative performance earlier, a Level 1 structural performance level, the
objective for essential facilities would be an corresponding to immediate occupancy, was pel
overall performance level of 1-B for a Design assumed for this study. As can be seen from the usi
Earthquake and an overall performance level of 3- figure, the performance point falls outside of this Me
C for a Maximum Earthquake. If this performance performance range and as a result, the for
objective was used for this case study the methodology requires the building to be the
methodology would have predicted that no retrofit strengthened in order to achieve the immediate mc
was required. occupancy performance goal. ace
The CSM, as outlined in the Methodology, roc
5.7 Performance Evaluation estimates the performance of the building to be of
very close to the immediate occupancy response poi
5.7.1 capacity Spectrum bas
limit. This implies that that the building would
A capacity spectrum was derived from the suffer "moderate" damage in a ME event. This is pel
capacity curve. The capacity spectrum is a plot of inconsistent with the level of damage sustained by res
spectral acceleration (S.) vs. spectral displacement the building during the Northridge Earthquake.
(S.). It is constructed from the capacity curve of 5.1
The damage sustained during the Northridge
the pushover analysis by transforming the force- Earthquake (which is believed to have generated
displacement points of the capacity curve to bui
less severe ground motion at the site than that
spectral acceleration and spectral displacement Var
assumed here in the analysis for the ME event)
points using relationships developed from modal

C·18 Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN I AlII

--f--------------------------------------
,; SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
- 'i
I

was more severe than that predicted by the

11 methodology. This discrepancy is probably due to Table 12. performance points and Response
all the assumptions that had to be made to apply Limits for 2·0 Wall Models
the proposed methodology to this very complex
i it; .
..

',<7,_-,,:;':;>:_:: ·2·DWlllt(
- --
problem. The assumptions that are believed to ">
,,, -."
Moder;·
have contributed the most to this" discrepancy" ":.', ...•. "' Fixed I"Flexlble.1,~ Ftexll1le.2
as are the assumed fundamental mode response, load Performance
· The distribution that ignores higher mode effects, and point
the bilinear component behavior model which ignores Sa 0.359 0.359 0.369
strength and stiffness degradation. s, 4.6 In. 6.0 in. 5.9 in.
ation 4.7 In.
~Of 6.2 In. 6.1 in.
'ponds i 5.8 Evaluation of Foundation Effects
Response
1
5.B.1 General Limit

from The deformation and movement of foundations Immediate 1.4 In. 1.9 in. 2.1 in.
Occupancy
can significantly affect the seismic response and
performance of structures. Techniques to include Life safety 2.2 In. 2.7 in. 2.9in.
· The
7260 the effects of foundations in the evaluation of structural 2.9 In. 3.6 in. 3.8 in.
existing buildings are presented in Chapter 10. Stability
These techniques require the expansion of the
structural model to include representations of the
ated stiffness and capacity of the foundation, and soil Table 1S. Chord Rotations at Roof Displacement
materials. of21nches
hows ~~~
lance 5.B.2 Analysis
d A pushover analysis was performed for each of
the models, and the performance points and
performance level response limits determined
the using the procedures presented in the
· this Methodology. Figure 11 shows the CSM diagram
for each of the models. The performance point of
the "fixed" base model has coordinates of 4.6
.le inches spectral displacement and 0.35g spectral
acceleration. These spectral values correspond to a
.y, roof displacement of 4.69 inches and base shear
be of 1350 kips. Table 12 gives the performance roof displacement of 2". These values are given in
nse point and response limits for the fixed and flexible Table 13. As can be seen from the table, for a
ld base models. Figure 12 shows the plot of the given roof displacement the foundation has the
lis is performance point on the capacity curve with the effect of reducing the chord rotations of the
ld by response limits superimposed. coupling beams and walls.
;e. The results of this limited analysis suggest that
5.B.~ EValuation the performance point of the fixed base model lies
To evaluate the effect of the foundation on the outside of the structural stability response limit.
lted
building performance, the chord rotations of This result is consistent with the fact that only one
.t
It) various structural elements were computed for a wall of the building has been evaluated and does

',CSUN Appendix C, Administration BuUdlng, CSUN C·,g

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

not reflect the effects of redistribution of loading 5.9.5 EValuation

between multiple bracing elements that typically
exist in most buildings. The performance points of
the flexible base models also lie outside of the
structural stability response limit.
Here, including the foundation in the analysis
had the effect of shifting the performance point of
the building. The roof displacements
corresponding to the performance points of the
flexible base models are significantly greater than
that of the fixed base model. It may be mentioned
that in the actual case where all the bracing
A comparison of the results from the "limited"
time history analysis and the Methodology
indicates that the methodology overestimates the
NO
roof displacement and underestimates the base ttro
shear (see Figures 14a and 14b). This discrepancy
RO
is primarily attributed to the lateral load
distribution assumed in the pushover analysis. In
the pushover analysis, a triangular load
distribution is assumed. The actual load
distribution is believed to be quite different and is
significantly affected by higher mode effects. The
-Ea!
(10

join
the
elements of the building are included and load inelastic analysis considers these effects, thus its "ba
distribution is properly accounted for, the results are thought to better approximate the actual buil
performance points calculated with and without the response of the building. tors
foundation effects are not expected to differ by so alor
much. The increase in the roof displacement can S. Evaluation Of witl
be attributed to the "rigid body" rotation of the inse
building due to the flexible foundation, the relative
strengthened Building
displacement of the structural members, or a By Product '.2 6.2
combination of both. MethOdology
5.9 "Limited" Nonlinear Time History 6.1 Retrofit Scheme mot
Analysis wall
The structural damage sustained during the
5.9.1 Ceneral Northridge Earthquake was concentrated at the vibr
Nonlinear time history analyses were east end of the building. This is consistent with the anal
performed, and the results used to evaluate the analytical results which indicate that torsion fum
dominates the dynamic response of the building. (nol
predicted performance of the building based on the
Methodology. These analyses were performed The torsional response places an increased dire
displacement demand on the walls at the east end sho,
using the computer program DRAIN-2DX.
of the building. To achieve the performance goal, sIre)
5.9.2 Analysis the proposed retrofit scheme consist of figu
A set of twenty ground motion time histories strengthening of the wall along grid line 14 and the the
were used to excite the structure. These time construction joints along grid line 11.5.
histories were scaled to the 5 percent damped The shear wall along grid line 14 will be 6.3
default site response spectrum used in the strengthened by a full height six inch thick
evaluation of the building performance. Figure 13 reinforced concrete wall constructed adjacent to
shows the scaled composite response spectrum for the existing wall. The new wall has #6 at 18" stre)
the set of time histories along with the default site reinforcing and will be connected to the existing Was
response spectrum. Figure 14 shows the peak roof concrete wall by means of #4 dowels at 30" o.c. mec
displacement response and maximum base shear horizontal and vertical. New boundary elements coul
for all of the time histories, and the average values with 4-#9 were added to increase the flexural elen
of these parameters. The average maximum roof capacity of the wall. Additional diagonal disp
displacement is 2.35 inches and the average reinforcing was also provided at the construction alJe'
maximum base shear is 2188 kips.

C·2D Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table 14. Building period Of Vibration strengthening. Thus, this wall continues to
1ited" ... ....... · c ...

....
perlridISeCJ ....... experience a higher force demand.
A capacity curve and capacity spectrum was
Mode.·.• . . $trengthen~ 16xlstlng
the developed for the strengthened building from the
North· South 0.33 0.36 results of the pushover analysis. Figure 17 shows
e (transverse)
'ancy the capacity curve for the existing and
Rotation 0.22 0.23
strengthened buildings. As can be seen from the
. In East· west 0.19 0.19 figure, the capacity of the strengthened building is
(longitudinal)
greater than that of the existing building.
The performance point of the strengthened
nd is joints of the existing wall. The new wall increases building was determined to correspond to a
The the strength of the existing wall and also spectral displacement of 0.73 inch and a spectral
; its "balances" the stiffness distribution of the acceleration of 0.79g. The transformed
actual building, although the strengthened building is still performance point has a base shear of 7817 kips
I torsionally susceptible. The construction joints and a roof displacement of 0.86 inch.
along the wall at grid line 11.5 are strengthened The response limits of the various performance
with #5 x 1'-5" dowels at 12" o.c. The dowels are levels were determined for the strengthened
inserted at an inclined angle into the existing wall. building. The response limit of the immediate
ng occupancy performance level corresponds to a roof
6.2 Dynamic Characteristics of displacement of 1.18 inches. The performance
strengthened Building point along with the response limits are plotted on
The ETABS model of the building was the capacity curve, and shown in Figure 18. The
modified to reflect the increased stiffness of the performance point of the strengthened building lies
he wall along grid line 14. The building periods of within the immediate occupancy performance
:he vibration were determined from an eigenvalue range and thus satisfies the performance objective.
·ith the analysis and are presented in Table 14. The
fundamental period in the transverse direction 7. Concluding Remarks
.ing. (north-south) is 0.33 sec. and in the longitudinal This report presented an application of the
direction (east-west) 0.19 sec. Figures 15 and 16 document Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
tend show the first two fundamental mode shapes of the Existing Concrete Buildings to the Administration
goal, strengthened building. It is evident from the Building in the California State University at
figures that the strengthened wall helps to reduce Northridge. The purpose of this example building
and the the torsional behavior of the building. study is to evaluate the applicability of this
Methodology as well as to validate and
6.3 Evaluation of strengthened
demonstrate it's application. The following
Building
conclusions can be drawn from this study:
A piecewise linear pushover analysis of the
,. ,
1t to 1. For highly torsionally susceptible buildings
strengthened building was performed. The analysis such as the one studied here, three-dimensional
sting was terminated prior to the formation of a failure analysis is required. Accordingly, a direct
o.c. mechanism. The results indicate that the walls and application of the methodology would require
lents coupling beams along grid line 14 still are the first a three-dimensional pushover analysis. At
al elements to yield. This is expected, as the higher present there are no analytical tools available
displacement demand on this end of the building is that has this capability. As demonstrated in
Iction alleviated, but not eliminated, by the proposed this study, piecewise linear pushover analysis

Ig, CSUII Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN C-21

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
can be done to approximate the behavior but
that involves tremendous bookkeeping effort
which essentially makes the application of the
Methodology to such buildings impractical.
2. Most analytical tools e.g., DRAIN-2DX
implicitly assumes that all components have
elasto-plastic behavior i.e., they are assumed
to perform in a ductile fashion with no
strength and stiffness degradation. Requisite
simplifications and modeling assumptions,
therefore, are required to create building
models for pushover analysis. Many of these
assumptions can very often yield analytical
results which are misleading and can provide
false sense of security.
3. Comparison of results obtained using nonlinear
time-history and Methodology indicates that
the methodology overestimates the roof
displacement and underestimates the base
shear. This discrepancy is primarily attributed
to the lateral load distribution (code
distribution without the concentrated force at
the roof level) assumed in the pushover
C-22
analysis. The actual load distribution is quite
different as it is believed to be significantly
affected by the higher modes effects.
Therefore, realistic load distribution should be
used for the analysis since the results of the
pushover analysis can be very sensitive to the
lateral load distribution.
4. The methodology appears to reasonably
predict the earthquake damage to the shear
waIls and coupling beams observed after the
Northridge Earthquake. The extent of damage,
however, appears to be significantly
underestimated by the proposed methodology.
This discrepancy is probably due to all the
assumptions that had to be made to apply the
proposed methodology to this very complex
problem. The assumptions that are believed to
have contributed the most to this
"discrepancy" are the assumed fundamental
mode response, load distribution that ignores
higher mode effects, and bilinear (elasto-
plastic) component behavior model which
ignores strength and stiffness degradation.
Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN
__ _________________________________
T~
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
uite Administration Building, CSUN
:ly

lid be
:he
Jlhe

ar
the
mage,

logy.
Ie
. the
lex i
I
'ed to
II
ltal I
f
ores
I
h
1. I Plate 1. NDl'thwest BuildIng ElevatIon

,
I.
I
,f
I

Plate 2. Flexural Damage at East Wall (GrId 14J

g, csuN Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN C-2J

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Administration Building, CSUN

Plate s. Slldlnll Damalle at EXterior wall (Crld 111'

Plate II. Damage CouplfnllBeam at East wall (Crld 111'

C-24 Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUIi I\iIlle

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
Administration Building, CSUN

Concrete Walls (Typ.)

Figure 1. Floor Plan DI FIrst Floor level.

g, CSUN Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN C·25.

