LONDON’S GLOBAL UNIVERSITY

Seismic Retrofit of Existing Tall Steel Moment Resisting

Frame Buildings through Base Isolation
MSc Dissertation
Civil Engineering with Seismic Design

By: Anis Issam MOHABEDDINE

Supervisor: Carlos Molina Hutt

Department of Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering

Faculty of Engineering
University College London
Acknowledgment

Firstly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Mr Carlos Molina Hutt for his
continuous support and encouragements. I genuinely learned a lot from his seismic design lectures,
which pushed me to become very interested and passionate in everything related to seismic design
and structural analysis. I could not have imagined having a better supervisor for this dissertation.

I would like to also thanks also Fernando, Theodora and Zakaria for their support at the beginning of
the project; it was a pleasure to collaborate with you guys.

Last but not least, I would like to thank my family: my parents, my brother, sister and my fiancé for
supporting me spiritually throughout writing this thesis and my life in general.

i
Abstract
In a city such as San Francisco known for its high vulnerability to earthquakes, tall buildings play an
important role in its socio-economic activity. Most of the tall buildings of the city centre building stock
were constructed before the 1990’s according to conventional codes, which does not meet the current
seismic code requirements. This study provides a seismic retrofit design of steel moment resisting
frame tall buildings of San Francisco, using base isolation as retrofit scheme. The methodology was
conducted using GSA linear analysis software, where two archetype buildings representative of
existing tall buildings constructed during the 1970’s and 1980 in San Francisco, were designed first,
then evaluated and retrofitted according to the current seismic rehabilitation. The results obtained
showed a very poor structural performance of the existing buildings before retrofitting, and a
significant improvement could be reached after the implementation of the base isolation. It was also
found that the buildings constructed during the 1980’s are expected to have a better performance
than the buildings constructed during the 1970’s. The base isolation retrofit scheme might not be
feasible for tall buildings constructed during the 1970’s due to the poor performance of their columns.

ii
Contents
Acknowledgment ..................................................................................................................................... i

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... ii

List of Tables .......................................................................................................................................... vi

List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................... viii

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1

Context .................................................................................................................................... 1

Aims......................................................................................................................................... 2

Objectives................................................................................................................................ 2

Report structure...................................................................................................................... 2

2 Literature Review ............................................................................................................................ 3

Background ............................................................................................................................. 3

Codes and references ............................................................................................................. 5

Analysis procedures ................................................................................................................ 6

Base isolation .......................................................................................................................... 9

2.4.1 Concept ........................................................................................................................... 9

2.4.2 Types of base isolators .................................................................................................. 10

2.4.3 Effect of the base isolation ........................................................................................... 11

2.4.4 Application of base isolation to tall buildings ............................................................... 12

2.4.5 Choice of isolator .......................................................................................................... 14

2.4.6 Mechanical behaviour and modelling ........................................................................... 16

Summary ............................................................................................................................... 17

3 Project Process and Seismic Evaluation ........................................................................................ 18

Overall process and discussion ............................................................................................. 18

Evaluation procedure ............................................................................................................ 19

3.2.1 Performance objective .................................................................................................. 21

3.2.2 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 23

iii
4 Archetype Buildings ...................................................................................................................... 26

General Design criteria ......................................................................................................... 26

4.1.1 Materials ....................................................................................................................... 26

4.1.2 Gravity loads ................................................................................................................. 27

4.1.3 Combinations ................................................................................................................ 27

4.1.4 Computer modelling ..................................................................................................... 28

4.1.5 Acceptance criteria ....................................................................................................... 29

30 stories building (1970s’) ................................................................................................... 30

4.2.1 Structural arrangement ................................................................................................ 30

4.2.2 Lateral loads .................................................................................................................. 31

4.2.3 Design results ................................................................................................................ 33

40 story building (1980s’) ..................................................................................................... 34

4.3.1 Structural arrangement ................................................................................................ 34

4.3.2 Lateral loads .................................................................................................................. 35

4.3.3 Design results ................................................................................................................ 37

5 Retrofit scheme............................................................................................................................. 38

Base isolation implementation ............................................................................................. 38

5.1.1 Implementation and modelling .................................................................................... 38

5.1.2 Effect of the base isolation to the seimic response ...................................................... 39

Additional retrofit measures ................................................................................................. 40

6 Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 41

Assessment of the archetype buildings ................................................................................ 41

6.1.1 Assessment of 30-story building ................................................................................... 42

6.1.2 Seismic Evaluation results after retrofitting ................................................................. 43

6.1.3 Assessment of 40-story building ................................................................................... 45

Feasibility of the retrofit scheme discussion ........................................................................ 47

7 Conclusion and Future works........................................................................................................ 48

iv
8 Reference list .................................................................................................................................. x

Appendix A - Archetype buildings ......................................................................................................... xii

Appendix B – Seismic evaluation before retrofitting ............................................................................xix

Appendix C – Seismic Evaluation after retrofitting ............................................................................. xxiv

v
List of Tables
Table 1-estimated loss as percentage of buildings replacement cost (Molina Hutt et al, 2014). ......... 4
Table 2-Down time estimates for archetype building and enhanced performance schemes for re-
occupancy and functional recovery (Molina Hutt et al, 2014). .............................................................. 4
Table 3- Triple Pendulum Isolator Regimes (McVitty and Constantinou, 2015). ................................. 15
Table 4-schematic force displacement behaviour of Triple pendulum bearing (McVitty and
Constantinou, 2015). ............................................................................................................................ 16
Table 5- Performance Objective Matrix (seismic Hazards and building performance) ........................ 19
Table 6-Material properties .................................................................................................................. 26
Table 7-Unit area dead and live loads .................................................................................................. 27
Table 8-Uniform façade load ................................................................................................................ 27
Table 9-Earthquake base shear calculation details............................................................................... 32
Table 10-Design sections 30-story building .......................................................................................... 33
Table 11-Wind pressure loading ........................................................................................................... 35
Table 12-Cq values ................................................................................................................................ 35
Table 13-seismic loads .......................................................................................................................... 36
Table 14-design sections 40-story building........................................................................................... 37
Table 15-Springs properties .................................................................................................................. 39
Table 16- combined stress check for columns (30-story building before retrofitting) ......................... 42
Table 17-combined stress check for columns (30-story building after retrofitting) ............................ 43
Table 18-Peformance objective matrix for the 30-story building......................................................... 44
Table 19-Combined stress check for columns (40-story archetype building before retrofitting) ........ 45
Table 20-Combined stress for columns (40-story archetype building after retrofitting) ..................... 45
Table 21-building performance objective 40-story archetype building ............................................... 46
Table 22-Gravity Loads details .............................................................................................................. xii
Table 23-Ultimate checks (UBC1973 and UBC1985)............................................................................ xiii
Table 24- Beams ultimate checks 30-story building .............................................................................xiv
Table 25-Column checks 30-story building ...........................................................................................xiv
Table 26-Beam deflections ................................................................................................................... xv
Table 27-Columns Strength checks (40-story building, moment resisting frame) ...............................xvi
Table 28-Beams strength checks (40-story building, gravity columns) ................................................xvi
Table 29-Columns strength checks (40-story building, gravity columns) .............................................xvi
Table 30-Beams Strength checks (40-stor building, moment resisting frame) ....................................xvi

vi
Table 31-beams deflection (40-story building) ....................................................................................xvii
Table 32-Eigen Value Analysis for 30-story building .............................................................................xix
Table 33-Eigen Value Analysis 40 story building ...................................................................................xix
Table 34-Columns checks 30-sory building (BSE1-E) .............................................................................xx
Table 35-Columns checks 30-sory building (BSE2-E) .............................................................................xx
Table 36-Beams checks 30-sory building (BSE1-E)................................................................................xxi
Table 37-Beams checks 30-sory building (BSE1-E)................................................................................xxi
Table 38-Columns checks 40-sory building (BSE2-E) ........................................................................... xxii
Table 39-Columns checks 40-sory building (BSE1-E) ........................................................................... xxii
Table 40-Beams checks 40-sory building (BSE2-E).............................................................................. xxiii
Table 41-Beams checks 40-sory building (BSE1-E).............................................................................. xxiii

vii
 List of Figures
Figure 1-tall buildings inventory (Al-Mufti et al, 2012), “Steel MF” Stands for Steel moment resisting
frame system. ......................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2-Mode shapes of Vibration (Lorant, 2012)................................................................................. 6
Figure 3- Analysis Procedures proposed by ASCE41-13. ........................................................................ 7
Figure 4-Laboratory test on Pre-Northridge moment connection (Engelhardt and Sabo, 1997). ......... 8
Figure 5-Base isolated structure (Holmes consulting Group, 2001). The arrow illustrates the direction
of the ground movement in earthquakes. .............................................................................................. 9
Figure 6-Elastomeric bearing (Canstantinou et al, 2011). .................................................................... 10
Figure 7-Spherical sliding isolator (Stephan, n.d.). ............................................................................... 10
Figure 8- Effect of Base isolation in the earthquake spectrum (Symons, 2015)................................... 11
Figure 9-Los Angeles City Hall (Fromholtz, 2013). ................................................................................ 12
Figure 10-Combination of a base isolation system and concrete core wall as seismic retrofit scheme
to achieve higher Performance (Calugaru and Panagiotou, 2013). ..................................................... 13
Figure 11- Triple Pendulum Bearing (Fenz and Constantinou, 2007). .................................................. 14
Figure 12- Linear model for Triple Pendulum bearing (McVitty and Constantinou, 2015). ................. 17
Figure 13-project process ..................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 14-Evaluation process ................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 15-Seismic Hazard Curves (BSE1-E and BSE2-E)......................................................................... 22
Figure 16- 3D Modelling........................................................................................................................ 28
Figure 17-Quad-8 element shell ........................................................................................................... 28
Figure 18-30 story building ................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 19-Structural arrangement, Box section for columns, wide flange section for beams, rigid
connection between columns and beams. ........................................................................................... 30
Figure 20-Wind loading in the Lateral direction and uplift. ................................................................. 31
Figure 21-Earthquake loading distribution ........................................................................................... 32
Figure 22-40 story building ................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 23-Structural arrangement 40-story building ............................................................................ 34
Figure 24-Wind pressure in the inward, leeward and uplift directions ............................................... 35
Figure 25-Earthquake loading distribution X-X and Y-Y ........................................................................ 36
Figure 26-Spring properties in GSA ....................................................................................................... 38
Figure 27-Effect of the base isolation implementation for the 30-strory archetype building (BSE1-E
seismic hazard)...................................................................................................................................... 40

viii
Figure 28-identification of the structural performance level through the deformation controlled
action. ................................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 29-Structural performance level identification through the beam deformation controlled
verification ............................................................................................................................................ 46
Figure 30-Wind Drift (30-story building)............................................................................................... xv
Figure 31-Earthquake drift (30-stoy building) ...................................................................................... xv
Figure 32-wind drift (40-stoy building) ................................................................................................xvii
Figure 33-earthquake drit (40-stoy building) .......................................................................................xvii

ix
1 Introduction
Tall buildings play an important socio-economic role in metropolitan regions, and as such, the seismic
resilience of these buildings is of high importance. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR)
defined the seismic resilience as the ability to recover from earthquakes very quickly without lasting
disruption to the extent that people can return to their homes, jobs and routines just after the event
(SPUR, 2009). It is widely recognised in the U.S that the significant seismic risk resides in the older
existing building stock constructed before the 1990’s (FEMA 454). For instance, San Francisco city is
probably the most seismically vulnerable cities in the U.S (Paxton, 2004). where, most of the city
centre’s tall buildings were designed during the 1970’s and 1980’s, using conventional design codes,
which does not meet the current code requirements (Molina Hutt et al, 2014). According to Calugaru
and Panagiotou (2013), recent earthquakes in the world, such as Canterbury Christchurch earthquake
2011 and Chile 2010 have made the seismic retrofit of existing tall buildings increasingly popular. In
fact, the economic loss experienced in the Canterbury city centre due to the poor performance of
older buildings, have boosted academics and earthquake engineering practitioners to be more
interested on the resilience of San Francisco’s existing tall buildings case study. Only few studies have
been achieved since, but several research on this case study are in progress.

Context
This project is conducted to provide retrofit design of two archetype buildings representative of steel
moment resisting frame tall buildings of San Francisco by means of base isolation.

Following the 1970s’ and 1980s’ codes and a database provided by AlMufti et al (2012), the two
Archetype buildings were designed to reflect as much as possible the existing buildings. These two
archetype buildings consist of a 30-story building representative of buildings constructed during the
1970s’, and a 40-story building representative of buildings constructed during the 1980s’.

A Moment resisting frame is a structural system, which relies on the resistance of rigidly connected
beams and columns, to withstand lateral forces induced by wind or earthquakes. This method has
been widely used because it provides an architectural freedom in permitting open bays and clear views
without having any structural walls or diagonal braces in the structural system (Sahin, 2014).

The base isolation retrofit strategy was chosen to conduct this study due the fact that this technology
has the advantage of a possible retrofit design without making any changes to the structure. Thus,
during the realisation, the building would remain operational. This point can have a significant impact
on decision making, because usually owners of such important buildings would not accept the fact
that their building has to shut down for any period of time to proceed for seismic retrofit.
Page 1 of 76
The entire process of this project including design of archetype buildings and rehabilitation measures
was conducted through the linear analysis Software “GSA” (package suite), which was chosen due to
its performance and simplicity of use. The rehabilitation design was conducted using linear response
analysis method, which is a dynamic method that takes multiple modes of vibration into calculations
(ASCE41, 2013, P. 103). The project is focused on the global structural response of the buildings.
Therefore, Non-structural components and steel connections are not covered in the design.

This research is unlikely to provide a refined seismic rehabilitation design due to the limitation of the
linear analysis method; nonlinear analysis would give more precise results (ASCE41, 2013, P.103).
However, this project may significantly contribute to identify whether the base isolation strategy is
potentially feasible or not for these existing tall buildings.

Aims
The research aims of the project are mainly; to identify whether the buildings need to be retrofitted
or not, demonstrate that base isolation is an applicable retrofit scheme for these buildings and provide
an optimum seismic retrofit design of two tall buildings using linear analysis method.

Objectives
In order to achieve the aims of the project, the process was carried out through the following

i. Design two tall steel moment resisting frames buildings according to UBC1973 and
UBC1985, in GSA software.
ii. Evaluate the two structure according to current code (ASCE41-13), in order to determine
if seismic rehabilitation is required.
iii. Model base isolators properties in GSA software and implement them to the two
structures.
iv. Assessment of the rehabilitation scheme, and estimate the feasibility each building.

Report structure
i. Introduction
ii. Literature review
iii. Project process and seismic evaluation methodology
iv. Archetype building
v. Retrofit Building Design
vi. Assessment
vii. Conclusion

Page 2 of 76
2 Literature Review
Background
This section presents the previous research conducted on steel moment resisting frame tall buildings
of San Francisco case study, which were essential to choose and conduct this project. It covers only
three different research papers, where the first paper presented in this section, provided guidance to
design the two archetype buildings for this project, the second and the third papers highlighted the
relevance of the seismic retrofit of these buildings in terms of Structural performance and monetary
loss after major earthquakes, respectively.

Al mufti et al (2012) with the collaboration of Structural Engineers Association of Northern California
(SEAONC) committee have carried out an inventory of San Francisco city centre tall buildings stock.
This inventory was conducted using the SEAONC database and by interviews with Engineers of record
who contributed to the design these buildings at that time. As a result, it has been identified that most
of the tall buildings of 30 stories or higher, constructed between 1960 and 1990 were designed with
a moment resisting frame system (see Figure 1).

Figure 1-tall buildings inventory (Al-Mufti et al, 2012), “Steel MF” Stands for Steel moment resisting frame system.

Based on this inventory, Al-Mufti et al (2012) provided prototype-building representative of San

Francisco’s steel moment resisting frame existing tall buildings, detailing the structural arrangement
system and the range of the structural sections used. Thus, the 30-story and 40-story archetype
buildings of this project were designed following details provided in this paper.

Moving to the second paper, U.S Geological survey has implemented a yearlong campaign called
“DARE TO PREPARE” in order to prepare California for future major earthquakes. Muto and Krishnan
(2011) have been charged in this campaign to conduct a plausible research effort on tall moment
resisting frame buildings. In their research, 150 moment resisting frame structures between 10-30
stories range were assessed through 3-D non-linear modelling. As result, they identified that 5% of the
buildings would collapse (8 buildings), 10% would experience severe damage to the point that it would
be unsafe to inhabit them (16 buildings) and 20% would have visible damage and possible injuries to
the occupants (32 buildings).
Page 3 of 76
Although, this plausible research has pointed out that some of San Francisco’s tall buildings have a
very poor seismic performance and the seismic retrofit of them is indeed relevant, it has been found
vital to conduct research on the estimation of the monetary loss of these buildings after major
earthquakes, in order to influence decision-making. Molina Hutt et al (2014) conducted a study to
estimate the loss after major earthquakes for an archetype building and two retrofitted buildings using
elastic spine and base isolation. This research was carried out through a Complex Non-Linear Time
history Analysis (NLRHA). The results of this estimation are presented in Table 1 and 2.

Table 1 depicts the estimation of loss in terms of cost and percentage of repair replacement,
considering and not considering residual drift, for both standard and enhanced performance levels.
Whereas, Table 2 illustrates the downtime estimation in order to achieve re-occupancy and functional
recovery, for the archetype building and retrofitted buildings.

Table 1-estimated loss as percentage of buildings replacement cost (Molina Hutt et al, 2014).

Non-Structural Components:

Standard Enhanced

Residual Drift: Considered Neglected Considered Neglected

Archetype (Baseline) $46M (34%) $35M (25%) $31M (23%) $19M (14%)
Structural
Elastic Spine $34M (25%) $29M (21%) $20M (15%) $13M (10%)
scheme
Base Isolation $9M (7%) 9M (7%) $4M (3%) $4M (3%)

Table 2-Down time estimates for archetype building and enhanced performance schemes for re-occupancy and
functional recovery (Molina Hutt et al, 2014).

Non-Structural Components:

Standard Enhanced

Downtime Estimate Re-occupancy Functional Recovery Re-occupancy Functional Recovery

Archetype (Baseline) 72 weeks 87 weeks 14 weeks 32 weeks

Structural
Elastic Spine 72 weeks 72 weeks 14 weeks 20 weeks
scheme
Base Isolation 53 weeks 59 weeks 1 day 1 day

The results illustrated in Table 1 and 2 show the relevance of seismic retrofitting implementation.
Especially for base isolated buildings, it is noticeable that the repair cost and the downtime estimate
are very low. These results demonstrated the advantages of the base isolation strategy, and showed
that this retrofit scheme is likely to be chosen by decision-makers. Therefore, it is highly valuable to
undertake this research and further the investigations.

Page 4 of 76
 Codes and references
The processes undertaken to achieve this project passed through important distinctive steps, which
require different codes and literatures. In this section, the essential codes and references to undertake
this project are presented.

In order to design the two archetype buildings the following codes and references were used:

 Uniform building Code edition 1973 (UBC1973) has been used in order to design the archetype
building representative to 1970’s buildings.
 Recommended Lateral Force requirement and commentary, edition 1973, known as SEAOC
Blue Book. Engineering practice book, which shows the methods followed during the 1970’s.
 Uniform building Code edition 1985 (UBC1985) has been used in order to design the archetype
building representative of 1980’s buildings.
 “Seismic Assessment of Typical 1970s Tall Steel Moment Frame Buildings in Downtown San
Francisco” research paper by Al-Mufti et al (2012).

