Sie sind auf Seite 1von 346

ATe E!

Seismic evaluation and retrofit


of concrete buildings
Volume 1

aTe Applied Technology Council ", ...


....\.. 0 TN

• ._~ .~ CALIFORNIA SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION


o .
Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program
Report sse 96-01
,
.,

. t'L 4 . J..:U":l:.
~ A'Ic,S
(
(
ATC-4D
i,..<--
.,-~~
''l
..... ~

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit


of Concrete Buildings
Volume 1
by
APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
555. Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 550
Redwood City, California 94065

Funded by

SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION


State of California
Products 1.2 and 1.3 of the Proposition 122
Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program

PRlNCIPAL :INVESTIGATOR
Craig D. Comartin

CO-PRINCIPAL IN''"VESTIGATOR
PRQJECT DIRECTOR
Richard W. Niewiarowski

SENIOR ADVISOR
Christopher Rojabn

Report No. sse 96-01


November 1996

II " 11I1 If 1111


2494/R
(
I

(
(

(
(

(
(

;-

1:
Preface
Proposition 122 passed by California's voters in . This document is organized into two volumes.
1990, created the Earthquake Safety and Public Volume One contains the main body of the
Buildings Rehabilitation Fund of 1990, sup- evaluation and retrofit methodology, presented
ported by a $300 million general obligation in 13 chapters, with a glossary and a list of ref-
bond program for the seismic retrofit of state _ _erences, J1d~ volume contains all ofthe parts of
and local government buildings. As a part of the document required for the' evaluation and
the program, Proposition 122 authorizes the retrofit of btrildings. Volume Two consists of
California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC). Appendices containing supporting materials re-
to use up to 1% of the proceeds of the bonds, or lated to the methodology: four example building
approximately $3 million, to carry out a range case study reports, a cost effectiveness study
of activities that will capitalize on the seismic related to the four building studies, and a review
retrofit experience in the private sector to im- of research on the effects of foundation condi-
prove seismic retrofit practices for government tions on the seismic performance of concrete
buildings. The purpose of California's Proposi- buildings.
tion 122 research and development program is
to develop state-of-the-practice recommenda- This report was prepared under the direction of
tions to address current needs for seismic retro- ATe Senior Consultant Craig Comartin, who
fit provisions and seismic risk decision tools. It served as Principal Investigator, and Richard W.
is focused specifically on vulnerable concrete Niewiarowski, who served as Co-Principal In-
structures consistent with the types of concrete vestigator and Project Director. Fred Turner
buildings that make up a significant portion of served as esse Project Manager. Overview
California's state and local government invento- and guidance were provided by the Proposition
ries. 122 Oversight Panel consisting of Frederick M.
Herman (Chair), Richard Conrad, Ross Cran-
In 1994, as part of the Proposition 122 Seismic mer, Wilfred Iwan, Roy Johnston, Frank
Retrofit Practices Improvement Program, the McClure, Gary McGavin, Joel McRonald, J 0-
Commission awarded the Applied Technology seph P. Nicoletti, Stanley Scott, and Lowell
Council (ATC) a contract to develop a recom- Shields. The Product 1.2 methodology and
mended methodology and commentary for the commentary were prepared by Sigmund A.
seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing con- Freeman, Ronald o. Hamburger, William T.
crete buildings (product 1.2). In 1995·the Holmes, Charles Kircher, Jack P: Moehle,
Commission awarded a second, related contract Thomas A. Sabol, and N abib. Youssef (Product
to ATC to expand the Product 1.2 effort to in- 1.2 Senior Advisory Panel). The Product 1.3
clude effects of foundations on the seismic per- GeotechnicallStructural Working Group con-
formance of existing concrete buildings sisted of Sunil Gupta, Geoffrey Martin, Mar-
(Product 1.3). The results of the two projects shall Lew, and Lelio Mejia. William T.Hol-
have been combined and are presented in this mes, Yoshi Moriwaki, Maurice Power and
ATC-40 Report (also known as SSC-96-01). Nabih Youssef served on the Product ~.3 Senior
Advisory Panel. Gregory P. Luth and Tom H.
TV/o other reports recently published by the Hale, respectively, served as the Quality .A,..SSUf-
California Seismic Safety Commission, the ance Consultant and the Cost Effectiveness
Provisional Commentary for Seismic Retrofit Study Consultant. Wendy Rule served as Tech-
(1994) and the Review of Seismic Research Re- nical Editor, and Gail Hynes Shea served as
sults on Existing Buildings (1994), are Products Publications Consultant.
1.1 and 3.1 of the Proposition 122 Program, re-
spectively. These two previous reports provide Richard McCarthy
the primary basis for the development of the CSSC Executive Director
recommended methodology and commentary
contained in this document. Christopher Rojahn
ATC Executive Director & ATC-40" Senior
Advisor
:

.·oversight. Panei far·


._.----- ~Propositla~-,-2-2--5eism·ic .Re~roFrt· -pracflces-------- --._-.--' . .
Improvement program
Frederick M. Herman, Chair Richard Conrad Ross Cranmer
Seismic Safety Commission \ Building Standards Commis- Building Official
Local Government/Building sion Structural Engineer
Official
Roy Johnston Frank McClure
Dr. Wilfred Iwan Structural Engineer Structural Engineer
Mechanical Engineer
Joel McRonald Joseph P. Nicoletti
Gary McGavin Division of the State Architect Structural Engineer
Seismic Safety Commission
Architect Lowell E: Shields (
Seismic Safety Commission (
Stanley Scott Mechanical Engineer (
Research Political Scientist -e :
~
(
(

;.

S~ismi~ Safety Commission Staff


Richard McCarthy Fred Turner
Executive Director Project Manager

Karen Cogan Chris Lindstrom


Deborah Penny Ed Hensley
Carmen Marquez Ten DeVriend
Kathy Goodell

(
(

Iv

(
product 1.2" Senior" Advisory Panel
Sigmund A. Freeman Ronald O. Hamburger William T. Holmes
Wiss, Janney, Elstner & Asso- EQE International Rutherford & Chekene
ciates
Jack Moehle Thomas A. Sabol
Charles Kircher Earthquake Engineering Re- Engelkirk & Sabol
Charles Kircher & Associates search Center

N abih F. Youssef
Nabih Youssef & Associates

Product 1.3 Senior Advisory Panel


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

Yoshi Mori waki N abih F . Youssef


Woodward-Clyde Consultants Nabih Youssef & Associates

Product 1.3 Geotechnical/Structural working Group


Sunil Gupta Geoffrey R. Martin
EQ Tech Consultants University of Southern Californ.ia

Marshall Lew Lelio Mejia


Law/Crandall, Inc. Woodward-Clyde Consultants

Quality Assurance Consultant Technical Editor


Gregory P. Luth Wendy Rule
Gregory P. Luth & Associates Richmond, CA

Cost Effectiveness study consuttarrt PUblications consultant


Tom H. Hale Gail Hynes Shea
Jimmy R. Yee Consulting Engineers Albany, CA

v
(
(
(

\
.~

(
.(
(

(
(
(
(
(
('

vi
:

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings

Products 1.2 and 1.3 of the proposition 122


Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program

T bl n n
Volume 1
Preface iii
Glossary " xi
Executive Summary xv
Chapter 1 Introduction 1-1
1. 1 Purpose 1-1
1.2 Scope 1-2
1.3 Organization and Contents 1-5
Chapter 2 Overview ~ 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.2 Changes in Perspective 2-3
2.3 Getting Started ' 2-6
2.4 Basic Evaluation and Retrofit Strategy 2-11
2.5 Evaluation and Retrofit Concept 2-14
2.6 Final Design and Construction 2-19
Chapter 3 Performance Objectives 3-1
3-.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Performance Levels 3-1
3.3 Earthquake Ground Motion 3-8
3.4 Performance Objectives 3-9
3.5 Assignment of Performance Objectives 3-12
Chapter 4 Seismic Hazard 4-1
4.1 Scope 4-1
4.2 Earthquake Ground Shaking Hazard Levels 4-1
4.3 Ground Failure 4-2
4.4 Primary Ground Shaking Criteria 4-5
4.5 Specification of Supplementary Criteria 4-12
Chapter 5 Determination of Deficiencies 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1

Table of contents vi i
_._--,-~.

~ ~~.

(
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

5.2 Description: Typical Layouts and Details 5-1


5~3 Seismic Performance "'_'" .~ •. ~ ._.~._.,._._._.. ~ .._.. _.~~.-_- _.._._.5",5--- ._- _.. _.- ._~-:- -- -
5.4 Data Collection .i ~ ~: ~ : 5-12 . ~:
5.5 Review of Seismic Hazard 5-17
5.6 Identification of Potential Deficiencies 5-18
5.7 Preliminary Evaluation of Anticipated Seismic Performance 5-20
5.8 Preliminary Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendations 5-21
Chapter 6 Retrofit Strategies 6-1
6.1 Introduction 6-1
6.2 Alternative Retrofit Strategies 6-4
(
6.3 Design Constraints and Considerations 6-24
(
6.4 Strategy Selection ; : 6-27
6.5 Preliminary Design 6-30
Chapter 7 Quality,Assurance Procedures 7-1
7.1 General 7-1
7.2 Peer Review 7-2
7.3' Plan Check 7-8-
7.4 Construction Quality Assurance 7-10
Chapter 8 Nonlinear Static Analysis Procedures 8-1 (
8.1 Introduction 8-1 ~

8.2 Methodsto P~rf0fI!l Simplified Nonlinear Analysis 8-3 (


(
8.3 Illustrative Example 8-34
8.4 Other Analysis Methods ' 8-54
8.5 Basics of Structural Dynamics 8-57
Chapter 9 Modeling Rules 9-1
9'.1 General 9-1
9.2 Loads 9-2
9.3 Global Building Considerations 9-4
9.4 Element Models : 9-7 (

9.5 Component Models 9-19 (


9.6 Notations ; 9-46
Chapter 10 Foundation Effects 10-1
10.1 General · 10-1
10.2 Foundation System and Global Structural Model 10-2
10.3 Foundation Elements 10-7
10.4 Properties of Geotechnical Components . ~ ................•........... 10-12
10.5 Characterization of Site Soils 10-20
10.6 Response Limits and Acceptability Criteria.. r 10-28
10.7 Modifications to Foundation Systems 10-29
(
Chapter 11 Response Limits 11-1
11.1 General 11-1 (
11.2 Descriptive Limits of Expected Performance 11-2
11.3 Global Building Acceptability Limits 11-2
11.4 Element and Component Acceptability Limits 11-5
Chapter 12 Nonstructural Components 12-1 (
(

viii Table of Contents


(

12.1 Introduction 12-1


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

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

Table of contents
"-'.--.~

(
.. (

(
(
(

(
;
_.--~-_ .. ---_._-' _.-
(

(..

(
(
(

(
(

(
~
(
(
Glossary
Acceptability (response) limits: Refers to response spectrum (demand spectrum)
specific limiting values for the representation of the earthquake's
deformations and loadings, for displacement demand on the structure. The
deformation-controlled and force- intersection is the performance point, and
controlled components respectively, which the displacement coordinate, dp, of the
constitute criteria for acceptable seismic performance point is the estimated
performance. . displacement demand on the structure for
the specified level of seismic hazard.
Brittle: see nonductile.
Components: The local concrete members that
Capacity: The expected ultimate strength (in comprise the major structural elements of
flexure, shear, or axial loading) of a the building such as columns, beams,
structural component excluding the slabs, wall panels, boundary members,
reduction (<j» factors commonly used in joints, etc.
design of concrete members. The capacity
usually refers to the strength at the yield Concrete frame building: A building with a
point of the element or structure's capacity monolithically cast concrete structural
curve. For deformation-controlled framing system composed of horizontal
components, capacity beyond the elastic and vertical elements which support all
limit generally includes the effects of vertical gravity loads and also provide
strain hardening. resistance to all lateral loads through
bending of the framing elements.
Capacity curve: The plot of the total lateral
force, V, on a structure, against the lateral Concrete frame-wall building: A building with a
deflection, d, of the roof of the structure. structural system composed of an
This is often referred to as the 'pushover' essentially complete concrete frame system
curve. to support all gravity loads and concrete
walls to provide resistance to lateral loads,
Capacity spectrum: The capacity curve primarily in shear.
transformed from shear force vs. roof
displacement (V vs. d) coordinates into Deformation-controlled: Refers to components,
spectral acceleration vs. spectral elements, actions, or systems which can,
displacement (Sa vs. Sd) coordinates. and are permitted to, exceed their elastic
limit ina ductile manner. Force or stress
Capacity spectrum. method: A nonlinear static levels for these components are of lesser
analysis procedure that provides a importance than the amount or extent of
graphical representation of the expected deformation beyond the yield point (see
seismic performance of the existing or ductility demand).
retrofitted structure by the intersection of
the structure's capacity spectrum with a

Glossary xi
- ..". -'-'--~.

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

(
\
(

Degradation: Refers to the loss of strength that a target displacement. The point on the (
(
.component or structure may suffer when capacity curve at the target.displacementis
(
subjected to more than one cycle of the equivalent of the performance point. in'
deformation beyond its elastic limit. the capacity spectrum method.
Degrading components are generally
referred to as being force-controlled, Ductile: see ductility. (
brittle, or nonductile. Some or all of their
flexural, shear or axial loading must be Ductility: The ability of a structural component,
redistributed to other, more ductile, element, or system to undergo both large
components in the structural system. deformations andlor several cycles of
deformations"beyond its yield point or (

Demand: A representation of the earthquake elastic limit and maintain its strength (
ground motion or shaking that the building without significant degradation or abrupt (

failure. These elements, only experience a (


is subjected to. hi nonlinear .static analysis
procedures, demand is represented by an reduction in effective stiffness after
estimation of the- displacements or yielding and are generally referred to as
deformations that the structure is expected being deformation controlled or ductile.
(
to undergo. This is in contrast to
conventional, linear elastic analysis Ductility demand: Refers tothe extent of
procedures in which demand is represented deformation (rotation or displacement)
by prescribed lateral forces applied to the beyond the elastic limit, expressed
structure. numerically as 'the .ratio of the maximum
deformation tothe yield deformation.
Demand spectrum: The reduced response
spectrum used to represent the earthquake Elastic (linear) behavior: Refers to the first
ground motion in the capacity spectrum segment of the bi-linear load-deformation
method. relationship plot of a component, element,
or structure, between the unloaded (

Displacement-based: Refers to analysis condition and the elastic limit or yield


procedures, such as the nonlinear static point. This segment is a straight line (

whose slope represents the initial elastic (


analysis procedures recommended in this
methodology, whose basis lies in stiffness of the component.
estimating the realistic, and generally
inelastic, lateral displacements or Elastic limit: See yield point.
deformations expected due to actual Elastic response spectrum: The 5 % damped
earthquake, ground motion. Component response spectrum for the (each) seismic
forces are then determined based on the hazard level of interest, representing the
deformations. maximum response of the structure, in
Displacement coefficient Method: A nonlinear terms of spectral acceleration Sa, at any
static analysis procedure that provides a time during an earthquake as a function of
numerical process for' estimating the period of vibration; T.
displacement demand on the structure, by Elements: Major horizontal or vertical portions (
using a bilinear representation of the of the building's structural systems that act (
capacity curve and a series of modification to resist lateral force'S or support. vertical (
factors, or coefficients, to calculate a

xii ctossarv
gravity loads such as frames, shear walls, performance level is the combination of a
frame-walls; diaphragms, and.foundations .. structural, performance. level and a
Elements are composed of components. nonstructural performance level.

Force-controlled: Refers to components, Performance objective: A desired level of


elements, actions, or systems which are seismic performance of the building
not permitted to exceed their elastic limits. (performance level), generally described
This category of elements, generally by specifying the maximum allowable (or
referred to as brittle or nonductile, acceptable) structural and nonstructural
experiences significant degradation after damage, for a specified level of seismic
only limited post-yield deformation, hazard.

Nonductile: Refers to a component or behavior Performance point: The intersection of the


that is not ductile and is generally subject capacity spectrum with the appropriate
to strength degradation beyond the elastic demand spectrum ill the capacity spectrum
limit. These components are generally method (the displacement at the
force-controlled. performance point is equivalent to the
target displacement in the coefficient
Nonlinear static (analysis) procedure: The method).
generic name for the group of simplified
nonlinear analysis methods central to this ap, d p: coordinates of the performance point on
methodology characterized by: use of a the capacity spectrum,
static pushover analysis to create a
capacity curve representing the structure's api, dpi: coordinates of successive iterations (i = 1,
available lateral force resistance, a 2, etc.) of the performance point,
representation of the actual displacement
demand on the structure due to a specified ay, d y: coordinates of the effective yield point on
level of seismic hazard, and verification of the capacity spectrum.
acceptable performance by a comparison
Primary elements: Refers to those structural
of the two.
components or elements that provide a
Performance-based: Refers to a methodology in significant portion of the structure's lateral
which structural criteria are expressed in force' resisting stiffness and strength at the
terms of achieving a performance performance point. These are the elements
objective. This is contrasted to a that are needed to resist lateral loads after
conventional method in which structural several cycles of inelastic response to the
criteria are defined by limits on member earthquake ground motion.
forces resulting from a prescribed level of
Pushover curve: see capacity curve.
applied shear force.
Pushover analysis: An incremental static analysis
Performance level: A limiting damage state or used to determine the force-displacement
condition described by the physical
relationship, or the capacity curve, for a
damage within the building, the threat to
structure or structural element. The
life safety of the building's occupants due
analysis involves applying horizontal
to the damage, and the post-earthquake
loads, in a prescribed pattern, to a
serviceability of the building. A building

Glossary
(

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETRO'F!T OF COt:U::iETE BUILDINGS


(
(

computer model of the structure, Seismic hazard: The level of ground motion or
incrementally; i.e.•- "pushing." the - .shaking at the- site for- a-given-earthquake.
structure; and plotting the total applied Three standard levels of seismic hazard are (
shear force and associated lateral specified in the methodology; (
displacement at each increment, until the (
structure reaches a limit state or collapse Serviceability Earthquake (SE); 50% (
condition. chance of being exceeded in 50 years,

Retrofit strategy: The basic overall approach Design Earthquake (DE); 10% chance of
adopted to improve the probable seismic being excee_ded in 50 years,
performance of the building or to
Maximum Earthquake (ME); 5 % chance
otherwise reduce the existing risk to an
of being exceeded in 50 years.
acceptable level.
Strength: See capacity.
Retrofit system: The specific method used to
implement the overall retrofit strategy. (
Target displacement; In the displacement
coefficient method. the target displacement (
Secant (effective) stiffness. The slope of a
is the equivalent of the performance point (
straight line drawn from the origin of the
in the capacity spectrum method. The (
capacity curve for abuilding (or other' ~
target displacement is calculated by use of
structural element) to a point on the curve (
a series of coefficients.
at a displacement "d", beyond the elastic (

limit, represents the secant or effective Yield (effective yield) point: The point along the
stiffness of the structure (or.element) when capacity spectrum where the ultimate
deformed by an earthquake to that capacity is reached and the initial linear
displacement. The secant stiffness will elastic force-deformation relationship ends
always be less than the elastic stiffness of (
and effective stiffness begins to decrease. (
the structure. For larger elements or entire structural (
systems composed of many components,
Secondary elements: Refers to those structural
the effective yield point (on the bi-linear (
components or elements that are not, or
representation of the capacity spectrum)
are not needed to be, primary elements of
represents the point at which a' sufficient
the lateral load resisting system. However.
number of individual components or
secondary elements may be needed to (,
elements have yielded and the global
support vertical gravity loads and may t...
structure begins to experience inelastic
resist some lateral loads.
deformation.
(
(
(
\

(
(
(

xiv Glossary
(

(
SEISMiC eVALUATION .AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUU..DINGS

Executive- ·Summary

II Existing concrete methodology and Product. 1.3 for the inclusion of


buildings pose a great foundation effects).
chanenge in ·California • The challenge spans·a
Concrete is popular as a building material in
broad spectrum from highly
California. For the most part, it serves its
functions well; however concrete is inherently technical engineering details
brittle and performs poorly during earthquakes if to general issues of public
not reinforced properly. The San Fernando policy
Earthquake of 1971 dramatically demonstrated this This document has a dual focus. On a
characteristic. Shortly thereafter, code writers tecbnicallevel, engineers will find systematic
revised the design 'provisions for new concrete guidance on how to investigate concrete buildings
buildings to provide adequate ductility to resist subject to seismic shaking. Depending on the
strong ground shaking. There remain, nonetheless, specific characteristics of a particular building,
millions of square feet of nonductile concrete they may select from an array of alternatives.
buildings in California. These technical procedures are not alone sufficient
The consequences of neglecting this general for effective evaluation and retrofit. Owners,
risk are inevitably catastrophic for some individual architects, building officials, and others must
buildings. The collapse of a single building has the make critical decisions based on technical
potential for more loss of life than any other information coming from the engineers.
catastrophe in California since 1906. The potential Conversely, policy and management issues affect
defects in these buildings are often not readily the course of the technical analysis. The
apparent. Condemnation of all to mandatory recommended approach advocates a broad context
retrofit is an unacceptable economic burden. for the process to expand the perspectives of all
Unfortunately, procedures to identify and to involved.
retrofit efficiently those that are vulnerable to
collapse have not been available. As.a part of its
mandate under the California Earthquake Hazards
II Multipie performance
Reduction Act of 1986, the Seismic Safety objectives are the context
Commission is moving aggressively to meet this for defining and managing
need by helping to develop standards for the seismic risk
evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete In TurningLoss to Gain (CSSC 1995) its
buildings with this document, Seismic Evaluation report to Governor Wilson on the Northridge
and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (Product Earthquake, the Seismic Safety Commission
1.2/1.3). It contains the combined results of two identifies a fundamental drawback of the seismic
\
contracts with the Applied Technology Council provisions of current building codes. The seismic
(Product 1.2 for the development of an analytical

Executive summary xv
SeISM!C EVALUAT!ON AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE sun.DINGS

performance that can be expected from a building In reality, large earthquakes can severely damage
designed.in accordance with the code is not - buildings causing inelastic behavior- that dissipates--
explicit. The implication is that buildings will not ~net~.!The ~Silmption thatbuildings remain .
collapse in large earthquakes. Owners rarely blastic simplifies the engineer's work but obscures
recognize that this goal allows for substantial a basic understanding of actual performance. The
damage contributing to the potential for large use of traditional procedures for existing buildings
capital losses and business interruption. In spite of can lead to erroneous conclusions on deficiencies
significant improvements in codes after and unnecessarily high retrofit costs. More
earthquakes inthe past, their traditional approach disturbingly, they can miss important defects in
is not conducive to effective overall management some buildings. Foundations are a good example.
of seismic' risks in California. This is particularly Traditional analyses normally assume that
true of existing buildings fdr' which codes for new buildings are rigid at their base, which can lead to
buildings are effectively meaningless when it the prediction of high forces implying extensive
comes to seismic performance, The Commission retrofitting measures for walls and floors. It also
concludes that multiple performance objectives are can underestimate the structural displacements that (
required to define alternatives and quantify' , control damage to other parts of the structure, I
acceptable risks. such as columns. In reality, foundations often are (
A seismic performance objective has two quite flexible. Rocking or yielding of the (

essential parts-e-a damage state and' a level of supporting soil material might reduce forces and
hazard. "Life safety" and "immediate occupancy" the need to retrofit the shear walls. The foundation
are descriptors of damage states that do not movements. however, also lead to larger
constitute performance objectives until they are displacements which may. imply potential collapse
(
associated with a specific level of seismic' hazard. of columns. (
The hazard might be an earthquake (M7.0 on the Relatively new analysis procedures descr;i.bed (
Hayward Fault adjacent to a site) or a probability in this document help describe the inelastic
of an intensity of ground shaking (10% chance of behavior of the structural components of a
being exceeded in 50 years). Defined in this way. building. These techniques can estimate more
a performance objective represents a specific risk. accurately the actual behavior of a building during (
Using the new analysis procedures in this a specific ground motion. The document provides (

document as a technical tool, it is possible to extensive guidance on the use ofthese procedures
investigate buildings for multiple performance including properties for concrete components and
objecti:v-es...-'IlJis-appr.oach~prmlides..~ilding detailed information to incorporate foundation
owners and others a framework for informed effects. Using this information. the engineer
judgments on the acceptability of various risks and formulates a component model of the building.
the benefits of mitigative action in light of the structure. The. analysis procedure tells how to
associated costs. identify which part of the building will. fail first.
As the load and displacement increase, other
III NeW' structural an~lysis
... , ~
elements begin to yield and deform inelastically. (

The resulting graphic "curve" is an easy-to- (


procedures give engineers a
visualize representation of the capacity of the
mare realistic pic;ture of building: Several alternative techniques allow the (
building performance. during demand from a specific earthquake or intensity of
earthquakes ground shaking to be correlated with the capacity
Traditional retrofit design techniques assume curve to generate a point on the curve where (
that buildings respond elastically to 'earthquakes, capacity and demand are equal. This "performance (
(
~
(
xvi EXecutive summary' (
(
SE!SM!C EYALUATION AND RETROFIT, OF CONCRETE BUiI.DINGS

.:

point II is an estimate of the actual displacement of marketplace for engineering services could resolve
. the .building. for the-specified ground.motion, ...... . this aspect of complexity. . -..- _ _..
Using thisperformance point, the engineer can The document provides guidance applicable to
characterize the associated damage state for the all concrete buildings. Within a general framework
structure and compare it with the desired . for evaluation and retrofit, new procedures for
performance objective. This allows the engineer to inelastic analysis are alternatives to. simpler .
pinpoint deficiencies in each building part and traditional methods for detailed analysis of some,
address them directly with retrofit measures only but not all, buildings. The dividing line between
where necessary. In short, the procedure gives the buildings that can benefit from inelastic analysis
engineer a better understanding of the seismic and those that will not can b~ subtle, however...
performance characteristics of the building and Every building has its own characteristics and .
results in a more effective and cost-efficient often only experienced engineers can decide when
retrofit. traditional design methods are adequate. This
necessity of experience and judgment on the part.
II The new
techn~lagies of the engineer. extends beyond the selection of
appropriate analysis techniques. The. new inelastic
require extensive
procedures require many decisions 0ll component
engineering jud.gment properties and modeling techniques that involve
A large team of earthquake engineering considerable. judgment. :Tl1e interpretation of
experts compiled and generated the information in results must carefully include consideration of
this document. A panel of respected leaders in the inherent uncertainties' and the limitations. of basic
field periodically reviewed the development as assumptions. Qualifying experience and judgment
representatives of the Seismic Safety Commission. is not the exclusive domain of a select few
Practitioners from throughout California voiced engineers or firms. No one is capable of infallible
their opinions at a series of"workshops on the prediction of the seismic performance of concrete
document: There is a consensus that the technical
procedures ate complex. There are several sources
to
buildings. The solution this unavoidable .
complexity is to eliminate complete 'reliance on-the
and implications of this complexity.·The nature of judgment of a single engineer and, instead, rely on
the inelastic analysis itself requires a basic constructive and cooperative peer review
understanding of the principles of structural processes. The Seismic Safety Commission, in
dynamics arid mechanics of materials. The scope Turning Loss to Gain, advocates such a change in
of the analysis typically requires computer-aided the California Building Code to require
solutions. While most competent engineers with independent peer review of complex buildings.
seismic design experience in California are capable
of dealing with these issues, traditional design Ii Effective and efficient
procedures commonly used in current practice do
not demand that they do.· Unfortunately, in the
seismic evaluation and
competitive .design environment, most uninformed retrofit of concrete buildings
owners are not yet willing to pay larger fees for demand fundamental
the more time-consuming approach. Although the changes
benefits to owners in reduced construction costs,
The need for technical peer review is only one
more reliable building performance, and reduced
of the changes to conventional planning and design
costs to repair damage due to future earthquakes
processes. The design engineers themselves face
can justify the higher fees in many cases, this has
the challenge to develop and maintain their
not yet been widely comniunicated. In the future,'
technical skills beyond those that they currently
better communication and changes in the

Executive summary xvii


(
(/
(/
(

(
(

:
(
(

(
/
(
use in practice. Architects must recognize the California is not acting alone in pursuing
impact ofseismic risk on-building. function and-the . .effecti-ve-evaluation-and-retrofit-methodologies.-In _... (
importance of nonstructural damage to building fact, many of the individuals responsible forthis (

performance. Building officials are accustomed to document are also involved on the federal (
designs that can be easily checked against initiative to develop national guidelines for the r
prescriptive codes and standards. They must seismic rehabilitation of buildings. They initially (
/
expand or supplement their own skills and capitalized on the federal effort by using it as a
implement procedures to monitor performance- Springboard Jar further development. In return, Cr
based designs. As important as these changes for key enhancements from Product 1.211.3 have been (
design and buildingprofessionals are, they alone funneled back into the federal document. There are ['
will do little without the demand and support of at least two desirable outcomes of this synergism. (
building owners for change. Product 1. 211.3 uses concepts and language
The perspective of building owners is the key compatible with the federal guidelines. This
to progress. If a buildingmeetsthe code under consistency will raise..thecomfort level of ~. /

which it was built and there is no legal involved and accelerate the implementation of the (
requirement to retrofit it, owners generally have procedures. The federal government, through the /
(
been satisfied. Few understand the risks they Federal Emergency Management Agency and the
(
actually face. Performance-based evaluation of National Science Foundation, hasplans to continue
(
buildings can give them a picture of how the development of performance-based design
c.
earthquakes impact their businesses and aggressively. The benefit for existing concrete (
investments, They can then begin to make buildings will include iJ:!l:proved information on the ;'
informed decisions to manage and reduce risks in a inelastic properties of both structural and (
cost-efficient way. The most basic change that nonstructural components, /
owners will face is the realization that they are the The interest on the part of structural engineers (
decision maker. Engineers can advise them on . in inelastic analysis procedures is very high. The
relative risks, but acceptability rests with the Structural Engineers Association of Northern
owner. This concept runs counter to the prevailing California recently sponsored a seminar on the
attitude that it is the design professional who subjectand had to turn people away. Future
/
decides on acceptable risk. sessions are planned and interest probably will (
spread through the larger state organization. (

II Product '1.2/'1.3 initiates Focused sessions are required for geotechnical and (
the tffii'isitiGn with a step In . structural engineers. The importance of foundation
effects on the seismic performance of some
the right direction buildings requires. greater communication and I:
The new technical analysis procedures, cooperation. Training sessions are also essential
coupled with performance-based evaluation and for building officials throughout California. This
design concepts, have great promise. Realistically, . document is a natural curriculum for these efforts
their implementation and complete development' and the Seismic Safety Commission encourages its
will take some time. The' realization of the full . use.
potential of the new approaches demands technical A concerted effort to educate building .owners
information and data not currently available. on effective seismic risk management is essential.
Significant changes to business as usual are First of all, the benefits of the new procedures (
required on the part of all involved in the need to be documented with extended example
evaluation and retrofit process. There are several building studies. The proposed procedures have
important strategies that can enhance future been used successfully by others andtheir stories
progress. (
r:
(
Executive Summary (

(
need to be told. Side by side comparison of the established to allow users to submit suggestions
results of the.proposed procedures with. those .of and.share experiences on evaluation and retrofit
traditional methods including retrofit costs would projects.
quantify the differences. State agencies are a The Seismic Safety Commission is confident
natural starting point for workshops and seminars that California can meet the challenge of concrete
aimed at the management level. These could be buildings with improved understanding and
expanded to the private sector through information. Product 1.211.3 provides the basis
organizations such as the Building Owners and for improved understanding of the actual behavior
Managers Association. This initiative to engage of structures for realistic earthquakes and for
building owners has not yet been implemented in informed management of seismic risks. With
any effective program. continued vigilant effort on the part of design
Finally, this document needs to be continually professionals, building officials, and owners to
updated to reflect advancement in the state of the enhance the process, the risks to safety and
art and the valuable lessons from practical economy posed by earthquakes can be steadily
application. A repository of information should be reduced to acceptable levels.