 -' .." .. .
;'~~~~~l!~~1'> :!i:~~:MMi#f~~f";r:-'~:-'
~~~!'~';~r';/, '
'

, >, - •
'--;,_.- . . "

SEISMIC EVALUATION ANO RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Administration Building, CSUN

f~ I
I
,
.

1 • o. "",p .. " -0- ....... b. G

"'" paa"....
I i
;

II
G

I
i,,
- _ _ "" _ _ _ _ _ _..-..c=::===:o:t==m:::=.,=-..-== =-----.--'''F''-
i
~"",,,,

~=

!
:;- , -
~
l ..--'
"'-
l
\ 10=,
<=
~ Concrete Walls (Typ.)
I
~
......
,
- _- iX' ,I I p
....
- H • ...lL-..Jl. _-1L .... JL-----'L- iL_ ~ l....·.··_ .. t
I ITI

-. 1- I ,.J!... ,
- Il . ~It::r.
---'"
I
r
.J -0
Figure 2. Floor Plan 01 TYpical Tower Floor Level. (Only Transverse Walls are ShOwn)

C-2& Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN

--- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Administration Building, CSUN

Coaaete w.... Typ.

o FIgure S. Three DImensIonal computer Model.

<2>

----' ,-
If-i-
--I· L'
- -

FIgure 4. First Mode oF VibratIon (North-South TranslatIon) oF EXIstIng Building.

I, CSUN Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN C·2'

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Administration Building, CSUN

L __ ~_~ ___ JJ I
r.-----! ~- -- - --.---I
-.JI

----'i-
/11---
---:I L1
- -

Fillure 5_ Second Mode DI Vibration (Rotation) DI EXlstlnll Bulldlnll_

---- --- --._. --~ I

!llL -----rio
I.
I~ n 1 _____ ~J= ~I
I r~l,~---, III
I
~

li-
~ II
11"
Fillure 6_ Third Mode 01 Vibration (East-west Translation) 01 EXlstlnll Bulldlnll_

C-28 APpendix C, Administration Building, CSUN

-- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Administration Building, CSUN

VIW
0.7

0.6

0.5
. ...... ....... . .
. ...
0.4 ....-......' - - - - ' -_ _ ~bear Yle~g @ Lini4, 2nd & 3i-d Floors. G· P

0.3
Shear tlelding@CJ. @ Lin~ 14, 2ndFI~r, L· P
.. ; ..
0.2

0.1

o~--~--~--~--~--~--~--------~--~~

o 0.5 I 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Roof Displacement (in.)

Figure 7. capacity Curve of EXisting Building at center of Mass.

VIW
0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

o~--~--~--~----~--~--~--~----~--~--~
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Roof Displacement (in.)

Figure B. capacity curves of EXIsting Building at Center Of Mass and GrId LIne 14.

I, CSUN. Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN C-2!J

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Administration Building, CSUN

Spectral Acceleration (g)

2

1.5 r----~.- -------------- ------ --------- ----------'- -~-~ ;~~- -----

I

0.5 -----------------------------------------~--~--~-----~----~----~-----~---

o
o 0.5 I 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (sec.)

Figure 9. Plot of 596 Dampetl Default site Response Spectra.

VIW
0.7
..... I.!) . (~.98) ....•..... I.,S. (j,lIl). .. 5.$. (2,6>...
0.6
................ ,..
0.5
............
0.4

0.3

0.2 1.0. ImmeIdate Occupancy

L.S. IJfe Safety
8.S. 8tructural 8tabWty
0.1

0~------~--~--~--~+-----------~--~--4
o 0.5 I 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Roof Displacement (in.)

Figure 10. Performance point anti Response Limits of EXisting Bulltllng Plottetl on capacity CUrve. (Roof
Displacement at Center Of Mass)

c-:so Appendix C, Administration Building, csuN

---- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Administration Building, CSUN

Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2 ----------------------------------'~---~----~----~----~----~----~---------
Reduud Demand Spectrum
0.1

o
o 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Spectral D'isplacement (in)
Figure 11a. CSM Diagram of Fixed Based Two Dimensional wall Model.

Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.7

0.' ----------------------------------------------~---------------------
a.dac.<I D . . . . . . SpeClII ...

0.5

0.'
0.3 -------------------
__ _ ____________________ ~ _"!, ~'1'! _51' !c_I,:"_"'_______________________________ _
0.2

0.1

o
o 2 • •
Spectral Displaccm cnt (in)
8 10

FIgure 11b. CSM Diagram Of Flexlble·1 TwO DimensIonal wall Model.

Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.7

0.'
0.5

0.' -----------------------------------
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2
• •
Spectral D isplacem eDt (in)
8 10

70f

Figure 11c. elM Diagram Of Flexlble-2 TwO Dimensional wall Model.

I, CSUN Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN C-!1

 -
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-

Administration Building, CSUN

N~onn~W=-ud~B=ase~=Sh~~~~~~~ ____________________________,
035 i-

0.3 ........... .

0_25

0.15

0_1
o 1.0. Immediate Occupancy
. . ....... _...... --_. -,. -L.S.ur.,SBf'elf·
" 8.8. 8truc:tural Stability
'I' P.P. Perfol'Dl8l\Ce Point
0.05 ~' ..... . . .. c ............. _.. _.. _.. ___ . . . . .

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-J
o 2 3 4 5 6 7
Roof Displacement (in.)

Figure 12. performance point and Response Limits of Fixed Base, Flexlble-1, and Flexlble-2 TWO Dimensional
wall Model_

Spectral Acceleration (g)

2

1.5 1rI--\-:"....,,-""'-""\-- - - - - - - - - - - -Scaled Composite Spectrum

-5% Default Spectrum

0.5

Spectral Displacement (in)

Figure 1:5. scaled Composite Response Spectra.

C-S2 APpendix C, Administration Building, CSUN

ss-:) Nn~ 'IlUIPllna UOI:j8.l:PIUIWPY ':I XJPueddy
Nn~ 'III

Max. Base Shear (kips)

0
I
8 § 8- § § § §
Capitola - 38 Deg.

Capitola - 128 Deg.

Corralitos - 38 Deg.

Corralitos - 128 Deg.

;U

1 EI Centro, Station 6 -143

Deg. I
~ EI Centro, Station 6 -233
;;:
~
ill Deg. .:Ii'"
S EI Centro, Station 7 -143 C/l
16
~
Deg. III ~
'" fZ-=
CIl

t EI Centro, Station 7 -233

Deg.
'15'
.e
S'
~
•i a'l ~
a ~ a
Newhall - 80 Deg.
1:1
6- 51 I /eUD/5

is
1:1
~

s::<:>... Newhall- 350 Deg. .

~ e
i Ii ~
-- ~ ....
~ <:> Petrolia - 80 Deg. a Z
:to
l
';i
1:1

~
n
<:> Petrolia - 350 Deg.
-
'"'" N
.8
e
I

ill', a I~ ~
I ~
Rinaldi - 32 Deg.
=
I! Rinaldi - 122 Deg.
iii
'""
~
g:
1:1
fIJ

III
~ '"
.8
m
:t

Sylmar Hospital - 32 Deg.

Sylmar Hospital- 122

Deg.

-
S=»NlallDa iI.LilB:aNO:a ::10 .LhIOB.LilB aN" NOI.L"nl"AIl :aIMlSIIIS
-
IQIIII1I
,.ns:l 'llulPllna uOI~e.qslulwPV 'J xlPuelldv
.1:.:;'
Max Roof Displacment (in.)
0
- '" '" ... '" '"
J:;,;"~>'f~:S"':+~**,'4!1fl~;!t:,*.~,';~"l'i7i;~Wi~.,-t~~_"''!'fu..~r,~-:ti
.... co

Capitola - 38 Deg.

Capitola - 128 Deg.

Corralitos - 38 Deg.

Corralitos - 128 Deg.

i
5 EI Centro, Station 6 -143
~ Deg.
If
:2 EI Centro, Station 6 -233
Deg.
I
s::
S
~
EI Centro, Station 7 -143
Deg.
~
a
sa.
0
g" ~

!
::i
21 a'.l
EI Centro, Station 7 -233
Deg.
or f:
til =
i;!. !it-
~ ~
't
a Newhall - 80 Deg.
f c:
1:1
Q, I
Q
51

J
Newhall- 350 Deg.

:..
2
=::
10
::.
Iil Petrolia - 80 Deg. ~
~
1'>
..~
.~

i... ~ '"
.!:!!
N
I

~
S Petrolia - 350 Deg.
t=
• a. >Iil
! Rinaldi - 32 Deg.
."
<II
~

I f. = ::I
Rinaldi - 122 Deg. "til '"
l SCS -32 Deg.
~
;!.
-:;;;

I
.::l

SCS - 122 Deg.

SCSE - 32 Deg.

SCSE -122 Deg.

Sylmar Hospital- 32
Deg.

Sylmar Hospital- 122

Deg.

SDNla'lna II.LIIII:INO:l 110 .LIIIOII.LIIII aNY NOI.Lyn'YAIl :I1 ..SI1I5

 r ••,•• ,e EVALUAT'. . AND .......F'T DF eDNe . . . . BUILD'• •'

I,

Administration Building, CSUN

L __ -==-_-=-__ . JJ I
~I ~-.--...,--i

---' i -
---'1Ii-I-
, - 1_ _

Figure 15. First Mode of Vibration (North-South Translation) OF strengthened Building.

L_---
___-_-__ JJ
~I~ ___ -
1
I
~I

---'I-
II-I-
----:1 < - I- -

Figure 16. Second Mode oF Vibration (Rotation) of strengthened Building

I CSUN
, Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN c·ss
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
----------------------------------------------------------------

Administration Building, CSUN

API

0.7
VIW
Sh.... Yieldlnc:@CJ.· @:iJDe7,2nd&3rdFloOr,L·P
EJ
0.6 .:.:.:;.:.:..-:
........... ~ ... ...........~ .. Ha
0.5
~Ir;'~; ... ~,~""..."".. :11........ifj,:~~.~~-~sfr~@ I.iDe 45, 3n1 I1oOr , L:P ......... . Va
G.K .

0.4 preJ
. . . . . . . . ;. . . . EI
0.3 21
.... ; .... 1-<
0.2 .Stren thened Buildin
1-" .....".. Yielding@ l.iDe 14, 2nd & 3rd Fioor,L·r
0.1

o~--~--~----~--~--~--~--------~--~----+

o 0.5 I 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Roof Displacement (in.)

Figure 17. capacity curve for EXisting and strengthened Building (ROOf Displacement Is at the Center Of Mass)

VIW
0.7

0.6
j 1.0. (1.18)
............................ -_ .......
~-----
0.5
,...-.~ Sbear Yield..g @ C.J.· Ol.iDe 7, 2nd & 3rd FJi.or, L· P

0.4

0.3

0.2
aI YIelding @ ~e 14, 2nd ~ 3rd Fk»or, L· P
0.1

o~--~--~~--~--~--~----~--~--~----~--~
o 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Roof Displacement (in.)

Figure 1B. performance Point and Response Limits Of strengthened Building Plotted on capacity CUrve.

cos. Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN I\JIpen

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

APpendix D
Example Building Study
Holiday Inn
Van Nuys, California
prepared by
Englekirk and Sabol Consulting Engineers, Inc.
2116 Arlington Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90018

fMass)

Jlrve.

D·'
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................. D-5
1.1 Intent of Example Building Study ....................................................... D-5
1.2 Scope of Example Building Study ....................................................... D-5
1. 3 Introduction to the Methodology ........................................................ D-5
1.4 Summary of Findings ..................................................................... D-6
2. Building and Site Description ............................................................................ D-9
2.1 General ...................................................................................... D-9
2.2 Structural System and Members ......................................................... D-9
2.3 Earthquake Damage ...................................................................... D-11
3. Preliminary Analysis ..................................................................................... D-12
3.1 Evaluation Statements for Basic Building System ................................... D-12
4. Detailed Analysis Using the Product 1.2 Methodology ............................................ D-13
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................ D-13
4.2 Elastic Analysis to Establish First Mode Response ................................. D-13
4.3 Static Nonlinear (Pushover) Analysis ................................................. D-14
4.4 Static Nonlinear Analysis Results ...................................................... D-17
4.5 Time History Comparison ............................................................... D-18
5. Rehabilitation Scheme ................................................................................... D-19
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................ D-19
5.2 Exterior Frames ........................................................................... D-19
6. Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... D-20

Appendix D. Holiday Inn D·S

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
APpendix D
Example Building Study
Holiday Inn
van NUYS, California
,. Introduction
1.1 Intent of Example Building study
This report presents the an application of
Products 1.2 and 1.3 of the Seismic Retrofit
Practices Improvement Program, titled Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Concrete
Buildings to the Holiday Inn in Van Nuys,
California. The purpose of this example building
study is to illustrate the use of the Methodology
document as an example for other engineers to
follow.
1.2 scope of Example Building study
This study presents the evaluation and concept
retrofit design of an actual concrete building in
Los Angeles based on the recommendations from
the Methodology. Topics include covered in the
case study include:
• Preliminary evaluation (Section 3)
• Modeling, analysis, and assessment by
nonlinear static procedure (Section 4)
• Conceptual Retrofit (Section 5)
This study was undertaken by Englekirk &
Sabol Consulting Engineers, Inc. based on the
Second Draft of the Methodology (December 8,
1995) with updated references to the Third Draft
(May, 1996).
1.3 Introduction to the
Methodology
Chapter 2 of the Methodology outlines the
recommend steps to undertake the evaluation and,
if warranted, the seismic evaluation of the existing
building. This section introduces the steps. Some
Appendix D. Holiday Inn
of these steps are procedural, not technical, and
are not discussed in this case study. Therefore,
case study will concentrate on Steps 3 through 5
and 7 through 10 of the Methodology.
Step 1: Initiate the Process: This step is not
addressed in this example because it
addresses owner actions, jurisdictional
requirements, and the like.
Step 2: Select Qualified Professionals: This step,
presumably, has been taken already.
Step 3: Establish Performance Objectives: From
Section 3.4.1, the Basic Safety Objective
is taken to be a Building Performance
Level of "Life Safety" for the Design
Earthquake, and the Building
Performance Level of "Structural
Stability" for the Maximum Earthquake.
The implications of this choice are
addressed in Section 4 and 5.
The "Life Safety" Building Performance
Level is intended to achieve a damage
state that presents an extremely low
probability of threat to life safety. The
Design Earthquake is taken to be a
ground motion with a 10 percent chance
of being exceeded in 50 years.
The "Structural Stability" Building
Performance Level is intended to
achieve a damage state involving the
main building frame or vertical load
carrying system and requires only
stability under vertical loads, and no
margin of collapse may be available.
D·S
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-

Step 4: Review Building Conditions: A review of scheme, an exterior concrete frame, is engine
the existing building conditions is presented in the case study. whatl
presented in Section 2 (Building accur;
Step 11: Prepare Construction Documents: This
Description) and Section 3 (Preliminary availa
is not within the scope of the case study.
Evaluation) . in con
Step 12: Monitor Construction Quality: This is and hi
Step 5: Formulate a Strategy: As will be seen in
not within the scope of the case study. result:
the case study, the preliminary
evaluation explained in Section 3 requir
suggests that a detailed analysis is 1.4 summary of Findings profes
required. The analytical procedure neede,
selected for this case study is the
1.4.1 Intl'Dductlon the av
Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM). The This case study applies the Methodology to a many
application of the CSM is presented in real building that sustained damage during the
1.4.2
Section 4 of the case study. 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Since the
performance of the building was known TI
Step 6: Begin the Approval Process: This step is beforehand, the predictions of the Methodology evalu1
not directly relevant to this case study can be compared to the observed performance of rehabi
and is not discussed further. building. Just as clearly, however, one had to buildiJ
guard against altering the model to match the infom
Step 7: Conduct Detailed Investigation: A site (Chap
analysis was not undertaken for the case known results. Within this context, the case study
served as a valuable tool in outlining the strengths (Chap
study, but Section 2 of the case study model
outlines the assumed material properties and weaknesses of the methodology.
We believe that it is unreasonable to expect model
and relevant construction details. seismi
this, or any other, new approach to evaluating
Step 8: Characterize Seismic Capacity: The existing concrete buildings, to be immediately impor
modeling rules discussed in Chapters 9 useable by all. or even a majority of all, licensed appro<
and 11 of the Methodology are applied engineers, architects, or building officials. The Metho
the case study building in Section 4. exception to this statement might be a set of infom
extremely conservative, prescriptive provisions minim
Step 9: Determine the Seismic Demand: The
that would quickly prove unacceptably expensive suppOJ
case study uses the procedure outlined in simpli
Chapter 4 of the Methodology, and its because all buildings undergoing evaluation would
require extensive rehabilitation. The flexibility of reach
application is presented in Section 4. ** recom
of the case study. the Methodology recognizes that concrete buildings
utilize a complex building material, consist of Tl
Step 10: Verify Peiformance: Based on the infinite combinations of physical layouts, framing consid
Performance Objective selected in Step system variations, and member proportions, and dealin:
3, the CSM was applied to the structure are subjected to different and unpredictable site that th
and, using the seismic capacities ground motion. The depth of our knowledge in not su·
established in Step 8, the performance is addressing these critical issues is very limited. other,
evaluated in Section 4. It will be shown Our application of the Methodology to the trainin
that the structure does not satisfy the building in this case study makes us even more a soun
required Performance Objective, and Worth,
convinced that the goal of a "cookbook" method
conceptual seismic rehabilitation that can be applied by all registered engineers to Dedic:
schemes were developed. Only one produce nearly identical results in similar and us
are no
situations is not currently achievable. The
unders

D·. Appendix D, Holiday Inn AIIpen

--- - SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

:, is engineering profession must better understand
what parameters control concrete behavior, how to
accurately model concrete structures using
This
available software, what are the critical limit states
;tudy.
in concrete and the different structural members,
and how ground motion demand, analytical
results, and observed damage are related. This
required level of knowledge in the engineering
profession does not currently exist because much
needed information is not available and much of
the available information is not well understood by
to a many engineers.
e demands. Therefore, caution must be exercised to
1.4.2 General Findings
The Methodology outlines an approach to
,gy evaluate and, where needed, propose a seismic
e of rehabilitation scheme, for an existing concrete
)
building. The Metbodology provides useful
information to develop earthquake demand
,tudy (Chapter 4), to identify potential deficiencies
ngtbs (Chapter 5), to develop reasonable analytical
models (Chapter 9), to reasonably interpret tbese
~ct
models (Chapter 11), and to consider different
g seismic rehabilitation concepts (Chapter 6). The
y importance of a clear, philosophically consistent
nsed approach cannot be overemphasized. The
he Metbodology brings the above-referenced
information into a single package, witb only a
illS
minimal number of references to needed
[sive supporting documentation (e.g. FEMA 178) to
Nould simplify tbe engineer's task by placing witbin easy
tyof reach a set of relatively consistent
ildings recommendations.
,f The Metbodology requires tbe use of
ming considerable engineering judgment because we are
and dealing witb very complex problems. We believe
.ite tbat tbe general level of engineering expertise is
in not sufficiently advanced to apply tbis, or any
;I. other, available metbodology witbout additional
Ie training. Nevertbeless, tbe Metbodology provides
,re a sound philosophical approach which will be
hod worthwhile to use as a basis for training.
s to Dedicated individuals can take tbis information
and use it to great advantage. However, tbose who
are not willing to put in tbe effort to better
understand tbe issues tbat are critical to seismic
rehabilitation of concrete buildings may not
produce adequate retrofit designs even with this
Methodology at the ready.
The Methodology clearly identifies the need to
establish a performance objective, and tbe
importance of involving the Owner in its selection.
The use of different performance objectives, and
tbe resulting consequences, are presented in very
broad terms. We believe this is appropriate since
tbe engineering parameters in the Methodology
used to evaluate and rehabilitate buildings have not
yet been well correlated with actual earthquake
avoid the perception that use of the Metbodology
to execute a retrofit design, intended to promote
"damage control" for instance, cannot constitute a
"guarantee" that such a level of performance will,
in fact, be achieved when tbe building is subjected
to an eartbquake. It is our opinion that such
correlation cannot be expected for many years, and
certainly not before designs based on the
Metbodology are subjected to very large
earthquakes.
Given tbe desire to ensure that nearly all
buildings requiring detailed evaluation and/or
eventual rehabilitation are properly identified, tbe
preliminary evaluation in Chapter 5 is
conservatively written (as is tbe referenced FEMA
178 document). This conservatism can require
substantial effort at tbis preliminary juncture and
still conclude tbat a detailed analysis is needed.
The value of tbe preliminary analysis is tbat it
provides a sound starting point for tbe total
process by helping tbe engineer to focus on
potential deficiencies tbat might be overlooked
while interpreting tbe output generated by the
detailed analysis .
As tbe title suggests, the Metbodology focuses
on concrete elements. The designer should be
aware, however, tbat additional guidance, not
found in tbe Metbodology, is needed to properly
implement non-concrete retrofit elements or
specialized techniques such as energy dissipation.
In addition, tbe Metbodology does not provide
detailed guidance needed to comply with building

lay Inn Appendix D, Holiday Inn D·'

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

code requirements. It is our opinion that this performance must be evaluated manually and the in
additional information cannot be comprehensively model adjusted to reflect shear critical elements. te
treated in a document such as the Methodology, As discussed in Section 4.5, a limited number p'
but appropriate references could be identified. of inelastic time-history analyses were executed as w
an approximate check of the Methodology. The
1.4.$ Specific Findings
An index would greatly simplify use of the
results indicate a wide scatter in predicted • 0
til
maximum roof displacements which is to be th
document. expected because of the differences in the
The Preliminary Analysis, described in th
time-histories frequency content relative the re
Section 3 of this report, did a good job of dynamic response of the building. Two trends
identifying the elements that were later found to be til
were identified: pI
critically deficient (e.g. shear in columns). 1. The time histories predict higher shears, at
Nevertheless, a number of the "false" statements c.
lower displacements, than suggested by the fo
identified conditions that did not appear to be pushover curve.
relevant to the ultimate evaluation (e.g. most of m
2. The time histories predict higher maximum w
the diSCUssion regarding beam bars and splices). displacements, a lower shears, than suggested
We believe this is an artifact of the general pi
by the pushover curve.
preliminary evaluation methodology and do not In
recommend that it be changed; however, of the
It is our opinion that these results are not
additional discussion regarding the general nature proba'
unexpected for the following reasons:
of a preliminary evaluation could be provided. defici,
• Adjustments made in the nonlinear pushover differ,
Using information obtained from prior studies
model to better account for shear behavior are nonlir
of the SUbject building, we were able to provide a
not readily made in a time-history analysis. signif
reasonable match between the measured building
These would tend to soften the structure, evalUl
period and the analytical building period using an
thereby decreasing the demand that one might sake (
elastic mode\. It is not clear if such a good fit
expect for a given level 'of displacement. into tl:
would have beim possible without the detailed
information about the existing building. We did • The use of assumed, low levels of damping is donol
not examine explicitly how different elastic models consistent with the use of pseudo-accelerations, arbitn
would have varied the vertical distribution of displacements, and velocities inherent in a memb
seismic forces used in the nonlinear pushover spectral analysis, but such an analysis will tend effect!
analysis; however, we do not believe that the to underestimate the demand compared to additi,
difference would have been significant. time-history analyses that permit the use of metho
Perhaps the greatest challenge in conducting multiple damping levels. This appears to be the
the nonlinear pushover analysis is that shear, as case in the time-history analyses, and the 2.
identified in the preliminary analysis, is a critical reported underestimation of base shears is
limit state for the building, yet this limit state is probably not completely accurate.
very difficult to model using currently available • In general, a pushover analysis assumes, a 2.1
software. Very careful examination of the priori, a vertical distribution of forces Tl
computer output is required, and multiple manual consistent with a single mode of vibration, In concn
alterations of the nonlinear model are required. the case study, this corresponds to the of the
This is a shortcoming of most available software fundamental mode. It is possible that a time Theb
and not of the methodology; however, the history analysis, which is not limited by this feet 01
MethodOlogy could provide additional guidance assumption, will predict higher base shears drawh
that warns the less experienced engineer that shear because the effects of higher modes are buildh

D-. Appendix D, Holiday Inn Appen

-
-
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
the included. While multi-mode pushover analyses
Its. to better reflect these higher shears are
nber possible, the level of complexity hardly
ed as warrants their use.
he • One cannot conclude that because the
time-history analysis predicts higher demands
than does the non-linear pushover analysis that
the non-linear pushover analysis is not
reliable. This conclusion presupposes that the
time-history analysis is superior to the
pushover analysis. This is not necessarily the
at case because the influence of shear behavior
Ie
for example, which can be reflected in the '
nonlinear pushover analysis, is not handled
m Seventh Floor
well by most currently aViliiable nonlinear
:sted programs.
In conclusion, it is our opinion that the results
of the Methodology reasonably describe the
probable behavior and identify essential
deficiencies in me building, and that the
ver differences between me time history results on me
Ir are nonlinear pushover analysis are, ultimately, not
is. significant. We do not believe that limiting me
evaluation to me use of an elastic model for the
night sake of simplicity would provide as much insight
into me anticipated dynamic behavior. Furtl1er, we
ng is do not believe mat it is appropriate to impose
ltions, arbitrary limits on acceptable forces in critical
a members to account for possible higher mode
II tend effects. This is but one of many areas mat require
) additional research before we can produce a simple
of memod for evaluating concrete structures.
be the
2. Building and Site
s Description
a 2.1 Ceneral
The Holiday Inn is a seven-story reinforced
1. In concrete structure located in Van Nuys, just east
of me San Diego Freeway at Roscoe Boulevard.
me The building consists of roughly 63,000 square
this feet of floor area. The original construction
Irs drawings are dated February 19, 1965 and me
building is believed to have been constructed
lay Inn Appendix D, Holiday Inn
Table 1. Building Summary
.Date of Cons,trOCtlori 1965·66
Date Of Drawings 1965·66
L.A. City BuHdingCode
, 1964 (assumed) , ,
7
Ground Floor 13',6"
second through 8'·8V,"
sixth Floor
S'·8"
during 1965-66. Table 1 presents a summary of
me building's parameters. The building is
essentially rectangular in plan with overall
dimensions of approximately 62'-8" by 150'-0" in
me norm-south and east-west directions,
respectively.
2.2 structural System and Members
Foundations
Foundations supporting me Holiday Inn consist
of 38-inch deep pile caps, supported by groups of
two to four poured-in-place 24-inch diameter
reinforced concrete friction piles. All pile caps are
connected by a grid of tie beams and grade beams.
Each pile is approximately 40 feet long and has a
design capacity of over 100 kips vertical load and
up to 20 kips lateral load.
Gravity Load System
All structural weight and superimposed load
on me building is carried by a system of reinforced
concrete flat slab and perimeter concrete beams
supported by concrete columns. The concrete slab
is 10 inches mick at me second floor, 8 '12 inches
mick at me mird to sevenm floors, and 8 inches
mick at me roof. The typical framing consists of
columns spaced at approximately 20' -0" centers
in me transverse (N-S) direction and 18'-9"
D·9
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

centers in the longitudinal direction. Figure 1 stre]

shows the typical floor framing plan. exhi
stiff
Lateral Load system load
around - 2nd 5,000 psi 6,250 PSi
Lateral forces in each direction are resisted by Floor that
perimeter spandrel beam-column frames as well as Columns, 4,000 psi' 5,000 PSI the]
interior slab-column frames. Typical interior 2nd - 3rd test
columns are 20"x20" between the Ground and Floor
buil,
Second Floors and 18"xI8" above the Second Beams and 4,000 psi 5,000 psi the I
Floor. The column reinforcing varies along the slab,2nd
Floor only Eart
height of the column with 6-#7 above the Fifth secc
3,000 psi 3,750 psi
Floor, 6-#8 between the Fourth and Fifth Floors, estir
8-#9 between the Third and Fourth Floors, and stan,
10-#9 below the Third Floor. The ties are #3 at 15-2
12" centers between the Ground and Fifth Floors
and #2 at 12" centers above the Fifth Floors. Slab "exI
reinforcing in the column strip in both directions appr
typically consists of 16-#6 at the top near the Beams and intermediate· 401<51 50 Ksl "spe
columns and 8-#6 at the bottom. Figure 2 shows Slabs grade ASTM
A-15 and
the;
the elevation of the North perimeter frame; the A-305) on tl
South frame is similar. The columns are 14"x20" of d
Column Bars Deformed 60 ksl 75 ksi
and have their weak axis oriented in the plane of Billet bars used
the frames as shown in Figure 3. They are ASTM A-432) strer
reinforced wi th 10-#9 between the Ground and calcl
Note: "Expected" values used in this study are
Second Floors, 6-#9 between the Second and approximately 25 percent higher than the "specified" colu
Fourth Floors, and 6-#7 abov.e the Fourth Floor. values giyen above. rein!
The reinforcement is spliced immediately above
the floor level and has a lap length of the damage sustained by these walls during both 2.3
approximately 38 bar diameter as shown in Figure the Northridge (1994) and the San Fernando
3. The ties are #3 at 12 in. on center between the Earthquake (1971). dam
Ground and Fourth Floors and #2 at 12 in. on In the transverse (N-S) direction, the perimeter Eart
center above the Fourth Floor. At typical floor columns have their strong axis in the direction of seve
levels, the beams are 16"x22.5" and are reinforced the frames. These frames are hidden behind 1" wen
with 2-#6 at the bottom and anywhere from 2-#8 thick cement plaster supported by metal studs. eart!
to 3-#9 at the top. leve:
Figure 2 also shows the location on the north Materials
dam
perimeter frame of four bays of brick infill wall Table 2 presents typical material properties was
between the Ground and Second Floors. Nominal obtained from available record drawings, The infOJ
I-inch and Ih-inch expansion joints separate these structure is constructed of regular weight engi:
walls from the exterior columns and the underside reinforced concrete. The values in Table 2 are eard
of the Second Floor spandrels, respectively as "specified" values which can significantly relia
shown in Figure 3. Although, these elements were underestimate the actual strength (referred to
not designed as part of the lateral force-resisting hereafter as the "expected" strength) of the in-situ to th
system, they appear to have participated in material. The "expected" values are nearly always to th
resisting the imposed demand as evident from larger than the "specified" values because of the flext
inherent over strengths in the original material and

D·10 Appendix D, Holiday Inn

--- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROIilIT 0111 CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
,_- strength gained over time. Furthermore, concrete
exhibits a significant increase in both strength and
-
~,
o psi
stiffness and reinforcing steel in strength when
loaded at increased strain rates, e.g. at strain rates
-
o PSi
that are expected during earthquakes. Compared to
the normal rate of loading for standard cylinder
test which is 35 psi/sec, the concrete in this
building was strained at a rate estimated to be on
I() PSi the order of 8,000 psi/sec during the Northridge
Earthquake assuming a building period of 1.5
;0 psi
second. This higher rate of loading alone is
estimated to increase the strength obtained from
standard cylinder tests by as much as
15-20 percent.
In absence of in-situ test results, the
"expected" values of all materials can be
approximately 33 percent greater than the
I Ksl "specified" values, and this fact was reflected in
the analysis as shown in Table 2. However, based
on the Methodology guidelines, "expected" values
; ksl of the reinforcement given in the document were
used to calculate only the axial and flexural
-
ified"
strength of the members. For all other
calculations such as shear strength of beams and
columns, the specified minimum value of the
reinforcement was used.
Jth 2.3 Earthquake Damage
The building experienced extensive structural
damage during the January 17, 1994 Northridge
meter Earthquake. The building was red tagged and
Ion of several bays along the perimeter of the building
nd 1" were temporarily shored immediately after the
earthquake. Shoring was provided up to fifth floor
level to bays where the adjoining columns were
damaged and the vertical load carrying capacity
es was believed to have been compromised. This
information, while typically not available to
engineers analyzing a building prior to a damaging
e earthquake, must be considered in evaluating the
reliability of the analytical results.
The structural damage was primarily confined
I-situ to the longitudinal perimeter frames with damage
ways to the transverse direction frames limited to minor
the flexural cracks in the end bay beams. Figure 4
Ii and
ay Inn Appendix D, HOliday Inn
iIIustrates the elevation of the longitudinal
perimeter frames indicating the location of major
damage. The damage was most severe between the
Fourth and Fifth Floors of the south perimeter
frame (Line A). Figures 5 and 6 show photographs
of the damage sustained by these frames. Damage
primarily consisted of shear failure of the columns
immediately below the Fifth Floor spandrel beam.
At several locations, extensive shear cracking may
also have promoted the buckling of vertical
column reinforcement as shown in Figure 6.
In addition to damage to the columns, many
beam-column joints below the fifth floor level also
sustained minor to moderate shear cracks. The
damage was observed in beam-column joints of
both longitudinal frames although the south
perimeter frame appeared to have slightly more
damage. Along with shear cracks, concrete
spalIing was also observed in one of the joints. In
addition, all four perimeter frames experienced
structural distress in the form of concrete spalIing
and hairline flexural cracks observed in several
spandrel beams.
Figure 5 shows a close-up view of infilled bay
of the north perimeter frame located towards the
east end of the building. Cracks in the Second
Floor beam-column joint are clearly evident.
Cracks occurred at the same location during the
1971 San Fernando Earthquake. The photograph
also shows typical crack pattern in the
"nonstructural" brick infill walls along the north
face of the building. These cracks occurred at
second floor beam soffit and near the comers of
each panel. The observed damage clearly suggests
that these brick infill walls participated in resisting
the imposed seismic demand.
Nonstructural damage was not very extensive
and was mostly confined to the Fourth floor.
Doors, windows, and drywall partitions in the
east-west direction suffered severe damage
between the Fourth and the Fifth Floors. This is
attributed to the large deformation of this story
during the earthquake.
The response of the building during the
Northridge earthquake was recorded by a total of
D-11
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS

sixteen sensors and analyzed to obtain information I. preliminary Analvsls the

about the dynamic response [Islam, 1995]. Based oft
Before undertaking a detailed, time consuming
on the results of these analyses, the following pos
analysis of a building, the Methodology (Chapter
conclusions were drawn: thre
5) recommends conducting a preliminary analysis.
1. The brick filler walls between the Ground and This case study uses the evaluation statements in
Second Floors at the northeast end of the FEMA 178. The evaluation statements express a lonl
structure interacted with the confining frame witl
variety of positions, which, if true, suggest that no
introducing asymmetry in the longitudinal are
detailed analysiS is required. When the statements
direction. This is believed to have resulted in are false, additional analysis is recommended to
higher displacement demand and therefore, examine potential seismic deficiencies. For this spal
damage along the south end of the building. building, many of the statements are "false, and at 8
2. The second mode contributed significantly to only the "false" statements are discussed in this
the building response. Consequently, the shear at tl
section.
demand between the fourth and fifth floor join
levels appears to have been close to if not the 3.1 EValuation statements for Basic
maximum experienced by the building. This, Building system of~
along wi th the fact that the building shear dew
capacity of this story is less than that of the S.1.1 ConFlgu,.atlon sig~
stories below, contributed to the damage being Weak Story. There is a significant strength anal
concentrated between the Fourth and Fifth discontinuities in the vertical elements in the
Floor levels. lateral fore resisting system: column shear strength 4.
3. The columns between the Fourth and Fifth at fourth/fifth floor.
Floor levels failed in shear. The lack of Torsion. The lateral system may not be well
adequate ties in the column exacerbated the balanced and may be subject to torsion because of
damage and allowed vertical column infill panels at first floor. 4.1
reinforcing to buckle where concrete had
spalled off. $.1.2 concrete Moment F,.ames
Although the subsequent analysis will utilize Shearing Stress Check. The building does not coni
satisfy the Quick Check of the average shearing the
seismic loads generated by a first mode response,
the results of the analysis will compare reasonably stress in the columns. altel
Shear Failures. The shear capacity of the are
well with the observed damage, even though the
analysis predicts significantly more hinging at the frame members is not greater than the moment MaJ
capacity. in 0
lower floor levels than was observed in the actual
building damage. This deviation between predicted Stirrup and Tie Hooks. The beam stirrups Met
calli
and observed response may also reflect the and column ties are not anchored into the member
case
characteristics of the actual earthquake ground cores with hooks of 135 degrees or more.
motion experienced at the site. Since it is unlikely Column Tie Spacing. Frame columns have 4.2
that an analyst will have available to him or her ties spaced greater than d/4 or more throughout
such detailed response records prior to undertaking their length and at more than 8 db or more at all
Ani
a seismic rehabilitation project, this analysis potential plastic hinge regions.
first
proceeded using the Methodology to the maximum Column Bar Splices. Column bar lap splice dete
extent possible. lengths are less than 35 db long and are not
Stati
enclosed by ties spaced at 8 db or less.
Beam Bars. At least two longitudinal top and
bottom bars do not extend continuously throughout

D'12 Appendix D. Holiday Inn

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

5 the length of each frame beam. At least 25 percent

of the steel provided at the joints for either Table :So Description 01 the prelimInary
uming positive or negative moment in not continuous ElastIc Models
apter
through the members. ". ':<: :EFFectJve
alysis.
Beam Bar Splices. The lap splices for the <:;~
, . MDmentsDf panel zane I,VI$et1us
,RigIdity' .Datflplng
'
ts in : :', ,Ihe/tltif·/ '.
longitudinal beam reinforcing are not located
!SS a within the center half of the member lengths and Model 1
that no COlumns 0.61. 50% 5%
are in the vicinity of potential plastic hinges.
ments Beams 0.81. 10%
Stirrup Spacing. Some beams have stirrups
d to
spaces at d/2 or more throughout their length and Model 2
this
at 8 db or more at potential hinge locations. Columns 0.051, 0%
and
Joint Reinforcing. Column ties do not extend (4th'5th)
this
at their typical spacing through al beam-column Columns 0.50 I,
joints at exterior columns. (all others)
Basic Based on the number and potential significance Beams 0.50 I,
of the possible deficiencies ouilined above, a more
detailed analysis is recommended to assess the
* Ig = Gross moment of inenia

significance of the these deficiencies. This detailed

Igth analysis is presented in Section 4 of the case study. 4.2.1 Live Load Estimates
Estimates of typical service live loads were
.trength 4. Detailed Analysis Using applied to the model as discussed in Section 9.2 of
the Product 1.2 the Methodology, rather than the live loads
well Methodology assumed by the model building codes for design.
Luse of Since a "Hotel" occupancy is not listed in
4.1 Introduction Table 9-1, it was assumed that a "General Office
This section outlines the basic steps required to Area" occupancy was a representative occupancy.

loes not conduct a detailed analysis of the structure using 4.2_2 Soli-Structure Interaction
,ring the Methodology. There are a number of The dispersed nature of the frame elements
alternative approaches that can be used, and these and the pile foundation suggested that issues
;he
are outlined in Chapter 8 of the Methodology. related to soil-structure interaction as discussed in
Many of these alternatives are covered in detailed Section 9.3 would not be significant. Other case
lent
in other sources, but the Capacity Spectrum studies conducted illustrate the application of the
Method using a static nonlinear analysis, often Methodology and soil structure interaction.
rups
called a "pushover analysis, " was selected for this
lember
case study. 4.2.$ MOdeling Assumptions
have Table 3 presents member stiffness and other
4.2 Elastic Analysis to Establish First modeling assumptions used in the analysis. Two
hout Mode Response
at all models were constructed to examine the sensitivity
An elastic analysis is conducted to establish the of the structure to different parameters. Modell
first mode response which will be used to assumes constant effective moments of inertia for
splice determine the pattern of force to be applied in the the beams and columns. while Model 2 attempts to
static nonlinear analysis. account for the reduction in shear strength
:op and anticipated in the columns between the Fourth and
oughout Fifth Floors.

IIday Inn APpendix D. Holiday Inn D·1!

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

The building was modeled as a 1390 kips at the Roof, 1424 kips at floor levels
three-dimensional elastic structure with a fixed Seventh through Third, and 1747 kips at the
base to establish the first mode response of the Second Floor. The total seismic weight of the
structure for use in applying the lateral loads used building is 10,257 kips.
in the pushover analysis. The structural model
included both perimeter beam-column frames as 4.2.4 Elastic Model Results
well as interior slab-column frames, as The three-dimensional eigenvalue analysis
reCOmmended in Section 9.4.2.2 of the yielded the following values for the building
Methodology. In the longitudinal direction, there period: 0.60 second for the fundamental period in
are two slab-column frames while in the transverse the longitudinal (east-west) direction, 0.46 second
direction, there are seven such frames. All are for that in the transverse (north-south) direction,
elements believed to contribute to the lateral and 0.32 second for the torsional period. Table 4
resistance of the building. The total model consists provides a summary of the building periods
of all structural walls in the building plus the deep obtained from analysis of the building response
spandrel beam-column frame along the north and records obtained during the Northridge
~outh perimeter of the building. Figure 7 earthquake, building periods reported in earlier
Illustrates the three-dimensional computer model studies of the building after the San Fernando
of the building showing the infill wall panels at the Earthquake, and the building period obtained using
first floor, north elevation. UBC 91 Method A formula (Co = 0.03 assumed).
The significant lengthening of the period in the 4.s..~
The effective stiffness properties used herein
are ,:onsistent with Methodology guidelines, longitudinal direction during peak response of the T
SeCllO? ?~.2. For the perimeter frames, a panel San Fernando Earthquake as well as after 10 mode
zone rIgidity of 75 percent is used to account for seconds of the Northridge Earthquake is attributed guide
the fact that the beams do not cover the full width to the strength and stiffness degradation of the of dif
of the columns. perimeter frames, particularly the south perimeter show.
The analysis included P-delta, orthogonal frame. or 19'
effects, and accidental torsional effects. The heigh
accidental torsional effect was included by 4.3 static Nonlinear (Pushover) distri!
displacing the center of mass at each level by Analysis first r
5 perce?t Of. the dimension measured perpendicular in Se(
4.8.1 Intl"Dductlon analy:
to the directIOn of the applied force. The
ortho?on~l effect is included through load The predicted performance of the structure T
co.mb~nal1ons by specifying 100 percent of the was examined using a two-dimensional, nonlinear beam
seismiC demand from one direction to be added to model to represent the expected seismic Figur,
3? pe~cent of the demand from the orthogonal performance of the exterior spandrel beam-column
frame, both in its existing state, and after the
ORAl
dlrecllon. All significant modes were included in Amor
the analysis. Individual modal responses were proposed rehabilitation. An additional equivalent gravit
combined using the CQC procedure. frame model was created to check the capacity of the cc
The seismic base of the building is assumed at the interior flat-slab-column gravity system to displa
the Ground Floor level for the purpose of withstand the deformations imposed by the lateral progr:
c~lc~lating the base shear. Building weight system response. calcul
dlstnbutlOn used in the analysis consists of allow
analy~
are ac
beam~

D·'. Appendix D, Holiday Inn

-- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

els
Table 4. Approximate Fundamental Building Period
e . '. . .'
'. .
'

.. . ·.····E-WDlr. N-SDir. .' .

•••••••
. . .... lLongltlldlnall . .... I (TranSVerse)
UBC 91 Method A 0.68 sec 0.68 sec

is pre·1971 san Fernando earthquake 0.52 sec 0.40 sec

ambient vibration

lod in San Fernando earthquakel1971)

~cond Early part of earthquake 0.70 sec 0.70 sec
.ion, During peak response 1.5 sec 1.6 sec
ble 4 Northrigde earthquakel1994)
Early part 10 • 10 sec 1.5 sec 2.2 sec
lse
Middle part110·20 sec) 2.1 sec 2.2 sec

ier Towards the end I> 25 sec)
o
j using
med).
[he 4.502 Modeling
)f the The specific parameters used in the nonlinear
model, in accordance with Methodology
ibuted guidelines, are tabulated in Table 5. A comparison
le of different normalized lateral force distributions
meter showed that a first mode shape, inverted triangle,
or 1991 UBC lateral force distribution up the
height of the building resulted in nearly identical
distributions. The force distribution given by the
first mode shape from the elastic model discussed
in Section 4.2 was used in the static nonlinear
analysis.
Ire The static nonlinear analysis, using
linear beam-column subassemblies such as that shown in
Figure 10, was conducted with the aid of the
,olumn DRAIN-2DX computer program, Version 1.10.
e Among the numerous modeling parameters,
alent gravity load induced moments, shear capacity of
ity of the columns, maximum base shear, and roof
to displacement limits were selected to overcome
ateral program limitations and simplify the resulting .
calculations. Since the present program does not
allow the inclusion of element loads in nonlinear
analysis, the effect of dead and live load moments
are accounted for by reducing the capacity of all
beams by 10 percent.
2.4 sec 2.0 sec
4.5oS Column Modeling
Figures 8 and 9a illustrate a column interaction
diagram and a moment-curvature diagram for a
typical north and south perimeter frame column
between the Fourth and Fifth Floors, respectively.
Similar analyses were performed for the columns
at the other floor levels. As noted earlier,
"expected" values were used for the steel and
concrete strength to calculate all capacities. Above
the Fourth Floor, columns typically consist of 6-#7
vertical reinforcing with #2 ties (2 sets per
location) at 12 in. on center. Below the Fourth
Floor, columns consist of 6-#9 vertical with #3
ties (2 sets per location) at 1212 in. on center.
Concrete of higher strength was used for the lower
floor columns as shown in Table 2.
The shear limit state governs the behavior of
these columns, i.e. the shear capacity is less than
the shear (2 MP/hol) associated with flexural
hinging of the column ends. The limiting story
shear capacity is dictated by shear limit states of
individual columns and includes the contribution
of interior as well as exterior frames. This effect
was monitored manually during the analysis using
the spring element shown in Figure 10.

~ay Inn Appendix D. Holiday Inn D·tS

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-

In til
colu
toth
to c(
mod
resul
asSUl
respl
Thes
Actual Material Strength 2S% Increase from expected material strength with
strength reduction factor equals to 1.0 built
Initial component Stiffness 75% gross moment of Inertia for Columns; 50% gross 4.S.
moment of inertia for Beams; account for effect of
slab. 1
thec
for tI
. excel
... not activated and t
"'* modeled as linear spring at the bottom of spandrel beam·column connection. see Figure 10. deter
deter
modi
4.S.4 Beam Modeling ties in the joint, the as-built condition appears to the iJ
Figure 9b illustrates the moment curvature be somewhat different. At several joints where prese
diagram of typical Fourth and Fifth Floor spandrel concrete had spalled off during the earthqual<e, no modi
beams in the longitudinal direction. Typical ties were observed. Even without the ties, the
stirrups consists of # 3 ties at 3 inches and 5 in. on probable joint shear stress demand of 8 to IOf,0.5 is 4.4
center near the two ends and 10 in on center in the not considered to be excessive. and cracking of
4.4.
middle portion. For reinforcement, these beams beam-column joints at this stress level is typically
have 2-#6 at the bottom, 3-#8 at the top and 2-#6 not expected. This appears to contradict the minor 1
damage observed in many of the beam-column devel
in the slab adjoining the beam. The flexural limit
joints at the lower floor levels. One possible Chap
state governs the behavior of these beams. Because
explanation of this inconsistency may be that with discu
of low positive (tension at the bottom) flexural
the beams not centered with respect to the columns resul'
capacities of these beams, even with the effect of
and complex stress pattern may have developed in . Capa
in place dead and live loads, the demand on many
of the beams exceeded their capacities. This is the joints which in tum may have resulted in shear 4.4.;
consistent with the observed damage in the cracking and spalling of concrete from the
E
building where flexural cracks were observed at unconfined portion of the joint (Le. the 4 inch of hiJ
the bottom of several beams. width of the column not confined by the spandrel beam
beams).
4.S.S Beam-Column Joint Modeling show
As discussed in Section 9.5.4.3 of the figun
Based on probable demands on the beams and Methodology, the shear strength of concrete hingi
columns, it is estimated that the maximum shear structural elements of limited ductility may need to states
demand on the beam-column joints at the lower be adjusted downward. While the precise
floor levels were between 8 to I Of,0.5. It was noted II
relationship to describe that downward adjustment at the
in examining the beam column joint in Figure 6c is not known with certainty, some estimate is prese
that although the record drawings require several required in order to conduct the needed analysis. assoc

D-'. Appendix D, Holiday Inn

------ SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
In the present case, the shear capacity of the
columns was assumed to be a uniform value equal
to the capacity of the column ties only as a means
to conservatively reduce the complexity of the
model. For the purposes of scaling the pushover
results, the base shear and roof displacement were
assumed to be limited to 960 kips and 20 in.,
respectively, for evaluating the existing building.
These limits were never exceeded prior to the
building achieving a mechanism.
4.5.6 Slab Modeling
The equivalent frame model used to evaluate
the contribution of the slab was similar to that used
for the spandrel beam-column frame, with the
exception that the sum of the column dimension
and three times the slab thickness was used to
determine gross moment of inertia as well as
determine the moment capacity of the slab. This
model was generated to compare the capacity of
rs to the interior frames, and is rather limited in its
ere present iteration in terms of predicting the failure
ke, no mode of the various constituent components.
le
Of,O.5 is 4.4 static Nonlinear Analysis Results
of
Introduction
. all
lIC Y 4.4.1
minor The goal of the static nonlinear analysis is to
mn develop a Capacity Spectrum as described in
> Chapter 8 of the Methodology. This section
;t with " discusses the results of the analysis and how these
:olumns results. were used to construct the required
I
)ped in Capacity Spectrum.
n shear I 4.4.2
pushover AnalysIs Results
I Based on the pushover analysis, the sequence
Ich I
andrei of hinging of beams, column shear failure at the
I beam-column connection, and column hinges is
I shown in Figure 11. The numbers shown on the
i figure correspond to the order in which the beam
e 'I hinging, column hinging, or column shear limit
need to states occurred, respectively.
I It can be seen that the hinging generally begins
J~tment '[ at the lower floors and progresses upward. Table 6
IS. i presents the base shear and roof displacement
!lYSIS. ! associated with the first flexural hinging of a beam
IIday In~ Appendix D. Holiday Inn
Table 6. Base Shear and Roof Displacement
Associated with First Beam and column to Hinge
Element " ". sase Shear at Displacemel1t at
"Name , Hinge (kipSJ Hinge (III.)
Beam 155 1,4
Column 445 5,6
(Shear!
Column 520 8,0
(MOment)
and column element as well as the first column
element to fail in shear. Since the applied shear
and roof displacement required for formation of
the column shear failure are less than those
associated with the flexural limit state in the
column it appears that shear, rather than flexure,
is the more~obably failure mechanism in
columns. This appears to be consistent with the
performance of the structure during the Northridge
, Earthquake.
Over 90 percent of the modal mass
participated in the first mode, and from the story
drift plot in Figure 12, it can be seen that the
initial assumed first mode lateral force distribution
is a reasonable assumption for this building.
The pushover analysis was terminated after a
column shear failure occurred in all columns just
below the third level, resulting in a mechanism.
This behavior is not entirely consistent with the
observed damage from the Northridge Earthquake
because the majority of the damage was observed
in the floor above. Other studies have
demonstrated that it is possible to develop an
analytical model that more closely matches the
observed damage when ground motion generated
by the Northridge Earthquake itself is used.
Nevertheless, the significant column shear
deficiency appears to be recognized by the analysis
and, given the assumed loading distribution, the
analytically predicted failure is not unreasonable.
Load-displacement results, first yield, major
yield and initial deterioration points as defined in
the Methodology are shown in Figure 13. As
D·n
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

shown in the figure, the existing building reaches a Table 7. Demand RespDnse spectrum parameters mate
mechanism just beyond a total roof displacement (unrf
seismic zone Factor Z - .0.40
of almost 16 in., which corresponds to an overall 1
Near·Source Factor N - 1.0
drift ratio of 2 percent. DRA
seismic Coefficient c. ~ 0.40 to thl
4.4.8 capacity Spectrum Cv = 0.64 push,
Load-displacement and modal analysis results roof
were combined to generate the capacity spectrum 8-9 and 8-10 of the Methodology. The building as time·
using the procedure outlined in Chapters 4 and 8 a whole must be checked for stability, strength very
of the Methodology. The steps are: degradation, and excessive deformation as trend
J. Calculate the ratio of base shear versus described in Section 11.3 of the Methodology. J. 1
building weight (V/W). Static inelastic analyses of this building showed no I,
2. Calculate the modal story participation factor instabilities with respect to gravity loads. All P
and modal base shear participation factor. performance point roof displacements in the 2. 1
3. Calculate the spectral displacement versus Design Earthquake are less than the 0.02 x 65.67 d
spectral acceleration. ft x 12 inlft = 15.76 in. Life Safety Limit shown b
in Table 11-2 of the Methodology. Similarly, the 1
4.4.4 Demand Response Spectrum
Structural Stability Limit is found from the undel
The Basic Safety Objective selected for the expression 0.33 V;/Pi = 0.33(815/4,661) = 0.058, oven
case study is Building Performance Level "Life which translates to Structural Stability Limit of a pus
Safety" at the Design Earthquake and Building 0.058 x 65.67 ft x 12 inlft = 45.5 in. effec·
Performance Level "Structural Stability" at the The resulting demand spectrum in shown in force
Maximum Earthquake (ME). Descriptions of these Figure 14. Iterative procedures are needed to find
performance objectives are found in Chapter 3 of
the Methodology and Section 1.3 of this case
the unique "performance point." The desired s.
performance point is Point B in Figure 14, and it
study. can be seen that the building is not capable of 5.1
The Design Basis Earthquake was assumed to achieving this level of spectral displacement at the
be described by ground motion with a 10 percent .. 1
given load. For this reason, the rehabilitation achie
chance of being exceeded in a 50 year period. The . scheme discussed in the following section is 14. 1
Maximum Capable Earthquake was assumed to be proposed. progJ
described by ground motion with a 10 percent
and s
chance of being exceeded in a 100 year period, but 4.5 Time History comparisons objec
not exceeding the maximum single event that can Limited inelastic time-history analyses were Meth
be foreseen within the geologic framework executed as an approximate check of the objec
assuming median attenuation. performance point displacements predicted by the stabil
A five percent elastic demand response Methodology. A group of ten near-field p
spectrum, shown in Figure 14, was generated acceleration records, each with components in twO provi
using the procedures outlined in Section 4.4.2.4 of directions, were selected. For each record, the to sal
the Methodology with the parameters listed in given components were transformed to inclu,
Table 7 for the Design Earthquake. The Design fault-parallel and fault-normal components. Scale Basel
Earthquake is represented by the 10 percent factors were computed so that the average spectral level.
damped inelastic response spectrum shown in accelerations of the 20 histories would be 0.64g for struc;
Figure 14 using the spectral reduction factors for a structure with a I-second period. That is, the each
the acceleration (SRA) and velocity (SRv) controlled records used as time history input were scaled to requi
regions of the spectrum calculated using Equations
was!

D·18 Appendix D, Holiday Inn IIppe

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---
ters match a single representative point on the 5 percent
(unreduced) spectrum for the Design Earthquake.
Time-history analyses were performed using
DRAIN -2DX. Five percent damping was assigned
-
g as
1
to the first two modes. Figure IS shows the
pushover curve with combinations of maximum
roof displacement and base shear taken from the
time-history analyses. It can be seen that there is a
very wide scatter in the results; however two
trends appear relatively clearly:
I. The time histories predict higher shears, at
,d no lower displacements, than suggested by the
pushover curve.
2. The time histories predict higher maximum
i.67 displacements, at lower shears, than suggested
)wn by the pushover curve.
the Thus, the pushover analysis appears to
underestimate the maximum shear and
1.058, overestimate the displacements. This suggests that
)f a pushover analysis, in general, may miss critical
effects of higher modes that increase component
in forces without increasing roof displacement.
find
S. Rehabilitation Scheme
Id it
f 5.1 Introduction
it the The subject building is not capable of
achieving the performance point shown in Figure
14. This suggests that a seismic rehabilitation
program is required to provide the needed strength
and stiffness to satisfy the required performance
objectives identified in Section 1.3 of the
ere Methodology. Two alternative performance
objectives are considered: life safety and structural
y the stability.
A number of alternatives are available to
in two provide the needed strength, ductility, and stiffness
he to satisfy the required performance characteristics
including internal shear walls and external frames.
5cale Based on a review of the desired performance
,ectral level, the existing architectural character of the
64g for structure, the level of disruption associated with
he each scheme, and access required to execute the
:d to
required construction, the exterior frame system
Was selected. Alternative analyses are possible
~ay In" ~ppencllx D, Holiday Inn
using the interior shear wall scheme, however,
these are not presented in this paper because they
do not further explain the application of the
Methodology to the analysis and rehabilitation of
concrete structures.
5.2 EXterior Frames
The Basic Safety objective requires that for the
Life Safety Building Performance Level, that the
designers enhance gravity resistance of the frame
columns, limit deformation in ,the frame columns,
and reduce the vulnerability of the frame columns
to shear failures. Figures 16 through 19 illustrate
the conceptual distribution and member sizes of
the exterior frame concept shown in plan,
elevation, and details.
Using the methodology outlined in developing
the nonlinear model for the existing frame,
Section 4 of this case study, a pushover analysis of
the structure was undertaken. A preliminary
approach to sizing these frames uses hypothetical
spectral pushover curves to find performance
points within required deformation limits. Spectral
values at the hypothetical performance points are
then converted back to absolute values, and the
required strength and stiffness of additional frame
elements can be determined.
Assumptions inherent in the new design
include:
• The new mode shape matches the existing
mode shape. An modal participation factor
P = 1.4 was assumed, and an appropriate alpha
for the hypothetical performance point was
chosen from the evaluation data.
• Initial and post-yield stiffness of the
hypothetical pushover curve match the existing
building.
• For the hypothetical strengthened building, the
initial yield point is appropriate.
• New frames have lower yield displacements
than do the existing frames.
• The effects of new frame weight and material
properties can be ignored.
D·'.
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the analysis are presented in
Figure 20 showing the new capacity spectrum for
the rehabilitated structure.
A similar analysis was conducted for the
structural stability performance goal. As can be
seen from Figures 21 and 22. significantly less
rehabilitation work is required to satisfy the
requirements of this performance goal. Figure 23
illustrates the capacity spectrum for this more
modest rehabilitation effort.
G. Concluding Remarks
This report presented an application of the
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Concrete Buildings to the Holiday Inn in Van
Nuys, California. The purpose of this example
building study was to illustrate the use of the
Methodology document as an example for other
engineers to follow.
The analysis of the existing structure
concluded that it could not satisfy the requirements
of the assumed level of seismic performance and a
D·20
----
seismic rehabilitation scheme consisting of exterior
concrete frames investigated. The resulting
rehabilitated structure satisfies the required seismic
performance level.
The static inelastic analysis appears to do a
reasonable job of identifying critical limit states in
the structure and provides a simplified design
criteria against which the rehabilitation of the
building can be undertaken. Although there are a
number of other evaluation methods, the
guidelines contained in the Methodology appear to
offer the design engineer a well-structured
approach to evaluating and seismically
rehabilitating existing concrete structures.
Additional case studies are available that
examine the application of the Methodology to
other structures. These should be consulted to
obtain a broader picture of how this methodology
should be applied and to the1\nge of engineering
judgment required to evaluate and seismically
rehabilitate existing concrete buildings.
APpendix D, Holiday In" Appe
------ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Iday Inn Appendix D. Holiday Inn D-21

 -
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-

llu,,;
~.
UJIO

North/South Perimeter Frame nCUR[

Clevation

Example Building Study

2
Holfday Inn. Van Nuy., CA

D·22 Appendix D. Holiday .JIII

-- ,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROI=IT 01= CONCRETE BUILDINCS
,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~
~ ~
~ ~

•c
~ ~
a
a
~
a
a
~

,r:. .. !
"
"
, ,
"
.
~'
, ,
~ ,
b~
~
~
'"
~

, ,
,
,
,
b
~

"" ~
~ '"
~

...
,.- 16'
"

SECTION-B SECTION-A

-
"
, , ~~~
" ~ f5~ ,6'
a;J
~ ~,
::.::I!
SLOPE 1:6
~~~
MAXII.IUt.l~

1-'-7-
. " , .
"I
'. ,
,

"
.,. ,f-
. ..
'

, "
u,
• .. "
"
' , .. "
' ,
.
~
~

"•• .' ,
,
, , ~
,
. " '/ •
JdI NT
EXPANDABLE
MATERIAl
ANGLE J"X,J"
CONT.

= PRESENT 1:-:- ..
TIES MAY NOT
BE 'N
THE AS-8UILT-----1
. BRICK WALL 4-14 CONT.

~+
STRUCTURE •

"o 24"o.c. --L.,tt---1-14 CONT.

SECTION-D SECTION-C

Beam Sections and FIGURE

Elevation at Column

Example Building Study

3
Holiday Inn, Van Nuy.. CA

' Appendix D, Holiday Inn

,llday In!,
D-21
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
-

-
~
-
FI
N,
i
!
z I
•
~
I
;

2gb

~'I;
~.
U."'.D

North/South Perimeter rrame nCUR[

Showing Northridge Earthquake
Damage 4
Exempt. Bundlng Study
Hollda, Inn, Van Nu,a, CA

D-24 Appendix D, HOliday Inn

----- ~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIGURE 5(a) FIGURE 5(b)

North Frame Elevation Showing Damage Close-up of North Frame Column Shear Damage

FIGURE 5(c)
Beam Column Joint Damage at North Frame

Damage Photographs fIGURE

Example Building Study

5
Holiday Inn. Van HUYSt CA

Iiday 1l1li Appendix D. Holiday Inn D-25

 FIGURE6(a) FIGURE6(b)
Column Shear Failure Column Shear Failure

F/GURE6(c)
Beam Column JOint Damage - Note Absence of
Specified JOint Reinforcing

Damage Photographs FIGURE

Example Building Study

6
Holiday Inn, Van Nuys, CA

D·26 Appendix D. Holiday I"~

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

ETABS moc.~ with infUl wall F'lGURE

Existing Structure
IGURE
example BuDding Study
7
Halldl, Inn. Vln NUYI. CA
6

Appendix D. Holiday Inn D·27

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS
--
-

PCACOL V2.30

. .
r--'-- .------~.------~-------~--------~------.-

1000 -\ ------~-------~ -- --- :

·· ,, ,
,
-\ -------:--------~------------

·· ,,

600Ir~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~_~_
,
,
,, ,,

200 I' ------ , :

I
•
: fs=O.Sfy :
• ,
• •

-:-------:-------~--------'
:
•
•
I
I

300
~Mny (ft-k)
-200

, ,
-----------.-------~-----------------------.-

,
-600 , ........... _- . . _______ "
oi>_ ..... _ - - - ....... - - - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - _ ..... - - . . . .