The seismic rehabilitation process undertaken in order to evaluate the archetype buildings and apply
the retrofit scheme, was based on current codes and latest publications, as follow:

 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing buildings (ASCE41-13) is the main legal standard for
seismic retrofitting in the U.S. All the requirements of this code have been rigorously checked.
 Minimum Design Loads For Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE7-10) has been used as
additional support standards, when required by ASCE41-13.
 Specification for Structural steel buildings (AISC360) addresses general requirement for the
stability analysis and design members and frames.
 Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 341-05) provides all additional
requirements to AISC360 for seismic design.
 Property Modification Factors for Seismic Isolators: Design guidance for Buildings, by McVitty
and Constantinou (2015). This report provides the latest evolution to design isolators, and is
conducted to provide guidance to ASCE 7-2016.

Page 5 of 76
 Analysis procedures
In this section will be presented the analysis procedure used to design the archetype buildings
according to the conventional codes and the procedures proposed the current code ASCE41-13 with
more attention to the Linear dynamic Procedure, which was used to conduct this project.

Prior to start reporting the procedures, it is important to explain briefly the structural modes of
vibration, as they represent a key point to enable understanding of the differences between these
procedures. The modes of vibration represent the shapes that would undertake the structure while
oscillating during a dynamic excitation. Figure 2 illustrates three mode shapes that can undergo a 3-
story building, each mode shape is characterised by a period “T” measured in seconds. Except for tall
buildings, the first translational mode also called the fundamental mode is usually the most significant
mode to determine the seismic loading induced by earthquakes (Lorant, 2012).

Figure 2-Mode shapes of Vibration (Lorant, 2012).

As previously mentioned in chapter 1, the conventional design codes used during the 1970’s and
1980’s does not meet the current code requirements for tall buildings. In fact, these conventional
codes follow a perspective of performance force procedure based on the first translational mode of
vibration (Al-Mufti et al, 2012). Details of this procedure can be found in chapter 4, and the main idea
to focus on here is that the existing tall buildings were designed taking into account only the first
mode. In several studies, researchers and structural engineers raised concern that tall buildings
require the contribution of higher modes in seismic response. Therefore, the perspective of
performance force approach based on the first mode used in the existing buildings is not appropriate
to design tall buildings (FEMA, 2006). Consequently, several jurisdictions such as San Francisco (SF AB-
083) and Los Angeles (LATBSDC 2008), have implemented guideline to design new tall buildings, but
nothing is known for older existing buildings (Al-Mufti et al, 2012).

Page 6 of 76
ASCE41-13 (2013, P.103) proposes mainly four different analysis procedures (see figure 3), which
consist of two linear procedures and two nonlinear procedures. The linear and nonlinear terms refers
to the behaviour of the material considered in the analysis, where the linear behaviour considers only
the linear elastic behaviour of the material and the nonlinear behaviour take into account the post
yielding behaviour of the material. Each of the linear and nonlinear categories are proposed in two
different analysis procedures, which includes a static procedure and a dynamic procedure.

Figure 3- Analysis Procedures proposed by ASCE41-13.

The static procedures, LSP and NDP are not appropriate for designing tall buildings because these
procedures are based on the first translational mode of vibration and tall buildings requires the
contribution of higher modes as discussed earlier. Therefore, the dynamic procedures LDP and NDP,
in which the calculation takes into account multiple modes of vibration, are the remaining acceptable
procedures for analysing tall buildings (ASCE41-13, 2013, P.103). According to Lourenco (2009)
Nonlinear procedures as NDP are considered as the most advanced form of structural analysis, it
requires a long computational duration and advanced software package. Furthermore, incorrect use
of this procedure or inappropriate material behaviour input can be very dangerous. The determination
of the exact material behaviour of the existing buildings of San Francisco and the design of the
archetype buildings using NDP is expected to require much more time than that given to conduct this
project. Therefore, the Linear Dynamic Procedure LDP was chosen to conduct the rehabilitation of the
archetype buildings.

In addition, Molina Hutt et al (2013) have previously analysed an archetype building of 40 stories
through Non-Linear Time history Analysis (NDP). Therefore, it has been interesting to find out what
results would give a linear analysis procedure.

Page 7 of 76
The linear procedures as LDP, maintain the conventional elastic stress-strain behaviour without
considering the nonlinear behaviour of the structural members when modelling the material into
finite element software, and this fact implies a significant conservatism of the design results compared
to nonlinear procedures results (ASCE41-13, P.103).

Therefore, this study is not expected to provide the most refined results. In some rehabilitation cases,
this method give completely inaccurate results, because the behaviour of older materials are expected
to undergo nonlinear deformation in earthquakes (Sahin, 2014). However, it can be argued that the
steel moment resisting frame existing tall buildings of San Francisco may not experience significant
nonlinear deformations. Therefore, the NDP procedure in this case, would give acceptable results to
a certain extent. These buildings may not experience significant nonlinear deformations due to the
brittle behaviour of their steel connections reported by Engelhardt and Sabo (1997). According to
Engelhardt and Sabo (1997) the connections of the moment resisting frame structures used between
the 1970’s and 1994 are known as pre Northridge connections in the U.S and have an brittle elastic
behaviour. After the Northridge earthquake (1994), a number of cyclic tests were conducted to
identify the causes of the earthquake damages in steel moment resisting frames buildings. As most of
the cyclic tests results, the moment connections of the pre-Northridge specimens failed with a little
or no nonlinear behaviour.

Figure 4 illustrates the results of one of the cyclic tests conducted on pre-Northridge moment resisting
connections. It can been seen in the figure that the specimen did not undergo a large enough rotation
(less than 0.01) to cause fracture.

Figure 4-Laboratory test on Pre-Northridge moment connection (Engelhardt and Sabo, 1997).

Page 8 of 76
 Base isolation
2.4.1 Concept
Base isolation, also known as seismic isolation is a modern seismic protection technology. According
to Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Centre (PEER, 2011) the first document published to
provide guidance to design seismic isolated buildings was in 1986 by SEAOC. This document was
informally known as the “yellow book”. At that time, while researchers were developing it, the base
isolation strategy had a limited use due to the uncertainties encountered (PEER, 2011). Currently, this
technology has become enough mature to be widely used in order to achieve higher seismic
performance (Willford and Almufti, 2015).

The idea behind the base isolation concept is to find a way to disconnect the structure from the
ground. Therefore, when the earthquake strikes the structure will not experience any movement as
shown in Figure 5. However, it is unrealistic to construct a structure floating in the air without any
support on the ground. According to Chopra (2011. P.809) the most effective solution found for this
concept, is to use a type of support device, which has a strong vertical stiffness to bear the building
weight, and has a very low lateral stiffness to deform laterally when the ground shakes. Thus, the
ground displacement due to earthquakes is mitigated by the isolator deformations and is not
transmitted to the structure above it.

Figure 5-Base isolated structure (Holmes consulting Group, 2001).

The arrow illustrates the direction of the ground movement in earthquakes.

Page 9 of 76
2.4.2 Types of base isolators
Although, there are various type of isolation systems, the ASCE41-13 allow using only two type of
isolators, which are elastomeric and sliding Isolators (ASCE41, 2013, P.304).

Elastomeric isolators consist of thin layers of natural rubber, which are bonded and vulcanized to steel
plates. The horizontal flexibility of the rubber layers allow the isolator to deform horizontally, while
the earthquake is shaking the ground, and return to its initial position after the vibration ends.
Therefore, to a certain extent, this deformation would not transmit the horizontal displacement of the
ground to the structure. The elastomeric isolators that can be used according to the code are either
Low-damping rubber bearing or High-damping rubber bearing. The only difference between these two
is their ability to dissipate energy (level of damping) during the cyclic deformation (ASCE41-13, P.306).

Figure 6 illustrates a cut elastomeric isolator (lead-

rubber bearing) to show its internal construction. It
consists of thin bonded layers of natural rubber and
steel reinforcing layers with a central lead core
(Canstantinou et al, 2011).

Figure 6-Elastomeric bearing (Canstantinou et al, 2011).

On the other hand, sliding isolators rely on the sliding mechanism to provide low horizontal stiffness.
The dissipation energy is achieved by friction of the interfaces (PEER, 2011). Typical sliding isolators
are made of polytetrafluorthylene (PTFE) or PTFE Based composite (ASCE41-13, P. 309). Types of
sliding isolators are usually identified according to their sliding surface shape; mainly two kind of
sliding isolators are distinguished: flat slider bearings and curved slider bearings (Kamrava, 2015). In
most of the case, inside sliding isolators, there is a spherical articulation between the sliding surfaces.
This spherical articulation facilitate sliding between two interfaces of the isolator (Marioni, 2009).
Therefore, when the ground experience a displacement due to an earthquake, the components under
the isolation system displaces with the ground, subsequently, the isolation device slides, thus, the
structure above the isolator would not receive a significant earthquake forces (MAURER, 2012).

Figure 7 is illustrates a spherical sliding isolator, it can

be seen that the two interfaces of this isolator are
connected through a spherical articulation which
enables these two interfaces to slid.

Figure 7-Spherical sliding isolator (Stephan, n.d.).

Page 10 of 76
2.4.3 Effect of the base isolation
In this section, the effect of the base isolation is presented from a structural analysis point of view.
Despite the variation in details, base isolation systems produce the same effect to structures.
According to PEER (2011) a typical isolation system reduces the seismic forces by lengthening the
fundamental period and adding some amount of damping. Increasing damping is an inherent
characteristic in most isolators, but usually supplemental damping devices are added to achieve the
desired amount of damping (ASCE41-13, P.303).

Figure 8 is provided to clarify how lengthening the period and increasing damping could reduce the
earthquake demands on the structure. The blue lines of the graph illustrate the seismic spectrums
that provide the base shear, which the structure would experience according to its period of vibration.
The black arrow in the graph shows that the entire spectrum reduces when the damping of the
structure increases. The red arrow illustrates the lengthening of the period due to the implementation
of an isolation system. Initially, the structure without the isolation system has a period T 1
corresponding to a high amount of base shear, but after the implementation of the base isolation, the
period of the structure shifts to T2 which leads to a significant reduction of base shear.

Figure 8- Effect of Base isolation in the earthquake spectrum (Symons, 2015).

Page 11 of 76
2.4.4 Application of base isolation to tall buildings
In several studies, including those by Korumo et al., (2004) and Chopra (2011, P.809), base isolation
has been regarded as an inefficient seismic strategy for tall buildings. According to Jain and Thakkar
(2004), the significant benefit of the isolation system is for buildings with short periods of less than 1
second. Buildings with higher periods, such as tall buildings, attract lower seismic base shear. Thus,
implementing base isolation in tall buildings would not reduce significant amount of seismic base
shear. For clarification of this, see Figure 8, initially the fundamental period of tall buildings is around
the level of T2 (i.e. long period). Therefore, a further increase of the period would not decrease the
base shear significantly. Then, the base isolation is seen as inefficient seismic design strategy for tall
buildings.

However, Jain and Thakkar (2004) also argued that this was the case in the early stages of the base
isolation strategy, when the seismic design was limited to collapse prevention structural performance.
To achieve higher performances, base isolation might be used for high-rise buildings.

Base isolation for high-rise building has a growing popularity in Japan. Approximately 200 tall
buildings, ranging from 60 to180 meters (20 to 60 stories) have been constructed with base isolation
system, providing high structural performance level (Becker et al, 2014). Conversely, in the U.S, the
base isolation for tall buildings is quiet rare due to the stringency of the U.S codes for base isolation
systems. Whereas, the Japanese code has clearly outlined the procedures to design isolation systems,
not only for buildings in general, but also specifically for high-rise buildings (Becker et al, 2014).

The tallest seismically isolated building in the U.S shown in figure 9, is Los Angeles City Hall, which is a
32-story building of 140 meters constructed in 1928. This building experienced several damages in
1971 Sylmar Earthquake, the 1987 Whittier Earthquake and the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. In 2001,
it was rehabilitated using isolation system in order to conserve its architectural integrity (Youssef,
2005).

Figure 9-Los Angeles City Hall (Fromholtz, 2013).

Page 12 of 76
Furthermore, Calugaru and Panagiotou (2013) have conducted a comparative study to investigate
whether the application of seismic isolation or rocking core walls (i.e. concrete core walls) is more
suitable for earthquake resistant tall buildings. They found that base isolation systems induced a
significant increase of the bending moment demand at the base and the rocking core wall reduced the
damage but the hazard remained very high. In conclusion, they recommended using a combination of
concrete core walls and base isolation for an increase to the resilience of tall buildings (See figure 10).

Figure 10-Combination of a base isolation system and concrete core

wall as seismic retrofit scheme to achieve higher Performance
(Calugaru and Panagiotou, 2013).

Jain and Thakkar (2004) carried out an investigation on the strategies to make the base isolation
effective for tall buildings. They explored three different strategies (i) stiffening the structure, (ii)
increasing damping of the structure and, (iii) flexibility of the isolation system. They found that
buildings taller than 20 stories are likely to be stiffened for seismic rehabilitation using base isolation.
Kumoro et al (2004) addressed the problems that would arise during the application of base isolation
for tall buildings. The main problems related to the structural performance that they reported were
the increase of vulnerability to wind and the stability of the base isolation device. In fact, the base
isolation provide additional flexibility to the structure. This therefore, makes it more vulnerable to
winds, and the optimisation of the base isolation characteristic in order to meet the requirement of
the earthquake loading, (which requires more flexibility), and to satisfy the serviceability comfort
requirement for wind loading ,(which requires more rigidity), would be quiet complex to achieve.

Page 13 of 76
2.4.5 Choice of isolator
To anticipate the potential problems presented in section 2.4.4, for the flexibility requirement to
reduce earthquake demands and the structural rigidity requirement to withstand wind demands, it is
reasonable to opt for an adaptive seismic isolation system detailed by Fenz and Canstantinou (2007).
This device is called “Triple Pendulum Bearing”, it is described as a smart isolation system which has
the ability to change the stiffness and damping according to the excitation the building is subjected
to. As shown in Figure 11, triple pendulum is a combination of two spherical sliding isolators
articulated by an internal rigid slider. It is constituted of two facing concaves stainless steel surfaces
connected by an internal nested slider assembly. Both the outer and inner surfaces are characterised
by their mechanical and geometrical properties. Where, Ri is the radius curvature of the spherical
surfaces, di represents the nominal displacement of each slider, hi is the radial distance between two
Spherical surfaces, and µi is the coefficient of friction of each sliding surface (Fenz and Constinou,
2007).

Figure 11- Triple Pendulum Bearing (Fenz and Constantinou, 2007).

The adaptive behaviour is a result of changes in sliding regimes. Usually, the triple pendulum exhibits
three or five different regimes, depending on the properties of the concave surfaces. Assuming that
the isolator has the same properties for each of the outer concave surfaces, as for the inner surfaces,
the isolator would exhibit three different regimes. The first regime is sliding on the “2” and “3”
surfaces only. Once the displacement reaches the nominal displacement of the inner surfaces, the
sliding would stop on the inner surfaces and start sliding on the “1” and “4” surfaces. The last regime
is reached once the displacement reaches the nominal displacement of the outer surfaces at the
second regime, the system restarts sliding on the inner surfaces to reach the maximum displacement

Page 14 of 76
of the isolator (see Table 3). If the isolator has different characteristics between the two Outer
spherical surfaces and the Inner surfaces, the system would exhibit five regimes instead of three,
where the additional two regimes will be in between regime “1” and regime “2”, and between regime
“2” and regime “3” explained earlier (MCVitty and Constantinou, 2015).

Table 3- Triple Pendulum Isolator Regimes (McVitty and Constantinou, 2015).

Page 15 of 76
2.4.6 Mechanical behaviour and modelling
In this section will be presented the mechanical behaviour of the triple pendulum and how it can be
modelled in structural analysis software.

Triple Pendulum Bearing has a complex force-displacement relationship. As the displacement

increases, isolator undertake different regimes, which have different stiffness, damping and strength.
The first regime shows a rigid behaviour, and then the regimes become more flexible significantly,
with a continuous increase of damping (McVitty and Constantinou, 2015).

Table 4 illustrates the theoretical force-displacement relationship that would be exhibited by a Triple
Pendulum bearing, when subjected to a cyclic test. In the graphs presented in the table, the stiffness
of each regime can be estimated as the slope of the trend line of the graph and the dissipated energy
as the area of the graph (McVitty and Constantinou, 2015). It is noticeable that regime “1” has a higher
slope and covers a lower area, thus, providing a higher stiffness and a lower damping, as mentioned
previously.

According to Fenz and Constantinou (2007), the adaptive behaviour of the triple pendulum in
swapping regimes permit to the designers to optimise the design for low intensity demands such as
wind using regime “1”and for higher demands such as earthquakes, using regime “2” and “3”.

Table 4-schematic force displacement behaviour of Triple pendulum bearing (McVitty and Constantinou, 2015).

Page 16 of 76
Kurmar (2013) provided a guide for modelling base isolation devices in contemporary software.
According to his report, the physical model of the isolator can be modelled as a spring, which reflect
the properties of an isolator device in terms of stiffness and damping, to represent its behaviour.

Although, the complex behaviour that Triple Pendulum isolator undertake, it can be modelled using
a simplified linear modelling assuming that the isolator reached the third regime. Indeed, It is a simple
method, but gives valuable results (McVitty and Constantinou, 2015).

The simplified model is presented in Figure 12, where Keff is the effective stiffness, which is the only
parameter needed to input in the mathematical model. the damping can be assumed because energy
dissipater device would be added to reach the desired value. Qd is the characteristic strength at
displacement zero, Kd is the post elastic stiffness (McVitty and Constantinou, 2015).

Figure 12- Linear model for Triple Pendulum bearing (McVitty and Constantinou, 2015).

Summary

To summurise, this chapter covered the following points:

 The relevance of the subject chosen and acknowledgement of the previous literature
 The codes and reference essential to conduct this project
 Acknowledgement of the limitation of the analysis procedure chosen
 Definition of the base isolation system and explanation of its application for tall buildings
 Details of the isolator type chosen for this project

The seismic rehabilitation and modelling details are a direct application of the codes. Therefore, it was
not necessary to discuss them in this chapter. They are provided through Chapter 3, 4 and 5.

Page 17 of 76
3 Project Process and Seismic Evaluation
As the aim of this project was to evaluate the archetype buildings to prove that retrofit is needed and
then proceed to an effective retrofit design through base isolation strategy. Therefore, in this chapter
will be presented firstly the overall project process to clarify the methodology, followed by description
of the seismic evaluation that was used to evaluate the archetype buildings before and after
retrofitting. Details of the archetype buildings design and the base isolation implementation are
provided in chapter 4 and chapter 5, respectively.

Overall process and discussion

The process undertaken to achieve this project was to firstly design the archetype buildings
representative of the existing buildings. Then, evaluate them according to the code ASCE41-13 and
determine whether they met the minimum seismic requirement for a region of high seismicity such
as San Francisco. If the minimum requirement was satisfied, the buildings did not require a mandatory
seismic retrofit, the rehabilitation measures would be implemented to enhance the performance of
the building. This can be the case when the owner of the building desire to anticipate the loss and
reduce the insurance charges. However, if the minimum requirement was not satisfied, the
implementation of the seismic retrofit is mandatory. Once the evaluation was finished, the base
isolation was implemented to the archetype buildings in GSA. Finally, the retrofitted archetype
buildings were assessed following the same procedure used for the evaluation. See Figure 13 for
clarification.