Executive summary
(

(
:

I
(

(
(

(
(
~
(

('
(
I

(
(
Chapter 1
Introduction
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner Architect Bldg. Official Engineer AnalYst

1.1 Purpose approaches to retrofit may not deliver appropriate


or cos~-effective designs. Unrealistic or inadequate
1.1.1 ceneral assessment of buildings may not identify the true
A major portion of state and local government failure modes, leading to unsafe retrofit designs,
buildings in California are cast-in-place concrete or may produce overly conservative retrofits
structures designed and constructed before the mid where none is needed to meet the Owner's
to late 1970s. The seismic performance of these performance objective, leading to unnecessarily
older buildings has been observed to be relatively costly retrofit designs. Therefore, more
poor compared to the performance of modem, post sophisticated "methods that consider both the actual
1970s concrete buildings. Accordingly, a growing loading and inelastic responses buildings
number of these buildings have been evaluated and experience in large earthquakes are needed.
retrofit in recent years and many more will be The primary purpose of this document is to
retrofit in the near future. provide an analysis and design methodology and
Very little has been, or is currently, available supporting commentary for use in the seismic
in the way of guidelines for use in the retrofit of evaluation and retrofit of existing state and local
existing concrete buildings. Therefore, most of the government concrete buildings in California. This
retrofit design and construction to date has been methodology is intended to serve as the basis for
based on the use of the simple equivalent lateral the future development of building code provisions
force analysis procedures prescribed in building and standards and to provide guidelines for interim
codes for the design of new buildings. These use until the more formal provisions are available.
procedures do not directly address the actual It is expected that this document will be used
forces induced in buildings by earthquake ground by both retrofit design professionals performing
motions. More importantly, since buildings will seismic evaluations and retrofit designs and
respond to the earthquake ground motions in an government agency personnel and policy makers
inelastic manner, the linear elastic equivalent" charged with implementing retrofit programs.
lateral force procedures do not provide a direct Portions of the document will be of interest to
method to determine the resulting maximum others, such as building owners and architects,
displacements. involved in various aspects of building retrofit
Given these shortcomings of the simple projects. However, the engineering expertise of a
procedures, the concern has arisen that present design professional, in particular the expertise of a
structural engineer experienced in building retrofit

Chapter 1, Introduction
(
(
(
(
(

design, is a prerequisite for appropriate use of the .. Product 1: Provisions and commentary for the (
analytical.procedures at the core of this design of seismic retrofits-for· existing .... --- ... :-~
methodology. government buildings
(
(

1.1.2 proposition 122 seismic Retrofit .. Product-Ze Risk-management-tools for use. in ; (


(
practices Improvement Program seismic retrofit decision making by facility
owners and managers (
Passed by California's voters, Proposition 122 (
.. Product 3: Short-term research projects to
created the Earthquake Safety and Public Buildings
RehabilitarionPund of 1990, supported by a $300 support the first two activities Ce·..
million general obligation bond program for the .. Product 4:.Information transfer activities to (
seismic retrofit of state and local government inform government officials, facility owners
buildings. and managers, and design professionals about (
As a part of the program, Proposition 122 the other products
authorizes the Seismic Safety Commission to use
This document reports the results of two
up to 1 % of the proceeds of the bonds issued and
separate but related projects conducted as part of
sold, or approximately Ss million,' to carry out a (
the commission's Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit
range of activities that will capitalize on the (
Practices Improvement Program: Product 1.2,
seismic retrofit experience in the private sector to (
Development of a Recommended Methodology for
improve seismic retrofit practices for government
the Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing (
buildings. b.t
Concrete BUildings and Product .1.3, Effects of (
The overall purpose of California's
Foundations on the Seismic Performance of ( .
Proposition 122 research and development
Existing Concrete Buildings. (
program is to develop state-of-the-practice
Two other reports recently published by the
recommendations and methods to address current
California Seismic Safety Commission, the
needs for uniform seismic retrofit provisions and
Provisional Commentary for Seismic Retrofit
seismic risk decision tools. It is focused
(CSSC 1994a) and the Review of Seismic Research
specifically on vulnerable concrete structures
Results on Existing Buildings (eSSe 1994b), are
consistent with the types of concrete buildings that
Products 1.1 and 3.1 of the program, respectively.
make up a significant portion of California's state
These two previous reports provide the primary
and local government inventories. (
basis for the development of the recommended
The two primary goals of the commission's I
methodology and commentary contained in this (
Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program
document: )
are:
(
.. To achieve cost-effective expenditure of state ..·.2 Scope
and local government funds allocated for the
seismic retrofit of government buildings 1.2.1 General
.. To obtainseismic retrofit designs that This document provides a comprehensive,
consistently and reliably achieve their intended technically sound recommended methodology and
seismic performance objectives supporting commentary for. the seismic evaluation i

and retrofit design of existing concrete buildings. (


A 1991 Commission report titled Breaking the Althouzh it is not intended for the design of .new I
o
Pattern (CSS'C 1991a) outlines four products to be buildings, the analytical procedures are applicable. (
developed over the multiyear program: The document applies to the overall structural I

system and its elements (concrete fraines, shear (


(

(
(i!

1·2 Chapter 1, Introduction


(
I

(
(

(
SEISMIC eVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUU"DINGS

walls, diaphragms, foundations) and components uncertainty lie in the characterization of seismic
(stiffness" strength, and. deformability, of.columns.. ground.shaking.. the.determination of materials
beams, walls, slabs, and joints). Consideration of properties and of existing structural and
nonstructural systems and components is also' geotechnical component capacities, and the
included in this document. assignment of the acceptance limits on structural
The methodology is performance based: the behavior. These uncertainties, for the most part
evaluation and retrofit design criteria are stemming from the lack of and!or the imperfect
expressed as performance objectives, which define reliability of the specific supporting data available,
desired levels of seismic performance when the affect all analytical methods and procedures
building is subjected to specified levels of seismic applied to the challenge' of seismic evaluation and
ground motion. Acceptable performance is retrofit.
measured by the level of structuraland/or The performance-based methodology presented
nonstructural damage expected from the in this document cannot and does not eliminate
earthquake shaking. Damage is expressed in terms these uncertainties. However, through the use of
of post yield, inelastic deformation limits for simplified nonlinear static analysis, it provides a
various structural components and elements found more sophisticated arid direct approach to address
in concrete buildings. The analytical procedure the uncertainties than'do traditional linear analysis
incorporated in the methodology accounts for procedures. By explicit consideration of the post-
postelastic deformations of the,structure by using yield behavior of individual structural components,
simplified nonlinear static analysis methods. . estimation of the degradation of member stiffness '
This type of performance-based methodology and strength, and representation of foundation
for evaluation and retrofit design represents a effects, the methodology provides a more. realistic,
fundamental change for the structural engineering generally conservative, estimate or approximation
profession. This type of analytical procedure is of the actual deformations which. will occur in the .
more complex than traditional force-based} building in response to.seismic ground motion. As
prescriptive procedures such as those embodied in a result, it is a useful and reliable design tool for
building codes for the design of new buildings. assessment of expected building behavior and
Although the use of simplifiednonlinear static verification of proposed retrofit designs.
analysis procedures and their application to
evaluation and retrofit design of existing buildings 1.2.3 Procedure for Evaluation and
has grown over the past 15 to 20 years, Retrofit Design
widespread acceptance of these methods by the The methodology is presented in the form of a
profession will come only through a considerable step-by-step procedure for both evaluation and
information transfer and learning process. Full retrofit of existing buildings. The procedure
acceptance will be achieved only when the ability recognizes, however, that some steps may be de-
of this method to identify potential structural emphasized or performed in a different order on a
deficiencies and to produce economical retrofit case-by-case basis.
designs better than conventional practice has been The primary components of the methodology
demonstrated. used in various steps of the evaluation and retrofit
procedure include:
1.2.2 uncertainty and Reliability
Uncertainty is a condition associated with
+ Definitions of seismic performance levels and
seismic demand criteria for establishing
essentially all aspects of.earthquake related science
seismic performance objectives
and engineering and of the evaluation and retrofit,
of existing buildings. The principle sources of

Chapter 1, tntroductlon
--~':Ei:="-.

c. (
(
(

(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
(
.: (
(
(
(

+ Guidance for the review of existing conditions, 1.2.4.1 Materials, components, and
(
I
preliminary determinationof deficiencies,' - -.- . ---- --~ -.--.Elements- ... -----" -."'-" .. - --- -.- (
formulation of a retrofit strategy, and for Modeling rules and acceptance limits are (
establishing an appropriate quality assurance provided for a variety of reinforced cast-in-place (
program concrete elements and components found in the (
+ Analytical methods or techniques for detailed two building types, including beam-column (
investigations to assess seismic capacity and frames; slab-column frames; solid, coupled, and (

expected seismic performance of existing perforated shear walls; concrete diaphragms; and (
'-<-""-(~

buildings and for verification of retrofit foundations. Unreinforced masonry infill and
performance . precast concrete components are not considered in (
(
+ Materials characteristics rules and assumptions this document. These rues, assumptions, and
limits are included for existing, non-complying
(
for use in modeling, assignment of capacities,
and .assessment of acceptable performance elements and components, and for new,
complying, elements and components used in
The owner's orbuilding code official's retrofits.
selection of the performance objective that should
be achieved by a building retrofit is beyond the 1.2.4.2 Foundation·Soil EFFects
scope of this document. This includes the The methodology includes guidelines for the
identification of the level of.seismichazard that consideration of foundation-soil effects. Detailed
should be combined with the selected performance modeling rules and acceptance limits for various
level. Once those decisionshave.been made, types. of foundations and foundation-structure
however, and a performance objective has thus combinations in various soil conditions are
been established, this methodology- provides included in this document.
guidelines to meet that objective. Compliance with
the procedures and requirements of this document 1.2.4.3 Diaphragms
will be deemed adequatefor these purposes. The methodology includes detailed guidelines
However, due to the uncertainties noted in Section for modeling rules and acceptance limits for
1.2.2, the seismic performance incorporated into concrete slab diaphragms, which may be
the performance objective is not guaranteed. considered to be rigid. Although general (
guidelines and commentary for the consideration (
1.2.4 Building Types . of flexible diaphragms are included, the provision (

Two specific types of older, cast-in-place of detailed rules and assumptions for flexible (
concrete buildings which were designed and diaphragms is not included in this document. ~

constructed prior to the late 1970s, when ductile (


detailing requirements were first incorporated into 1.2.5 Alternative Analytical Methods
building standards, and which are common to A variety of alternative analytical methods,
California state and local government building using either simple (linear, static) procedures,
inventories, will be the focus of the methodology: approximate inelastic (simplified nonlinear static)
capacity procedures, or complex inelastic
• Concrete frame buildings, generally (nonlinear time history) procedures, are available
constructed from the 1940s to the mid-1970s for use within the overall evaluation and retrofit
• Concrete.frame buildings with concrete walls, methodology. The type of analytical approach
generally constructed from the early 1900s to described in this document is simplified nonlinear
the mid-1970s static analysis. Several methods of performing
nonlinear static analyses are presented, and the

1-4 Chapter 1, tntrcetuctlon


capacity spectrum method is emphasized. Other description of the content of each of the chapters
analytical methods. are.also, noted, and,discussion.is- ., . and supporting .study. reports .__._. .... -..... _..... .
provided to assist the retrofit professional in the
selection of an analytical procedure appropriate for 1.3. 1.2 Chapter 2: Overview
use in the detailed analysis of a particular building. Chapter 2 presents an overview of the general
evaluation and retrofit methodology. The broad
1..3 Organization and audience this document is intended to address is
discussed and an Audience Interest Spectrum is
Contents provided to assist individuals in identifying which
This document is organized into two volumes. portions may be of interest or appropriate to them.
Volume One contains the main body of the Then, following a logical sequence of steps
evaluation and retrofit methodology, presented in through the evaluation andretrofit design process,
13 chapters, with a glossary and a list of this chapter also serves as a road map for use of
references. This volume contains all the parts of the document, with references to the appropriate
the document required for application and use of chapters and sections at each step.
the methodology for evaluation and retrofit of a
building. Volume Two consists of various 1.~ 1.:5 Chapter 5: Performance
Appendices containing supporting materials related . Objectives
to the methodology; four example building case Chapter 3 presents a detailed discussion of
study reports, a cost effectiveness study report seismic performance objectives and how they are
related to the four building studies, and a review formed. Definitions, or damage state descriptions
of research on foundation effects on the seismic consistent with those included in other
performance of concrete buildings. performance-based design documents, are
provided for six standard structural performance
1.3.1 Volume· One Chapter summaries levels:· .
The methodology has been organized into 13 .. SP-l, Im.m.ediate Occupancy
chapters. The first seven address the more general
and conceptual aspects of the methodology, which .. SP-2, Damage Control
will be of interest to the broader range of the + SP-3, Life Safety
expected audience of building owners and agency
+ SPA, Limited Safety
representatives, architects, and building officials,
as well as structural engineers and analysts. The + SP-5, Structural Stability
next five chapters, 8 through 12, address the more + SP-6, Not Considered
technical and analytical aspects of the
methodology, expected to be of primary interest and five standard nonstructural performance
only to the structural engineer/analystmembers of levels:
the audience. The last chapter, 13, provides .. NP-A, Operational
summary concluding remarks which are of interest
+ NP-B, Immediate Occupancy
to the broader audience..The title page of each
chapter contains an audience spectrum bar to assist + NP-C, Life Safety
the reader in assessing the appropriate level of +' NP-D, Hazards Reduced
interest.
+ NP-E, Not Considered
1.:5.1.1 Chapter 1: mtroauction Performance levels for a building are formed
Chapter I provides a statement of the
purpose by combining a structural and a nonstructural
and scope of this document, followed by a brief performance level to describe a complete building

Chapter 1, Introduction
_._~.
---,-=-~.

(
(
(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT --bF CONCRETE 'BUILDINGS
(
(
(
(
(
(

damage state. Performance objectives are then seismic deficiencies and their-severity, based on (
formed.by combining a.desired, bnilding . _... _ the collected.data.ris.discussed.. Also., . . -_ .
performance level with a given earthquake ground considerations for establishing the extent of
(
motion. The chapter describes the process of further, more detailed analysis that may be (
selecting appropriate performance objectives, and required to supplement the-available as-built data, (
one standard performance objective, called the and preliminary determination of the need for (
Basic Safety Objective, is defined. retrofit, are also discussed,' - ,~... . ' (

1~5.1_4 Chapter 4: seismic Hazard 1.~ '1.6 Chapter 6: Retrofit strategies


Chapter 4 provides guidelines for quantifying Chapter 6 provides. an overview of the process (
the seismic hazard atasite due to ground shaking of developing retrofit strategies (the basic ,
for three levels of earthquake hazard: the approaches to improve the seismic performance of
Serviceability Earthquake, the Design Earthquake, buildings) and preliminary retrofit designs for
and the Maximum Earthquake. Brief discussions buildings. Discussion of various alternative retrofit
of seismic ground failure .hazards oilier than strategies and the design constraints affecting
shaking are also provided, retrofit strategy selection is provided. The process (
(
The chapter describes the primary ground of selecting a retrofit strategy after an evaluation
(
shaking criteria, site geology and soil has indicated the presence of unacceptable seismic
characteristics, site seismicity characteristics, and deficiencies and the decision to retrofit has been . (
site response spectra required for seismic made is described. Considerations of alternative ~
evaluation and retrofit design of ~uildings. For strategies, evaluation of their applicability given (
various combinations of site soil-profile types and the identified deficiencies, and selection of the
site seismic zone factors, site seismicity most appropriate strategy in light of the existing (
coefficients are defined from which site response design constraints are.discussed. Guidance for (

spectra may be constructed for any site in selection of an appropriate retrofit system to (
California. The chapter also provides guidance and implement the chosen strategy and for (I
general criteria for the use of acceleration time development of preliminary retrofit designs is also
(
histories and duration of ground shaking. provided. C-
(
1.5.1.5 Chapter 5: Determination of 1.~ 1.7 Chapter 7: ouality Assurance
Deficiencies Procedures C
Chapter 5 provides guidelines for a qualitative, Chapter 7 provides guidelines for the various
preliminary evaluation of existing cast-in-place quality control procedures that may be required to
concrete frame and frame-wall buildings prior to ensure appropriate application of the methodology. (
the performance of detailed or extensive analytical. Guidelines for peer review, plan check, and
work. A description of the common characteristics construction quality assurance procedures are
of these types of construction is provided, along presented and discussed. Although comprehensive
with a discussion of their past seismic performance programs are presented, conditions for which
and typical deficiencies. Guidelines for collection varying levels of review may be appropriate,
of as-built information, including physical testing depending on the complexity of a particular
of materials and exploration of existing conditions, building, are discussed. Minimum requirements
appropriate to the level of detail of evaluation or for field observation of the retrofit construction are (

retrofit studies are provided. provided, as are guidelines for field verification, (
Assessment of the seismic -characteristics of testing, and inspection. .
existing buildings and determination of their

(
(~
Chapter 1; Introduction
(
i
(
SEI$MIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

1.5.1.8 Chapter S: Nonline.arstatic foundations); and component models (columns,


.Analysis. procedl!res-..- -- ---.._._-_.. beams, joints,..wall~·and slabs)..- ... - ...
Chapter 8 presents the generalized nonlinear .
1.:5.1.. 10 Chapter 10: Foundation Effects
static analysis procedure characterized by use of a
static pushover analysis method to represent the Chapter 10 provides guidelines for the
structure's lateral force resisting .capacity, a inclusion of foundation effects in the overall
representation of the actual earthquake methodology for evaluation and retrofit design of
displacement. demand on the structure, and existing concrete buildings. Guidelines are
verification of acceptable performance by a provided for modeling of geotechnical, components
comparison of the structure's available capacity to for various types of shallow and deep foundation
the earthquake's demand. A detailed description of systems. Discussion is provided on response limits
each of the three primary elements of the nonlinear and accepta~~lity criteria...
static analysis procedure is presented: the step-by- 1.5.1.. 11 Chapter 11:' Response limits
step development of the capacity curve of a Chapter 11 provides the': guidelines,
structure, the various alternative methods to
considerations, and assumptions required to assess
determine displacement demand by use of reduced
the acceptability of the seismic response of the
demand spectra or target displacement
various components and elements of the .structural
coefficients, and the resulting identification of the
and nonstructural systems. Qualitative descriptions
performance point or target displacement and the.
of damage states are included for structural and
subsequent .check for acceptable performance.
nonstructural systems and quantitative limits are
Additional considerations, including the
provided for the structural systems. Strength limits
distinction between primary and secondary
are provided for both ductile, deformation-
members, the effects of torsion, 'and the effects of
controlled .components and brittle, force-controlled
higher modes, are discussed. 'An example is
components.. Component and element .
provided to demonstrate the application of the
deformability limits considering the Immediate
nonlinear static procedure to abuilding.
Occupancy, Life Safety, and Structural Stability
Alternative methods, including-linear elastic static , performance levels are presented. .
and dynamic methods, the secant stiffness
nonlinear static method, and nonlinear time history 1.5..1.12 Chapter 12: Nonstructural
analysis methods, are discussed. The chapter components
closes with a brief summary of the fundamental Chapter 12 describes the minimum acceptance
structuraldynamics basis of the nonlinear static criteria that are expected to provide the
analysis procedures. . . Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety,
1.5.1.9 Chapter 9: ModeiingRules and Hazards Reduced levels of performance for
nonstructural systems and components. Acceptance
Chapter 9 provides the guidelines, rules, and
criteria consist of listings' of those systems and
assumptions required to develop the analytical
components that should be investigated for each
model of buildings as two- or.three-dimensional
performance level.
systems with nonlinear load-deformation
properties. The guidelines for modeling the 1.3.1.15 Chapter 13: Conclusions and
structural systems include application of loads; Future Directions
global building modeling considerations; materials Chapter 13 provides a detailed discussion of
models; elements models (concrete frames, the various supplemental engineering studies
concrete walls, concrete diaphragms, and reported in the six Appendices in Volume 2 and a
summary of the principal conclusions drawn from

Chapter 1 r tntroductlon
--~'

(
(

: ~(
(
the development of this Product. The conclusions valuable insights into the assumptions and
are presented in a.discussion of the.potential., .- . . . dgments.made.--.-- _
.. engmeermg.ju .
benefits of, and the challenges posed by, the (
analysis and retrofit design methodology presented 1.5.2.2 Appendix E:
Cost EFFectiveness study (
in this document. Benefits are discussed in terms (
of the engineer's improved understanding of This section contains the report of a study
performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and (
seismic performance of buildings as well as the
owner's enhanced options for implementing usability of the evaluation and retrofit
seismic retrofit goals in their buildings. Challenges methodology. The approximate construction cost
are discussed in terms of both specific.technical of the various retrofit concept designs developed in (
issues and broader practice issuesThe chapter the four example building studies is estimated and
concludes with recommendations .,for future action, then compared to cost ranges from traditional (
. in terms of basic research to address the technical retrofit approaches and the estimated cost of
challenges and training and communication demolition and replacement. The cost effectiveness (
programs to address the practice issues. relationships observed between the extent of I

retrofit/improved seismic performance and (


(
1.3.2 voiume Two Appendices' construction costs is discussed.' In addition; the ~
Summaries ease of use and consistency of application of the
(
proposed methodology, as demonstrated by the (
1.3.2.1 Appendices A~D: four example building studies; is assessed and
EXample Building stuates discussed.
'These four Appendices cont:rln the reports of
engineering studies of four example buildings. The 1.5.2.3 Appendix F: (
studies were performed primarily to test the Supplemental InFormation on r
proposed nonlinear static analysis methodology in Foundation EFFects (
three ways by comparisons to actual observed This section contains a report of a review of I
('
earthquake-caused damage to the selected research on the affects of foundations on the \
buildings, to the results of limited linear elastic seismic performance of concrete, buildings.
analyses, and to the results of limited time history Presented in a format similar to the Review of
(
analyses. In addition, these studies' also Seismic Research Results on Existing Buildings
(CSSC 1994b), but in smaller scale, this review (
demonstrate the application of the proposed
methodology to actual buildings. The nonlinear provides an overview of the existing, pertinent (
static procedure was used to evaluate the expected research supporting Chapter 10 Foundation Effects' C
performance of the unmodified buildings, and then, in Volume One of the document. The report (
to develop retrofit concept designs to achieve one contains discussions of past seismic performance;
or two specified levels of improved structural experimental and theoretical studies, and analysis
performance. The reports describe the results of and design issues for both shallow and deep
the four studies, discuss observed strengths and a
foundation systems, and collection of brief
(.
limitations of the methodology, and provide some review summaries of selected published articles, \

papers, and reports. (


(
(
(

Chapter 1 r uitroduction

(
(
:

Chapter 2
Overview·: 0. :.

AUdience Interest spectrum .


Owner Architect. Bldg. Offldal J;ngineer AnalY5t

_ • •f!~"l
2.1 Introduction specific-factors. In the future, more direct and
The seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing definitive processes may emerge. The procedures
concrete buildings pose a great challenge for the presented here are a step in the right direction.
owners, architects, engineers, and building The intended audience for this document
officials of California. The risks, measured in both includes building owners, building officials,
lives and dollars, .are high. Equally high is the architects, engineers, and others who may have a
inevitable uncertainty of where, when, and how direct or peripheral interest in the seismic
large future earthquakes will be. The inherent evaluation and retrofit of cop-crete. buildings. This
complexity of concrete buildings and of their document is not a code, or even a comprehensive
performance during earthquakes compounds the guideline. In one sense it is a commentary with a
uncertainty. Traditional design and analysis very broad perspective. Current technologies are
procedures developed primarily for new developed and placed in context within the larger
construction are not wholly adequate tools for picture. Guidance on the selection of alternatives
meeting this challenge'. ' is offered. The objective of the document extends
This d~cument presents a general methodology beyond the general, however, to the pragmatic.
developed specifically to address' the seismic Using it as a manual, qualified engineers can apply
evaluation and retrofit. of concrete buildings in ' the general principles to the evaluation and retrofit
California. Promising new performance-based of actual buildings,
technical procedures can provide engineers with Not every chapter of this document is meant
valuable insight about the actual performance of for detailed study by all readers. Within the
buildings during earthquakes. These and other general methodology are some very technical
changes from the status quo can greatly improve, procedures of interest only to structural engineers '
the process. It is important to emphasize, and analysts. The audience interest spectrum
however, that straightforward, simple solutions (Figure 2-1) is provided to assist the reader in
that will cost-effectively produce acceptable assessing the appropriateness of each chapter to his
seismic performance for all buildings do not exist. or her particular perspective. The audience interest
Within the general methodology described below, spectrum bar for each chapter is also shown on the
there are branches and paths that engineers and respective chapter's title page. Within each
owners can select on the basis of the chapter. key points and basic concepts are
characteristics of a given building, the desired highlighted in sidebars, figures, tables, and
performance, cost limitations, and other project- bulleted lists for the more casual reader.

Chapter 2, overview.
(
(

(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVAUJATIO'N AND RETROFIT OF CO'NCRETE BUn,DINGS (
c
(

:
(
(
(
(
• ..... _ ..,._._.. ..8uDdlng.... _..... _..... , ... . . _ ... ...._ .._ .. --
(

Owner Architect Official Engineer Analyst--


(
'(

1.

?
3.
Introduction

overview

Performance Objectives
.
-
~:

" ,
....
.'-

-
.
~

:
:".. -." ::' '- ~ ','-'... ~ ,':: ..,-: :: :1IIIIt_
-.

--
-

,',
.. ,.,

..
.
:
.-

. -
-

-.
..'
,"
-:-- ..