Existing Column Interaction F1C~RE

Diagram at 4th and 5th floors
eumpt. aulldln, Sbldy 8
Haltday Inn. Van Nuya. CA

D·28 Appendix D. Holiday 1l1li

--
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

IS)

fm ~ 3i":O. psi
'2 120
i'j:: 1040 :Cii
I
~ = 20. in..
"0.. Lw" 14-. in.
~90
~u = O. l<ips
~
...., Ot;C""..:ity::=l 1.ca
5 sc~,
:.E 1
JO-'"
",
j
o ..
a 92
.
1$4-
.
2:0
. m
. .
:!22
CURVAn.i;<:: (rcd/in x 10-6)
Mo",.ni Cutva;t:r. Oia..,.em - 14-" x 20" Coit.:rms
FIGURE 9(a) .
Existing Column Mame,rt-Curvature Dia...",

in- ~
~
.

--""-
!.lor =
1~
n ...
it.

CUd1y
- 8.IJ
Q.1oips

a+---~~--~

a * _ • __ __ m __•
~

~
~ ~~

•
__ ~

~
____
_
~

_
CIJRVA~ (rr::(1fI x '~l

FIGURE 9(/l)
ExisIing Beam Moment-Curvatura Diagram

Existing Column one S.am

Mamlnt-Curvatvr. Diagrams
~. Building Study
9
HOlIday bin, Von IIuyo. CA

Appendix D. Holiday Inn D·29

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

BEAM COLUMN ELEMENT

I
I RIGID END ZONE
I
____ .J

NODE BEAM COLUMN ELEMENT

PLASTIC HINGE ZERO LENGTH HORIZONTAL

SPRING ELEMENT
(MONITOR SHEAR FAILURE
IN COLUMN)

ACTUAL BEAM AND COLUMN SHOWN

IN DASHED LINE FOR REFERENCE

Droin-2DX Modeling of Concrete fiGURE

Beam-Column Joint
Ex.mple BuildIng Study
10
Holld_», Inn. Van Nuy., CA

D-:SO Appendix D. Holiday In" Ap~

~ J J
,.
;;

.
:
iiC ut
o
!~
:z:
!:!.
ROOF
1 2 3 4 5
-,--------r--,-----,,------. --_.
678 m
-
ut
j -"
I

~ 7TH I.PIJ___ U~ __ .00 .62 .77 .76 ~~ _ _ .B~13_2. m

120 122 115 153
.
C
II
r:
61H 141 106 145
• • & --91.• t ---•• --. ,_ .••. _..••. - •• .•
34 103 33102 37 104 36 105 35 114 42 93
~
51H I 30
T28
80 ,I::
·.'11-·
81 !!'16--· II:: 84 '09· •~ -tl~
82 1:: 81 83
'12--· '0-8- . '07-- •
1: 1:: 85 1:: 78
o
Z
II
Z
a
ii I
Z Q'"

~~
4TI-I I- I. 13
20 BB 1 28 49 112 64 1 11 63.1 14 87
••.• • . _. ·;.j;2-·-;~44--·;~43 65.1 15
-;~42
70 21
- -
57
-.134 ..'"
m

:1 H ',.-"
o
.o.
• 2.:c
3RD .17 56• • 19_43• •8_74• •6_~2• • 9-.:?3.1.1O..._75.1.769.1.18 55.
!..

J[ -g.;:
~'!'
~'"

~6. ~
1~~
38

1~1 1~
40

1~8 53• •127

•.. ~8• • _~2• • _ _5~ • _ _
129
~ __ ~ .?_59.
t t 23
3~
,.
0'"
,.
::
~ 9.
H
2ND

1
.u7
149 139 1
·46
148 147 141 140
'17
II45
22
4
I135
4-58
"oz
•

~ ~... I
1ST

- - '" - - - - - - -
86 95 99 100

CoILnTI Shear Failure

97 96 !l8 92

• Beam'CoILnTI Plaslic t-linge

.101
"..'m"
m

.--
III
r:
a
Z
n
ut

..
a•
III
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
-

~
~... 4
,I

Base Shear Level ,

3

2
--.-
-+-

......-
)E
V=10Ck
V=2O(k
V=3Q(J(
V=4OCk
V=5OOk

-+- V=6OOc (d > 2%driiI)

I.. ,
1
0 2 4 6 a 10
STORY DRIFTON)

Story Orift Ptot. Existing "GURE

Siructun
Eumt>to Building Sbld,
12
HDlIdo, Inn. Van "UYO. CA

D-S! Appendix D, Holiday Inn AII~

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
----- 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fare. Displacement CUI"YI. FlGtlR£

Existing SInlc:lu..
!DmpIe . . . - . Slucly
13
H - , ..... Ya Nuya, CA

laylnn Appendix D. Holiday Inn D·:!:!

 -
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Capacity Spectrum. Existing RGURt

Siructurl
~.B_I Stud,
14
HallOy 1M, Va. Hup, CA

D-34 Appendix D. Holiday Inn

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

1000

LEGEND
900 • Fault Normaa. Muimum Sh••,
o Fault NonnaJ. Mulmum Displacement
... Fault PInIUet. Maldmum Shear
800 .6 Fault Parallel. Maximum DIsplacement

eCap
700 • Pet
4Cor
-'!C. eCor
eNH ;l'He RI. eSCE
ICS" sr, "'Cap eEC7
lil ....... CE
600
Il.
g
... eC7r -- --
a:
iii::c 500 o Per
en "Rln
W
en .- A'c.~SCE
~ 400 .-
'-
,/
. .- - - - ':>sci,.
,6Cor
I

SCS
300 ,/
ANH
,/
,/ ORIn
,/ AeC7
200
Cor
'ii
A .t
OSy!
100
ARln

o ap
a
a 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
ROOF DISPlACEMENT (IN)

Time-History/Pushoyer Comparison.
Existing Structure
E.urn!>lo a-. Study 15
HoIIdoy Inn. Von Nup, CA

Appendix D. Holiday Inn D-35

~ay Inn
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
--

0
_. C

.....
....r
8

. ..
A

.
9

~
Ill"•
I
I

v~~.'r
,
I
_______I";.-;M
II
II
II
----------- :
,,,

B -
:n -
MDIOIt
~fi
, ,
~
7

~
• r-,
6

~ , ,
"'+
~
5 .
-'4" TItCII C:OIICII£Tt

~ @- -, ~~~
k4~"'.II.o.

' - ,,,
~.
4
,,
,,
: ,,,
,,
3

l
2 -
"

,
: !I><I:
I ~ ___________ ~

- --------- ---------- "" ----

~
---j
,",,-
""" .,""""
Typical Floor F'romlng Pion FIGURE
Life Sofety Retrofit
Exempli Building Study
16
HolldlY Inn. Vln Hurl, CA

D-:sa Appendix D. Holiday Inn

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

~w -.
u.N.G.

South Perimeter Frame F'IGURE

Elevation : Lit. Safety Retrofit
Enmple BuRdlng Stud)'
17
Hollda, Inn, Van Muva, CA

Appendix D. Holiday Inn D·S'

lay Inn
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
-

GRID

I
EXIST1N
COLUMN
G CONCR8~
SEYOND
VNEW rRAME
COLUMN BEYOND

• .• : ;~.~ J,.~ NEW

j-:-:' . •.
, 8
,
. -L.
'. I:'
.• '.;:
. ), . •
FRAME BEAM

"'0
\0
I

~ .. " "'g N
, ,-,-

'. . ...• f·
,'. •
b" , ' " ~
N
0'
~o
Lo..~
,...
N
"-
0
0
"'
"c
N
f"
0
W

[T'
• .;-
• , N

~
\
'- 8-#9
~ TOP & Bon.
EXISTIN G B E A M / :
'/i "-8" #4 TIES 0 4' o.c.
:

I I

SECTION

FRAME BEAM SECTION rlGURE

Enmple 8undlng Study

18
Holkl.r Inn. Ven HurSt CA

D-SS Appendix D. Holiday I""

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

GRID

I
EXISTING
I / NEW FRAME BEAM
BEAM~

I / NEW FRAME COLUMN

I
I . L
I .
I ",'J.. ~
EXISTING
CONCRETE I • I. . 8-#9

COLUMN ~ • ___ .
•J ~ _____ #4 TIES @ 4" o.c .

~+
. 11.' ... to
• . '"
GRID
• 1---'- •J •
I ~ •
..' 2-#9

I . . 8-#9

I
I
I
I
EXISTI~
BEAM . I
~ NEW FRAME BEAM

1'-8~

I
I
I

PLAN VIEW
FRAME COLUMN OET AIL FIGURE

Eumpl. BuDding Study

19
Holldl,. Inn. Y_n Nur., CA

lay Inn Appendix D. Holiday Inn D·SS

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

1.2
I ~I
I ::. I
1.1

1.0 L.
r-
----:2.5Ca~ I 1:1 a .
Darrsge Ca1IrCI I

.. ""'4I----=----"'tll .f
1: :~
0.9

:§ - I I::J
0.8
cI"9 armx=O.37g
e 0.7
ay=O.35g
drTax=3.6"

i 1!y=2Z'
EfI'edIve Darqling =21 %

~
0.8

0.5

I 0.4

0.3
21% EIfedive Oarr-ping Spednm
I
0.2

0.1
--~_=_-:-:-:-~----=-_=_.:l- TckcCe
-- -
I
- - --- r
0.0 1L-..J...:::...J:.....:J.~L...-l-LL-...L...!....-.l..--L.--L...wL...-l-.l-...!....-.l..--L---I
o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SPEC"TlW.DlSI'IACEMENT. Sd ON)

Capacity Splctrum.
Ufo-Sofoly R.trofit
Eumpt. 8 _ . Study 20
Holiday Inn, 'OIl Nuya, CA

D-4D Appendix D. Holiday Inn

--- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

o c 8 A
6J'-r

~
[B iif
I
I
,
______ ~-iI
II
··•
:
• /
r~r·lHr IKl'tIIIM
=ntCOl.uu.. ·:l/i""xJ(I"
~~ (l(I[IIIOR

8 · -""'"
---1f

~
7

~
•
6 H - I - - - - ..I!------<;----. -----"'-l1li1-'
/ "
\
\:~ : 19 I"I'P.

• i"
~
~
5
··•
•; •

@--- --. L-! •

:
----@jm
m.
4

~
3

•;
2
" .
~
• 1\:5>«1
:1[-----------1
_______ .ll! _____
. _____
:' >--
----------- ----, ,-
•
____ ..J•
•

Typical rloor Framing Pion FIGURE

Structural Stability Retrofit
Example Building Study
21
Holkl8W Inn, V.n Nuy., CA

day Inn Appendix D, Holiday Inn D·Qt

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

iii i i i i

South Perimeter Frome Elevation :

Structural Stability Retrofit
Ex.mple Building Study
22
Holiday Inn. Van HUYI, CA

..,.. D-42 Appendix D. Holiday Inll Ap~

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-

TS<Cde
1.2

1.1

1.0 2.5Ca

0.9

§
O.S
c2l
~ 0.7

!
~
0.6
I
anm:=0.24g
ay=O.25g
=
.dTai( 4.5'

~. t:larr1Jing = 34%
0.5

I 0.4

0.3
-'.... Pel fa Ii ElliCe Point (4.5'. 0.24g)
0.2

0.1
: Redu:ed Spe~~;;~~_~,~_:-:-::""",-,,,::,-...;-:.....::...::....:..:j- Td-ccde
-- -
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SPECTRAl.. DlSf'lACEM3'.IT. ScI ON)

Copocily Spectrum. FIGURE

SI",clurQl-Stobilily Retrofit
Exoa"Ie 8.-. Sludy
Holiday ..... V. . Nup, CA
23

day Inn Appendix D. Holiday Inn D-43

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

APpendix E
Cost Effectiveness Study
prepared by
Jimmy R. Yee Consulting Engineers
4850 Alta Drive
Sacramento, California 95822

Appendix E. cost effectiveness study E·1

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table of Contents
I. General ..................................................................................................... E-5
2. Example Building Descriptions and Retrofit Schemes ................................................ E-5
2.1 Barrington Medical Building .............................................................. E-5
2.2 Escondido Village Midrise ................................................................ E-6
2.3 CSU at Northridge Administration Building ........................................... E-6
2.4 Holiday Inn at Van Nuys ...................................................... ·............ E-6
3. Example Building Demolition/Replacement Costs .................................................... E-6
4. Example Building Retrofit Costs ......................................................................... E-7
4.1 Definition of Retrofit Costs ............................................................... E-7
4.2 Retrofit Costs and Performance Levels ................................................. E-8
4.3 Itemization of Retrofit Costs ........................................................... , .. E-8
5. Benefits/Costs ............................................................................... ·.............. E-13
6. Comparison with FEMA Projects for Estimation of Seismic Rehabilitation Costs ............ E-14
6.1 Typical Costs of Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings ............................... E-14
6.2 University of Southern California Medical Center .................................. E-15
7. Ease of Use of the Seismic Retrofit Analysis ........................................................ E-15
7.1 Traditional Approaches ............................... ,.~ ................................ E-15
7.2 Analysis and Retrofit Design Methodology .......................................... E-16
8. Consistency of Application of the Evaluation and Retrofit Methodology ........................ E-17
8.1 Preliminary Evaluation .................................................................. E-17
8.2 Modeling ................................................................................... E-17
8.3 Nonlinear Static Analysis ................................................................ E-17
8.4 Foundation Effects ....................................................................... E-18
9. Cost Effectiveness of the Evaluation and Retrofit Methodology ................................ E-18
10. References ................. , ................................................................... , ......... , E-18

AppendIx E, cost EffectIveness Study E-5

~----------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~-----------------------------------
APpendix E
cast Effectiveness study
t. General
A benefit/cost model study was undertaken to
analyze the results generated from the four example
building studies reported in Appendices A, B, C,
and D in this volume. This study reports on the
feasibility of using the structural performance levels
for seismic retrofit designs and on the application of
the seismic retrofit analysis and design
methodology contained in Volume" 1 of this
document. The nonstructural performance levels
were not considered in the example building
analyses and therefore were not addressed in this
benefit/cost study.
The objectives of this study are to: 1) estimate
example building retrofit costs (direct or hard
costs), 2) provide a comparison between the
example building retrofit estimated costs and cost
ranges from traditional retrofit analysis
methodologies, 3) develop a relationship between
costs and extent of change in the retrofit due to
selection of the performance level for the four
example buildings, 4) perform a benefit/cost
analysis for the performance levels evaluated for
each example building, 5) evaluate the ease of use
of the seismic retrofit analysis, and 6) identify the
consistency of application between engineers.
The reader should be aware that most of these
retrofits were designed based on known actual
earthquake damage. Differences in retrofit schemes
and costs may result in cases where the benefit of
knowing the actual earthquake damage to a
particular building is not available or has not been
realized.
All of the example buildings occur within the
high seismicity areas of California. Therefore, the
conclusions drawn from this study may not be fully
applicable to other geographic locations.
Appendix E, cost Effectiveness study
2. Example Building
Descriptions and
Retrofit Schemes
The four example buildings consist of the
Barrington Medical Building in Los Angeles,
Stanford University Escondido Village Midrise,
CSU Northridge Administration Building, and the
Holiday Inn in Van Nuys. For all buildings, seismic
retrofits for one to two structural performance
levels were completed using the newly developed
methodology. A summary of the existing buildings
and their retrofit schemes are given below.
2.1 Barrington Medical Building
The building was designed in 1964 and is
located in Los Angeles. The building has
approximate plan dimensions of 104' by 130' and is
six stories in height with no basement. The floor
systems consist of a cast-in-place (CIP) two-way
concrete 7-1/2" flat slabs. The apparent lateral
force resisting system is a combination of CIP
perimeter moment resisting frames with "short"
columns ( between spandrel beams) and shear
walls. The foundation system consists of CIP
drilled concrete piles.
Structural Stability Level Retrofit.
Supplemental steel column support of the slab and
spandrels at the perimeter moment resisting frame
columns or alternatively, the strengthening of the
perimeter moment frame "short" colu~s by th~
use of a fiber reinforced epoxy composIte materIal
(FRP).
Life Safety Level Retrofit. New CIP concrete
infill waIls, shotcrete strengthening of existing
walls, the addition of pile caps and drilled CIP
piles, and all items in the Structural Stability Level
Retrofit.
E-5
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
2.2 Escondido Village Mldrise
The building was designed in 1964 and is
located on the Stanford University campus in
Stanford, California. The building has approximate
plan dimensions of 114' by 57' and is eight stories
in height with a basement. The floor systems
consist of a 12" voided CIP concrete one way slabs
with integral beams. The apparent lateral force
resisting system is CIP concrete shear walls. The
foundation system consists of spread footings.
Life Safety Level Retrofit. Confinement of the
concrete columns and shear wall boundary
members in the lower three stories by the use of
steel plates and fiber reinforced epoxy composite
(FRP) material, the welding of short longitudinal
bar splices in shear wall boundary elements and the
strengthening of the column-slab connection using a
steel collar at all levels of the structure.
Damage Control Level Retrofit. New full
height concrete shear walls and drilled pier
foundations, confinement of the concrete columns
in the lower three stories by the use of steel plates
and fiber reinforced epoxy composite (FRP)
material, and the strengthening of the column-slab
connection using a steel collar at all levels of the
structure.
2.3 CSU at Northridge Administration
Building
The building was designed in 1964 and is
located on the CSU campus in Northridge,
California. The building tower has approximate
plan dimensions of 227' by 68' and is five stories in
height with no basement. The floors consist of 19"
deep cast-in-place (CIP) one-way joist and slab
systems. The lateral force resisting system is CIP
concrete shear walls. The foundation system
consists of CIP drilled concrete piles.
Immediate Occupancy Level Retrofit.
Strengthening of existing shear walls using
shotcrete and the strengthening of existing shear
wall construction joints.
Life Safety Level Retrofit. None required.
E·a
-
-
2.4 Holiday Inn at Van NUys
The building was designed in 1965 and is
located in Van Nuys, California. The building has
approximate plan dimensions of 150' by 63' and is
seven stories in height with no basement. The floor
systems consist of 8" ± thick cast-in-place (CIP)
two·way flat plate slabs. The apparent designated
lateral force resisting system is ClP perimeter
concrete moment resisting frames and interior
slab-column frames. The foundation system consists
of ClP drilled concrete piles.
Structural Stability Level Retrofit. Addition
of reinforced concrete ductile moment resisting
frames up to the fifth floor at the perimeter of two cons
sides. The transverse direction retrofit is not mate
addresse~ in the example building study. inclu
Life Safety Level Retrofit. Addition of code
reinforced concrete ductile moment resisting frames for e
full height of the building at the perimeter of two Tabl,
sides. The transverse direction retrofit is not
addressed in the example building study. 4.
I. Example Building !
Demolition/Replacement were
will,
Costs
The building demolition/replacement cost for tecru
each of the example buildings was estimated for build
comparison with the estimated construction costs simil
for the retrofits. These costs were established 4.1
through a professional cost engineer in conjunction
I
with general construction contractors. The
this I
demolition/replacement costs do not include any
cons!
soft or indirect costs, or contingencies. For
by rr
purposes of demolition/replacement costing, direct
this!
costs are defined as construction (primary) costs
profe
including mechanical, electrical, plumbing and
vend
architectural features. The contractor's field/home
Conti
office expenses, profit margin, and bonds are
losse
included in the direct cost. All costs are based upon
impa
the Engineering News Record Cost Index of May 1,
inclu
1996. The replacement construction is
can I
non-I
Appendix E, cost Effectiveness studY
- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

-
Table 1. Building Demolition/Replacement costs
EStlma,ted ."
~ has Dem(UReplacement. .Bulldlng Area Estimated
md is BuildIng cost '{$FJ ",cost/SF
, floor Barrington Medical $10,970,000 72,500 $151.30
IP) Center
ated stanford University $7,485,000 53,400 $140.20
Escondido Midrise
r CSU Northridge $16,208,000 120,200 $134.80
Administration Bldg.
:onsists
Holiday Inn at van $8,613,000 69,700 $123.60
NUys
lition
ng
ftwo considered "in-kind" consisting of "like type" Earthquake related costs for this study include
materials of the existing facility. No betterment is the structural work to upgrade the existing lateral
included, except for meeting the current building force resisting system and/or to provide additiomil
code. The estimated demolition/replacement costs vertical stability to the gravity load carrying
frames for each example building are summarized in system. Damage repair is excluded from the direct
'two Table 1. costs.
Non-earthquake related costs include the
4. Example Building non-structural work of removing and replacing
Retrofit Costs architectural, mechanical, plunibing and electrical
features in order to carry out the structural work.
A variety of materials and retrofit systems
For this study, the non-earthquake related costs are
lent were selected for the four example buildings. This
included in the total direct cost for the building but
will give the reader information as to what retrofit
will be separated from earthquake related itemized
for techniques can be utilized for existing concrete
;t retrofit costs.
buildings and also the construction costs for
for Non-earthquake related costs which are
similar buildings associated with these techniques.
:osts excluded from this study are:
d 4.1 Definition of Retrofit Costs • Fire and life safety system improvements
mction • Mechanical, electrical and plumbing system
Estimated retrofit construction costs given in
this study are direct costs. Direct costs are the improvements
any • Architectural improvements
construction costs (primary) and were determined
by material quantities and associated unit prices in • Hazardous material abatement
, direct • Providing access for the disabled
this study. Unit prices were established through a
:osts
professional cost engineer in conjunction with • Retrofit costs include the contractor's
rod field/home office expenses, profit margin, and
vendors, material suppliers, subcontractors, and
IIhome bonds.
contractors. Indirect or soft costs such as housing
re All costs are based upon the Engineering News
losses, business and industry loss, relocation
:ed upon
impacts, employment loss, and tax impacts are not Record Cost Index of May 1, 1996. The retrofit
f May I,
included in this study. Direct construction costs costs do not include any soft or indirect costs, or
can be further divided into earthquake and contingencies. The building is assumed occupied,
non-earthquake related costs (Hart, 1994). except for the portions of the building under
construction. The influence on the cost of the

Appendix E, Cost Effectiveness study E·7

----------------------------------------~-------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
--

..~
Table 2. seismic Retrofit com VS. performance Levels

Barrington Medical structural Stability 5550,000 57.60

center Life safety 51,700,000 523.50
stanford University Life safety 5460,000 58.60
Escondido Mldrlse Control 529.96
CSU Northridge Life safety None None
Administration Bldg. Immediate Occupancy 5170,000 51.40
Holiday Inn at van Structural stability 5800,000 511.50
Nuys Life safety $1,530,000 522.00

retrofit by a fast-track or phased construction Figures 1 through 4. A composite graph including

schedule or by pressures to reopen or occupy the
building as soon as possible is not considered in
this study.
4.2 Retrofit Costs and Performance
Levels
A Summary of the estimated retrofit costs for
each structural performance level is given in
Table 2.
The retrofit costs for the four example
buildings show a direct increase in construction
cost incremental with the selection of a higher
performance level. For the CSU Northridge
Administration Building, the existing structure was
determined to have satisfied the requirements for
the Life Safety and Damage Control performance
levels without retrofit. The existing Stanford
University Escondido Midrise structure was
considered to be already at the Structural Stability
performance level. The Holiday Inn's total retrofit
cost was based upon the assumption that the
retrofit in the transverse direction would be
approximately the same as in the longitudinal
direction of the building.
The relationship between retrofit costs and
changes to the structural performance level for
each example building are graphically illustrated in
all example buildings is given in Figure 5.
CSU Northridge Administration Building,
Figure 3, illustrates the situation where the seismic
resistance of the original structure is at a high
performance level already. The incremental cost
for the Immediate Occupancy level is small as a
result of this condition.
The generation of these Cost-Performance
curves allows for an estimation or extrapolation of
incremental performance level changes with only a
very few points. However, future studies including
additional performance levels and example
buildings are recommended to determine the
accuracy of the extrapolation.
4.3 Itemization of Retrofit costs
The detailed construction cost estimates for the
retrofits allowed itemization of the various tasks
involved in the retrofit. Although these tasks are
specific to the four example buildings, it is
expected they will be representative of the kind
and cost of retrofits which may be encountered for
other similar concrete buildings. Graphs are given
in Figures 6 through 9 illustrating the various
retrofit tasks and associated unit costs for each
example building.

E-8 APpendix E, Cost Effectiveness studY

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-

Figure 2. stanford Escondido village Mldrlse cost·perfOrmance curve

55 studY Appendix E. cost Effectiveness Study E-9

----------------------~----------~---------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT DF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

2~~~----------------------------------------~ 16.64
CSU Northridge Administration Bldg.

13.31

9.98

~ 6.66

400000 3.33

0+------,------~-----r------r_----~~--_4 0.00
Not Structural Limned Lije Damage Immediate
Considered Stability Safety Safety Control Occupancy
Performance Level

Figure s. CSU Northridge Administration Building CDst·performance curve

20~ 28.70
Holiday Inn at Van Nuys
16~ 22.96
11.
10
8c: 1200000
~0
17.22 U
c:
~ 0
tl::I
2 800~
10 11.48 ~

c: 10
0 c:
U 0
U
400000 5.74

0 0.00
Not Structural LImited Life Damage Immediate
Considered Stability Safety Safety Control Occupancy
Performance Level

Figure 4. Holiday Inn cost·performance curve

11
1
E-10 APpendix E. Cost Effectiveness stucIY j IIPII
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

40,-------------------------------------------,
Building Case Studies

LL 30

~6
20

1"o
o
Legend
-v- Holion, .•:l1n
.CSUN Admin
-eStanfortCEVM
10
. . .Me

Not Structural Limited Life Damage Immediate

Considered Stability Safety Safety Control Occupancy

Performance Level
FIgure 5. Building case studies cost·performance curves

Barrington Medical Center

Add Pile Foundations

Supplemental Column Support or

Strengthen Columns (FRP)

CIP Cone. Infill Wall

Shotcrate Walls

Mech .• Elect., Plumb., Arch

O.H., Expenses. Profit. Bonds

o 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00

For LIfe Safety Performance Level
Construction CosVSF

FIgure 6. Barrington Medical center Retrofit Tasks/costs

s studY Appendix E. cost EHectlveness study E-n

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Stanford University Escondido Village Midrise

Strengthen Rebar Splices

Strengthen Columne (FRP)

Slab Shear Strengthening at Columns

Strengthen cols & walls (steel plata)

Mach" Elect. Plumb.. Arch -F~===c~

D.H., Expanses, Profit, Bonds

5.00 7.00 8.00

For life Safety Pertonnence Level Construction CosVSF

FIgure 7. stanFord IInlverslty EScondIdo Village Mldrlse RetroFIt TaSks/costs

s.
perf
orig
CSU Northridge Admin Bldg. othe
Strengthen Wall Construction Joint 1.
2.

3.

Mach., Elect•• Plumb., ! this

cost
c.H., Expenses, Profft, Bonds 199:
cost
(FE

0.0 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 repl
For Immediate Occupancy Performance Level
Construction CosVSF

FIgure 8. CSII Northridge Administration Building RetroFit Tasks/costs

E·12 Appendix E, Cost effectiveness studY

---- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Holiday Inn at Van Nuys

Concrete Moment Frame

Mach .• Elecl., Plumb., Arch

D.H., Expenses, Profit, Bonds

.00 o 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 B.OO 9.00 10.00
For Ufe Safety Performance Level Construction CosVSF

Figure 9. Holiday Inn RetroFit Tasks/Costs

5. Benefits/Costs retrofit are small in comparison to the replacement

In this study, an increase in the structural
performance level from that established for the
original building is considered as the "benefit". In
other studies, retrofit benefits typically include:
1. Lowered repair costs.
2. Reduced loss of building function and
therefore indirect costs.
3. Improved life safety for occupants.
Although indirect costs are not addressed in
this study, they may be at least equal to the direct
costs of repair and retrofit of the building (FEMA,
1992a). For a more thorough discussion of indirect
costs, the reader is referred to the references
(FEMA, 1988 and FEMA, 1989).
It is apparent from reference to the
replacement costs that the direct costs of the
costs. In this study, the direct costs of retrofit
range from 5 percent to 18 percent of the
replacement cost, excluding the special case of the
CSU at Northridge Administration building.
Consideration needs to be given to the indirect
costs in the project to obtain a rigorous cost
effectiveness analysis.
The expected effectiveness, or reduction in
damage, of traditional concrete building retrofits
for the Life Safety performance level over
non-retrofitted concrete buildings averages from
30 percent to 18 percent, for MMI IV to MMI XII
level seismic events respectively (FEMA, 1992a).
As a result of the more exact analysis methodology
proposed herein, a further reduction in damage is
expected.

studY AppendIx E, cost EffectIveness study E·IS

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

eno
Me'
low

abo
Barrington Medical Large concrete Life safety $29.93 516.54 retr
Center Frame with redt
InflllWall and
stanford University Large Concrete Life safety 526.13 57.45 elef
Escondido Mldrlse Shear wall con
Stanford university Large concrete Damage 531.67 527.59
mel
foUl
EsCOndido Mldrise 5hearwall Control
inel
CSU Northridge Very concrete Immediate 511.72' 51.10
Administration Large Shear Wall Occupancy
Bldg. retr·
Holiday Inn at Van Large concrete Life safety 529.93 517.30'
Saft
NUYS Moment retr·
Frame NOI
Star
1. Seismicity Category of Very High, 1996 construction start and 4% inflation.
Wh,
2. Non·structural work costs omitted or not considered.
3. Immediate Occupancy minus Damage Comrol level costs
reqt
4. Cost for longitudinal direction retrofit used also for transverse direction.
stre
CSt
min
considers only the direct cost of the structural waI
G. Comllarlson with FEMA Nor
projects for Estimation work for retrofit and does not address retrofitting
to performance levels below Life Safety. be <
of Seismic Therefore. cost comparisons at the Structural elefi
Rehabilitation Costs Stability performance level were not undertaken. eart
Table 3 presents the direct structural retrofit alre
6.1 Typical Costs of Seismic costs estimated for five separate retrofit schemes the
Rehabilitation of Buildings developed in the four example building studies of
Typical retrofit costs for each example building this project and the corresponding mean costs bast
were determined using the FEMA document determined using the FEMA document. belc
Typical Costs of Seismic Rehabilitation of Comparison indicates that the estimated costs of Thi!
reh~
Buildings, Volume I, Second Edition (Hart, 1994) to the retrofit schemes developed using the
obtain a comparison with the building specific cost Methodology are all lower than the FEMA mean perl
estimates from this study. Cost option 2 of the costs. in some cases substantially lower. However. fror
FEMA methodology was selected to determine the one must be very cautious interpreting this limited Imn
typical retrofit costs. This option accounts for data. The FEMA cost estimation methodology. expJ
, the·
building type, floor area, geographic location, date based on the averages of large numbers of highly
of retrofit construction. seismic map area. variable costs. is specifically not intended for use incr
performance objective. the number of buildings and in estimating the retrofit cost for individual Dafi
i Imn
other considerations. The FEMA document buildings and this comparison does not provide