Design Archetype buildings

30 story building representative to 40 soty building representative to
1970's buildings 1980's building

Seismic Evalution of the archtype buildings

Seismic Evaluation of the archetype buildings to current seismic hazards,
according to ASCE41-13

Base isolation implementation

implementation in the GSA models

Seismic evaluation of the archtype buildings after retrofitting

seismic evaluation of the retrofitted buildings following the same procedure
undertaken for evaluation

Figure 13-project process

Page 18 of 76
 Evaluation procedure
The evaluation procedure followed the same concept of the performance based design method, which
consist of setting initially a target performance objective and decide with the owner the level of
damage that the building would experience for a certain seismic hazard. After this, the designers
proceed the structural analysis.

Therefore, the first step in the evaluation was to choose the target performance objective. The code
proposed basic, enhanced, limited and partial performance objectives. Partial and limited were not
applicable for buildings in a region of high seismicity. Therefore, the minimum objective was selected
for evaluation “basic perfomance objective for existing buidlings (BPOE)”. The objectives were defined
as a combination of seismic hazards and the performance level selected (see matrix below in Table
5). To meet the basic objective for buildings belonging to Risk Category II, as the archtype buildings
(ASCE7-10, Table1. 5-1), life safety performance level and collapse prevention performance level must
be achieved when subjected to BSE1-E and BSE2-E hazard levels, respectively. In this matix (table 5),
all the combination above the BPOE (Orange) do not meet the minimum requirement (blue). On the
other hand, the cases below BPOE meet the Enhance peroformance Objective (Green).

Table 5- Performance Objective Matrix (seismic Hazards and building performance)

Immediate Collapse
Life Safety
Occupancy Prevention
Performance Level
Performance Level Performance Level
LF CP
IO

Not meeting Not meeting

50% of exceedance
minimum seismic minimum seismic
in 50 years
requirement requirement

BSE1- E Enhanced Basic Objective Not meeting

20% of exceedance Objective Minimum minimum seismic
in 50 years Appreciable requirement requirement

BSE2- E Enhanced Enhanced Basic Objective

5% of exceedance Objective Objective Minimum
in 50 years Appreciable Appreciable requirement

Enhanced Enhanced Enhanced

BSE-2N
Objective Objective Objective
(ASCE 7 MCE R )
Appreciable Appreciable Appreciable

Page 19 of 76
Once, the performance objective was decided, the next step was to choose one of the three different
methods, Tier 1 “screening method”, Tier 2 “deficiency-based evaluation and retrofit” and Tier 3
“systematic evaluation and retrofit”, proposed by the code to proceed the evaluation. Tier 1 and tier
2 are simplified methods, which allow the identification of the potential deficiencies quickly. Whereas,
Tier 3 requires a complete analysis of the structures, and provide deep details of the analysis. Tier 3
was the method used in this project. According to the code, Tier 3 method is usually chosen when the
designers have little doubt of the poor performance of the building. This method can be conducted
following linear analysis method or nonlinear analysis method. As discussed in the literature review
section 0, the NDP Procedure was chosen to conduct the entire process of this project.

To recap, the chart below (Figure 14-Evaluation process) illustrates the steps gone through to evaluate
the archetype buildings.

Figure 14-Evaluation process

Page 20 of 76
3.2.1 Performance objective
In this section will be defined the building performance levels and the seismic hazards used.

3.2.1.1 Building Performance levels

The building performance level is a combination of both structural and non-structural performance.
As this study was focussed on the global response of the building, the building performance was
limited to the structural performance of the archetype buildings. According to FEMA 274(P.2-6), this
approach of taking into account just the structural performance is an acceptable approach; it is
dependent only on the building owner’s choice.

The performance levels are discrete damage states, which the building would experience after a
certain level of earthquake. ASCE41-13 (P.36) provides three structural performance levels, Immediate
Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse prevention (CP).

IO structural performance: means the post-earthquake damage state of the structure is very good,
the structural strength and stiffness remain similar to the pre-earthquake state. The building remains
safe for immediate re-occupancy.

LF structural performance: significant damage occurred but retains margin against partial or total
collapse. Technically, the structural repair is possible but for economic reasons this repair might be
not feasible. Occupant’s injuries might occur during the earthquake.

CP structural performance: the structure is on the limit of collapse, it can still bear the gravity loads
but a significant structural degradation has occurred. The structural repair might be not possible. The
building is not safe for re-occupancy, probably in the aftershock activity the building would collapse.

Note: In the section 3.2.2.2 Acceptance criteria, is provided how to meet these performance levels.

Page 21 of 76
3.2.1.2 Seismic Hazards
According to ASCE41-13 section 2-4, the seismic Hazards BSE1-E and BSE-2E are obtained using the
USGS earthquake hazard program called “U.S seismic design Maps”, available at:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/usdesign.php

The data input in the program are as follow:

 Building Code: ASCE41-13

 Site location: San Francisco (37.78923°N, 122.39588°W)
 Soil Type: site Class D- “Stiff Soil”

Once, the seismic hazard curves were obtained from the USGS Program as PDF file, the curves were
plotted in an excel file prior to be transmitted to the GSA models.
Figure 15 illustrates BSE1-E and BSE2-E seismic hazards in terms of ground acceleration.

Seismic Hazard Curves (BSE1-E and BSE2-E)

50
45
BSE2-E
40
Acceleration Sa (ft/s2)

35 BSE1-E

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Period T (s)

Figure 15-Seismic Hazard Curves (BSE1-E and BSE2-E).

Page 22 of 76
3.2.2 Methods
The method used to conduct the evaluation and the assessment of the retrofitted buildings was the
TIER 3 method. This method required conducting a complete analysis of the structure, to demonstrate
the compliance with the performance objective selected.

3.2.2.1 Analysis Procedure (NDP)

NDP is a modal spectral dynamic procedure, which combines the response of different modes.
The code requires the minimum number of modes for which the modal mass is superior to
90% of the total mass. Therefore, in order to conduct this analysis, these steps were followed
in GSA:
1. Eigen Value analysis was conducted by taking 15 modes for the 30-story building and
20 modes for the 40-story building. The modal contribution mass had exceeded 90%
of the total mass (see Table 33 and Table 34, Appendix-B).
2. Implementation of the elastic acceleration spectrums shown in Figure 15.
3. Response spectrum analysis was conducted using CQC method to combine the
response of the modes.
Note:
It is mentioned in the code that to anticipate the nonlinear deformation when using LDP, the
acceleration spectrum shall be reduced by multiplying it by C1 and C2 (ASCE41-13, P. 109).
However, C1 is equal to 1 when the fundamental period is greater than 1s, and C 2 is equal to
1 when the fundamental period is greater than 0.7s (ASCE41-13, 107). Whereas, the
fundamental periods for the 30-story building and the 40-story building were 3.67 and 4.5 s,
respectively (see Table 33 and Table 34). Therefore, the elastic spectrum was unchanged, and
nonlinear behaviour of the material was not anticipated in this case. Thus, the design results
were expected to be considerably conservative.

Page 23 of 76
3.2.2.2 Acceptance criteria
The acceptance criteria requirement of the code consist of defining the load combination and the
formula to check the design. Therefore, this section presents firstly the load combination used, and
then formula used to check the design strength of the structural members.

According to ASCE41-13 (P.118), the load combination to input in for modelling are:

Where:
QG : the gravity loads
Gravity Combination QD : Dead loads
QL: Live Loads
QG 1.1(QD QL QS )
QS: Snow Loads
QE: Earthquake Loads
QUD: Displacement-controlled
Seismic combination for deformation controlled actions design action
QUD= QG+ QE QuF: force-controlled design action
C1: modification factor for expected
inelastic displacement
C2: modification factor for effect of
Seismic combination for force controlled actions pinched hysteresis
QE J: force-delivery reduction factor
QuF= QG+ C
1 C2 𝐽

The code divides the seismic actions into two categories, force-controlled design
actions and displacement-controlled actions. The force-controlled action is provided
for structural components that must not exhibit any yielding or nonlinear behaviour
even when nonlinear analysis is conducted. These components must behave
elastically to ensure the stability of the structure for any performance level targeted.
Whereas, force-displacement controlled design actions are set for structural
components, for which a nonlinear deformation would not have a significant effect
on the stability of the structure.
Table C7-1 of the code provides which action to consider as deformation or force
controlled. For moment resisting frame, all internal actions in the columns shall be
taken as Force-controlled actions. Only, the bending moment in beams is considered
as deformation-controlled actions. The shear force in beams shall be taken as force-
controlled action.
The force-delivery reduction factor “J” is equal to 2 for high seismicity region. Unless,
if IO performance is targeted, it shall be taken equal to 1 (ASCE41-13, p.118).

Page 24 of 76
The formulas provided to check the design sections are as follow:
Force controlled action:
𝜅𝑄𝐶𝐿 > 𝑄𝑈𝐹 [1]

Where:
𝜅: Knowledge factor is equal to 0.75 for LDP (see Table 6-1, ASCE41-13).
𝑄𝑈𝐹 : Force controlled demands, output from the analysis (i.e. bending moment, shear force and
axial force for columns, and shear force only for beams).
𝑄𝐶𝐿 : Lower bound strength of the steel element, provided in the AISC360.
Displacement-controlled actions:
This verification is only for the bending moment of the beams in this case.
𝜅 𝑚 𝑄𝐶𝐸 < 𝑄𝑈𝐷 [2]
Where:
𝑄𝐶𝐸 : Bending moment in the beams, from the analysis output.
𝑄𝑈𝐷 : Lower bound bending moment capacity of the beams, provided in the AISC360.
𝑚 : Component capacity modification factor to account for expected ductility associated with this
action at the selected Structural Performance Level.
The structural performance level shall be determined according to the factor m that satisfies the
displacement-controlled verification.
 If 𝜅 𝑚 𝑄𝐶𝐸 < 𝑄𝑈𝐷 is verified for m = 1.0, IO performance level is met.
 If 𝜅 𝑚 𝑄𝐶𝐸 < 𝑄𝑈𝐷 is verified for m = 2.5, LF performance level is met.
 If 𝜅 𝑚 𝑄𝐶𝐸 < 𝑄𝑈𝐷 is verified for m = 2.9, CP performance level is met.
The values of m-factor were determined from (Table 9-4, ASCE41-13), assuming fully restrained
moment connections and welded reinforced flange (WUF).

Evaluation of the archetype buildings results is provided later in chapter 6 for comparison with the
retrofitted buildings. The calculation details are provided in Appendix-B.

Page 25 of 76
4 Archetype Buildings
This chapter provides the methodology undertaken to design the 30-story building representative of
the existing tall buildings constructed during the 1970s’, and 40 story building representative of the
existing tall buildings constructed during the 1980s’, according to UBC1973 and UBC1985,
respectively. Thus, this chapter is divided into three main sections. The first section provides the
general design criteria applied to both buildings. Then, the specific criteria and the design results for
each building are provided in two separate sections.

General Design criteria

Despite some differences, which are provided later, the two buildings were designed according to the
same design assumptions; similar material properties, gravity loads, and acceptance criteria have been
used. Furthermore, both designs were conducted through GSA software and subjected to the same
modelling assumptions.

4.1.1 Materials
The materials used for modelling were concrete short term for 2-D element slab and steel for beams
and columns. Details of the materials properties are presented in Table 6.

Table 6-Material properties

Material Young’s Modulus (Ksi) Poisson's ratio Density (lbn/ich3)

Steel 2.97E+04 0.3 0.28358

Concrete 4.06E+03 0.2 0.086701

The minimum yield stress of the steel assumed for design calculation is:

 FY=36 Ksi for beams

 FY=42Ksi for columns

Page 26 of 76
4.1.2 Gravity loads
UBC1973 and UBC1985 prescript the same dead and live loads. Al-Mufti et al. (2012) provided a full
detailed gravity load breakdown, which was extracted directly and applied in the GSA models (see
Table 22, Appendix-A).

Table 7 and Table 8 summarise the results of Dead and live loads used for modelling.

Table 7-Unit area dead and live loads

Loading type GSA Label Dead Load (ksf) Live Loads (ksf)
Self-Weight A1 NA NA
Unit Area Load Parking A2 0.015 0.052
Unit Area Load LVL 1 A3 0.09 0.1
Unit Area Load Typical Office A5 0.04 0.056
Unit Area Load MEP A6 0.135 0.056
Unit Area Load Roof A7 0.085 0.032

Table 8-Uniform façade load

Façade SDL
Loading type GSA Label
(kip/ft)
Facade Unit Load Parking A8 0.9375
Facade Unit Load LVL 1 A9 0.83
Facade Unit Load Typical A10 0.51875
Facade Unit Load Roof A11 0.249

Note: The self weight of the structure of each structural member is automatically taken into account
by GSA.

4.1.3 Combinations
The combination load cases input in the GSA model were as follows:

1. Dead + Live
2. Wind (X-X) + Dead + Live
3. Wind (X-X) +Dead
4. Wind (y-y) + Dead + Live
5. Wind (Y-Y) + Dead
6. EQ (X-X) + Dead + Live
7. EQ (X-X) + Dead
8. EQ (Y-Y) +Dead + Live
9. EQ (Y-Y) + Dead

Page 27 of 76
4.1.4 Computer modelling
The design of the archetype buildings was conducted using 3-D modelling GSA Oasys software
(package suite). The 3-D perspective of the 30-story building is shown in Figure 16 as an example.

1. The Columns were designed as “element beam” using the box sections or wide flange sections
from the catalogue provided in “section properties” shortcut.
2. The beams were designed as “element beam” using the AISC catalogue provided in “section
properties” shortcut.
3. The connections between elements were designed assuming rigid connection for moment
resisting connections, and pinned connection for gravity resisting elements.
4. The slabs were designed as concrete short-term “element shell” quad 8, 4inchs thick
(see Figure 17).
5. Detailed foundation design is beyond the scope of this project. It was assumed as being pinned
support for the 30-story building and fixed support for the 40-story building.

Figure 17-Quad-8 element shell

Figure 16- 3D Modelling

Page 28 of 76
4.1.5 Acceptance criteria
The ultimate and serviceability design checks were the same in both UBC1973 and UBC1985.
The formula used to calculate the strength capacity of the columns and the beams for ultimate design
are provided in Ultimate checks section (Table 23, Appendinx-A).

The serviceability checks consist of the beams deflection and the inter-story drift.

 The beams deflection checks are provided in table 23D (UB1973 and UBC1985) and required :
- L/360 deformation limit, for Live load only.
- L/240 deformation limit for Live load plus dead load.

Where, “L” is the length of the beams.

 The inter-story drift was calculated using the following formula:

𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙 −𝐷𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝑙𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙

𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑡 = 𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑦 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
[3]

The inter-story drift limit used for the archetype buildings were:

 0.25% of the story height for wind loading.

 0.5% of the story height for Earthquake Loading.

Note:
UBC 1973 does not require the drift checks; it was implemented for the first time in UBC1985.
However, in the inventory conducted by AlMufti el al. (2012), it has been found that designers included
the drift checks following the SEAOC “Blue Book 1973”.

Page 29 of 76
 30 stories building (1970s’)
The building had 30 storeys above ground and has 2 basement levels.
The building was designed for office occupancy with two levels of
parking occupancy in the basement, Lobby as a public reception on the
ground floor, a mechanical floor at level 15, and the roof is assumed as
inaccessible. The total building height is equal to 402.5 feet. The stories
heights depended on the type of occupancy, assumed as follows:

- 12.5 feet height for typical office and Mechanical floors.

- 20 feet height for the lobby floor.
- 10 feet height for the basements.

The horizontal geometry of the story level has a square shape of Figure 18-30 story building

125x125 feet, divided into 5 equal bays of 25 feet in both

directions.

4.2.1 Structural arrangement

The structural arrangement of this building has been defined according to engineering practice during
the 1970s’ by AlMufti et al.(2012), and consist of assuming all the columns and beams taking part in
the lateral resisting system. In other words, all columns and beams were rigidly connected to
constitute the moment resisting frame system. Built up box sections were used for the columns to
resist the lateral forces in both directions. Wide flange sections were used for beams. See Figure 19
for clarification.

An illusttration of the Built up box secions and wide frlange section is provided in Appendix-A.

Figure 19-Structural arrangement, Box section for columns, wide flange section for beams,
rigid connection between columns and beams.

Page 30 of 76
4.2.2 Lateral loads
The lateral loads consisted of wind loading and Earthquake loading, which were applied in GSA as a
static lateral force.

4.2.2.1 Wind loading

Following section 2308 (UBC1973), the wind pressure was applied on the external front facade of the
building as a horizontal uniform force, and on the roof as a vertical uplift wind force (see Figure 20).

Table 23-F (UBC1973) provides the values of wind pressure to take into account into the relevant
calculation. For California region, the horizontal wind pressure is equal to 30 psf and the uplift pressure
is considered equal to 3/4th of this pressure.

Figure 20-Wind loading in the Lateral direction and uplift.

Page 31 of 76
4.2.2.2 Earthquake loading
The earthquake loading was calculated according to section 2314 (UBC1973), the code provides the
formula [4] to calculate the earthquake base shear, which will be distributed in height
(see Figure 21). Further details of the calculation can be found in Appendix-A.

𝑉 = 𝑍𝐾𝐶𝑊 [4]

Definition and value of each factor of the formula [4] are provided in table-9 with reference to the
code.

Table 9-Earthquake base shear calculation details

Base Shear
Seismic Zone Coefficient (Z) 1.00 [1973 UBC, Sect. 2314 (c)]
Horizontal Force Factor (K) 0.67 [1973 UBC, Table 23-1]
Building Period (T) 3.20 sec [1973 UBC, Eq. (14-3A)]
Base Shear Coefficient (C) 0.0339 [1973 UBC, Eq. (14-2)]
Total weight (W) 35120 kips
Base Shear (V) = Z*K*C*W 798.39 kips [1973 UBC, Eq. (14-1)]

Figure 21-Earthquake loading distribution

Page 32 of 76
4.2.3 Design results
The design sections of the structure are provided in Table 10. Details of the calculation of the ultimate
and serviceability checks are provided in Appendix-A. This structure was overdesigned in order to
reflect the existing buildings. The reason for that was that the existing buildings had been designed by
hand calculations, and the designers could not refine the design as this can be done using finite
element computer modelling.

Table 10-Design sections 30-story building

Wide flange Beams Box columns

Level Range
Exterior L=25' Interior L=25 Interior Exterior
Basement W30x292 W30x292 22 x 22 x 1.5 x 1.5 22 x 22 x 1.5 x 1.5
1 to 5 W33x291 W33x291 24 x 24 x 2.25 x 2.25 24 x 24 x 2.25 x 2.25
6 to 10 W30x292 W30x292 22 x 22 x 2.25 x 2.25 22 x 22 x 2.25 x 2.25
11 to 15 W27x146 W27x146 20 x 20 x 2.25 x 2.25 20 x 20 x 2.25 x 2.25
16 to 20 W24x146 W24x146 18 x 18 x 2.5 x 2.5 18 x 18 x 2.5 x 2.5
21 to 25 W24x131 W24x131 18 x 18 x 2.25 x 2.25 18 x 18 x 2.25 x 2.25
26 to roof W21x111 W21x111 14 x 14 x 2 x 2 14 x 14 x 2 x 2

Page 33 of 76
 40 story building (1980s’)
This building had 40 stories above the ground and 3 storeys in the
basement. This building was also designed for office occupancy with
three stories for parking occupancy in the basement, a lobby as a public
reception on the ground floor, two mechanical floors at levels 20 and 39,
and the roof is assumed inaccessible. The total building height is equal to
537.5 feet. The stories heights and the horizontal geometry are similar to
the previous 30-story building.