..
' ..
_--
.
- '.. -
~~~
~

ji§;_~~
~~
~
'.
"
(
(
(

4. selsmle Haz~rd
~i.: ".1:- -~
Deficiencies
~
6. Retrofit ~trategies (
• iJ (
7. Quality Procedures (

(
Analytical Procedures (
~ (
9. Modeling Rules ~
(
(
10. Foundation Effects
(
(
11. Response Limits
(
12. Nonstructural ~omponents
(
13. Conclusions

A·D Example Building studies·

E Cost Effectiveness study; ..

F Foundation Supplement

key

Primary interest; thorough reading recommended


seconoarv interest; general overview recommended
(
Limited interest; selective review recommended
(
(
(
Figure 2-1. AUdience Interest spectrum (
(
(
(
('
(
(
(
Chapter 2, overview ('
(
(

(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

.-

2.2 Changes in perspective involved in predicting performance can affect the


Meeting the challenge 'of concrete buildings-·--·....c..··_- _.._-. decision-making.process.- Owners. must understand
demands a change in perspective on the part of .' . ~at they are playing a role in balancing relative
everyone involved .. The design and construction of nsks rather than transferring risk to design
new buildings follow a familiar pattern that has professionals or contractors. The process is a
evolved over many years. Evaluation and retrofit change from the conventional; it requires that
are similar in some respects to new construction architects and engineers provide guidance for
but the differences greatly influence the ' building owners.
effectiveness of the outcome. Just how should key 2.2.2 Architects
participants in the pro~ess expect seismic ..
evaluation and retrofit to impact their . '; . Most seismic retrofit work is conducted as part
responsibilities? of a rehabilitation project of larger scope. In some
cases this is because disabled access, fire and life
2.2.1 Building Owners' : safety, or other issues must be addressed at the
For new construction projects, building same time. Often, too, it is '~xpedient to modernize
owners rarely make explicit decisions with respect and correct planning or programmatic problems
to design criteria. Most owners feel that . with buildings at the time that seismic deficiencies
compliance with prevailing building codes and are corrected. For this reason, architects generally
standards is adequate for.. theirpurposes. Few have had, and will continue to have, an important
recognize that these ar~ prescriptive standards and, role in seismic retrofit work.
at best, merely imply an unspecified level of' . Performance-based design requires a change in
seismic performance. Owners rely on design perspective on the part of architects. It is
professionals--architects and engineers--and important for architects
.. l'C.--
~.
to learn
.'
more of the details
I'

building officials to select, apply, and enforce of ~e functional aspects of a}iCility so that they
appropriate design criteria for their projects. A can assist owners in making decisions about
similar situation applies to the retrofit and . performance goals. Fot example, certain
rehabilitation of buildings; Th;~ptive codes equipment may be essential for the continued
in place today normally allow for repairs, operation of a facility after earthquakes, while
additions, or alterations to buildings provided that other systems could sustain damage without
any new construction conforms to current code seriously impeding building functions. In addition,
requirements. Changes to the building must not some concrete buildings may be historic
structures. Historic preservation can often impose
diminish its strength or, specifically, its ability to
resist seismic forces. Building owners, again, have restrictions on the 'type and extent of seismic
relied on' design professionals and building retrofit measures that may be performed.
officials to work out the specifics of these Table 2-1, adapted from Architectural Practice
requirements for rehabilitation or retrofit projects. and Earthquake Hazards (eSSe 1992), provides
Performance objectives form the basis of the guidance for architects seeldng to improve their
methodology for evaluating and retrofitting practice in seismic hazard mitigation.
concrete buildings. Building owners must be
informed about the alternatives for each specific
building. Performance-based guidelines. give
building owners the flexibility to coordinate
seismic performance goals with other goals for the
use of their facilities. The ~ereI:l.t uncertainty
J>'

Chapter 2, overview.
- ~ .
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND REY'ROFIT dF' CONCRETE Bun.DINGS

.' .. .Table 2-1•... options..ForImpl"ovlngArchitectul"aJ.seismic-Design-practice --_. -------.- .---.,

. participate in post earthquake site visits to examine damage and study patterns' .
of building behavior.

. Ensure tJ::l;3t conceptual andschematic designs are developed With joint


.i:ltchiteetleifQineer participation. .

(
.. Develop formal architeettengineer interaction tecnntques todeat with basic
seismic issues, such as a professional interaction guide for all critical aspects of (
design (site characteristics, configuration, structural system and performance, (
and nonstructurat components). (
(~
.. seel< appropriate compensation for seismic design (based on defined scope of
work and servlcesi,
(
(
.. Educate builderS on seismic design issues.Encourage owners to discussseismic (
design issues with builders.

{
(-
(
There is no checklist with true-or-false (
2.2.3 Building 'Officials responses in a performance-based design. It
The capabilities of building officials and requires some flexibilityon .the part of building
building departments throughout the state of departments in their plan checking and review
California vary widely. In urban jurisdictions, procedures. Complicated evaluation and retrofit (
some state agencies have relatively, large building projects for concrete buildings may ultimately be
departments, which often include technical staff. approved by a general consensus among the
Smaller cities and counties may rely on private designers, peerreviewers, and building. officials.
sector engineers and architects to check design This is quite different from normal building !
drawings as part of the permitting process/The department operations. Performance-based design, (
shift from prescriptive standards to those based on in general, and seismic evaluation and retrofit, in (

performance is a major change for building particular, benefit greatly from the involvement of (
officials. Performance guidelines demand a lot of building officials early in the process and on a (

judgment on the part of design professionals, peer continuing basis. A basic understanding and spirit (
reviewers, and building officials. of cooperation can be developed from the (

beginning, and building officials can determine (


(!
( .

(
Chapter "2, overview (

(
(
Seismic Design Approaches

---'Prescriptive Performance ."

Building codes; Basic Format Safety/damage/downtime goals


checklists for specific seismic hazard

Owner's Choices
Umited MUltiple

Familiarity of Relatively new concept


Routine
Architects/Engineers

Directly applicable New Buildings Supplemental enhancement


to prescriptive

Partially applicable Existing Buildings Fully applicable


but limited-

Plan check normally Review


Peer review
sufficient Requirements "normally required

Traditional ., Design Effort/Cost

Chapter 2, overview" "


(
(
(

(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATiDN AND RETROFIT OF' CONCRETE BUILDINGS
(
\.

e I

(
(

early on whether they will need the assistance of an concrete buildings make it vitally important that (
outside peer reviewer or whether they-might be.able.. experienced engineers. actively participate. in the
to handle some or all of the review with their own modeling and analysis process. Extensive (
I.,
staff. communication with and guidance from those who
(
can'fnterpret overall structural behavior is required (
2.2.4 Engineers to avoid unrealistic .results, If the results do not (
For many years engineers have been using make sense, there is a good chance they are not i
unrealistic simplified static lateral force procedures right. Modem analysis techniques can only (
to design buildings to resist seismic forces and augment the experience and intuition of a qualified T'
displacements. While traditional methods can result engineer when it comes to understanding the (
in adequate designs, they obscure a basic seismic behavior 'of concrete buildings. l
understanding of actual structural behavior and (
(
performance during earthquakes. Most engineers in 2.3 Getting started
California, particularly those experienced in seismic The following sections of this chapter
retrofit work, are capable of grasping the basic constitute the general methodology for the seismic
principles of the hew procedures' emerging for (
evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. This
evaluation and retrofit. However, the majority are chapter takes the reader step-by-step through the (
still unfamiliar with these new methods. The entire process, following the 12 steps indicated in
effective use of the new procedures requires a basic the "Step-by-Step" sidebar on the following page. (
understanding of structural dynamics, ductility, and Along the way, the purpose and use of each of the ~
inelastic behavior of structural materials. Since subsequent chapters emerges. & with 'other design (
these procedures are relatively untested, peer and analysis processes, the path to a solution is not
review becomes an important part of the process. (
always direct. Reconsideration, changes, and
Many individuals are understandably anxious when recycling through the steps are to be expected.
others review their work. For this reason, peer (
(
review should happen early in the process with a (-
cooperative and collegial attitude on the part of all
involved.. .
Initiate the PI'"cess I.
A building .owner might choose to' evaluate and (
Performance-based design requires effective
communication among the engineer, the architect, possibly retrofit an existing concrete building for a
(
and the building owner. The engineer must number of reasons. In the past, collapse prevention (

carefully explain the alternatives for performance and the reduction of the risk to life safety for (
objectives and the implications for costs. In many occupants have been the primary goals; for most l

instances, engineers are accustomed to "staying in "Voluntary retrofits. In the future, life safety will
the back room" and deferring to their architectural remain the primary objective motivation for
colleagues when it comes to communication with evaluation and retrofit. Increasingly, however,
the owner. This traditional arrangement impedes building owners recognize the benefits. of better
the effectiveness of seismic evaluation and retrofit seismic performance in mitigating potential
projects. ,-" .economic. losses as:. well. This._'"is particularly true
.Jf. .• " '.- . f:·...
'.. with respect to the.loss of income from a facility (
Within many engineering offices, younger
engineers, more familiar with computer software that fails to function after earthquakes.
and structural modeling techniques than their Seismic issues are rarely the sole consideration
mentors, do the detailed structural analyses. The for the scope of a change or addition to an existing (
complexity and uncertainty inherent in the behavior building. Seismic performance evaluation and (

of many structural elements and components of improvement may be secondary considerations of a (


(

(
(i;
Chapter 2~ Overview
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT Oi= CONCRETE- BUH..DI.NGS

-·-----.,--Step by' Step ---- - ..- _._-.'._ ....-..... _.. -_..


~ __.- -- _.._...._..

S Initiate the process o ~Pertinent

IT]
Chapters
T Jurisdictional Requirements
Architectural Changes
R Voluntary Upgrade
A Select Qualified Professionals
T
E
~ Structural Engineer
Architect
Establish Performance Objectives
0
G
y ~ Structural Stability
Limited Safety
life Safety
D : f aControl
CB0
Imm . te Occupancy
Review Building Conditions

[1] Review Drawings


Visual Inspection
0CD
Prelininary Calculations
Formulate a Strategy

ffiJ Simplified Procedures


Inelastic Capacity Methods
Complex Analyses
~
Begin the Approval Process

C ·ffiJ Building Official


Peer Review
Conduct Detailed Investigations
®:D
0
N
[I] Site Analysis
Material Properties
Construction Details
0:D
C Characterize Seismic Capacity

~
E Modeling Rules
CD®§
Force and Displacement
p
Determine Seismic Demand
T
[[] Seismic Hazard
Interdependence with Capacity
Target Displacement

Verify Performance
+ [9
D
Global Response Limits
Component Acceptability
Conceptual Approval
~

E Prepare Construction Documents

T [] Similarity to New Construction


Plan Check
Form of Construction Contract
®:D
A
Monitor Construction Quality

~
I
Submittals, Tests, and Inspections
(2)
L Verification of Existing Conditions
Construction Observation b Desi er
,. ,.

'r 2, overview 2·7


(

~j~lr~~6J:l~~ ert;;;; un~n for any , best" to follow a selection procedu, (sin
number .of reasons. Even if seismic performance...._:;+-- ---f.oll.owina:
. , 0 . .
improvement is the primary motivation, it is wise 1. Generate a list of potentially qual.. I. «>
to consider a broader potential scope at the candidates. This can be from past e. lerif
beginning ofthe project. Potential considerations and general familiarity on the part ot ).s\0\-
include the following: or from references from others who ha 'if
• Fire and life safety improvements similar projects. Public agencies' may dex lOp
request for qualifications announcement Wi .
• Hazardous material abatement
minimum criteria specified. \
• Disabled ~ccess improvement
2. Request written submittals of statements of
• Change in programmatic use qualifications. The request should state the
• Functional improvements preliminary scope of the project to the extent
'. possible.
• BUildin~:~ysten;s improvements
3. Select several qualified candidates to submit
• Historic preservation formal proposals; In some cases's available
Some of these are voluntary and may simply drawings or other documents might be
make sense to include. Others may be required by provided to the proposers. Site visits are also
law when changes are made to a building. beneficial.
Jurisdictional requirements vary, and it is prudent
4. Interview one or more of thri cmdidates on the
to make conservative assumptions early in the
. I basis of a review of the proposals. The
process. Theactual scope may not emerge until
interview is an opportunity to imagine the.
later in the project, when more information
working relationship between an owner and tl
becomes available. The expert advice of design
. potentialdesign team. Are the personalities
professionals, including an architect and an
compatible? Even if qualifications are
engineer, is normally needed to finalize the scope
excellent, the relationship between the owner
of a project. -Table 2-2 is a guideline to issues
and the consultants must also be -conducive tc
pertinent to the rehabilitation and retrofit process
success.
scope of work. ,
5. Thoroughly check references on similar
Slf!lect Quali#ied projects. Ask references specific questions
about the performance of the candidates and
pJ:oFessiDntlls about the results of the job:
Some owners have ongoing relationships with
6. Make a selection and negotiate acontract,
design professionals whom they know and trust.
Keep in mind that the scope may change on
Others may never have dealt with architects or
the' evaluation and retrofit strategy is
engineers. Public agencies are required to select
developed in the initial stages'of the projec
project teams-according to prescribed procedures.
In any event, the careful selection of qualified This' selection process can be tailored to th
professional assistance is more important with the needs of individual projects. In most cases, at
evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete of design professionals led by either an archite
buildings than with most other projects. This is structural engineer is sought In some cases, a
because of the complexity of the building type, the structural engineer might fill the role without
uncertainties of earthquake technology, and the . architectural assistance. An example 'would be
. _:,.~.}Vp"en. a; Pr.~limi:p.ary,',S~dYi to determine deficit
lack of establishedprecedents indesign and"
analysis methodologies. Therefore, it is usually and develop conceptual remedial structural

Chapter 2, OVE
SEISMIC EVALUATJON- AND -RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUU.DINGS

Table 2-2. Seismic l!~sign (:hecklist fO Facilit;1t.e,l.;JrchitectiEngineer Interaction

structural stability
Limited safety {structural>
Hazards Reduced (non structurall
Life safety
structural
Nonstru ctural i

Damagecontrol
Immediate tcontlnuern Occupancy
Continued post earthquake function

Near fault
Ground failure possibility [landslide,
liquefaction, subsidence) -
Soft soil (long periods, amplification,
duration)

vertical discontinuity
soft story
Setback
Offset
Resistance elements
Plan discontinuity
Adjacency-pounding possibility
Dynamic resonance
Diaphragm flexibility
Torsion
Redundancy
Deformation compatibility
out-of-plane vibration
Unbalanced resistance
Resistance location
Driftlinterstory effects
strong column/weak beam condition
structural performance
Ductility
Inelastic demand
Constant or degrading stiffness
Damping

Chapter 2,OVerviEiJw
(
(
,(

Table 2-2 (Continued) Seismic Design Checklist to Facilitate A,rChite.ct/e.ngineerInteraction

Energy dissipation capacttv


(
Yield/fracture behavior -. (

special system (e.g., seismic Isolation) (


Mixed system
Repairability
Up-slope or down-slope conditions,
collapse-hazard buildinQs nearby
(
Cladding, glazing
Deformation compatibility (
Mounting system
(
Random infill
Accessibility <lifelines, access/egress) (

Height - .~;:.~
(
I
~
Size effect
Architectural concept
ceiling attachment
Partition attachment
Rigid
Floating
Replaceable partitions
stairs
Equipment (Mech.lElec}Plumb.l (
special equipment
Computer/communications (
I
equipment
special building contents
(

Source: Architectural Practice and Earthquake Hazards (CSSC 1992). (


(
(
(
(
(
(

(
(:
( ~
2-10 Chapter 2, overvieW
(
(
measures is sufficient. An architect might be hired ascertain the .cost of attaining that level of
later,. as.the situation dictatesc.ln.either.case, the.... performanceearly.in, the. project. .The. architect.and
qualifications of the structural engineer.are the engineer are not starting with a clean slate as with
most pertinent to the seismic evaluation and a new building. What are the strengths and
retrofit process. The key requirements are: deficiencies of an existing building? How
.. Demonstrated experience in the analysis, compatible are these with the owner's objectives?
design, and retrofit of concrete buildings in Is it worth while to spend a lot of money on
seismically. hazardous regions sophisticated analyses? Is it better for the owner
to simply accept the performance that can be
.. Basic familiarity with the principles of economically attained? These and other questions
performance-based seismic engineering and can only be answered as the project unfolds.
design Recognizing this at the start and planning a
.. Experience with inelastic analysis procedures flexible strategy to adjust to information as it
and thorough understanding of reinforced emerges are the keys to success.
concrete materials behavior
.. Fundamental grasp of structural dynamics and .Establish PerFDrmance
the behavior of structures subject to strong Dbjec-cives
ground motion At 'the beginning of an evaluation 'project, the
+ Registration as a structural engineering design team should meet With the building owner
authority in California to discuss seismic performance objectives. These
There are some very qualified engineers in the are presented in detail in Chapter 3. Thepurpose
state who do not necessarily have all of the primary of these initial meetings is to review with
credentials above. This does not mean that they the owner the various options for seismic
should be eliminated from consideration. An performance. It is important to remember that
example might be an engineer with a small . . attaining a performance objective consists of
practice who has a good working relationship with achieving a certain level of performance for a
a building owner. This individual might be specific level of seismic hazard. Chapter 4
perfectly capable of coordinating and . contains a detailed treatment of seismic hazard
implementing a fairly sophisticated evaluation and from ground shaking and addresses the potential
retrofit design with the assistance of an expert for ground displacement due to liquefaction,
subconsultant with supplementary qualifications. surface faulting, and landsliding.
The consequences of earthquakes on buildings
2~4 . Basic: Evaluntian nnd can be categorized into three types of losses:
Retrofit strategy • Life Safety: deaths and injuries to building .-
occupants and passersby
For the construction of anew project, the path
from start to finish is fairly clear from the + Capital Losses: costs to repair or replace the
beginning. The owner has a good idea of what a building or its contents
new building should be like, and with a little + Functional Losses: loss of revenue or
advice, the cost is fairly easy to estimate. increase in expenses related to the inability of
However, the course of an existing building a facility to function normally after
evaluation and retrofit project is often very earthquakes
different from that imagined at the outset. An
owner might have an idea about the desired
seismic performance, but rarely is it easy to

Chapter 2, overview 2·11


-~~.

:
(

The level of performance for a building during- engineer should also consider the potential site
.earthquakes is. measured.by, the.nature.and.extent ,.. . , hazards.covered. m-Chapter-4_-------- ----
of these potential losses. Obviously, the level of At some point during this initial process, (
performance is affected by the strength of each . another meeting or series of meetings usually takes (
earthquake. It is reasonable to expect that a place with the building 'owner, engineer, and (

building remain safe, i.e., not cause life loss, for architect. On the basis "ofthe preliminary field (
rare large earthquakes and that it remain usable for investigation, the engineer can often qualitatively
more-frequent moderate events. A performance describe to the owner what it might take to meet
objective is a goal that a building achieve a certain preliminary performance goals. In light of these
level of performance for a specific level of seismic discussions, the owner and design team might .
ground shaking hazard. An owner might decide decide to revise or augment the performance
that the goals for a 'building should' be to remain objectives. For example, if a building owner is
life safe for the Maximum Earthquake hazard level initially interested only in life safety; the engineer
and functional after a Serviceability Earthquake' may be able' to determine from preliminary
hazard level event. " investigations of the building that a performance
It is important that building owners understand, goal. beyond life safety could be achieved without a
that the process of seismic evaluation and-retrofit . much greater investment. Of course, in many ,
is a: risk-reduction process. The goals that owners cases the opposite course must be taken: "
select for building performance are just " performance goals and expectations may have to (
that--goals. Qualified design professionals who be lowered on the basis of what is determined in
sense this Understanding in their. clients can be
"_.,
the field. Supplemental detailed investigations of (0
extremely effective in helping owners to manage existing conditions may be required at a later stage
risk and deal with uncertainty. They will be less in the process. '
effective, on the other hand, for poorly informed
clients who try to transfer risk: and ,who expect
"guaranteed" building performance. ' pc,mulelte' a stl'Dtegy
After the owner revises or confirms the
performance objectives, the design team should
Review Bunding develop a plan for the detailed evaluation and
Conditions possible retrofit. There are many possible
Chapter 5 provides detailed guidelines for a alternatives to mitigate seismic risks, as discussed
preliminary investigation' of a building by an in Chapter 6. The owner should continue to
engineer. This process normally involves a site remain involved during this planning process.
visit to physically inspect the building and a search This document presents relatively. new
for and review of existing drawings or other technology that allows engineers to gain a more
documents that may describe the structural realistic picture of the: potential seismic
characteristics of the building. The structural performance characteristics of buildings. These
engineer might also do some preliminary . nonlinear static procedures constitute an inelastic
calculations to determine whether any of the analysis that considers what happens to buildings
features of the building are potential seismic after they begin to crack and yield in response to (
deficiencies in terms of the preliminary realistic earthquake motions. This approach differs (

performance goals; Chapter 5 includes from traditional linear static procedures that (
recommendations on the types of information that reduce seismic forces to levels that allow engineers (

the engineer should compile. At this point, the to design buildings under the assumption that they' (

( u-
Chapter '2, Overview (

(
(
:

remain undamaged. Although unrealistic and Simplified procedures generally will not identify
potentially misleading" this.simplistic.approach can, this deficiency, Simplified procedures can also
work well for new buildings and for smaller, result in overly conservative designs. This is .
simpler, and regular existing buildings. The appropriate, since the level of detail required for
advantage of the newer, nonlinear static analysis in the simplified procedures is less
procedures, when applied to existing buildings, is extensive than that for the more sophisticated
that they credit the good features of buildings at approach, so the additional conservatism is
the same time that they identify deficiencies. In warranted. In some cases, however, this additional
spite of its improvements over traditional analysis, conservatism can result.in excessively high
this new approach may not be appropriate for all construction
. costs. Also a consideration
-~ . is the
buildings. , ' potential for disruption and possible closure of
Some buildings may be too complex to rely on buildings for retrofit. The simplified procedures
the nonlinear static procedures. These cases may tend to require more-extensive retrofits and are
require time history' analyses of the nonlinear more likely to cause disruption andlor the need for
behavior of structures during example vacating buildings.
earthquakes. The kinds of buildings that may Another situation where use of simplified
require these specialized analyses are those that procedures is appropriate is when existing
are highly irregular or complicated. Other structural systems are so inadequate that complete
examples of building systems that may necessitate new systems must be installed in any event. In this
more-sophisticated analysis are energy dissipation case. the simplified procedure does not give up
or base isolation systems. ' much by neglecting the strength of existing .
At the other end of the spectrum are simpler systems. Also, if architectural considerations and
buildings for which use of nonlinear static.analysis historical restrictions are not significant, the
is not necessary. Although there are no hard and freedom of placing resisting elements where they
fast rules to identify them, buildings that possess are most effective can provide an opportunity for
one or more of the following characteristics should simplified procedures. Furthermore, if a building
be considered candidates: '; is highly redundant, not particularly irregular, and
• Small size of good construction quality, the scope of retrofit,
even if determined' by simplified procedures, is
+ Low-rise (one or two stories) likely to be small, and the benefits of more-
• Uncomplicated (regular) structural systems sophisticated analysis may be relatively
+ Highly redundant lateral force resisting system insignificant.
Simplified procedures have the advantage that
+ Low occupancy most engineers currently find them easier to use
For those cases, use of simpler, linear elastic than the new, nonlinear static procedures outlined
analysis procedures may be sufficient: There are a in this document. This is because the simplified
number of such procedures, briefly reviewed in procedures more closely parallel the design
Section 804.1, that may be utilized, depending on approaches that have traditionally been used in
the specific characteristics of-a given building. structural engineering practice. It will take time
In some cases, however, the simplified for engineers to assimilate the new procedures.
procedures do not identify specific seismic In addition, the simpler analysis procedures
deficiencies. For example, in shear wall buildings lead to lower costs forevaluation and retrofit
the columns can be subject to excessive design fees. In a competitive market, the lower
displacement and potentially fail when the shear design cost approach is attractive to owners.
walls begin tocrack or rock at the foundation. However, professional fees are not the critical cost

Chapter 2, overvie,:"
(

(
(
(

consideration in seismic evaluation and retrofit. In more information about the specific characteristics
the long run..:..
-OFners_will.begin.to recognize rhe, .... _of a particular building~[O.ne..oLthe.reasOD..S.,.thaL_._ ....
benefits of the better information obtained from' careful planning and approval by all involved are (
use of the more sophisticated analysis procedures. important in the early stages of the project is that . (
Better information leads to much-mere-significant these tests and inspections often can be expensive. (

economy in the reduction of both construction Some ofthe detailed options are reviewed in (
costs and actual earthquake losses. ChapterS• .
In some cases the lack 'of drawings and other
B~,gin the Approval documenration for a particular building may
Process significantly affect the selection of an evaluation
procedure. In fact, simplified procedures may be
Once a plan for the evaluation of the building
most appropriate for buildings about which little is
is formulated, the basic strategy should be
known. In- these cases it often can be most cost-
reviewed in detail with the building official. This
effective to simply provide a completely new
sequence is somewhat different from that for .
seismic force resisting system rather than try to
traditional design and construction, where the
thoroughly investigate and document existing -
building official sometimes is not:consulted until
conditions for more-sophisticated analyses.' .
the end of the design process, The complexity and
The activities up to this point in the overall
uncertainty inherent in the seismic evaluation of
evaluation of the retrofit process can beviewedas
concrete buildings demand much greater
a strategic planning effort. The complexity and
collaboration between the design team. and the
uncertainty involved in the overall process make
building official. At this point in the planning
this stage extremely important in controlling both
process, the extent of the required peer review for
the costs and the quality of the work: In some .
the project should be discussed. The scope of the
instances. the resulting plan may allow for .
peer review depends on' a number of factors,
contingencies and changes based on what is
including the complexity of the building itself ana
discovered later 'on, For example, a nonlinear
the proposed. evaluation procedures, the ability of
static procedure may be considered' the most (
the building department to understand and review
the evaluation and retrofit design, and the
effective analysis procedure in the beginning. C
However, detailed investigations of field (
capability and experience of the structural engineer (
conditions might lead to the conclusion that a
and design team. In most cases it is advisable to (
simplified analysis could economically satisfy the
. have a peer review panel. engaged early to evaluate
performance- goals. -.
(
the strategy for the evaluation and retrofit. In some
e
(.

instances, however, it may be acceptable to forego


formal peer review until the completion of the
2.5 Evaluation and Retr.ofit
evaluation and a conceptual design. Chapter 7
con:cept _ ' . ".
(
covers some of the more detailed aspects of the The essence of virtually all seismic evaluation (
peer review process and other quality control procedures is a comparison between some measure
measures. of the "demand" that earthquakes place on a .
structure to a measure-of the "capacity" of the I
building to resist. Traditional design procedures (
CDnduce DetD/led characterize demand and capacity as forces. Base
Investiga~iDns shear (total horizontal force at the lowest level of (
the building) is the normal-parameter that is used
The plan for the evaluation and retrofit process
for this purpose. The engineer calculates the' base
often includes detailed tests and inspections to gain (
shear demand that would be generated by a given
(
( ;
("'
2·14 (

(
earthquake, or intensity of ground motion, and demand to the capacity of a structure. This
compares.. this.to.the. base .shear-capacity .of.the. ._.. _.- - -' --_.. approach..includes consideration-ofthe ductility of
building. The capacity of the building is an the structure on an element by element basis. The
estimate of a base shear that would be inelastic capacity of a.building is then a measure
"acceptable." If the building were subjected to a of its ability to dissipate earthquake energy. The
force equal to its base shear capacity some current trend in seismic analysis is toward these
deformation and yielding might occur in some simplified inelastic procedures. Chapter 8 is a
structural elements, but the building would not detailed presentation of how they are used to
collapse or reach an otherwise undesirable overall compare the capacity of a structure to the demand
level of damage. If the demand generated by the imposed on it by a given ground motion.
earthquake is less than 'the capacity then the design
is deemed acceptable.
The first formal seismic design procedures
recognized that the earthquake accelerations would .
generate forces proportional to the weight of the
building. 'Over the years empirical knowledge
EI Characterize seismic
capacity
The recommended central methodology in this
document concentrates on the formulation of the
about the actual behavior of real structures in ,
inelastic capacity curve for the structure as
earthquakes and theoretical understanding of
structural, dynamics advanced. The basic procedure presented in Chapter 8. This curve is a plot of the
was modified to reflect the fact that the demand horizontal movement of a structure as it is pushed
generated by the earthquake accelerations was also to one side. Initially the plot is a straight line as
a function of the stiffness of the structure. the structure moves linearly. As the parts of the
structure yield the plot begins to curve as the
Engineers also began to recognize the
inherently better behavior of some buildings over structure softens. The engineer generates this
others. Consequently, they reduced seismic curve by building a model of the entire, structure
demand based on the characteristics of the basic from nonlinear representations of all of its
structuralmaterial and systein. The motivation to elements and components. Most often this is. t.,

reduce seismic demand for design came because accomplished with a computer and structural
engineers could not rationalize theoretically how analysis software. Using-the modeling rules of
structures resisted the forces generated by Chapters 9 and 10 the engineer specifies force
earthquakes. This was partially the result of their and displacement characteristics for each piece of
fundamental assumption that structures resisted the structure resisting the earthquake demand.
loads linearly without yielding or permanent These pieces are assembled geometrically to
structural, deformation. represent the complete lateral load resisting
An important measure-the capacity of a system. The resulting model is then subject to
structure to resist seismic demand-is aproperty increasing increments of load in a pattern .
known as ductility. Ductility is the ability to determined by its dynamic properties. The '
deform beyond initial yielding without failing corresponding displacements define the inelastic
abruptly. If a pencil is bent up to and beyond its capacity curve for the building. The generation of
yield point, it snaps. In contrast, a coat hanger the capacity curve defines the capacity of the
deforms permanently way beyond its initial yield. building uniquely and independently of any
It is ductile compared to the pencil. This property specific seismic demand. In this sense, it replaces
is a critical component of structural capacity. the base shear capacity of traditional procedures.
Instead of comparing forces, nonlinear static
procedures use displacements to compare seismic

Chapter 2, Overview
-.-.~,

(
(
(
SEISMIC EVAl.UATION AND RETROFIT' OF COrn:RETE BUILDINGS

":1

Evolution of Seismic De~ign


+f- d Earthquake
Displacement

v
Lack of Knowledge
Historical Approach on Earthquake (
Demand and (

Earthquake forces proportional to Building Capacity


(
building mass
'(V des =5-10% of WL), (
• Linear design using "factors-of
, safety" to account for uncertainty
- iu earthquake, pemand and
building capacity

Traditional Code Basis v


Elastic earthquake forces reduced for
linear design _
(V d.. =V max. I R) (
R. varies based' on typical inelastic
response of structural types

Reduction justified by expected Inelastic


ductility, 11 IDOX I 11 yield Response
(
tJ.
yield
, Current Trend (
Sa Demand Reduced Based
\-
Inelastic earthquake demand based on, on Inelastic Capacity

_---tIl::--m--~m1mng
inelastic capacity of building
l
Resolution of demand vs, capacity
generates Performance Point
(
• Design based on displacement,
A des
I

(
(
I
(
(
(
(
'.
(
Chapter 2, overview
(
(
!3EISMI't .EVALUATI.ON AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS'

::

When an earthquake displaces the building case as most analyses include some inelastic
laterally,..its..response is represented bya..point.on nonlinear behavior. _.. .
this curve. A point on the curve defmes a specific To find the point where demand and capacity
damage state for the building, since the are equal, the engineer assumes a point on the
deformation of all of its components can be related. capac~ty spe.ctrum as an initial estimate. Using the
to the global displacement of the structure. spectral acceleration and displacement from this
point, the engineer then can calculate reduction
~ Determine seismic: factors to apply to the 5 ~ elastic spectrum to
. . . Demand account for the hysteretic energy dissipation
associated with the .specific point. These reduction
The capacity of a particular buildirig and the
factors have the effect of pulling the demand
demand imposed upon it by a given earthquake
spectrum down. If the reduced demand spectrum
motion are not independent. One source of this
intersects the capacity spectrum at or near the
mutual dependence is evident from the capacity
initial assumed point, then it is the .solution for the
curve itself. As the demand increases the structure
unique "performance point" where capacity equals
eventually yields and, as its stiffness decreases, its
demand. If the intersection is not reasonably close
period lengthens. Conversion of the capacity curve
to the initial point, then the engineer can assume a
to spectral ordinates (ADRS) outlined in Chapter
new point somewhere between and repeat the
8 makes this concept easy to visualize. Since the process until a solution for the performance point
seismic accelerations depend on period, demand is reached.
also changes as the structure yields. Another Chapter 8 also presents an alternative for
source of mutual dependence between capacity and
estimating the "performance point" where capacity
demand is effective damping. As a building yields
and demand all equal for a given earthquake