1
E·'4 Appendix E, cost Effectiveness studY 1~
- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
enough data to support a claim that the
Methodology will consistently deliver significantly
lower cost retrofit designs.
On the positive side, however, the comparison
above does suggest that the potential exists for
retrofit cost reduction using the Methodology. The
reduction can be attributed to the ability to define
and focus on retrofitting the most critical structural
elements. This ability stems from the more
complete understanding of earthquake demands,
member limit states, failure mechanisms and
foundation effects associated with the
inelastic/nonlinear anal ysis.
Furthermore, the high variability in estimated
retrofit costs, notably for the higher than Life
Safety performance levels, can be explained by the
retrofit measures established for the CSU
Northridge Administration Building and the
Stanford University Escondido Village Midrise.
Whereas the Stanford University Escondido Midrise
required major concrete shear wall and foundation
strengthening to improve the performance level, the
CSU Northridge Administration Building required
minimal strengthening of one line of concrete shear
wall. The minimal retrofit work for the CSU
:ing Northridge Administration Building may, in part,
be attributed to knowing the exact structural
elements to be retrofitted based on previous
en. earthquake caused damage and the presence of an
,fit already adequate lateral force resisting system for
nes the higher performance levels.
s of The FEMA document and database appear to be
based on the existing building condition being at or
below the Structural Stability performance level.
of This is reasonable since facilities are not typically
rehabilitated if they meet the Life Safety
performance level. Therefore, the incremental cost
ean
from Life Safety or Damage Control to the
fever,
nited Immediate Occupancy performance level is not
y, explicitly addressed by the FEMA document. For
the CSU Northridge Administration Building, the
~Iy
incremental cost was obtained by subtracting the
'use
Damage Control level retrofit cost from the
Immediate Occupancy retrofit cost.
de
studY AppenCllx E. Cost effectiveness study
6.2 University of southern California
Medical Center
A study was undertaken by FEMA to ascertain
the need and extent of retrofit for the Psychiatric
Hospital at the Los Angeles County USC Medical
Center (FEMA, 1995). Structural Damage was
sustained during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake
which indicated a need for seismic retrofit. In this
case, the structural elements to be retrofitted were
damaged by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.
Analyses using recently published research on
reinforced concrete shear walls in the post-elastic
range helped to confirm that the "short" column or
wall pier elements were critical.
A construction cost estimate was undertaken in
the FEMA study for I) damage repair and 2) the
"Optional Structural Hazard Mitigation Scheme".
The second scheme was defined as the retrofit of
119 selected exterior wall/columns which would
result in a building performance level greater than
or equal to Life Safety. From the detailed
estimate, the hard or direct cost for the "Optional
Structural Hazard Mitigation Scheme" was
determined to be $3,098,148. This cost does not
include the scope and construction contingency,
but does include non-structural costs. This cost
figure differs from the subtotal given in the FEMA
study and is not the net cost change from the base
repair scheme. With a floor area of 115,030 SF, a
cost per SF of $26.91 was calculated for this
particular scheme. Comparing the $26.91/SF for
this building and the average Life Safety level cost
from th:is study in Table 2, the FEMA retrofit cost
is approximately 50 percent higher.
7. EaSe of use of the
Seismic Retrofit
Analvsls
7.1 Traditional Approaches
Traditional detailed seismic retrofit analyses of
existing concrete buildings in structural
engineering practice have typically incorporated
the use of an equivalent static lateral force
E·15
-------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS
------------------------------------.
procedure or linear dynamic analysis (response
spectrum) to determine deficiencies. The analysis
criteria consisting of a percentage of the force level
required in recent editions of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC, 1994) or the use of the force level
required by an older edition, such as the 1970
UBC, has been adopted by many municipalities and
state agencies. In other cases, the detailed analysis
procedures established by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency in the NEHRP Handbookfor
the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings
(FEMA 178) or Methodsfor Evaluating the Seismic
Resistance of Existing Buildings (ATC-14) have
been used or approved in lieu of some percentage
of the UBC equivalent static lateral forces. FEMA
178 and ATC-14 address archaic and non-ductile
lateral force resisting systems in high seismic
zones, whereas the UBC does not. The differences
between FEMA 178 and ATC-14 included the fact
that FEMA 178 earthquake forces are at strength
level and the ATC-14 forces are at allowable stress
design (ASD) level. When converted from ASD to
Strength methodology, the force reduction factors,
R, does not always agree. There is also a concern
whether these global force reduction factors are too
conservative for existing buildings.
The above criteria are all very similar to the
methodology used for design of new building
structures, so those familiar with current building
codes could easily convert to these procedures for
existing buildings. We would expect that a new
methodology for seismic retrofit analysis, which
includes inelastic effects modeled explicitly and
considerations of restricted component ductility,
would be more time consuming in understanding
and implementing.
7.2 Analysis and Retrofit Design
Methodology
Results from a questionnaire given to the
structural engineers performing the building case
studies indicate that the new methodology, using
the Capacity Spectrum Method, is more time
consuming than those in previous guidelines, such
as the detailed analysis procedures of ATC-14,
E-'&
..
FEMA 178, or the UBC. The extensive amount of 1 eml
!
time indicated to implement the methodology may j rela
be, at least in part, due to the time to learn and I can
utili
understand the developing methodology and to .!'
familiarize themselves with the presently available as d
nonlinear analysis computer programs. The ! pusl
demands of time required to: I) generate the
various demand curves, 2) determine the nonlinear non
capacity curve by manual iteration using elastic elas
analysis computer programs or semi-automatic info
iteration using nonlinear computer programs, and und
3) find the performance point, including the time desi
to learn the tools of the methodology, appear to part
result in an increase in retrofit design time by a to b
factor of two to four times that of traditional anal
analyses. Also, the influence of the structural mO(
engineer's background and experience with eval
performance-based earthquake engineering of abil
concrete structures is also a consideration. post
Another important factor in the analysis time resi:
is the limitation of the computer software. One to b
software program used by all the building case wid
study participants is the DRAIN 2-D (two rna)
dimensional) series of non-linear analysis allo
programs developed at the University of retT!
California, Berkeley (PoweJI, 1992). Three
dimensional nonlinear analysis programs with a 8.
similar origin to the DRAIN 2-D series are also
available (Maison, 1992) to explicitly account for
torsion. These programs do not have pre- or
post-processors to easily examine data and do not
explicitly account fOf all the types of concrete
member failures or desired force-deformation rece
relationships. As an illustration, the global for I
capacity curve for each building was established metl
by the participants using incremental pushover
8.1
curves to account for the degradation of members
with restricted ductility. This procedure turned out
to be very lengthy. Post-processors were typically for 1
generated by the use of spreadsheets. Even with rneti
the spreadsheets, examination and transformation eval
of the data is a time consuming process. The the I
participants all indicated they are unaware of any rem
commercial software program which completely FE~
automates the nonlinear static analysis process,
Appendix E, COst Effectiveness studY 1 :j
--- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
It of emulates the desired member force-deformation
nay relationship and transforms the data into that which
I can be easily evaluated. Only one participant
utilized a three dimensional linear analysis program
able as the primary tool for the non-linear static
pushover analysis.
However, the methodology's incorporation of
near nonlinear analysis gains insight unavailable from an
c elastic code based type of analysis. More
information is obtained and a more complete
md understanding is gained using the new analysis and
me design methodology. As an illustration, one
o participant noted that buildings which may appear
a to be highly deficient when evaluated with elastic
analysis methods can be demonstrated to be
moderately deficient, or even adequate when
evaluated with the nonlinear analysis methods. The
ability of the nonlinear analysis to provide
post-yield force redistribution in the lateral force
me resisting system was considered by all participants
to be an extremely important benefit. In summary,
with the methodology, critical structural elements
may be identified with greater confidence thus
allowing for easier determination of the degrees of
retrofit necessary for the desired performance level.
a B. Consistency of
;0 Application of the
for Evaluation and Retrofit
not Methodology
Only portions of structural calculations were
received from the building case study participants
for use in evaluating consistency. These indicate the
ed methodology was generally followed.
r which follows the code type triangular force
bers 8.1 preliminary EValuation
d out AU, except for one participant, used FEMA 178
:aUy for the preliminary seismic evaluation phase of the
ith methodology. The FEMA 178 preliminary
tion evaluation procedure appears to have found most of
the obvious deficiencies in the buildings. The
any remaining participant did not indicate the use of
ely FEMA 178, but instead used an alternate analysis
s,
studY Appendix E. Cost Effectiveness study
methodology (Inelastic Demand Ratio) for the
preliminary evaluation.
8.2 Modeling
Building models for the nonlinear analysis
using DRAIN-2DX varied between participants.
CSU Northridge Administration building was
modeled using one line of coupled shear walls.
The Holiday Inn model consisted of complete
moment resisting frames in the longitudinal
direction. Stanford University Escondido Valley
Midrise was modeled using multiple stick elements
to represent the shear walls and moment resisting
frames. The Barrington Medical Cen.ter model
consisted of complete moment resisting frames.
Interior shear walls were modeled as single
beam-column elements. The effects of the different
types of model representations on their results has
not been established.
In all the buildings, except for one, the interior
gravity load resisting beam and column frames
were included in the analysis. Contrary to the
methodology, it appears that these frames could
have been omitted in several of the shear wall
building models.
All of the participants took into account the
effects of member strength degradation in their
model.
8.3 NOnlinear static Analysis
Three of the participants selected the level 3
Capacity Spectrum Method which uses the shape
of the first mode response as the basis of the
lateral load distribution. The remaining participant
selected the level 2 Capacity Spectrum Method
distribution. In several of the buildings, the
selection of the level 3 and under Capacity
Spectrum Method was found to result in the
underestimation of the higher mode effects when
compared to nonlinear time history analyses.
Assuming the nonlinear time history analysis to be
correct (or at least better able to predict maximum
forces since the effects of higher modes are
represented), an increase in maximum member
E·n
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
shears could result in increased retrofit work on
shear walls and-moment resisting frames from that
given in this study. However, careful review of
time-history analysis results is required to assess
whether peak forces are appropriate retrofit design
criteria.
8.4 Foundation Effects
The effects of foundation flexibility was studied
by three out of the four participants. The
participant, which did not consider foundation
flexibility, concluded it would have little effect on
their particular retrofit design.
The effect of foundation flexibility was found to
be of significance for the Barrington Medical
Center. Considering estimated foundation
flexibility, the capacity curve was controlled more
by pile slip at the foundations than by frame
hinging and shear wall failure. In this case,
consideration of foundation flexibility could lead to
a reduction in retrofit work and therefore
construction costs.
The Stanford University Escondido Village
Midrise model showed minimal change due to
foundation flexibility considerations. Whereas the
initial inelastic behavior of the structure was
dominated by foundation rotation and rocking,
subsequent behavior was still controlled by the
superstructure components yielding.
9. Cost Effectiveness of
the Evaluation and
Retrofit Methodology
This limited study indicates the potential for
identifying construction cost savings in retrofits
provided by the choice of.different performance
levels combined with the new evaluation and
retrofit methodology. Comparison between
expected Life Safety retrofit mean costs from a
recent FEMA project (Hart, 1994) and that of this
study shows an average 40 percent decrease in
direct costs with the use of the new evaluation and
retrofit methodology.
E·'8
-
The increase in design time presently 6.
associated with the new methodology, which
equates to an increase in engineering fees, can be
rationalized by the savings in construction cost and
increased confidence in predicting performance
levels. In addition, as the methodology is used
more, enhancements to computer analysis and
design software should result. These software 7.
enhancements will automate the tasks, incorporate
failure mechanisms and force-deformation
relationships now not addressed and thereby
significantly decrease the design time associated
with the new methodology. Until such time as the 8.
nonlinear computer programs are coded specific to
-this process, the design time and therefore
engineering fees may be much higher than the
previous approaches have traditionally required.
'0. References
1. ATC, 1987, Evaluating the Seismic
Resistance of Existing Buildings (ATC-14),
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, !
California. \
2. FEMA, 1988, Typical Costs for Seismic 1
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Volume - 1I
lI
Jl- Supporting Documentation (FEMA 157),
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), September 1988.
3. FEMA, 1989, Establishing Programs and
Priorities JOT the Seismic Rehabilitation oj
Buildings - A Handbook (FEMA 174),
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), May 1989.
4. FEMA, 1992, NEHRP Handbookfor the
Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings
(FEMA 178), Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), June 1992.
5. FEMA, 1992a, A Benefit-Cost Modelfor the
Seismic Rehabilitation of BUildings, Volume
1: A User's Manual (FEMA 227), Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
April 1992.
Appendix E, cost Effectiveness studY
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

6. FEMA, 1995, Los Angeles County / developed by B.F. Maison, Berkeley,

University of Southern California Medical California.
be Center, Psychiatric Hospital - First Appeal
9. Powell, 1992, Drain 2DX, Static and
and Response Findings, LACO 2641, FEMA
Dynamic Analysis of Inelastic Plane
IO08-DR CA 037-91033, Federal Emergency
Structures, developed by Allahabadi,
Management Agency (FEMA), October 16,
Prakash, and Powell, University of
1995.
California, Berkeley.
7. Hart, 1994, Typical Costs of Seismic
'ate 10. UBC, 1994, Uniform Building Code, Volume
Rehabilitation of Buildings, Volume I -
2, International Conference of Building
SUMMARY, Second Edition, FEMA, July
Officials, Whittier, California.
1994.
d 11. UBC, 1970, Uniform Building Code,
the 8. Maison, 1992, PC-ANSR, A Computer
International Conference of Building
c to Program for Nonlinear Structural Analysis,
Officials, Whittier, California.

I.

~),
:ity,

Ime
57),

d
if

2.
. the
Ime
'al
\),

ItudY Appendix E. cost effectiveness Study E·1.

---------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

APpendix F
Supplemental Information
on Foundation Effects

Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·1

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................... F-5
2. Seismic Performance of Building Foundations ................... , ................................... F-6
3. Historical Perspective on Foundation Design ......................................................... F-7
4. Pertinent Research ......................................................................................... F-8
5. Key Conclusions ........................................................................................... F-9
6. References ............................................................................................... F-9
Resource Summary 1 ....................................................................................... F-12
Resource Summary 2 ....................................................................................... F-24
Resource Summary 3 ..................................................•.................................... F-26
Resource Summary 4 ....................................................................................... F-30
Resource Summary 5 ....................................................................................... F-35
Resource Summary 6 ................ : ...................................................................... F-37
Resource Summary 7 ....................................................................................... F-40
Resource Summary 8 ....................................................................................... F-43
Resource Summary 9 ....................................................................................... F-48
Resource Summary 10 ..................................................................................... F-52
Resource Summary II ..................................................................................... F-54
Resource Summary 12 .................................................................... , ................ F-61
Resource Summary 13 ..................................................................................... F-64
Resource Summary 14 ..................................................................................... F-69
Resource Summary 15 ..................................................................................... F-73
Resource Summary 16 ..................................................................................... F-82
Resource Summary 17 ..................................................................................... F-84
Resource Summary 18 ..................................................................................... F-88

Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·!

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
APpendix F
Supplemental Information
on Foundation Effects
1. Introduction
This Appendix is a supplement to Volume 1 of
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Concrete Buildings (Report No. SSC 96-01)
Product 1.211.3 of the Proposition 122 Seismic
Retrofit Practices Improvement Program. The
methodology includes a Chapter 10 on the effects
of foundations on seismic response. This
supplement compiles and summarizes selected
information and research on the seismic
performance of building foundations. The
guidance in the general methodology for
foundation effects is based in part on the
summarized material. The user of the general
methodology can refer to this material as a
resource for the practical evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings.
The methodology focuses on the structural
analysis of concrete buildings to evaluate
anticipated performance during earthquakes. Since
seismic forces are proportional to mass it is logical
to consider them a property of the building itself.
Accelerations which combine with the masses to
generate the seismic forces also are related to the
stiffness properties of the building. While the
magnitude and distribution of these forces are
affected by the properties of the building, in
reality the initiating cause of seismic forces is the
shaking motions of the ground beneath it. As the
building responds to the ground movement, forces
are limited by the stiffness and capacity of the
foundation and soils materials. The types of
mechanisms at the foundation which limit seismic
forces include rocking or uplift, crushing of soil
material, and sliding. Neglecting these effects can
lead to two quite different, yet equally
undesirable, results.
Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
1. The use of traditional, force-based analysis
procedures often results in the prediction of
unrealistically large forces beneath existing
buildings, particularly with a fixed base
modeling assumption. The engineer is left with
a fundamental dilemma. The rocking, crushing
and sliding of the foundation implied by the
large forces, in many instances, can dissipate
energy relatively harmlessly and protect the
superstructure from damage. Stiffening and
strengthening existing foundations to avoid
these behaviors is costly. The result of the
retrofit conceivably may be to transfer the
energy dissipating damage to the more
sensitive structure above. It is possible, and
for some buildings probable, that retrofitting
of foundations will result in poorer
performance for higher cost.
2. Foundation effects typically reduce the force
demand on the primary lateral resisting
elements such as shear walls. At the same
time, however, the rotational flexibility of the
base of the shear walls often result in larger
lateral displacements of the entire structure.
The larger drifts can lead to failures in the
beams, columns, or slabs of vertical load
carrying system. There is evidence of this type
of damage from past earthquakes. Traditional
fixed base analysis techniques do not identify
this potential for serious damage.
The difficulty for the practicing engineer is
that there have not been procedures and
methodologies for design that treat foundations and
soil properties explicitly. Geotechnical engineers
provide soil capacities and displacements
developed to limit long term settlements due to
F·5
-------------------------------------------------------------,
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
vertical loads. Seismic forces and displacements in
soils and foundations are intrinsically nonlinear
and difficult to include in traditional linear
analyses. Recent proposals to change the approach
to evaluation and retrofit design for existing
buildings are displacement-based and provide an
opportunity to treat foundations much more
rationally (ATC, 1995). Within the methodology
presented in Volume 1, Chapter 10 on foundation
effects presents procedures to include the
foundation directly in the structural model for
analysis in an effort to capture this behavior. The
objective is to facilitate a more accurate prediction
of building behavior than that provided by analysis
techniques which neglect foundation effects.
A group of practicing structural and
geotechnical engineers (Geo-Structural Working
Group) developed the procedures in Chapter 10
based on their collective experience and
knowledge in several basic areas including:
• Performance of building foundations in past
earthquakes,
• Past and present structural and geotechnical
design practice for buildings,
• Theoretical and empirical research on
foundation performance.
The following sections of this supplement
summarize the current state of know ledge in each
of these key areas and offer suggestions for future
development to improve understanding of
foundation effects. Attached also are brief
summaries of papers, articles, research reports,
and other pertinent documents.
2. Seismic Performance of
Building Foundations
Society's knowledge of earthquakes and their
effects on the environment is empirically based to
a large degree. This has lead to an intense interest
on the part of the scientific and engineering
community in reconnaissance after major
earthquakes to document the performance of
building and their various systems, elements and
components. The result has been an increasingly
F·G Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
complete record of performance providing glot
valuable guidance for both researchers and Strul
designers. Naturally, however, the tendency has the:
been to concentrate on visible damage to buildings
and structures. Explicit by its very nature, "non- . I.
performance" is more dramatic than
"performance". The more subtle issues of why
some systems and elements may have performed
resi!
well and how this performance may have affected
(SE.
the overall response of buildings receive relatively
less attention. One example is building foundation allo·
bew
systems.
bear
Admittedly, there are abundant, well-
(lCI
documented examples of damage to foundations in
buill
earthquakes. These examples, however, are
defil
predominantly the result of permanent ground
bear
displacements caused by liquefaction or subsequent
squa
block sliding, seismic compaction, and other
desi:
effects independent of the ground shaking response
rudi
of the building itself. Damage to foundations
actu
resulting from building response to seismic
joinl
shaking is difficult to document since most
San
foundations are not easily accessible for
Civi
inspection. Damage to structural components of
Ass(
deep foundations generally consists of distress in
seisl
pile or pier caps, or at the tops of the piles or piers.
reco
themselves where loads are transferred to the caps.
the j
Evidence of downward or upward movement of
(Ani
piles and piers themselves is rare. A notable
diffe
exception is the behavior of piles in highly
eartl
sensitive clays in Mexico City. Structural damage
inch
to shallow foundations components is also rare and
base
usually concentrated at the connection of the
Buil
structure to the foundation.
inch
Soil bearing failures in compression due to
ener
increased contact pressures caused by seismic
overturning forces are very difficult to document.
reco
buil(
Mexico City is, again, the exception. Some poorly
designed bearing foundations with very marginal
whic
factors of safety under static loads appear to have
stru(
contributed to major structural failures. Evidence
reco
of uplifting of bearing foundations where seismic
pred
forces exceed compensating dead and live loads is
Wou
more common. The direct consequences of uplift sam,
normally have not been life threatening. The
 -- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
global consequences of foundat~on uplift on o~erall
structural behavior are not readIly dlscermble In
laS the field without supplemental theoretical analysis.
lings
In- S. Historical Perspective on
y
Foundation Design
The first provisions for design of buildings to
led
cted resist earthquakes appeared in U.S. codes in 1927
(SEAOC, 1990). These original provisions
ively
allowed lower lateral loads on structures with
Ition
better foundation conditions in terms of allowable
bearing pressures. The Uniform Building Code
(ICBO, 1994) of 1935 recognized lower forces for
ns in
buildings founded on "good" soils, which were
defined as those which would have an allowable
bearing pressure of greater than 2,000 pounds per
quent
square foot. These initial provisions for seismic
design of buildings were based on very
ponse
rudimentary understanding of how structures
actually respond to ground shaking. In 1948, a
joint committee on lateral forces, c~nsistin~ of the
San Francisco Section of the Amencan SocIety of
Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineers
of.
Association of Northern California, recommended
~ in
seismic design provisions which included
piers
recognition that forces in buildings were rela~ed. to
caps.
the fundamental period of vibration of the bUlldmg
of
(Anderson, 1952). The observed performance of
different types of structural systems during actual
earthquakes led the engineering community to
nage
include modification to design force requirements
'e and
based on building systems in the 1960 Uniform
Building Code. These "K" factors were meant to
include consideration of the structure to absorb
:0
energy without failure. The K factor was the first
recognition of ductility in seismic performance of
lent.
buildings.
oorly
The 1960 code also introduced a factor "J"
inal
which reduced design level overturning forces in
lave
structures for two reasons. First of all, it was
!nce
recognized that the story shears that were
.mic
predicted to occur in the building at each level
,ds is
would not necessarily reach their maximum at the
plift
same time, thereby resulting in an over-estimation
ffeetS Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
of overturning effects. Secondly, it was suspected
that building foundations tended to move slightly
under earthquake loads, relieving some of the
forces that may otherwise have been generated.
The J factor, however, was eliminated from the
codes in the early 70s due to damage which
occurred in structures during the Caracas
earthquake.
In the early 1970s procedures were developed
to modify the base shear coefficient by a soils
factor" S" to reflect the fact that local soils
conditions affect seismic ground motion. The S
factors were included in the 1976 Uniform
Building Code. Effectively, the S factor extends
the maximum plateau of the design spectrum to
include buildings with longer periods founded on
relatively softer soils. These factors are based on
empirical data and not directly upon site soil
conditions. In the late 70s, provisions were
developed to approximate the effect of th~ .
interaction of buildings and their foundatIons with
the supporting soil (ATC, 1978).
Seismic design provisions for buildings are
normally incorporated into building codes which
have sections relating to the various materials
(wood, steel, concrete, masonry) used for
construction. These chapters provide design
specifications and material properties for all of the
elements of the structure. The Uniform Building
Code provides a table of allowable working loads
for bearing and passive resistance for several
generic soils types. These may be used in lieu of
specific recommendations by a geotec~ical .
engineer. Geotechnical engineers routmely provIde
structural engineers with allowable soil loads for
specific building sites and foundation systems.
These allowable working loads were normally
permitted to be increased by a factor of 1/3 for
short-term loads such as wind or seismic. The
allowable loads usually are based on
considerations to control long-term vertical
displacements due to dead plus real live loads .
Ultimate capacities and stiffnesses for short term
loads are not provided except for special cases. In
the elastic analysis of structures for working loads,
F·7
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
it often is assumed that the foundation of a
building is fixed obviating the need to consider
stiffnesses or displacements due to short term
loads.
The current NEHRP provisions (BSSC, 1995)
specify the analysis and design of buildings for
seismic loads according to ultimate strength
concepts rather than working stress. These
provisions also include a chapter on foundation
design requirements. This chapter specifies that
soil materials have sufficient capacity to support
all the loads supported by the foundations
including seismic loads. The use of ultimate
capacity for soils materials as opposed to the
working stress values previously utilized for
design represents a major change. The provisions
note that the determination of soil capacities shall
be based on acceptable levels of strain considering
the short duration and dynamic properties of the
loading. Specific guidance on the determination of
ultimate capacities and deflection is not provided.
In another significant departure from previous
procedures, the provisions require investigation of
site hazards, including slope instability,
liquefaction, and surface rupture as a result of
earthquake motions.
The treatment of geotechnical and foundation
materials in seismic design procedures for
buildings has been implicit in most cases. Specific
guidance on the design and behavior
characteristics, similar to that included for
structural materials and systems, has not been
included.
4. Pertinent Research
Procedures for including the effects of the
interaction of structures with their foundations first
appeared in building standards in the 1970s (ATC,
1978). Veletsos (1988) developed the basis for
these procedures by separating the interaction into
two components. Seismic response of a structures
traditionally has been evaluated assuming a fixed
base and considering the motion of the base to be
equal to the free-field ground motion. In reality
F·B Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
the structure is part of a larger system that insig
includes the foundation and a supporting medium 1989
with their own strength and stiffness properties.
This has been termed inertial interaction effect. 5.
Technically, the spatial variability of ground 1
motion over the area of the building is also a effec
parameter. This effect, known as kinematic ofbt
interaction, is the difference between free field conc
ground motion and the actual input to the structure
and its foundation. Inertial interaction is generally
more important than kinematic for typical
• (
s
buildings and foundation systems. The procedures t
in Chapter 10 of Volume 1 neglect kinematic
effects.
•, (
Past theoretical and empirical research I
indicates that foundation strength and stiffness has I
a significant impact on the response of buildings to
seismic demand. Studies of performance of •
specific buildings during past earthquakes
document the importance of including the
foundation in the structural analysis model for
design (Rutenberg, 1982; Wallace, 1990).
•
Housner (1963) initiated the practical theoretical
consideration of foundation rocking which has
been developed further by others (Priestly, 1978;
Psycharis, 1982). Large scale shaking table tests
•
have confirmed the influence of uplift on seismic
response (Hucklebridge, 1978). Simplified
theoretical modeling techniques demonstrate good •
correlation with more rigorous solutions for both
single and multiple degree of freedom systems as
well as empirical data (Bartlett, 1976; Chopra,
1985; Vim, 1985). These have been extended to
•
study the practical behavior characteristics of
typical buildings (Nakaki, 1987).
Pertinent data on the nonlinear stiffness and 5.
strength properties of soils materials themselves
are rare. Theoretical elastic stiffness properties are revil
fairly well documented for shallow foundations pro\
(Gazetas, 1991). The inelastic behavior of piles met!
and piers subject to seismic demand has received mea
some attention recently in the research community pert'
(Pender, 1993; Martin, 1995). Research on the reso
behavior of bridge foundations provides valuable WO I
App,
j
- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
insights for buildings as well (Lam, 1991; Levine,
m 1989; Martin, 1995),
5. Key Conclusions
The prevailing situation with respect to the
effects of foundations on the seismic performance
of buildings is characterized by several key
conclusions:
ture
• Geotechnical and foundation response can
Illy
significantly influence the performance of
buildings during earthquakes,
Ires
• Costs of rehabilitation of existing buildings
warrant realistic assessment of seismic
performance of components including
has foundations and underlying soils,
~s to • Traditional seismic design procedures do not
reflect realistic consideration of geotechnical
and foundation effects,
• Proposed methodologies require estimates of
force-displacement relationships for foundation
elements and geotechnical components subject
:al
to seismic loads,
78; • Existing empirical data on geotechnical
sts materials is inadequate to provide sufficient
nic design information for all cases,
• Research to investigate force-displacement
;ood behavior of geotechnical materials and
oth
foundation assemblies is needed,
; as
• Damage reconnaissance for earthquakes should
to include documentation of geotechnical and
foundation effects on buildings,
ld G. References
'es The Geostructural Working Group has
:s are reviewed selected references, as noted below, to
IS provide further insight to engineers using the
es methodology, The Resource Summaries are not
ved
meant to comprise a complete review of all
unity
pertinent literature, since many other useful
Ie
resources are available. The Geostructural
Ible Working Group chose these as particularly useful
ffeetS Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
based on their own individual practical experience.
The intent is to assist users of the methodology by
providing a starting point in their search for more
detailed information.
Anderson, Blume, Degenkolb, Hammill, Knapik,
Marchand, Powers, Rinne, Sedgwick, and
Sjoberg, 1952 "Lateral Forces of Earthquake
and Wind," Transactions of ASCE, Vol. 117.
Applied Technology Council, 1995, Guidelines
and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC 33.03),
75 % Draft, Redwood City, California~
Applied Technology Council, 1978, Tentative
Provisions for the Development of Seismic
Regulationsfor Buildings (ATC 3- 06),
Redwood City, California.
Bartlett, P. E., 1976, "Foundation Rocking on a
Clay Soil", University of Auckland, School
of Engineering, Report No. 154, M. E.
Thesis. See Resource Summary Number 1.
Building Seismic Safety Council, 1995 (and other
editions) NEHRP Recommended Provisions
for the Development of Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency Publication 222,
Washington, DC.
Chopra, A. K., and Yim, S. C-S, 1985,
"Simplified Earthquake Analysis of
Structures with Foundation Uplift",
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, No.4,
pp. 906-930. See Resource Summary
Number 2.
Gazetas, G., "Foundation Vibrations", Foundation
Engineering Handbook. See Resource
Summary Number 3.
Housner, G.W., 1963, "The Behavior ofinverted
Pendulum Structures During Earthquakes",
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
F'9

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
America, Vol. 53, No.2, See Resource
Summary Number 4.
HuckJebridge, A. A. and Clough, R. W., 1978,
"Seismic Response of Uplifting Building
Frames", American Society of Civil
Engineers, Journal of the Structural Division,
Vol. 104, No. ST8, pp. 1211-1229. See
Resource Summary Number 5.
International Conference of Building Officials,
Uniform Building Code, Whittier, California,
multiple editions.
Lam P.I., Martin G.R., and Imbsen R., 1991,
"Modeling Bridge Foundations for Seismic
Design and Retrofitting", Transportation
Research Record 1290, Proceedings of the
Third Bridge Engineering Conference,
Denver, Colorado. See Resource Summary
Number 6.
Levine M. B. and Scott R. F., 1989, "Dynamic
Response Verification of Simplified Bridge-
Foundation Model" Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No.2, See
Resource Summary Number 7.
Martin, G. R. and Lam, 1. P., 1995," Seismic
Design of Pile Foundations: Structural and
Geotechnical Issues", Third International
Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, See
Resource Summary Number 8.
Martin, G. R. and Yan, L., 1995, "Modeling
Passive Earth Pressure for Bridge
Abutments", ASCE Conference -
Geotechnical Special Publication # 55,
Earthquake Induced Movements and Seismic
Remediation of Existing Foundations and
Abutments, San Diego, CA, See Resource
Summary Number 9.
Martin, G. R., 1988, "Geotechnical Aspects of
Earthquake Engineering", Journal of the
Australian Geomechanics Society, Special
F·1D Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects:. I\pPE
.-
Issue, 5th ANZ Geomechanics Conference, Wal
See Resource Summary Number 10.
Nakaki, D. K., and Hart, G. C., 1987, "Uplifting
Response of Structures Subjected to
Earthquake Motions", U. S.-Japan
Coordinated Program for Masonry Building
Research, Report No. 2.1-3,
Ewing/Kariotis/Englekirk & Hart, See
Resource Summary Number 11.
Pender, M. J., 1993, "Aseismic Pile Foundation
Design Analysis", Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Volume 26, No. I, See
Resource Summary Number 12.
Priestly, J.N., Evison, R.J., and Carr, AJ., 1978,
"Seismic Response of Structures Free to
Rock on Their Foundations", Bulletin of the
New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering, See Resource
Summary Number 13.
Psycharis, I. N., 1982, "Dynamic Behavior of
Rocking Structures Allowed to Uplift",
Report No. EERL-81-02, Earthquake
Engineering Research Laboratory, Cali fornia
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, See
Resource Summary Number 14.
Rutenberg, A., Jennings, P. C. and Housner, G.
W., 1982, "The Response of Veterans
Hospital Building 41 in the San Fernando
Earthquake", Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Volume 10, pp. 359-
379. See Resource Summary Number 15.
Structural Engineers Association of California,
Recommended Lateral Force Requirements
and Commentary, Sacramento, California,
multiple editions.
Veletsos, A.S., Prasad, A.M., and Tang, Y.,
1988, "Design Approaches for Soil-Structure
Interaction", Proceedings of the Ninth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Tokyo, See Resource Summary
Number 16.
j
-- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
ce, Wallace, 1. W., Moehle, J. P., and Martinez-
Cruzado, J., 1990, "Implications for the
'ling Design of Shear Wall Buildings Using Data
from Recent Earthquakes", Proceedings of
Fourth U.S. National Conference on
ling Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs, CA,
pp. 359-368. See Resource Summary
Number 17 •
Yim, S. C-S and Chopra, A. K., 1985,
"Simplified Earthquake Analysis of
Multistory Structures with Foundation
Uplift", American Society of Civil
Engineers, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. Ill, No. 12, pp. 2708-2731. See
Resource Summary Number 18.

.on

1978,

'the

ornia
See

G.

o
~d
59-
15.
I,
nts
ia,

Icture
"orld

ffeets Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects P-'I1

----------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

MF.
Resource Summary' as

Bartlett, P. E,
Foundation Rocking on a Clay Soil 1
with
University of Auckland, School of Engineering, Report No. 154,
M. E. Thesis, November 1976

j
This is a comprehensive theoretical and model, the contact pressure beneath any point
experimental study of the moment-rotation beneath the footing is assumed to be proportional ther.
relationship of a spread footing on a clay soil. The to the deformation of the soil (see Figure 2). If a . conti
effect of uplift and soil plasticity are included. model of a rectangular footing is subject to vertical reael
Generally good correlations between theoretical load as shown in Figure 3, the resulting downward .i the r,
and experimental results were observed. The effect displacement is ! folio'
~
of foundation rocking and yielding was found to
lengthen the natural period of vibration of the v
structure and can be expected to lead to a ro = ks LB
reduction in internal structural forces for I
earthquake motions. This work concentrates on the In the above expression 'Yo is the initial contact
less t
development of relationships between moment and stress, ks is a stiffness coefficient for the soil
fullc
rotation for a rigid foundation rocking on a clay material, and L and B are the footing dimensions.
FOr!
soil. These relationships were found to be both Using this basic model, the author develops a
2, yi.
moment-rotation relationship for overturning
amplitude and path dependent.
forces on the footing in terms of the initial contact .full r
Overturning Moments on Spread Footings. FigUi
pressure as follows
The interaction of foundations with the supporting capac
soil has been modeled in two distinct ways. The
solution for a rigid foundation supported on a r =....!iJL.
linear elastic half-space model is based on an o F.., ks
assumption of complete continuity of the subgrade. In this expression, qu is the ultimate strength
of the soil material and Fv is a factor safety 1
This means that the deformation of a particular
against bearing failure. This factor safety normally is illt
point beneath the footing is dependent on all the
varies by design between 2.0 and 3.0. For some some
loads acting at all points on the contact surface.
structures on particularly settlement-prone soils the Conta
This formulation is complex and rigorous solutions
factor safety may be somewhat higher to control limit
for moment rotation behavior are confined to a
vertical settlements. uplifl
few simple foundation shapes. As shown in Figure
The moment-rotation relationship with an rotati
I, the contact stress beneath the circular plate is
not necessarily proportional to displacement. The initial factor of safety against bearing failure of
extension of the linear foundation model to include less than 2.0 is shown in Figure 4. The footing
inelastic soil behavior is theoretically possible but maintains contact over its entire width so long as
practically very complex. the eccentricity lies within the middle third of the
A simpler model, particularly for inelastic footing. As the eccentricity increases, the moment,
solutions, is the modified Winkler model. In this

F-12 Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects . Appe

J
---
1__---------------------------------
Ii - SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-- 1-----------------------------------------------

MF. at which uplift is initiated may be calculated and the elastic limit is
as

VB (JE=(JF(2(;.-I)r
M F =-
6
Figure 9 summarizes graphically the basic
The corresponding rotation, OF. of the footing expressions for overturning moment and rotation
with a full contact moment of inertia, 10 , is for various values of initial factor of safety. These
values have been normalized to the full contact
-~
8F- limit state. Table 1 illustrates the change in
6 k, I. stiffness for a footing as it rocks or the soil yields
After uplift the contact pressure at the base of beneath it.
mal the footing is as shown in Figure 5. As rotation The author summarizes three mechanisms for
If a continues the elastic limit of the soil is eventually energy storage of dissipation in the model of the
:rtical reached in shown in Figure 6. It can be shown that rigid foundation rocking on a clay soil. Prior to
Iward the rotation of the building, at this point, is as plastic deformation of the soil, energy may be
follows stored as elastic strain in the soil material (Es ). If
the structure uplifts, potential energy is stored in
F 2 the structure itself (Ep). Energy may also be
(JE = (JF7 dissipated by plastic yielding of the soil (Ed ). This
It can be shown that if the factor of safety is is illustrated in Figure 10 for an initial factor of
mtact safety of 3. If the factor of safety falls below 2,
less than 2, then the elastic limit is less than the
I the center of rotation actually moves down into the
full contact limit and yield will occur before uplift.
ons. soil under the action of gravity and rotations
For the case where the factor of safety is exactly
2, yielding and uplift occur simultaneously. The exceed the elastic limit. In this case the structure is
full plastic capacity of the footing is illustrated in doing work and this must be added to the
Dntact rotational energy input to give the total energy.
Figure 7. The expression for the plastic moment
capacity, Mp , is This condition is illustrated in Figure 11 for an
initial factor of safety of 1.5. In general, it can be
M = V
p
B(I_J...)
2 F.
seen from this development of energy conservation
that soils with low factors of safety generally will
ngth dissipate a lot of energy in plastic deformation of
The situation for a factor of safety less than 2 the soil. Alternatively, for soils or foundations
maIly is illustrated in Figure 8. Where the rotation is . with high initial factors of safety the energy
me sO\llewhere between the elastic limit and the full dissipated in the soil will be relatively smaIl and
ils the contact limit. If rotation continues, a full contact the potential energy transferred to the structure by
trol limit will be reached and the footing will begin to uplift will be relatively high.
uplift. It can be shown that full contact limit on Repeated Loadings on Winkler Models. The
I
rotation is author uses the basic relationship developed
of between moment and rotation to study the effects
.ng (J - q. F. of repeated and reversed rotations on the modified
Ig as r 2k,B (F.-I) Winkler model. The exact solutions, although
f the simple to express, are highly path-dependent and
,ment, amplitude-dependent. This is due to the fact that
inelastic displacements build up as the foundation

ffects "ppendlx F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-1S

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
rocks back and forth as illustrated in Figure 12.
Consequently the author developed a computerized
solution to generate moment-rotation relationships
for repeated, reversed loading. The results are
illustrated in Figure 13 for a factor of safety of 3.
Finite Element Model. Using the basic theory
developed previously, the author formulates a
finite element approach to the solution of moment-
rotation relationships for spread footings. This
allows for the study of rocking at arbitrary
amplitudes of plastic behavior beneath the footing.
The basic relationships for the finite element soil
components are shown Figure 14. These are used
in a model that is schematically shown in Figure
15. The results of the final formulation as shown
in Table 2 agree well with the basic theory.
Experimental Studies. In order to verify the
theoretical development, the author conducted a
series of relatively large-scale laboratory tests on a
model of a spread footing rocking on a clay
subgrade. The equipment involved the following:
a. The foundation medium consisting of
remolded clay enclosed in a rigid steel-walled
container.
b. A rigid steel footing restrained in a horizontal
direction by tie rods.
c. A system applying constant vertical load to the
footing.
d. An independent system applying dynamic
rocking displacements to the footing.
e. A system of instrumentation to measure
displacements and pressures.
The design and use of the test system is
described in detail in the thesis. Two types of
.footings were investigated as shown in Figure 16.
Type B examines rocking about the weak axis and
Type A about the strong axis of the footing.
The results of these experimental studies
confirmed the general qualitative theoretical result.
The behavior of the soil material for various initial
factors of safety was as predicted by the theoretical
work. A quantitative comparison of test results
versus theory is illustrated in Figure 17. It can be
seen that the experimental forces generally fall
below that predicted by theory. This is due to the
F-'4 Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
d. I
fact that the soil stiffness and subsequent strength
~
upon reloading is amplitude-dependent in reality.
r
Subsequent experimental and theoretical work
e
allowing amplitude variation in the soil stiffness r
parameters demonstrates that the experimental and s
theoretical results converge. l
Conclusions and Implications. For static t
loads, a moment-rotation relationship for a rigid I
footing on clay soils is linear only while the 1
footing remains in full contact with the soil in its solut
elastic state. Rotations in excess of the full contact exce:
limit or in excess of the elastic limit cause a case
softening or reduction of the stiffness of the mom
footing. The parameter determining which limit is the ~
reached first is the initial factor of safety against
bearing failure. If this is greater than 2, the
footing separates from the soil before yield occurs
on the compression side. If the factor of safety is
exactly 2, uplift and yield occurs simultaneously.
If the factor of safety is less than 2 the soil yields
plastically before uplift can occur. Systems with
factors of safety less than 2 tend to be energy
dissipative as the center of gravity actually moves
down into the soil.
The moment rotation behavior for repeated
reverse rotations is similarly dependent on initial
factor of safety but is additionally strongly
amplitude-dependent. Solutions for steady state
rocking and a factor of safety greater than or equal
to 3 generally show four types of characteristic
behavior depending on amplitude as follows:
a. If the amplitude is less than the full contact
limit for the footing, behavior is generally
linearly elastic .
b. For amplitudes greater than the full contact
limit but less than the elastic limit, the
behavior is elastic but nonlinear when the
amplitude exceeds the full contact condition.
c. For amplitudes greater than the elastic limit
but less than a critical value, limited soil
yielding at the footing edges effectively
reduces the amplitude range over which the
footing rocks in full contact until a modified
full contact limit is exceeded. Thereafter the
behavior is nonlinear elastic.
- 1------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

-
d. If the amplitude exceeds a critical value,
:th plasticity effects are such that the footing never
y. regains full contact, resulting in nonlinear
elastic behavior over the entire amplitude
s range with a permanent reduction in rotational
and stiffness. This can be visualized as the soil
underneath the footing becomes rounded-off at
the edges thereby offering less overturning
d resistance.
The factors of safety less than 3 computer
.ts solutions for variable rocking amplitudes show
tact excellent agreement with theoretical results. In the
case of a factor of safety of 1.5, the steady state
moment-rotation relationship was shown to take
It is the form of a stable hysteresis loop with plastic
st
yielding and continuous energy dissipation for all
rocking amplitudes in excess of the elastic limit.
The implications of the foundation rocking
inferred from this research including the effect of
partial separation and soil yielding indicate that
forces will generally be reduced in the structure at
the expense of larger total displacements. This
researcher concentrated on clay soil for which the
ultimate bearing strength is not dependent on the
width of the footing. On future studies for granular
soil materials where the ultimate strength is
dependent upon the width of the footing are
warranted. AdditionaIly, the subject research
concentrated on surface footings. Future study
should evaluate the effect of foundation
embedment.