Figure 22-40 story building

4.3.1 Structural arrangement
The structural arrangement of this building differs completely from the 30-story building. Only the
perimeter frames were moment resisting frames, whereas, the internal columns and beams were
gravity frames connected by pinned connections. Both, columns and beams had wide flange sections.
In the moment resisting frames, beams and columns were rigidly connected, except at the corners,
where the beams are connected to the web of the column; there they are pin connected. As can be
seen from Figure 23, the internal columns and beams (gravity frames) are significantly smaller than
perimeter frames (moment resisting frames).

Figure 23-Structural arrangement 40-story building

Page 34 of 76
4.3.2 Lateral loads
UBC1985 imposed higher wind loading and earthquake loading than UBC1973. Therefore, this building
was expected to have a better resistance to lateral loads.

4.3.2.1 Wind loading

The wind pressure was calculated following the section 2311 (UBC1985), using ‘’method 1’’. Method
“1” proposes to apply a wind pressure acting in all exterior facades simultaneously.

The wind pressure was calculated using the following formula:

𝑃 = 𝐶𝑒 𝐶𝑝 𝑞𝑐 𝐼 [5]

Definition and value of each factor of the formula [5] are provided in table-11 with reference to the
code.

Table 11-Wind pressure loading

Design Wind pressure

Exposure C Reference UBC1985
Height exposure (Ce) 1.8 Table 23 G
Importance factor (I) 1 Section 2311.f
Pressure coefficient (qs) 30 Table 23 F
Inward pressure [Psf] 43.2
leeward pressure [Psf] 27
roof pressure [psf] 37.8

Table 12 provides values of the wind pressures and Figure 24 illustrates

how the wind pressure is applied on the front facades (windward),
Leeward and on the roof.

Table 12-Cq values

Cq values (Table 23-F)

Exterior surface values Application of the force
wind ward 0.8 inward
leeward 0.5 outward
roof 0.7 outward
wind parallel to ridge 0.7 outward

Figure 24-Wind pressure in the

inward, leeward and uplift
directions

Page 35 of 76
4.3.2.2 Earthquake loading
According to section 2314 (UBC1985), the seismic base shear is calculated using equation [6].

𝑉 = 𝑍𝐼𝐾𝐶𝑆𝑊 [6]

Table 13 illustrates the calculation details. Note that the S parameter was introduced in UBC1985,
and this increased the demands by a factor of 1.5.

Figure 25 illustrates the distribution of the loads in height.

Table 13-seismic loads

Base Shear
Seismic weight 47510 Kips 2304 (d)
soil type s3 1.5 Method B Sect 2312 (d)
Seismic Zone Coefficient (Z) 1.00 [1985 UBC, Sect. 2312 (c)]
Horiz. Force Factor (K) 0.67 [1985 UBC, Table 23-1]
Building Period (T) 5.38 sec [1985 UBC, Eq. (12-3A)]
Base Shear Coefficient (C) 0.0285 [1985 UBC, Eq. (14-2)]
Base Shear (V) = Z*K*C*W*S 1,362.89 kips [1985 UBC, Eq. (14-1)]

Figure 25-Earthquake loading distribution X-X and Y-Y

Page 36 of 76
4.3.3 Design results
The design sections of the structure are provided in the Table 14. Details of the calculation of the
ultimate and serviceability checks are provided in Appendix-A. Due to the increase of the wind loading
and the earthquake loading, the design was governed by the drift checks.

Table 14-design sections 40-story building

Wide flange
Level Wide flange columns Wide flange gravity beams
Beams
Range
Exterior L=25' Interior Exterior Floor Interior L=25'
Basement w36x529 W36X441 w36x800
Basement w33x118
Lobby w36x652 W36X441 w36x800
1 to 5 45x20x2.5x4.5 W36X487 45x20x2.5x4.5
Lobby w40x167
6 to 10 w36x652 W30X357 w36x800
11 to 15 w36x652 W24X335 w36x652
Office w33x130
16 to 20 w36x652 W24X279 w36x652
21 to 25 w36x529 W24X229 w36x529
MEP w33x130
26 to 30 w36x529 W21X166 w36x529
31 to 35 w36x361 W18X119 w36x487
Roof w30x90
36 to roof w36x487 W16X67 w36x800

Page 37 of 76
5 Retrofit scheme
The retrofit scheme used in this project was the base isolation strategy. This chapter presents the
method used to implement the base isolation in GSA and the additional retrofit measures used to
achieve acceptable performance of the structures.

Base isolation implementation

The base isolation is an advanced technology, which requires a complex procedure for design. The
nominal properties of the isolator device can be obtained only from various tests imposed by ASCE41-
13. In real projects, base isolation manufacturers assist the designers by providing empirical aspects
of designs of the base isolation devices or test data of previous projects.

This study focussed only on the behaviour of the retrofitted archetype buildings, testing and detailed
design of the isolators were beyond the scope of this project. Therefore, this section conveys only the
procedure used to implement the isolators in GSA and the effects that they induced to the seismic
response of the archetype buildings.

5.1.1 Implementation and modelling

The isolators were modelled following the simplified model discussed in section 2.4.6, where it was
demonstrated that the isolator could be modelled as element spring represented only by its effective
stiffness and effective damping. Therefore, the base isolators were modelled in GSA as “element
spring” with 3-D translational behaviour. The properties of the spring consisted of the linear effective
stiffness in each principal axis and the effective damping ratio (see Figure 26). The vertical stiffness
(z-axis) was assumed very high to ensure that the spring could bear the weight of the structure. The
two horizontal stiffnesses were assumed very flexible to reflect the isolator device properties.

Figure 26-Spring properties in GSA

Page 38 of 76
After multiple iterations, the optimum design converged to the spring properties presented in Table
15.
Table 15-Springs properties

Spring properites 30-story building 40-story building

Effective horizontal stifness

60 75
Keff (kips/ft)

Effective vertical stifness

10000 10000
Keff (Kips/ft)

Damping ratio (%) 20 20

5.1.2 Effect of the base isolation to the seimic response

The implementation of the base isolation in the archetype buildings GSA models induced an important
reduction of the seismic response due to the increase of damping and the lengthening of the
fundamental periods.

The reduction of the spectrums due to the increase of damping was conducted according to Table
17.5-1 (ASCE41-10), which propose to divide the seismic hazard curves presented in section 3.2.1.2 by
a factor of 1.5.

The effect of lengthening the fundamental periods for each archetype building is detailed in the
following:

30- Story building: the fundamental period of the 30-story archetype building, before base isolation
implementation, was equal to 3.67second inducing earthquake accelerations of 4.92ft/s2 and 7.78 ft/s2
for BSE1-E and BSE2-E seismic hazards, respectively. After the implementation of the springs in GSA,
the fundamental period shifted to 7.751second corresponding to the seismic accelerations of 1.55ft/s2
and 2.45ft/s2 for BSE1-E and BSE2-E seismic hazards, respectively.

40-Story building: the fundamental of the 40-stoy building before base isolation implementation, was
equal to 4.53 inducing earthquake accelerations of 3.99 ft/s2 and 6.31ft/s2 for BSE1-E and BSE2-E
seismic hazards, respectively. After the base isolation, implementation in GSA saw the fundamental
period shifted to the value of 9.37second corresponding to the seismic accelerations of 1.28ft/s2 and
2.03 ft/s2 for BSE1-E and BSE2-E respectively.

Note: refer to Figure 27 in the following page for clarification.

Page 39 of 76
Figure 27 presents the effect induced on the 30-story archetype building considering only BSE1-E
seismic hazard. This case is presented as an example to clarify the effect induced by the base isolation
presented earlier. As can be seen from Figure 28, the seismic acceleration was reduced from 4.92 ft/s2
to 1.55ft/s2. The figure illustrates the reduction of the seismic hazard due to the increase of damping,
and the lengthening of the period.

Spectrum BSE1- E
40
Acceleratiion Sa (ft/s2)

30 Reduction of the seismic

Sa 5% damping
curve due to damping
Sa 20% Damping
20

Lengthening the period

10
4.92
1.55
0
3.67 7.75
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Period T (s)

Figure 27-Effect of the base isolation implementation for the 30-strory archetype building
(BSE1-E seismic hazard)

Additional retrofit measures

The base isolation system reduced the earthquake demands significantly, but it was not sufficient to
meet the minimum seismic requirements due to the poor performance of the columns. Therefore, the
measure chosen to cover this shortcoming was to reinforce the columns by additional steel plates of
1inch thick welded to the external faces of the columns.

The box section columns of the 30-story archetype building showed a very poor performance at all
story levels. Thus, the plates were added to all columns of the building.

However, the wide flange section columns of the 40-story building showed a better performance,
where the steel plates were added only at the basement level.

Page 40 of 76
6 Assessment
The results of this study based on the methodology outline in chapter 3 are presented in this chapter.
The results are illustrated as a comparison between the seismic evaluation of each archetype building
before and after retrofitting. Each set of results will be explained and analysed in the discussion that
follows or precedes the illustration. After this, according to the findings presented in this chapter, a
discussion of the feasibility of the retrofit scheme used in this project will be addressed.

Assessment of the archetype buildings

This section presents the seismic evaluation of the 30-story and 40-story archetype buildings before
retrofit to state their performance level and identify whether the retrofitting was mandatory or
desired as discussed in chapter 3. Subsequently, it will be followed by the presentation of the seismic
evaluation results of these buildings after the implementation of the retrofit scheme.

In reference to chapter 3, the seismic evaluation results consisted of the illustration of the force
controlled actions and, deformation controlled actions. This section will present only the results that
are believed relevant to answer the research questions stated in the chapter 1, whereas, full detailed
calculations can be found in Appendix-B and Appendix-C.

The force-controlled actions check presented in this chapter consisted of the strength capacity check
of the columns only. It is illustrated through the combined stress verification, which combined the
flexure capacity check and axial forces capacity check in one verification presented as a ratio that must
be less than 1 to be satisfied.

The deformation-controlled actions verification was set to identify the structural performance level.
Depending on the value of m-factor that satisfies the verification, the performance level of the building
can be identified. Refer to section 0, for clarification.

Once, the structural performance level of the buildings is identified for each seismic hazard level, the
building will be classified in the performance objective matrix presented in section 3.2, to see if the
minimum performance objective set at the beginning of the chapter 3 is met or not.

Page 41 of 76
6.1.1 Assessment of 30-story building
6.1.1.1 Seismic evaluation results before retrofitting
Table 16 illustrates the combined stress check for columns of the 30-story archetype building before
the implementation of the retrofit scheme for both BSE1-E and BSE2-E seismic hazards.

Table 16- combined stress check for columns (30-story building before retrofitting)

BSE1- E BSE2- E
Column Label combined stress combined stress
column 1 to 5 1.76 Not Ok 2.61 Not Ok
column 6 to 10 1.64 Not Ok 2.38 Not Ok
column 11 to 15 1.59 Not Ok 2.33 Not Ok
column 16 to 20 1.62 Not Ok 2.38 Not Ok
column 21 to 25 1.79 Not Ok 2.65 Not Ok
column 26 to 30 1.21 Not Ok 1.82 Not Ok
basement 1.84 Not Ok 2.71 Not Ok

The combined stress is a force-controlled verification, and as mentioned in chapter 3, the force-
controlled actions were set for elements that must not exhibit any yielding or nonlinear deformation
to ensure the stability of the structure. As you can in see in Table 16, the combined stress ratio is
significantly higher than 1 in all columns for both seismic hazards. This indicates that significant
yielding occurred in all columns and hence the stability of the structure was significantly affected.
These results denote that this archetype building is prone to a high risk of collapse. The building
performance was beyond the collapse prevention structural performance for both seismic hazards.
Thus, the seismic retrofitting in this case is obvious and mandatory.

Since the columns experienced significant yielding, the illustration of the deformation controlled
verification is meaningless. The reason for that is because the deformation controlled verification
identifies the structural performance of the building, through the level of damage occurred on the
beams, which are presumed to experience nonlinear deformation without affecting the stability
significantly. In this case, the stability of the structure was affected by the yielding that occurred in
columns, and the damages occurred in the beams could not reflect the damage state of the building.

Consequently, the building could not be classified in the performance objective matrix, it is considered
to have a performance lesser than all the performance levels presented in that matrix.

Page 42 of 76
6.1.2 Seismic Evaluation results after retrofitting
Table 17 illustrates the combined stress check for the 30-story archetype building after the
implementation of the retrofit scheme for both BSE1-E and BSE2-E seismic hazards.

Table 17-combined stress check for columns (30-story building after retrofitting)

BSE1-E BSE2-E
Column Label combined stress combined stress
column 1 to 5 0.66 Ok 0.91 Ok
column 6 to 10 0.58 Ok 0.78 Ok
column 11 to 15 0.56 Ok 0.77 Ok
column 16 to 20 0.53 Ok 0.71 Ok
column 21 to 25 0.52 Ok 0.70 Ok
column 26 to 30 0.38 Ok 0.53 Ok
Basement 0.66 Ok 0.91 Ok

As can see in Table 17, the implementation of the retrofit scheme resulted in a significant
improvement of the columns’ performance; the combined stress check is satisfied in all columns for
both seismic hazards. Thus. the columns exhibited a linear elastic behaviour as required for force-
controlled actions. Therefore, the deformation controlled action is worthwhile to illustrate for the
structural performance level identification, which is identified by the value of the m-factor that
satisfied the deformation controlled verification for the beams.

Figure 28-identification of the structural performance level through the deformation controlled action.

Figure 28 illustrates the value of the m-factor that satisfied the deformation-controlled verification for
beams at each story level for both BSE-1 and BSE2-E seismic hazards. The blue background in the graph
stands for IO performance, yellow for LF performance and red for CP performance. The structural
performance level of the entire structure is identified according to the maximum value of m-factor for
each seismic hazard.

Page 43 of 76
According to Figure 28, this archetype building met IO performance for BSE1-E seismic hazard, and LF
performance for BSE2-E seismic hazard. Hence, these results were set on the performance objective
matrix (see Table 18); the building met enhanced objective for both seismic hazards. Before the
implementation of the retrofit scheme this archetype building did not even meeting CP performance
for both seismic hazards, whereas now the building performance objective has overtaken the basic
objective and is meeting the enhanced objective, which proves that the retrofit scheme implemented
was efficient and resulted in a significant improvement of the building’s performance.

Table 18-Peformance objective matrix for the 30-story building

Page 44 of 76
6.1.3 Assessment of 40-story building
6.1.3.1 Seismic evaluation results before retrofitting
Table 19 illustrates the combined stress check for columns of the 40-story archetype building before
the implementation of the retrofit scheme for both BSE1-E and BSE2-E seismic hazards.

Table 19-Combined stress check for columns (40-story archetype building before retrofitting)

BSE-1 20% BSE-2 5%

Column Label combined stress combined stress
column 1 to 5 1.80 Not Ok 2.76 Not Ok
column 6 to 10 1.13 Not Ok 2.05 Not Ok
column 11 to 15 1.12 Not Ok 1.98 Not Ok
column 16 to 20 1.24 Not Ok 2.24 Not Ok
column 21 to 25 1.01 Not Ok 1.85 Not Ok
column 26 to 30 1.07 Not Ok 1.96 Not Ok
column 31 to 35 0.88 Ok 1.62 Not Ok
column 36 to 40 0.73 Ok 1.35 Not Ok
basement 1.95 Not Ok 2.11 Not Ok

As can in see in Table 19, the combined stress ratio is significantly higher than 1 in most of the columns
for both seismic hazards. As in the 30-story archetype building, this structure was unstable and prone
to high risk of collapse. Thus, the deformation-controlled verification did not enable the identification
of the structural performance level (similar to the 30-story archetype building). Therefore, the
Retrofitting for this building is also mandatory.

6.1.3.2 Seismic Evaluation results after retrofitting

Table 20 illustrates the combined stress check for the 40-story archetype building after the
implementation of the retrofit scheme for both BSE1-E and BSE2-E seismic hazards.

Table 20-Combined stress for columns (40-story archetype building after retrofitting)

BSE-1 20% BSE-2 5%

Column Label combined stress combined stress
column 1 to 5 0.61 Ok 0.85 Ok
column 6 to 10 0.40 Ok 0.80 Ok
column 11 to 15 0.41 Ok 0.78 Ok
column 16 to 20 0.49 Ok 0.90 Ok
column 21 to 25 0.42 Ok 0.76 Ok
column 26 to 30 0.44 Ok 0.79 Ok
column 31 to 35 0.38 Ok 0.66 Ok
column 36 to 40 0.36 Ok 0.59 Ok
basement 0.84 Ok 0.96 Ok

Page 45 of 76
The combined stress check in table 21 shows that all the columns verified the force controlled
verification. Thus, the columns exhibits a linear elastic behaviour only, which leads to the
consideration that the structure was stable. Subsequently, the deformation-controlled action can be
illustrated for structural performance level identification.

Figure 29-Structural performance level identification through the beam deformation controlled verification

Figure 29 illustrates that the 40-story building met the IO performance level for both BSE1-E and BSE2-
E seismic hazards. Therefore, the results were set in the building performance objective matrix (see
Table 21), where the matrix shows that the building met enhanced performance objective. The
implementation of the retrofit scheme for this building have boosted the performance of the building
to the best performance proposed by the code for both seismic hazards. The performance achieved
after the implementation of the retrofit scheme in the 40-story archetype building was significantly
better than for the 30-story building; a further comparison of these two building is provided in the
section 6.2.

Table 21-building performance objective 40-story archetype building

Page 46 of 76
 Feasibility of the retrofit scheme discussion
The results presented in this chapter showed that the implementation of the retrofit scheme resulted
in a significant improvement of the seismic performance of the two archetype buildings. In fact, both
of them met the enhanced performance objective, which is the highest seismic performance that can
be achieved for rehabilitation of existing buildings. However, to discuss these results well, it is good
practice to recapitulate the retrofit measures used to achieve this performance objective. In the 40-
story archetype building, the base isolation implementation provided a good results in general. Some
stiffening of the columns was added only at the basement level. However, in the 30-story archetype
building, the implementation of the base isolation was not sufficient, stiffening of the columns was
added at all story levels, as mentioned in section 5.2.

In theory, these results answered the research questions of this project, which consist of determining
whether retrofitting is needed in these archetype buildings and provide an optimum rehabilitation
design to prove that this strategy is an efficient retrofit scheme for these buildings. In fact, the
archetype buildings showed a very poor performance before retrofitting and the base isolation
implementation resulted in a significant enhancement of buildings’ performance. Thus, the seismic
retrofit is indeed needed and the base isolation strategy can be considered as an acceptable retrofit
scheme for steel moment resisting framed tall buildings of San Francisco. But in practice, the feasibility
of the base isolation implementation is not as straightforward as this; the base isolation is a complex
scheme that needs further considerations for tall buildings. Thus, to opt for the base isolation scheme
to retrofit these existing tall buildings, there needs to be a credible reason for this. As stated in chapter
1, the reason why the base isolation was chosen for this research was because there was a possibility
of rehabilitating these tall buildings without interrupting their function. Since the site works would
affect only the basement level while implementing the isolation system, the other floors of the
buildings would remain functional.