in response to seismic demand it dissipates energy motion. The proposed federal guidelines (ATC,
with hysteretic damping. Buildings that have large,
1996a) presents one of these called the
stable hysteresis loops during cyclic yielding
Displacement Coefficient Method. It uses a series
dissipate more than those with pinched loops
of coefficients to modify the hypothetical elastic
caused by degradation of strength and stiffness.
response of a building to estimate its inelastic
Since the energy that is dissipated need not.be
displacement demand.
stored in the structure, the damping has the effect
of diminishing displacement demand.
Chapter 8 devotes much attention to the
development and presentation of the Capacity
Spectrum Method. The Capacity Spectrum Method
·m Verify Performance
Once the performance point for a demand
characterizes seismic demand initially using a 5 % earthquake is estimated, the engineer checks the
damped elastic response spectrum as detailed in resulting performance of the building using the
Chapter 4. This spectrum is plotted in spectral . acceptability criteria in Chapters 10 and 11. The
ordinates (ADRS) format showing the spectral performance is checked on two levels. First, there
acceleration as a function of spectral displacement. are global-limits for displacement of the structure
This format allows the demand spectrum to be for each performance objective. For example, the
"overlaid" on the capacity spectrum for the roof of a building might move four inches during
building. The intersection of the demand and . ' , " 1 ,..,.,. an earthquake for· which it should be life safe. For
capacity spectra, if located in the linear range of the same building the total roof displacement
the capacity, would define the actual displacement might be limited to two inches for a more frequent
for the structure; however this is not normally the earthquake in order to meet a damage control

Chapter 2, ove~view
-~ -- -'--:--~.

(,
(
(
(
(
(

(
:
(

(
(
. .
.Capacity-vs: -D'emaricf-c---------------.:-------- .

(
(
(

~~
('
C.
(
(
(

S a
(
T ' (~
/Ra:uced seismic
demand (

(
(
Performance ,
point (

(
(
(

(
(

,
Chapter 2, overview (

(
SEISMIC EVALUAY·ION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE EUULDINCS

performance goal. Similarly, the. engineer checks the engineer can pinpoint deficiencies within the
individual. structural elements.against acceptability.. :_- ... structure., This.facilitates.a.directed retrofit. strategy.
limits which depend on the global performance >. that is both effective and cost efficient.
goal. The nature of the element acceptability limits In order to meet some or all of the performance
vary according to the specific element. Inelastic' goals for abuilding, retrofit may be required to
rotation is the acceptability parameter for beams, improve performance. If the performance goals are
for example. The limits on inelastic. rotation are . met by the existing structure then retrofit may not
recommended based on observations from tests and be necessary. There are several strategies to
performance in past earthquakes. A similar, though develop appropriate retrofit measures as discussed
somewhat more qualitative procedure measures the . in Chapter 6. The choice depends on the type of
acceptability. of nonstructural components. structure, the nature of the deficiencies, the
The nonlinear static procedures, including the constraints of the architecture and planning, and the
Capacity Spectrum Method, can appear to some to funds available. In some cases, the owner may
be tedious and complicated compared to. traditional decide to accept lesser performance in deference to
design procedures. There are, however, some these constraints. The effectiveness of a selected
distinct benefits. retrofit strategy is tested by adding or modifying
First, the entire process of generating the elements in the structural model, then re-analyzing
capacity curve and dealing directly with the the model as before. Often several different
interdependence of capacity and demand gives the strategies are investigated before settling on a
engineer a greatly enhanced understanding of the preferred concept.
actual performance of the specific building. This
enables the engineer to apply the necessary 2 ..& Fingl Design and
experience and judgment at a much more refmed construction
level than traditional procedures.
This document concentrates on the conceptual
Also advantageous are the significantly more
phase of seismic evaluation and retrofit projects. In
useful results of the analysis. The performance
reality, the detailed design work represents a major
point at which the seismic capacity equals the
portion of the effort and occurs after the owner's
demand characterizes performance as a specific
preferred concept is developed. This process,
building damage state for a specific earthquake
however, is similar to that for conventional'
intensity. The probability of occurrence of the
construction of new buildings.
earthquake intensity defines the risk of occurrence
for the damage state.

m
Although the accuracy of this estimate is limited
by unavoidable uncertainties, this explicit Prepare Construction
relationship between performance and risk is Documeni:s
superior to the implicit intent of current code The structural details for the retrofit typically
procedures. Component deformations, directly conform to code requirements for new work. As the
related to damage, are a much better parameter than design continues, the peer reviewer checks to see
forces for performance evaluation. In contrast to that the approved concept is faithfully implemented
force-based traditional methods, the damage state by the engineer, as discussed in Chapter 7. These
from nonlinear static procedures characterizes the reviews usually occur at the end of the design
deformation of building components for comparison development phase and near the completion of
with acceptability criteria depending on the desired construction documents. Before issuing a permit for
performance. With the tabulation of the construction, the building official will normally
acceptability of individual element deformations, have a plan check made of all project documents.

Chapter 2, overview
(
(
((
(
(
(
:

In the absence of legal restrictions, the form of


.contract for retrofitconstruction.may be. one. oL....
many, similar to new construction. Lump sum
- m;
· ,!,~n1..t~1' conse,uction,
-l,1u~/'ty·-------------

The actual seismic performance of buildings is


._....
(
bidding is best suited to projects where the existing (
conditions of the building are relatively welllmown extremely sensitive to construction quality. This is (
especially true for .retrofitted buildings. Field
and the retrofit measures comprise. normal
conditions in existing buildings routinely vary from
(
construction practices. Where field conditions are .(
uncertain or retrofit measures are innovative or those shown on drawings or implied by visual (.
unique, a construction management approach can be inspections during the evaluation process. These 'f
very effective. In fact, engaging a contractor during changes can,have significant impact on retrofit
design can often provide valuable assistance to the designs. Some retrofit techniques are sophisticated
~d require special inspections and tests. It is vitally
engineer, in the selection of cost-efficient retrofit (
techniques and details of construction. A unique Important that the engineer prepare a project-
specific construction quality assurance plan. The (
contractual arrangement. may be appropriate- in (
some cases--for instance, where there are plan should identify required jests, inspections,
submittals, and personnel qualifications. The
(
specialized retrofit procedures, such as seismic (

isolation or energy dissipation devices. engineer of record should make. regular inspections
. . and receive immediate .notification of any field
"j problems,

(
(
(
(
(

(
(

(
(

(
(
(

2-20 Chapter i~ overview


(
(
.:

building performance levels are given titles and are complete back-up utility systems could be put in
escribed.below. ,., ",.,._._. ., .... _ .... .., ,., codes.fot.use.of.building.designeis.Jt. may.not... be _
Commentary: The four building performance practical to attain an Operational building ,
.vels; Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life performance level without significant
~afety, and Structural Stability; are 'given' titles facility-specific input from the owner-operator.
.onsistent with the titles of their structural and + Life Safety, 3-C: This level is intended to
-mstructural components. Reference can also be achieve a damage state that presents an
made to their SP-NP designations, I-A, I-B, 3-C. extremely low probability of threats to life
-id5-E. Rather than developing titles for all other safety, either from structural damage or from
combinations, some of whicb will seldom be falfug or tipping of nonstructural building
- nployed, it is recommended that the SP-NP components. User-furnished contents,
designations be used. however, ar:e not controlled, and could create
... Operational, I-A: This is the performance falling hazards or secondary hazards, such as
level related to functionality. Damage to the chemical releases or fire. This performance
building's structure is limited so that continued level is intended to be less than 'the
safe occupancy is not in question, and any performance that is expected of code designed
required repairs are minor and can be carried new buildings.
out without significant disruption to occupants. + Structural Stability, 5-E: This damage state
Similarly, damage to nonstructural systems and addresses only the main building frame or
contents related to functionality is minor and vertic~ load carrying system arid requires only
will not jeopardize functions in the building. stabi.Iji:y under vertical loads.. No margin
'Most importantly, vital servicesfrom outside against collapse in aftershocks may be
the building such as utilities, transportation, or . available. Life threatening external or internal
communications must be provided withback-up falling hazards from cladding,' nonstructural
facilities or planning as required to allow finishes, or 'even structuraldamage may have
functions to continue if these services are occurred. Review of performance of
unavailable. Since important aspects of this nonstructural elements from' expected forces or
performance objective involve contingency structural 'drifts is not required so their
planning and design of back-up systems, performance can be' highly unreliable,
development of acceptability criteria is not
included in this document. + Other Commonly Used 'Combinations
Immediate Occupancy, I-B: This corresponds o Building Performance Level 3-D: This
to the most widely used criteria for essential level combines life safety structural
facilities. The building's spaces and systems are performance with the reduced hazard
expected to be reasonably usable, but continuity nonstructural performance, thus accepting
of all services, either primary or backup, is not a slight risk to life safety from
necessarily provided. Contents may be nonstructural systems. Although large and
damaged. highly vulnerable nonstructural elements
should remain in place, the majority of
Commentary: Although most codes require
nonstructural elements such as
jairly complete and effective seismic anchorage and
mechanical/electrical equipment and
tacing for building systems and equipment, the
distribution systems, partitions, and typical
actual operational aspects of a facility are normally ,. ,

tveloped by the owner-operator. Although some


operational aspects, such as requirements for more

chclpter 3, Performance Objectives


(
(
(
-----------------------------------------_\

(
(
(
cleanup should be expected, all equipment and injury to groups of people, such as parapets,
.machinery. should.be..working; Ho;wever,--.-- masonry. exterior walls, .cladding,..or large, -. (
external utilities, which may not be available heavy ceilings. While isolated serious injury (
due to significant off-site damage, .must be could occur, risk of failures that could put (
locally backed up. Contingency plans to deal large numbers of people at risk within or ((
with possible difficulties with external outside the building is very low.
communication, transportation, and availability Commentary: Nonstructural elements have
of supplies should be in place. not been considered in any systematic manner in
Although this level is defined here, most retrofit work to date. Major hazards,
development of design criteria must include however, are most often mitigated. This level is
building-specific planning and back-up systems therefore an attempt to formalize common (
and is beyond the scope of this document. practice.
.. Immediate Occupancy, NP-B: The • Not Considered, NP-E: Nonstructural
post-earthquake damage state in which elements, other than those -that have an effect (
nonstructural elements and systems are on structural response, are not.evaluated.
generally in place. Minor disruption and Commentary: This is not a performance level, (
cleanup should be expected, particularly due to but provides a designation for the common case
damage or shifting of contents. Although where nonstructural elements.are not surveyed or (
equipment and machinery are generally evaluated unless theyhave .fJ. direct effect on (",I.r=
anchored or braced, their ability to function. structural response, such as infill masonry walls or
after strong shaking is not considered and some other heavy partitions. The. designation is needed '.
limitations on use or functionality may exist. to accurately describe the Building Performance
All external utilities may not be locally backed Level of Structural Stability for which
up. Seismic safety status should not be affected.
(
nonstruetural elements are; in fact, not
+- Life Safety, NP-C:. This post-earthquake considered. Also, it is included to allow it to be. (
damage state could include considerable coupled with structural level SP-4, a building
damage to nonstructural components and performance level often encountered. Furthermore, (
systems but should not include collapse or choosing not to consider nonstructural elements
falling of items heavy enough to cause severe may sometimes be a risk management approach
injuries either within or outside the building. used in combination with other higher structural
Secondary hazards from breaks in performance levels. The explicit inclusion of the
high-pressure, toxic, or fire suppression piping NP-E, plot Considered nonstructural performance (
should not be present. Nonstructural systems, level in a building performance level is also a
equipment, and machinery may not be useful communication tool between designer and
functional without replacement or repair. While owner/operator. (
injuries during the earthquake may occur, the (
risk of life-threatening injury from 3.2.3 Building Performance Levels
nonstructural damage is very low. Combinations of a structural performance level
and a nonstructural performance level form a
.. Reduced Hazard, NP-D: Thispost-earthquake Building Performance Level to completely (
damage state could include extensive damage to describe the desired limiting damage state for a .
nonstructural components and systems but building. Possible combinations are shown in (
should not include collapse or falling of large Table 3-1. The four most commonly referenced
and heavy items that could cause significant (

( ~"
Ch~Pter 3, ,performan~e Objectives 3=5· .
(

(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF' COlNCR'ETE" BUILDINGS'

for the situation where a 'retrofit may not meet done with caution, as this could imply a high
..all.the.structural.requirements of the, Life_ Safety__ . . pr..obabililjLojcollapse.fotany.larget: event. __.. _.-:-~_. __.
level, but is better than the level of Structural .. Not Considered, SP-6; This 'is not a
Stability. These circumstances include cases performance levekbut provides ~ placeholder
when the complete Life Safety level is not-cost for situations where only nonstructural seismic
effective, or when only some critical structural evaluation or retrofit is..performed:
.deficiencies are mitigated Commentary: Although. unusual,
(The nonstructural performance level used in nonstruetural seismic improvements are sometimes
this .range varies and will depend on the intent made with no review of the structure. This might
of the damage control). . .' occur in locations ofhigh and obvious
I Structural Stability, SP-5: This level is the vulnerability, such as at a computer room or for
lirni ting post-earthquake structural damage state. important equipment. The explicit inclusion of a
in which the' building's structural system is on Not Considered structuralperformance level in the
the verge of experiencing partial or total building performance level-is also usefula
collapse" Substantial damage to the structure communication tool between designer and 'owner. .
has occurred,: potentially including significant
degradation"hi the stiffness and strength of the 3.2.2 Nonstructural Performance
lateral force resisting-system. However, all Levels
significant components of the gravity load Nonstructural performance levels are assigned
resisting 'system continue to -carry their gravity a title and, for ease of reference; a letter. The
demands. Although thebuilding retains its letter is called the nonstructural performance letter
overall' stability, significant risk of injury due to and is abbreviated NP-n (where n is the designated
falling hazards may exist both within and.._ .', -: ';>;!\~.tteJ;"j'. -,;,\~ ·~:,;r;.' . .
outside the building and significant aftershocks ., The nonstructural performance levels '-
may lead to collapse. It should be expected that Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety ~
significant major structural repair will be and Hazards Reduced -. are discrete damage states
necessary prior to reoccupancy .. In the older and can be used directly in evaluation and retrofit
concrete building types considered in this procedures to define technical criteria. ·The other
document, it is very likely that the damage will nonstructural performance designation - Not
not be technically or economically repairable. Considered - is an important placeholder to allow
Falling' hazards are not specifically direct reference to the wide variety 'of building:
prevented to achieve this performance level. performance levels that 'might be desirable to
Therefore NP-E (nonstructural performance not owners for evaluation or retrofit.
considered) is normally combined with SP-5. Commentary: Performance levels have been
Commentary: This level is provided primarily selected to allow combinations with structural"
o enable a specific verification of continued levels that will correspond to single performance
structural stability for the maximum earthquake levels proposed by FEMA 273 and Vision 2000 and
jround motions. Although such performance is provide the flexibility to formalize de facto
" implied (SEAOC 1990) for new buildings in combined performance-levels commonly used in
Ealifomia, and is considered desirable in all practice.
seismic regions, there has previously been no .. Operational, NP-A: The post-earthquake
J ormalized method of verification. The combination damage state in which nonstructural elements
,t this structural performance level with earthquake and systems are generally in place and
ground shaking less than the maximum should be functional. Although 'minor disruption and

3-4 Chapter 3, performance 'Objectives


- -,"",--,"=",,""'
---
t (

(
(
: {

(
(

(
are similar to those used in FEMA 273 (ATC reparability is so undefined that the term is no
1996a) .. These descriptions are.also.similar in__ . _.mor.e..u.sefuLthan.Damage-Contr.oLIL is expected (
concept, if not in terminology, to those proposed in that many projects may have special demands for (

the Vision 2000 Progress Report (SEAOC 1995b). which criteria greater than Life Safety will be (
.. Immediate Occupancy, SP-l: The appropriate. Although not a level, per se, it is far (c
post-earthquake damage state in which only simpler to reference this range ofperformance
very limited structural damage has occurred. levels using a placeholder. within the context of
The basic vertical and lateral force resisting standard designations (e.g. SP-2) than to formally
systems of the building retain nearly all of their . define both levels and ranges.
pre-earthquake characteristics and capacities. .. Life Safety, SP-3: The post-earthquake
The risk of life-threatening injury from damage state in which significant damage to (
structural failure . the structure
is negligible, and may have (
the building' occurred but in
should be safe for" which some
unlimited egress, margin against (
ingress, and . either total or
occupancy. partial (
.. Damage Control, structural ~

SP-2: This term collapse (


is actually not a remains, The' ~ ..

specific level but level of damage


a range of is lower than
post-earthquake that- for the
damage states that Structural
could vary from SP-I, Immediate Occupancy to Stability level. Major structural components
SP-3, Life Safety. It provides a placeholder for have not become dislodged and fallen,
the many situations where it may be desirable threatening life safety either within or outside
to limit structural damage beyond the Life the building. While injuries during the
Safety level, but occupancy is not the issue. earthquake may occur, the risk of (

Examples of damage control include protection life-threatening injury from structural damage (
of significant architectural features of historic is very low. It should be expected that
buildings or valuable contents. extensive structural repairs will likely be
necessary prior to reoccupation of the
Commentary: The Damage Control range, also
building, although the damage may not always
sometimes called Limited Damage, is' defined to .
be economically repairable. This level of
allow reference to performance levels between
structural performance is intended to be less
Immediate Occupancy and Life Safety. Although not.
than the level of performance expected of fully
specifically defined in other current documents, the
code compliant new buildings.
expected performance of most new buildings for the
10 percent/50-year event (see Section 3.3) would +- Limited Safety, SP-4: This term is actually
probably fall in this range (EERI 1994). A not a specific level but a range of
performance equivalent to that expected of new post-earthquake damage states that are less
(
buildings is also sometimes called Repairable than SP-3, Life Safety and better
- than SP-5 ,
(
Damage, but economic or technological Structural Stability. It provides a placeholder

Chapter 3, Perform~nce Qbjectives


(
SEISMIC EVALU'ATioN AN'D RETROFIT OF CONCRETE' BUILDINGS

-able ~-1. Combinations of structural and Nonstructural perFormance Levels


to Form Building PerFormance Levels , )' .:; ,~, "

I
NP-A
operational
NP-B
Immediate
occupancy
~ Is, •

NP-C
Life Safety

NP-D
Hazards
Reduced
NP-E
Not consloereo

Legend
Commonly referenced Building Performance Levels (SP-NP)
Other possible combinations of SP-NP
Not recommended combinations of SP-NP

~ombination of a structural performance level and a The Structural Performance Levels-


uonstructural performance level and are designated Immediate Occupancy, Lif6 Safety, and Structural .
'lY the applicable number and letter combination Stability-are discrete damage states, and can ,be
such as I-A, 3-C, etc. as shown in-Table 3-1. used directly in evaluation ,3.Pd retrofit procedures
. t~"defui~techJiiGafcnteiia': The other structural
'. ~
,

';.2.1 structural perform~i;'ce Levels performance designations-Damage Control,


and Ranges Limited Safety, and Not Considered-are
Structural performance levels and ranges are important placeholders in the numbering scheme to
.ssigned a title and, for ease of reference, a allow direct reference to the wide variety of
number. The number is called the structural building performance levels that might be
~L)erformance numberand is abbreviated SP-n desirable to owners for evaluation or retrofit.
(where n is the designated number). Commentary: These descriptions of
acceptable damage at various performance levels

I
"-'
(
---------------------------------------
(
(
(
(
(
Chapter :5 (
. .
___ . ~ .__.c_.
~~.f-c;J r·~~,~_~~_~~"j_~~tiJl.
~ ._ _ ~_~__ _;_"'-----'-~.-. __ ~_. ~
s_
~__.... ..._ c__~_..
J
._-----------/ ,.-

,/f

AUdience Interest spectrum


(
, Owner Architect' BIC/g. Official . Engineer Analvst (

-. BII C
3..1 Introduction systems and several commonly used combinations (
A performance objective specifies the desired of structural and nonstructurallevels, called (
seismic performance of the,building: Seismic ' Building Performance Levels. Standard earthquake
performance is described by designating the hazard levels are introduced and the process of (
maximum allowable damage state (performance selecting appropriate performance objectives is
level) for an identified seismic hazard (earthquake described. A detailed discussion of seismic hazard
ground motion). A performance objective may is contained in Chapter 4,"
(
include consideration of damage states for several
levels of ground motion and would then be termed 3 ..2 Performance Levels (
a dual- or multiple-level performance objective. A performance level describes a limiting
Once the building .owner selects a performance . damage condition: which may be considered (
objective, the engineer can identify the seismic satisfactory for a given building and a given
demand to be used in the analysis and the ground motion. The limiting condition is described
acceptability criteria by the physical damage
to be used for within the building, the (
evaluation and threat to life safety of the (
design of the building's occupants
building's structural created by the damage, and (
and nonstructural the post-earthquake
systems. While the serviceability of the
majority of building.
retrofitted buildings Target performance (
are expected to meet levels for structural and
or exceed the nonstructural systems are
assigned specified independently"
performance level-when exposed to the ground Structural performance levels are given names and (
motion implied by the selected hazard level, such number designations, while nonstructural
(
performance should not be considered guaranteed. performance levels are given names and letter
This chapter defmes several standard designations, Building Performance Levels are a (
performance levels for structural and nonstructural
(
( '"

Chapter 3, perforlt!anCe Objectives


.•··;rio:,r.·.,. ., . . . .

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT 0;: CONCRETE BUILDINGS

ceilings and light fixtures have not been It Building Performance Levels 2-A, 2-B,
braced.or. anchored.and.could. be.highly... -- ---' 2-C,-2-D:.-Within- the broad structural- .
disrupted and produce falling hazards. performance range of Damage Control, an
Commentary: The vast majority of all retrofits equally wide range of nonstructural
completed to date have been designed to provide protection might be appropriate. It is
performance similar to this level for the code unlikely, but possible, to find it desirable
prescribed 10 percent/50 year earthquake ground to combine structural Damage Control
motion. A common design criteria has incorporated with less thorough nonstructural protection
75% of the lateral force required for new buildings. than NP-C. It is necessary to develop
Although most of these retrofits were designed to building specific criteria for these cases to
prescriptive provisions and were therefore not suit the systems needing special protection.
performance based, the intent was to achieve II Building Performance LeveI3-A: This
structural life safety, and included mitigation of building code requirements for new
major and obvious falling hazards such as parapets buildings is generally thought to be
or heavy decorative ceiling in large rooms. intended to provide seismic performance
Extensive surveys of other nonstructural elements similar to Performance Level 2C for the
rarely have been included. 10 percent/50 years ground motion.
e Building Performance Level 3-B: This
Qa Building Performance Level 3-E: This
level presents a risk of structural damage
. level might be used if structural work is
that could prevent the building from being
minor or localized, or if limited funding
occupied. However, nearly complete
precludes expenditures for extensive
nonstructural protection will prevent .
nonstructural upgrading.
significant internal disruption, particularly
in low levels of shaking. Although only • Building Performance Levels 4-C, 4-D,
seldom applied to a whole building, this 4-E: Similar to SP-4, these levels are
level is more commonly applied to . primarily placeholders for structural risk
particular areas or rooms, such as computer l . reduction that does not meet a
facilities. predescribed level. A variety of
Commentary: Building Performance Level 3-B nonstructural improvements may also be
might be assigned to buildings where occupancy made.
and/or function is important, but the cost of 8 Building Performance Levels 5-C, 5-D,
providing more structural protection is high, or if 6-C,6-D: 1-1 some cases, improved
the structure already meets the Life Safety nonstructural performance may be
performance level. In these cases, structural work desirable with little or no consideration of
may be extremely undesirable, but added structural performance. As mentioned
nonstructural protection is judged cost effective. previously, use of the SP-NP designation
• Other Less Common Combinations forces recognition of structural risks when
such decisions are made.
II Building Performance Level l-C: This
combination might represent the desire to • Not Recommended Combinations: Certain
avoid a red or yellow tag structurally, but combinations of structural and nonstructural
the willingness to accept considerable performance levels will seldom, if ever, be
cleanup before the building's spaces are cost effective because of an imbalance in effort
fully usable. (It is unlikely that SP-l would on structural and nonstructural systems. Such
be combined with less than NP-C. imbalances may also create rnisperceptions of

chapter :3, Per.formance Objectives


\
(
.(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS (
.l
(
(
I
(
I
(
expectations by owners or tenants. Although motion with a 5 percent chance of being
assignment of these,building,performance.levels .-.exceeded.in.a5.Q.,-ye.a.r.period: _ . __ _.
is not prohibited, the· Not Recorrunended Commentary: The ground motion with-a 20 (
designation was addedboth to avoid poor percent chance of being exceeded in 50 ye'!rs has (
decisions and to simplify Table 3-1. also been used in some projects. This ground I
(
··lft(jtiontypicallyrepresentsabrJutlWlFthir~w···· .

3.3 Earthquake·Ground -three-quarters ofthe demand ofthe more standard-


Motion DE of10 percent/50 years. This reduced seismic r
Earthquake ground motion is combined with a
demand is roughly equivalent to the lower design
force level often used in the past for evaluation
C (
desired performance !e:vel to form a performance
objective. The earthquake ground motion can be
and retrofit of existing buildings, e.g., ATC-14 (
. (ATC 1981), FEMA 178 (
expressed either by (
(BSSC 1992), the San
specifying a level of
Francisco Building
shaking associated with a (
. Code Section- 104f
given probability of
(City and County of San
occurrence (a (
Francisco 1991). (
probabilistic approach),
. Although the (
or in terms of the .'
" recommended system of
maximum shaking
creating and assigning
expected from a single
performance objectives (
event of a specified
allows and encourages (
magnitude on a specified
use 'of many levels of
source fault (a (
performance and'
deterministic approach).
, ground motions, a
The level of ground (
.' . common measure is
motion is expressed in
" needed to ;enable
terms of engineering (
comparison of
characteristics' for use in
performance objectives with that expectedfrom (
design, A response spectra or an equivalent series
familiar designs, such as new buildings. The most I
of simulated recordings of earthquake motions are
common and consistent thread for designs for the (
used for this purpose. .
last 20 years is the 10 percent/50 years ground I
The following three levels of earthquake ground (
motion and it is recommended that this motion be
motion are defined in Chapter 4. .
maintained for the basic Design Earthquake.
.. The Serviceability Earthquake (SE): Ground Lower criteria that have often been used for
motion with a 50 percent chance of being (
existing building, usually in consideration- of the
exceeded in a 50-year period . (
high cost of retrofit, should be taken'into. account (
.. The Design Earthquake (DE): Ground motion directly by setting appropriate peif0T17ll!:'!oce levels. ~ ..
with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in a As noted earlier, the Life Safety Performance Level
50-year period is intended to be a lesser criteria than the code for (
new buildings and to accomplish a purpose similar
.. The Maximum Earthquake (ME): Maximum (
to the use of smaller design forces. However, with
level of ground motion expected within the
performance based design, it is hoped that
known geologic framework due to a specified (
communication of expectations to owners and
single' event (median attenuation), or the ground (
tenants will be inore straightforward.
(
(
( -,

3-B
(

(
SEISMIC .EVALUAT·IDN AND RETROFIT. OF CONCRETE BUU.DINGS

3.4 Performance Objectives A dual- or multiple-level performance


A seismic'performance-objective is-defined by~- _....-. -o?jecti.:ve. c~- be created. by.selecting.two or more
selecting a desired building performance level for a different desired performances, each for a
given level of earthquake ground motion, as shown different level of ground motion, as shown in
in Table 3-2a. Table 3-2b.

Table 5·2a. Definition of a performance Objective

operational

Serviceability
EQ ISEl

Table 5·2b. Definition of a Dual-Level Performance Objective

Chapter 3,.Performance Objectives


-'-----~

\
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS (
','
(
(
"
(
Table 5-3. The Basic safety Performance Objective' ;
.(

(
Operational (

serviceabilty (
,.,
EO (SE)
(
(
(
/
(
3.4.1 Basic Safety Objective . differences between the DE and the ME. However,
The Basic Safety Objective, shown in in complex buildings that incorporate lateral force (
Table 3-3, is a dual-level performance objective resisting elements ofwidely different character-
defmed as performance achieving the Building istics, the range of'performance from Life Safety to (
Performance Level Life Safety, 3-C, for the Structural Stability damage levels is likely to be
Design Earthquake level-of ground motion and the inconsistent and unpredictable; and a specific ("
Building Performance Level Structural Stability, check against collapse 'is probably warranted.
5-E, for the Maximum Earthquake level of ground Much of the central valley of California is (.
motion. characterized by a significant difference between
the DE and the ME, based on actual probabilistic (
Commentary: This performance objective is
intended to be an enhanced substitute for the values for the DE (Code seismic zones for these
'areas are artificially high). This would suggest (
Substantial Life Safety performance goal shown in
Table 1 of Policy on Acceptable Levels of , . .(hat a specific check against collapse for a rare
(
Earthquake Risk in State Buildings, (CSSC 1991b). 'large event (ME) should be made if the actual
Consideration of seismic performance for the probwilimcmm~a~u~d~rrneDR (
ME has been included in several codes (Anny The details of exceptions to a dual level
1986; Title 24 for hospitals (CBSC1995)), but has criteria for the Basic Safety Objective cannot be (
been ineffectual due to lack of adequate criteria as developed prior to completion of additional trial
well as lack of clarity as to intent. It has often designs and fine tuning oj verification criteria.
been suggested for use nationally to account for
the relatively large variation in the ratio ofDE to 3.4.2 other Performance Objectives
ME across the country. Primarily due to the lack , The wide variety of building performance
levels (Table 3-1) can be combined with various
(
of reliability and the potential brittleness of many
systems in existing or retrofit buildings, it is levels of ground motion to form many possible
included in FEMA 273 for the nationally performance objectives. Performance objectives
recommended Basic Safety Objective. A complete for any building may be assigned using functional, (
set of acceptability criteria for all materials has policy, preservation, or cost considerations.
also been developed. Commentary: Combinations that have been
The dual-level check may prove unnecessary in used as performance objectives in the past or that
California for small, simple buildings or buildings otherwise may form logical objectives. are shown in
with no brittle elements or at sites with small Table.s 3-4a, 3-4b, and 3-4c.
(

. ,
(-~
3-10 Chapter 3, Performance Objectives
(

(
SEIS.MIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF COfU:RETE BUn,DINGS

. Table ·3-4a. Sample p-erfor.mance_Objectives_for. Important.suildings.

Combined Performance Lerrel


SE 18
DE 18 1A 18
ME 3C 5E 1A 1C

Table 3-4b. Sample performance Objectives fqr Normal Buildings

Combined Performance Level


SE
DE 2C 3D 3C 1C
ME 5E 3D

Table 3·4c. Sample Economically Driven performance Objectives

combined perFormance Level


SE 3D
DE 5E
ME 5E

Chapter 3, Performance Objectives


( ~

(
(
(
(
:

(
(
3.5 Assignment of 3.5.3 Relationship to other,.standards
.'J. Or-Risk...Levels '- (
--Performance
, R!Jpidexpansion in development of both the
Objectives (
philos6P:biC'~ and technical-aspects of .
- performance-based design has created the potential (
3.5.1 Initial performance Objective -
for inconsistencies or conflicts between
A complete performance objective will be
documents. Verification criteria should not be (
assigned by the building's owner (for a private
interchanged without careful review of the ,r.

building) or the state or local government agency


acting :s the owner (for a public building) for each
definitions of performance, seismic hazard, and e
the assumptions used for the development of
building prior to evaluation or retrofitting. The (
criteria.
engineer of record should provide technical
Performance levels and performance
- assistance to the owner to provide better assurance (
objectives, similar to those defined above, have
that the assignment of the initial performance
been defined or described in several, other, ' (
objective isthe result-of an informed decision
documents, including Guidelines and Commentary
process arid-is appropriate ·to the existing
for l~e. Seismic Rehabilitation ofBuildings, FEMA (
conditions. _. 273 (ATe 1996a), Vision2000,Progress Report
Preparation of a statement defining .the seismic (
, (sEAOC 1995b), and the predecessor of this
goals and expectations fo~ the evaluation or retrofit \
document, Provisional Commentary for Seismic
project can help the owner and ?esign team reach
Retrofit (CS~C 1994a). Although substantive ("
agreement on performance objectives that are
rlifferen.ces are not apparent, consensus has.not
reasonably in line with available resources.
been reached on all 'terminology or exact " '
(
Table 3-5, a modification of a similar form .
de:funtions. Untfid'~uch time as standard terms and
contained in Architectural Practice and (
definitions can be determined, care must be taken
Earthquake Hazards (CSSC 1992), presents an
to maintain internal consistency when using any (
example of a form that may be used to begin
one of these documents.
preparation of such a preliminary seismic
, The performance levels and objectives in this
performance expectations statement.
document are intended to be used as targets for
3.5.2 Final Performance Objective performance in future earthquakes and serve as a (
m~ans of setting engineering design' and -
The initial objective may be revised or refined
verification criteria. They are not intended to
by the owner, in consultation with the engineer of
describe or imply the probable performance of
record and the owner's peer reviewer, in response (
existing concrete buildings inCalifomia.
to considerations of cost, historic preservation,
Furthermore, they were not developed to establish