:urs Table. 1. Reduction In stiFFness With Racking Amplitude

is
ly. Footing
Rotation
Factor
of Safety
Secant
Stiffness
\
Reduction
Tangential
Stiffness
,
Reduction
Ids ,
th 0/0 Fv k/k k/k'
F ro ro
ves 0.74 26 0.32 68
1.5
1 2 1.0 0 1 0
3 1.0 0 1 0
ial

1.5 0.42 58 O. OS' 95

:qual 2 2 0.68 32 0.13 87
3 0.79 21 0.35 65

t
1.-5 . 0.29 71 0.01 99
3 2 0.48 52 0.03 97
:t 3 0.60 40 0.13 87

In. Table 2. Comparison oF Moments Computed Numerically With EXact Values

lit
0/
OF 1 2 4 6 8 10
Ie THEORY 104.2 165.2 197.3 203.5 205.6 206.6
ed FINSTRIPS 104.0 165.1 197.4 203.0 205.2 207.0
he \ diff. -0.19 -.06 .05 -0.25 -0.19 0.19

Appendix F, supplemental InFormation on Foundation efFects F-15

'fectS
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

contact pressure q

I
2
e"T ",,,," qu - - - - -._---1-.,;..-.;

ks

D~------------ ________
soil deformation Y

Figure 1. Angular DIsplacement oF RigId Figure 2. Assumed statIc

CIrcular Plate (after Weissmann & White, 1961) Sol/Behavior

~
T 11811111 1:'"" .- 1
,,," o~,"
,,
"'~
,;
//'i!i.1&/1

qo

8/ 2 B/2
1' ·1 ' ·1
FIgure S. InitIal contact Pressures

F-'& Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation EffectS

 1,
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

[a]

I' -----e ---J,I

[b]
0'. x'
.... -_ .... --- .. _--- x
v1 Ja
Yc
0 I
B
2
B
P
T
2 I

Figure 4. faJ Contact pressure,. fbJ Geometry

[a)
B

I' I' 0
B'
:I
ksBO

Flflllre 5. faJ contact Pressure,. fbJ Geometry In Uplift case

.ffects Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
'-

[OJ

+.
0
,i
j
I
I
;
~

qu

B'
[ bJ B"

-9 f ~~ ~: ----T-m-----------f~-iiilliQ,.,,---
c I.. a+s" ,-I '~

Figure 6. raj CDntact pre••ure; rbJ Geometry fDr Yield ca.e

I. B" ,I
Figure 7. Fully Pla6tlc ca.e

F-1S Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects API

j
 1--------------------------------__
, __
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

e'

Figure 8, Full Contact

2 ,
Mp/

~E_ l/
1---- - - /- -'-~- I- - -- Fy = 2

Y
M7 it-- Fy = "5

1l
/J
.1!!
oE ~~ if
~
o
Z

.
!J
II ,
o 2 3 4 5

Normalised Rotation ~
OF
Figure 9. static Moment'Rotatlon RelatlonIlhlp lor a Rigid Rectangular FOoting

EffectS
Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·19
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

!!
~
.x
!
~
Energy stored as P. E.
M
•e in struc.ture
I,,
•
... ~E
,l,
..'"
~

<:
w

Normalised Rotation

Figure 10. Energy Balance, F. = S

/
/,
~
.x
/
2
1/ Energy
'I'0 Work done b struc.ture ~ I sipated in

•
... y soil
.- .-
".

..'"
~

<:
W / ";- ".
.-

.-
V
.. .- ".

/'
/
.
~'\ ~stored
'\ ,'\' ·I~n:r~~
in so
a 2 J

Normalised Rotat ions

Figure 11. Energy //aIance, F. =1.5

F-20 Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation EffectS

t
I
 1-------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Figure 12_ Yield Zone Geometry (end of sr" quarter cycle)

;/ /
3 .;""
---- ~,'L
1·6
f\_.. _.VT!\V2T!\\ 1
,'/ II
I
I

1-2

~3 if
-9.
ROCKING INPUT 3
2.
I
, 18~ '1.

11.
0-8
--- - 1st cycle
I, '

...z 0'4
-- 2nd + subseqUE'nt ,, '
UI
X
o
cycles
';III
X
12
1
, f'
o , I
o 11 t

-..
UI
Vl
. .J

~ -0'4
~
~61
,,
o
z

-0· 8
.j/('
. , I
It

lOJ ~lR"
17
"
I,
/'
10 q
-1' 2

17:,
-1' 6
VI '7

-2
V. l7~
9~ ~----'
-8 -6 -2 o 2 4 6 8

'NORMAUSEO
9/
ROTATION 9F
Figure 1S. NOrmalized Moment-Rotatlon Relationships For Repeated Reversed Loadings with F. = S

FfeetS Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-21

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

PIJI

.
..".
~

qu

..
~

";;
2
c
0
u 3

C
E
....
ti
4

qu
)'k YSIJ I
5
.element soil displacement

Figure 14. Element soli Behavior

x <vo
1 2 3 - ... __ ._._---- .. --... J •••••••••• N

.
"x· 1
.....
il
0
~ I

,
I

I I

.1
Figure 1S. Division Into Finite strips
FIIIU

F-22 Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects

 1 __--______________________________________
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS

500 mm /' 250 mm 'I

~I
E E
E !ocking axis E
rocki~g
0
Ul
- axis 0
0
N
'"

TYPE B TYPE A

Figure 16. Foundation lor Test specimens

MOMENT! N - m)

vMphheo y)

2000 _ _ _ J
- --;< -~~ ;.- - --- -- -

---
",

2j V
~ experime 101
envelop e

~
thpory

1000 i
~
~
1

o 0·01 0·02

ROTATION I radians)

FIgure 17. Comparison DI ExperImental and tehoretlcal Moment-Rotational BehavIor lor Type A FDotlng, Fv= S

ffeets
Appendix F. Sup(llementallnformatlon on FOundation Effects F·2S
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Resource Summary 2
Chopra, A. K., and Vim, S. C-S
Simplified Earthquake Analysis of Structures with Foundation Uplift
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 111, No.4, April, 1985. pp. 906-930
In this work, analysis procedures for analyzing
single degree of freedom elastic systems
considering soil flexibility and foundation uplift
are developed. The system considered is shown in
Figure I. It consists of a single degree of freedom
,., ,.,
'"
Figure 1. Slmclure Supported on Three Different
Foundation Soil Idealizations: (a) Rigid Foundation;
(b) Two-Element Foundation; (e) Winkler Foundation
structure bonded to a rigid massless foundation
mat which, in turn, is supported on the foundation
soil. It is assumed that slippage between the
foundation mat and the supporting soil is not
possible. The equations of motion for this system
considering uplift were first developed for the case
in which the foundation soil is considered to be
infinitely rigid. The formulation of the equations
of motions was then extended to the case with
flexible foundation soils. As shown in Figure I,
the flexibility of the foundation soil was
represented by either a two spring-dashpot system
or the distributed Winkler spring-dashpot system.
The values for the spring and dashpot constants for
Appendix F. supplemental Information on FOundation effectS
(0)
both cases were obtained from the rocking Fig.
Initi
stiffness and damping coefficients for a rigid
Bel>
massless footing on elastic half-space.
Und
Time-history analyses were performed for the
~=~
......... RIGID ~'ION
- - - TWO-EL'MlMT fOUNDATION
_ _ _ ,NII..I:III FOUNDATION
,.
_ . _ . - I:OUtY.f.LlHTYWO-ll.I:MrNt
fOUNDATION
allo'
base
"c·ll'll1b .............; : , , - ; - - - - - - stm
/ vibr
~b/./il-......,~~.-.-.-.-.-.
secc
peri
• to h
~ sma
r
-----....,{,/................. "
Figure 2. Moment-Rotation Relations for Unbonded
Foundation Mat Supported on Different Foundation
Soil Idealizations
north-south component of 1940 El Centro ground
motion. The results of the analyses were presented
in the form of base shear response spectra. Figure
2 shows the results of the analyses for the case of
rigid soils for slenderness ratios (height of the
structure divided by the half width) ranging from 5
to 20. Also shown in this figure is the curve for
the case when uplift is prevented and the critical
base shear values below which there is no uplifting
of the structure. From this figure it can be
observed that there is a significant reduction in the
earthquake base shear when the structure is
App,
j
- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

la) UNDAMPED STRUCTURE (b) DAMPED STRUCTURE, (_005

••••••• 8OHDlOCONTACT, UPl..I" PR(VfJnlD
_ UJrIaoHD(D CONT4CT.U~IFT PEJllIII'TTlO with flexible foundation soil were then developed.
Figure 3 shows these spectra curves for the
slenderness ratio of 10 for the Winkler foundation
with two different foundation soil properties.
Comparison of results presented in Figures 2 and 3
shows that consideration of foundation flexibility
leads to further reductions in the earthquake base
, , shears.
The authors also developed simplified
, ., approximate expressions for estimating the
I! )L-'-'-_l--o---'--':-~' L.....L---'---'_-'---'-'
earthquake base shear of the uplifting structures.
'0 5 0 2 1 4 $
In these approximate expressions, the maximum
i,
," base shear is related to the system parameters and
Figure 3. Response of Structures (h/b=lO) to
! Initial Velocity for Two Conditions o!Conwct the peak spectral acceleration for a corresponding
Between Foundation Mat and Supporting Soil: (a) fixed base structure and does not require time
Undamped Structure; (b) Damped Structure, history solution of the equations of motion. The
the g=O.OS base shear spectra obtained from this simplified
...
.. GAYlON

!l.EIItIN' allowed to uplift. The beneficial reduction in the

base shear due to uplift is more pronounced for
structures with higher slenderness ratios and for
vibration periods between about 0.3 to 2.0
seconds. However, it was noted that for very short
approach are plotted in Figure 2 for the case of
rigid soil and in Figure 3 for flexible soils showing
a reasonably good agreement with the exact
solution. These simplified analysis procedures can,
therefore, provide estimates of maximum base

-.
periods of vibration, the foundation uplift can lead
to higher base shear demand in structures with
smaller slenderness ratio.
The base shear response spectra for the case
shear and deformations to a reasonable degree of
accuracy for practical structural design and can
also be used to quickly perform parametric studies
of the effect of foundation flexibility and uplift on
seismic response.

~ded
tion

,und
ented
gure
e of

rom 5
'or
cal
lifting

in the

Hects Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-25

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Resource Summary!
Gazetas, G.
Foundation Vibrations
Foundation Engineering Handbook, Fang, H.Y., Editor,
VanNostrand-Reinhold, New York, 1991,40 pgs.
Introduction. The focus of this chapter in a
foundations engineering handbook is on the
dynamic aspect of machine vibrations as they
relate to foundations. However, most of the
relationships that are presented are useful to
determine the properties of building foundations
for use in analysis of seismic loads. The chapter
focuses on stiffness and damping properties for the
analysis of rigid plate vibrating on an elastic
halfspace. Some information also is provided for
deep foundations.
Effective Soil Properties. The chapter
provides basic relationships for soil stiffness and
damping properties. The shear modulus, G, and
the mass density, p, of the soil are related to the
o shear wave velocity, Vs, as follows
v = {Q
, VI'
As illustrated in Figure I, the shear modulus,
G , and the damping factor, f3 , are strain
F-Z& Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
I
dependent. The chapter presents a number of
empirical relationships for calculating the initial
shearing modulus for different types of soil
material for a low strains. Also included are field
and laboratory test procedures for determining
shear moduli.
Theoretical Development of Vibration of
Equations. The chapter presents basic theoretical
equations of motion for oscillations of foundation.
These include vertical oscillation and
generalization to all modes of oscillation,
including coupled rocking.
Presentation of Data and Accompanying
Example. Most of the chapter is devoted to a
series of very useful tables providing static and
dynamic stiffness and damping properties for
various types of foundations and soil conditions.
Figure 2 shows several examples of the conditions T
for which tables are included. Table I is an
example of the type of tables that are included in
ON,
the document. There are also a number of '"
illustrative examples.
App
j
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table 1. EXample oF Table oF Sol/-FOundation PropertIes

Dynllmlr: StiNne" /( - K '*(w)

St.,1c Stiffness K
Dynamic Srit/ness Radilltion Ollshpot
Genual Shape Co.fficiMl k Coefficient
Vibrlltion (found8lion-,oil cont&c1 surfac. is of area A. Squa,. (Gan.,., IlMfM: C
Mode andhasacircumscribedrectangl.2L bV2B;L > Bl· L-B °"·0,,2)' (Gene,.' Shllpes)

Vertical, 1
2GL
K, _ - - (0.73 + 1.64Xo.715) X;", 4,54GB
It, zo k.(i. v;.o) . C, = (pVt.A.) . t,
1 -, 1 -,
~,-t,(LI8.Y;lIo)
wilhX .. ~· is ploned in Graph a
1 4L' i. plotted in Graph c

:ld HOffronl.l, y
2GL
K,_-- (2 + 2.50x088)
K, _ 9GB
k,=k,(i;1I0) C, - (pV,A e ) . t,
(in the 2-, 2-,
lal8f.1 C, ... C,gIB:llol
is ploned in Graph b
direction) is ploned in Graph d

Horizontal, x 02
K,,=K,----GL
0.75-v
( 1--
L
B) X._K, 1t.:lI: 1 ell::llt pV.A,
(in the
cal longitudinal
direction)
on.
Rocking. rx G (L)"'( 2.4 +0.5-B)
K. ___ /g1 5 _
1 -¥' 8 L
K,... 3.6GB'
1 -,
Ie,. :. 1 - 0.20'0 C,• .. (pVL.IbA-) ·l,.
(around
wilh ~,. - l,.(L/8; .0)
longitudinal
x allis) '1J,,(/6y ) .reamoment of inartia ofthefoundation-soil is plotted in Graphs e and f
contact surface around th, Mer) axis

Rocking.",
(.round
G [ (')''']
B 71
K'Y""'.,..-:-;fh 3
/(,., _ K,.
{ ,<0.45
fr,.,:. 1 - 0.30s o
C,., .. (pVL./~) 'l,y
l,y"" C,.,(L/8; so)
181er.1 allis)
v::: 0.50: (LFlO
fr" ::: 1 - 0.25s o j
is plotted in Gr.ph g

s.
ions Torsional K, .. ~_n[ 4 + 11( 1 _~)10] K,"" S.3GBl Ie,:. 1 - 0.14so C, ... (pV.Jb ) 'l,
l,,,,,l,(L/B;.o)
with J. "" flu + I. v baing the pol., moment of the
soil-foundation contact lurflCe
in
Not. that as LIB ..... «I (stnp footing) the tn-.tiall valua of K. and K,_ 0: the "aluu comPllt«lllOm the two given lo,mulll COtrHpol"ld 10. footing Wllh LIB a. 20.
'.o-wIIIV,.

feets Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-27

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

l6.
I
I
I.
I, G<GQ';'G_.
Monotonic loodiM,l CIIr\'e

I
I
I
I

y, Y

y,
,
'0" 10-" "
10-- 10·a 10. 2
,
10.1 10-" 10" .,,' ,.,.."
"
"
'-......::,
•
r-;: D.S 0.' "
"AVlf1Jge. CUr'll for ~
GRAVELLY soill ,
""'<,
CLAYS SANOS ""

20

So Pll'Wlt
10
0.001 0.01 0.'

, ~ .,,,
•
20

10
0.001 0.01 0.'

SANDSANQ
GRAVELS

,
0 0 0.1
0.001 0.01 0.1 0.001 0·01
Yc ,percent Yc' percent

Figure 1. Effect of Nonlinear stress-Strain on Shear Modulus, C, and Damping, p

F-28 Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation effectS App

.J
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

T T
1
Pion
"

L>' 1
I
~ ~mOII'.'1 ,i,ill
2

'"und.liO~
t?>??2??C"
...... '"
. .-..... : .. .... ;....
,' ..":' ..
-:,:.' ',Homogl"eou. "'HolI.paco; ,,'

.. G • Y • P

.
', ".",::;
'""
....
'.,"
,'-. ", . ... G • , ,
' .. ",.
3
I
,.---....
4

';.,'

~ ~ ~-~: ~ ~-~ '..: ~ .' '5' ~';'~'I: ~'~ ',:.

,1 H

G. v • P

-: :' .. :..
M"i..L,,, rigid
- .,', -"

fO,,"Olion
" -,,' .

• •
E E•
--------~--.·r1,~.--,,-o\~~~,~,~,-
. ".~ :. I I· '\" fi;" -,'
: F. .\11 I'"
in"omog~nlO~~ : 11\I'Iomog.notclin -I i: ,.- -: j ~;:
HaLllpo~.

. Gell
0,
Homoge",ou. ,:
Oepolit,'
'I: .
I 1..
II'
L•
• ._~S~::>

Figure 2, Soil and Foundation systems for Various Tables of properties

Effects Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·29

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Resource Summary 4 Hou

ofa
of ti
Housner, G.W. exru
ove)
The Behavior of Inverted Pendulum Structures During Earthquakes
acce
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 53, No.2, osci
February, 1963 com

Introduction. This is a classic paper on the

whil
theoretical behavior of rocking structures. During
the Chilean Earthquake in May of 1960, several
water towers resembling inverted pendulums
T=-cos
4 h-
P
I
[ 1
I--
1
--e;
gra'
requ
the I
rocked about their foundations. Other water towers a
that appeared likely to rock about their foundations This equation is shown in Figure 2. In general
were similarly damaged. Evidence of rocking of it can be seen that the period lengthens with
apparently unstable structures was also observed increasing angle of rotation and shortens to near
during the Arvin-Tehachapi Earthquake in zero as the initial angle of rotation diminishes.
California in 1952. In an effort to explain this Housner goes on to calculate the dissipation of
behavior, Housner develops theoretical equations energy which occurs when the block impacts its
describing the rocking of blocks during base during each half-cycle of rotation. For this for 1
earthquakes. The basic model that he used is development he assumes that all of the reaction to com
shown in Figure 1. the impact is inelastic which means that there is no due
Free Vibrations. Housner reduces the "bouncing" due to elastic response of the block or dura
equation of motion for the block shown in Figure 1 its foundation. With this assumption, the reduction grou
to the expression in energy for each impact may be expressed as The)
over
9=a-(a-90)coshpt mR2 )
acce
In this equation the parameter p is
r=
(
l-lo(l-COS2a)
Hou
The effect of this reduction is shown in Figure
desc
p=~WR 3. The parameter t/I on Figure 3 represents the acce
10 ratio of the initial angle of rotation, 90, to the max
where 10 is the rotational moment of inertia characteristic angle of the block itself, cc.. From the i
about point O. This expression represents the Figure 3 it can be seen that for large amplitudes of two
motion of a block if it is raised or rotated to an rocking, the energy of vibration decreases rapidly
initial angle, 90. From this expression, the period but for smaller amplitudes, the energy dissipates
of vibration as a function of the initial angle of very slowly. When including the effects of energy
rotation is as follows dissipation the expressions for the period of
vibration is modified to

F-IO APpendIx F. SUPPlemental Information on Foundation EffectS

 1
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Overturniug by Constant Acceleration.
Housner develops equations to describe the effects
of a constant acceleration, a, lasting for a period
of time, t I, acting at the center of mass of the
example block. The block mayor may not
overturn depending on the magnitude of the
acceleration and its duration. For small angles of
oscillation it can be shown that the necessary
conditions for motion to be initiated is that
at g> a
which specifies the fraction of the acceleration of
gravity required to begin tilting of the block. The
required acceleration in time required to overturn
the block is expressed in the equation
leral
~WR
cosh-t,=l+ (
1
) result in a 50% chance of the block overturning.
ar 10 2~ ~-l
ga ga
mof This relationship is illustrated in Figure 4.
ts Housner carefully points out that the analysis
is for a constant acceleration pulse is not a realistic
n to comparison for earthquake ground motion. This is
is no due to the fact that constant acceleration of finite
k or duration followed by a constant velocity of the
ction ground does not occur during an earthquake.
s Therefore, it is not meaningful to discuss
overturning of blocks in terms of a percent gravity
acceleration.
Overturning By Sinusoidal Acceleration.
Housner continues to develop a theoretical
igure
description of the rocking block to a sinusoidal
acceleration load. If the variable a represents the
maximum acceleration and (i) is the frequency of
om the sine wave, then the relationship between the
les of
two parameters required to overturn the block is
lidly
ltes
lergy
ffeets Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
Another version of this equation is:
~= 1 +~(21r)2
ga WR To
In the second expression, To is the period of
the ground acceleration. These relationships are
illustrated in Figure 5.
Overturning by Earthquake Motion.
Overturning can be caused by successive smaller
pulses at certain frequencies that may occur during
actual earthquakes. Housner illustrates this effect
by developing conservation of energy and
momentum equations describing the response of a
rocking block to earthquake motion. As a result he
develops an expression relating the geometry of
the block to the spectral velocity which would
This expression is:
a- S , ~MR2
-.fiR T
For a relatively slender structures, this
equation reduces to:
S
a=-'-
.fiR
This equation may be interpreted as stating
that for a given structural velocity, Sv , a block
forming an aspect angle a will have an
approximately 50% chance of being overturned.
The significance of results of this development is
that the stability of the block is dependent on its
size, as expressed by the factor R. Thus, when
comparing two blocks of the same relative
proportions, the larger block is more stable than
the smaller. This is explained by the fact that the
ground motion is the same for both and the effects
of the mass of the block in providing stability is
greater for the larger block. This effect is
summarized in terms of the half-width of the block
by the following three equations
F-II
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Earthquake motion: conclusion is that tall, slender structures may be

b=Svl more stable than might be supposed intuitively.

Housner goes on to study the inverted
pendulum water tank structures from the Chilean
Square pulse:
earthquake. He does some comparative
calculations which verify that such structures could
have rocked about their foundations during a
strong ground shaking.
Sine pulse: Summary. The key conclusion of this work is
that it is misleading to infer stability from
b- a.-,==.;;h== considerations of a constant horizontal force acting
on a rigid block. In fact, taller slender structures
g l+;(~J may be more stable than such considerations
would imply. It should be noted that this
It can be seen from these equations that the theoretical work was extended with an
half-width of the block required for stability does experimental study by other researchers. This is
not increase linearly with its height. The general summarized in Research Summary No. 13.

cosh p,T = 1 1
.. - 8,la

4
b I
b

j I~WR
3
J
II
.... e~ J 4 I..
/
V
cg 2
~
V
V
V
h,
eX..
/'"
V
IW V 1.0
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
O· 0

Figure 1. A Rocking BlOCk Figure 2. period T 01 a Block Rocking

With Amplitude 60

F·:S2 Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects App

-
-
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Je

'an 1.0
;ould
0.8 \ r=0.7

rk is 0.6 \
:ting <Pn ~I.O
ies 0.4
~ "-

is
0.2 N"" ~
...............
~
2
-- --3
r=::::::
NUMBER OF IMPACTS
4 5 6 7 8

Figure S. Amplitude <pn Sub$equent to n·th Impact

3
t ffiif
1'-': \
2

\
1.0
i
'"
1.2
........ ............

1.4
~
1.6 1.8 2.0
go<

Figure 4. Con$tant Acceleration of "a" Of Duration t, Required for overturning

'feets I Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects

----------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

2.2
R
2.0 V
1.8

g~ 1.6
1.4 V
/'
,/
/'
V

,,
'i
I
.~;I
"'-'"

~1.i~

V wer

-
1.2 /" infh
~ thei
LO
eval
o 02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
anal
upJi

seal
FIgure 5. SInusoIdal AcceleratIon pulse "a" sIn all RequIred for OverturnIng mOl
Uni·
Eng
the I
base
of II
was
the
botl1
whil
pert
upli:
buill
inve

fixel
eom
pro~
selel
with
end!
mod
tensi
direl
neol
eolu

Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation EffectS ApPI

j
- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-
Resource Summary 5
Hucklebridge, A. A. and Clough, R. W.
Seismic Response of Uplifting Building Frame
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Structural
Division, Vol. 104, No. ST8, August 1978. pp. 1211-1229
The primary objectives of this investigation
were to make an experimental assessment of the
influence of allowing the columns to uplift from
their foundations during an earthquake and to
evaluate whether commonly available structural
analyses programs can accurately predict this
uplifting nonlinear response.
Shake table tests on an approximately 1I3rd
scale model representing a 9-story, 3-bay steel
moment frame building were performed at the
University of California, Berkeley's Earthquake
Engineering Research Center. Figures 1 and 2 show
the key features of the test model and the uplifting
base detail. The slenderness ratio, defined as ratio
of the height of the structure and the half width,
was 3.1. The test model structure was subjected to
the 1971 Pacoima Dam S74W earthquake motion in
both the fixed base condition and the condition in
which the columns were allowed to uplift. This is
perhaps the only work where the effect of allowing
uplift of the columns on seismic response of
building structures has been experimentally
investigated.
The response of the test structure, for both
fixed base and uplifting condition, was also
computed analytically using the nonlinear analysis
program DRAIN-2D. In these computer analyses,
selected beam and column elements were modeled
with concentrated bilinear plastic hinges at member
ends. The uplift at the base of the columns was
modeled with nonlinear truss elements having zero
tensile force capacity and stiffness in the upward
direction and having compressive stiffness of the
neoprene impact pads at the base of test structure
. columns in the downward direction. These uplift
ffectS \, Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
elements were assumed to be rigid in the fixed base
computer model.
The key observations of this work are
summarized below:
• Allowing uplift generally had a beneficial
effect on the seismic response of the test
structure.
• Test structure exhibited a very low damping of
about 0.7 percent in uplifting/rocking mode of
response as compared to a damping of about
3.2 percent for fixed base response.
• Fundamental period of the structure softened
from about 0.5 sec. for fixed base response to
about 0.76 sec. uplifting/rocking response.
• Vertical earthquake input had little influence
on the building response.
• A tangent stiffness proportional damping
matrix predicted the response of uplifting
structure very well.
• Analytical results from the DRAIN-2D
nonlinear analyses predicted the measured
response very well.
Based on these observations, the authors
concluded that allowing transient uplift during an
earthquake does not imply imminent toppling of a
practical building structure even during a
maximum credible earthquake, and, in fact,
allowing uplift can lead to considerable reduction
in earthquake loading or ductility demand or both.
The authors also made the case for incorporating
seismic uplift of structure in a rational design to
achieve enhanced ductility and earthquake
performance at reduced costs, especially for
reinforced concrete structures.
F-35
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

__ K -
R

• r7""1 " , "

"
,
... r-;r-, ~

,
.u
,. , ..,..., , "
acc(
ofs
.... ~ .-;;- - ~

....,. ,
:: spre
The
.... ~
~

i
calil
engi
r--,:---'. • ,
......
~
:"7 pap'
~ abul
Figure 1. Test MDdel Schematic r=-"' , , "I
~
I.'
•••• 1
I . , J:"r'" .-
that
seisl

..... .. fI'"' - .- .J
dire
anal
'r. brid
beel
-
~,

behi
I . //.0:~"- .....:,,~~y --1' bacl
9 STORY STEEL TEST FRA"E expi
pres
abUl
appl
valu
-.·.11 gem
,
are I

use
on a
coe!
hori
roc~
func
of tl
Figure 2. Upllflng CDlumn Base Detail
emb

F-S. Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation effectS

 l
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Resource Summary 6
Lam P.I., Martin G.R., and Imbsen R.
Modeling Bridge Foundations for Seismic Design and Retrofi~ting . .,
Transportation Research Record 1290, Proceedings of the ThIrd Bndge Engmeenng
Conference, Denver, Colorado, March, 1991.

This paper presents simplified procedures with an embedded regular footing can be found from
accompanying design charts for the development the equations given below:
of stiffness coefficients for abutments, piles and
spread footing foundations for highway bridges.
The procedures presented in the paper were Vertical Translation
calibrated to design practice adopted by bridge
Horizontal Translation IX~8GR/(2'v)
engineers. Several examples are presented in the
paper to illustrate various sensitivity issues in Torsional Rotation IX~16G R'/3

abutment and foundation design. Rockl ng Rotation IX ~ 8 G R' I 3 (1 • v)

In its discussion about abutments, it is stated
that the abutments attract a large portion of the where G and v are shear modulus and Poisson's
seismic force, especially in the longitudinal ratio for an elastic half-space material; R is the
direction. The problem is not an easy one to equivalent radius as shown in Figure 1. Figures 2
analyze because of the uniqueness of individual and 3 present the IX and ~ factors, which represent
bridges and the soil conditions at each site. It has the embedment and shape correction factors,
been recognized that there is highly nonlinear respectively. The stiffness of the rectangular
behavior in abutments due to failure of the footing can then be found by multiplying the
backfills and from structural nonlinearity at
stiffness found from the table above by IX and ~.
expansion joints. An iterative procedure is
Pile foundations are the most commonly used
presented in the paper to determine the appropriate
foundation system for support of bridge structures.
abutment stiffness in a linear dynamic response
The equivalent coupled foundations stiffness
approximation of a very nonlinear system. Typical
matrix model is the most general method of
values of initial stiffness used by Cal trans and a
representing the foundation stiffness. The paper
generalized equation to estimate abutment stiffness
outlines the steps to determine this type of
are presented.
foundation stiffness. The paper also discusses the
The analysis of spread footings involves the
variations in some parameters that can cause the
use of stiffness equations for a rigid footing sitting
results to very sensitive to those assumptions.
on a semi-infinite elastic half space. The stiffness
Considerable engineering judgment must be
coefficients are presented for vertical and
applied to estimate the stiffness coefficients for a
horizontal translation and for the torsional and
pile foundation.
rocking rotations. The stiffness coefficients are
The paper gives a broad overview of the
functions of the shear modulus and Poisson's ratio
assumptions and variations in foundations for
of the soil, the size, shape, and depth of
bridges, but there is still application to foundations
embedment of the foundation. The stiffnesses of
of buildings.

feets Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-:n

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

.'
I
I
•
J
"
I
lL

EQJIVAUHT RADIUS:

TRANSLATIONAl.:

ROTATIONAl.: R _ r alItZl.)l ]"-,._ _ _ _ _ b.-AXIS ROCKINGI

t: 3" .

Figure 1. PrDcedure for Determining Equivalent Radius Df a Rectangular Footing

p-:sa Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects App

 1
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

I.

1
c·
2
~
~

W
L

'"
iii

LJII

Figure 2. Shape Factors For Rectangular Footings, ex

...0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 O.Y 0.5

D/R
Flgure:S. Embedment Factors For Footings, fJ

feet5 . Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·SS

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Resource summary ,
Levine M. B. and Scott R. F.
Dynamic Response Verification of Simplified Bridge-Foundation Model
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No.2,
pp. 246-260, February, 1989
This paper presents a simplified method to
evaluate the rotational stiffness' of bridge
foundations, and the application of the method to
calculate the dynamic response frequencies of the
Meloland Road overpass (MRO) during the 1979
Imperial Valley earthquake of magnitude 6.4. A
comparison of the calculated and recorded
response frequencies of the bridge indicates that
simple foundation models such as those presented
in the paper, allow modeling of the response of
structures with reasonable accuracy for practical
engineering purposes.
The MRO consists of a continuous reinforced
concrete box-girder road deck monolithically
supported on open-end diaphragm abutments and a
single, reinforced concrete column pier as shown
in Figure 1. Each abutment is supported by a
single row of seven timber piles. The central
column footing is supported by a square grid of 25
timber piles. The soil conditions at the site are
relatively uniform and consist of medium stiff to
stiff clays to a depth of at least 60 feet. The
dynamic soil properties used to develop the
foundation models were estimated based on data
from a standard site investigation program which
did not include direct measurement of dynamic
properties.
The dynamic response of the bridge was
calculated using a simple finite element model
consisting of ten 3-D beam elements. The
abutment and column foundations were
represented by rotational springs along the three
main axes of the bridge. Translational springs
were not necessary since the bridge was analyzed
F-40 Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
ltk~~
r~d'
I
t-.·'.:'~i
- ,"O'i,-
~(,-.-~
Tra,
-
ver
SVIT
using the recorded motions at the column footing
with
and abutments as, input motions. The models used
at tl1
to calculate the rotational springs at the column
mea
base are shown in Figure 2 while those used for
calc
the abutments are shown in Figure 3. In these
subs
figures, the x, y, and z axes correspond to the
pinr
longitudinal, vertical, and transverse directions on
vert
the bridge, respectively.
mea
To calculate the rotational springs of the
the 1
column footing the soil-pile foundation was
mea
represented by a uniform Winkler foundation with
vertical stiffness I<.,y and horizontal stiffness I<.,h.
The rotational springs of the abutments were
calculated by representing the fill with equivalent
spring stiffness' ki, and kiy , and the piles with
equivalent vertical springs kay and lateral and
torsional springs K" and Ka•. The dynamic spring
constants were assumed to be equal to the
equivalent static rotational spring constants. The
soil spring constants were calculated from the
coefficient of subgrade reaction and the modulus
of elasticity of the soil which were estimated from
in situ standard penetration tests and laboratory
unconfined compression tests.
The bridge model was used to calculate the
response frequencies of the structure for the first
transverse and vertical symmetric modes of
vibration of the structure. The response
frequencies were also calculated using models with
fixed and pinned ends at the foundations. The
calculated frequencies are compared with the
measured frequencies below.
App
 1

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Parametric analyses were performed to

.calculated Frequencies evaluate the effects of various assumptions for the
(HZ/· rotational springs on the calculated frequencies.
These analyses indicate that the transverse mode
i:1;~t/Plnned . frequency is affected primarily by the rotational
Ends Ends springs at the abutments with respect to the y axis
Transverse 3.72 3.34 8.27 3.13 and is relatively insensitive to the springs at the
vertical 4.74 5.12 6.80 4.72 column footing. The vertical mode frequency is
Symmetric affected only by the rotational springs at the
abutments with respect to the z axis. The measured
It may be seen that the frequencies calculated frequency for this mode would suggest that the
Ig abutments behave as if they were pinned with
with the bridge model using the rotational springs
ed respect to the z axis.
at the foundation are in good agreement with the
measured frequencies (within 10 percent). The The comparisons between the observed modal
r frequencies of the MRO and those of the model
calculated frequencies assuming fixed ends are
substantially higher than those measured. The . with rotational springs proved that, even with
pinned·end assumption yields a frequency for the simplifying assumptions and a very basic
on uncomplicated approach and model, it was
vertical mode in excellent agreement with the
measured value. The corresponding frequency for possible to estimate the dynamic response of the
the transverse mode is substantially lower than that structure to a level of accuracy which is suitable
measured. for practical engineering purposes.
lith

!nt

ng
F 10'·1l1.1~)
'08 "J.'~)
I. 10'·'JI.1m)
==j
C~
..~- ·III"·..··~)
••
7"
Akt.1 a•• '2 AINI. 3

us ELEvATION
rom
y

rst

with
r_ o

, _ r ; •._ : ~
TYPICAL SECTION

Figure 1. MeIDland Road overpass-General Plan

fects • Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·41

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

L
_.':" .... keo

nIS'
14.6 m)
I
I
I

-,
... ....

M-J ..... J.8" I

ke•
7

• r-
y •

(,
... ...... I
I ....
I mar
... role
~ 14.6 I.SI
m)
soil:
grOl
(b) disTl
sum
Fillure fl. Models Used to calCulate Rotational Sprlnlls at Column BaSe; that
aJ About x and z Axes; b} About y AXis are I

~. r----- 8 ' 3.'-------,

I1.S 1ft,

:J'
resp
soil
ti 3e-,o.I5 m 1
I • char
' . H_l"-
to.&"'1
'.)M,
The:
the!
the!
1 11111/1111
char
sour
K..