Based on these considerations, the base isolation retrofit scheme can be indeed recommended for
steel moment resisting framed tall buildings constructed during the 1980’s. Since the wide flange
columns of the 40-story archetype building showed an acceptable performance. The stiffening of the
columns at the basement level would not affect the functionality of the upper floors. However, this is
not the case for the 30-story archetype building; the stiffening of the columns at all levels of the
building would significantly affect the functionality of the building. Therefore, the base isolation
retrofit scheme may be not an efficient retrofit scheme for the buildings constructed during the 1970’s
due to the poor performance of the box section columns. Unless, further refined analysis such as
nonlinear analysis proves the inverse, the base isolation retrofit scheme is not recommended for steel
moment resisting framed tall buildings constructed during the 1970’s.
Page 47 of 76
7 Conclusion and Future works
In this project, two archetype buildings representative of steel moment resisting frame tall buildings
constructed during the 1970’s and 1980’s in San Francisco, have been assessed and rehabilitated
according to the current U.S seismic code. Based on the results and further discussion presented in
this report, the following conclusion could be drawn:

 The steel moment resisting frame tall buildings constructed during the 1970’s and 1980’s in
San Francisco, have a very poor seismic performance, as such, seismic retrofitting needs to be
seriously considered for these buildings.
 The base isolation system is an applicable retrofit scheme for tall buildings
 For buildings constructed during the 1980’s, the base isolation implementation is expected to
provide an efficient retrofit design.
 For buildings constructed during the 1970’s, the base isolation is likely to be unfeasible due to
the poor performance of the Box columns. However, the results of this project may be too
conservative due to the limitation of the linear analysis method, further refined analysis may
provide better results.

This case study is quite a new subject, and there is much future works that must be conducted to
help define more plausible solutions. The future research topics identified while carrying out this
project are:

 Investigation on other retrofit schemes such as rocking walls, elastic spine and passive
dampers.
 Repeating the project using advanced nonlinear analysis and provide a comparative study.
 Investigate deeply on the optimisation of the Triple Pendulum isolator for these tall
buildings.
 Conduct an advanced analysis considering the serviceability comfort of these buildings
after the base isolation implementation, including wind dynamics analysis, and the effect
of the vibrations due to the public transport such as the subway, which is passing under
this building stock.

Page 48 of 76
8 Reference list
1. AISC. (2005). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings (AISC 360-05).Illinois, Chicago: AMERICAN
INSTITUTE OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC.
2. Almufti, I., Molina Hutt, C., Willford, M. and Deierlein, G. (2012). “Seismic assessment for typical 1970s
tall steel moment frame buildings in downtown San Francisco.” Proc., 15WCEE, Lisbon, Portugal.
3. ANSI/AISC. (2005). Seismic Provisions forStructural Steel buildigns (ANSI/AISC 341-05). Illinois,Chicago:
AISC. (2005). Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. Chicago, Illinois: AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF
STEEL CONSTRUCTION, INC
4. ASCE (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” ASCE/SEI 7-10, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
5. ASCE (2013). “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings.” ASCE/SEI 41-13, American Society
of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
6. Anil K. Chopra, 2011. Dynamics of Structures (4th Edition) (Prentice-Hall International Series in Civil
Engineering and Engineering Mechanics). 4 Edition. Prentice Hall.
7. Becker, T., Yamamoto, S., Hamaguchi, H., Higashino, M. and Nakashima, M. (2014). Application of
isolation to high-rise buildings: A Japanese design case study through a US design code lens.
Earthquake Spectra, p.141208072728004.
8. Constantinou, M., & Kalpakidis, I. (2011). LFRD-Based Analysis and Design Procedures for Bridge
Bearings and Seismic Isolators. Buffalo, New York: MCEER, University at Buffalo, Univeristy of New
york.
9. Calugaru, V., & Pamagiotou, a. (2013). Earthquake Resistant and Resilient Tall Buildings Seismic
Isolation and Rocking Core walls. San Francisco: University of California, Berkeley.
10. Engelhardt, M. and Sabol, T. (1997). Seismic-resistant steel moment connections: developments since
the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 1(1), pp.68-77.
11. FEMA (2006). “Next generation performance based seismic design guidelines. Program plan for new
and existing buildings.” FEMA 445, Prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
12. FEMA 356 (2000). Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA 356).
Virginia, Reston: FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.
13. FEMA 454 (2006). Designing for Earthquakes: A Manual for Architects (FEMA454). California: FEDERAL
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.
14. Fenz, D. and Constantinou, M. (2007). Spherical sliding isolation bearings with adaptive behavior:
Theory. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn., 37(2), pp.163-183.
15. Jain, S., & Thakkar, S. (2004). Application of base isolation for Flexible buildigs. 13th World Conference
on Earthquake Engineering. Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
16. KAMRAVA, A. (2015). Seismic Isoltors and their types. Current World environment, Vol. 10(Special Issue
1), 27-32 .
17. Komuro, T., Nishikawa, Y., Kimura, Y., & Isshiki, Y. (2005). DEvelopement and realization of base
isolation System for High-Rise buildings. Seismic Protective Systems: Seismic Isolation, Vol. 3 2, 233-
239.
18. Lourenço, P. (2015). Types of analysis: Linear static, linear dynamic and non linear static. [online]
Minho: Institute for Sustainablity and Innovation in Structural Engineering. Available at:
http://www.iaaconservation.org.il/pdf/engineers2011/09_Types%20of%20analysis.pdf [Accessed 15
Aug. 2015].
19. Lorant, G. (2012). Seismic Design Principles | Whole Building Design Guide. [online] Wbdg.org.
Available at: https://www.wbdg.org/resources/seismic_design.php [Accessed 1 Sep. 2015].
x
20. Marioni, A. (2009). The use of sliding pendulum isolators for the C.A.S.E. project in L’Aquila. L’Aquila.
21. Maurer. (2012). MAURER Seismic Isolation with Sliding Isolation Devices for Bridges Structures.
MAURER SOHNE.
22. McVitty, W., & Constantinou, M. (2015). Property Modification Factors for Seismic Isolators: DEsign
Guidance for Buildings. Buffalo, New york: MCEER, Univeristy at Buffalo, State Univeristy of New York.
23. Molina Hutt, C., Almufti, I., Willford, M. and Deierlein, G. (2015). Seismic Loss and Downtime
Assessment of Existing Tall Steel-Framed Buildings and Strategies for Increased Resilience. Journal of
Structural Engineering, p.C4015005.
24. Molina Hutt, C., Almufti, I., Willford, M. Deierlein, G. (2014). “Seismic Loss Assessment and Downtime
of Existing Tall Buildings and Strategies for Increased Resilience.” ASCE, Special Issue: Resilience-based
design of structures and infrastructures, submitted. ASCE, Reston, VA.
25. Molina Hutt, C. (2013). "Non-Linear Time History Analysis of Tall Steel Moment Frame Buildings in LS-
DYNA." Proc., 9th European LS-DYNA Conference, Manchester, UK.
26. Morgan, T., & Mahin, S. (2011). PEER 2011 : The Use of Base Isolation Systems to Achieve Complex
seismic Performance Objectives . PACIFIC Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), university
of California, Berkeley.
27. Muto, M. and Krishnan, S. (2011). Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst: Response of Tall Steel
Buildings to the ShakeOut Scenario Earthquake. Earthquake Spectra, 27(2), pp.375-398.
28. Paxton, J. (2004). Earthquakes: San Francisco at Risk. [online] SPUR. Available at:
http://www.spur.org/publications/article/2004-08-01/earthquakes-san-francisco-risk [Accessed 5
Sep. 2015].
29. Sahin, C. (2014). SEismic Retrofitting of Existing Structures. Master. Portland State University.
30. Saruta, M., Yamamoto, S., Morkiawa, K., Nakanishi, K., Iiba, M., Azuhata, T., & Inoue, N. (2013).
Observed Response of a Seismically Isolated Building during the 2011 off the Pacific Coast of Tohoku
Earthquake. 13th World Conference on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration
Control of Structures.
31. SEAOC (1973). “Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary.” Seismology Committee,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CA.
32. SPUR (2009). “The dilemma of existing buildings: private property, public risk.” SPUR, San Francisco,
CA.
33. Stephan, A. (n.d.). earthquakes. [online] Earthsci.org. Available at:
http://earthsci.org/processes/geopro/seismic/seismic.html [Accessed 2 Sep. 2015].
34. Symans, M. (2015). Seismic Protective Systems: Seismic Isolation. FEMA.
35. UBC (1973). “Uniform building code 1973 edition.” UBC 73, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, CA.
36. UBC (1985). “Uniform building code 1985 edition.” UBC 85, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, CA.
37. Willford, M., & AlMufti, I. (2015). resilience Based Design - The Next Frontier for Seismic Engineering?
SECED 2015 Conference: Earthquake Risk and Engineering towards a Resilient World. Cambridge UK:
SECED.
38. Youssef, N. (2013). SEISMIC RETROFIT AND INSTRUMENTATION OF LOS ANGELES CITY HALL. Los
angeles: SMIP05 Seminar Proceedings.

xi
Appendix A - Archetype buildings
Gravity loading breakdown
Table 22-Gravity Loads details

PARKING
SDL 15 psf
Services (MEP) 5 psf Allowance for MEP
Fireproofing 5 psf Allowance for fireproofing
Miscelaneous 5 psf Allowing for added concrete weight for levelness
LL 52 psf 80% Parking + 20% Corridor
Parking 40 psf Table 1607.1 IBC 2006
Corridor and Stairs 100 psf Table 1607.1 IBC 2006
Façade Perimeter Wall Load SDL 75 psf Allowance for wall load on perimeter beams
FIRST FLOOR
SDL 90 psf
Services (MEP) 15 psf Allowance for MEP
Fireproofing 5 psf Allowance for fireproofing
Basalt Stone 10 psf Allowance for stone finish
Grout Bed 10 psf Allowance for grout bed below stone
Topping Slab and Curbs 40 psf Allowance for topping slab and curbs
Rigid Foam 5 psf Allowance for rigid foam formers
Misc (added concrete for levelness) 5 psf Allowing for added concrete weight for levelness
LL 100 psf
Lobby/Reception 100 psf Table 1607.1 IBC 2006
Façade Load 41.5 psf Allowance for façade on perimeter beams
TYPICAL OFFICE FLOOR
SDL 40 psf
Services (MEP) 5 psf Allowance for MEP
Fireproofing 5 psf Allowance for fireproofing
Ceiling 5 psf Allowance for ceiling
Misc (added concrete for levelness) 5 psf Allowance for added concrete weight for levelness
Partitions 20 psf Allowance for partitions
LL 56 psf 80% Office + 20% Corridor
Office 50 psf Table 1607.1 IBC 2006
Corridor and Stairs 80 psf Table 1607.1 IBC 2006
Façade Load 41.5 psf Allowance for façade on perimeter beams
MEP FLOORS
SDL 135 psf
Services (MEP) 5 psf Allowance for MEP services
Equipment and Pads 100 psf Allowance for equipment and pads
Fireproofing 5 psf Allowance for fireproofing
Misc (added concrete for levelness) 5 psf Allowance for added concrete weight for levelness
Partitions 20 psf Allowance for partitions
LL 56 psf 80% Maintenance + 20% Corridor
Maintenance 50 psf Anticipated maintenance loads
Corridor and Stairs 80 psf Table 1607.1 IBC 2006
Façade Load 41.5 psf Allowance for façade on perimeter beams
ROOF
SDL 85 psf
Roofing 20 psf Allowance for roofing
Paver and Pedestal System 30 psf Allowance for paver and pedestal system
Ceiling 5 psf Allowance fo ceiling
Services (MEP) 25 psf Allowance for MEP services
Fireproofing 5 psf Allowance for fireproofing
Misc (added concrete for levelness) 5 psf Allowance for added concrete weight for levelness
LL 32 psf 80% Roof + 20% Corridor
Roof 20 psf Table 1607.1 IBC 2006
Corridor and Stairs 80 psf Table 1607.1 IBC 2006
Façade Load 41.5 psf Allowance for façade on perimeter beams

xii
Ultimate checks

The formula used to check the ultimate strength of the structural beams and columns are in
accordance to UBC1973 section (2701).

Table 23-Ultimate checks (UBC1973 and UBC1985)

Columns Beams

Reference:

 section 2702 (UBC1973)

 section 2702 (UBC 1985)

Compression: Bending:
𝐾𝑙 2 𝐹𝑏 = 0.66 𝐹𝑦
( )
[1− 𝑟 2 ]𝐹𝑦
2𝐶𝑐
𝐹𝑎 = 𝐹.𝑆 Shear forces:

𝐾𝑙 𝐾𝑙 3 Fv = 0.4Fy
5 3( 𝑟 ) (𝑟)
𝐹. 𝑆 = + − Width thickness ratio checks:
3 8𝐶𝑐 8𝐶𝑐3
52.2
2𝜋 2 𝐸 1.
𝐶𝑐 = √ √𝐹𝑦
𝐹𝑦
190
2.
√𝐹𝑦

Bending: Where
Fy = 36 Ksi
𝐹𝑏 = 0.66 𝐹𝑦
Shear forces:

Fv = 0.4Fy
Combined stress:
𝑓𝑎 𝐶𝑚𝑥 𝑓𝑏𝑥 𝐶𝑚𝑥 𝑓𝑏𝑥
+ + ≤1
𝐹𝑎 (1 − fa ’es) Fbx (1 − fa ’es) Fby
𝐹𝑒𝑥 𝐹𝑒𝑦

Where Fy=42ksi

xiii
 Table 24-Column checks 30-story building

Unbraced Demands (k, in) Stress Demand (ksi) Strength Capacity (ksi) Combined Stresses Slenderness Width to Thickness Ratios
Column Label Trial Size Length (ft) Pu - VX MX VY MY Axial - Shear Y Bending Y Shear X Bending X PCAPACITY D/C Check VCAPACITY D/C Check MCAPACITY-Y D/C Check MCAPACITY-X D/C Check Ratio Check Kl/r Cc Kl/r < Cc F.S. F'es (ksi) Flanges Check Web Check
column 1 to 5 STD RHS(in) 24. 24. 2.25 2.25 20 -2625 64.69 3.08E+01 64.87 8007.6 12.75 0.60 0.04 0.60 10.68 29.87 0.43 Ok 22.34 0.03 Ok 36.87 0.00 Ok 36.87 0.29 Ok 0.76 Ok 36.30 116.75 Ok 1.78 113.32 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 6 to 10 STD RHS(in) 22. 22. 1.5 1.5 12.5 -2150 57.69 6.16E+00 61.59 4362 16.86 0.87 0.01 0.93 9.99 31.33 0.54 Ok 22.34 0.04 Ok 36.87 0.00 Ok 36.87 0.27 Ok 0.80 Ok 24.44 116.75 Ok 1.74 250.06 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 11 to 15 STD RHS(in) 20. 20. 1.75 1.75 12.5 -1707 53.34 19.248 56.19 4803.6 12.75 0.76 0.05 0.80 11.75 31.02 0.41 Ok 22.34 0.03 Ok 36.87 0.00 Ok 36.87 0.32 Ok 0.73 Ok 27.14 116.75 Ok 1.75 202.72 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 16 to 20 STD RHS(in) 18. 18. 1.5 1.5 12.5 -1298 42.82 4.776 44.96 3307.2 12.54 0.79 0.02 0.83 11.58 30.66 0.41 Ok 22.34 0.04 Ok 36.87 0.00 Ok 36.87 0.31 Ok 0.74 Ok 30.09 116.75 Ok 1.76 164.89 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 21 to 25 STD RHS(in) 16. 16. 1.25 1.25 12.5 -833.8 32.4 5.2212 34.41 2436 10.85 0.81 0.03 0.86 12.85 30.20 0.36 Ok 22.34 0.04 Ok 36.87 0.00 Ok 36.87 0.35 Ok 0.74 Ok 33.77 116.75 Ok 1.77 130.96 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 26 to 30 STD RHS(in) 14. 14. 2. 2. 12.5 -434.6 33.25 8.9844 32.94 4184.4 4.18 0.59 0.04 0.59 19.88 29.39 0.14 Ok 22.34 0.03 Ok 36.87 0.00 Ok 36.87 0.54 Ok 0.81 Ok 39.85 116.75 Ok 1.79 94.02 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column basement+lobby STD RHS(in) 22. 22. 2.25 2.25 10 -2846 82.15 14.064 81.69 6314.4 15.15 0.83 0.02 0.83 10.15 31.82 0.48 Ok 22.34 0.04 Ok 36.87 0.00 Ok 36.87 0.28 Ok 0.73 Ok 19.88 116.75 Ok 1.73 377.68 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok

Table 25- Beams ultimate checks 30-story building

xiv
Force Demand Stress Demand (ksi) Strength Capacity (ksi) Width to Thickness Ratios
Beam Label Trial Size Length (ft) Depth (in) Span/Depth
V DEMAND MDEMAND + Shear Bending+ V CAPACITY D/C Check MCAPACITY D/C Check Flanges Check Web Check
Strength checks calculations (30 story building)

beam 1 to 5 W33x291 25.00 25.00 12.00 73.76 8408.400 2.03 8.24 19.15 0.11 Ok 31.60 0.26 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 6 to 10 W30x292 25.00 25.00 12.00 66.48 7449.600 2.12 8.01 19.15 0.11 Ok 31.60 0.25 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 11 to 15 W27x146 25.00 25.00 12.00 56.42 5902.800 1.25 14.26 19.15 0.07 Ok 31.60 0.45 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 16 to 20 W24x146 25.00 25.00 12.00 68.00 6252.000 1.79 16.85 19.15 0.09 Ok 31.60 0.53 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 21 to 25 W24x131 25.00 25.00 12.00 46.80 4491.600 1.16 13.65 19.15 0.06 Ok 31.60 0.43 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 26 to 30 W21x111 25.00 25.00 12.00 86.18 6846.000 2.20 27.49 19.15 0.12 Ok 31.60 0.87 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam Lobby W30x292 25.00 25.00 12.00 89.48 9014.40 2.85 9.69 14.40 0.20 Ok 23.76 0.41 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam parking W30x292 25.00 25.00 12.00 89.48 9014.40 2.85 9.69 14.40 0.20 Ok 23.76 0.41 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
Serviceability checks (30 -story building)

The worst case in each occupancy are checked for beams deflection in Table 26.
Table 26-Beam deflections

Deflection checks
floor sections live loads (p/ft) deflection (inches) Verification
Basement w27x84 650 0.809009394 Ok
Lobby w33x118 1250 0.751524372 Ok
Office w30x90 700 0.687821752 Ok
MEP w30x90 700 0.687821752 Ok
Roof w27x84 400 0.497851935 Ok

Wind and Earthquake drift are provided in Figure 30 and Figure 31, respectively.