remaining life of the building, or other conditions
priorities for retrofitting" Other sources; such as
or constraints. The final performance objective
State Building Seismic Program, Report and (
used in the evaluation or retrofit design should be .
Recommendations prepared by the Division of the
stated in the evaluation report and on the retrofit
drawings, respectively, along with an .
State Architect (CnGS 1994), must be consulted (
for such priorities.
acknowledgment that achievement of the objective J (
should not be considered guaranteed.
(

(
(
( -~
3-12 Chapter 3, performance Objectives
(
Table $-5_ Seismic performance Expectations

Low-Moderate (SE)
Moderate-Severe (DEl
Severe-Very severe (MEl

Notes: 1. Ground Motion Effects of Nearby Earthquakes:


Low-Moderate Shaking: (SE) Serviceability Earthquake (50%/50 yrs)
Moderate-Severe Shaking: (DE) Design Earthquake (10%/50 yrs)
Severe-Very Severe Shaking: (ME) Maximum Earthquake (5%/50 yrs)
2. Classification of earthquake effects and extent of anticipated damage may be modified by site conditions-such as poor soils,
ground failure potential, or vulnerable adjacent structures-which may result in stronger shaking and greater damage.
3. Time to reoccupy building is not necessarily directly related to specific structural performance levels.
4. Time to restore fimctions is not necessarily directly related to specific nonstructural performance levels.

Chapter 3, Performance Objectives


:

.. -:

i····

!: (

(
(
(

(
I
i

(
i
( _.~
i
(
(
SEISMiC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUII-DUU:;!,;

Chapter 4
Seismic Hazard
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner Architect Bldg. Official Engineer Analyst

4 ..1 Scope sites susceptible to liquefaction, landsliding or


This chapter provides guidelines for surface rupture.
quantifying seismic hazard at a site due to ground
shaking for each of the three earthquake hazard 4 ..2 Earthquake Ground
levels: Shaking Hazard Levels
+ The Serviceability Earthquake (SE) Three levels of earthquake hazard are used to
define ground shaking: the Serviceability .
+ The Design Earthquake (DE)
Earthquake, the Design Earthquake, and the
+ The Maximum Earthquake (ME) Maximum Earthquake. These levels of earthquake
Commentary: Seismic ground shaking is hazard are defined below in the following sections ~
defined using site soil factors and other terms that Commentary: The Design Earthquake and
have been developed by the SEAOC Seismology Maximum Earthquake hazard levels are based on
Committee as part of a code change proposal UBe (and CBC) definitions of ground shaking that
(ICBO 1996) for the 1997 Edition of the Uniform will likely remain unchanged until sometime after
Building Code or UBC (ICBO 1994). It is expected the year 2000. Other definitions of seismic criteria
that this proposal after review and refinement will have been developed for incorporation into the
be adopted both for the 1997 UBC and for related 1997 edition of the NEHRP Provisions ( BSSe
editions of the California Building Code or eBe 1996) for design of new buildings and will also
(CESe 1995). likely be adopted by the FEMA Guidelines (ATe
This Section also provides guidelines for 1996a) for seismic rehabilitation of existing
determining when the seismic hazard due to buildings.
ground failure warrants consideration, although
the evaluation of such hazards is beyond the scope 4.2.1 Serviceability Earthquake
of this document. The Serviceability Earthquake (SE) is defined
Commentary: The focus of this document is probabilistically as the level of ground shaking that
on ground shaking since ground shaking is the has a 50 percent chance of being exceeded in a 50-
predominant cause of earthquake damage to year period. This ievel of earthquake ground
buildings. Groundfailure hazard is also included, shaking is typically about 0.5 times the level of
since ground failure should also be considered for ground shaking of the Design Earthquake.

Chapter 4, seismic Hazard


\ -'"

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROi::IT OF CONCRETE' BUILDINGS (


(
:

(
(
Commentary: The SE represents afrequent return period of about 1, 000 years, whereas the
level of ground shaking that is likely to.be felt. . Maximum Considered Earthquakehas a.return; .. (
during the life of the building. The SE has a mean p~riod ofabout 2,500 years (i.e., groundsha7dilg .
return period of approximately 75 years. wzth. a 2~ 1?m~abil!ty of being exceeded fn.5Q. (
years). .', "' .
4.2.2 Design Earthquake (
The Design Earthquake (DE) is defined 4.3 Ground Failure (
probabilistically as the level of ground shaking that Ground failure can be the result of the
has a 10 percent chance of being exceeded in a 50- following hazards: (
year period.
Commentary: . The DE represents an • Liquefaction (
infrequent level of ground shaking that can occur • Landsliding
during the life of the building. The DE has a mean (
• Surface fault rupture
return period of approximately 500 years. The DE
Liquefaction and landsliding are discussed in
has the same definition as the level of ground
the following sections, and guidelines (triggers)
shaking currently used as the basis for the seismic (
are provided for determining when a detailed study
design of new buildings I7y the UBC and the CBC.
of these hazards might be warranted. In general,
surface expression of fault rupture below a (
4.2.3 Maximum ~arthquake
The Maximum Earthquake (ME) is defined
deterministically as the maximum level of
building is considered too remote a possibility to
warrant design consideration. r:
. Commentary: Although unlikely, buildings
earthquake ground shaking which may ever be (
sztuated very close to active faults could be
expected at the building site within the mown
destroyed by the surface expression offault (
geologic framework. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, .
rupture. It is recommended that special
this intensity of ground shaking may be calculated
as the level of earthquake ground motion that has a
consideration be given to buildings located within (
5 percent probability of being.exceeded in a 50- the Special Studies Zone (Alquist-Priolo Act,
January 31, 1979). Relocation, rather than (
year time period. This level of ground shaking is
retrofit, may be more appropriate for buildings
typically about 1.25 to 1.5 times the level of (
straddling the trace of an .active fault (CDMG'
ground shaking of the Design Earthquake.
1985).
Commentary: The ME has the same definition (
as the Maximum Capable Earthquake (MCE) 4.3.1 Liquefaction
required by the CBC for design of hospitals and l7y
Liquefaction can occur in certain types-of
both the CBC and UBC for design and testing of
saturated soils that are shaken strongly enough and
buildings with base isolation systems. This
long enough for the soil to lose a substantial
earthquake definition is intended to represent an amount of strength (because; of high pore water, (
upper-bound on the level of ground shaking that
pressure). Liquefaction can cause settlement as
could be reasonably expected to occur at the well as lateral spreading or slides of certain soils. (
building site. .
In either case, permanent ground surface
The definition of the ME ( and the MCE of the deformation occurs that can cause the foundation (
UBC and CBC) is substantially different from the or a portion of the foundation, ofthe building to '
definition of the Maximum Considered Earthquake (
settle or displace downward and/or laterally.
proposedfor both the 1997 NEHRP Provisions and The site's susceptibility to liquefaction is
the FEMA Guidelines for rehabilitation .of existing (
typically described by the terms: very high, high,
buildings. In probabilistic terms, the ME has a
(

r.,
4·2 Chapte'r 4, seismic Hazard
Table 4-1. Ground shaking Levels at Which Liquefaction ShoUld Be
.__ Co!!.€!.t:f§.!:!lf!.J?J1.~l!l~_~rf.i/(?1Y.====- ====:::::::=====

very high Any 0.15


High 0.15 0.2
Moderate 0.2 0.3
Low 0.4 Not considered likely
very low. Not considered possible Not considered likely

moderate, low, and very low. Table 4-1 (adapted level at which a 50 percent or greater chance of
from NIBS 1996) provides guidance for liquefaction has been determined to exist. These
determining the ievel of ground shaking at which EPA levels have been determined based on the
liquefaction should be considered. The level (or assumptions that the site has a relatively high
levels) of ground motion used to evaluate the water table (within 10 -- 20 feet of the surface) and
likelihood of liquefaction should be the same as that shaking is due toa relatively large magnitude
that (those) used to perform ground shaking event (Mw ;:::: 6.5). Small magnitude events are not
analyses. expected to shake the ground long enough to
Liquefaction should be considered possible at trigger significant liquefaction.
any level of ground shaking when the site has a Liquefaction susceptibility may be identified
very high susceptibility to liquefaction, and from maps developed by the California Division of
conversely, liquefaction should not be considered Mines and Geology (and others), although
possible (or likely) even for high levels of ground susceptibility maps are not yet available for most
shaking when the site has a very low susceptibility areas within California. For areas that do not have
to liquefaction. For sites of moderate liquefaction existing liquefaction susceptibility maps,
susceptibility, Table 4-1 indicates that the effective liquefaction susceptibility may be estimated on the
peak acceleration (EPA) of the ground must be at basis of the soil type and geologic conditions of
least O.2g for liquefaction to be considered the site. A method for rating relative liquefaction
possible and at least O.3g for liquefaction to be susceptibility on the basis of the general
considered likely. depositional environment and the geologic age of
The guidance given in Table 4-1 is based on deposits has been developed by Youd and Perkins
the work of Liao, Veneziano, and Whitman (1988) (1978).
as modified and incorporated into the national A geotechnical engineer would be required to
earthquake loss estimation methodology being determine soil/geologic conditions at the site and
developed by the National Institute of Building to determine the liquefaction susceptibility. For
Sciences for the Federal Emergency Management sites where liquefaction is considered to be
Agency (NIBS 1996). The EPA level at which possible or likely, the geotechnical engineer should
liquefaction is considered "possible" is the level at be required to evaluate the amount of permanent
which, approximately, a 15 percent or greater ground deformation expected at the site and its
chance of liquefaction has been determined to exist effect on the foundation of the building. It is
at the site. Similarly, the EPA level at which recommended that the geotechnical engineer
is
liquefaction considered to be "likely" is the investigate liquefaction effects for the ME, even if

Chapter 4, Seismic Hazard


(
1
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE· BUILDINCS (
(
:

(
Table 4-2. around shaking levels at Which landsliding should bl! Considered Possib,e.
. .(

(
(
strongly cemented rock (crystalline None None None 0.7 0.5 0.3 Any
rock and well-cemented sandstone)
(
,.
weakly cemented rock and soil None None 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 Any (
(sandy soils and poorly cemented .
sandstone)
(
Argillaceous rock (shales, clayey soil, None 0.3 0.2 0.1 Any Any Any
existing landslides, poorly (
compacted fills)
,.

(
strongly cemented rock (crystalline None None 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1 Any
rock and well-cemented sandstone) (

weakly cemented rock and soil None 0.3 0.2 0.1 Any Any Any (
(sandy soils and poorly cemented
.,
sandstone)
Aiglllaeeous rock (shales, clayey· soil, None 0.1 Any Any Any Any Any (
existing landslides, poorly
compacted fills)
(

(
the ME is not required for ground shaking Whether landsliding should be considered in
analysis. the design depends on the site's susceptibility to
landsliding, which depends on the soil!geologic
4.3.2 Landsliding (
conditions. the slope angle. and the critical
Earthquake-induced landsliding of a slope can acceleration (i.e.• the level of shaking required-to (
occur when earthquake ~d gravity forces within initiate landsliding). Table 4-2 (adapted from NIBS
the slide mass temporarily exceed slope stability. 1996) provides guidance. for determining when .
The value of ground acceleration within the slide landsliding should be .considered;the factors to be
mass required to initiate slope instability is called considered are site susceptibility and shaking level.
the critical or yield acceleration. Landsliding can The level (or levels) of ground motion used to
cause relatively minor slides or affect a large evaluate lanclsliding should be the same as that (
hillside. Typically, slide displacement accUID'!lates (those) used to perform ground shaking analyses ..
(gets larger and larger) with each cycle of According to Table 4-2. landsliding should be
earthquake shaking' that exceeds the critical considered possible in strongly cemented rock
acceleration level. Large landslides can affect (with dry slope conditions) only when the EPA
buildings situated on the slide mass as well as exceeds O.7g for 15° - 25° slopes, O.5g for 25° - 35° (
buildings just below the slide. slopes. and O.3g for 35° - 45° slopes; and it should
be considered possible for all EPA values when (
(

(~­
4·4 Chapter 4, Seismic Hazard
(
SEISMIC EVALUATIQN AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BlULDING:;

.:

slope angle exceeds 45°. Conversely, Table 4-2 Commentary: Site geology and soil
indicates..t hat landsliding.. should-be-considered.. ---_.- ._. -_.. ---characteristics and site seismicity- characteristics..·
possi~~e in existing .lan~slide areas (with wet slope' are based directly on the requirements proposed by
conditions) for all significant EPA levels, except the SEAOC Seismology Committee (ICBO 1996)
for sites that are' essentially flat (i.e., with a slope for the 1997 UBC. These requirements are'
angle less than 5°). repeated (with editorial modification) in the
The guidance given above is based on following sections.
relationships developed by Wilson and Keefer
(1985) as modified and incorporated into the .. 4.4.1 Site Geology and Soil
national earthquake loss estimation' methodology Characteristics
(NIBS 1996). The work of Wilson and Keefer
conservatively represents the most landslide-
4.4. 1. 1 General
susceptible geologic types likely to be found in a Each site is assigned a s~il profile type based
geologic group and may be considered to represent on properly substantiated geotechnical data using
a shaking level (EPA) .that has about a 25 percent the site categorization procedure of
chance of producing a landslide at a given site. Section 4.4.1.3.
A geotechnical engineer would be required to Exception: VYhen the soil properties are not
determine the soil/geologic conditions at the site known in sufficient detail to determine the Soil
and to determine the Iandsliding susceptibility. For Profile Type, Type SD 17lG)J be used. So'il Profile
sites where it is considered possible to have Types SE or SF need not be assumed unless the
landsliding, the geotechnical engineer would be building official determines that Types SE or SF may
required to evaluate the extent of landsliding be present at the site 'or in the event that Types SE
expected and the effect of such landsliding on the or SF are established by geotechnical data.
foundation of the building. 4.4.1.2 Soil ProFile Type' ...
It is recommended that the geotechnical
Soil Profile Types SA, SB, Sc, Sn, SE are
engineer investigate lands liding effects for the
defined in Table 4-3 (adapted from ICBO 1996).
ME, even if the ME is not required for ground
shaking analysis. . Soil Profile Type SF is defined as soils requiring
site-specific evaluation, as follows:
4.4 primary Ground .. Soils vulnerable to potential failure or collapse
under seismic loading, such as liquefiable
Shaking Criteria soils, quick and highly sensitive clays, and
This section specifies the primary ground collapsible weakly cemented soils
shaking criteria for the evaluation of buildings.
Primary ground shaking criteria are those criteria .. Peats and/or highly organic clays where the
that will be required for the design of all . thickness of peat or highly organic clay
buildings. Primary criteria include the following: exceeds 10 feet
... Site geology and soil characteristics + Very high plasticity clays with a plasticity
index greater than 75 (PI > 75) and where the
• Site seismicity characteristics depth of clay exceeds 25 feet .
... Site response spectra
.. Very thick soft/medium-stiff clays where the
depth of clay exceeds 120 feet

chapter 4, Seismic Hazard


(
SEISMIC EVAUJATICN AND RETROI=IT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS (
" I

-/
(
(
Table 4-5. Soil profile Types

SA1 Hard Rock Vs > 5,000 Not APplicable (


Sa Rocl< 2,500 < Vs s 5,000 Not APplicable
(
Sc very Dense Soil and" " 1,200 < Vs s 2,500 N > 50 Su > 2,000
Soft Rocl< (
So Stiff Soil Profile 600 s Vs ~ 1,200 15 s N s 50 1,000 ~ s, s 2,000 (
Se 2 soft soil profile Vs < 600 N < 15 s~ < 1,000

Sr? soil Requiring Site-specific Evaluation

1 Soil profile type SA (bard rock) is not applicable to sites in California.


2 Soil profile type SE also includes any soil profile with more than 10 feet of soft clay defined as a soil with PI > 20, WMC ~ 40 % and Su < (
500 psf. The plasticity index (PI) is determined in accordance with ASTM 04318-93 and the moisture content (WMC) is determined in
accordance with ASTM D2216-92. (-¢"',
"3 See Section 4.4.1.2 for description of soils requiring site-specific evaluation.
(

4.4.1.:5 Site categorization properties computed in all cases in accordance


The soil profile type for the site is established with Section 4.4.1.4 and the criteria of Table 4-3.
by using the following procedure. + Use V s for the top 100 feet of the soil profile
Step 1: Check for the four categories of (the Vs method)
Soil Profile SF requiring site-specific evaluation. If
the site corresponds to any of these categories, + Use N for the top 100 feet of the soil profile (
classify the site as Soil Profile" SF and conduct a (the N method)
site-specific evaluation. (
Step 2: Check for the existence of a total + Use N CH for cohesionless .soillayers (pI" <
thickness of soft clay >"10 ft, where a soft clay 20) and Su for cohesive soil layers in the top
layer is defined by: undrained shear strength, 100 feet of the soil profile. If N CH and
Su < 500 psf, moisture content, WM~ 40 percent,
Su criteria differ, the soil profile with the
and plasticity index, PI > 20. If all of these
criteria are satisfied, classify the site as Soil larger seismic coefficient is used for design
Profile Type SE. (sumethod)
The plasticity index (PI) is determined in The shear wave velocity for rock (soil profile
accordance with ASTM D4318-93 and the type SB) is either measured on site or estimated by
moisture content (WMC) is determined in a geotechnical engineer or engineering
accordance with ASTM D2216-92. geologist/seismologist for competent rock with
Step 3: Categorize the site using one of the moderate fracturing and weathering. Softer and
following three methods with average soil profile more highly fractured and weathered rock is either

4 ...6 Chapter 4, Seismic Hazard


SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUn.DENG5

.-

measured on site for shear wave velocity or standard penetration resistance


NCH,i
. classified as.soil. profile. type'Sc..._. .__._.._. __ .- of cohesionless soil layer i~ .
The soil profile type should not be taken as directly measured in the field
rock (soil profile type SB) if there is more than 10 without corrections in
feet of soil between the rock surface and the accordance with ASTM D 1586-
bottom of the spread footing or mat foundation. 84, but not to exceed 100
4.4.1.4 Average Soil properties blows/ft.
The average undrained shear strength, su, is
Average soil properties are calculated by using
the formulas of this section. Soil profiles determined by the following formula:
- de . (4-4)
containing distinctly different soil layers should be s =--
subdivided into those layers. Each soil layer is u !~
SU.)
designated by a number that ranges from i .= 1 at j;.,J

the top to i = n at the bottom, where there are a where: de = 'total thickness of cohesive soil
total of n distinct layers in the upper 100 feet of layers, 'in the top 100 feet (100 -
the soil profile. dCH)
The average shear wave velocity, vs " is SU,i - undrained shear strength, in psf,
determined by the following formula: measured in accordance with
ASTM D2166-91 or D2850-87,
Vs = ds (4-1) but not to .exceed 5000 psf.
:t~
1=1 VSJ 4.4.2 Site Seismicity Characteristics
where: d, = thickness of layer i, in feet
4.4.2.1 cenerst
ds = total thickness of soil profile (100
feet) . Seismicity characteristics for the site are based
on the seismic zone, the proximity of the site to
VS,i = shear wave velocity of layer i, in
active seismic sources, and site soil profile
feet/sec.
The average standard penetration resistance, characteristics.
N or N CH ' is determined by the 'following 4.4.2.2 Seismic Zone
formulas :' Each site is assigned a seismic zone in .
N=~ (4-2) accordance with the requirements of the California
t~ Building Code (CBSC 1995). Each structure is
1=1 N, assigned a seismic zone factor Z, in accordance
with Table 4-4.
(4-3)
Commentary: Traditionally, all of California
has been classified as either seismic zone 3 or 4,
although the ground shaking hazard at sites in
where: d CB = total thickness of all cohesionless seismic zone 3 situatedfar from active faults may
soil layers, in feet
be significantly overestimated by a seismic zone
dCH, i = thickness of cohesionless soil layer
factor ofZ= 0.3. For these sites, response spectra
i, in feet
N, = standard penetration resistance. of based on contour maps or site-specific hazard
layer i, directly measured in the analysis would be expected to be significantly less
field without corrections in than response spectra based on Z= 0.3.
accordance with ASTM D1586-84,
but not to exceed 100 blows/ft

Chapter 4, Seismic Hazard


SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE- Bu:U,DINGS

4.4.2.3 Near-source Factor 4.4~5.1 Spectral Contour Maps (USGS)


.--- EaGh- site -is-assigned- a-near-source factor- in- . - .---Speetral contour maps-for-reck-sites--developed----
accordance with Table 4-5 (lCBO 1996) and based by the USGS for Project 91 (Frankel et al. 1996) (
on seismic source type, as specified in Table 4-6 may be used to construct elastic response spectra (
(ICBO 1996). for a site, provided the basis for these maps is (
Commentary: Values of the near source factor consistent with the definition of the earthquake (
given in Table 4-5 may significantly underestimate level(s) of interest (Section 4.2). (

ground shaldng at certain near-source sites. In the For sites situated on soil type SB, the value of (
(7
direction normal to the plane offault rupture, CA should be taken to be equal to 0.4 times the
(
ground shaldng may be as much as 50 percent spectral response acceleration (units of g) at a
greater than that predicted using the N factors of period of 0.3 seconds and the value of Cv should
Table 4-5 (Somerville 1996). be taken to be equal to 1.0 times the spectral (
response acceleration (units of g) at a period of 1.0 (
4.4.2.4 Seismic Coefficients second. Alternatively for sites situated on soil SB, (
For each earthquake hazard level, the structure ME values of CA and Cv may be based on the (
is assigned a seismic coefficient CA in accordance formulas: (
with Table 4-7 (ICBO 1996) and a seismic (
coe-fficient Cv in accordance-with Table 4-8 (lCBO C A = O.48 MS : (4-5) (
1996). In lieu of a sire-specific seismic hazard (
analysis, the seismic coefficient, CA, may be taken c:;, = 8 M1 (4-6)
CL <.
to be the default value of the effective peak
(
acceleration (EPA) of the ground. where:
S MS = spectral acceleration in the short-
(
4.4.3 Elastic Site Response spectra 'period range for Site Class B for (
Elastic response spectra for a site are based on MCE, as prescribed by 1991
estimates of CA and Cv using one, or more, of the NEHRP Provisions (BSSC 1996). (
following: S Ml = spectral acceleration at a 1.0-
+ Site seismic coefficients (Tables 4-7 and 4-8) (
second period for Site Class B for
+ Spectral contour maps (developed by the MCE, as prescribed by 1997 (
USGS for Project 97 (Frankel er al. 1996» NEHRP Provisions (BSSC 1996).
(
+ Site-specific hazard analysis studies
For sites situated on other soil types, the ~.J
The construction of elastic response spectra (
values of CA and Cv based on soil type SB should
using estimates of CA and Cv is described in
be increased in proportion to the increase in the
Section 4.4.3.3.
site coefficients of Tables 4-1 and 4-8,
Commentary: In all cases, elastic site
respectively, for the soil type of the site.
response spectra are described by a standard (two- (
The values of CA and Cv should not be taken as
domain) shape defined by the coefficients CA and
less than 80 percent," and need not be taken to be (
Cv. Elastic response spectra are described l:Jy a -
greater than 100 percent, of the values specified in
standard shape to simplify the application of these
Table 4-1 and Table 4-8, respectively.
spectra to nonlinear static analysis procedures
(Chapter 8).

Chapter 4, seismic Hazard


Table 4·4. -seismto Zone Factor Z .

Seismic zones I, 2A and 2B are not applicable to sites in California.

Table 4·5. Near source Factor. NA and Nv1

A 1.5 2.0 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0


B 1.3 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
c 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

The near-source factor may be based on the linear interpolation of values for distances other than those shown in the table.
2 The location and type of seismic sources to be used for design shall be established based on approved geotechnical data (e.g., most recent
mapping of active faults by the United States Geological Survey Drthe California Division of Mines and Geology).
3 The closest distance to seismic source shall be taken as the minimum distance between the site and the area described by the vertical projection
of source on the surface (i.e., surface projection of fault plane). The surface projection need not include portions of the source at depths of 10
krn or greater. The largest value of the near-source factor considering all sources shall be used for design.

Table 4-6. Seismic Source Type

A rautts that are capable of producing large magnitude


events and Which have a high rate of seismic activity
M::::: 7.0 SR::::: 5
B All faults other than types A and C Not Applicable Not APplicable
C Faults that are not capable of producing large
magnitude earthquakes and that have a relatively low
M < 6.5 SR < 2
rate of seismic activity

Chapter 4, Seismic Hazard


(=
j
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION IlND RETROFIT OF" CONCRETE gUU.DINCS ((
: (
(
(
.. Table 4-:~ ~~ismic Coelficjent,~c A .__ . - . - - .--".•- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. -(

(
S8 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40 1.O<ZENJ (
Sc 0.09 0.18 0.24 0.33 0.40 1.0<ZENJ
So 0.12 0.22 0.2B 0.36 0.44 1.1(ZENJ (
SE 0.19 0.30 0.34 0.36 0.36 0.9(ZENJ
(
SF Site-specific geotechnical investigation required to determine CA

The value of E "used to determine the product, ZEN, -should be taken to be equal to 0.5 for the Serviceability Earthquake,
1.0 for the Design Earthquake, and 1.25 (Zone 4 sites),or 1.5 (Zone 3 sites) for the Maximum Earthquake. (
(
2 Seismic coefficient CA should be determined by linear interpolation for values of the product ZEN other than those shown in the table.
(
(
(
Table 4-8. Seismic coeFFicient, C v ! ~
( ,,0,

{
58 0.08 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.40' 1.O<ZENJ
(
Sc 0.13 0.25 0.32 -0.45 0.56 1.4(ZENJ
("
So O.1B 0.32 0.40 0.54 0.64 1.6(ZENJ (
SE 0.26 0.50 0.64 0.84 0.96 2.4<ZENJ
(
SF Site-specific geotechnical investigation required to determine Cv \

The value of E used to determine the product, ZEN, should be taken to be equal to 0.5 for the Serviceability ·Earthquake,
1.0 for the Design Earthquake and L25 (Zone 4 sites) or 1".5 (Zone 3 sites) for the Maximum Earthquake.
2 Seismic coefficient Cv should be based on the linear interpolation of values for shaking intensities other than those shown in the table.

(-
4-10 Chapter 4, Seismic Hazard"
(

(
(

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF C@NCRETE BUU.DIINlGS

- Ground -Motion· & Response-Spectra


a
t Ground motion recordings (accelerograms) indicate that ground
HIlHIHfl~IfIDt1M~,-.- shaking is an extremely complex waveform, containing oscillatory
motion components over a broad range of frequencies.

By performing a time history analysis of a structure


]-g~
.
~
it is possible to determine the peak acceleration, .-<:
velocity and displacement of the structure's response to T

tee
a ground motion. If such analyses are performed for
a series of single degree of freedom structures, each having a
different period, T, and the peak response accelerations. velocities ~
and displacements are plotted vs. the period of the structures, the _ T
resulting graphs are termed respectively acceleration, velocity and

~L
displacement response spectra. ~
..!!

~ T
Period
Researchers commonly display response spectra on a 3-
axis plot known as a tri-partite plot in which peak response
acceleration, velocity and displacement are all plotted
simultaneously against structnral period. Researchers .
(Newmark and Hall, 1982) have found that response spectra for'
typical records can be enveloped by a plot with three distinct
ranges: a constant peak spectral acceleration (PSA), constant
peak spectral velocity (PSV) and constant peak spectral
displacement (PSD).
PSA
21'C(PSV)/I'
Response spectra contained in the building code .§
indicate the constant acceleration and velocity ranges E
... plotted in an acceleration vs period domain. This is ~
convenient to the code design procedure which is ]
based on forces (or strength) which are proportional
., to acceleration.
Period - T
For nonlinear analysis, both force and deformation
21'C(PSV)/I'
are important. Therefore, spectra are plotted in an
acceleration vs, displacement domain, which has been
termed ADRS (acceleration-displacement response spectra)
T2
(Mahaneyet al.,1993). Period in these ADRS are
represented by a series of radial lines extending
from the origin of the plot. See also Converting
to ADRS Spectra in Chapter 8.

Chapter 4, Seismic Hazard


(-~
~(

(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS (
"
(
(

4.4.5.2 Site-speciFic Hazard Analysis'· (


..- Studies. . ... .. .. --'---'- ....-..- .. -.-.r-:-=..-,.,..".--=,........,....."",...."..,.---.,..,....."....,.,..,.....",,----~ ,
.. (
Site-specific hazard analysis studies should be
performed for buildings situated on site soil profile . Control Periods (
type SF, and are recommended for buildings on site . 1 2 •SCA I Ts = Cyl2.5C A
soil profile type.SE. Site-specific studies should also TA =D.2Ts (
be performed for certain buildings situated near . ·.. (
active sources and for buildings with special design
requirements (e.g., hospitals, base-isolated
·i
t I~PA=CAI
buildings). In all cases, the assumptions and (
methods used in the site-specific studies should be ,
~.
,.
consistent with:·the definition of the earthquake
hazard level(s) of interest given in Section 4.2.
··i (
The site specific studies should develop
Period (Seconds)
estimates of short- and long-period response for (
each hazard level of interest. The value of CA
Figure 4-'1. construction of a 5 percent-Damped (
should be taken to be equal to 0.4 times the spectral Elastic Response spectrum
response acceleration (units of g) at a period of 0.3
seconds. The value of Cv should be taken to be (
acceleration response in the velocity domain. I"!!
equal to the greater of either 1.0 times the spectral Figure 4-1 illustrates the construction of an elastic ('"
response acceleration (in units of g) at a period of response spectrum.
1.0 seconds or 1/Tefftimes the spectral response (
acceleration (in units of g) at the effective period 4.5~ Specification of
Teff of the building. The effective period Teris based (
on the secant stiffness at the point of maximum supplementarv" Criteria
response, as described in Chapter 7. (
For each hazard level of interest, the values of 4.5.1 Acceleration Time Histories t,

CA and Cv should not be taken as less than 80 . When required for analysis, not less than three (
percent, and need not be taken to be greater than pairs of horizontal time history components should
be selected from earthquake groundmotion records. (
100 percent, of the values specified in Table 4-7
and Table 4-8, respectively. . A set of sev~n or more pairs of time history
components is recommended and would be
4.4.~.~ Construction of an Elastic necessary for the design to be based on the average
Response spectrum (rather than the maximum) value ofrhe response
An elastic response spectrum, for each quantity of interest.
earthquake hazard level of interest at a site, is based Recorded earthquakes should be selected to
on the site seismic coefficients CA 'and Cv, defined have a magnitude, source characteristics, and (
in the previous sections. The seismic coefficient CA distance from source to site that is the same as (or
represents the effective peak acceleration (EPA) of consistent with) the magnitude, source (
the ground. A factor of about 2.5 times CA characteristics and source-to-site distance of the
represents the average value of peak response of a 5 event that dominates the ground shaking hazard at
percent-damped short-period system in the the building site. Recorded earthquakes should also
(
acceleration domain. The seismic coefficient Cv be selected to have site conditions that are the same
represents 5 percent-damped response of a l-second as (or consistent with) the site conditions of the (
system and when divided by period defines building. When three appropri~te recorded ground
(
,

4-12 Chapter 4, Seismic Hazard ~


(

(
Table 4·9. Earthquake Records at Soil Sites crester Than 10 Km From Sources

1 7.1 1949 western washington station 325 USGS1


2 6.5 1954 Eureka, California station 022 USGS
3 6.6 1971 san Fernando, California station 241 USGS
4 6.6 1971 san Fernando, California station 458 USGS
5 7.1 ,1989 Lorna Prieta, California Hollister, south & Pine CDMG2
6 7.1 1989 Lorna Prieta, California Gilroy #2 CDMG
7 7.5 1992 Landers, california Yermo CDMG
8 7.5 1992 Landers, california Joshua Tree CDMG
9 6.7 1994 Northridge, California Moorpark CDMG
10 6.7 1994 Northridge, California century City LACC NQJ1h CDMG

l. USGS: United State Geological Survey


2, CDMG: California Division of Mines and Geology

motion time history pairs are not available, 4.5.1.2 Earthquake Ground Motion
appropriate simulated ground motion time history Records
pairs may be used to make up the total number Two sets of ,10 earthquake records each have
required. been identifiedas suitable candidates for time
The intent of these requirements is that each history analysis. One .set contains records at sites
pair of time history components have an appro- at least 10.kin from fault rupture and the other set
priate duration, contain near-source pulses (for contains records at sites near fault rupture (e.g.,
sites within 10 Ian of active faults) and include sites within about 5 kID of fault rupture). Tables
other time domain characteristics that represent the 4-9 and 4-10 list these earthquake records,
ground shaking expected at the building site. respectively. and summarize key attributes.
Each pair of horizontal ground motion All ground motion records listed in Tables 4-9
components should be scaled in 'the time domain and 4-10 meet the following criteria:
such that the average value of the spectra of all + Free-field station (or ground floor of a small
scaled time history components matches the site building) ,
response spectrum over the period range of
interest. The period range 'of interest includes, but + Stiff or medium soil site conditions
is not limited to, periods at or near the effective • Large-magnitude earthquake (M;::: 6.5)
period of the building associated with the
+ Peak ground acceleration of at least O.2g
performance point determined by the nonlinear
(before scaling)
static analysis procedure (Chapter 8). If higher-
mode effects are being considered, then the period These records, after appropriate scaling, are
range of interest should also include periods at or suitable for time history analysis of buildings at all
near each higher-mode period of interest. sites (except soft or very soft soil sites) for ground
Commentary: A ground motion expert should shaking of 0.2 or greater EPA.
assist the structural engineer in the selection and
scaling of appropriate time histories.

Chapter 4, seismic Hazard


(=
(
(
(
((
:

c
(
Table 4·10. Earthquake Records at soil sites Near Sources
--- .-, ,-(

(
1 6.5 1979 Imperial valley, california EI centro Array station 6 USGS'!
2 6.5 1979 Imperial valley, California EI centro Array station 7 USGS (
3 7.1 1989 Lorna prieta, california corralitos COMG2
4 7.1 1989 Lorna prieta, California capitola COMG
(
5 6.9 1992 Cape Mendocino, canrornla Petrolia COMG (
6 6.7 1994 Northridge, california NeWhall Fire Station COMG
7 6.7 1994 Northridge, California svlmar Hospital COMG (
8 6.7 1994 Northridge, california . sylmar Converter station LAOWp3
(
9 6.7 1994 Northridge, California SVlmar converter sta. East LAOWP
10 6.7 "1994" Northridge, californi~ Rinaldi Treatment Plant LAOWP (
(
l. USGS: United States Geological Survey
2. CDMG: California Division of Mines and Geology
3. LADWP: Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
(
(1:
Figure 4-2 is a plot of 40 percent-damped smooth design spectra can significantly (
response spectra of the two horizontal components underpredict or overpredict response (and
of each of the 10 earthquake time histories listed in perforinance) that the building actually experiences (
Table 4-9 and the mean and mean + 1 standard during the design earthquake.
deviation of these 20 spectra. A dampinglevel of (
40 percent is used to represent the equivalent 4.5.2 criteria for Duration of Ground
viscous damping of a building that has yielded Shaking .
... \dO'.-... i
significantly, as described in Chapter 8. Each of The duration .of ground shaking should be
considered when selecting time histories and when
(
the 10 pairs of horizontal components have been
scaled such that their 5 percent-damped response determining an appropriate level of effective (
spectra approximately match the response spec- damping for the structural system. Effective
trum shown in Figure 4-1 for CA = 0.4 and,Cv = damping is usedto determine the response level of (I.
0.6. demand spectra, as described in Chapter 8.
Figure 4-2 compares the response spectrum of Structural systems that degrade with repeated
each' earthquake component and the mean (or cycles of high seismic demand will have reduced
mean + 1 sigma) response spectrum of the energy absorption (damping) capacity. The amount (
ensemble of all earthquake components. of degradation and the associated reduction in (

(
Significant differences typically exist between effective damping increases 'with the number of
mean (or mean + 1 sigma) response and that of cycles at or near the peak demand level.
individual components, even though each Two distinctly different earthquake scenarios
component represents the same site and source should be considered when evaluating duration
conditions and has been scaled to match a common effects on potential structural degradation and
target spectrum. Figure 4-2 illustrates that reduction in damping capacity. The first (
predictions of response (and performance) using

" -.
(-
4·14 Chapter 4, seisinic Hazard
(
:

spectrum (i.e., small/moderate spectral demand


.over.a.relatively long duration) ... Although, ground ....
shaking is not as strong in the second scenario, a
~ 0.6
c
longer duration of shaking increases the potential
o for degradation of the structural system. For the
~ 0.4 purpose of determining an appropriate level of
Cii
o
o
<:(
effective damping (Section 8.2.2), sites located In
ro... 0.2 seismic zone 3 should be assumed to have long-
ti
Q) duration ground shaking unless a properly
o,