'01
' .
101
sour
undf
coO(

'"
,!)/oI,
J-. at th
influ
eart!
exiSI
requ
estal
whel
resp'
influ
acce
Fillure S. Models Used to calculate Rotational Sprlnlls at Abutments; pres.
fa} About z AXis; fb} About x Axis; rc} About y AXis met!
and,

F-42 Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects ApPI

 1
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Resource Summary 8
Martin, G. R.
Geotechnical Aspects of Earthquake Engineering
Journal of the Australian Geomechanics Society, Special Issue, 5th ANZ
Geomechanics Conference, August 1988
This is a state-of-the-practice overview of the
many aspects of geotechnical engineering plays a
role in earthquake engineering. The behavior of
soils has contributed to major structural damage,
ground, embankment and slope failures, and
disruption of lifeline facilities and systems. A brief
summary of significant recent earthquake events
that led to greater understanding of soil behavior
are given in the paper.
The paper presents a discussion of site
response. The significant influence of local site
soil conditions on the acceleration and frequency
characteristics of the ground motions is discussed.
These factors include the earthquake magnitude,
the source mechanism of the earthquake including
the speed and direction of the rupture, the geologic
characteristics of the wave propagation path from
source to site, the distance of the site from the
source of energy release, the geologic topography
underlying the site soils, and the local soil
conditions (soil type, stiffness, layering and depth)
at the site. A discussion is given about the
influence of local soil conditions. Design for
earthquakes have a strong reliance on the use of
existing strong motion records. Scaling is often
required of a sufficient number of records to
establish a smoothed spectra for design. However,
when suitable re~ords are not available, a site
response analysis may be needed to evaluate the
influence of the local soil conditions on the ground
acceleration and spectral characteristics. The paper
presents a discussion of available analytical
methods that require modeling of the shear strain
and damping characteristics of the soils. A brief
feets Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
discussion about the developing role of centrifuge
testing to understand dynamic soil behavior is also
presented.
The paper also presents the state-of-the-
practice in the understanding and prediction of
ground settlement. The paper discusses the
application of laboratory testing to prediction and
how multi-directional shaking should be accounted
for. The paper also has an extensive discussion
about ground liquefaction. First the issue of
liquefaction on level ground is addressed. The
paper discusses the development of laboratory tests
to predict liquefaction behavior, but points out
many of the problems associated with good quality
undisturbed soil samples. The paper goes on to
discuss the Seed and Idriss simplified procedure
for evaluating field liquefaction potential based on
in situ liquefaction strength curves determined
from a laboratory test program. The paper also
discusses the empirical approach that uses the
standard penetration test (SPT) results to predict
the potential for liquefaction. The paper also
discusses the mechanistic analytical approach to
determine the liquefaction potential; this requires
an understanding of the progressive pore water
increases during cyclic loading of sand. The paper
describes the approach and several analytical codes
available to perform such an analysis. The paper
also discusses earthquake induced settlement of
saturated sands. The paper comments that our
understanding about post-liquefaction behavior is
still far from complete and needs further research.
The paper also has a discussion about the
response of earth structures, such as earth dams,
F·IIS
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
embankments and slopes. The paper points out that
the importance of dynamic response was not fully
recognized until the early 1960s when it was the
practice to represent the effects of earthquake
loading by an equivalent static seismic coefficient
independent of the height and stiffness of the earth
structure. A discussion of several analytical
methods developed using equivalent linear
response are given; these programs are QUAD-4
and LUSH.
The paper also discusses embankment and
slope stability. This section of the paper first
discusses earthquake induced deformations of
limited extent. The paper discusses the Newmark
simple method which assumes that rigid plastic
behavior only occurs when the accelerations
exceed a well defined yield acceleration. This
method was extended by Makdisi and Seed for
earth dam analysis. The paper also describes other
methods based on stress path dynamic testing in
the laboratory. This section of the paper goes on to
discuss liquefaction induced instability. The paper
stresses that the prediction of deformation during
earthquake loading of saturated cohesionless earth
structures is clearly a difficult problem due to the
added complexity of time varying changes in
effective stress. The problem of determining the
undrained residual strength of the soil for the
analysis is highlighted.
The paper also discusses the topic of retaining
structures. With regard to the design and analysis
of gravity or cantilever retaining walls, the paper
comments that the Mononobe-Okabe pseudo static
approach is widely used to compute earth
pressures induced by earthquakes. The paper notes
that if the peak ground acceleration is used for the
lateral coefficient, the size of the retaining
structure often becomes excessively great. For a
more economical design, a small earthquake
F-U APpendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
induced lateral deformation is preferable. The
paper describes the Richards and Elms method
which is a displacement method that proposes to
use an acceleration less than the peak value. A
discussion about the effects of liquefaction on
retaining structures is presented. The consequences
of pore pressure build-up are discussed and
possible mitigation strategies are presented.
The last topic is pile foundations and the paper
discusses the vulnerability of pile foundations to
ground liquefaction. Degradation of the lateral soil
support stiffness (p-y curves) may occur from
either pore pressure increases from the earthquake
free field response, or from localized pore water
pressure increases in the vicinity of the pile head
generated by relative displacements caused by
structural inertia loads. If this occurs, either total
or partial loss lateral stiffness support may result
as shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 illustrates the
degradation of lateral stiffness with pore pressure
increase for a pile embedded in sand subjected to
earthquake loading. Figure 3 illustrates the effects
of liquefaction on pile bending moments and
deflections. The paper describes how this problem
might be analyzed. A discussion of bridge
foundations is presented where it is noted that
although the first option may be to improve
liquefaction resistance through replacement or in
situ densification of the soils, piles may be
economically designed. Potential for liquefaction
exists if the piles are ductile and founded well
below the zone of liquefaction. A case history is
presented to illustrate this.
This paper presents a broad overview of the
effects of soils on structures. Although the paper is
somewhat dated, it points out the need for research
and gives insight into how soil related problems
can be analyzed.
-
-
.li
 r
addV __--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

1"",1.", MO""""
O"d S~eo. rO'ce,
I,om StrUC'VI,
Q,lalt", Olutlace"'cnl
due to ."',I'oCho"
t
Beftd,nq Mo""~"t'
dominated by Lolrlol
1"le,octo" LOOd\

_VI>
Chi Pdf 0"D10C'''''"'
o. rll'''' I Tl'o"" ItOft

t
~I Be"d'"q Mo"'en',
do"".o'td by
Eo' '''ova ~t
...,./\ 11.-1
~V I ~'u I"eld
Olloloetmeft',
~
I'tte I'"ld O"oIOCt'""ru
O·'OloC."'~"1 O. T.m, I
Tu". H."o".,

Figure 1. Soll·Plle InteractIon MechanIsms DUring seismic loadIng

Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·45

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

su
qOJ1!d'
S! Jdd
dq

nor

1.0

Sl,lIness S' r/6 wdlc

16'0-18,", I
SPdJ
06
°IJ
0 3Jn!

...
U'I

U'I 10' r'ee and lIn!

F Head Poles
--
0
0.6 I1!le

0
a:
...
,.;

- 04
c
fo' 'AE( 14(&0
Pll(
p1!:
Jdl
dl[1ln

nos I
--.
F
01

- F'e e Hend
U'I

6 Smol16 J:ld1!1

02 'll(O .. (AO
PIL [
S:lOU;

o~----~----~------~----~----~
01
o 42 6 6 '10 1
TIme sec

Figure 2. lateral stlHness Degradation WIth pore Water Pressure Increase

F-4& Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation EffectS

--
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Oellecl'oll y 1,"1 Be ll d' ft 9 Molftelll (_IOrlb •• ft

0
3 ~ ." .7. 0 ?
" f;
... ...
,,,• ... ...
,, ... •
10· ,
,, .. • ,
,,
I • otrr '1f"1 n '""l.aTOy(
20 at .. sees •,,

,,,"
/"I~I'I. aCllI(" I
• \
I ,

T
30.
.... 'I
I
,~, • tn" It-

.~. ~~~, ,
I
40
,
c _"'_. n ,, .. ,
..... -.. --1\- ".,.
,,, ,
~O .. ... c ......
I
, .-
c
60· ,., •. n 4 , .. ,.-"

T ,
'!"I(I> ,<an ..... r I
70
_ " . ·n I
- - --111\ • •' " . I
• 'fr. ...... ,
80

Figure $. Effects of Liquefaction on Pile Bending Moments and Deflections

- Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·4'

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Resource summary 9
Martin, G. R. and Lam, I. P.
Seismic Design of Pile Foundations: Structural and Geotechnical Issues
Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, April, 19\
In this state of the art paper design concepts
and issues related to the seismic design of piles
foundation systems are presented. Design aspects
discussed include:
I. Questions related to modification of free
field earthquake ground motions by pile
foundation systems.
2. Methods for determining the stiffness
characteristics of pile foundation systems for
incorporation in earthquake structural response
analysis.
3. Questions related to degradation of lateral
stiffness arising from liquefaction.
4. Questions related to potential design
concerns arising from seismic overload of
foundations causing permanent ground
displacements.
A brief introduction is provided on approaches
used for a rigorous analysis of the dynamic
response of soil-pile-structure systems to incoming
seismic waves in a fully coupled manner taking
into account both kinematic and inertial interaction
(Figure 1). It is noted that due to the complexity of
nonlinear coupled models. the Winkler model
represented by series of independent or uncoupled
lateral and axial springs simulating soil-pile
interaction. provides the most convenient means of
analysis. It is noted that for most pile foundation
systems. piles may be assumed to deform in a
compatible manner with the free field ground
motions and the effects of kinematic interaction in
modifying input ground motions to structures can
be neglected. In addition. it is noted that due to the
relatively low frequency range of earthquake
fou
mo
sUF
rot
dOl
cor
paF
stn
ten
ana
det.
inertial loading. stiffness functions for pile cha
foundations are in most cases frequency
independent.
In discussing analysis methods and design
issues. the paper first addresses lateral loading of
single piles using the conventional p-y curve
approach. The sensitivity to boundary conditions is
discussed together with simplified methods for
linearizing the nonlinear behavior in terms of a
pilehead stiffness matrix. Useful charts for
determining the components of pilehead stiffness
matrices. such as that shown in Figure 2. are
provided. Current thinking on the effects of
liquefaction on lateral stiffness is also presented.
Methods for analyzing the axial load stiffness
characteristics of piles are then discussed. The
importance of axial stiffness in determining
rotational stiffness of pile groups is emphasized.
Both computer program approaches and simplified
methods for determining lateral and axial pilehead
stiffness characteristics are presented.
The paper then presents the methodology for
combining the lateral and axial stiffness of single
piles to determine a pile group stiffness matrix for
structural analysis. An example is provided
illustrating the methodology. using the idealized
pile group shown in Figure 3. The influence of the
pile cap on lateral stiffness is also discussed along
with the influence of battered piles on load
deformation behavior of pile groups. The question
of moment-rotation capacity of pile groups is
discussed in detail in relation to seismic retrofit
problems. The paper notes that a key element in
retrofit design relates to the provision of adequate

F-48 Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effec:ts App.

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

foundation capacity to resist the base overturning
moment arising from the inertial forces of the
superstructure. It has been shown that the moment-
rotational characteristics of a pile group can have a
dominating effect on the response of a structure, as
compared to lateral stiffness characteristics. The
paper points out that as performance criteria for
structures are now more often being evaluated in
"' 199 terms of nonlinear time history or pushover
analyses, geotechnical engineers are being asked to
determine nonlinear load-deformation
characteristics of foundation systems and the
consequences of pile foundations exceeding pile
capacity. An example of a pile group system
subjected to axial and moment loading and the
consequences of allowing permanent foundation
deformation arising from transient pile foundation
yield is examined.
Overall, the paper provides a useful summary
of design issues and approaches related to the
needs of structural modeling including pile
foundation systems.

If

s is TIiE WHOL.E SYSTEM 1. KJnematic SeLsmlc Response:

It. .lield malion

k.
<n.
...n.u....
s 'n. .....

_ ... ' ..........

1I,IO"U,c iWl
_ ...
u,II)ooU,c-
-
gtO~ inp.,A malion

s.il.mlC w:veS

2.. Pile Group Oynamic: Impedances 3. Supe,-sINctl,lr. Inlni;,1 Aespanse

(~ dislriOU'oIOtI 01 ina~ loading

,r to individual piles,

Ie
for
k.
hrw'--~,;.., m,

II. J. . . .
I •
the
ng
I
ion T•
Iouncilhon i(lput molion

n Figure 1. General procedure for SeismIc sol/·Plle FOundatlon·structure Interaction

~te

eets Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·es

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

10 9 10 10 10" 10 12 10 13
BENDING STIffNESS, EI (lB-IN')
','
C't.,

T
FIgure 2. Coefllclent for FIxed Pile Head Lateral Stiffness

F-SD APpendix F. Supplemental Information on FOundation EffectS

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Ij1bJc J rns Srjffns;s$ Sglutign

Single
Pi''' Pile Gml!~
U1Cr.II T=sloation 42 9 x 42 =378
Ic" = kc .11:iplin)

Venial Tr.a.nsLation 1.200 9 x 1.200 = 10.SOO

k~.(kil"in) .

Rocking RollltiOQ 193.000 l'o-~ + r.!f K.. S.l

k..zkH ("...·kiplr>.d) = 1.74 x 10' + 1.66. 10'
= 1.83 x 10'

TorsiouJ RoULion
K... (in.ldpl=l)
a 4.42.48' + 4x42.(4S·.... S·)
= 1.16 x 10'

c.oss-Coupling ·2Z0 9 x ·2.250 = .20.250

kIJ=k,.=..k::14=·k.:. (kip)

,. ·S·
".
.., :- @ e e
4'
, .... @
.-.
,:. e;. e- '-- ': Diameler
4' .- ' 11'
1··S"'" '- @ S S

I
- ~'"i
1;,--';-'-'r--,"":'-.:!,l"I
... y = 120 pcf

"
IS',
I... ~. 30·
,- rF f--L c--
=:

70' ,. Diameler
pipe pile
0.25' wall
Ihickness
filled with
concrete

- '-

Figure S. Idealized Pile croup In sand

:eets Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-S1

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Resource Summary 1D
Martin, G. R. and Van, L.
Modeling Passive Earth Pressure for Bridge Abutments
ASCE Conference - Geotechnical Special Publication # 55, Earthquake
Induced Movements and Seismic Remediation of Existing Foundations
and Abutments, San Diego, CA, October 1995

As a component of a bridge structure, The paper utilizes a finite difference numerical

abutments not only act as a retaining wall for
backfill soils, but also serve the additional function
of providing resistance to deformation to
earthquake induced longitudinal inertial loads from
the bridge deck. Quantifying an abutment stiffness
and ultimate passive capacity is an important issue
in modeling bridge structures for earthquake
loading. In this paper, design procedures are
briefly reviewed and the results of a numerical
study modeling the passive earth pressure
characteristics of bridge abutments are presented.
Although the paper relates to bridge abutments,
the results are also applicable to building
structures in relation to the lateral passive capacity
ability to be mobilized by footings or building
basement walls.
approach to analyze the load-deformation and
passive load capacity of abutments simulated as a
rigid wall, (as shown in Figure 1) for both
cohesive and cohesionless soil backfill materials.
Classical passive pressure solutions are first
presented and are followed by numerical
parametric studies to examine the influence of wall
height and material properties on mobilized
passive pressures. The effects of wall friction on
results are also examined in the parametric studies.
The computer program FLAC used for analysis is
shown to provide reasonable numerical results
when compared to classical solutions.
Overall the paper presents useful charts which
can be of value in assessing the problem of lateral
passive capacity for building foundation
components, such as that shown in Figure 2.

F-S2 Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects App

•
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

r.' I I I I I I I I
I';- I I I I I I I I I
~ I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I
r";" I I I I I I I
I
.- I I I I I I I I I
, I I I I I I I I 1
, I 1 I I I I I I I
l/ I I I I I I 1 I I
, f I I 1 I I I I I
,
III/I I I I I I I ;
I
II

I \\I I I I I
I !

-
>

I
I
II I ! !
I ,
I i i
ical I I I III I I
a
Figure 1
s.

.vall

·n Cal
lies. CowanlfJ I
; is
14.0 T
Pr.:o,:.:-n! SLud~·. uIH = 1ort:!
15:8 i
~:8 ±
4.0 ~ •• - •. ~ ..•...•• _~ __ • ___ • _.4
2.0 -L;_ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ __ ; _ - - - _ _ _ <
0.0 ~

o 5 10 IS 20 25
lI"ali Hei::ht 1ft)

(bl ,
C,)Ulllnth
,
!

. Prll!:~~n\ 'stut.:y.UlH = If)~(';

14.0 T •
12.0 I
10.0 • •
s.O T
6.0 T
4.0 f
'
. - ~ . • .... - - -. - - .. -~
.. .....
2.0
0.0 +-----;-----+----~ ____;_---...;
o 5 10 15 20 25
W,II Hei~ht (ft)

Figure 2. Normalized Total passive Force Np vs. wall Height H:y = 120 pcf, c = 1.0 ksf, rp= 0; E 200 ksf, =
v = 0.45faJ 6 = 0; and fbJ 6 = S!r

fects Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-51

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

imp
Resource summary" SI6
Dar.
of il
Nakaki, D. K., and Hart, G. C. stud
Uplifting Response of Structures Subjected to Earthquake Motions the,
U. S.-Japan Coordinated Program for Masonry Building Researcb, eart
Report No. 2.1-3, Ewing/Kariotis/Englekirk & Hart, August 1987 For
pres
spec
In this study, the effect of foundation damping coefficients of a rigid circular massless and
flexibility and uplift on the response of slender foundation on an elastic half-space, are appl
shear wall type structures is investigated. The iIlus
slenderness ratio (defined as the height divided by Ka = 8 G r 3/[3(I-y)] wid,
half the width) of structures studied has been 30'
limited to 3.5. This slenderness ratio is Ca = a 8 G r4/[3(I-y)v s] MOl
representative of shear wall structures of about 10 stud
story height. Effect of inelastic behavior of the where G is the shear modulus of the soil, r is the wall
structure on response was also considered. radius of foundation, y is the Poisson's ratio, Vs is
The structure·foundation system considered in the shear wave velocity and, a is a dimensionless sum
this investigation is shown in Figure I. As shown,
coefficient dependent on the frequency of
the flexibility and damping of the soil was excitation, the radius of foundation, and the shear sign
modeled by elastic Winkler springs with viscous rod
wave velocity. The value of ex was taken as 0.2 in
damping for energy dissipation: The superstructure fixe,
this study.
was represented as an inelastic, single degree of Whc
The study was aimed at concrete and concrete·
freedom system on a rigid foundation. Relative fixe,
masonry shear wall type structures. Therefore, the
horizontal displacement between the base of the muc
inelastic behavior of the superstructure was
structure and the Winkler elements was not som
represented by stiffness degrading hysteresis
considered. The vertical Winkler foundation high
mqdel developed by Newmark and Riddell. Two
springs were considered effective only for the
distinct limit states were defined for the system
compressive forces and have zero tensile capacity. had
under consideration. The first limit state is
The properties of the distributed Winkler springs Wit!
associated with the initiation of uplift and marks
and dashpots were computed from the rocking was
the first change in the stiffness of the system. The
spring and dashpot for a rigid foundation resting prod
second limit state corresponds to the yielding of
on an elastic half space. Using this approach the peri,
the super structure. P-A effects, since they were
Winkler spring and dashpot constants, ko and Co the I
considered to be small, were not included.
respectively, are moti
Direct time-history analyses were performed
stTU(
for two types of ground motion: a long duration
ko = 3 Ka/(2 b 3) than
strong motion and a short duration impulsive type
motion. The long duration motion was represented
Co = 3 Ca/(2 b 3) by the SOOE component of 1940 EI Centro
earthquake. This record has a peak horizontal
In the above equations, b is the half width of ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.35g. The PGA in
foundation and Ka and Ca, the stiffness and the vertical direction is 0.2Ig. The short duration,

F-S4 Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation EffectS ApPI

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
impulsive type motion was represented by the
Sl6E component (PGA = l.l7g) of the Pacoima
Dam record scaled down to 50 percent. Influence
of including vertical ground motions was also
studied.
Parametric studies were performed to study
the effect of foundation flexibility and uplift on the
earthquake response and the potential for damage.
For this purpose, the results of the analyses were
presented both in the form of the ductility demand
spectra and time history plots of the input energy
and the dissipated and absorbed energy. Practical
application of the concepts developed was then
illustrated by analyzing a 9-story, 78' high and 27'
wide concrete masonry shear wall supported on a
30' long by 4' wide by 3' thick concrete footing.
Monte Carlo simulations were also performed to
study the influence of yield capacity of the shear
wall on response.
is The key findings of this investigation are
s summarized below:
As shown in Figures 2 and 3, uplift resulted in
Ir
significant reduction in ductility demands when the
rocking frequency of the system was less than the
in
fixed base natural frequency of the structure.
When the rocking frequency was greater than the
te
fixed base frequency of the structure, uplift had
he
much smaller effect on ductility demands and, in
some cases, allowing uplift produced slightly
)
higher ductility demands.
The frequency content of the ground motion
had significant effect on the ductility demand.
With uplift allowed, the EI Centro motion, which
was richer in short period motions, tended to
he
produce higher ductility demands for shorter
period structures founded on stiffer soils; whereas,
the Pacoima Dam motion, richer in longer period
motions, was more severe for longer period
d
structures. When the rocking frequency was less
than the fixed base natural frequency of the
pe
ted
in
In,
Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
structure, including the vertical ground motion, it
typically increased the higher mode coupling thus
increasing the ductility demands. For cases where
the rocking frequency was greater than the fixed
natural frequency of the structure, inclusion of
vertical ground motion typically had little effect on
overall response.
Time history energy plots for a system with
fixed base natural period of 0.4 sec., see Figure 4,
showed that the hysteretic energy loss in a system
with uplift permitted is smaller than without uplift
thus implying less earthquake damage in the
uplifting structure. However, the energy spectra
plots, Figure 5, showed that allowing uplift, in
most cases, resulted in larger hysteretic energy
loss than without uplift. This was especially true
for the Pacoima Dam motion which was rich in
long period motion and for periods greater than
about 0.5 sec. Thus, it was concluded that on the
basis of energy dissipated, it can not be
conclusively stated that allowing uplift will reduce
the damage sustained by the structure and, also,
ductility demand alone may not be a true indicator
of damageability. Including the vertical ground
motion generally increased the energy dissipated
by hysteresis.
The shear wall studied had a fixed natural
period of vibration of about 0.5 sec. The results of
the analyses for this case study showed that
allowing the structure to uplift from its foundation
resulted in an essentially elastic response. The
authors, however, cautioned that the reduction in
the inelastic deformations in the structure comes at
the expense of uplift displacements at the
foundation level which must be accounted for in
the design. Monte Carlo studies on the variability
of yield capacity of the shear wall showed that the
foundation rotation and uplift were more sensitive
to yield capacity of the wall than the displacement
response.
F-SS
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

he \I

II

e v IB mF
i
c

kO Co

b b
,I
YG'L
XG

Figure 1. Structure-FOundation system Madel FI9

P-s& Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects App

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

IZ.O

1t.0 · \
10.0 · \
\
t.O · \
uplift
Q '.0 - \ - - - uplift prcycn'ted
I~ 7.0 - \
\
'.0 - \
S
Ii 5.0 -
,\
;:) \
Q
4.0 - \
U -
\
,, - -
1.0 -
...
--- ...
1.0 -

0.0 • • • • • 0

0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.0 1.1 IA

mal (SEC)

Figure 2. Ductility Demand for structures Allowing Uplift and With Uplift Prevented for the EI Centro Motion,
= = =
1=$.5, P 0.9, fJ 0.7, 01. 161r rad. sec., ~s 0.05, ~. 0.20 = =

,
lets , Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-S7

•
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

5.0

4.0

/
,.- ....
/
3.0
/ " ....
I
/
" ....
I
" "- ....
\ I ....
Z.O
\ I
..
1.0 uplift

- - - uplift prevented

0.0
0.0 0.1 0.4 0.' a.1 1.0 1.4
I"tRQ) (SEC)

Figure S. DuctIlity Demand for structures Allowing Uplift and With Uplift prevented for the Scaled pacoIma
Dam MotIon, .It = s.s, P = 0.9, f3 = 0.7, 01. = 1IiTC rad. sec., ~. = o.os, ~. = 0.20

F-S8 Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects

...
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

000.0

"00.0 / upfin preveRled

i 300.0
.....
..
!;
! 200.0

6
~
~ 100.0

0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 1:l.0 '4.0 1 •. 0 18.0

nUE (SEC)

Ina
Figure 4. Hysteretic Energy with Up/1ft and with Wl/ft Prevented for the scaled pacoima Dam Motion,
t=O.4 SEC., Cy=D.261, A=S.S, p=O.9, /3=0.7, mr= 161c rad. sec., ~1=O.05, ~r=O.20

'ect5 Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-S!J

---------- _._- -- -----.------ --.----- --

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Figure 5. Input Energy and Hysteretic Energy per unit Mass spectra for the Scaled pacoima Dam Motion, •
).=5.S, P =0.9, fJ = 0.7, mv= 161r rad. sec., ~s=O.OS, ~v=0.20

P-60 Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Resource summary 12
Pender, M. J.
»>'>YL» Aseismic Pile Foundation Design Analysis
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Volume
26, No.1, March 1993
This paper presents a comprehensive
presentation of methods of assessing, for
preliminary design purposes, the stiffness and
capacity of pile foundations under seismic forces.
Emphasis is placed on expressions for pile
stiffness and capacity in the form of simple
formulae and illustrations on the use of formulae
through a number of worked examples.
Comparisons between data from field testing of
foundations and analysis methods are also
presented.
Specific topics covered in the paper include the
following:
• Observed seismic response and damage to pile
foundations during past earthquakes
• Models for pile lateral stiffness including
Winkler and elastic continuum models
• Models for pile vertical stiffness including
Winkler and elastic continuum models and
discussion on battered piles
• Methods for evaluating stiffness of pile groups
including vertical, rotational and lateral
stiffness components
• Discussions on the influence of nonlinear soil
behavior on soil·pile interaction including case
studies
• Discussions on correlations between subgrade
soil properties and penetration resistance from
field tests
In, • Discussions on results of dynamic tests on
prototype scale piles and pile groups and
Ffects APpendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation EHects
• Discussions on the role of kinematic soil-pile
interaction and dynamic response of pile
groups
The case history documentation on the
response of pile foundation systems to seismic
loading provides a comprehensive overview. One
interesting documented case history relates to the
response of the Imperial County, California,
Services Building (Figure 1) during the 1979
Imperial Valley magnitude 6.3 earthquake. Forced
vibration tests on pile caps following building
demolition provided the means for earthquake
response studies including the effects of foundation
interaction.
The objectives of the paper are focused heavily
on design analysis, particularly preliminary
design. The approach presented is suitable for use
with spread sheets albeit more sophisticated
methods and computer approaches are also
discussed. The emphasis on assembling an
extensive set of simple formulae and the use with
examples make this paper particularly readable for
design engineers. Nearly all the methods discussed
focus on the common idealization that the soil-pile
system will respond in an equivalent linear elastic
manner to applied loading. In this respect a useful
compilation of correlations between Young's
modulus and the coefficient of sub grade reaction
with standard penetration blowcount are provided.
The reality of nonlinear soil behavior which occurs
during strong seismic loading is discussed briefly,
and illustrated using the results of field load tests.
The presentation also identifies limitations of
the various analysis methods and topics requiring
F-G'I
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

further research. A detailed valuation of the
relative role of inertial and kinematic interaction of
pile foundation subjected to dynamic loading,
clarifies the relative importance of the two effects.
The significance of pile group effects is also
addressed using analytical data and results of field
load tests, as for example shown in Figure 2.
Questions not addressed in detail in the paper
include the effects of liquefaction and potential
degradation in stiffness of soils adjacent to the pile
due to cyclic loading.
Overall the paper provides good insight as to
the mechanics of soil-pile interaction and is
perhaps one of the most comprehensive state-of-
the-practice publications available on seismic pile
foundation design.

(ASr 'ACt
SHEAII WALL

WEST rACE
SH[AR WALL
• • • • • •
• • • • • •

TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

WEST ELEVATION

,
II

4
)

2
G

\
LONG SECTION EAST ELEVATION

Figure 1. COnfiguration Of the Imperial County Services Building (after Hall, 19B4J
FIG

F-62 Appendix F, Suppiementallnformation on Foundation Effects App

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

)iie

o
30
/ 0
Je ,/ O'"b
on
Cr.m.J / 0/
...
.~

.!! 20
n:
~

'"
c..
~ .-
/J\/
/ cS v
/~/
/'"
/0

0 /:"'.,..,
.~"
0.0
~
0
010
'if',---'''''-' .g....~.-.. -
/0 ,,/ .",
..J /. /' -8-' 0--<> Single Pile
a. ~ y O--OLeadinq Row, Group
> ~.c <>-..... Middle Row, Group
« o--oBack Row, Group

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Deflection 01 Load Poinl, inches

30
0
'"
Q.
:;z ~ycle I

.~ 20
Il.. A
.... .~

;a
QI
Il..
"C
C
0
..J 10 o Single Pile
o Leading Row, Group
C.
> '" Middle Row, Group
<I: o Back Row, Group

0 500 1000 1500

Maximum Bending Momenl, Inch-kips

Figure 2. Pile Head DeFiectlan and Maximum Moment Against Average Farce lor a Sxs group and a Single Pile
1 klp=4.54 kN, 1 In. =25.4 mm(after Brown et al., 198B)

ffects Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·SS

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Resource Summary 15 2.

Priestly, J.N., Evison, R.J., and Carr, A.J.

Seismic Response of Structures Free to Rock on Their Foundations 3.
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering,
September, 1978

This work is an experimental extension of a a is the aspect angle for the block (see Figure 1).
theoretical development of the behavior of rocking This enabled the prediction of the peak of
blocks by Housner (see Resource Summary No.4 rotational displacement as a function of the
and Figure 1). The paper begins by discussing the number, n , of impacts as .
fact that rocking of structures may be beneficial to
their seismic response. The seismic code in New
Zealand, at least at the time the paper was written, det
implicitly recognizes this by allowing the forces on where per
foundations systems to be limited in the recognition cen
of the possibility of rocking. The writers concur 6 (l 4.
with this approach since they feel that rocking and tP. =-"- and 1/10 =-l!.
a a
possible deformation of soil beneath footings have The authors point out that the fraction of
improved overall seismic performance for some critical damping, A. ,for single degree of freedom 5.
structures. They point out, however, the possibility oscillator may be expressed as
that substructure rocking and possible deformation
of foundation materials can cause damage at the
foundation and first floor slab levels. A=_I In (1/10)
It n tP.
The authors note that, in spite of its beneficial
effects, that rocking has received very little Using this equation for fraction of critical 6.
attention by other researchers. One exception is damping and the previous energy reduction factor
Housner and the other that they note is the work of from Housner, the two variables can be related as
Bartlett (see Resource Summary No.1). illustrated in Figure 2.
Review of Basic Theory. The authors begin by Response Spectrum Design Approach. If a
reviewing the theoretical development by Housner. roCking block is represented as a single degree of pro
They expand Housner's work in one interesting system with constant damping, the period of wei
way. Housner expressed the energy loss due to the vibration depends on the amplitude of rocking, and Thi
inelastic collusion of the block with its base by an a trial and error approach can be used with a con
energy reduction factor response spectrum to determine peak displacement pre
during earthquake motion. The following 0.4
2 procedure is outlined: mo
MR2
r= ( I-T(I-cos2a) 1. Use the no-rocking natural period of vibration a.
)
and damping of the structure combined with b.
where M is the mass of the block, 10 is its mass the acceleration response spectrum of the
moment of inertia about the point of rotation, and design earthquake to calculate the elastic

P-&4 Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
response and check that this will induce
rocking.
2. Using the relationship between Housner's r
factor and critical damping. A, shown in Figure
2, calculate the equivalent viscous damping of
the rocking system.
3. Using Housner's equation
Ilg,
4
T=pcosh 1
-1 [ 1-1~ -
where
p=~WR
10
determine the relationship between the rocking
period, T, and the amplitude of rocking at the
center of mass, 00 (see Figure 3(a».
4. Estimate the maximum rocking displacement,
Ll1, and determine the corresponding period of
vibration, TI.
5. The maximum displacement response, Ll2, of
the equivalent elastic system can then be found
from the displacement response spectra as
shown in Figure 3(b). A new period, T2, can
then be used to refine the estimate of
displacement using Figure 3(a).
6. This iterative procedure usually converges
Jr within three to four cycles yielding an estimate
as
of the peak displacement of the single degree of
freedom system.
I Model Study. In order to verify the theoretical
Jf procedure outlined above, experimental studies
were conducted on a model as shown in Figure 4.
and This model was a one-sixth scale simulation of a
concrete shear wall building with a prototypical
ent pre-rocking fundamental period of approximately
0.40 seconds. The foundation conditions for the
model were varied as follows:
on a. model supported directly on shaking table.
b. model supported on 25 mm. rubber pads at the
corners of the foundation resulting in a three-
Itts Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
fold increase in natural, pre-rocking period of
the structure.
c. similar to b. except that the pad was placed
beneath the entire footing as opposed to the
four corners.
In addition to these foundation conditions,
some free-rocking tests were carried out in the
field on the model supported by well-compacted
clay soil. The purpose of these foundation
conditions was to investigate the general effects of
foundation compliance on the results.
The model was subjected to four different
types of dynamic tests.
I. The natural decay of the system for free
vibration at amplitudes less than that required
to initiate rocking was documented.
2. The natural decay of the rocking motion was
investigated by uplifting the model beyond its
rocking limit and releasing it. The relationship
of amplitude of rocking to natural period and
the rate of decay provided experimental data to
compare with Housner's basic theoretical
equation.
3. The model was subject to forced sinusoidal
base accelerations to study the response to
different frequencies.
4. The response of the structure to actual seismic
excitation was studied using a scaled record of
the 1940 EI Centro Earthquake.
The authors report only on the results of the
free rocking and seismic testing in their paper.
The results of the experimental studies
correlate excellently with Housner's theoretical
relationship between rocking frequency and
amplitude. This is illustrated in Figure 5. It should
be noted that the models on the rubber pads had a
maximum rocking frequency of about 3.7 hz and,
above that level, Housner's theory does not apply.
The experimental results show that Housner's
assumption of completely inelastic energy
dissipation due to impact may be incorrect in some
cases. For the model, Housner's theoretical
equations would have predicted a reduction factor,
r, of 0.70. The authors adjusted the results of the
natural decay of rocking of the model to match
F·BS
----- --- -' -------... ----'--- '"
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Housner's general relationship. To do so they had
to use a reduction factor of 0.87. The results are
shown on Figure 5(a).
The result of the earthquake excitation from the
essential records indicate that they response
spectrum approach proposed by the authors provide
a very good estimate of the maximum displacement
of a rocking block. The predicted maximum
displacement was 50 mm. and the corresponding
experimental value was 45 mm.
Design Example. The authors provide design
example for a masonry structure. The procedure
used is that of the New Zealand building code. The
authors determined that the code value accelerations
will result in rocking of the structure. This is
confirmed by a rocking elastic response spectra
calculation using procedures developed in the
paper. These calculations indicate that for the EI
Centro records, a roof displacement of
approximately 160 mm. would occur in the sample
structure for a period of 1.6 seconds. The authors
note that this amount of rocking is not necessarily
excessive but that possible damage to the slab on
grade and the foundations might be induced.
Conclusions. The authors offer the following
general conclusions:
1. Response of a rocking structure is similar to
base isolation in that lateral accelerations are
limited to that which induced rocking.
Structural damage might be reduced by
designing structural elements which remain
elastic until the rocking acceleration is
exceeded.
F·GG Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
2. Housner's theoretical equations for frequency
and amplitude of a rocking block are verified.
Foundation conditions in this study did not
appear to have a significant influence on the
rocking response; however, Housner's
assumption that rocking impacts are inelastic
was found to not be valid from the models in
this study.
3. Extension of Housner's theory to a simple
method to predict maximum displacement h
utilizing response spectra has been developed
and verified by limited shaking table testing.
4. This approach might be extended to structures 1
-
other than buildings including bridges and non-
structural applications such as the rocking of
stacked containers.
5. Further research is required to verify the scope
and the feasibility of the methods developed in
this work. In particular high equivalent viscous
damping predicted for squat rocking structures
needs verification.
It should be noted in reviewing this material
that the foundation conditions for the model were
probably highly elastic. This may explain why
Housner's assumption of inelastic impact was not
born out. Bartlett's work, which was reviewed in
Resource Summary No.1, may provide an
interested opportunity to estimate the foundation
yielding at the base of rocking blocks. It is Iikel y
that this inelastic effect is dependent on the initial
contact pressure as a percentage of the ultimate
bearing capacity of the foundation material.
Ap,
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS

cy
:d.

ic h

in ,. 15

ed
+
h
c '"
~ 10
~
.3
L
!I ,
- --I
res O~:~ ____~______~~--__------~__~~~
05 0.6 0.7 all Q 9 1.0
10n-
)f Energy Reduction Factor. r.