Wind drift
36
33
30
27
Storey level

24
21
18 Drift in X-X
15
12 Drift in Y-Y
9
6 Drift limit
3
0
0.00% 0.05% 0.10% 0.15% 0.20% 0.25% 0.30%
Drift (%)

Figure 30-Wind Drift in X-X and Y-Y directions (30-story building)

Earthquake drift
36
33
30
27
Storey level

24
21
18 Drit X-X
15
12 Drift Y-Y
9
6 Limit
3
0
0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30% 0.40% 0.50% 0.60%
Drift (inch)

Figure 31-Earthquake drift in X-X and Y-Y directions (30-stoy building)

xv
 Table 30-Columns Strength checks (40-story building, moment resisting frame)

Unbraced Demands (k, in) Stress Demand (ksi) Strength Capacity (ksi) Combined Stresses Slenderness Width to Thickness Ratios
Column Label Trial Size Length (ft) Pu - VX MX VY MY Axial - Shear Y Bending Y Shear X Bending X PCAPACITY D/C Check VCAPACITY D/C Check MCAPACITY-Y D/C Check MCAPACITY-X D/C Check Ratio Check Kl/r Cc Kl/r < Cc F.S. F'es (ksi) Flanges Check Web Check
column 1 to 5 STD I(in) 50. 25. 3. 5.5 20 -5380 24.55 5.85E-01 512.1 5217 12.45 0.08 0.00 1.71 0.86 29.16 0.43 Ok 16.80 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.03 Ok 0.46 Ok 41.55 116.75 Ok 1.79 86.48 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 6 to 10 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 12.5 -4078 25.76 1.76E-01 422.9 3085 12.08 0.11 0.00 1.88 0.68 31.22 0.39 Ok 16.80 0.01 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.02 Ok 0.41 Ok 25.41 116.75 Ok 1.75 231.37 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 11 to 15 w36x800 12.5 -3210 27.07 1.47E-01 367.9 2323 13.60 0.13 0.00 1.81 0.76 29.97 0.45 Ok 16.80 0.01 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.03 Ok 0.48 Ok 35.55 116.75 Ok 1.78 118.19 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 16 to 20 w36x652 12.5 -2527 30.3 1.74E-01 309.5 2067 13.16 0.19 0.00 1.91 0.84 29.84 0.44 Ok 16.80 0.01 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.03 Ok 0.47 Ok 36.59 116.75 Ok 1.78 111.57 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 21 to 25 w36x652 12.5 -1974 30.63 1.09E-01 265.5 1698 10.28 0.19 0.00 1.64 0.69 29.84 0.34 Ok 16.80 0.01 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.02 Ok 0.37 Ok 36.59 116.75 Ok 1.78 111.57 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 26 to 30 w36x529 12.5 -1473 30.43 6.23E-02 229.2 1453 9.44 0.24 0.00 1.79 0.73 29.71 0.32 Ok 16.80 0.01 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.03 Ok 0.34 Ok 37.50 116.75 Ok 1.78 106.19 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 31 to 35 w36x529 12.5 -988.5 32.42 7.19E-02 207.1 1313 6.34 0.25 0.00 1.62 0.66 29.71 0.21 Ok 16.80 0.02 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.02 Ok 0.23 Ok 37.50 116.75 Ok 1.78 106.19 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 36 to 40 w36x487 12.5 -509 43.52 9.28E-01 41.91 171 3.56 0.37 0.00 0.36 0.09 29.66 0.12 Ok 16.80 0.02 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 0.12 Ok 37.88 116.75 Ok 1.78 104.08 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
basement w36x800 10 -6091 32.83 2.00E-01 12.14 3446 25.81 0.16 0.00 0.06 1.13 30.86 0.84 Ok 16.80 0.01 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.04 Ok 0.88 Ok 28.44 116.75 Ok 1.76 184.68 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok

Table 29-Beams Strength checks (40-stor building, moment resisting frame)

Force Demand Stress Demand (ksi) Strength Capacity (ksi) Width to Thickness Ratios
Beam Label Trial Size Length (ft) Depth (in) Span/Depth
V DEMAND MDEMAND + Shear Bending+ V CAPACITY D/C Check MCAPACITY D/C Check Flanges Check Web Check
beam 1 to 5 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 25.00 25.00 12.00 399.90 50844.00 2.67 8.38 19.15 0.14 Ok 31.60 0.27 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 6 to 10 w36x652 25.00 25.00 12.00 307.90 33384.00 3.80 13.57 19.15 0.20 Ok 31.60 0.43 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 11 to 15 w36x652 25.00 25.00 12.00 303.20 32904.00 3.74 13.38 19.15 0.20 Ok 31.60 0.42 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 16 to 20 w36x652 25.00 25.00 12.00 308.60 28500.00 3.81 11.59 19.15 0.20 Ok 31.60 0.37 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 21 to 25 w36x529 25.00 25.00 12.00 279.80 26832.00 4.37 13.48 19.15 0.23 Ok 31.60 0.43 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 26 to 30 w36x529 25.00 25.00 12.00 276.90 24912.00 4.32 12.52 19.15 0.23 Ok 31.60 0.40 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 31 to 35 w36x361 25.00 25.00 12.00 275.4 23916 6.47 17.72 19.15 0.34 Ok 31.60 0.56 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam 36 to 40 w36x487 25.00 25.00 12.00 286.4 20424 4.86 11.16 19.15 0.25 Ok 31.60 0.35 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam Lobby w36x652 25 25 12 364.6 43236 4.50 17.58 19.15 0.24 Ok 31.60 0.56 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok
beam parking w36x529 25 25 12 279.5 31704 4.36 15.93 19.15 0.23 Ok 31.60 0.50 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Ok

xvi
Strength checks calculations (40 story building)

Table 28-Columns strength checks (40-story building, gravity columns)

Unbraced Demands (k, in) Stress Demand (ksi) Strength Capacity (ksi) Combined Stresses Slenderness Width to Thickness Ratios
Column Label Trial Size
Length (ft) Pu - VX MX VY MY Axial - Shear Y Bending Y Shear X Bending X PCAPACITY D/C Check VCAPACITY D/C Check MCAPACITY-Y D/C Check MCAPACITY-X D/C Check Ratio Check Kl/r Cc Kl/r < Cc F.S. F'es (ksi) Flanges Check Web Check
column 1 to 5 W36X487 20 -3465 5.79 1.52E-02 43.15 43.15 24.23 0.05 0.00 0.37 0.02 26.21 0.92 Ok 16.80 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 0.93 Ok 60.61 116.75 Ok 1.84 40.66 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 6 to 10 W30X357 12.5 -3034 7.712 1.52E-02 50.88 50.88 28.90 0.09 0.00 0.63 0.04 29.20 0.99 Ok 16.80 0.01 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 0.99 Ok 41.21 116.75 Ok 1.79 87.94 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 11 to 15 W24X335 12.5 -2614 8.341 1.53E-02 53.32 53.32 26.57 0.11 0.00 0.70 0.06 28.45 0.93 Ok 16.80 0.01 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 0.94 Ok 46.44 116.75 Ok 1.81 69.24 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 16 to 20 W24X279 12.5 -2196 10.29 1.54E-02 72.08 72.08 26.78 0.17 0.00 1.16 0.10 28.32 0.95 Ok 16.80 0.01 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 0.95 Ok 47.32 116.75 Ok 1.81 66.69 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 21 to 25 W24X229 12.5 -1727 10.63 1.56E-02 70.8 70.8 25.70 0.21 0.00 1.42 0.12 28.18 0.91 Ok 16.80 0.01 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 0.92 Ok 48.23 116.75 Ok 1.81 64.19 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 26 to 30 W21X166 12.5 -1320 12.13 1.42E-02 80.96 80.96 27.05 0.36 0.00 2.40 0.21 27.89 0.97 Ok 16.80 0.02 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.01 Ok 0.98 Ok 50.17 116.75 Ok 1.82 59.34 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 31 to 35 W18X119 12.5 -688.4 26.85 2.11E-02 169 169 19.61 1.08 0.00 6.79 0.73 27.01 0.73 Ok 16.80 0.06 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.03 Ok 0.76 Ok 55.76 116.75 Ok 1.83 48.03 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
column 36 to 40 W16X67 12.5 -368.4 35.51 2.78E-02 35.51 280.3 18.70 2.76 0.00 2.76 2.40 26.15 0.72 Ok 16.80 0.16 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.09 Ok 0.85 Ok 60.98 116.75 Ok 1.84 40.16 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok
basement W36X441 10 -3759 4.735 0.00E+00 4.735 31.76 28.92 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.02 30.60 0.94 Ok 16.80 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 27.72 0.00 Ok 0.95 Ok 30.61 116.75 Ok 1.76 159.35 29.32 Ok 39.66 Ok

Table 27-Beams strength checks (40-story building, gravity columns)

Force Demand Stress Demand (ksi) Strength Capacity (ksi) Width to Thickness Ratios
Beam Label Trial Size Length (ft) Depth (in) Span/Depth
V DEMAND MDEMAND + Shear Bending+ V CAPACITY D/C Check MCAPACITY D/C Check Flanges Check Web Check
Basement w33x118 25.00 25.00 12.00 0.00 283.80 0.00 0.79 19.15 0.00 Ok 31.60 0.03 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Not Ok
Lobby w40x167 25.00 25.00 12.00 0.00 264.60 0.00 0.44 19.15 0.00 Ok 31.60 0.01 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Not Ok
typical office w33x130 25.00 25.00 12.00 99.20 263.50 1.74 0.65 19.15 0.09 Ok 31.60 0.02 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Not Ok
MEP w33x130 25.00 25.00 12.00 99.18 263.20 1.74 0.65 19.15 0.09 Ok 31.60 0.02 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Not Ok
ROOF w30x90 25.00 25.00 12.00 99.19 263.30 1.58 1.07 19.15 0.08 Ok 31.60 0.03 Ok 8.67 Ok 42.83 Not Ok
Serviceability checks (40 story building)

Table 31 illustrates the deflection checks for the worst case in each occupancy.
Table 31-beams deflection (40-story building)

Deflection checks
Floor Sections Live loads (p/ft) Deflection (inch) Verification
Basement w27x84 650 0.809 Ok
Lobby w33x118 1250 0.751 Ok
Office w30x90 700 0.687 Ok
MEP w30x90 700 0.687 Ok
Roof w27x84 400 0.497 Ok

wind drift
45
40
35
30
Storey level

25
Drift limit
20
Drift in X-X
15
Drift in Y-Y
10
5
0
0.00% 0.10% 0.20% 0.30%
Drift (%)

Figure 32-wind drift in X-X and Y-Y directions (40-stoy building)

EQ Drift (Y-Y)
45
40
35
30
Storey level

25
Limit
20
Drift in Y-Y
15
Drift X-X
10
5
0
0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60%
Drift (%)

Figure 33-earthquake drift in X-X and Y-Y directions (40-stoy building)

xvii
Steel sections used

Table 32 illustrates the two different steel sections used for the two archetype buildings; detailing in
which building, they were used and explaining their terminology.
Table 32-Wide flange and box section details and statement where each section was used.

Box Section Wide flange section

Used only in: Used in:

 Columns of the 30-strory archetype  Beams of the 30-story archetype

building. building.
 Beams of the 40-story archetype
buildings.
 Columns of the archetype buildings.

Box section is specified using the
terminology used in the following
example :
 22 x 20 x 2 x 1
Where these numbers are in inches and
represent the following dimensions:
 22 is the dimension “w”
 20 is the dimension “D”.
 2 is the dimension “t”.
 1 is the dimension “T”
wide flange section also known as I
sections, is specified using the
terminology used in the following
example:
 W10X25
where:
 “10” is the height of the section “D”
in inches.
 “25” is the weight in pounds per 1
feet long.
The other dimensions (.i.e. T, t and W)
of the section are provided by in the
catalogue of the AISC code.

xviii
Appendix B – Seismic evaluation before retrofitting
Eigen value Analysis

Table 33-Eigen Value Analysis for 30-story building.

Eigen value analysis output

Period (s) effective mass [x-x] (%) effective mass [y-y] (%)
mode 1 3.675 72.26 0
mode 2 3.663 0 72.37
mode 3 3.129 1.123E-12 0
mode 4 1.406 16.73 0
mode 5 1.399 0 16.68
mode 6 1.238 0 0
mode 7 0.866 4.61 0
mode 8 0.8608 0 4.573
mode 9 0.7769 0 0
mode 10 0.6038 1.444 0
mode 11 0.6002 0 1.436
mode 12 0.5433 0 0
mode 13 0.4419 1.047 0
mode 14 0.4397 0 1.052
mode 15 0.4001 0 0
Total mdal mass 96.1 96.11

Table 34-Eigen Value Analysis 40 story building.

Period (s) Effective mass [x-x] (%) Effective mass [y-y] (%)
mode 1 [s] X [%] Y [%]
mode 2 4.537 46.55 23.91
mode 3 4.521 23.71 46.99
mode 4 2.617 0 0
mode 5 1.556 0.5136 14.62
mode 6 1.548 14.37 0.5195
mode 7 0.9506 0 0
mode 8 0.8863 0.04555 5.343
mode 9 0.8809 5.351 0.04431
mode 10 0.6248 0.006263 2.264
mode 11 0.6213 2.357 0.00574
mode 12 0.5718 0.00E+00 0
mode 13 0.4974 0 0.00E+00
mode 14 0.4801 0.0005166 1.354
mode 15 0.4765 1.46E+00 0.0004313
mode 16 0.4188 0.009087 3.47E-04
mode 17 0.4051 0 0
mode 18 0.4047 6.80E-04 0.01663
mode 19 0.3856 0.00005451 5.49E-01
mode 20 0.3834 6.14E-01 0.00002872
Total modal mass 94.99 95.62

xix
 Table 36-Columns checks 30-sory building (BSE1-E).

Unbraced Compressive strenght flexural strength Mcx

Demands (k, in) strenght checks shear classification Slenderness
Column Label Length flexural buck torsional and flexural-torsional buckling of members yielding Torsional buckling
Trial Size
(ft) Pu - VX Mx VY My Pn check Mcx check vn check Mcy check combined stress Pn Fcr Fe Pn Fcr Fe Kz (E4 com) Vn Cv Mx Lp Mx torsional buck λp λr classification Kl/r
column 1 to 5 STD RHS(in) 24. 24. 2.25 2.25 20 -3839 362.6 1.80E+03 363.4 45168 5980.39 Ok 37297.42 Not Ok 1020.60 Ok 37297.42 Ok 1.76 Not Ok 7973.85 38.73 216.98 8644.60 41.99 70608.45 1.00 1360.80 1 49729.89 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 36.30 Ok
column 6 to 10 STD RHS(in) 22. 22. 1.5 1.5 12.5 -2976 274.5 1.80E+03 273 20880 4015.55 Ok 22347.46 Ok 623.70 Ok 22347.46 Ok 1.64 Not Ok 53537.96 419.91 478.80 5354.06 41.99 100217.13 1.00 831.60 1 29796.61 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 24.44 Ok
column 11 to 15 STD RHS(in) 20. 20. 1.75 1.75 12.5 -2264 249.2 1.80E+03 247.4 22380 4216.13 Ok 20479.91 Not Ok 661.50 Ok 20479.91 Ok 1.59 Not Ok 45572.58 340.41 388.15 5621.51 41.99 79498.25 1.00 882.00 1 27306.55 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 27.14 Ok
column 16 to 20 STD RHS(in) 18. 18. 1.5 1.5 12.5 -1626 212.6 1.80E+03 210.8 16308 3259.37 Ok 14375.81 Not Ok 510.30 Ok 14375.81 Ok 1.62 Not Ok 28657.08 276.88 315.71 4345.82 41.99 64994.96 1.00 680.40 1 19167.75 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 30.09 Ok
column 21 to 25 STD RHS(in) 16. 16. 1.25 1.25 12.5 -987.9 174.3 1.80E+03 172.7 13104 2420.74 Ok 9596.17 Not Ok 378.00 Ok 9596.17 Ok 1.79 Not Ok 16905.40 219.91 250.75 3227.66 41.99 51948.77 1.00 504.00 1 12794.89 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 33.77 Ok
column 26 to 30 STD RHS(in) 14. 14. 2. 2. 12.5 -417.4 131.5 1.80E+03 130 10260 3274.34 Ok 9906.00 Not Ok 529.20 Ok 9906.00 Ok 1.21 Not Ok 16420.08 157.89 180.03 4365.79 41.98 34696.57 1.00 705.60 1 13208.00 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 39.85 Ok
basement STD RHS(in) 24. 24. 2. 2. 12.5 -4250 473 1.80E+03 474.5 36708 5916.95 Ok 30642.90 Not Ok 935.55 Ok 30642.90 Ok 1.84 Not Ok 76256.10 405.89 462.81 7889.26 41.99 93132.73 1.00 1247.40 1 40857.20 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 24.86 Ok

Table 35-Columns checks 30-sory building (BSE2-E).

Unbraced Compressive strenght flexural strength Mx and My

Demands (k, inch) strenght checks shear classification Slenderness
Columns calculations (30-story building)

Column Label Length flexural buck torsional and flexural-torsional buckling of members yielding flange local buckling Web local buckling
Trial Size
(ft) Pu - VX Mx VY My Pn check Mcx check vn check Mcy check combined stress Pn Fcr Fe Pn Fcr Fe Kz (E4 com) Vn Cv Mn Mn Mn λp λr classification Kl/r

xx
column 1 to 5 STD RHS(in) 24. 24. 2.25 2.25 20 -5135 571.5 2.40E+03 572.8 71196 5980.39 Ok 37297.42 Not Ok 1020.60 Ok 37297.42 Not Ok 2.61 Not Ok 7973.85 38.73 216.98 8644.60 41.99 70608.45 1.00 1360.80 1 49729.89 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 36.30 Ok
column 6 to 10 STD RHS(in) 22. 22. 1.5 1.5 12.5 -3923 431.8 2.40E+03 429.5 32856 4015.55 Ok 22347.46 Not Ok 623.70 Ok 22347.46 Not Ok 2.38 Not Ok 53537.96 419.91 478.80 5354.06 41.99 100217.1 1.00 831.60 1 29796.61 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 24.44 Ok
column 11 to 15 STD RHS(in) 20. 20. 1.75 1.75 12.5 -2955 391.9 2.40E+03 389.2 35208 4216.13 Ok 20479.91 Not Ok 661.50 Ok 20479.91 Not Ok 2.33 Not Ok 45572.58 340.41 388.15 5621.51 41.99 79498.25 1.00 882.00 1 27306.55 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 27.14 Ok
column 16 to 20 STD RHS(in) 18. 18. 1.5 1.5 12.5 -2099 334.3 2.40E+03 331.5 25644 3259.37 Ok 14375.81 Not Ok 510.30 Ok 14375.81 Not Ok 2.38 Not Ok 28657.08 276.88 315.71 4345.82 41.99 64994.96 1.00 680.40 1 19167.75 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 30.09 Ok
column 21 to 25 STD RHS(in) 16. 16. 1.25 1.25 12.5 -1261 274.1 2.40E+03 271.6 20604 2420.74 Ok 9596.17 Not Ok 378.00 Ok 9596.17 Not Ok 2.65 Not Ok 16905.40 219.91 250.75 3227.66 41.99 51948.77 1.00 504.00 1 12794.89 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 33.77 Ok
column 26 to 30 STD RHS(in) 14. 14. 2. 2. 12.5 -511.5 206.7 2.40E+03 204.5 16140 3274.34 Ok 9906.00 Not Ok 529.20 Ok 9906.00 Not Ok 1.82 Not Ok 16420.08 157.89 180.03 4365.79 41.98 34696.57 1.00 705.60 1 13208.00 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 39.85 Ok
basement STD RHS(in) 24. 24. 2. 2. 12.5 -5705 745.6 2.40E+03 748 57840 5916.95 Ok 30642.90 Not Ok 935.55 Ok 30642.90 Not Ok 2.71 Not Ok 76256.10 405.89 462.81 7889.26 41.99 93132.73 1.00 1247.40 1 40857.20 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 24.86 Ok
 Table 38-Beams checks 30-sory building (BSE1-E)

flexural strength Mcx

Unbraced Demands (Kips,ft) Checks (Kips, ft) shear classification Performance level
Column Label Trial Size yielding Torsional buckling
Length (ft)
VX MX Mcx check vn check Vn Cv Mx Lp Lr rts C (doubly sym) Cb Mx λps λr classification bf/2tf m Per level
beam 1 to 5 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 25 955.90 11000.00 11554.20 Ok 1822.50 Ok 2430.00 1 134136.00 219.74 1766.63 5.73 1.00 1.00 132048.01 10.79 28.38 compact 2.22 1.40 LF
beam 6 to 10 w36x652 25 674.10 7385.00 7573.36 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 1.20 LF
beam 11 to 15 w36x652 25 646.50 7007.00 7573.36 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 1.20 LF
beam 16 to 20 w36x529 25 623.80 6138.00 6491.49 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 1.30 LF
beam 21 to 25 w36x487 25 585.10 5612.00 5901.97 Ok 954.99 Ok 1273.32 1 76680.00 197.81 970.83 4.74 1.00 1.00 72639.66 10.79 28.38 compact 3.19 1.30 LF
beam 26 to 30 w36x395 25 560.10 4898.00 5023.39 Ok 758.94 Ok 1011.92 1 61560.00 193.82 808.22 4.61 1.00 1.00 57410.16 10.79 28.38 compact 3.82 1.40 LF
beam 31 to 35 w36x361 25 517.3 4263 4518.62 Ok 689.47 Ok 919.30 1 55800.00 192.32 756.28 4.57 1.00 1.00 51641.41 10.79 28.38 compact 4.15 1.40 LF
beam 36 to 40 w44x335 25 434.2 3187 3213.79 Ok 734.18 Ok 978.91 1 58320.00 174.34 589.39 4.24 1.00 1.00 51420.61 10.79 28.38 compact 4.49 1.00 LF
beam Lobby w36x652 25 870.5 9313 9466.70 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 1.50 LF
beam parking w36x529 25 642.1 6819 6990.84 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 1.40 LF