en 0.0 +-----+-----+------1-----1 substantiated geotechnical study recommends
o 246 6 otherwise.
Spectral Displacement (Inches) For sites located in seismic zone 4 (with a
near-source factor of N < 1.2), ground shaking
Figure 4-2. Response spectra (40% Damping) of the duration ( in terms of the number of cycles of
Earthquake Records Listed in Table 4-9 demand at or near the peak demand level described
by the site spectrum), will depend on the
earthquake scenario is important for sites near a magnitude of the earthquake and the site soil
seismic source (fault). In this case, a relatively profile (and possibly other factors). For the
short duration of very strong shaking would be purpose of determining an appropriate level of
expected because of the proximity of the site to effective damping (Section 8.2.2), sites located in
fault rupture. The ground may shake for a seismic zone 4 (with a near-source factor of N <
considerable period of time (depending on the 1.2) should be assumed to have long-period
earthquake magnitude), but there would likely be ground shaking unless either the seismic source
only a few cycles of very strong pulses at the level. that governs ground shaking hazard at the site has
of response described by the site spectrum (i.e., a maximum moment magnitude of M::; 6.5 and the
large spectral demand over a relatively short site soil profile is rock or stiff soil (i.e., soil
duration). For the purpose of determining an profile type SB, Sc or SD), or a properly
appropriate level of effective damping substantiated geotechnical study recommends
(Section 8.2.2), sites with a near-source factor, N otherwise.
~ 1.2, may be assumed to have short-duration Commentary: An important potential
ground shaking. contributor to duration could be long-period
The second earthquake scenario is important resonance at soil sites due to basin effects. Long
for sites far from fault rupture (far from the duration ground shaking should be assumed for
causative source). In this case, a much longer soft soil sites unless a geotechnical study
duration of ground shaking would be expected at recorrunends otherwise.
the level of response described by the site

Chapter 4, seismic Hazard


.(

(
{
(
-(

: (
(
(
(
.(

(
(

i
(

(
(

(
t-
(

i
(

(
I

(
i
(

(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUUDINGS

Chapter s
Determination of Deficiencies
AUdience Interest spectrum
owner Architect Bldg. Official

5a'l Introduction function as the lateral force resisting systems. In


A general sense of expected building concrete frame-wall buildings, walls provide all or
performance should be developed before part of the lateral force resisting systems. In some
performing a detailed analysis. This chapter is instances, such as at stair and elevator cores ,
intended to help develop such a sense. Emphasis is concrete walls may also carry some local vertical
placed on qualitative assessment relative to typical gravity loads.
concrete buildings.
5.2.1 Concrete Frame Systems
The following sections discuss observed
Concrete frames are monolithically cast
performance of existing concrete buildings and
systems of horizontal framing beams and vertical
present the basic steps of a preliminary evaluation
using simplified analysis. Preliminary evaluation framing columns that provide lateral resistance
involves acquisition of building data, review of the through bending of horizontal and vertical framing
elements (see Figure 5-1). Concrete frame
seismic hazard, identification of building
buildings commonly include interior beam-column
attributes, limited analysis, and characterization of
frames and perimeter pier-spandrel frames. Other
potential seismic deficiencies. With sufficient data
interior framing systems, designed only for
from documents, tests, and site visits, a useful set
vertical loads, should also be considered in the
of potential seismic deficiencies can be identified
evaluation of the building's ability to resist lateral
and used to inform engineering decisions or more
forces. These interior gravity load supporting
detailed investigations. The NEHRP Handbookfor
the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings frame systems often include horizontal one or two-
(ESSC 1992),referred to as FEMA 178 is way flat slabs or joist framing in lieu of beams.
adopted as the primary basis for the preliminary Code minimum required proportions and
details for reinforced concrete buildings changed
evaluation procedures discussed in this Chapter.
dramatically in the early 1970s. Where earlier
codes focused on providing strengths to resist
Sa2 Description: Typical
code-specified lateral forces, around 1970 codes
Layouts and Details began to focus on aspects of proportioning and
Two main building types are discussed. Both detailing to achieve overall ductility or
feature a concrete frame carrying vertical gravity deformability as well as strength requirements.
loads. In concrete frame buildings, frames also Nonductile concrete frames, although often

Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies·


t(
(
(
-(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCREtE Bun.DiNGS
.i. (
'1
;:
C
(
It -(

rr-~~~~LJ-~~~~LJ-~~~~Ll-~~~~Ll-~~~~LJ-~~~-£l~~~~-£l~~~~-n
II /I II " /I II II /I I'
(
. (
I I I ! I I .1 I... I ..L ...__... . !.I . ! J.__.. _J.. l .... _.. __ L ~. __... __
II /I II /I /I II II " II (
II II " " " II II II II
II " " " II II II II II
II " " " II II II /I II (
II /I II " II II II II II (
II /I II II /I II " II II
II I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I (
II /I II " II " II II II [
H- - - - - H- - - - - H- - - - - H- - - - - H- - - - - H- - - - -H- - - - - -H- - - - - +4
,.,.- - - - - H- - - - - H- - - -- - H- - - - - H- - - .- - H- - - - -H- - - - - -H- - - - - +.J (
II II II II " II II II II f
II /I II " /I II II II II
II II II " " II II II II (
II II II " " II II II. II
II II II " " II II II II
II II II " " II II II II
II II II II " II " II II
II " II " II II II " II
II II " " " II II II II

D: : : : : 0: : : : : 8: : : : : [J: : : ==0: : : : : [J: : : : tt : : == : tt : : : : :tl


Figure 5-1. Typical Concrete Frame Layout

designed to resist lateral forces, did not discontinued throughout the mid-span region of the
incorporate the special detailing provisions now beam. i..
required for ductile concrete. The affect of these typical conditions and
(
In pre-1970s concrete frame construction, it is deficiencies on seismic performance is discussed (
common to find inadequate lap splices for mai:D. below. (
reinforcing bars and a lack of adequate transverse (

reinforcing ties (see Figure 5-2). Lap splices in (


columns generally occurred just above the floor (

level where stress levels are highest. In addition, (


the column lap splices were generally very short, .1

often only 30 bar diameters or less in length, and (


(
were typically not confined with closely spaced
column ties. Main beam reinforcing was generally
Discontinuous
Reinforcement
(
designed for code force levels, not considering 1._--- Widely spaced (
effects of post-yield behavior. Beam topbars were ties
often terminated 6 to 8 feet from the coluiDn face.
Beam bottom bars were typically discontinued at !~--- Short lap
splice in high
the face of the supporting column or provided. with stress region
only a short lap centered on the column. The .
spacing of beam and column ties was typically
wide by today's standards. Column ties often
consisted of a single hoop with 90 degree hooks (
(
spaced at 12" to 18" on center. Beam ties, often
sized only for gravity shear loads, were spaced
(
(
closely near the column face but widely spaced or Figure 5-2_ Typical pre-1970s Frame Elevation (

(
~'
Chapters, oetermination of Deficiencies (

(
(
(
:..1- - - - - ------y-----tr"-------
~--------- ------~-------

i--j j---- j----- -ii-j ---1 l ii - - - ~----:::tI


I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I II I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I
I II I I I I I I I
I II I I I I I I I

~:: :: :::= := r - - - - - .. ::::= ~ :: ----mHo.~~+-: : : :p:: : :: : : 'Hi, -~


I I II II II II II II II
I I II II II II II II II
I I I I I I I I II I I II I I
I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I
I II II II II II II II II
I II I I I I II I I I I I I I I
I
I
I
IL-I.'·
...
-.-e-_-
I
I
I
~f- - - - -
llII-a
---
II
I I
II
I I
I I
II
-
I I
II
II

----llIiii!lIIi.B---~---
I I
I I
II
I I
I I
II

--~---~---
I I
I I
II
l-l- - - - - u- - - - - w- - - - :;J;;l; - - - I I - - - - -U- - - - -
JJ I I
I I

r .
I' , l )0----

Figure 5-5. Typical Concrete Frame-Wall Layout

5.2.2 Concrete Frame-Wall Systems Floor plans that induce torsion, lack significant
Concrete frame-wall buildings typically torsional rigidity or have eccentric or skewed walls
possess a complete gravity frame system, often resulted. Perimeter walls typically contain
essentially independent of the concrete walls, to numerous window and door openings. In
support vertical loads (see Figure 5-3). However, multistory buildings, the openings were frequently
in some instances concrete walls may carry some arranged in a regular grid. This pattern of
local vertical gravity loads. openings gives rise to the pier and spandrel system
Concrete frame-wall buildings can include, for composed of relatively deep spandrel beams and
example, exterior perforated walls with short piers relatively short and wide wall piers. Floor framing
and deep spandrels, interior concrete walls near systems were often not designed to function as
stair and elevator cores, or perimeter frames with diaphragms, with collectors, drags and struts,
concrete infill walls. The buildings in this category capable of distributing floor inertial loads to The
generally have monolithically cast-in-place isolated interior andlor perimeter walls. Also,
reinforced concrete horizontal floor and roof adequate provisions to transfer the lateral load out
systems. Various concrete floor and roof framing of the walls into the foundation system are often:
systems used with this building type include flat lacking.
plate, pan joist or beam, one-way slab, and two- In existing, pre-1970s construction, it is
way slab or waffle slab systems. Concrete frame- common to find walls without confined boundary
wall buildings were popular for institutional uses, elements (see Figure 5-4). Vertical reinforcement
such as government offices, hospital wards, lap splices were usually designed for compression
schools, university buildings, court buildings, and loads only, in which case they may' be inadequate
prisons. for the flexural tension that may develop under
The layout of wall locations was, to a large realistic earthquake loads. Horizontal
part, dictated by functional considerations. In reinforcement also may be inadequately anchored.
many older buildings it was the only consideration.

Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies


---~.

(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
('

(
Boundaty exceeds O.2fe, confined boundary steel is placed. (
v: element _. _This. boundary..reinforcing_steelis_often.not presenL ..__
- . . ---Without - - .__.-- ,(
-----~
Open
confinement in older construction.
Where substantial wall openings are aligned (
vertically, the connecting segments may be
V Short lap
lengths
designed as coupling beams. Ductile coupling (
beams in buildings designed to meet current U. S.
codes are detailed with continuous top and bottom
I I
--1---------1" (and possibly diagonal) reinforcement that is well
(
~"
'~'
I
1 I
I
,'" Minimal
reinfolCing
anchored into the wall. As required by some
current codes, deeper coupling beams may be
I 1
-T-----·---T- at openings designed to have diagonal reinforcement. Coupling (
,
beams in older construction often lack many of ('
these detailing characteristics,
Beam transverse reinforcement with closed (
hoops having 135 degree hooks, provides shear

,~
----5 strength, confines the concrete, and restrains (
i- 4 1
r longitudinal bar buckling. Shear reinforcement is
\
J
now proportioned to resist the shear corresponding (
<,
~ " .. 100.
No hooks fa. ~a.
....._
cu .choiaga
to development of beam flexural strengths.
In pre-1930s construction, it is common to
find concrete infill walls. The concrete infill was
(
(~

typically on the order of 6 to 8 inches thick and


Figure 5·4. Typical ere-tsros Wall configuration generally contained light reinforcement, such as (
3/8-inch diameter bars at 24 inches on center, in a
Wall thickness and transverse reinforcement single curtain near the center of the wall. In many (
were often sized to resist code-specified lateral cases, the reinforcing of the infill did not continue
forces rather than the shear corresponding to into the surrounding gravity frame, creating a
development of the wall's flexural capacity, so weakened plane around the infill boundaries.
almost all walls in these older buildings are shear Furthermore, the concrete used in the infill was
critical. Often, adequate attention was not paid to generally of lower quality than that used in the
construction joints, resulting in there being surrounding gravity frames. The concrete frames (
weakened planes in the vertical wall system. for these· buildings were designed exclusively as
Walls with openings have been designed and gravity-load-supporting frames. As a result, these
detailed in a variety of ways, the choice depending frames do not have the lateral stiffness and
on the expected behavior of the wall. Analysis strength to resist code-level design lateral forces.
methods used in design were commonly based on Furthermore, they generally lack the reinforcing-
the assumption that the openings did not interrupt continuous beam bottom bars through joints,
the monolithic form of the wall; interrupted continuous top beam bars at midspans, and shear (
reinforcement is placed at the boundary of the reinforcement or ties throughout the full beam
opening and diagonal steel may be placed across (
span-necessary to resist even moderate lateral '-
the comers to control cracking. forces. (

Where openings are more substantial, current The affects of these typical conditions on (
V .S. practice is to calculate stresses at the seismic performance is discussed below.
boundaries of the wall segments. lithe stress (
I
('
I"

chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies t


(
(
SEISMIC EVAl.UATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

5.3 Seismic Performance elastic behavior that abruptly terminates in


material.rupture and subsequent.rapid.deterioration
5.3.1 csneral or disintegration. Once a critical force is reached
The seismic performance of a structure is in the element/connection, it experiences a rapid
dependent upon the performance characteristics of drop in· stiffness and strength. This is frequently
its critical components. The critical.components described as brittle behavior. Deformation
are those that are necessary for vertical stability controlled behavior is characterized by essentially
and those that comprise the seismic load path. In elastic performance until a critical force threshold
all buildings.' seismic inertial forces originate in is attained beyond which deformation continues
the components of the structure and are transferred with little or no increase, or decrease, in capacity.
through connections to horizontal diaphragm At this plateau, the component can continue to
systems. The horizontal diaphragm systems deform until material strain limits are exceeded at
distribute these inertial forces to vertical lateral which point rupture, crushing, fracture or slippage
force resisting elements which in tum transfer occurs. At this limiting deformation, a sudden loss
these forces to the foundations. When connections of stiffness and/or strength may also occur. This is
or elements along this seismic load path are' frequently described as a ductile behavior pattern.
subjected to forces and/or deformations that Unacceptable seismic performance in concrete
produce unacceptable damage states, deficiencies frame and frame-wall buildings, especially those
exist. When the elements of the structure that designed and constructed before the early 1970s, is
provide vertical stability can no longer maintain most often attributable to force controlled or brittle
that capability, deficiencies exist. failure mechanisms. General discussions of the
Through observation of building performance seismic performance of concrete systems and
in past earthquakes, a number of general building individual members found in frame and frame-wall
characteristics have been identified that have been buildings are available in several recent
responsible for localized component deficiencies. publications such as Paulay and Priestly (1992)
These characteristics include a discontinuous and Ferguson et al. (1988).
seismic load path, lack of redundancy in the
5.3.2 Concrete Frame systems
vertical shear'resisting system, vertical
irregularities (abrupt changes in stiffness, strength, 5.5..2. 1 General
or mass), plan configuration irregularities, and the
Concrete frame construction has several
presence of adjacent structures which may
potential failure modes that directly threaten the
potentially interact under seismic excitation. Any
structure's ability to' sustain vertical loads and
of these characteristics could occur in concrete
maintain stable lateral behavior. The largest
frame or concrete frame-wall buildings. Detailed
concern.is a brittle c~lumn failure mode caused by
analytical procedures can be used to establish to shear failure or compression crushing (due to
what extent these building characteristics cause
combined axial, flexural, and P-L1 effects) of the
unacceptable building performance, However, .
concrete. Systems that exhibit some (limited)
recognizing that these factors exist in a building is
yielding modes can also eventually form dangerous
a key consideration in developing an understanding-
collapse mechanisms as a result of stiffness or
of the building's expected seismic performance.
strength degradation at sections without ductile
Component and connection seismic
detailing. Punching shear failure in two-way slab
performance can be thought of in terms of
systems, for example, can instigate local collapse
response characteristics that are either force
of the floor. Also, localized concentrations of drift
controlled or deformation controlled. Force
due to-soft or weak story configurations are of
controlled behavior is characterized by essentially
serious concern. The challenge for the engineer is

Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies


(
(

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILD_NGSt (


(
(
(
to identify all possible ways a frame building can entrant comers, or diaphragm openings and
fail, .determine.the..sequence, of failure..and.then. . discontinuities..These.deficienciea.often cause-. ---- _.. _.-_.
find ways to preclude catastrophic modes of significant differences between the building's
response to seismic ground motion. centers of mass. and rigidity (in one or more (
stories), resulting in the torsional response of the
5..3.2.2 Typical conFiguration building to seismic ground motions. Such torsional
DeFiciencies irregularities lead to concentrated demands on
Configurational deficiencies commonly found diaphragms and excessive deflections at building (
in concrete frame structural systems, such as an . ends. In many cases, conditions at adjacent stories
o
I

incomplete load path, vertical and/or horizontal can affect the stiffness properties of the irregular (
irregularities, and inappropriate columnlbeam story.
relative strengths can Iead to failure of individual (
5.3~2.2.4 Weak Column/Strong Beam.
members and connections. Optimum seismic performance is gained when (
5.3.2.2.1 Incomplete Load Path. A frame members have shear strengths greater than
complete and continuous seismic load path is bending strengths and when bending strengths of (
essential for the proper seismic behavior of a the columns are greater than the beams. These
structure. Missing links in the load' path must be features provide a controlled failure mode and, in
identified. Load path evaluation should begin by .multistory frames, increase the total energy
establishing the source of all lateral loads absorption capacity of the system. In older (
generated throughout the building, and then concrete frame buildings, where the beams are
tracking how those forces travel through the often stronger than the columns, column hinging
structurai systems; from the diaphragms to the can lead to a story mechanism, creating latge. p- (
vertical lateral force resisting elements, through delta effects and inelastic rotations in the columns.
various joints and connections, to the foundations. Column hinging is undesirable since this may lead
5.3.2.2.2 Vertical Irregularities. Vertical to loss of the column's gravity load carrying
irregularities typically occur in a story which is ability after only a very few cycles. Furthermore, (
significantly weaker, more flexible or heavier (due although isolated column hinging may be tolerable
to a greater mass) than stories above or below. in some circumstances, hinging of most or all of (
These irregularities are normally due to significant the columns on a single level will result in the loss
changes in building configuration such as setbacks, of lateral stability. FEMA 178.provides local joint (
discontinuous vertical elements, or changes in analyses for frames to evaluate the potential for
story heights. However, they sometimes arise due these effects.
to more subtle and less easily observed changes to
column dimensions, size and number of main 5.5.2.8 Detailing concerns
reinforcing steel, or column tie spacing. Vertical In general, most concrete frame buildings built
irregularities are difficult to appreciate by a visual before 1973 will contain an array of nonductile (

inspection or simplified estimation. FEMA 178 detailing of the reinforcing steel. As a result, these
(ESSC 1992) provides quick checking procedures nonductile frame buildings exhibit a wide range of
for concrete frame story capacities and drifts that generally poor seismic performance, .especially
can provide preliminary assessment for vertical once the elastic deformation limits of the concrete
irregularities. ' members are exceeded. Reinforcement detailing (
5.3.2.2.3 Horizontal Irregularities. conditions which should be investigated for
Horizontal irregularities of the concrete frame deficiencies in the preliminary evaluation include (
buildings are typically due to odd plan shapes, re- the following: (

(
"I;
( ~>'
Chapter 5, Determination of Deficie-ncies
(

(
SEISMU:: EVAL,UATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUU.DINGS

• Quantity, size, and spacing of column 5.3.2.3.3 Beam/Column Joints. The lateral
transverse reinforcement-ties __. . stability ofthe frame. is dependent.upon the.. beam-
column joint remaining stable under large frame
.. Column ties in exterior columnlbeam joints
deformations. Adequate strength and toughness
+ Location and length of coliimn and beam main must be provided in the joint to sustain repeated
bar splices in critical regions cyclic stress reversals without the loss of joint
• Continuity of top and bottom beam bars integrity. In pre-1973 buildings, it is common for
through colurnnlbeam joints beams to frame eccentrically to the column. Also,
bottom longitudinal reinforcement may terminate a
• Use of bent longitudinal beam bars for shear short distance into the joint creating potential for
reinforcem~nt
bar pullout under moment reversals. In exterior
• Anchorage of-beam stirrups and column ties joints, hooked bars were normally bent away from
into the concrete core with 135 degree hooks the joint rather than into the joint. Column bars
• Continuous bars at flat slab (or plate) joints were often poorly distributed around the joint
with columns acting as a frame perimeter and spliced just above the beam-column
joint. In addition, transverse reinforcement in the
5.3.2.3.1 Beams. Transverse reinforcement
joint was often minimal or none at all. The lack of
in pre-1973 concrete buildings was designed to
joint transverse reinforcement may reduce the
resist code specified lateral forces rather than the
strength and ductility of the joint or the adjacent
shear corresponding to the development of the
framing members. Also, the presence of column
beam's flexural capacity. Also, concrete was
lap splices and discontinuous beam bars in
assumed to contribute to the shear strength in
adjacent framing members can limit the input
beam hinge regions. The resulting beam may
energy from those members so that premature joint
develop shear failure before or shortly after e,
failure is avoided.
development of flexural yielding and, as a result,
5.3.2.3.4 Flat Slab/ColUmn Frame
may undergo progressive deterioration and loss of
Systems. Older slab-column frames require special
deformation capacity at the face of the column.
attention in moment frame buildings, which may
5.3.2.3.2 Columns. In pre-1973 buildings,
experience large drifts during earthquakes. Pre-
the longitudinal column reinforcement bars were
1973 slab-column frames commonly do not have
commonly designed to resist moments generated
continuous slab reinforcement, and in particular,
by code-specified lateral forces rather than the
continuous bottom slab reinforcement, through the
moments associated with the capacities of the
column cage. Continuous bottom reinforcement
connecting beams. As opposed to current ductile
acts as flexural reinforcement when the moments
detailing requirements, which allow columns to
reverse under lateral load. It also acts to suspend
form plastic hinges and sustain frame
the slab through catenary action if a punching
displacements beyond their elastic limit while
shear failure of the slab occurs.
maintaining vertical load carrying capability, these
older columns are often weaker than the beams, 5.3.3 Concrete Frame-Wall system
leading to early column hinging and an undesirable
column side sway mechanism. However, it is 5.5..5.. 1 General
worth noting that the column design formulas and Historically, there have been relatively few
allowable stresses in these older codes were often cases of the collapse or partial collapse of frame-
more conservative than current provisions, wall buildings in past earthquakes. This generally
resulting in columns with substantial elastic good seismic performance is largely due to the
capacity in some cases. presence of the relatively stiff walls that prevent
the frames from experiencing very large lateral

Chapter 5, netermlnatton of Deficiencies


-~.

~~-

(
\

(
i
Vertical discontinuity
-- --(
Wall
infill (
(

l;/
\(.l Foundation
1.-

Figure 5-5. Typical vertical DiscontinuitY


(
displacements and deformations. Also, the presence the discontinued wall are subjected to large,
of an essentially complete vertical load carrying concentrated overturning reactions (see Figure 5-5). (
space frame eliminates the need for the walls to Frequently, these columns have been designed to
retain their vertical load carrying resistance resist only gravity loads. Under extreme seismic (
"
throughout the seismic response. Where collapses loading, the columns can experience forces well in
have occurred, they have been traced to irregular excess of their compressive capacity and suddenly
wall layouts, insufficient connections along the lose their ability to sustain gravity loads. These
seismic load path, poor concrete quality, inadequate- columns may also experience net uplift tension
reinforcement anchorage, or a grossly inadequate forces for which insufficient reinforcement has been
(
quantity or distribution of the walls. provided. These types of force controlled failures
The presence of these building attributes can can be sudden and catastrophic. They are (
give rise to a range of specific building considered serious deficiencies when the seismic
component/connection failure mechanisms. These force levels exceed the available column axial load
mechanisms include vertical discontinuities, weak capacities. A secondary structural impact of this
stories, perforated walls, coupling beams, shear type of deficiency is that the diaphragm at the level (
cracking, diagonal tension/compression, sliding of the discontinuity is required to transfer large
shear, reinforcement anchorage and confinement shear forces from the discontinued wall and (
and foundation anchorage and uplift. The challenge redistribute it to other available walls below. -Often,
to the engineer is to identify the possible ways the floor diaphragms are not designed for this (
frame-wall buildings can degrade, to determine the redistribution of wall shears and can become very
sequence of failure, and to find ways to control the highly overloaded
degradation to preclude catastrophic modes of 5.3.3.2.2 Weak Stories. Irregular placement (
response. of interior wall panels can result in significant
changes in strength and stiffness from floor t~ (-
5.:5.:5.2 Typical DeFiciencies floor. Of particular concern is a reduction in the
5.3.3.2.1 Vertical Discontinuity. The number of shear wall panels at the ground floor (
primary negative structural impact of a vertically level. This abrupt strength and stiffness reduction (

irregular placement of wall panels, in which an results in a floor level whose vertical shear resisting (
upper level wall (particularly one at an interior elements are likely to reach their limit response
column line) is not continued directly down to its states before the walls in the floors above have (
foundation, is that the columns below the ends of (

(
(
Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies
(
, (
:

Coupling
.. beams

Shear
wall ..

Coupling Beam Actions

Foundation
Figure 5-6. Typical coupling Beam

reached the elastic limit of their response. As a elements. The spandrel elements will perform in a
result, the weak or soft story will undergo large manner similar to frame beams. As noted for
lateral displacements in comparison to the floors coupling beams, these elements can be a
above. This concentration of lateral displacement deficiency if they are not reinforced adequately for
can lead to severe demands on the columns that theforces they develop in the piers. The behavior
provide the structure's vertical stability. A weak of these elements will typically be deformation
story is considered a deficiency if it can lead to a controlled but can be a serious deficiency if.
loss of vertical stability at the seismic hazard level yielding occurs at very low lateral force levels.
associated with the target performance objectives. This is true for all performance levels.
5.3.3.2.3 Perforated Walls and 5.3.3.2.4 Coupling Beams. Beam elements
Pier/Spandrel Conditions. Perimeter walls that are attached to adjacent shear walls tend to
frequently feature a large number of openings for couple the seismic resistance of the walls as if they
windows and doors. These openings typically were columns joined in a moment frame. If the
occur on a repeated module that provide an depth of the beam is sufficient, its stiffness may be
appealing symmetry. The perforated wall that great enough to restrain the rotation of the walls
results, acts to resist seismic forces as a significantly. However, the spandrel beam must be·
wall/frame wherein the piers act as column strong enough to sustain the corresponding shear
elements and the spandrels act as beams. In older forces and end moments associated with this
frame-wall buildings, the piers are often only frame-like behavior and, in many older buildings,
lightly reinforced, for both shear and flexure. there often is not sufficient reinforcement provided
While concentrated amounts of vertical reinforcing to accomplish this. Differences in taller wall pier
may be found at locations where a concrete stiffnesses due to axial tension and compression
column occurs, most often the column occurs at forces can cause tension to occur in coupling
the middle of the wall piers and does not beams as the pier, in compression, resists more
appreciably contribute to the lateral capacities of load than the pier in tension. As a consequence,
the wall pier. As a result, the piers are under- shear wall coupling beams can exhibit rapid
reinforced for both the shear forces and the diagonal tension failures (see Figure 5-6) similar
concentrated flexural tensile and compressive to that described in Section 5.3.3.2.5 below.
forces that result in the pier due to seismic actions. The failure of these elements can result in
The limited amount of tensile reinforcement can spalling of the concrete at or near the joint to the
result in relatively low flexural capacity of these

Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies


- )

(
(

:: (
(
(
V· Seismic shear
~
Shear wall
Reinforcement ~....,..,.........",=,...,,~_. -- ~--'----- ---,----
Diagonal crack-
Rapidly opening pattern (
cracks can lead to
spalling of concrete and
reinforcement buckling
when seismic fOrc~
,
reverse direction • r,
Foundation

Figure 5·7. Typical Shear cracking pattern


(
wall sections. Since coupling beams are frequently deformation controlled, behavior is maintained; (
located either on the perimeter of the building or More extensive shear cracking is considered
over areas of the structure that serve as exit acceptable for both the Life Safety and Structural
corridors, the degradation of these elements can Stability performance objectives. in all instances, (

create a falling hazard, which poses a minor to shear cracking is an acceptable damage state for . (
moderate Hie safety ~rsk to passersby or persons concrete shear walls provided that adequate
exiting .from the building. reinforcement is' provided to control the width of
Additionally, failure of these elements de- the cracks. When the reinforcement is insufficient,
couple the adjacent shear walls, thereby changing the widths of cracks open rapidly, which can lead
their effective stiffness. Often, this can represent a to buckling of the reinforcement and degradation
beneficial effect. Thus, coupling beam deficiencies of the wall's ability to sustain vertical loads (see
may be considered acceptable seismic performance Figure 5-7). A shear wall that is substantially
for both the Life Safety and "Structural Stability under-reinforced can thus exhibit brittle, force
performance objectives provided that any resulting controlled behavior and represent a serious
permanent offset of the structure is within . deficiency, once the force level associated with I

permissible bounds, stability Under gravity loads is initial cracking is reached, for higher levels of (
maintained, and falling debris does not jeopardize desired performance.
life safety. Walls that are more heavily reinforced and are (
5.3.3.2.5 Shear Cracking .and Diagonal subjected to extreme seismic demands may also
Tension/Compression. Walls that resist exhibit force controlled behavior related to shear
earthquake forces can exhibit diagonal patterns of cracking. This can occur when compressive
cracking that are attributable to the development of stresses are developed that exceed the concrete's
stresses in the concrete that exceed the concrete's compressive strength. When diagonal tension
principal tensile stress. The onset of shear cracking cracks form, it is generally held that a series of
is generally not considered a serious deficiency inclined tension and compression struts. act to resist
unless there is an insufficient amount of the shearing forces in the wall panel. When the
reinforcing steel in the wall to maintain compression strut force exceeds the compressive (
deformation controlled behavior. capacity of the concrete, crushing will occur (see I

Minor shear cracking is considered an Figure 5-8). Such a failure mode, when subjected (
acceptable damage state for even the Immediate to repeated reversing cycles of earthquake loading,
(
Occupancy performance objective if ductile, can lead to the generally gradual loss of the

Ii
C
5-10 Chapter 5, Determination o~ beficientles

(
:

V-Seismic shear
--..- Shear wall
__ . ..__ .. ._.' . ... .. . .. _ r - - - - - - , . , ; . ". __. ... ... .._.. _ . __ .. -.
Reinforcement Diagonal crack
pattern

Compressive
strut

Compressive
forces exceed
concrete capacity
Foundation
and a crushing
. - ' - - - ' - 1 - - - - - - - ' - - - , failure occurs

Figure s-e. Typical Combined Shear cracking / compression Failure

wall's ability to sustain large gravity loads. A considered acceptable s~ismic performance for
deficiency of this type can occur When there is a both the Life Safety and Structural Stability
grossly inadequate amount of wall provided, weak performance objectives provided that any resulting
or disintegrated concrete is present, and the wall is permanent offset of the structure is within
subjected to large gravity loads. Similar to . permissible bounds and stability under gravity
coupling beam failures, shear cracking/diagonal loads is maintained. .
tension failures can be considered acceptable if 5.3.3.2.7 Reinforcement Anchorage and
permanent offsets are within permissible bounds Confinement. The lengths of reinforcing bar lap
and stability under gravity loads is maintained. splicing used in older concrete buildings is often
5.3.3.2.6 Sliding Shear. Sliding shear not sufficient to develop the yield capacity of bars.
failure can occurat a weak plane, such asa In shear walls, where flexural behavior is
construction joint, or along flexural cracks that important, insufficient lap lengths of the boundary
have opened up or propagated, after several reinforcing can lead to bar slip before the
cycles of loading, to form a shear failure plane. In development of yield stresses in the reinforcing.
addition, formation of a shear failure plane can . Inadequate confinement of the concrete at wall
occur after concrete crushing has occurred at both boundaries can also limit the effectiveness of the
ends of a wall. lap splices used for vertical boundary reinforcing
Once a crack has been established across the 3.J."1.d of the anchorage of horizontal wall
section, shear forces are resisted only by the reinforcing. Premature slippage of reinforcing is a
doweling action of the reinforcing steel crossing significant modeling concern that should be
the crack or joint. Continued cycles of seismic accounted for by the use of a reduced reinforcing
load reversal can cause kinking or fracturing of capacity. Once reinforcing slippage begins to
this reinforcement. Once a significant number of occur, a brittle, force controlled mechanism can
reinforcing bars have been bent or broken, result. In the case of vertical boundary
resistance to seismic shearing forces can only be reinforcement, slippage can be accompanied by a
mobilized through frictional resistance along the loss of flexural resistance which leads to a
shear plane. This form of resistance is force progressive deterioration of the wall boundaries.
controlled and can lead to significant permanent The slippage of horizontal wall reinforcement can
offsets which, if great enough, can result in aggravate development of shear cracking in the
vertical instability. Sliding Shear failures can be wall. The damages resulting from this type of

Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies 5-11


(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUn.DINGS (
(

:
(

(
deficiency may be considered to be acceptable The potential for foundation flexibility or rocking
seismic...performance for.either the. Life Safety-or-_ ... .should be.assessed.during..the..preliminary----. -_... - . . ..
Structural Stability performance objectives evaluation of deficiencies.
provided that any resulting permanent offset of the
structure is within permissible limits and stability 5.4 Data Collection
under gravity loads is maintained.
5.3.3.2.8 Foundation Anchorage and 5.4.1 Introduction (

Uplift. Analogous to the lap splice condition The seismic evaluation of existing concrete l~(
described in Section 5.3.3.2.7 above, the length of buildings depends on data collection as a factual
embedment used in older buildings for anchorage basis. The data collection process includes (
of the vertical wall reinforcing into the foundations acquisition of available documents, field (
is often not sufficient to develop the yield capacity observations, field investigations, materials
of the bars. The resulting slippage of the testing, and documentation. While the extent of the (
reinforcement can lead to the same kind of data acquisition process will vary from building to
performance as described for inadequate lap building and will depend on the availability of (
(