:ope FIgure 1. Housner's RockIng Block FIgure 2. ApproxImate RelatIonship Between

j in EquIvalent VIscous DampIng and Energy
ReductIon Factor
;ous
nes

're

lot
in

ly
:ial

,, ,
,, ,,, ,,,
, I
II ,, ''
" ,
I , I
,,
.2
L

a:
I
, n , I

,st estimate~ I'

4.: dtl : 4l, T. T,
Period
Amplitude of Rocking
(al ROCKING CHARACTERISTIC (bl TRIPARTITE RESPONSE SPECTRA

FIgure S. EstImate 01 MaxImum DIsplacement From Response spectra

'ects Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·G'

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

I
lnstrum.ntation ~
--= : DC-LVDT
o : Accrl.rom.trr

an
ef:
de
rei
!hI
fOI
bl!
pe
-INPUT- -QUTPUT- Fil
COi
di!
Fillure 4. SChematIC tJI MtJdel tJn Shake Table Ih~
me
ani
anI
SPI
Wi
Theory (tbusner) Iha
I • Exp. rigid baS(> api
Wi
"O~
Exp. rubber pad
Theory r: 0.B7
OB • Exp . rigid base
G!. " soi
a: 0.6 :
Exp, rubber pad
by
• Exp. SOl' base
the
'$

-----.-
0.<4
""''$..,. nor
02 . "~
iml
°O~------------------------~-----
4 a 12 W
No 01 Impacts (n)
~ B 16
Horizontal
24
OisPlacemQ'nt
32
(mm)
ene
use
(a) DECAY OF' ROCKING
effi
Ib) FREQuENCY vs AMPLI TUDE
the

Slrl
Figure 5. ThetJry VI. Experiment ItJr MtJdel
bot)

F-G8 Appendix F. Supplemental Information on FtJundatlon Effects

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Resource Summary 14
Psycharis, I. N.
Dynamic Behavior of Rocking Structures Allowed to Uplift
Report No. EERL-81-02, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1982

In this report, the equations of motion for the
analysis of simple structures considering the
effects of foundation flexibility and uplift are
developed. The presentation begins with the
recapitulation of the classical work of Housner for
the case of a rigid block allowed to rock on a rigid
foundation. The equations of motions for the rigid
block resting on flexible foundation and with uplift
permitted were then developed. As shown in
Figures 1 and 2, two types of soil model were
considered: the two spring model and the
distributed Winkler spring model. It was observed
that the equations of motions for the two spring
model are much simpler than the Winkler model
and are more useful for simplified practical
analyses. Therefore, expressions for the two
spring model in terms of the parameters of the
Winkler springs were developed. It was observed
that the equivalent two springs model can
approximate the response of a structure with a
Winkler foundation reasonably well.
The effect of energy dissipation and nonlinear
soil behavior in foundation soils was approximated
by three different mechanisms: viscous dampers in
the foundation model; elastic-perfectly plastic
nonlinear foundation spring elements; and an
3) and a multistory structure (Figure 4). For the
multistory structure, an approximate analysis
procedure considering only the first vibration
mode was also developed. The approach developed
was used to analyze the response of the Millilken
Library building subject to the S16E component of
the Pacoima Dam record obtained during the 1971
San Fernando earthquake. The building is a 9-
story concrete building with a one story basement,
see Figure 5.
The key conclusions and observations of this
investigation are summarized below:
• Allowing uplift leads to a softer vibrating
system, i.e. the first period of the uplifting
system is always greater than the first period
of the structure with uplift prevented.
• Higher periods of vibration are not
significantly affected by uplift.
• When damping is considered in the foundation
springs, uplift tends to reduce the critical
damping in the first mode of vibration.
• Allowing uplift can have significant effect on
the seismic response of structures. For the
rigid superstructure, uplift tends to reduce the
rocklng accelerations while the angle of

--32
nml
impact mechanism that allows dissipation of
energy during impact. It was concluded that the
use of viscous dampers was the most practical and
efficient way of modeling the energy dissipation in
rotation can either be larger or smaller. For a
flexible superstructure, uplift always tends to
increase the angle of rotation of the foun-
dation. However, no conclusive statements
the foundation soils. could be made about the response of the
The equations of motions for a flexible structure. For the Millilken Library building
structure allowed to uplift were then developed, studied, it was observed that the building
both for a single degree of freedom system (Figure displacements were not significantly affected

iCts
Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-GI
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

and the accelerations and base shears were • The simplified fundamental mode approach for
slightly increased due to uplift. the analyses of multistory structures provides
reasonably good approximation of response.
d~ ___ ~
, IE_-_ o
01_ .•.
1-- --..

! r
y
I
b
FIg
MO

mg

Y of!i-{ __ (...,
-tt • k
M 0
k

t.)·Three-dhnen,tonlll clse (b) Equivalent tNo-dimensional 'Probl.

FIgure 1. Tipping Block on a "TWo-Spring" FOundatIon

'E---_.. __ a

----- .•.
/('-

.. ~~~.~..~--.-~

..Jy
b
T
mg
b

y,L··" y,L··"
(a) Full-contact case (b) After lift-off

FIgure 2. RockIng Block on ContInuous ElastIc FoundatIon' (WInkler made/)

'-70 Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects App

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

x u
I 1/ iii/

;h for
ides
\se.

J
r! 1 ,
m

1.1-.:
h ~'

Flgure:s. Simple Oscillator on a TwO-SprIng

MOdel of a ROcking Foundation M

k
k

;::,-
I --u'";"-
r - -;.- - - - I" - - -""'l~?»~~
;--r--T--- -
I Hn I (n I

\ 1 '
~-~--~-~-~~~~
,----,--
I ,
I ,
I {'

I I' "
:
I { ,
I ,
I ~.'\P'>_
. L __ -/
I.._-
r
: I; e.:y- e
I I .'
I 1/
I; "

'Y.l,. .
"
Figure 4. Rocking n-story structure on Two-Sprlng FOundation

fects APpendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·71

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

D
• B oj
w
di
I!
bl
nl
SU
TI
e~

....--\l=.;;:.,.jl---II ~ ..... bl
of
Ie'
ge
'''; Ff
i--~=';;:"'Io-_-II~UII so'
. '
lhl
is
ap
fir
lat
pic
Fo
fOI
c
Th
the
Ce
FIgure 5. Milliken library BuildIng: fa) FoundatIon Plan and N-5 section; fb) TypIcal Floor Plan; tra
fC) a N·S SectIon VIew; fd) VIew oF Building LookIng Northwe$t bel
vel

F·72 Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation EffectS

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Resource Summary 15
Rutenberg, A., Jennings, P. C. and Housner, G. W.
The Response of Veterans Hospital Building 41 in the San Fernando
Earthquake
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, John Wiley and
Sons, Ltd., Volume 10, 1982

Description of Building and Earthquake cross-sectional area of the walls. Boundary

Damage. This paper documents an analytical study
of the Veterans Administration Hospital Building
which was located in San Fernando, California,
directly over the fault plane of the February 9th,
1971, earthquake. Although several V.A. Hospital
buildings at the site collapsed, as did the
neighboring Olive View Hospital, Building 41
survived the earthquake with only minor damage.
This was in spite of the fact that the building
experienced very intense ground shaking. The
building was designed for a lateral force coefficient
of only 10 per cent. This study consists of several
levels of analysis in an attempt to reconcile the
good behavior of this building during the San
Fernando earthquake.
The subject building was designed in 1937 by
the Veterans Administration Engineering Office. It
is four stories in height with plan dimensions of
approximately 200 by 50 feet (see Figure 1). The
first floor is partially below grade. The vertical and
lateral load carrying system consisted primarily of
pierced reinforced concrete shear walls and frames.
Foundations were continuous with isolated spread
footings under the walls and interior columns.
There were approximately twice as many walls in
the longitudinal direction as the transverse.
Consequently, the analyses concentrates on the
transverse direction. Wall thicknesses varied
between 10 and 16 inches and reinforcement, both
vertically and horizontally exceeded .002 times the
reinforcement was provided around openings and
the general level of detailing of the reinforcing was
quite good from an earthquake performance
standpoint. These details were also evident in the
spandrels between walls, allowing for coupling
between adjacent wall panels. For the purposes of
the analyses and this study, an aged nominal
concrete strength of 4,000 psi was assumed. The
yield strength of the plain and deformed
reinforcing bars was assumed to be 30 ksi.
Soil conditions at the site consisted of alluvial
deposits and the allowable design bearing stresses
were up to 8,000 Ibs. per square foot including
earthquake effects. The material was reasonably
competent and had virtually no potential for
liquefaction. For the purposes of the analyses, a
shear wave velocity of 1000 feet per second was
assumed for all strain levels. The unit weight for
the soil is assumed to be 100 lbs. per cubic foot.
These assumptions yield a shear modulus for the
soil material of 3600 ksi.
The building suffered very minor damage
during the earthquake. Some of the shear walls
exhibited hairline diagonal cracks. There was a
small, continuous crack running in the basement
and first floor slab. Some settlement of the
exterior grade was noted on the upslope side of the
building. In the analyses, this settlement was taken
as a possible sign of foundation movement.
However, it could also have been caused by the

Fects Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·7J

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
consolidation of poorly compacted fill adjacent to
the basement wall. Major yielding of the coupling
beam between walls probably did not take place
based on field observations. The overall cracking in
the concrete walls was indicative of the fact that in
some locations the diagonal strength of the concrete
may have just been exceeded.
Ground Motion. There were no records of
ground motion at the site or in the near vicinity. It
was, therefore, impossible to reconstruct the high
frequency components of ground motion at the
Veterans Administration Hospital site. The nearest
accelerograms were at the Pacoima Dam (1.25 mi.)
and at the Orion Holiday Inn (8 mi.). From an
analysis of these records it is estimated that a peak
spectral acceleration in the range of 0.1 to 0.3
seconds was on the order of 0.7 to 1.5 g.
Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis. An
analysis based on a 1976 Uniform Building Code
including modifications for soil structure interaction
in accordance with ATC 3-06 was performed for
the building in its transverse direction. Considering
the symmetry of the building, three of the six
transverse walls in Figure 2 were included in the
analysis. Several alternatives were considered for
distribution of shear to the individual walls. These
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Also noted in
the tables are the fundamental periods for the
various analysis assumptions including a rigid base
and one including foundation compliance. It can be
seen that the rigid base period of approximately
0.14 second was substantially lower than of 0.20
second estimated from the foundations that were
assumed to be flexible. The code equation for
period indicates an even a longer period of 0.36
second.
The 1976 Code would have required a base
shear coefficient of 0.28 due to the essential nature
of the facility and the local soil conditions.
Calculations for this study indicate that the first
yield in the building would occur at a base shear
coefficient of between 0.15 and 0.20 (see Table 3
and Figure 3). The total capacity of the building
assuming redistribution after initial yielding would
have been in the order of 0.30 and 0.40 g. The base
F-'4 Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
overturning moment for stability would have ir
limited the capacity to 0.45 to 0.50 g (see Table SI
3). a!
Comparisons with these general capacity T
estimates with the inferred level of ground shaking t1:
implies a degree of damage much greater that that
which actually occurred. In order to further
resolve this inconsistency subsequent analyses VI
were performed. Sl
Linear Dynamic Analysis. Investigators VI
performed a linear three-dimensional dynamic c!
analysis of the building using the program
ETABS. In this analysis the structure was assumed in
to be supported on a rigid foundation. This c(
analysis indicated that the response of this building ill
was primarily in its first mode of vibration. This to
analysis resulted in a higher prediction for first ar
yield in the building (see Table 4) due to the more cc
accurate inclusion of the coupling beams between F
the shear walls. The capacities shown in Table 4 H
are in terms of spectral acceleration. Reducing O.
these by the modal participation factor of th
approximately 85 - 90% would indicate a capacity TI
similar to that of the code analysis. As a result, the n
Linear Dynamic Analysis corroborates the basic
strength of the building. but fails to explain the low pr
level of damage for the high level of seismic Wi
shaking. For this reason the analysis was extended
to include nonlinear effects.
Nonlinear Analysis Including Foundation
Effects. The researchers developed a simplified
two-dimensional model of one of the shear walls
using the computer program DRAIN-2D (See
Figure 4). In addition to nonlinear elements for the
shear wall and coupling beam, the model included
a nonlinear representation of the soil material
beneath the footings. This foundation model could
accommodate both uplift and plastic yielding of the
soil material (see Figure 5).
This model was subject to two earthquake
records. The Pacoima Dam (PD) and the Holiday
Inn (HI). The records were modified to yield
approximately the same fixed-base shear as a
constant acceleration spectrum at 0.9g. Numerous
analyses were made of the model with variations
Ap
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

in a number of different parameters. These are
summarized in Table 5. In this table, the case listed
as CSA is the constant spectral acceleration of 0.9g.
The damping coefficients a and f3 are both from
ng the conventional Rayleigh damping relationship of
at C=aM+!3K
The soil properties are tabulated for lateral and
vertical movement. The variables Cx and Cy are the
stiffnesses for the soil components in the lateral and
vertical direction respectively. Yx and Yy are the
capacities of the soil components.
The results of all the analyses are summarized
led in Tables 6, 7, and 8. In Table 6, the fixed base
comparison between the three input motions
ing illustrates the adjustment of the two actual records
s to approximately 0.9g base shear. The interactive
analysis shown are for linear soil properties in
lre compression and tension with no uplift allowed.
From the interactive results, it is apparent that the
Holiday Inn record has higher accelerations in the
0.20 second period range than those associated with
the fixed base period of approximately 0.14 second.
ity This amplification is not apparent in the Pacoima
the Dam (PD 2) record.
: Examination of the results in Tables 7 and 8
iOW provide a number of interesting conclusions. The
wall shears and base shears for the nonlinear
jed analyses are consistently lower than that predicted
by the linear analyses. An even greater percentage
reduction was found for overturning moments in the
walls. The effect of vertical acceleration was not
Is found to be significant for these ground motions.
. the
jed Table 1. Lateral Force Distribution Over Building Height (approximate analysis)
The authors find that Wall A (see Figures 2
and 3) would not have experienced forces greater
than its capacity for the majority of the load cases
in the nonlinear analyses. They also note that the
hysteretic energy dissipated in the vertical soil
springs was small. The results indicate that the
effects of uplift tend to predominate over the
strength of the soil at the compression toe.
Although the displacements for the vertically
flexible, weak soils were larger than for stiffer,
stronger soils, the forces in the shear walls
themselves were generally less. A long period
acceleration pulse, evident in the Pacoima Dam
record, did not appear to have a large effect on the
response of the building. Even though the period
lengthened to approximately 0.35 seconds, it still
was substantially less than the 2.0 second period of
the impulse.
Conclusions. Based on their analyses, the
authors concluded that the observed successful
performance of Veterans Administration Hospital
Building #41 during the San Fernando Earthquake
was the result of its initial large strength and good
design details, as well the unanticipated beneficial
effects of nonlinear soil/structure interaction. For
this reason they conclude that partial uplift and
yielding in foundation soils generally tend to
reduce seismic forces in the structure and should
not necessarily be avoided by designers. They also
found that many of the simplified assumptions that
they made for modeling appear to have little effect
when compared to the results from more
sophisticated models .

uld
f the Level F.' (kip) Shear (kip) Moment (kip/ft)
PH 605 605 0-0
Roof 2,770 3,375 9,500
lay 3 2,710 6,085 50,000
2 1,875 7;960 123,000
I 1,040 9,000 219,000
0 354,000
ous • These (orces are arbitrarily scaled so the base shear equals
ns the weight of the building.

'ects Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·75

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table 2. uteral Shear Farce DIstrIbution Among walls (percentJ; and natural perlad (s)

OriEina!
Narrow flanses Wide flanges analf,is
(19 7)
WaD B B+S B+S+F B B+S B+S+F B
A 25 25 21 31 27 27 29
B 27 29 29 25 29 29 40
C 48 46 50 44 44 44 31
Period 0-233 0-204
0-140 0-123 0-213 (I)
T, 0-243 (I)
B - Bending derormation: S - Shear derormation.
F - Foundalion compliance.
(I) Including mass and rotary inerli. or roundation.

Table S. ute,.al Farce capacIty of BuildIng 41 (app,.oxlmate analysIs)

First Overturning Overturning

yield Cumulative- (minimum) It redislribulion
Percent 15-20 3S-45 45-50 50-55
or weight
• Yield and redistribution.

Table 4. Spect,.al AcceleratIon levels at Different stages of Res/stance

First Yield and Cumulative

yield redi<tribution capacilY
Per cent 25-30 3S-45 45-50
9

F-7G Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects Ap

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROI=IT 01= CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table 5. soil and Superstructure parameters for cases Analyzed

SoH properties
Lateral Vertical , Variations
Damping
in super.
E.Q. c, Y, c, y. structure
. Case scale rz,{I (Idp/ftl) (ksl) a, (kiplftl) (kll) a, properties
0-9 ex:: 1,000
CSA
HI.I 2·0
2·0
'"
'"
§ '"ex::
400
ex; 1·000
<Xl
<Xl
co
<Xl
1-000
1-000 "c
0
1·000 1,200
HI.2
'"II '" ex; 1-000 Z

.
HI.3 2·0 400 I'S 0·333 1,200 3-75 0-333
HI.4 2-0 400 I'S 0-333 1,200 3-75 (}333 E = 0-8E.
HI.5
HI.6
2·0
2·0
""
...,
400
400
HI
HI
0-333
0'2S0
1,200
1,200
3-75 0,333
3-33 0-250
400
HI.7 2-0
2·0 '"
II 400
o-S 0-333 1,200 3,00 0-333

1
HI.8 I'S 0-333 500 3-75 (}333
2·0 to 167 I'S 0·333
HI.9 500 3-75 (}333
111.10 2·0 a-O 400 1·$ 0-333 500 3-75 (}333
P. - (}00228 u
HI.! I 2·0 ~=O 400 1'5 0-333 500 3-75 (}333 c
P= 0,0028 Z
0

III.! 2 I'S 400 I'S 0-333 500 3-75 (}333

2·0 400

j
Ill.! 3 I'S 0-333 SOO 3-7S (}333
111.14 2·0 '"
'" 400 I'S 0·333 500 3·75 (}333
pO.! 0·4
0'4 ~ '"
400 '"'"
1,000 <Xl <Xl 1·000

.'"
PO.2 1-000 1,200 <Xl 1-000
PO.3 0·4 II 400 1'5 (}333 1,200 3-75 (}333
0·4 400
PO.4 ""
...,
1·5 0-333 1,200 3-75 (}333 I, = O·SI •
4\op beams
PO.S 0·4 400 HI 0·333 1,200 3-75 (}333
1'1).6 0-4 II 400 . 1,0 0,250 1,200 3-33 (}250
rO.8 (}4 to 400 I'S (}333 500 3-75 (}333 "0c
PO.!! O'S 400 1,5 (}333 1,200 3-7S (}333 Z

fects Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·77

._-
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table 6. l.Inear Response: CDmparatlve Results

FIXed base Interactive

CSA'" HI.I PD.I HI.2 PD.2
Wall sbear 562 559 571 802 580
(kips)
Wall moment . 6,858 6,730 6,991 8,043 5,728
(kip-ft)
Wall axial 724 661 698 1,0;35 859
compression
(kips)
Base shear 1,124 1,118 1,142 1,787 1,331
(kips)
Foundation 1,561 1,367 1,449 2,507 2,048
axial force
(kips)
Lateral roof 0021 0020 0023 0066 0-48
displacement
(in)
Downward 0011 0-09
displacement
(in) (2)
Upward 0006 0-07
displacement
(in) (2/

(1) Constant spcclral acceleration at 0-99.

(2) At extemal column line; includes static: settlement of about 0-03 in.

Table 7. Nonlinear Response: comparative Results

Response HI.3 PD.3 HI.4 PD.4 HI.5 PD.5 HI.6 PD_6 HI.8 PD.8 HI.7 HL9
Wall shear (kips) 481 367 469 354 507 370 481 337 455 358 518 407
Wall moment (kip-ft) 4,754 3,499 4,795 3,692 4,997 3,583 4,830 3,264 4,574 3,833 5,156 4,0.12
Wall axial 901 SOO 890 748 898 712 940 644 944 611 944 1,004
compression (kips)
Base shear (kips) 1,223 839 1,245 828 1,195 842 1,157 750 1,068 875 1,313 1.139
Foundation axial 1.911 1,591 1,948 1,573 2,018 1,525 1,985 1,428 2,047 1,462 2,039 2,112
force (I) (kips)
Lateral roof 0095 0-46 HlI 0047 _ 0079 0046 1-00 0-46 1'33 0071 1·07 1-24
deBection (in)
Downward displace- 0016 0-12 0016 0012 0018 0011 0023 0013 0-42 0025 0·19 0-.$4
ment (2) (in)
Uplift (2) (in) 0040 0-10 0042 0011 0-27 0-09 0034 O{)S 0-50 0015 0·45 0-46

(1) Upper bound.

(2) At external column line; includes static settlement of abouI 0,03 in.

F·78 Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects App

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table 8. Nonlinear Response: ComparatIve Results (contInued)

.HI.3 PD.3 HI.10 HI.1I HI.12 PD.12 -H1.13 PD.13
Wall shear (kips) 481 367 525 539 371 410 458 359
Wall moment 4,754 3,499 5,298 6,364 3,605 4,012 4,617 3,525
(kip·rt)
Wall axial 901 800 864 1,611 685 785 925 806
compression (kips)
Base shear (kips) 1,223 839 1,297 1,536 887 976 1,134 821
Foundation axial 1,911 1,591 1,907 3,158 1,570 1,761 1,927 1,618
rorce (1) (kips)
Lateral roor 095 0·46 0·94 2-29 0-48 0'65 0·84 0-44
deftection (in)
Downward displace- 016 0-12 0-16 0'31 0'12 0'15 015 012
ment (2) (in)
Uplift (2) (in) 040 010 035 1-21 011 023 031 010

(I) Upper bound.

(2) At eXlernat column lin~ includes slatic scnlement or about 0-03 in.

" ••
,0 @l
20
@
2,
@
22
@ 21
(Bl
@ @ @ ~
., e
@
@
@
IIT® @
32
19 '\.. CO&.U"'''' JoIU"I[It e
3S 34
'''liST FLOO" ONL.Y @ I!§I
'0
'\..I:OLU ... '" "u"'SEA

11.9 • CJ 0 0 0
U

:l 0
407
~

..;
<
~
~
WlE .... ,",U"SEIt
@
~
.042
"'" ~
,004
1
0 n 0 0
cgJD
,139
~112

'24
.@
0
•• ® 11 @ X S
@ "
Iii!
••
@
®
'0
®
so ® ••
••
@ ID
@
®31 @ .0
®
$I

0lC>~
2 111,2

'@@ @@@@
IS
41
,. I~ @

"
@
. @
2•
@@
. ®@
®
®
52

V· ®
@

~
<:;;>
•• ••
Figure 1. TypIcal Floor Level and Plan oF Assumed Framing System

!ets Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·79

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

fl
11 -for. -A-
0 0 0 D0 DO 0
- 0 0 0 D0 DO 0
- 0 0 0 D0 DO 0
0 0 0 D0 00 0
WALL A wALL 8 WALL e

Figure 2. Slmplllled COupled Shear Wall Model

! e
1
mill I -IOks!
l--~-rw

IFillAREA IN CONTACT
WITH SOIL
SECTION A- A

Figure S. Equilibrium at Incipient overturning, static AnalysIs

F-8D Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects App

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

.. o---,c
II.~ !.2~ ~.';J.ll 9.2~ u "-
C4- -..:o'lsbl C6 C4
I-
'"
"q
I C3

0-'"
C3 C6 C6 zero dlstonce
S:2
C, ! CO C.
"q

: -'"
C6
r,t:: sir
,
'-HUNG" 'STRUCTURE DETAIL
C' C' I C5 C/ "q

sir ?' '"

......... &, I ,-:U.J&,
2 DETAIL 2

Figure 4. schematic Representation of Nonlinear Model

z
o
u;
...z
~
8

SPRING I

z
0
u;
...
Z
~
8 (0)

SPRING 2

i
a
(b)

I.S
II.O,O.S)
z
0
u;
...
Z
~
a

COMBINED ACTION

Figure 5. fal TrIlinear Soli Behavior Modelled WIth TWO parallel BilInear SprIngs; fbI BilInear BehavIor Of
Horizontal Soli Spring

fects Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-B1

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Resource Summary ,&
Veletsos, A.S., Prasad, A.M., and Tang, Y.
Design Approaches for Soil-Structure Interaction
Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Tokyo, August, 1988
In this state-of-the-art report, soil structure
interaction concep~ expressed in terms of
kinematic and inertial interaction are discussed
with reference to a simple linear structure of mass,
m, and height, h, supported ona rigid mat
foundation of mass, mo. at the surface of a
homogeneous elastic half space. The authors note
that seismic response of a structure is frequently
evaluated considering the motion of its base to be
equal to the stipulated free-field ground motion at
a reference or control point, normally taken at the
ground surface. However, an exact analysis
requires that the structure be considered to be part
of a larger system which includes the foundation
and a supporting medium and that spatial
variability of ground motion and properties of soils
need to be considered. For such an analysis a two
step approach is defined. First, the motion of the
foundation is evaluated considering the foundation
and the structure to be massless. The resulting
foundation input motion (FIM) generally includes
torsional and rocking components in addition to
translational components. Next the response to the
FIM of the actual foundation-structure system with
mass is evaluated using actual properties of a
supporting medium and providing for the dynamic
interaction. The difference in the response of a
superstructure computed for the FIM and the free-
field control point motions represents kinematic
interaction effect. The difference of the responses
computed with and without regard for the
flexibility of the supporting medium is known as
the inertial interaction effect. The total soil-
F-82 Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
b
iJ
iJ
II
s:
n
e'
k
1<
SI
structure interaction is given by the sum of both ri
effects.
For the simplified structure considered, the bi
effects of inertial and kinematic interaction are
examined in the paper. Expressions are given for
increases in the natural period of the structure on a
flexible support system and for the effects of
foundation damping, including radiation damping
arising from foundation interaction. To address the
question as to whether soil-structure interaction
increases or decreases the maximum response of
the structure, a number of cases are considered
where it becomes clear that the answer is a
function of the response quantity under
examination and the characteristics of the ground
motion and the system itself. Kinematic interaction
effects are discussed including the effects of wave
passage and ground motion incoherence. The
relative importance of kinematic and inertial
interaction is examined using response spectra
plots, such as those shown in Figure I, where the
ratios of pseudo spectral velocity divided by peak
ground acceleration are shown as a function of the
natural frequency of the structure.
Because the presented material and analysis
results assume a simplified idealized building and
a rigid mat foundation system resting on a semi-
infinite elastic medium, it is difficult to draw
specific quantitative conclusions regarding the
significance if kinematic and internal interaction
effects for actual building structures, where more
complex foundation systems also involve nonlinear
or inelastic soil response to earthquake ground
motions. However, it is clear that for many
Ap
 9

- SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

-
building systems, the effects of kinematic
interaction are small in relation to inertial
interaction effects and that inertial interaction has
the greatest influence on the response of structural
systems in the medium and high frequency spectral
regions. The authors note that inertial interaction
effects are generally more important than that of
kinematic interaction and the interaction effects for
low frequency highly compliant structures are
negligible because such systems "see" the
supporting half space as a very stiff effectively
rigid medium.
The above research and conclusions form the
. basis for existing NEHRP Guidelines (for the
)r
seismic design of buildings) on the effects of soil-
structure interaction. However, the authors note
the limitation of these studies and the approach
used, and that additional research is needed to
evaluate the behavior of structures for embedded
foundation and pile foundation systems.
Additionally interaction effects for structures
responding in a nonlinear range of deformation are
recommended. Clearly, the behavior of individual
foundation elements supporting column loads
under earthquake loading and nonlinear response
can be major factors in determining structural
loads, and more research in these areas is needed
to formulate improved guidelines.

lOa

19
the

ld
tion
lye

5 2.--------------------;
he v,
ak x.
~

the v,
1;,
---No 551 0.1
·_·····Klonly
nd
0.1 --Total 551
i-
0.05 "
0.1 10 30 I 10 30
, f •• CPS fa' cps
n
Ire Figure 1_ Response Spectra For Interacting structures with nlR = 2; ObliquelY Incident EI Centro Record, sin
lear a=0_4, 1:=0_05 sec.

ects Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·BS

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

f
Resource Summary 17 d

o
a
Wallace, J.W., Moehle, J.P., and Martinez-Cruzado, J. \1
Implications for the Design of Shear Wall Buildings Using Data t~
from Recent Earthquakes
Proceedings of Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Palm Springs, CA, May 1990

This paper presents the results of a study of
the measured response and observed seismic
performance of reinforced concrete load bearing
shear wall buildings during past earthquakes.
First, the response of two 10-story concrete shear
wall buildings in California during earthquakes
was analyzed. Both buildings were designed and
built in early 1970s. Figure 1 shows the plan
configurations of the two buildings. Both buildings
have been instrumented with strong motion
instruments by the California Strong Motion
Instrumentation Program. Because of the
symmetry of the first building, a 2-dimensional
computer using SAP-90 computer model was
developed; whereas, a three dimensional model of
the second building was developed using ETABS
computer program. The first building, located in
northern California, was analyzed for the motions
recorded during the 1984 Morgan Hill (Ms = 6.2)
earthquake. The second building, located in
southern California was analyzed for the motions
recorded during the 1987 Whittier (Ms = 5.9)
earthquake.
It was observed that when soil flexibility and
the effect of initial concrete cracking were ignored
in the analysis, the periods of vibration obtained
from the computer model were smaller than those
measured from recorded response. The correlation
between the measured and computed time-history
response was also poor, Figure 2. Therefore, the
computer model was modified to incorporate these
effects. Foundation flexibility was modeled using
the relatively simple soil springs approach outlined
in the ATC-3-06 document. As shown in Figure 3,
good correlation between the recorded motions and
the time-history analyses results was observed
when the effects of foundation flexibility and z
cracked section properties were included.
Comparison were then made with the response
of shear wall buildings during the March 1985
Chilean earthquake (Ms = 7.8) which had a peak
acceleration of 0.36 g and duration of strong
shaking of more than 60 seconds. Even though the
Chilean buildings are designed to similar force
levels as California, their ductile detailing and
quality control requirements are quite lax by US
standards. However, these buildings have
performed remarkably well during past
earthquakes.
To understand the reasons for this good
performance, displacement ductility demand
spectra were developed from 5 percent damped
elastic spectra using the method recommended by
Newmark and Hall. These are shown in Figure 4.
The calculated base shear strengths and the periods
measured from ambient vibrations were then
plotted in this figure. It was observed that these
data points correspond to a ductility demand of
about 3 which corresponds to appreciable local
damage. However, when the building strength was
plotted as a function of the building period
considering soil flexibility, it was noted that
several buildings fell on or above the elastic
spectra and the largest ductility demand was 2. It
was, therefore, concluded that foundation

F-B4 APpendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects All

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

flexibility was one of the reasons for the reduced
displacement ductility demands in these buildings.
The authors also studied the available ductility
of the Chilean shear walls. They found that, the
available curvature ductility of lightly reinforced
walls was about 10 to 12 and was greater than the
typical ductility demand of about 3 to 5.
Therefore, it was concluded that for rectangular,
symmetrically reinforced walls, concrete
confinement in transverse reinforcement is not
necessary for good seismic performance and that
the US bearing wall buildings should also perform
well during a major earthquake.

3,
...... .,.. 1---------,. ,..... ---------ol
nd

se

(&) Building 1 - Floorl 2·5

· iii LIJ-+' -t-' ~

y
t
Jds

l·'r l 1.1£'" • -=tv.

las (b) Building 2 - Floors 2·10

[t
Figure 1. Building Plans

!ctl
Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·BS
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

i 1.0

;. , 0.0 ...I_--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i .
1u1l4f"'9 1
CIIoMoiI 7-Roof !AWl (NS)
-1.04---~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--__~--~~
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
i '.0 - llEASURED
• - - - COWM'ED

I 0.0 -+---~~~~~'.lJMoI,A.I.+J.l....p..;.l,~~_.......... ""toOo.._a__'

.i
Build"', 2
lloof UveI (EW)
-1.04-----~----~--~----~----~----~----~--~
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
TIME (SEC)

FIgure 2. Measured and Computed RDDI Dlsplacement-cross,sectlon Model

~ 1.0 - IoIWUIIED
• - - - COWPIITED

~.... 0.0 -l---"""'AA-A-AN~\.A+\A-I+A-AA~~~p,..j:~tH.w:\-JloL\-H,II:H~+\'f1A1WIn

~III Buildin9 1
CIlO.....1 7-Roofl..VlI (NS)
is - 1.0 ~-....--....--....--...---....--..--..---..---..---,....,-....,....--l
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 ~o.o

- IoIEASURED
• - - - COIolPUTtD

20.0

FIgure 6. Measure and Computed RooF Dlsplacement-Cracked·Sectlon and SSI Model

F·8a Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

0.75 T-;:;;;;:;;::=:=:---==:::-=-::~~;----I
lastic - Vino del Mar - S20W
o Measured Periods
o Computed PeriodS - Flexible Bo~e

1 Plaza del Mar

2 Acapulco
J Festival
4 Miramar
5 Torres del Sol
6 EI Foro
7 Almendral
6 Villa Real

0.00
0.75
l-....---,.-....,....-:-::::=:;~~~~~~~;;~
-r----------=::--:-:-:::'--:----------,
- ATC Soil Type 2
Elastic
o Fixed Base
o Flexible Bose
• California Buildings
~ 1 Plaza del Mar
!0.50 2 - Acapulco
J restival
4 Miramar
ai 5 Torres del Sol
Lo.I
VI
6 EI Foro
7 - Almendral
~ 0.25 8 - Villa Real
rn

o.oo+-~....---,.-....,....-~-...._~--~-~-....---,.-....,....~
0.00 1.00 2.00 J.OO
PERIOD (SEC)

Figure 4. Comparison oF Ductility Demands

as Appendix F. Supplemental Information an Faundation Effects F-87

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Resource Summary 18
Yim, S. C-S and Chopra, A. K.
Simplified Earthquake Analysis of Multistory Structures with Foundation
Uplift
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 111, No. 12, December 1985. pp. 2708-2731
This investigation is an extension of the
approach for the analysis of single degree of
freedom systems (Chopra and Yim) to the analysis
of IlUIltistory structures with foundation flexibility
and uplift.
Figure 1 shows the system considered in this
investigation. Although, the foundation soil can be
represented by the two spring -dashpot model or the
distributed Winkler spring and dashpot mode, only
the results of analyses with two spring and dashpot
system were presented in this paper. Equations of
motions were developed for this multistory
structure foundation system. It was noted that
although the governing equations of motions were
nonlinear, the dynamic response of the system
under consideration could be obtained as sequential
response of three linear systems corresponding to
three contact conditions for the foundation mat.
The time history response of an idealized 10-
story structure was analyzed for the north-south
component of the 1940 EI Centro earthquake. The
idealized structure had uniform stiffness, mass, and
inter-story height. The damping was 5 percent in all
modes of vibration and the slenderness ratio for the
first mode of vibration was 10. The base shear and
overturning moment spectra obtained from this
analysis are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The
beneficial effect of allowing uplift were observed in
terms of lowered base shear and overturning
moments for periods of vibration less than about 1
sec.
The authors also observed that foundation
flexibility and uplift have little impact on the higher
F-88 Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
modes of response. Therefore, they concluded that
the analysis of a multistory building with
foundation flexibility and uplift can be simplified
by calculating only the fundamental mode of
response considering these effects; the contribution
from higher modes can be computed using
standard procedures by disregarding the effects of
foundation flexibility and uplift. Excellent
correlation between the exact solutions and the
solutions obtained using this approach was
observed, see Figure 4.
A simplified approach for estimating the
response of uplifting multistory structures was
then presented. In this approach, the maximum
earthquake base shear for the system is obtained as
the SRSS of the modal maxima of individual
modes of vibrations. An approximate expression
for the maximum base shear in the first mode of
vibration considering foundation flexibility and
uplift was developed. This equation is analogous to
the one developed for the single degree of freedom
systems and does not require time history
analyses. The modal maxima for the other mod~s
of vibration are obtained using the standard
procedures for the structure on rigid foundation
without uplift. The base shear response spectra
using this simplified approach as presented in
Figure 5 show reasonable degree of accuracy.
Therefore, the simplified approach can be used for
practical design or for performing parametric
studies on the influence of foundation flexibility
and uplift on response of multistory structures.
A
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUlLo::IIGS

...
1
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
r
1 I
I I
I I
I.,. ",
at
1,/
1=11
II F=:::::-':=::::::d
II "
on

,f
"
• -ilt

Figure 1. Multistory structure supported on Two Spring-Damper Element Foundation

as

to
,m

or

:ts Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F-8.

 SE~::r;",IC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

. ...\......
I
o.a ~

0.1
..,', ,

CIA \
•
" .
~

~ •~

..
0.2
'),.0

Z
-
III
u
0.1
0.08
ClIITlCAL lASE SHEAI!
CQUI'ICIENT V.
t O.Ge
8
II: 0.04
C
.,
III
%
0.02
III
~
CD
0.01
0.008
0.001
-·· ..-ItIOlD SUHO«TJJeG .,n'''. ""-In "lIIrvlNTlD
QOO4 "-U'I"E S~ItTING ITSTtM
- .....'.C.T6C'I'.U.... ''' ... h'.TlD
- ____ DIDe.'..cT." ....I" .'''''''D
0.002

0.1 0.2 O.~ 0.eO.8 I 2 4 6 8 10 20

FUNDAMENTAL VIBRATION PERIOD TI ' SEC.

FI
FIgure 2. Base Shear Response spectra for MultIstory structures Subjected to EI centro Ground MotIon for
Three SupportIng CondItIons

F·80 Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects AI

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

2r----------------------------------,
I
0.1
• 0.1
Z 0.4
~.

iu 0.2

it11.1
o
U
0.1
0.08
~-----------=~~::~::~==~~~~~~'T~~~A~L~.~A~S~E~~~
OIIERTUMING _ENT
\ CO£FFICIEIIT MC
.... \
~ 0.06 \,
I
CIJ
0.04 \,,
,
~,
z ""
~ 0.02 ...
i
t
~ ODI
\

00.001
=Co.ooa
~ ..............0 ",'IIOtIITINQ STIlIM, Ufl\.1'T . .IY'NTE.D
0.004 nIJUI"" ~TING snTIM
- IC*OID CowrAC', UP",,, "1'41""0
- u.a.DIDCOtI'..CT.~I"pl_I"U

0.002

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.60.' I 2 4 I I 10 20

•
FUNDAMENTAL. VIBRATION PERIOD T, • SEC.