Table 37-Beams checks 30-sory building (BSE2-E)

Beams calculations (30-story building)

Unbraced flexural strength Mcx

Demands (kips, ft) strenght checks (kips, ft) shear classification Performance level
Column Label Trial Size Length yielding Torsional buckling
(ft) VX MX Mcx check vn check Vn Cv Mx Lp Lr rts Cb
C (doubly sym) Mx λps λr classification bf/2tf m Per level
beam 1 to 5 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 25 1499.00 17290.00 17331.30 Ok 1822.50 Ok 2430.00 1 134136.00 219.74 1766.63 5.73 1.00 1.00 132048.01 10.79 28.38 compact 2.22 2.10 LF
beam 6 to 10 w36x652 25 1053.00 11580.00 11991.16 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 1.90 LF

xxi
beam 11 to 15 w36x652 25 1002.00 10990.00 11360.04 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 1.80 LF
beam 16 to 20 w36x529 25 914.20 9615.00 9986.91 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 2.00 LF
beam 21 to 25 w36x487 25 844.90 9080.00 9533.96 Ok 954.99 Ok 1273.32 1 76680.00 197.81 970.83 4.74 1.00 1.00 72639.66 10.79 28.38 compact 3.19 2.10 LF
beam 26 to 30 w36x395 25 797.50 8024.00 8252.71 Ok 758.94 Not Ok 1011.92 1 61560.00 193.82 808.22 4.61 1.00 1.00 57410.16 10.79 28.38 compact 3.82 2.30 LF
beam 31 to 35 w36x361 25 719.8 7068 7100.69 Ok 689.47 Not Ok 919.30 1 55800.00 192.32 756.28 4.57 1.00 1.00 51641.41 10.79 28.38 compact 4.15 2.20 LF
beam 36 to 40 w44x335 25 580.6 5165 5463.44 Ok 734.18 Ok 978.91 1 58320.00 174.34 589.39 4.24 1.00 1.00 51420.61 10.79 28.38 compact 4.49 1.70 LF
beam Lobby w36x652 25 1337 14540 15146.73 Ok 1311.67 Not Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 2.40 LF
beam parking w36x529 25 992.1 10670 10985.60 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 2.20 LF
 Table 40-Columns checks 40-sory building (BSE1-E)

Compressive strenght flexural strength Mcx flexural strength Mcy

Unbraced Demands (k, in) strenght checks shear classification Slenderness
Column Label flexural buck torsional and flexural-torsional buckling of members yielding Torsional buckling yielding
flange local buck
Length (ft)
Trial Size Pu - VX Mx VY My Pn check Mcx check vn check Mcy check combined stress Pn Fcr Fe Pn Fcr Fe Kz (E4 com) Vn Cv Mx Lp Mx torsional buck Mn Mn λp λr classification Kl/r
column 1 to 5 STD I(in) 50. 25. 3. 5.5 20 -8740 62.77 8422.8 1372 167880 12237.41 Ok 191098.11 Ok 2835.00 Ok 24283.63 Ok 1.80 Not Ok 16316.55 37.77 165.59 18137.79 41.99 51388.72 1.00 3780.00 1 254797.48 267.11 does not apply 32378.17does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 41.55 Ok
column 6 to 10 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 12.5 -6676 60.91 5570.4 1143 100452 14171.91 Ok 191079.00 Ok 2835.00 Ok 26407.50 Ok 1.13 Not Ok 131126.17 388.52 443.01 14171.91 41.99 80748.63 1.00 2835.00 1 191079.00 273.06 does not apply 26407.50does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 25.41 Ok
column 11 to 15 w36x800 12.5 -5239 59.34 4466.4 1056 79464 9907.93 Ok 153300.00 Ok 2554.98 Ok 31206.00 Ok 1.12 Not Ok 46839.39 198.47 226.31 9907.93 41.98 42777.99 1.00 2554.98 1 153300.00 195.16 does not apply 31206.00does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 35.55 Ok
column 16 to 20 w36x652 12.5 -4116 59.31 4760.4 941 75900 8060.47 Ok 122220.00 Ok 2040.37 Ok 24402.00 Ok 1.24 Not Ok 35970.24 187.34 213.62 8060.47 41.98 40138.13 1.00 2040.37 1 122220.00 189.61 does not apply 24402.00does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 36.59 Ok
column 21 to 25 w36x652 12.5 -3156 56.73 4304.4 844.6 63780 8060.47 Ok 122220.00 Ok 2040.37 Ok 24402.00 Ok 1.01 Not Ok 35970.24 187.34 213.62 8060.47 41.98 40138.13 1.00 2040.37 1 122220.00 189.61 does not apply 24402.00does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 36.59 Ok
column 26 to 30 w36x529 12.5 -2311 54.96 4198.8 748.6 57312 6549.00 Ok 97860.00 Ok 1614.77 Ok 19068.00 Ok 1.07 Not Ok 27817.55 178.32 203.33 6549.00 41.98 38401.01 1.00 1614.77 1 97860.00 184.99 does not apply 19068.00does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.50 Ok
column 31 to 35 w36x529 12.5 -1488 53.96 4137.6 668.6 50976 6549.00 Ok 97860.00 Ok 1614.77 Ok 19068.00 Ok 0.88 Ok 27817.55 178.32 203.33 6549.00 41.98 38401.01 1.00 1614.77 1 97860.00 184.99 does not apply 19068.00does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.50 Ok
column 36 to 40 w36x487 12.5 -659.3 54.93 4506 54.93 39576 6003.20 Ok 89460.00 Ok 1485.54 Ok 17304.00 Ok 0.73 Ok 24991.99 174.77 199.28 6003.20 41.98 37651.15 1.00 1485.54 1 89460.00 183.14 does not apply 17304.00does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.88 Ok
basement w36x800 10 -10060 82.57 9789.6 82.57 112716 9908.74 Not Ok 153300.00 Ok 2554.98 Ok 31206.00 Ok 1.95 Not Ok 73186.55 310.11 353.61 9908.74 41.99 53429.41 1.00 2554.98 1 153300.00 195.16 does not apply 31206.00does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 28.44 Ok
Columns calculations (40-story building)

Table 39-Columns checks 40-sory building (BSE2-E)

xxii
Unbraced Compressive strenght flexural strength Mcx flexural strength Mcy
Demands (k, in) strenght checks shear classification Slenderness
Column Label Length flexural buck torsional and flexural-torsional buckling of members yielding Torsional buckling yielding flange local buck
Trial Size (ft)
Pu - VX My VY Mx Pn check Mcx check vn check Mcy check combined stress Pn Fcr Fe Pn Fcr Fe Kz (E4 com) Vn Cv Mx Lp Mx torsional buck Mn Mn λp λr classification Kl/r

column 1 to 5 STD I(in) 50. 25. 3. 5.5 20 -12750 98.67 13248 2163 264600 12237.41 Not Ok 191098.11 Not Ok 2835.00 Ok 24283.63 Ok 2.76 Not Ok 16316.55 37.77 165.59 18137.79 41.99 51388.72 1.00 3780.00 1 254797.48 267.11 does not apply 32378.17 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 41.55 Ok

column 6 to 10 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 12.5 -9598 95.78 8756.4 1802 158280 14171.91 Ok 143309.25 Not Ok 2835.00 Ok 19805.63 Ok 2.05 Not Ok 131126.17 388.52 443.01 14171.91 41.99 80748.63 1.00 2835.00 1 191079.00 273.06 does not apply 26407.50 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 25.41 Ok

column 11 to 15 w36x800 12.5 -7445 93.3 7018.8 1662 125040 9907.93 Ok 114975.00 Not Ok 2554.98 Ok 23404.50 Ok 1.98 Not Ok 46839.39 198.47 226.31 9907.93 41.98 42777.99 1.00 2554.98 1 153300.00 195.16 does not apply 31206.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 35.55 Ok

column 16 to 20 w36x652 12.5 -5802 93.06 7482 1482 119556 8060.47 Ok 91665.00 Not Ok 2040.37 Ok 18301.50 Ok 2.24 Not Ok 35970.24 187.34 213.62 8060.47 41.98 40138.13 1.00 2040.37 1 122220.00 189.61 does not apply 24402.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 36.59 Ok

column 21 to 25 w36x652 12.5 -4422 88.28 6688.8 1330 100356 8060.47 Ok 91665.00 Not Ok 2040.37 Ok 18301.50 Ok 1.85 Not Ok 35970.24 187.34 213.62 8060.47 41.98 40138.13 1.00 2040.37 1 122220.00 189.61 does not apply 24402.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 36.59 Ok

column 26 to 30 w36x529 12.5 -3228 82.98 6340.8 1159 88788 6549.00 Ok 73395.00 Not Ok 1614.77 Ok 14301.00 Ok 1.96 Not Ok 27817.55 178.32 203.33 6549.00 41.98 38401.01 1.00 1614.77 1 97860.00 184.99 does not apply 19068.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.50 Ok

column 31 to 35 w36x529 12.5 -2065 74.59 5712 1030 78564 6549.00 Ok 73395.00 Not Ok 1614.77 Ok 14301.00 Ok 1.62 Not Ok 27817.55 178.32 203.33 6549.00 41.98 38401.01 1.00 1614.77 1 97860.00 184.99 does not apply 19068.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.50 Ok

column 36 to 40 w36x487 12.5 -898.7 69.31 5743.2 69.31 60756 6003.20 Ok 67095.00 Ok 1485.54 Ok 12978.00 Ok 1.35 Not Ok 24991.99 174.77 199.28 6003.20 41.98 37651.15 1.00 1485.54 1 89460.00 183.14 does not apply 17304.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.88 Ok

basement w36x800 10 -1560 19.09 15384 129 177480 9908.74 Ok 114975.00 Not Ok 2554.98 Ok 23404.50 Ok 2.11 Not Ok 73186.55 310.11 353.61 9908.74 41.99 53429.41 1.00 2554.98 1 153300.00 195.16 does not apply 31206.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 28.44 Ok
 Table 42-Beams checks 40-sory building (BSE1-E)

flexural strength Mcx

Unbraced Demands (Kips,ft) Checks (Kips, ft) shear classification Performance level
Column Label Trial Size yielding Torsional buckling
Length (ft)
VX MX Mcx check vn check Vn Cv Mx Lp Lr rts C (doubly sym) Cb Mx λps λr classification bf/2tf m Per level
beam 1 to 5 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 25 955.90 11000.00 11554.20 Ok 1822.50 Ok 2430.00 1 134136.00 219.74 1766.63 5.73 1.00 1.00 132048.01 10.79 28.38 compact 2.22 1.40 LF
beam 6 to 10 w36x652 25 674.10 7385.00 7573.36 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 1.20 LF
beam 11 to 15 w36x652 25 646.50 7007.00 7573.36 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 1.20 LF
beam 16 to 20 w36x529 25 623.80 6138.00 6491.49 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 1.30 LF
beam 21 to 25 w36x487 25 585.10 5612.00 5901.97 Ok 954.99 Ok 1273.32 1 76680.00 197.81 970.83 4.74 1.00 1.00 72639.66 10.79 28.38 compact 3.19 1.30 LF
beam 26 to 30 w36x395 25 560.10 4898.00 5023.39 Ok 758.94 Ok 1011.92 1 61560.00 193.82 808.22 4.61 1.00 1.00 57410.16 10.79 28.38 compact 3.82 1.40 LF
beam 31 to 35 w36x361 25 517.3 4263 4518.62 Ok 689.47 Ok 919.30 1 55800.00 192.32 756.28 4.57 1.00 1.00 51641.41 10.79 28.38 compact 4.15 1.40 LF
beam 36 to 40 w44x335 25 434.2 3187 3213.79 Ok 734.18 Ok 978.91 1 58320.00 174.34 589.39 4.24 1.00 1.00 51420.61 10.79 28.38 compact 4.49 1.00 LF
beam Lobby w36x652 25 870.5 9313 9466.70 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 1.50 LF
beam parking w36x529 25 642.1 6819 6990.84 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 1.40 LF
Beams’ calculations (40-story building)

Table 41-Beams checks 40-sory building (BSE2-E)

xxiii
Unbraced flexural strength Mcx
Demands (kips, ft) strenght checks (kips, ft) shear classification Performance level
Column Label Trial Size Length yielding Torsional buckling
(ft) VX MX Mcx check vn check Vn Cv Mx Lp Lr rts Cb
C (doubly sym) Mx λps λr classification bf/2tf m Per level
beam 1 to 5 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 25 1499.00 17290.00 17331.30 Ok 1822.50 Ok 2430.00 1 134136.00 219.74 1766.63 5.73 1.00 1.00 132048.01 10.79 28.38 compact 2.22 2.10 LF
beam 6 to 10 w36x652 25 1053.00 11580.00 11991.16 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 1.90 LF
beam 11 to 15 w36x652 25 1002.00 10990.00 11360.04 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 1.80 LF
beam 16 to 20 w36x529 25 914.20 9615.00 9986.91 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 2.00 LF
beam 21 to 25 w36x487 25 844.90 9080.00 9533.96 Ok 954.99 Ok 1273.32 1 76680.00 197.81 970.83 4.74 1.00 1.00 72639.66 10.79 28.38 compact 3.19 2.10 LF
beam 26 to 30 w36x395 25 797.50 8024.00 8252.71 Ok 758.94 Not Ok 1011.92 1 61560.00 193.82 808.22 4.61 1.00 1.00 57410.16 10.79 28.38 compact 3.82 2.30 LF
beam 31 to 35 w36x361 25 719.8 7068 7100.69 Ok 689.47 Not Ok 919.30 1 55800.00 192.32 756.28 4.57 1.00 1.00 51641.41 10.79 28.38 compact 4.15 2.20 LF
beam 36 to 40 w44x335 25 580.6 5165 5463.44 Ok 734.18 Ok 978.91 1 58320.00 174.34 589.39 4.24 1.00 1.00 51420.61 10.79 28.38 compact 4.49 1.70 LF
beam Lobby w36x652 25 1337 14540 15146.73 Ok 1311.67 Not Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 2.40 LF
beam parking w36x529 25 992.1 10670 10985.60 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 2.20 LF
 Table 43-Column checks for BSE1-E Seismic hazard (Retrofitted 30-story archetype).

Compressive strenght flexural strength Mcx Slenderness

Unbraced Demands (k, in) Strength checks shear
Column Label flexural buck torsional and flexural-torsional buckling of members yielding Torsional buckling classification Slenderness
Trial Size Length (ft)
Pu - VX Mx VY My Pn check Mcx check vn check Mcy check combined stress Pn Fcr Fe Pn Fcr Fe Kz (E4 com) Vn Cv Mx Lp Mx torsional buck λp λr classification Kl/r
column 1 to 5 STD RHS(in) 24. 24. 2.25 2.25 20 -2367 148.8 1.80E+03 148.9 18636 8420.67 Ok 48249.46 Ok 1474.20 Ok 48249.46 Ok 0.66 Ok 11227.55 38.60 208.19 12213.42 41.99 64463.9 1.00 1965.60 1 64332.62 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 37.06 Ok
column 6 to 10 STD RHS(in) 22. 22. 1.5 1.5 12.5 -1872 121.5 1.80E+03 120.8 9247.2 6534.99 Ok 33039.80 Ok 1039.50 Ok 33039.80 Ok 0.58 Ok 83276.15 401.33 457.62 8713.31 41.99 90841.7 1.00 1386.00 1 44053.07 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 25.00 Ok
column 11 to 15 STD RHS(in) 20. 20. 1.75 1.75 12.5 -1425 98.6 1.80E+03 97.97 9106.8 6451.97 Ok 28195.44 Ok 1039.50 Ok 28195.44 Ok 0.56 Ok 66364.41 323.93 369.36 8602.63 41.99 71256.6 1.00 1386.00 1 37593.93 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 27.82 Ok
column 16 to 20 STD RHS(in) 18. 18. 1.5 1.5 12.5 -1080 76.06 1.80E+03 75.46 5816.4 5274.64 Ok 20685.73 Ok 850.50 Ok 20685.73 Ok 0.53 Ok 43888.38 262.02 298.77 7032.85 41.99 57608.2 1.00 1134.00 1 27580.97 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 30.94 Ok
column 21 to 25 STD RHS(in) 16. 16. 1.25 1.25 12.5 -680.5 54.34 1.80E+03 53.82 4038 4215.43 Ok 14642.24 Ok 680.40 Ok 14642.24 Ok 0.52 Ok 27668.37 206.67 235.66 5620.57 41.98 45421.2 1.00 907.20 1 19522.99 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 34.83 Ok
column 26 to 30 STD RHS(in) 14. 14. 2. 2. 12.5 -350.6 32.56 1.80E+03 32.07 2493.6 4722.21 Ok 12294.00 Ok 793.80 Ok 12294.00 Ok 0.38 Ok 22080.74 147.20 167.85 6296.28 41.98 29746.9 1.00 1058.40 1 16392.00 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 41.27 Ok
column 31 to 35 STD RHS(in) 24. 24. 2. 2. 12.5 -2609 213.6 1.80E+03 214.6 13740 8341.82 Ok 39239.78 Ok 1351.35 Ok 39239.78 Ok 0.66 Ok 102773.95 388.01 442.43 11122.43 41.99 84181.5 1.00 1801.80 1 52319.70 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 25.42 Ok

Table 44-Column checks for BSE2-E Seismic hazard (Retrofitted 30-story archetype).