splices. drawings and the level of evaluation being
In older concrete buildings, the footings that performed, i.e. preliminary evaluation, detailed (
support concrete walls were sized for gravity evaluation and analysis, or preparation of final
(
loads. The large retrofit construction -
concentration of documents, accurate
force at the ends of building information is
shear walls necessary, in any event,
resisting seismic <.in the following areas:
loads can exceed . • Building geometry,
both the tributary configuration, and
dead load at the mass (including (
foundation or the structural,
compressive architectural and
bearing strength of mechanical systems)
(
the soils. Such • Elements of the
conditions can give seismic load path, (
rise to foundation rocking. The phenomena of including frames, walls, diaphragms,
foundation rocking tends to reduce the effective . foundations, and connections
stiffness of the wall. This can have a variety of + Configuration and layout of structural
effects, either beneficial or detrimental, on the members, including size of members, size of
building's seismic performance. Rocking could reinforcing, tie spacing, splice locations, and
lengthen the building period sufficiently to actually concrete cover
reduce the force demand, thus actually protecting • Properties of the materials used in the
force critical elements in some cases. Rocking structural system, such as concrete and steel
could, however, also lead to significantly larger reinforcing (
displacements than would be predicted by fixed • Anchorage of nonstructural elements
base modeling and thus contribute to potential
vertical load carrying instabilities due to the P - L1 Tables 5-1 through 5-4 summarize the data I

effect. A detailed discussion of foundation effects collection process as it relates to availability of (


on seismic performance is provided in Chapter 10. drawings and level of evaluation. The tables

5-112 Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies


provide guidance for the applicability of the building. If drawings cannot be located, substantial
specific data.collection,items.for.which the__ ... .....effort,will be.required.to, document.the..existing - .
following sections provide more detailed construction, even for preliminary evaluation of
descriptions. deficiencies, and a detailed evaluation of the
Commentary: The amount of information structure will require extensive field testing.
gathered should be sufficient to perform the In addition to construction drawings, it may be
various levels of evaluation and analysis discussed . helpful to acquire, to the extent possible, the
in this document, yet it may be imprudent to col- following documents:
lect more information than necessary for a specific .. Structural calculations
stage in the evaluation process. For example, if it
.. Site seismicity I geotechnical reports
is not clear whether retrofitwill be required; the
data collection process should be geared towards .. Foundation reports
gathering just enough information to make that .. Prior building assessments
determination, whereas once the determination to
retrofit has been made, the data collection process 5.4.3 Field Observations
will usually be much more extensive. It is of paramount importance that the
It may not be necessary to identify the evaluating engineer conduct field observations of
configuration and layout of all structural members the building. Though the extent will vary
in the building. However, as required by the level depending on the evaluation requirements, primary
of evaluation, information should be acquired for purposes and types of the field observations typical
all structural members that either are part of the for most projects are as follows:
seismic load path (e.g. walls and diaphragms) or
• Verification of the accuracy of the original
are necessary for vertical stability of the structure
drawings or determination of basic building
and may be susceptible to failure because of
information if no drawings are available
building accelerations or displacements during
earthquakes. .. Identification of major alterations not shown
on the original construction documents. Major
5.4.2 Acquisition of Available additions and alterations are not uncommon
Documents and may have significant impacts on the '*
The single most important step in the data seismic performance of the building
collection process is the acquisition of documents .. Identification of visible structural damage,
describing the existing construction. The review of such as concrete cracking or spalling.
construction drawings will simplify field work and Structural damage or cyclic degradation caused
lead to a more complete understanding of the by prior earthquakes, deterioration, or poor
building, especially considering that no amount of quality original construction may reduce the
field investigation and testing can substitute for the available structural capacity of the building
information available in the original drawings.
Acquisition of the original architectural and .. Identification of potential nonstructural falling
structural construction drawings is often critical to hazards, including ceilings, partitions, curtain
an accurate and cost effective evaluation. Potential walls, veneer, mechanical systems, fixtures,
resources include the current building owner, and other nonstructural building elements
building departments, and the original architects .. Documentation of existing conditions with
/engineers. In some cases, drawings may also be photographs at key locations. These
available from architects or engineers who have photographs often serve as a useful verification
performed prior evaluations for the specific tool during the evaluation process

Chapter 5, Determination of. Deficiencies .


:

(
(
Table 5-1. inFormation Ilequir"ed For preliminary seismic Evaluation When original .
._co..nstructi~/!-,~~a.rJ!!!1!fls..~/:.eA.v.aj!F!P.!..f!!. .__ _. _. . . ._. .
(
(
(
structural calculations x Helpful but not essential
(
Site selsmtcltv, geotechnical x Helpful but updated report should be none (
report
Foundation report x Helpful but not essential
prior seismic assessment reports x Helpful but not essential
Condition survey of building x
(
Alteration and as built assessment x (
walk through dimensioning .X unless required by undocumented alterations (
Nonstructural wall< through . x Identify falling hazards, weight. (

Core testing x Unless concrete appears substandard (


(
Rebound hammer testing .x Unless concrete appears substandard
Aggregate testing x
Reinforcement testing x
Reinf. location verification x unless insufficient info. on drawings
Nonstructural exploration x

Table 5-2. Information Ilequired For prMiminary seismic Evaluation When original
Construction Drawings are Not Available
:

Table 5-5. Information eequired For a Detailed seismic Evaluation When Original
. __
constructfqn.p..r?.wiJ1g?-~rfE...-9.Yf!fJ?!lj!l.. .._ . __.__ .... . ----.-.-- . .. ._ ---

structural calculations x could be very helpful


site seismicity, geotech rpt, x Helpful but not essential
Foundation report x Helpful but not essential
prior seismic assessmentreports x Helpful.but not essential
Condition survey of building .' x
Arteratton and as built assessment x
l!I!alkthrough dtmenstonlns x spot checking is appropriate
Nonstructural wi:3lk through _ Identify falling hazards, weight
core testing x Minimum 2 per floor, 8 per building
Rebound hammer testing x Minimum 8 per floor, 16 per building
Aggregate testing x Each core
Reinforcement testing x optional
Reinforcement location verification x pachometer @ 10% of critical locations, visual @ 2
locations
Nonstructural exploration x verify anchorage and bracing conditions for
components sensitive to Building performa'nce

Table 5-4. Information eequired For a Detailed Seismic Evaluation When original
construction Drawings are-Not Available .

structural calculations .x could be very helPful


site seismicity, geotech rpt, x Helpful but not essential
Foundation report x Helpful but not essential
prior seismic assessmentreports x Helpful but not essential
Condition survey of building x
Alteration and as built assessment x
Walk through dimensioning x Must be done very thoroughly, particularly if structure
will be retrofitted
Nonstructural walK through x Identify falling hazards, weight
core testing Minimum 2 per floor, 8 per building
Rebound hammer testing x Minimum 8 per floor, 16 per building
Aggregate testing x Each core
Reinforcement testing x 2 per type-
Reinforcement location verification x Pachometer for all critical elements, visual on 25%
Nonstructural exploration x Verify anchorage and bracing conditions for
components sensitive to Building performan'ce

Chapter 5, Determination of Def!ciendes


(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION' 4MD RETROFIT 'OF CONCRETE aUILDINGS (

(
(
(
5.4.4 Materials Testing . pachometer or exploration) in order to avoid
.. -. ---If-ori.ginal-constructiQn-doGuments-·are-a-vailable---- .Q<;Jrnaging..the_existing-stlUCtural-s-ystem..- ---'------
and no deterioration has been observed during the : Commentary: The in situ concrete compressive
field observations, a preliminary evaluation may be . strength is typically higher than specified on the (
completed by using 'materials strength 'data from the construction documents. The testing, therefore, will
documents.' However, the techniques for detailed typically benefit the evaluation process by (
evaluations and analyses require accurate material demonstrating the actual capacity of the existing
properties for evaluating the strength and stiffness building materials. In some situations, however,
of the building systems; elements, and connections. testing may identify low concrete strengths
If original construction data regarding the strengths. attributable to poor quality of the original
of the materials are not available, a materials testing construction or to deterioration due to adverse
program should be established to determine the in . environmental conditions.
situ strength of the concrete and reiiiforcing steel
5.4.4.2 Rebound Hammer Testing
that serve as the primary structuralmaterials. Even
when the specified material strength data are S41ce the number of core samples that can be
available, a testing program should be undertaken to taken is limited because of the destructive nature of
establish and/or verify the actual materials strength sampling, rebound hammer testing should be (
data for detailed analytical studies; . performed to supplement the concrete strength data.
A typical detailed testing program should A minimum of eight rebound hammer tests should
include pachometer (resistance meter) testing to be taken at each floor level, with a minimum of 16
verify the existence and spacing of reinforcing bars, test locations per building. Calibration of the
concrete core testing; "rebound hammer testing of rebound hammer testing should occur adjacent to
concrete, unit weight testing, of concrete aggregate, core test locations.
and testing of steel reinforcement. Also, the 5.4.4..3 Aggregate Testing
concrete cover should be removed in a limited .. The unit weight of the concrete should be tested
number of locations to verify the accuracy of the (
to:determine whether lightweight aggregates were
pachometer readings and the bar sizes. The
used in the concrete construction. This information
evaluating engineer should determine the types and ! .

can generally be obtained from the core samples


extent of testing based on the requirements of each
used for compression testing. (
specific project. .
5.4.4..4 ReinFOrcement Testing
5.4.4.1 Core Testing
Reinforcing samples should be taken from the
.Core testing provides a reliable method for the
building to determine the strength and deformability
determination of concrete compressive strength to
of the steel. Minimum test data should include
be used in the evaluation and analysis process. Core
stress' and straininformation at Yield and at rupture.
samples should be taken from critical structural
When required by the analysis procedures, a
elements such as shear walls, frames, and
minimum of two samples should be tested from
diaphragms. Because of the destructive nature of
each type of reinforcement (e.g., beam longitudinal
the coring process, however, testing can generally steel, beam "ties, column longitudinal steel, column
be limited to two concrete"core samples for each ties, slab reinforcing, wall reinforcing). In addition,
floor level, with a minimuin of eight samples per if potential retrofit schemes include the welding of
building. However, if testing results vary widely, existingreinforcing, chemical analysis of the steel
additional core samples may be required. Prior to samples should be performed. to determine
coring, the existing ste~l should be located (e.g. by equivalent carbon content.
(

5-16 Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies


:

5.4.5 Detailed Field Investigation deformation controlled component behavior cannot


. . ... If adequate coastruotion decume1.lts--are----.--- - .. ..... be.made. in a.reliable.manner.without.this.L, .-- ..... ....
available, detailed field investigation is not information.
necessary for a preliminary evaluation, Well- Several techniques are useful in determining the
developed construction drawings, as confirmed by as-built reinforcement configuration in existing
field observations, are generally adequate to buildings. In general, nondestructive testing such as
identify the seismic load path, identify reinforcing pachometer or X-ray testing Can be used to
configurations, calculate the weight/mass of determine the location and quantity of the
building systems, and reinforcement. Exploratory probes
identify the anchorage of should be made in localized areas to
nonstructural elements. remove concrete cover and expose the
If construction reinforcement and confirm the results
documents for the building of the nondestructive testing.
are not available, detailed As information is collected, record
field investigations will be drawings should be developed for the
necessary to collect the . building to document the gathered
building data described information and identify areas where
above. Field investigations additional information/investigation is
for the collection of required. As a minimum, record
building data can be a drawings should include structural
daunting task, especially in reinforced concrete plan layouts of each floor level, details of
structures. The field investigation program must be reinforcing conditions, identification of materials
tailored to each specific project, striking a balance strengths, and typical details used to brace
between obtaining the necessary data and keeping nonstructural elements. The documentation should
the cost of the investigation program reasonable. In contain sufficient information to make it possible to
many cases the structural elements are covered with evaluate the strength and deforrnability of the
architectural finishes, and some removal and/or soft building systems. .
demolition may be required in order to obtain the
necessary information. Furthermore; it will not be 5 ..5 Review of Seismic
possible to perform a detailed investigation on each Hazard
element of the structural system. Sound engineering Site characterization and seismic hazard
judgment will be required to conservatively derivation are discussed in Chapter 4. There, 5
extrapolate results from a representative sample of
percent damped elastic response spectra for various
detailed inspections to the global building system. hazard levels are defined in terms of coefficients CA
Detailed building survey data should be .recorded in and Cv. These coefficients may also be used with
a set of drawings that depict the buildings primary, FEMA 178 base shear equations for preliminary
vertical and lateral force resisting system. analyses described in Sections 5.6 and 5.7.
To perform detailed analyticalevaluations, it is
The potential for ground failure should be
necessary that a materials testing program, similar . reviewed as described in Section 4.3. When ground
to the one described above, be used, whether failure is deemed likely, the preliminary evaluation
drawings are available or not. To predict seismic described in Sections 5.6 and 5.7 is not sufficient.
performance using the analytical procedures in this
Commentary: The simplified analysis methods
document, it is necessary that concrete and
used for preliminary evaluation are not considered
reinforcing strengths be well defined.
adequate to account for ground failure or complex
Determination of the onset of force controlled and
soil-structure effects. "When ground failure is

Chapter 5, oeterminatiqn .o.f Deficiencies.


(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RtsTRDFIT OF CONCRETl'!f BUII.DINGS (-
(
(
(
indicated, a geotechnical engineer should extremely weak or brittle components. When \

recommend-mitigation. measures-or- pro.vide---.-" "- .components-on-the...seismie-Ioad.path-are.. subjected~- - .


parameters for a detailed analysis. to forces or deformations that produce unacceptable
damage, deficiencies exist. (
5 ..6 Identification of To define the seismic load path, first locate the
principal mass elements. In concrete buildings, (
Potential Deficiencies
floor and roof diaphragms usually account for most
5.6.1 Introduction of the mass, and the lateral load resisting system
.it;seIf accounts for much of the rest. Next, identify
Potential deficiencies are conditions that might
shear-resisting elements in each story that "link the
lead to unacceptable performance at a local or . -
global level. Identification of potential deficiencies
"masses to each other, typically walls and frame (
c~l~. Determine,~:the method(s) of connecting
requires only quick and limited analyses based on
vertical shear resisting elements to horizontal (
available building information. These conservative
diaphragms.
simplified analyses' are intended to find potential' ,
(
deficiencies that require detailed evaluation. 5.6.3" seteetlon of Evaluation
Commentary: A list ofpotential deficiencies Statements (
will generally serve as the basis for more detailed
The recommended procedure for' identifying :
analyses (Chapters 8-11) used to check acceptability (
potential seismic deficiencies is based on "the
of the existing or retrofitted building, In some ..
TruelFalse "evaluation statement" methodology ~f
instances it may be possible to identify deficiencies
FEMA 178-(BSSC 1992). After aseismic load path
of such a serious nature that the decision to retrofit
for the structure has been defined, the most
or abandon the structure can be made without
appropriate set of FEMA 17.8 evaluation: statements
further study. This may be particularly true for
is selected.
Performance Objectives r:equiring Immediate
Commentary: For most concrete buildings, only
Occupancy. . (
three sets of evaluation statements will be needed:
The engineer should understand the limited
General Evaluation Statements for foundations 'and
precision of simplified analyses and should.define
nonstruetural elements, Building Type 8 statements
potential deficiencies accordingly, Deficiencies
for Concrete Moment Frames, and Building Type 9
identified in this manner may not represent (
statementsfor Concrete Shear Walls.
conditions hazardous enough to jeopardize
For purposes ofpreliminary. evaluation, FEMA (
structural stability or life safety. In most cases,
178 evaluation statements q.re most useful as
more detailed investigations are required to check
indicators of qualitative deficiencies. Their
acceptability at the desired performance levels, .
systematic use by experienced engineers can be
hence the label "potential." .
expected to find deficiencies associated with
5.6.2 Definition of Seismic load Path irregular building configurations, incomplete or
To identify potential seismic deficiencies, the
poorly-conceived structural systems, and some E
inadequate- details. They should not be expected to
first step is to define the components (including (
identify specific "local deficiencies without further
connections) that constitute the seismic load path. A
analysis. Refer t? Section5.6.4.3 commentary. (
complete and adequate seismic load path is
fundamental to acceptable" seismic performance. All
existing buildings have a lateral load path of some (
kind. Non-engineered structures and older buildings
not designed for lateral load resistance may have a (
\.
lateral load path that relies partly on friction or on
(
\.;.

(
5-18 Chapter 5, DeterminatiOn of Deficiencies
5.6.4 Simplified Analysis flexural load may require reasonably accurate
_ _. ._. _._.._.._ _. ._.-. _.-- ----------.-.. -----~- ---. --. -.estimates.of- gm.vity..load.---,-_-- -- ---- -.- -- .
5.6.4.1 General
A simplified analysis provides relative 5.6.4.3 Global Demand
quantitative data for the preliminary evaluation Because the preliminary evaluation is intended
discussed further in.Section 5.7. Simplified analysis to identify broad patterns of expected behavior,
results can also yield useful results can be
insights useful for obtained with any set of
modeling elements and lateral forces that
components for approximates. the
detailed analysis building's modal
(Chapter 9). response. A building
Commentary: code or FEMA 178
Because simplified force level and
analyses with linear distribution is simple,
elastic properties do convenient, and
not account for sufficiently accurate. (If
inelastic deformations, FEMA 178 demands are
degrading strength, or force redistributions, . used, CA and. Cv values
component forces are best understood ·in relative . from Chapter 4 may be used.) It is important to
terms. For example, where inelasticity is. keep in mind, however, that codes and handbook
anticipated, simplified analysis results can indicate documents like FEMA 178 often reflect particular
which components have the highest demands or are performance objectives that may be different from
likely to hinge first, but can not reliably predict those chosen for the subject building (see Chapter
absolute stresses or plastic rotations. In general, 3). Thus, while simplified analysis with these
the analysis procedures ofFEMA 178 are demands may yield useful results, actual expected
acceptable-. Refer to Section 5.6.4.3 commentary. demands (Chapters 3 and 4) may be quite different.
Commentary: FEMA 178 demands and
5.6.4.2 Mass response coefficients (R values) imply a
Seismic forces are proportional to the inertial Performance Objective ofLife Safety in a modified
mass of the structure. The simplified analysis Design Earthquake. If the subject building's
requires mass estimates at each level of the performance objective involves a different
structure, considering both structural and earthquake or a different desired performance level,
architectural elements. The estimate should include FEMA 178 acceptance criteria might not be
ceilings, roof coverings, floor toppings, wall appropriate. For preliminary evaluation, however,
covering, and other items considered permanent the goal is a general understanding of expected
parts of the building. response, so absolute demand levels and
Commentary: In general, simplified analysis for quantitative acceptance criteria are unimportant.
identifying potential deficiencies requires relative
forces only" However, if a detailed analysis per 5.6.4.4 Component Demand
Chapters 8 through 11 is anticipated, the use of The seismic demand forces derived in
dead load plus likely live load (see Section 9.2) for accordance with Section 5.6.4.3 must be distributed
this simplified analysis can avoid some duplication to the various components (including connections)
of effort. Also, useful demand/capacity ratios for that constitute the seismic load path. The
columns and other components subject to axial- distribution may be made on the basis of relative

Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies


SEISMIC EVALUATION· AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

; ( ,
".

rigidities of horizontal diaphragms and vertical in contrast to the "detailed" approaches described in ( ~
shear. resisting elements.. Particular.artention.should.; _. ..Chapters B_thrOllg1Lll_The.prelimina ry_ ev:a1uation-- _.._..(
be paid to portions of the load path where vertical is intended to help develop a general sense of the I"

elements are discontinuous. structure's expected performance in the absence of (


Commentary: Approximate force distributions a detailed analysis. The preliminary evaluation is
and hand calculations are appropriate for and based on potential deficiencies determined in ( I.

consistent with the precision of this simplified " acpordan.c~ with Section 5.6. ( -.
analysis. Labor intensive' Commentary:~,
refinements will not .Potential deficiencies (
appreciably improve the include high
precision ofthe'FEMA 178 ': demand/capacity ratios ('
methodology. . and False evaluation
statements. As noted in- (
5.6.4.5 Deficiency Section 5.6.43, the global
Definition demand usedfor simplified (
To identify potential analysis may or ma:y not
deficiencies, the force '..approximate the seismic (
actions are compared to '. forces derived in
corresponding capacities 3$ . accordance with Chapter 4
demand/capacity ratios for the building's .
(DCRs). Demands for DCR'calculations must performance objective. If they do, then rough'
include gravity effects. Evaluation statement thresholds for acceptable DCRs ma:y be set based on
responses should be reviewed and completed in engineering judgment and project-specific
light of calculated DCRs: High'Df'Rs and
conditions that yield 'False statements indicate
requirements. If they do not, then absolute DCR .
values must be read with. careful consideration of'
r \
I
potential deficiencies. differences between applied and expected demands. (
Commentary: Capacities for DCR calculations In general, the location and distribution of the
\
J
may be established with the FEMA 178 guidelines critical. highest DCRs is most instructive. C \
and other reference sources that provide an estimate
of usable strength. "High DCRs" must be judged
The most critical potential deficiencies are those ( ,
which, if realized in an earthquake, can alter the '.
considering the demands and capacities used arid building's overall inelastic response. The
the building's actual performance objective.
(
consequences of potential inelastic response should \.
Assuming FEMA 178 demands and capacities, and
a performance objective consistent w~th that
be considered at both local and global levels, as
discussed in the following sections.
C',
I
assumed 1:Jy FEMA 178; DCRs approaching 1.0 (or
higher) indicate potential deficiencies, whose 5.7.1 Member Inelasticity (r
I
significance must be evaluated 1:Jy the engineer For the highest demand/capacity ratio at each (
(refer to Section 5.6.4.3 commentary). floor and at each part of the load path (the locally
highest DCR), determine whether the associated
5.7 preliminary EVfJlluation behavior is force-controlled or deformation-
(
of Anticipated. Seismic controlled (refer to Figure 5-9 in Section 5.7.2, and \
Section 9.5.4.1). Force-controlled actions more
Performance (
frequently produce unacceptable seismic \
The analyses and assessment methods described perforinance. The highest force-controlled DCR ( ,
in this chapter constitute a "preliminary evaluation" should be determined. Review the list of typical
(
\-':'

(
5-20 Chapter 5, Determination of Deficiencies' \,

(
(
:

Deformation- DCR demands must include gravity ejJeets. If


_________. --,. , ..
controlled ._...,. ... _...t_he.uroootti if- .
e.propottum.ot.capacuy.use . ar.gtasity,
dfc . 1oad.--._._
behavior
vanes wz e y among cruica components, the .
• id. I .. 1
sequence of hinging may be better approximated by
DEICE ratios as recommended by FEMA 178. 112 this

~Force­
ratio, the demand is due to seismic loads only, and
the capacity is reduced to that available for seismic
controlled loads after gravity loads have been applied.
behavior
The horizontal distribution of the highest
demand/capacity ratios should be noted. High
Deformation DCRs concentrated 'at'one end or in one portion of
the structure, indicate a potential for local failure or
loss of torsional stability. High ratios that are
Figure 5-9: comparison of rorce-ws. Deformation-
.controlled Behavior scattered suggest that the onset of post elastic
structural behavior will be well distributed, a
beneficial attribute.
deficiencies (Sections' 5.3.2.2 and 5.3.3.2) for The vertical distribution and magnitude of the
Concrete Frame and Concrete Frame-Wall . highest demand/capacity ratios should be noted.
buildings and identify corresponding DCRs. High ratios in vertical shear-resisting elements
Locally highest DCRs in force-controlled concentrated at a particular level indicate a potential
actions such as shear are critical deficiencies, and weak story. As previouslynoted, such a deficiency
locally highest DCRs in deformation-controlled is common to Concrete Frame-Wall buildings.
components may be critical deficiencies. Very high
DCRs in deformation-controlled components are 5.8 preliminary Evaluation
likely to reflect deficiencies since early yielding of. Conclusions and
these elements will concentrate inelastic Recommendations
deformations among just a few members as opposed
to a more desirable distribution among many 5.8.1 General
members. Preliminary evaluation findings should be
5.7.2 Respons~ Scenario reported in a context that facilitates appropriate
decision making. In general, the preliminary
Global inelastic response can be understood as
evaluation will support one of three basic options
the sequential yielding and degrading of individual
(although others are certainly conceivable):
load path components. The sequence of yielding can
Retrofitting Recommended, Detailed Evaluation
be approximated by listing demand/capacity ratios
Recommended, Performance Acceptable.
from highest to lowest: Combined with
considerations of horizontal and vertical DCR 5.8.2 Retrofitting Recommended
distributions, such a list suggests a "response
When the preliminary evaluation reveals a
scenario," i.e. a conceptual representation of the
significant number of critical force-controlled
structure's anticipated seismic performance. deficiencies, then a more detailed analysis may not
Commentary: Because forces in a real structure be needed to conclude that retrofit is required.
are redistributed after some components hinge or Conditions that may lead to this conclusion include
degrade, this approximation of hinging sequence is critical DCRs in force-controlled load path elements
only reasonable for the first few hinges, and only if without backup systems, locally highest DCRs
their DCRs are relatively close in value. clustered at one floor (suggesting a weak story), and

Chapter 5, Determination of De.ficiencies


(

(
SEISMIC EVALuaTION AND RETROFIT OF' CONCRETE BUILDINGS (
<
:
(
(
(
. (

(
critical deficiencies at the perimeter of the building affect the expected performance, then retrofit
(suggestingtorsional.instability). .Even.when..__._.__._. __ .. __ . modifications.to.mitigate.its.effects-should be--.--....
preliminary evaluation suggests strongly that retrofit recommended even if the' building is otherwise
is required, detailed evaluation (Chapters 8-11) is acceptable. This is .true for potential ground failures (
still expected to provide a more thorough ,. as well.
understanding of expected performance. (
5.8.5.2 Potential Nonstructural
5.8.3 Detailed Evaluation DeFiciencies
Recommended - Identification of nonstructural deficiencies is
For structures whose critical elements and presented in Chapter 12. Preliminary evaluation
components are deformation-controlled, detailed conclusions should consider thenature and extent of (
evaluation (Chapters 8 through 11) is usually nonstructural deficiencies.
appropriate. Unless the critical demand/capacity Normally, life safety concerns associated with. (
ratios are clustered or are extremely high, . nonstructural components are of greatest concern
deformation-controlled deficiencies may not be so (see Table 5-5). Besides the potential risk of (
severe so as to prevent acceptable performance. A components falling directly on building occupants,
detailed evaluation may demonstrate acceptable some components (e.g. hazardous materials, (
performance in structures that appear from pressurized piping) pose secondary hazards. Life
simplified analysis to be deficient. safety also depends on the ease of egress from an (
affected building under emergency conditions. Both
5.8.4 Acceptable Performance high accelerations and' large relative displacements
Only in very rare circumstances can acceptable can damage nonstructural·components. Chapter 12
performance be reliably assured without detailed provides further guidance on- the acceptability of
analysis. As such, no general criteria for reaching' nonstructural damage depending on-the overall (J
this conclusion are available, although it is clear performance goals for the building. ' f
that acceptable performance.based on preliminary Commentary: If the scope of nonstructural (
evaluation would certainly require very low deficiencies is extensive, retrofitting may be the
demand/capacity ratios (considering the actual most cost effective approach. If architectural
Performance Objective), "True" responses to all or finishes must be removed in large areas in order to
most evaluation statements, and reliable building mitigate nonstructural deficiencies, a significant (
response scenarios. portion of the cost of modifying' an underlying
(
structural component will already be incurred.
5.8.5 other considerations
.- . 5.8.5.. :5 Additional Testing
5.8.5.1 Related structural Hazards When preliminary evaluation conclusions rely
Adjacent structures that may interact seismically on assumptions or incomplete information,
with the subject building should be considered in additional testing may be warranted before a course, (
the preliminary evaluation conclusions and of action is determined. Additional testing. can also
recommendations: If pounding appears likely to' be used to rule out potential deficiencies.

(
(
(
5-22 Chapter 5, Determi~~tion of Deficie~cies
(

(
Table 5-5. cenerst Characteristics of Nonstructural component (adapted From ATc;. 1996al

Exterior skin Adhered veneer ./ ./ ./

Glass blocks ./ ./ ./

prefabricated panels ./ ./ ./

Glazing systems ./ ./ ./

Partitions Heavy ./ ./ ./

Light ./ ./

stone, including marble ./ ./ ./


Interior veneers
Ceramic tile ./ ./ ./

Ceilings Directly applied to ./

structure
Dropped, furred gyp.bd ./

suspended lath & ./ ./


plaster
suspended jntegrated -: ./

Parapets and appendages ./ ./

canopies and marquees ./ ./

Chimneys and stacks ./ ./

stairs ./ ./

Equipment Boilers and furnaces ./ ./

Mfg. and process mach. ./

HVAC eouio.usoiatern ./

HVAcequip. ./

tnonlsolatern
storage vessels structural supported ./

Flat bottomed ./

High pressure piping ./ ./ ./

Fire suppression piping ./ ./ ./

Fluid piping Hazardous materials ./ ./ ./

Non-hazardous ./ ./

DuctworK ./ ./

Chapter 5, Determination o~ Defi~ienCi.es


(
('

(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND' RETROi='IT OF CONCRETEr SUU.DINGS

:
(
(

-1'
-T-able-s-S.-fContinuedJ-oeneraJ.characreristiG5-of-NonstrUGrupal-Gomponent-fsdapted-Fpom-A-TG;-- -_. ----.- .--(
199Ga) (
(
(

(
(
Light fixtures Recessed
Surface mounted
Ct
Integrated ceiling (.
pendant (
(

storage racks (
.1
Bookcases
(
computer floors
Hazardous materials storage (
cornputer/comrn. racks (

Elevators
(
("
conveyors

('
(

('

(
('

(
('

(
('

(
ti
(
Chapter 5 Determination of Deficiencies
I (
(
(

(
:

......... _-_._ ..- -.~'-_ .. --_.._._.__ _._-_._---_._ ..__.- - _..-. _. -- _ _.

Chapter 6
etrofit strategies
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner Architect· Bldg. Official

6 .. 'I Intrcduct·ion capable, in its existing configuration, of providing


this performance and, if not, the extent of the any
6.1.1 General existing deficiencies.
This chapter presents an overview of the Commentary: Traditionally, engineers
process used to develop a retrofit strategy and performing seismic evaluations and retrofit designs
preliminary retrofit design for a building once an have used a code-based approach. The process
evaluation has been conducted in accordance with was initiated by evaluating the adequacy of the
Chapter 5 and the presence of unacceptable seismic building to resist lateral forces with a specified
deficiencies has been detected. It includes "base shear, " typically taken to be in the range of
discussion of alternative retrofit strategies, 75 percent to 100 percent of the base shear .
evaluation of their applicability given the identified specified by the building code for design of new
seismic deficiencies and the various design structures. Typical deficiencies identified in such
constraints, selection of the most appropriate an evaluation would be that certain elements of the
strategy in light of these constraints, and within the building's lateral force resisting system were
context of the selected strategy, selection of an 'significantly "overstressed" or that lateral drifts
appropriate retrofit system and development of a were excessive. Based on these findings, engineers
preliminary retrofit design. would then design new supplemental lateral force
For most buildings and performance resisting elements, such as shear walls or braced
objectives, a number of alternative strategies and frames, in order to eliminate the calculated
systems may result in acceptable design solutions. overstress conditions and reduce lateral drifts to
Prior to adopting a particular strategy, the engineer acceptable levels. In some extreme cases,
should evaluate a number of alternatives for engineers would design the new elements to
feasibility and applicability and, together with the provide the entire lateral force resistance for the
owner, should select the strategy or combination of structure, negating their need, if not the build-
strategies that appears to provide the most ing's, to rely on the existing element's behavior.
favorable overall solution. It is not possible to do This traditional approach is both
this until the owner's performance objectives for straight-forward and simple to apply. However, it
the building have been identified and an evaluation frequently leads to design solutions that are less
of the building has been performed. This than optimal given considerations of cost, effect on
evaluation will determine whether the building is building appearance, and other pertinent factors.
Further, in many cases this traditional approach

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


- .... ~.

(
will not lead to a technically acceptable design strength and stiffness to the lateral force resisting
solutioiu.lhe. building code provisions.for. new. . --_._. __ ._-system.- detailed.evaluation: of-man:y- alter.p.ativ.e..~-_ ...- -
construction have closely related requirements for strategies is neither warranted nor necessary. I
both lateral strength and detailing. It is typically Nevertheless, forlarge structures or for;,builtf,ings (
impossible to upgrade an existing building to ., 1'ff.th 'complex structural systems, the additional I
conform with the detailing requirements of the effort involved in the evaluation of alternative (
current building codes. Upgrades that address only retrofit strategies, as suggested in this chapter, can
the code strength requirements without also result in significant reductions in retrofit cost and l-
addressing the detailing requirements can not be lead to design solutions that are more appropriate
expected to provide the same performance as that than those that would otherwise be obtained.
intended for new buildings. , Prior to embarldng on a program that includes
Finally, there is the issue ofperformance itself. consideration of many design alternatives, the
The performance objectives inherent in the building engineer should exercise his or her individual
code provisions for new construction are based on judgment to determine whether such effort is
consensus judgment as to an appropriate balance warranted, given the configuration; deficiencies, (
between initial construction costs, occupant safety and performance objectives intended for the (

and life time costs. This same balance may not be building. (
appropriate for many existing buildings, suggesting Following selection of the retrofit strategy, it (

that other performance objectives should be is necessary to select a specific retrofit system and (