Figure $. Base Overturning Moment Response Spectra for Multistory structures Subjected to EI centro Cround
·r MotIon for Three support conditions

AppenCllx F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects F·91

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

2~--------------------------~----~

I
o.a
o.
~
..
....
:::..
E. 0.2

z
-it
'"
U
0.1
O.oa
CRITICAL lASE SHEAR
COUFICIENT 1',

Q.06
~
II: CI.O.f
C
'"en:I:
o.oz
'":l
III
0.01
0.001 _ D CCIIT&CT.IW\.I'T ,.,ytNTED
0.001 I - IlAe, lO,-ut,aM
I ___ ....... I. .".~UtlO.
0.004 UOO_DlD CDIIT&CT.UPL"r PPII'TT'D
I - ,lAC' "''''"w
.. - - - - . . . . . . 111&" IOUllIO.

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.60.8 I 2 4 6 8 10 20

FUNDAMENTAL VIBRATION PERIOD TI • SEC.

Figure 4. comparison Of Base Shear Response spectra computed by Exact and Approximate Analysis
procedures lor Multistory Buildings

F·92 Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

2~-----------------------------------'

I
0.8
0 .•

0.4
.
a
E 0.2
-:,.0
...
Z CRITICAL USE SHEAII
w 0.1
C3 CO£FFICIENT V.
0.08
ifw 0.06
8
a: 0.04
c
w
%
(II
w
(II
0.02
c
III
0.01
0.008
IONO!D co.. rACT. UP,",' r PREVENTED
0.006 I - 'UCT SOWTIO.,
2 --- 'JIOII'~I'IIDMOO"&. ..... I.'"I'.oelOU".
0.004 UNIONOED CONTACT .UPLIFT '1"M.TT£D
S - cueT SOLUTIO ..
• - - - - "",I*,,-I"'D MOOM. ..... 1.'111 P'ftOC&DUItI
0.002

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.60.8 I 2 4 6 8 10 20

FUNDAMENTAL VIBRATION PERIOD TI • SEC.

Figure S. Comparison oF Base Shear Response Spectra compUted by EXact and Simplified Modal Analysis
procedures for Multistory Buildings

:ts Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects

 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
AppendixG
Applied Technology Council
proJects and Report
Information
One of the primary purposes of Applied Technology
Council is to develop resource documents that
translate and summarize useful infonnation to
practicing engineers. This includes the development
of guidelines and manuals, as well as the
development of research recommendations for
specific areas determined by the profession. ATC is
not a code development organization, although
several of the ATC project reports serve as resource
documents for the development of codes, standards
and specifications.
Applied Technology Council conducts projects that
meet the following criteria:
1. The primary audience or benefactor is the design
practitioner in structural engineering.
2. A cross section or consensus of engineering
opinion is required to be obtained and presented
by a neutral source.
3. The project fosters the advancement of
structural engineering practice.
A brief description of several major completed
projects and reports is given in the following
section. Funding for projects is obtained from
government agencies and tax-deductible
contributions from the private sector.
ATC-I: This project resulted in five papers that
were published as part of Building Practices for
Appendix C, APplied Technology Council projects and Report Information
Disaster Mitigation, Building Science Series 46,
proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Available
through the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA
22151, as NTIS report No. COM-73-50188.
ATC-2: The report, An Evaluation of a Response
Spectrum Approach to Seismic Design of Buildings,
was funded by NSF and NBS and was conducted as
part of the Cooperative Federal Program in Building
Practices for Disaster Mitigation. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1974,270 Pages)
ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the
applicability and cost of the response spectrum
approach to seismic analysis and design that
was proposed by various segments of the
engineering profession. Specific building
designs, design procedures and parameter
values were evaluated for future application.
Eleven existing buildings of varying dimensions
were redesigned according to the procedures.
A TC-3: The report, Tentative Provisions for the
Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings
(ATC-3-06), was funded by NSF and NBS. The
second printing of this report, which includes
proposed amendments, is available through the ATC
office. (Published 1978, amended 1982, 505 pages
plus proposed amendments)
G-1
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
ABSTRACT: The tentative provisions in this
document represent the results of a concerted
effort by a multi-disciplinary team of 85
nationally recognized experts in earthquake
engineering. The provisions serve as the basis
for the seismic provisions of the 1988 Uniform
Building Code and the 1988 and subsequent
issues of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions
for the Development of Seismic Regulation for
New Buildings. The second printing of this
document contains proposed amendments
prepared by a joint committee of the Building
Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) and the NBS.
ATC-3-2: The project, Comparative Test Designs
of Buildings Using ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions,
was funded by NSF. The project consisted of a
study to develop and plan a program for making
comparative test designs of the ATC-3-06 Tentative
Provisions. The project report was written to be
used by the Building Seismic Safety Council in its
refinement of the ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions.
ATC-3-4: The report, Redesign of Three Multistory
Buildings: A Comparison Using ATC-3-06 and
1982 Uniform Building Code Design Provisions,
was published under a grant from NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1984, 112
pages)
ABSTRACT: This report evaluates the cost and
technical impact of using the 1978 ATC-3-06
report, Tentative Provisions for the Development
of Seismic Regulationsfor Buildings, as
amended by a joint committee of the Building
Seismic Safety Council and the National Bureau
of Standards in 1982. The evaluations are based
on studies of three existing California buildings
redesigned in accordance with the ATC-3-06
Tentative Provisions and the 1982 Uniform
Building Code. Included in the report are
recommendations to code implementing bodies.
ATC-3-5: This project, Assistance for First Phase
of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being
Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council,
was funded by the Building Seismic Safety Council
G·2 Appendix C, Applied Technology Council projects and Report Information
to provide the services of the ATC Senior
Consultant and other ATC personnel to assist the
BSSC in the conduct of the first phase of its Trial
Design Program. The first phase provided for trial
designs conducted for buildings in Los Angeles,
Seattle, Phoenix, and Memphis.
A TC-3-6: This project, Assistance for Second
Phase of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being
Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council,
was funded by the Building Seismic Safety Council
to provide the services of"the ATC Senior
Consultant and other ATC personnel to assist the
BSSC in the conduct of the second phase of its Trial J
Design Program. The second phase provided for ,
trial designs conducted for buildings in New York, 1
Chicago, St. Louis, Charleston, and Fort Worth. c
c
ATC-4: The report, A Methodology for Seismic
Design and Construction of Single-Family
Dwellings, was published under a contract with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1976,576 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report presents the results of
an in-depth effort to develop design and
construction details for single-family residences
that minimize the potential economic loss and
life-loss risk associated with earthquakes. The
report: (1) discusses the ways structures behave
when subjected to seismic forces, (2) sets forth
suggested design criteria for conventional A
layouts of dwellings constructed with }j
conventional materials, (3) presents construction w
details that do not require the designer to A
perform analytical calculations, (4) suggests 2
procedures for efficient plan-checking, and (5)
presents recommendations including details and
schedules for use in the field by construction
personnel and building inspectors.
ATC-4-1: The report, The Home Builders Guide
for Earthquake Design, was published under a
contract with HUD. Available through the ATe
office. (Published 1980, 57 pages)
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
ABS1RACT: This report is a 57-page abridged
version of the ATC-4 report. The concise,
easily understood text of the Guide is
supplemented with illustrations and 46
construction details. The details are provided to
ensure that houses contain structural features
that are properly positioned, dimensioned and
constructed to resist earthquake forces. A brief
description is included on how earthquake
I, forces impact on houses and some precautionary
il constraints are given with respect to site
selection and architectural designs.
al A TC·5: The report, Guidelines for Seismic Design
and Construction of Single-Story Masonry
Dwellings in Seismic Zone 2, was developed under a
contract with HUD. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1986,38 pages)
ABS1RACT: The report offers a concise
methodology for the earthquake design and
construction of single-story masonry dwellings
in Seismic Zone 2 of the United States, as
defined by the 1973 Uniform Building Code.
The Guidelines are based in part on shaking
table tests of masonry construction conducted at
the University of California at Berkeley
:s Earthquake Engineering Research Center. The
report is written in simple language and includes
basic house plans, wall evaluations, detail
drawings, and material specifications.
A TC·6: The report, Seismic Design Guidelines for
Highway Bridges, was published under a contract
with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
m procedure, methods for evaluating an existing
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1981,
210 pages)
ABS1RACT: The Guidelines are the
d requirements for various retrofitting measures.
recommendations of a team of sixteen nationally
recognized experts that included consulting
engineers, academics, state and federal agency
representatives from throughout the United
States. The Guidelines embody several new
concepts that were significant departures from
then existing design provisions. Included in the
Guidelines are an extensive commentary, an
n Appendix G, Applied Technology Council proJects and Report Information
example demonstrating the use of the
Guidelines, and summary reports on 21 bridges
redesigned in accordance with the Guidelines.
The guidelines have been adopted by the
American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials as a guide
specification.
ATC·6·1: The report, Proceedings of a Workshop
on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges, was
published under a grant from NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1979,625
pages)
ABS1RACT: The report includes 23 state-of-the-
art and state-of-practice papers on earthquake
resistance of highway bridges. Seven of the
twenty-three papers were authored by
participants from Japan, New Zealand and
Portugal. The Proceedings also contain
recommendations for future research that were
developed by the 45 workshop participants.
A TC·6·2: The report, Seismic Retrofitting
Guidelines for Highway Bridges, was published
under a contract with FHWA. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1983,220 pages)
ABS1RACT: The Guidelines are the
recommendations of a team of thirteen
nationally recognized experts that included
consulting engineers, academics, state highway
engineers, and federal agency representatives.
The Guidelines, applicable for use in all parts of
the U.S., include a preliminary screening
bridge in detail, and potential retrofitting
measures for the most common seismic
deficiencies. Also included are special design
ATC·7: The report, Guidelines for the Design of
Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, was published under
a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1981, 190 pages)
ABS1RACT: Guidelines are presented for
designing roof and floor systems so these can
GoJ
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
function as horizontal diaphragms in a lateral
. force resisting system. Analytical procedures,
connection details and design examples are
included in the Guidelines.
ATC-7-1: The report, Proceedings of a Workslwp
of Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, was
published under a grant from NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1980, 302
pages)
ABSTRACT: The report includes seven papers on
state-of-the-practice and two papers on recent
research. Also included are recommendations
for future research that were developed by the
35 workshop participants.
ATC-8: This report, Proceedings of a Workshop on
the Design of Prefabricated Concrete Buildings for
Earthquake Loads, was funded by NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1981, 400
pages)
ABSTRACT: The report includes eighteen state-
of-the-art papers and six summary papers. Also
included are recommendations for future
research that were developed by the 43
workshop partiCipants.
ATC-9: The report, An Evaluation of the Imperial
County Services Building Earthquake Response and
Associated Damage, was published under a grant
from NSF. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1984, 231 pages)
ABSTRACT: The report presents the results of an
in-depth evaluation of the Imperial County
Services Building, a 6-story reinforced concrete
frame and shear wall building severely damaged
by the October 15, 1979 Imperial Valley,
California, earthquake. The report contains a
review and evaluation of earthquake damage to
the building; a review and evaluation of the
seismic design; a comparison of the
requirements of various building codes as they
relate to the building; and conclusions and
recommendations pertaining to future building
code provisions and future research needs.
G-4 Appendix C, Applied Technology Council projects and Report Information
ATC-IO: This report, An Investigation of the
Correlation Between Earthquake Ground Motion
and Building Peiformonce, was funded by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1982, 114 pages)
ABSTRACT: The report contains an in-depth
analytical evaluation of the ultimate or limit
capacity of selected representative building A
framing types, a discussion of the factors a
affecting the seismic performance of buildings, /;
and a summary and comparison of seismic l'
design and seismic risk parameters currently in 1
widespread use.
ATC-IO-I: This report, Critical Aspects of
Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Damage
Potential, was co-funded by the USGS and the NSF.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1984,
259 pages)
ABSTRACT: This document contains 19 state-
of-the-art papers on ground motion, structural
response, and structural design issues presented A
by prominent engineers and earth scientists in J,
an ATC seminar. The main theme of the papers R
is to identify the critical aspects of ground u
motion and building performance that currently A
are not being considered in building design.
The report also contains conclusions and
recommendations of working groups convened
after the Seminar.
ATC-ll: The report, Seismic Resistance of
Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Frame Joints:
Implications of Recent Research for Design
Engineers, was published under a grant from NSF.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1983,
184 pages)
ABSTRACT: This document presents the results
of an in-depth review and synthesis of research
reports pertaining to cyclic loading of reinforced
concrete shear walls and cyclic loading of joint
reinforced concrete frames. More than 125
research reports published since 1971 are
reviewed and evaluated in this report. The
A
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
preparation of the report included a consensus
process involving numerous experienced design
professionals from throughout the United States.
The report contains reviews of current and past
design practices, summaries of research
developments, and in-depth discussions of
design implications of recent research results.
A TC-12: This report, Comparison of United States
and New Zealand Seismic Design Practices for
Highway Bridges, was published under a grant from
NSF. Available through the ATC office. (Published
1982,270 pages)
ABSTRACT: The report contains summaries of
all aspects and innovative design procedures
used in New Zealand as well as comparison of
F. United States and New Zealand design practice.
~, Also included are research recommendations
developed at a 3-day workshop in New Zealand
attended by 16 U.S. and 35 New Zealand bridge
design engineers and researchers.
d ATC-12-1: This report, Proceedings of Second
Joint U.S.-New Zealand Workshop on Seismic
rs Resistance of Highway Bridges, was published
under a grant from NSF. Available through the
y ATC office. (Published 1986,272 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report contains written
versions of the papers presented at this 1985
i
Workshop as well as a list and prioritization of
workshop recommendations. Included are
summaries of research projects being coriducted
ts: in both countries as well as state-of-the-practice
papers on various aspects of design practice.
Topics discussed include bridge design
3, philosophy and loadings; design of columns,
footings, piles, abutments and retaining
structures; geotechnical aspects of foundation
ts
design; seismic analysis techniques; seismic
h technical papers describing design practices in
retrofitting; case studies using base isolation;
:ed
strong-motion data acquisition and
1t
interpretation; and testing of bridge components
and bridge systems.
on I Appendix G, APplied Technology Council projects and Report Information
ATC-13: The report, Eanhquake Damage
Evaluation Datafor California, was developed
under a contract with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1985,492 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report presents expert-opinion
earthquake damage and loss estimates for
industrial, commercial, residential, utility and
transportation facilities in California. Included
are damage probability matrices for 78 classes
of structures and estimates of time required to
restore damaged facilities to pre-earthquake
usability. The report also describes the
inventory information essential for estimating
economic losses and the methodology used to
develop loss estimates on a regional basis.
ATC-14: The report, Evaluating the Seismic
Resistance of Existing Buildings, was developed
under a grant from the NSF. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1987, 370 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report, written for practicing
structural engineers, describes a methodology
for performing preliminary and detailed
building seismic evaluations. The report
contains a state-of-practice review; seismic
loading criteria; data collection procedures; a
detailed description of the building
classification system; preliminary and detailed
analysis procedures; and example case studies,
including nonstructural considerations.
ATC-IS: The report, Comparison of Seismic
Design Practices in the United States and Japan,
was published under a grant from NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1984, 317
pages)
ABSTRACT: The report contains detailed
the United States and Japan as well as
recommendations emanating from a joint U.S.-
Japan workshop held in Hawaii in March, 1984.
Included are detailed descriptions of new
seismic design methods for buildings in Japan
c-s
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
and case studies of the design of specific
buildings (in both countries). The report also
contains an overview of the history and
objectives of the Japan Structural Consultants
Association.
ATC·15·1: The report, Proceedings of Second U.S.-
Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building
Seismic Design and Construction Practices, was
published under a grant from NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1987,412
pages)
ABS1RACT: This report contains 23 technical
papers presented at this San Francisco workshop
in August, 1986, by practitioners and
researchers from the U.S. and Japan. Included
are state-of-the-practice papers and case studies
of actual building designs and information on
regulatory, contractual, and licensing issues.
ATC·lS·2: The report, Proceedings of Third U.S.-
Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building
Structural Design and Construction Practices, was
published jointly by ATC and the Japan Structural
Consultants Association. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1989,358 pages)
ABS1RACT: This report contains 21 technical
papers presented at this Tokyo, Japan, workshop
in July, 1988, by practitioners and researchers
from the U.S., Japan, China, and New Zealand.
Included are state-of-the-practice papers on
various topics, including braced steel frame
buildings, beam-column joints in reinforced
concrete buildings, summaries of comparative
U. S. and Japanese design, and base isolation
and passive energy dissipation devices.
ATC·lS·3: The report, Proceedings of Fourth U.S.-
Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building
Structural Design and Construction Practices, was
published jointly by ATC and the Japan Structural
Consultants Association. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1992,484 pages)
ABS1RACT: This report contains 22 technical
papers presented at this Kailua-Kona, Hawaii,
G-G Appendix C, Applied Technology Council ProJects and Report Information
workshop in August, 1990, by practitioners and
researchers from the United States, Japan, and
Peru. Included are papers on postearthquake
building damage assessment; acceptable earth-
quake damage; repair and retrofit of earthquake
damaged buildings; base-isolated buildings,
including Architectural Institute of Japan
recommendations for design; active damping
systems; wind-resistant design; and summaries
of working group conclusions and
recommendations.
ATC·15·4: The report, Proceedings of Fifth U.S.-
Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building
Structural Design and Construction Practices, was
published jointly by ATC and the Japan Structural
Consultants Association. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1994, 360 pages)
ABs1RACT: This report contains 20
technical papers presented at this San Diego,
California workshop in September, 1992.
Included are papers on performance
goals/acceptable damage in seismic design;
seismic design procedures and case studies;
o
construction influences on design; seismic
a
isolation and passive energy dissipation; design
fi
of irregular structures; seismic evaluation, repair
(I
and upgrading; quality control for design and
construction; and summaries of working group
discussions and recommendations.
ATC·16: This project, Development of a 5-Year
Plan for Reducing the Earthquake Hazards Posed by
Existing Nonfederal Buildings, was funded by
FEMA and was conducted by a joint venture of
ATC, the Building Seismic Safety Council and the
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. The
project involved a workshop in Phoenix, Arizona, A
where approximately 50 earthquake specialists met M
to identify the major tasks and goals for reducing N
the earthquake hazards posed by existing nonfederal (I
buildings nationwide. The plan was developed on
the basis of nine issue papers presented at the
workshop and workshop working group discussions.
The Workshop Proceedings and Five-Year Plan are
available through the Federal Emergency
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
,d Management Agency, 500 "C" Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20472.
ATC-17: This report, Proceedings ofa Seminar
and Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive
:e Energy Dissipation, was published under a grant
from NSF. Available through the ATe office.
(Published 1986,478 pages)
s ABSTRACT: The report contains 42 papers
describing the state-of-the-art and state-of-the-
practice in base-isolation and passive energy-
dissipation technology. Included are papers
describing case studies in the United States,
applications and developments worldwide,
.s
recent innovations in technology development,
I
and structural and ground motion issues. Also
included is a proposed 5-year research agenda
that addresses the following specific issues: (1)
strong ground motion; (2) design criteria; (3)
materials, quality control, and long-term
reliability; (4) life cycle cost methodology; and
(5) system response.
ATC-17-1: This report, Proceedings ofa Seminar
on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation
and Active Control, was published under a grant
from NSF. Available through the ATe office.
(Published 1993, 841 pages)
p ABSTRACT: The 2-volume report documents 70
technical papers presented during a two-day
seminar in San Francisco in early 1993.
Included are invited theme papers and
by competitively selected papers on issues related
to seismic isolation systems, passive energy
dissipation systems, active control systems and
e hybrid systems.
ATC-19: The report, Structural Response
et Modification Factors was funded by NSF and
NCEER. Available through the ATe office.
:ral (Published 1995,70 pages)
n
ABSTRACT: This report addresses structural
ms. response modification factors (R factors), which
a:e are used to reduce the seismic forces associated
with elastic response to obtain design forces.
Ion Appendix C, Applied Technology council projects and Report Information
The report documents the basis for current R
values, how R factors are used for seismic
design in other countries, a rational means for
decomposing R into key components, a
framework (and methods) for evaluating the key
components of R, and the research necessary to
improve the reliability of engineered
construction designed using R factors.
A TC-20: The report, Procedures for
Postearthquake Safety Evaluation ofBuildings, was
developed under a contract from the Califomia
Office 'of Emergency Services (OES), Califomia
Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (OSHPD) and FEMA. Available
through the ATC office (Published 1989, 152 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report provides procedures
and guidelines for making on-the-spot
evaluations and decisions regarding continued
use and occupancy of earthquake damaged
buildings. Written specifically for volunteer
structural engineers and building inspectors, the
report includes rapid and detailed evaluation
procedures for inspecting buildings and posting
them as "inspected" (apparently safe), "limited
entry" or "unsafe". Also included are special
procedures for evaluation of essential buildings
(e.g., hospitals), and evaluation procedures for
nonstructural elements, and geotechnical
hazards.
ATC-20-1: The report, Field Manual:
Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, was
developed under a contract from OES and OSHPD.
Available through the ATC office (Published 1989,
114 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report, a companion Field
Manual for the ATC-20 report, summarizes the
postearthquake safety evaluation procedures in
brief concise format designed for ease of use in
the field.
ATC-20-2: The report, Addendum to the ATC-20
Postearthquake Building Safety Procedures was
published under a grant from the National Science
G·'
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Foundation and funded by the USGS. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1995.94 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report provides updated
assessment forms. placards. and procedures that
are based on an in-depth review and evaluation
of the widespread application of the ATC-20
procedures following five earthquakes occurring
since the initial release of the ATC-20 report in
1989.
ATC-20-3: The report. Case Studies in Rapid
Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, was
funded by ATC and R. P. Gallagher Associates.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1996,
295 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report contains 53 case studies
using the ATC-20 Rapid Evaluation procedure.
Each case study is illustrated with photos and
describes how a building was inspected and
evaluated for life safety, and includes a
completed safety assessment form and placard.
The report is intended to be used as a training
and reference manual for building officials.
building inspectors, civil and structural
engineers. architects, disaster workers, and
others who may be asked to perform safety
evaluations after an earthquake.
ATC-20-T: The report. Postearthquake Safety
Evaluation of Buildings Training Manual was
developed under a contract with FEMA. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1993. 177
pages; 160 slides)
ABSTRACT: This training manual is intended to
facilitate the presentation of the contents of the
ATC-20 and ATC-20-1. The training materials
consist of 160 slides of photographs. schematic
drawings and textual information and a
companion training presentation narrative
coordinated with the slides. Topics covered
include: posting system; evaluation procedures;
structural basics; wood frame, masonry.
concrete, and steel frame structures;
G-a Appendix C, APplied Technology Council projects and Report Information
nonstructural elements; geotechnical hazards;
hazardous materials; and field safety.
ATC-21: The report. Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A
Handbook. was developed under a contract from
FEMA. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1988. 185 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report describes a rapid visual
screening procedure for identifying those
buildings that might pose serious risk of loss of
life and injury. or of severe curtailment of
community services. in case of a damaging
earthquake. The screening procedure utilizes a
J
methodology based on a "sidewalk survey"
I
approach that involves identification of the
(
primary structural load resisting system and
building materials. and assignment of a basic
structural hazards score and performance
modification factors based on observed building
characteristics. Application of the methodology
identifies those buildings that are potentially
hazardous and should be analyzed in more detail
by a professional engineer experienced in
seismic design.
ATC-21-1: The report. Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: )
Supporting Documentation. was developed under a J.
contract from FEMA. Available through the ATC d
office. (Published 1988. 137 pages) tl
1
ABSTRACT: Included in this report are (1) a
l:
review and evaluation of existing procedures; Jj
(2) a listing of attributes considered ideal for a
rapid visual screening procedures; and (3) a
technical discussion of the recommended rapid
visual screening procedure that is documented
in the ATC-21 report.
ATC-21-2: The report. Earthquake Damaged
Buildings: An Overview of Heavy Debris and
Victim Extrication, was developed under a contract
from FEMA. (Published 1988.95 pages)
ABSTRACT: Included in this report, a
companion volume to the ATC-21 and
AI
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
ATC-21-1 reports, is state-of-the-art information
on (1) the identification of those buildings that
might collapse and trap victims in debris or
generate debris of such a size that its handling
would require special or heavy lifting
equipment; (2) guidance in identifying these
types of buildings, on the basis of their major
exterior features, and (3) the types and life
capacities of equipment required to remove the
al
heavy portion of the debris that might result
from the collapse of such buildings.
ATC-21-T: The report, Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Training
a Manual was developed under a contract with
FEMA. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1996, 135 pages; 120 slides)
ABSTRACT: This training manual is intended to
facilitate the presentation of the contents of the
ATC-21 report. The training materials consist of
120 slides and a companion training
presentation narrative coordinated with the
ail slides. Topics covered include: description of
procedure, building behavior, building types,
building scores, occupancy and falling hazards,
, and implementation.
ATC-22: The report, A Handbookfor Seismic
a Evaluation of Existing Buildings (Preliminary), was
developed under a contract from FEMA. Available
through the ATC office. (Originally published in
1989; revised by BSSC and published as the NEHRP
Handbookfor Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings in 1992, 211 pages)
ABSTRACT: This handbook provides a
i methodology for seismic evaluation of existing
buildings of different types and occupancies in
areas of different seismicity throughout the
United States. The methodology, which has
been field tested in several programs
nationwide, utilizes the information and
:t
procedures developed for and documented in the
ATC-14 report. The handbook includes
checklists, diagrams, and sketches designed to
assist the user.
)n Appendix C, APplied TeChnology council proJects and Report Information
ATC-22-1: The report, Seismic Evaluation of
Existing Buildings: Supporting Documentation,
was developed under a contract from FEMA.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1989,
160 pages)
ABSTRACT: Included in this report, a
companion volume to the ATC-22 report, are
(I) a review and evaluation of existing buildings
seismic evaluation methodologies; (2) results
from field tests of the ATC-14 methodology;
and (3) summaries of evaluations of ATC-14
conducted by the National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (State
University of New York at Buffalo) and the
City of San Francisco.
ATC-23A: The report, General Acute Care
Hospital Earthquake Survivability Inventory for
California, Part A: Survey Description, Summary of
Results, Data Analysis and Interpretation, was
developed under a contract from the Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD), State of California. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1991,58 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report, completed in 1991,
summarizes results from a seismic survey of
490 California acute care hospitals. Included are
a description of the survey procedures and data
collected, a summary of the data, and an
illustrative discussion of data analysis and
interpretation that has been provided to
demonstrate potential applications of the ATC-
23 database.
ATC-23B: The report, General Acute Care
Hospital Earthquake Survivability Inventory for
California, Part B: Raw Data, is a companion
document to the ATC-23A Report and was
developed under the same contract from OSHPD.
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1991,
377 pages)
ABSTRACT: Included in this report, completed
in 1991, are tabulations of raw general site and
G·g
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
building data for 490 acute care hospitals in
California.
ATC·24: The report. Guidelines for Seismic Testing
of Components of Steel Structures. was jointly
funded by the American Iron and Steel Institute
(AIS!). American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC). National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (NCEER). and NSF. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1992. 57 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report. completed in 1992.
provides guidance for most cyclic experiments
on components of steel structures for the
purpose of consistency in experimental
procedures. The report contains
recommendations and companion commentary
pertaining to loading histories. presentation of
test results. and other aspects of
experimentation. The recommendations are
written specifically for experiments with slow
cyclic load application.
ATC·2S: The report. Seismic Vulnerability and
Impact of Disruption of Lifelines in the
Conterminous United States. was developed under a
contract from FEMA. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1991. 440 pages)
ABSTRACT: Documented in this report is a
national overview of lifeline seismic
vulnerability and impact of disruption. Lifelines
considered include electric systems. water
systems. transportation systems. gas and liquid
fuel supply systems. and emergency service
facilities (hospitals. fire and police stations).
Vulnerability estimates and impacts developed
are presented in terms of estimated first
approximation direct damage losses and indirect
economic losses.
ATC·2S·1: The report. A Model Methodology for
Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability and Impact of
Disruption of Water Supply Systems. was developed
under a contract from FEMA. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1992. 147 pages)
G-10 Appendix G. Applied Technology CounCil Projects and Report Information
ABSTRACT: This report contains a practical
methodology for the detailed assessment of
seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption
of water supply systems. The methodology has
been designed for use by water system
operators. Application of the methodology
enables the user to develop estimates of direct
J
damage to system components and the time I
required to restore damaged facilities to pre-
earthquake usability. Suggested measures for 1
mitigation of seismic hazards are also provided. r
A TC·28: The report. Development of 1
Recommended Guidelines for Seismic Strengthening
of Existing Buildings. Phase I: Issues Identification
and Resolution. was developed under a contract
with FEMA. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1992. 150 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report identifies and provides
resolutions for issues that will affect the
development of guidelines for the seismic
strengthening of existing buildings. Issues
addressed include: implementation and format.
coordination with otber efforts. legal and
A
political. social. economic. historic buildings. f
research and technology. seismicity and \1
mapping. engineering philosophy and goals. IJ
issues related to the development of specific f,
provisions. and nonstructural element issues. S
ATC·29: The report. Proceedings of a Seminar and (I
Workshop on Seismic Design and Performance of
Equipment and Nonstructural Elements in Buildings
and Industrial Structures. was developed under a
grant from NCEER and NSF. Available through the
A TC office. (Published 1992. 470 pages)
ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 35
papers describing state-of-the-art technical
information pertaining to the seismic design and
performance of equipment and nonstructural
A
elements in buildings and industrial structures. (
The papers were presented at a seminar in
R
Irvine. California in 1990. Included are papers [
describing current practice. codes and
regulations; earthquake performance; analytical
A
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
and experimental investigations; development of
new seismic qualification methods; and
research, practice, and code development needs
for specific elements and systems. The report
also includes a summary of a proposed 5-year
research agenda for NCEER.
ATC-3D: The report, Proceedings of Workshop for
Utilization ofResearch on Engineering and
Socioeconomic Aspects of 1985 Chile and Mexico
Earthquakes, was developed under a grant from
NSF. Available through the ATC office. (Published
1991,113 pages)
g Caltrans-<iesigned bridges in the 1989 Loma
ABSTRACT: This report documents the fmdings
1
of a 1990 technology transfer workshop in San
Diego, California, co-sponsored by ATC and the
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Included in the report are invited papers and
working group recommendations on
geotechnical issues, structural response issues,
architectural and urban design considerations,
emergency response planning, search and
rescue, and reconstruction policy issues.
ATC-31: The report, Evaluation of the
Peiformance of Seismically Retrofitted Buildings,
was developed under a contract from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST,
formerly NBS) and funded by the U. S. Geological
Survey. Available through the ATC office.
ri (Published 1992, 75 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the results
s from an investigation of the effectiveness of 229
seismically retrofitted buildings, primarily
e unreinforced masonry and concrete tilt-up
buildings. All buildings were located in the
areas affected by the 1987 Whittier Narrows,
California. and 1989 Loma Prieta, California,
i earthquakes.
ATC-32: The report,lmproved Seismic Design
Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional
Recommendations, was funded by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Available
Appendix C, APplied Technology Council !'roJects and Report Information
through the ATC office. (Published 1996,215
pages)
ABSTRACT: This report provides recommended
revisions to the current Caltrans Bridge Design
Specifications (BDS) pertaining to seismic
loading, structural response analysis, and
component design. Special attention is given to
design issues related to reinforced concrete
components, steel components, foundations, and
conventional bearings. The recommendations
are based on recent research in the field of
bridge seismic design and the p.erformance of
Prieta and other recent California earthquakes.
ATC-3S: This report, Enhancing the Transfer of
U.S. Geological Survey Research Results into
Engineering Practice was developed under a
contract with the USGS. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1996, 120 pages)
ABSTRACT: The report provides a program of
recommended "technology transfer" activities
for the USGS; included are recommendations
pertaining to management actions,
communications with practicing engineers, and
research activities to enhance development and
transfer of information that is vital to
engineering practice.
ATC-3S-1: The report, Proceedings of Seminar on
New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion
Estimation and Implications for Engineering Design
Practice, was developed under a cooperative
agreement with USGS. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1994, 478 pages)
ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 22
technical papers describing state-of-the-art
information on regional earthquake risk
(focused on five specific regions-California,
Pacific Northwest. Central United States, and
northeastein North America); new techniques
for estimating strong ground motions as a
function of earthquake source, travel path, and
site parameters; and' new developments
C-'I1

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
specifically applicable to geotechnical
engineering and the seismic design of buildings
and bridges.
ATe-R-1: The report, Cyclic Testing o/Narrow
Plywood Shear Walls, was developed with funding
from the Henry J. Degenkolb Endowment Fund of
the Applied Technology Council. Available through
the ATC office (Published 1995,64 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report documents ATC's first
self-directed research program: a series of static
and dynamic tests of narrow plywood wall
C-'I2 Appendix G, APplied Technology Council projects and Report Information
I
panels having the standard 3.5-to-l height-to-
width ratio and anchored to the sill plate using
typical bolted, 9-inch, 5000-lb. capacity hold-
down devices. The report provides a description
of the testing program and a summary of results,
including comparisons of drift ratios found
during testing with those specified in the
seismic provisions of the 1991 Uniform
Building Code.
AI
 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

ATC BOARD OF DIRECTORS

(1973-Present)
Milton A. Abel (1979-85) John F. Meehan" (1973-78)
James C. Anderson (1978-81) Andrew T. Merovich (1996-99)
Thomas G. Atkinson* (1988-94) David L. Messinger (1980-83)
Albert J. Blaylock (1976-77) Stephen McReavy (1973)
Robert K. Burkett (1984-88) Bijan M ohraz (1991-97)
n
H. Patrick Campbell (1989-90) William W. Moore* (1973-76)
s, Arthur N. L. Chiu (1996-99 Gary Morrison (1973)
Anil Chopra (1973-74) Robert Morrison (1981-84)
Richard Christopherson* (1976-80) Ronald F. Nelson (1994-95)
Lee H. Cliff (1973) Joseph P. Nicoletti" (1975-79)
John M. Coil* (1986-87, 1991-97) Bruce C. Olsen" (1978-82)
Eugene E. Cole (1985-86) Gerard Pardoen (1987-91)
Edwin T. Dean (1996-99) Norman D. Perkins (1973-76)
Robert G. Dean (1996-98) Maryann T. Phipps (1995-96)
Edward F. Diekmann (1978-81) Sherrill Pitkin (1984-87)
Burke A. Draheim (1973-74) Edward V. Podlack (1973)
John E. Droeger (1973) Chris D. Poland (1984-87)
Nicholas F. Forell * (1989-96) Egor P. Popov (1976-79)
Douglas A. Foutch (1993-97) Robert F. Preece" (1987-93)
Paul Fratessa (1991-92) Lawrence D. Reaveley" (1985-91)
Sigmund A. Freeman (1986-89) Philip J. Richter" (1986-89)
Barry J. Goodno (1986-89) John M. Roberts (1973)
Mark R. Gorman (1984-87) Arthur E. Ross" (1985-91, 1993-94)
Gerald H. Haines (1981-82, 1984-85) C. Mark Saunders (1993-97)
William J. Hall (1985-86) Walter D. Saunders" (1975-79)
Gary C. Hart (1975-78) Lawrence G. Selna (1981-84)
Lyman Henry (1973) Wilbur C. Schoeller (1990-91)
James A. Hill (1992-95) Samuel Schultz" (1980-84)
Ernest C. Hillman, Jr. (1973-74) Daniel Shapiro" (1977-81)
Ephraim G. Hirsch (1983-84) Jonathan G. Shipp (1996-99)
William T. Holmes" (1983-87) Howard Simpson" (1980-84)
Warner Howe (1977-80) Mete Sozen (1990-93)
Edwin T. Huston" (1990-97) Donald R. Strand (1982-83)
Paul C. Jennings (1973-75) James L. Stratta (1975-79)
Carl B . Johnson (1974-76) Scott Stedman (1996-97)
Edwin H. Johnson (1988-89) Edward J. Teal (1976-79)
Stephen E. Johnston" (1973-75, 1979-80) W. Martin Tellegen (1973)
Joseph Kallaby* (1973-75) John C. Theiss" (1991-98)
Donald R. Kay (1989-92) Charles H. Thornton (1992-99)
T. Robert Kealey" (1984-88) James L. Tipton (1973)
H. S. (pete) Kellam (1975-76) Ivan Viest (1975-77)
Helmut Krawinkler (1979-82) Ajit S. Virdee* (1977-80, 1981-85)
James S. Lai (1982-85) J. John Walsh (1987-90)
Gerald D. Lehmer (1973-74) Robert S. White (1990-91)
James R. Libby (1992-98) James A. Willis' (1980-81, 1982-86)
Charles Lindbergh (1989-92) Thomas D. Wosser (1974-77)
R. Bruce Lindermann (1983-86) Loring A. Wyllie (1987-88)
L. W. Lu (1987-90) Edwin G. Zacher (1981-84)
Walter B. Lum (1975-78) Theodore C. Zsutty (1982-85)
Kenneth A. Luttrell (1991-98)
Melvyn H. Mark (1979-82) • President
John A. Martin (1978-82)

ATC EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

(1973-Present)
Ronald Mayes (1979-81) Roland L. Sharpe (1973-79)
Christopher Rojahn (1981-present)

Ion Appendix C, Applied Technology Council proJects and Report Information G·IS