xxiv
Compressive strenght flexural strength Mx and My Slenderness
Unbraced Demands (k, ft) strenght checks shear
Column Label flexural buck torsional and flexural-torsional buckling of members yielding Flange local buckling Web local buckling classification Slenderness
Trial Size Length (ft)
Pu - VX Mx VY My Pn check Mcx check vn check Mcy check combined stress Pn Fcr Fe Pn Fcr Fe Kz (E4 com) Vn Cv Mn Mn Mn λp λr classification Kl/r
column 1 to 5 STD RHS(in) 24. 24. 3.25 3.25 20 -2775 231.5 2.40E+03 232.2 29064 8420.67 Ok 48249.46 Ok 1474.20 Ok 48249.5 Ok 0.91 Ok 11227.55 38.60 208.19 12213.42 41.99 64463.8666 1.00 1965.60 1 64332.6 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 37.06 Ok
column 6 to 10 STD RHS(in) 22. 22. 2.5 2.5 12.5 -2166 187.3 2.40E+03 186.2 14268 6534.99 Ok 33039.80 Ok 1039.50 Ok 33039.8 Ok 0.78 Ok 83276.15 401.33 457.62 8713.31 41.99 90841.6678 1.00 1386.00 1 44053.1 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 25.00 Ok
column 11 to 15 STD RHS(in) 20. 20. 2.75 2.75 12.5 -1628 152.5 2.40E+03 151.6 14112 6451.97 Ok 28195.44 Ok 1039.50 Ok 28195.4 Ok 0.77 Ok 66364.41 323.93 369.36 8602.63 41.99 71256.6123 1.00 1386.00 1 37593.9 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 27.82 Ok
column 16 to 20 STD RHS(in) 18. 18. 2.5 2.5 12.5 -1139 118.1 2.40E+03 117.2 9040.8 5274.64 Ok 20685.73 Ok 850.50 Ok 20685.7 Ok 0.71 Ok 43888.38 262.02 298.77 7032.85 41.99 57608.1658 1.00 1134.00 1 27581.0 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 30.94 Ok
column 21 to 25 STD RHS(in) 16. 16. 2.25 2.25 12.5 -716 84.2 2.40E+03 83.48 6265.2 4215.43 Ok 14642.24 Ok 680.40 Ok 14642.2 Ok 0.70 Ok 27668.37 206.67 235.66 5620.57 41.98 45421.1735 1.00 907.20 1 19523.0 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 34.83 Ok
column 26 to 30 STD RHS(in) 14. 14. 3. 3. 12.5 -366.1 50.16 2.40E+03 49.51 3849.6 4722.21 Ok 12294.00 Ok 793.80 Ok 12294.0 Ok 0.53 Ok 22080.74 147.20 167.85 6296.28 41.98 29746.8992 1.00 1058.40 1 16392.0 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 41.27 Ok
Column calculations (30-story retrofitted archetype building):

basement STD RHS(in) 22. 22. 3.25 3.25 12.5 -3075 332.2 2.40E+03 333.6 21336 8341.82 Ok 39239.78 Ok 1351.35 Ok 39239.8 Ok 0.91 Ok 102773.95 388.01 442.43 11122.43 41.99 84181.538 1.00 1801.80 1 52319.7 does not apply does not apply 29.43 36.79 compact 25.42 Ok
Appendix C – Seismic Evaluation after retrofitting
 Table 46- Beams checks for BSE1-E Seismic hazard (Retrofitted 30-story archetype).

flexural strength Mcx Performance Level

Unbraced Demands (Kips, ft) strenght checks shear classification
Column Label Trial Size yielding Torsional buckling m
Length (ft) Perf
VX MX Mcx (kips.ft) check vn check Vn Cv Mx Lp Lr rts C (doubly sym) Cb Mx λps λr classification bf/2tf m
beam 1 to 5 W33x291 25 158.00 1887.00 1900.51 Ok 541.21 Ok 721.61 1 41760.0 183.8 681.3 4.3 1.00 1.00 38010.28 10.79 28.38 compact 4.60 0.80 IO
beam 6 to 10 W30x292 25 105.60 1233.00 1312.92 Ok 528.77 Ok 705.02 1 38160.0 178.8 745.4 4.2 1.00 1.00 35011.30 10.79 28.38 compact 4.14 0.60 IO
beam 11 to 15 W27x146 25 81.68 923.90 970.97 Ok 268.55 Ok 358.06 1 16704.0 159.8 500.4 3.8 1.00 1.00 14123.17 10.79 28.38 non-compact 7.18 1.10 LF
beam 16 to 20 W24x146 25 89.43 851.00 874.43 Ok 260.09 Ok 346.79 1 15048.0 150.4 516.5 3.5 1.00 1.00 12719.02 10.79 28.38 non-compact 5.92 1.10 LF
beam 21 to 25 W24x131 25 58.32 577.60 620.79 Ok 240.12 Ok 320.17 1 13320.0 148.4 482.3 3.5 1.00 1.00 11036.21 10.79 28.38 non-compact 6.72 0.90 IO
beam 26 to 30 W21x111 25 40.17 349.60 361.98 Ok 191.57 Ok 255.42 1 10044.0 144.9 475.2 3.4 1.00 1.00 8273.86 10.79 28.38 non-compact 7.03 0.70 IO
beam Lobby W30x292 25 175.9 2022 2188.21 Ok 528.77 Ok 705.02 1 38160.0 178.8 745.4 4.2 1.00 1.00 35011.30 10.79 28.38 compact 4.14 1.00 IO
beam Lobby W30x292 25 175.9 2022 2188.21 Ok 528.77 Ok 705.02 1 38160.0 178.8 745.4 4.2 1.00 1.00 35011.30 10.79 28.38 compact 4.14 1.00 IO

Table 45- Beams checks for BSE2-E Seismic hazard (Retrofitted 30-story archetype).

xxv
flexural strength Mcx Performance level
Unbraced Demands (Kips ,ft) Strength checks shear classification
Column Label Trial Size yielding Torsional buckling m
Length (ft) Perf
VX MX Mcx (kips.ft) check vn check Vn Cv Mx (kips.inch) Lp Lr rts C (doubly sym) Cb Mx (kips.inch) λps λr classification bf/2tf
beam 1 to 5 W33x291 25 104.60 1244.00 1425.39 Ok 541.21 Ok 721.61 1 41760.00 183.83 681.27 4.34 1.00 1.00 38010.28 10.79 28.38 compact 4.60 0.60 IO
beam 6 to 10 W30x292 25 73.30 840.40 875.28 Ok 528.77 Ok 705.02 1 38160.00 178.83 745.44 4.22 1.00 1.00 35011.30 10.79 28.38 compact 4.14 0.40 IO
beam 11 to 15 W27x146 25 62.48 625.70 706.16 Ok 268.55 Ok 358.06 1 16704.00 159.85 500.40 3.76 1.00 1.00 14123.17 10.79 28.38 non-compact 7.18 0.80 IO
beam 16 to 20 W24x146 25 73.25 632.00 635.95 Ok 260.09 Ok 346.79 1 15048.00 150.36 516.52 3.53 1.00 1.00 12719.02 10.79 28.38 non-compact 5.92 0.80 IO
Beams calculations (30-story retrofitted archetype building):

beam 21 to 25 W24x131 25 46.83 431.10 482.83 Ok 240.12 Ok 320.17 1 13320.00 148.36 482.29 3.49 1.00 1.00 11036.21 10.79 28.38 non-compact 6.72 0.70 IO
beam 26 to 30 W21x111 25 34.56 280.60 310.27 Ok 191.57 Ok 255.42 1 10044.00 144.86 475.20 3.37 1.00 1.00 8273.86 10.79 28.38 non-compact 7.03 0.60 IO
beam Lobby W30x292 25 131.7 1344 1531.74 Ok 528.77 Ok 705.02 1 38160.00 178.83 745.44 4.22 1.00 1.00 35011.30 10.79 28.38 compact 4.14 0.70 IO
beam basement W30x292 25 131.7 1344 1531.74 Ok 528.77 Ok 705.02 1 38160.00 178.83 745.44 4.22 1.00 1.00 35011.30 10.79 28.38 compact 4.14 0.70 IO
 Table 47- Columns checks for BSE1-E Seismic hazard (Retrofitted 40-story archetype).

Compressive strenght flexural strength Mcx flexural strength Mcy

Unbraced Demands (k, in) strenght checks shear classification Slenderness
Column Label Length flexural buck torsional and flexural-torsional buckling of members yielding Torsional buckling yielding flange local buck
Trial Size (ft) Pu - VX Mx VY My Pn check Mcx check vn check Mcy check combined stress Pn Fcr Fe Pn Fcr Fe Kz (E4 com) Vn Cv Mx Lp Mx torsional buck Mn Mn λp λr classification Kl/r
column 1 to 5 STD I(in) 50. 25. 3. 5.5 20 -1880 12.09 4209.6 530.7 65280 12237.41 Ok 191098.11 Ok 2835.00 Ok 24283.63 Ok 0.61 Ok 16316.55 37.77 165.59 18137.79 41.99 51388.72 1.00 3780.00 1 254797.48 267.11 does not apply 32378.17 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 41.55 Ok
column 6 to 10 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 12.5 -1738 11.76 2767.2 446.9 39180 14171.91 Ok 191079.00 Ok 2835.00 Ok 26407.50 Ok 0.40 Ok 131126.17 388.52 443.01 14171.91 41.99 80748.63 1.00 2835.00 1 191079.00 273.06 does not apply 26407.50 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 25.41 Ok
column 11 to 15 w36x800 12.5 -1546 14.66 2713.2 402.9 30432 9907.93 Ok 153300.00 Ok 2554.98 Ok 31206.00 Ok 0.41 Ok 46839.39 198.47 226.31 9907.93 41.98 42777.99 1.00 2554.98 1 153300.00 195.16 does not apply 31206.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 35.55 Ok
column 16 to 20 w36x652 12.5 -1350 17.24 3012 360.2 28992 8060.47 Ok 122220.00 Ok 2040.37 Ok 24402.00 Ok 0.49 Ok 35970.24 187.34 213.62 8060.47 41.98 40138.13 1.00 2040.37 1 122220.00 189.61 does not apply 24402.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 36.59 Ok
column 21 to 25 w36x652 12.5 -1089 18.8 2931.6 323.1 24612 8060.47 Ok 122220.00 Ok 2040.37 Ok 24402.00 Ok 0.42 Ok 35970.24 187.34 213.62 8060.47 41.98 40138.13 1.00 2040.37 1 122220.00 189.61 does not apply 24402.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 36.59 Ok
column 26 to 30 w36x529 12.5 -846.3 19.84 2698.8 275.4 20808 6549.00 Ok 97860.00 Ok 1614.77 Ok 19068.00 Ok 0.44 Ok 27817.55 178.32 203.33 6549.00 41.98 38401.01 1.00 1614.77 1 97860.00 184.99 does not apply 19068.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.50 Ok
column 31 to 35 w36x529 12.5 -583.1 22.65 2697.6 231.5 17820 6549.00 Ok 97860.00 Ok 1614.77 Ok 19068.00 Ok 0.38 Ok 27817.55 178.32 203.33 6549.00 41.98 38401.01 1.00 1614.77 1 97860.00 184.99 does not apply 19068.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.50 Ok
column 36 to 40 w36x487 12.5 -310.3 33.57 3636 43.31 12720 6003.20 Ok 89460.00 Ok 1485.54 Ok 17304.00 Ok 0.36 Ok 24991.99 174.77 199.28 6003.20 41.98 37651.15 1.00 1485.54 1 89460.00 183.14 does not apply 17304.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.88 Ok
basement w36x800 10 -2040 91.24 13464 128.2 43884 9908.74 Ok 153300.00 Ok 2554.98 Ok 31206.00 Ok 0.84 Ok 73186.55 310.11 353.61 9908.74 41.99 53429.41 1.00 2554.98 1 153300.00 195.16 does not apply 31206.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 28.44 Ok

xxvi
Table 48- Columns checks for BSE2-E Seismic hazard (Retrofitted 40-story archetype).

Unbraced Compressive strenght flexural strength Mcx flexural strength Mcy

strenght checks shear classification Slenderness
Column Label Length Demands (k, in) flexural buck torsional and flexural-torsional buckling of members yielding Torsional buckling yielding flange local buck
Trial Size
(ft) Pu - VX My VY Mx Pn check Mcx check vn check Mcy check combined stress Pn Fcr Fe Pn Fcr Fe Kz (E4 com) Vn Cv Mx Lp Mx torsional buck Mn Mn λp λr classification Kl/r
column 1 to 5 STD I(in) 50. 25. 3. 5.5 20 -1736 17.81 6526.8 805.5 100380 12237.41 Ok 191098.11 Ok 2835.00 Ok 24283.63 Ok 0.85 Ok 16316.55 37.77 165.59 18137.79 41.99 51388.72 1.00 3780.00 1 254797.48 267.11 does not apply 32378.17 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 41.55 Ok
column 6 to 10 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 12.5 -3537 48.62 3950.4 679.6 59700 14171.91 Ok 143309.25 Ok 2835.00 Ok 19805.63 Ok 0.80 Ok 131126.17 388.52 443.01 14171.91 41.99 80748.63 1.00 2835.00 1 191079.00 273.06 does not apply 26407.50 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 25.41 Ok
column 11 to 15 w36x800 12.5 -2871 47.65 3604.8 611.8 46188 9907.93 Ok 114975.00 Ok 2554.98 Ok 23404.50 Ok 0.78 Ok 46839.39 198.47 226.31 9907.93 41.98 42777.99 1.00 2554.98 1 153300.00 195.16 does not apply 31206.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 35.55 Ok
column 16 to 20 w36x652 12.5 -2311 48.95 3817.2 544.8 43884 8060.47 Ok 91665.00 Ok 2040.37 Ok 18301.50 Ok 0.90 Ok 35970.24 187.34 213.62 8060.47 41.98 40138.13 1.00 2040.37 1 122220.00 189.61 does not apply 24402.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 36.59 Ok
column 21 to 25 w36x652 12.5 -1804 48.62 3682.8 484.5 36912 8060.47 Ok 91665.00 Ok 2040.37 Ok 18301.50 Ok 0.76 Ok 35970.24 187.34 213.62 8060.47 41.98 40138.13 1.00 2040.37 1 122220.00 189.61 does not apply 24402.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 36.59 Ok
column 26 to 30 w36x529 12.5 -1336 44.11 3356.4 409.3 30924 6549.00 Ok 73395.00 Ok 1614.77 Ok 14301.00 Ok 0.79 Ok 27817.55 178.32 203.33 6549.00 41.98 38401.01 1.00 1614.77 1 97860.00 184.99 does not apply 19068.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.50 Ok
Columns calculations (40-story retrofitted archetype building):

column 31 to 35 w36x529 12.5 -891.2 42.92 3280.8 337.8 26040 6549.00 Ok 73395.00 Ok 1614.77 Ok 14301.00 Ok 0.66 Ok 27817.55 178.32 203.33 6549.00 41.98 38401.01 1.00 1614.77 1 97860.00 184.99 does not apply 19068.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.50 Ok
column 36 to 40 w36x487 12.5 -446.9 47.36 3963.6 47.36 18084 6003.20 Ok 67095.00 Ok 1485.54 Ok 12978.00 Ok 0.59 Ok 24991.99 174.77 199.28 6003.20 41.98 37651.15 1.00 1485.54 1 89460.00 183.14 does not apply 17304.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 37.88 Ok
basement w36x800 10 -1887 140.3 6526.8 196.2 67872 9908.74 Ok 114975.00 Ok 4702.02 Ok 23404.50 Ok 0.96 Ok 73186.55 310.11 353.61 9908.74 41.99 53429.41 1.00 4702.02 1 153300.00 195.16 does not apply 31206.00 does not apply 9.99 26.28 compact 28.44 Ok
 Table 49- Beams checks for BSE1-E Seismic hazard (Retrofitted 40-story archetype).

flexural strength Mcx

Unbraced Demands (Kips.ft) Strength checks shear classification Performance Level
Column Label Trial Size yielding Torsional buckling
Length (ft)
VX MX Mcx check vn check Vn Cv Mx Lp Lr rts C (doubly sym) Cb Mx λps λr classification bf/2tf m Perf
beam 1 to 5 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 25 369.70 3976.00 4126.50 Ok 1822.50 Ok 2430.00 1 134136.00 219.74 1766.63 5.73 1.00 1.00 132048.01 10.79 28.38 compact 2.22 0.50 IO
beam 6 to 10 w36x652 25 272.90 2543.00 3155.57 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 0.50 IO
beam 11 to 15 w36x652 25 283.80 2398.00 2524.45 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 0.40 IO
beam 16 to 20 w36x529 25 309.80 2113.00 2496.73 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 0.50 IO
beam 21 to 25 w36x487 25 278.90 1921.00 2269.99 Ok 954.99 Ok 1273.32 1 76680.00 197.81 970.83 4.74 1.00 1.00 72639.66 10.79 28.38 compact 3.19 0.50 IO
beam 26 to 30 w36x395 25 272.00 1712.00 1794.07 Ok 758.94 Ok 1011.92 1 61560.00 193.82 808.22 4.61 1.00 1.00 57410.16 10.79 28.38 compact 3.82 0.50 IO
beam 31 to 35 w36x361 25 259.1 1445 1613.79 Ok 689.47 Ok 919.30 1 55800.00 192.32 756.28 4.57 1.00 1.00 51641.41 10.79 28.38 compact 4.15 0.50 IO
beam 36 to 40 w44x335 25 276.9 1166 1285.52 Ok 734.18 Ok 978.91 1 58320.00 174.34 589.39 4.24 1.00 1.00 51420.61 10.79 28.38 compact 4.49 0.40 IO
beam Lobby w36x652 25 351.5 3512 4417.79 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 0.70 IO
beam parking w36x529 25 406.1 3001 3495.42 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 0.70 IO

Table 50- Beams checks for BSE2-E Seismic hazard (Retrofitted 40-story archetype).

xxvii
flexural strength Mcx
Unbraced Performance Level
Column Label Trial Size Length Demands (Kips, ft) strenght checks shear yielding Torsional buckling classification
(ft) VX MX Mcx check vn check Vn Cv Mx Lp Lr rts Cb
C (doubly sym) Mx λps λr classification bf/2tf m Perf
beam 1 to 5 STD I(in) 45. 20. 2.5 4.5 25 570.40 6580.00 6602.40 Ok 1822.50 Ok 2430.00 1 134136.00 219.74 1766.63 5.73 1.00 1.00 132048.01 10.79 28.38 compact 2.22 0.80 IO
beam 6 to 10 w36x652 25 406.60 4222.00 4417.79 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 0.70 IO
beam 11 to 15 w36x652 25 381.00 3997.00 4417.79 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 0.70 IO
beam 16 to 20 w36x529 25 385.50 3283.00 3495.42 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 0.70 IO
beam 21 to 25 w36x487 25 351.30 2897.00 3177.99 Ok 954.99 Ok 1273.32 1 76680.00 197.81 970.83 4.74 1.00 1.00 72639.66 10.79 28.38 compact 3.19 0.70 IO
beam 26 to 30 w36x395 25 333.10 2392.00 2511.69 Ok 758.94 Ok 1011.92 1 61560.00 193.82 808.22 4.61 1.00 1.00 57410.16 10.79 28.38 compact 3.82 0.70 IO
Beams calculations (40-story retrofitted archetype building):

beam 31 to 35 w36x361 25 303.2 1941 2259.31 Ok 689.47 Ok 919.30 1 55800.00 192.32 756.28 4.57 1.00 1.00 51641.41 10.79 28.38 compact 4.15 0.70 IO
beam 36 to 40 w44x335 25 301 1418 1606.89 Ok 734.18 Ok 978.91 1 58320.00 174.34 589.39 4.24 1.00 1.00 51420.61 10.79 28.38 compact 4.49 0.50 IO
beam Lobby w36x652 25 627.6 4645 5048.91 Ok 1311.67 Ok 1748.89 1 104760.00 204.81 1281.33 4.97 1.00 1.00 100978.17 10.79 28.38 compact 2.49 0.80 IO
beam parking w36x529 25 627.6 4645 4993.45 Ok 1038.06 Ok 1384.08 1 83880.00 199.81 1047.94 4.80 1.00 1.00 79895.27 10.79 28.38 compact 2.96 1.00 IO