selected as a basis for design. Unfortunately, the perform a preliminary design. The retrofit system
building code provisions do not currently provide a and preliminary designare selected within the .
means to design for alternative performance context of the selected strategy. Generally, the
objectives. same factors considered in the strategy selection .
The purpose of this chapter is to provide the must also be kept in mind during system selection
engineer with a systematic approach for evaluating and preliminary design. (

the various strategies and systems that may be Once a preliminary design is obtained, (
applicable to a seismic upgrade project andfor verification of the adequacy of this design 'must be
selecting the strategy and system that provide an performed in accordance with the procedures of.·
(
optimal design solution, given the desired Chapter 8 and using the acceptance criteria of
(
performance objectives, building characteristics Chapter 11. If the preliminary design is- found to
and technical features of the existing structure. In be inadequate, then it must be modified and the
(
addition to the traditional retrofit approaches process repeated. When the verification analysis
described above, this chapter also includes indicates that acceptable performance tan be
consideration of a number of strategies that are obtained, final detailing of the design may be
more technically complex. performed.
The methodology indicated for the evaluation (

of these various strategies to determine their 6.1.2 Definitions (


applicability is also somewhat complex compared
6.1.2.1 RetroFit strategies
with traditional code-based approaches of .
structural evaluation. Often, the effort involved in A retrofit strategy is a basic approach adopted
to improve the probable seismic performance of (
evaluating multiple upgrade strategies and
selecting an optimal one can by itself be quite time the building or otherwise reduce the existing risk
consuming and costly. For simple structures, with to an acceptable "level. Both technical strategies
deficiencies that can be simply and economically and management strategies can be employed to
mitigated with the introduction of additional obtain seismic risk reduction. Technical strategies

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies /


(
(

(
--

a. Unstrengthened building b. Building with retofit braced frame c. Building with retofit infill windows

Figure 5-1. Building with Perimeter concrete Walls

include such approaches as increasing building this strategy could include addition of new shear
strength, correcting critical deficiencies, altering- walls, thickening of existing shear walls, and
stiffness, and reducing demand. Management addition of braced frames. While the retrofit
strategies include such approaches as change of systems are closely tied to the strategies, it is not
occupancy, incremental improvement, and phased necessary to select a specific system in order to
construction. evaluate the applicability of a given strategy.
Commentary: Engineers sometimes confuse However, it is necessary to select a specific system
systems and strategies. Strategies relate to in order to complete a design.
modification or control of the basic parameters Commentary: One of the most important
that affect a building's earthquake performance. considerations in the selection and design of a
These include the building's stiffness, strength, retrofit system is its deflection compatibility with
deformation capacity, and ability to dissipate the existing structure. Some existing buildings are
energy, as well as the strength and character of both weak and brittle, while also being quite stiff.
ground motion transmitted to the building and the A common strategy for upgrading such a building
occupant and contents exposure within the is to provide supplemental lateral strength. If such
building. Seismic risk reduction strategies include strengthening is to be effective, the supplemental
such approaches as increasing strength, increasing. elements provided to add this strength must be
stif.fness, increasing deformability, increasing sufficiently stiff that the added strength can be
damping, reducing occupancy exposure, and mobilized prior to the onset of unacceptable
modifying the character of the ground motion . damage to the existing elements.
transmitted to the building. Strategies can also As an illustrative example, consider the
include combinations of these approaches. Retrofit concrete shear wall building illustrated in
systems are specific methods used to implement the Figure 6-1a. This building's seismic behavior is
strategy such as, for example, the addition of controlled by the wall piers, present between the
shear walls or bracedframes to increase stiffness windows. These wall piers have low shear strength
and strength, the use of confinement jackets to and could experience brittle shear failure if the
enhance deformability. building experiences strong ground motion.
Although relatively weak, these piers are also quite
6.1.2.2 Retrofit system stiff. For the purpose of this example, it is
A retrofit system is the specific method used to presumed that it has been decided to adopt a
achieve the selected strategy. For example, if the strategy of structural strengthening.
basic strategy is to increase building strength, then
alternative systems that may be used to accomplish

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


(
(
((

(
(

(
Structural strengthening can be achieved by a construction, the systems thatmust remain
_.number...oJ-alterniztiY~stems,..two...otwhich..aT.cc...e
shown in the figure. Figure 6-1b illustrates a
oper.able..du:ting...aruLafter:...construction,..the_exteut.--- ..
to which floor layouts and visual effects may
-c('(
system consisting of the addition of supplemental change. and. the types of earthquake damage that (
braced steel frames. Figure 6-1c shows a system may be acceptable; the building official, .andfire .
consisting ofreinforced concrete infills within .marshal, who determine the extent to which.
I
existing window spaces. The braced frame system. collateral (i.e., disabled access andfire/life safety)
may be incompatible with the existing building. upgrades must be performed; historic preservation C
That is, although the bracedframe could add boards, which determine the permissible extent of
substantial strength to the building, it may not.be alteration to historic fabrics and spaces; and
practical to make this frame as rigid as the . various special interest groups within the
existing wall piers, which would therefore still community, which may have a significant ability to
experience shear failure before the bracedframe affect the way in which a project is executed or
became effective. The window infills, shown in" even prevent its execution. (

Figure 6-1c, however, having stiffness in excess of (


that of the original building piers, would be able 6 ..2 Alternative Retrofit
to adequately protect the building against such strategies
damage.
A wide range of technical and management
The methodology presented in this document
strategies are available for reducing the seismic
has been specifically developed to ensure appro-
risk inherent in an existing building. Technical
priate consideration of the deflection compatibility
strategies are approaches to modifying the basic
of retrofit systems with the existing structure.
demand and response parameters of the building
(
6.1.2.:5 Design constraints for the Design'Earthquake. These strategies
Design constraints are factors other than the include system completion, system strengthening, C
(

building's structural characteristics that affect the system stiffening, enhancing deformation capacity, (
ability of a retrofit strategy or system to be enhancing energy dissipation capacity, and (

effectively implemented. Design constraints that reducing building demand. ('


may affect the applicability of a given retrofit Commentary: In the past, many engineers
strategy include the intended performance have adopted a strategy of retrofitting the building
objectives, design and construction cost limits, the to "meet current code" or to provide a specified
project schedule, historic preservation . fraction 'of the base shear capacity contained in the
requirements, the effects on building appearance current code. This is not really a strategy at all,
and floor space layout, the effects on building but rather a design criterion, often inappropriate,'
occupancy both during and after project fOT use with one of the aforementioned strategies.
construction, and issues of project risk. Basic approaches such as strengthening a (
Commentary: Design constraints are building, or stiffening it, or adding energy (
typically set by persons other than the design team. dissipation capacity, aTe all strategies. Design
These can include political figures, who determine criteria pertain to the amount of strength," stiffness,
the prioritization and scope of programs affecting energy dissipation capacity, or other attributes
state-owned buildings': the client agency, which that are required in order to meet given
determines project cost and schedule constraints; performance objectives. In this methodology, the I

basic design criterion is to maintain damage to (


the building occupants, who determine the func- (
tions that must occur in the building, the extent to critical elements of the building within levels
(
which the building will be occupied during appropriate to the designperformance objective by
(

(
(:j
(
Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies (

(
(
:

controlling lateral drift. Chapters 9 and 10 provide will be within their elastic (linear) range and no
... .design criteria that may be-used.respeciiveiy: in .. . damage.will.occur..At higher levels. of response,
judging the acceptability of likely damage to element deformations will exceed their linear
structural and nonstructural components and elastic capacities and the building will experience
elements of the building under the Design damage. In order to provide reliable seismic
Earthquake. In general, these are not directly tied performance, a building must have a complete
to the building code. lateral force resisting system, capable of limiting
In addition to technical strategies, a number of earthquake-induced lateral displacements to levels
alternative management strategies should also be at which the damage sustained by the building's
considered. Management strategies could include elements will be within acceptable levels for the
decisions to implement the retrofit while the intended performance objective. The basic factors
building remained occupied; to vacate the building that affect the lateral force resisting system's
until the retrofit could be performed; to accept the ability to do this include the building's mass,
existing risk and not retrofit; to change building stiffness, damping, and configuration; the
occupancy so that the risk is acceptable; to deformation capacity of its elements; and the
demolish the building and replace it with an strength and character of the ground motion it
alternative facility; to implement the technical must resist.
strategy on a phased basis over a number of years; Commentary: The technical strategies
or to retrofit on a temporary basis until described in this methodology provide for
replacement facilities can be obtained. Additional improved seismic performance by directly
management strategies could include performing operating on these basic response factors, either
all work on the building exterior. possibly to individually or in concert. The traditional
minimize the impact on building occupants, and approaches to seismic retrofit - the addition of
performing all work on the building interior, in bracedframes and shear walls - operate on
order to preserve the building's exterior building stiffness and strength. Energy dissipation
appearance. systems operate on the structure's damping
Commentary: Management strategies have capability. Base isolation operates on the
often been regarded as beyond the design character and strength of ground motion
engineer's scope of concern. Nevertheless, it is transmitted to the structure.
ve7Y important that the engineer consider these There are a number of analysis procedures
alternative management strategies and assist the (see Chapter 8) that compare measures of seismic
client in selecting an appropriate strategy. The capacity and seismic demand to evaluate existing
management strategy selected can have a great structures. These methods are also useful to
effect on the feasibility and cost of implementing investigate or verify the effectiveness of technical
the various technical strategies. Further, the best retrofit strategies. The following discussion uses
solution for a building is often one that involves the Capacity Spectrum Method to illustrate the
management rather than technical action, such as basic process.
changing the building occupancy or constructing a The capacity spectrum is derived from an
replacement facility. approximate nonlinear, incremental static analysis
for the structure. In the process of performing this
6.2.1 Technical strategies incremental nonlinear static analysis, a capacity
As a building responds to earthquake ground curve is developed for the building. This capacity
motion, it experiences lateral displacements and, curve is simply a plot of the total lateral seismic
in turn, deformations of its individual elements. At shear demand, "V," on the structure, at various
low levels of response, the element deformations

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


(

(
SEISMIC EVA'LUAiION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE" 'BUIl.DINGS (
;

v
,.' Effective stiffness
,.,.,. at displacement. Q
ai
,.,.
e0 ,.,.
u..
,.,.
, ,. (
t-
al
m
.r:
en
eS!
ttl
1. .- - Immediate Occupancy
level , ,.'
.>:

,.,.
,
ute
Safety level .;
,,
...J
"iii CollapseBll!>'

Damage
Unear
elastic
Control
"'...;L.-\J~
(
, range I,'
/ ~:Pyr("- D
(
d!, " Lateral Displacement at'Roof

Increasing earthquake demand - -....... (


(

Figu~e 6-2. TypIcal capacity curve

increments of loading, against the lateral deflection particular type of damage, such as spalling of cover I

of the building at the roof level, under that applied concrete on a column or shear failure of a spandrel C
lateral force. If a building had infinite linear elastic element. Each point is determined by a different
capacity, this capacity curve would be' a straight analysis sequence described in Section 8.2.1. Then,
line with a slope equal to the global stiffness of the by evaluating the cumulative effects"of &image 1

structure. Since 'real buildings do riot have infinite sustained at each of the individual events, arid the (
linear elastic capacities, the capacity curve overall behavior of the structure at increasing
typically consists of a series of straight-line lateral displacements, it is possible to determine
segments with decreasing slope, representing the and indicate on the capacity curve"those total
progressive degradation in structural "stiffness that structural lateral displacements that represent limits
occurs as the building is subjected to increased on the various structural performance levels, as has
lateral displacement, yielding, and damage. The 'it. been done in Figure 6-2. Chapter 11 provides
slope of a straight line drawn from the origin of the specific guidance on"acceptance criteria that may be
plot for this curve to a point on the curve at any used to determine the "lateral deformations for a
lateral displacement, "d," represents the secant or specific structure that correspond to these
"effective" stiffness of the structure when pushed performance limits based on story drift as well as
laterally to that displacement A typical capacity element and component strength and deformation
curve is shown in Figure 6-2. capacities.
In Figure 6-2, the discrete points indicated by Commentary: The process of defining lateral
(
the symbol ... represent the occurrence of deformation points on the capacity curve at which (
important events in the lateral response history of specific structural performance levels may be said
the structure. Such an event may be the initiation of to have "occurred requires the exercise of consid- (
yield in a particular structural element or a erable judgment on the part of the engineer. For
(
/3:
. . ; (
Chapter 6. Retrofit strategies
(

(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE ~UIILDING$

.:

each of the several structural performance levels secondary elements does not have a significant
defined in Chapter 3,._ Chapterl lof this method- . effect.on.the lateral load.resisting.capability of the.
ology defines global system response limits as well building. If in the development of the capacity
as acceptance criteria for the individual structural curve it is determined that a few elements fail to
elements that make up typical buildings. These meet the acceptance criteria for a given
acceptance criteria generally consist of limiting performance level at an increment of lateral
values of element deformation parameters, such as loading and displacement, the engineer has the
the plastic chord rotation of a beam or shear angle ability to designate these "nonconforming"
of a wall. These limiting values have been selected elements as secondary, enabling the use ofmore
as reasonable approximate estimates of the average liberal acceptance criteria for these few elements.
deformations at which certain types of element Care must be exercised not to designate an
behavior such as cracking, yielding, spalling, or excessive number of elements that are effective in
crushing, may be expected to occur. As the resisting lateral forces as secondary. Chapter 9
incremental static nonlinear analyses are provides further guidance on this issue.
performed, the engineer must monitor the The capacity spectrum curve for the structure is
cumulative deformations of all important structural obtained by transforming the capacity curve from
elements and evaluate them against the acceptance lateral force (V) vs. lateral displacement (d)
criteria contained in Chapter 11. coordinates to spectral acceleration (Sa) vs. spec-
The point on the capacity curve at which the tral displacement (Sd) coordinates using the modal
first element exceeds the permissible deformation shape vectors, participation factors and modal
parameter for a structural performance level does masses obtained from a modal analysis of the
not necessarily represent the point at which the structure (see "Conversion to ADRS Spectra"
structure as a whole reaches that structural per- sidebar).
formance level. Most structures contain many When the capacity curve is plotted in Sa VS. S«
elements and have considerable redundancy. Con- coordinates, radial lines drawn from the origin of
sequently, the onset of unacceptable damage to a the plot through the curve at various spectral
small percentage of these elements may not repre- displacements have a slope (ofi, where 00' is the
sent an unacceptable condition with regard to the radial frequency of the effective (or secant)
overall performance of the building. When deter- first-mode response of the structure if pushed by an
mining the points along the capacity curve for a earthquake to that spectral displacement.
structure at which the various structural perform- Using the relationship T' = 21Clm', it is pos-
ance levels may be said to be reached, the engi- sible to calculate, for each of these radial lines, the
neer must view the performance of the building as a effective period of the structure if it is pushed to
whole and consider the importance of damage given spectral displacements. Figure 6-3 is a
predicted for the various elements on the overall capacity spectrum plot obtained from the capacity
behavior of the building. curve shown in Figure 6-2 and plotted with the
This methodology incorporates the concept of effective modal periods shown. The particular
"primary" and "secondary" elements to assist the structure represented by this plot would have an
engineer in making these judgments. Primary ele- elastic period of approximately 1/2 second. At is
ments are those that are required as part of the pushed progressively farther by stronger ground
lateral force resisting system for the structure. All motion, this period lengthens. The building repre-
other elements are designated as secondary ele- sented in Figures 6-2 and 6-3 would experience
ments. For a given performance level, secondary collapse before having its stiffness degraded
elements are generally permitted to sustain more enough enough to produce an effective period of 2
damage than primary elemen.ts since degradation of seconds.

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


(
(
(
SEISMIC EVAI.UATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRE!TE BUILDINGS
(
:: (
(
\

Conversion to ADRS Spectra


(
Application of the Capacity-Spectrum technique requires that both the demand response
spectra and structural capacity (or pushover) curves be plotted in the spectral acceleration (
vs. spectral displacement domain. Spectra plotted in this format are known as
Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS) after Mahaney et al., 1993.
Every point on a response spectrum curve has
associated with it a unique spectral acceleration.,- Sa'
E Sa
:::::l spectral velocity, S", spectral displacement, Sdand
l-
t) c I
I
period, T. To convert a spectrum. from the standard (
G) 0 I
0.-- I Sa vs T format found in the building code to ADRS
f})~ I
------,----- I
format, it is necessary to determine the value of (
G) G) I I
fI) > '--_---'_ _-'--_T Sdi for each point on the curve, Soi> T i • This can be
J:: C To' T; done with the equation: (
o 0 Standard Format (Sa vs 1:') ,£2
0.0
fI)
G)
Sa. = 4~2 Sa;g (
a: /
/
Standard demand response spectra contain a (
/
/
range of constant spectral acceleration and a
Sar L
/
;:
second range of constant spectral velocity.
/
F_ _ "_-
-
Spectral acceleration and displacement at period
Ti are given by:
2tr 1; (
Sa,g=-s. =;;;:s.
1;
Sdi
oU' C
C In order to develop the capacity spectrum from
o (
the capacity (or pushover) curve, it is necessary
'Ci) (
I- to do a point by point conversion to first mode .
('
~ spectral coor-dinates.Any point Vi' 400f on the (
C capacity curve is converted to the corresponding
o
c point Sail Sdi on the capacity spectrum using
E the equations: RoofDisplacement -.1,-
:::s
l- S '= VJW/
t) ai /~I
Capacity Curve
G)
0.
f}) S - !:lroof I
~ di - / (PF X I tPI,roof ) {
'um where. a1 and PF1 are respectively the modal mass (
0. coefficient and participation factors for the first
es
(.). natural mode of the structure and $ l,roofis the roof
level amplitude of the first mode. See also Section
8.5, Basics of Structural Dynamics. Spectral Displacement - ~
Capacity Spectrum

(
(:b_
Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies
(
(
o ;.
~,
~'
...... '
,/1 "
(1)1' f.., "
C I
.Q i
co I

lii 0.6g "


(jj I.--- Im,nediate Occupancy
~ 0.5g I~vel
~
"0 0.4g
Ql
Collapse
6r 0.3g
0.2g

0.1g

0.5" 1.0" 1.5" 2.0" 2.5" 3" 3.5" 4" 4.5'" 5" 5.5" 6" 6.5" 7"
Spectral Displacement, ~

Figure 6-$. Typical capacityspectrum

The capacity of a particular building and the response spectrum described in Chapter 4. This
demand imposed upon it by a given earthquake spectrum. is plotted in spectral ordiIiates (ADRS)
motion are not independent. One source of this format showing the spectral acceleration as a
mutual dependence is evident from the capacity function of spectral displacement. This format
curve itself. As the demand increases, the allows the demand spectrum to be overlaid" on fl

structure eventually yields and, as its stiffness the capacity spectrum for the building. The
decreases, its period lengthens. Conversion of the intersection of the demand and capacity spectra, if
capacity curve to spectral ordinates (ADRS) makes located in the linear range of the capacity, would
this concept easier to visualize. Since the seismic define the actual displacement for the structure;
accelerations depend on period, demand also . however this is not normally the case as most
changes as the structure yields. Another source- of analyses include some inelastic: nonlinear behavior.
mutual dependence between capacity and demand To find the point where demand and capacity are
is effective damping. As a building yields in equal, the engineer selects a point on the capacity
response to seismic demand it dissipates energy spectrum. as an initial estimate. Using the spectral
with hysteretic damping. Buildings that havelarge, acceleration and displacement defined by this
stable hysteresis loops during cyclic yielding point, the engineer then can calculate reduction
dissipate more energy than those with pinched factors to apply to the 5 % elastic spectrum to ac-
loops caused by degradation of strength and count for the hysteretic energy dissipation, or ef-
stiffness. Since the energy that is dissipated need fective damping, associated with the specific point.
not be stored in the structure, the effective If the reduced demand spectrum intersects the
damping diminishes displacement demand. capacity spectrum at or near the initial assumed
The capacity spectrum method initially point, then it is the solution for the unique point
characterizes seismic demand using an elastic where capacity equals demand. If the intersection

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


(
(

(
(
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS (
(

: (
(

(
(

(
j (
~---
....... (
II' (
l..,,' Demand spectra for different
(
\.
damping values calculated
rn'" based on estimated dp (
r:=
o (
'Ii Performance point
:n 0.69 where capacity equals demand
(.
J 0.59
\. ..~/
a p=O.32g , dp=2.5"
s
(ij

Q)
O.4g t - - - - +

c% 0.3g

0.29
---
0.19 (
-- --- (
(

0.5" 1.0' 1.5" 2.0" 2..5" 3" 3..5" 4" 4.5" S' 5..5" 6" 6.5" 7"
Spectral Displacement, Sd

Figure 6-4. Determination of PerFormance Point

is not reasonably close to the initial point, then the same technique is used throughout the balance of (.
engineer can assume a new point somewhere this chapter to illustrate the way in which the (
between and repeat the process until a solution is various alternative retrofit strategies may be used (

reached. This is the performance point where the to design for project performance objectives. (
capacity of the structure matches the demand for Commentary: The methodology described (

the specific earthquake. here for the determination of the performance (


Once the performance point has been point is an approximate approach to determining
determined, the acceptability of a rehabilitation the nonlinear response of a building to a given
design to meet the project performance objectives ground motion. It should not be considered to be
can be judged by evaluating where the an exact solution with regard to the estimates of
performance point falls on the capacity curve. For displacement response it predicts. For a given
the structure and earthquake represented by the ground motion time history, a dynamic nonlinear
overlay indicated in Figure 6-4, the performance analysis of the structure may result in somewhat
point occurs within the central portion of the- different predictions ofmaximum structural (

damage control performance range as shown in displacement than does this method. However, (
Figure 6-3, indicating that for this earthquake this - such dynamic nonlinear analyses will result in
structure would have less damage than permitted different predictions of displacement even for
i
for the Life Safety level and more than would be multiple time histories enveloped by the same (
permitted for the hnmediate Occupancy level. response spectrum but having different records.
With this information, the effectiveness of the Recent studies have indicated that for structures (
particular rehabilitation strategy to achieve the dominated by first mode response, the capacity
project performance objectives can be judged. This spectrum methodology described here provides a (
I
(
(~

6-10 Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies ( -


(
j
(
:

good average estimate of the displacements 6.2.1.1.1 Chords, Collectors, and Drags.
predicted by multiple time. history analyses using Diaphragm.chords.icollectors; and drags may..be...
different records with the same enveloping constructed of new reinforced concrete
spectrum. The method may not be quite as effective beams/struts or of flush-mounted steel plates or
for structures with significant higher mode members with drilled-in anchors. Where there are
participation in their earthquake response. existing beams, these may be converted to
collector elements by enhancing their capacity or
6.2.1.1 system completion providing strengthening at end connections. This
System completion strategies are applicable to approach is very common for timber diaphragms,
structures that have the basic components of an a common element of some older concrete
adequate lateral force resisting system, including construction.
diaphragms and walls or frames, but that lack Commentary: The provision of adequate
some details required to make the system complete attachments between new elements and the existing
or to ensure that the system behaves as intended. ones is an important consideration for this
The capacity spectrum for such a structure would strategy. Drilled-in anchors, commonly used to
typically intersect the demand spectra at an attach new elements to existing concrete, often
acceptable performance point; before reaching that have limited ductility. If inelastic behavior is
point, however, some local failure events would expected of the new element, the new anchors must
occur. Common deficiencies that may lead to such have adequate strength to transfer the teal
local failures include a lack of adequate chord and demands on the element without brittle failure.
collector elements at diaphragms, inadequate Attachments between retrofit steel elements and
bearing length at precast element supports, and existing concrete often consist of bolted
inadequate anchorage or bracing of structural or connections. These bolted connections inherently
nonstructural components. Correction of these include some «slop, " resulting from the oversize
deficiencies through provision of the missing holes in the steel members. Before these elements
elements would enable the structure to behave in can become -effective, sufficient displacement of the
the desired manner, Often this strategy must be structure must occur to take up this slop. The
implemented together with other strategies to result could be the onset ofsignificant damage to
obtain a building with the desired seismic the structure before the retrofit elements become
performance capabilities. effective.
Commentary: Precast concrete tilt-up 6.2.1.1.2 Element Connectivity. Most
buildings are an example of a class of building for concrete structures are monolithically constructed
which system completion strategies are often and have adequate nominal interconnection
appropriate. These buildings commonly have between elements. Buildings that incorporate
adequate shear walls and diaphragms. If a precast elements may require some supplemental
capacity spectrum curvefor such a building were interconnection of elements. This is typically
to be constructed, it would be found capable of achieved by adding steel hardware between
meeting acceptable structural performance levels. elements at their end connections.
However,. a common deficiency of these buildings 6.2.1.1.3 Anchorage and Bracing of
is a lack of adequate anchorage between the Components. To achieve some performance
precast wall panels and the diaphragms. An objectives, the architectural, mechanical, and
appropriate strategy for such a building is to electrical components of the building must be
complete the existing structural system through adequately braced and anchored to resist inertial
provision of adequate out-of-plane anchorage forces and the drifts the building is expected to
between the walls and diaphragms.

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies 6 ..11


SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT- OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Ii
_.. _. __ .~L .
...."", . .----=-:-:-:----:-:-~--:-.._..
Reduceifdemand spectra
- -- " --
III (
g.,1 for strengthened structure
Elastic I (
Demand " Reduced demand spectra (
rJJ'" I for original structure (
I
g I

~Gl I
Performance
I point - strengthened
J I
I
I
structure
C.
(-

~s 0. 359 Periormance
7.sd:-
't' ::_- (

rJJ point - original - C


structure
T' =_~~~.;.-
----

4" 6" 8" 10"


Spectral Displacement, 5.t

Figure 6-5. EFFect of sYstem strengthening on perFormance

experience in response to earthquake ground lateral force resisting systems. The two are closely
motion. related but different. The effect of strengthening a
Commentary: The adequacy of attachment of structure is to increase the amount of total lateral
nonstruetural.components to a building can not force required to initiate damage events within the
generally be determined by using the capacity structure. If this strengthening is done without (
spectrum technique. The more traditional stiffening, then the effect is to permit the structure (

equivalent lateral force technique is typically used to achieve larger lateral displacements without (
to evaluate the effectiveness of existing anchorage damage. Figure 6-5 uses a demand/capacity
and bracing systems and to design retrofit spectrum plot to illustrate the effect of system
anchorage and bracing. Chapter 10 outlines the strengthening on earthquake performance.
recommended methodology for this aspect of In Figure 6-5, the capacity spectrum defined
seismic retrofitting. However, the capacity by the curve A-B-C-D represents the performance
spectrum method does provide an excellent tool for of an unstrengthened structure. It has an initial
estimating the drift the building may experience in elastic period of one second, a spectral
the Design Earthquake and therefore, does provide acceleration capacity at first significant yield of (

some valuable information for the seismic upgrade O.05g, ultimate spectral acceleration capacity of (
of nonstructural components that are drift O.lOg and ultimate spectral deformation capacity
sensitive. of approximately six inches. The performance
point for this unstrengthened structure occurs at
6.2.1.2 System strengthening and point "D" indicating that the structure just meets
StiFfening the Structural Stability performance level for this
System strengthening and stiffening are the earthquake. The curve A-B-E-F-G-H is one
most common seismic performance improvement possible capacity curve for the structure after it
strategies adopted for buildings with inadequate has been strengthened. Note that the initial elastic

p
( _.,
&-12 Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies
(

0
ilJl'
·s;·- -.. - . -- . '~f _. .- .-- ....... ,.
.,,<3;'"
Elastic ,II,' "\. ...
~~ ....
Demand " ,,
W
~
1
1
,,
§ Reducedl
...
.~ Demand' Performance
"*g I
point - stiffened
1
~ 1
structure

~i
W I
"
0.35g -----:-------------, 'X~:s_.-6~--;;;;---·":::ll~~~
... ....--.Y"',,-..-,,-.
'"
,., seC _.
'1:-.:'---
0.22g. ) C .. _
" 81
" _---- I : --- point- original
-.:_::-----------:----6
1 __ structure
A-fF-......::.:=.----+-------''-------'--'---+
0" 2" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12"
Spectral Displacement. Sd

Figure 5-5. Effect of system stiffening on Performance

period for the structure remains at one second, addition of walls or frames, will also increase
indicating that the structure has not been stiffened. structural stiffness. Exceptions to this are
Also, the ultimate spectral displacement capacity relatively local-retrofit measures that strengthen
for the structure remains at approximately six existing elements without greatly altering their
inches, indicating it has not been provided with stiffness. For example, a common deficiency of
additional deformation capacity. However, the older concrete frames-is that the longitudinal
structure has been strengthened resulting in an reinforcing in these frames has inadequate lap
increase in its spectral acceleration capacity at first splice lengths, resulting in a low flexural strength.
significant yieldto O.22g and an ultimate spectral . Provision of confinement around the splices can
acceleration capacity of O.35g. This improve their performance and allow the frame to
"strengthened" curve has a new performance develop greater strength without substantially
point, at about 4 inches displacement, well within affecting its stiffness. Such measures are also
the requirements for the Structural Stability likely to enhance the frame's deformation capacity,
structural performance level. however. The example indicated in Figure 6-5
Commentary: Figure 6-5 illustrates the effect should therefore be regarded as an abstract,
of a retrofit system that includes pure strength- intended to illustrate the way structural
ening without affecting either the original stiffness strengthening affects the behavior of a structure.
of the structure, as illustrated by the slope of the . The effect of stiffening a structure is illustrated
initial segment of the capacity spectra, ·or the in Figure 6-6. Curve A-B-C-D-E in the figure is
deformation capacity of the structure, as the perforinance curve for an unstiffened structure.
illustrated by the fact that the capacity spectra It has an initial elastic period of approximately 1.5
shown for both the original and the strengthened seconds, a spectral acceleration capacity at first
structure reach their ultimate strength at the same significant yield of O.22g and an ultimate spectral
deformation level. In reality, most retrofit systems acceleration capacity of O.35g. Curve A-F-G-H-I
that increase structural strength, such as the is the performance curve for the same structure

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


__ -.:.-__.._..
u~.

.-::;:;;>""'-=a.':'=-.

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUII.DINGS

(
\. v

(
after it has been stiffened. The initial elastic period bases, that may require supplemental foundation
..of the.stiffened. structure is.L second, while. the. work; whichis. often. expensive: - _.- --- .-_._-_ .
spectral acceleration capacities at first yield and 6.2.1.2.2 Braced Frames. Braced "steel
ultimate remain unchanged. The effect of this frames are another common method of enhancing (
stiffening modification is to shift the performance an existing building's stiffness and strength.
('
point from a deflection of approximately 4-1/2 Typically, braced frames provide lower levels of
inches to a deflection of approximately 4 inches. stiffness and strength than do shear walls, but
This does not result in significant change in the they add far less mass to the structure than do
structural performance of the lateral force resisting shear walls, can be constructed with less
system. However, the performance of elements of dismption of the building, result in less loss of
a
the structure that donot participate to significant light, and have a smaller effect on traffic patterns
extent in resisting lateral forces but that are . within the building.
sensitive to induced lateral deformations'can be Commentary: It is often difficult to effectively
significant. Such elements could include attach bracedframes to a concrete building
non-ductile gravity load bearing columns; flat slab because relatively large forces must be transferred
systems and architectural partitions and cladding. between the structure and the bracedframes.
System strengthening and stiffening are nearly Typical attachment methods employ drilled-in (
always performed as concurrent strategies, since anchors, which have relatively low strength. The
most systems that will strengthen a structure also solution is often to use long drag or collector ele-
simultaneously stiffen it; similarly, stiffening tech- ments that attach the new steel frame to the exist-
'niques also usually result in a strength increase. ing concrete structure by means. of a large number
Typical systems employed for stiffening and offasteners, lfthese drag elements are not ade-
strengthening include the addition of new vertical quately rigid and strong local deformation of the
elements, including shear walls, braced frames, drag can result in excessive demand on the con-
buttresses, or moment resisting frames. nectors. This can cause an "Unzipping" effect, in
Diaphragms may need to be added as well. which connectors along the length of the drag are
6.2.1.2.1 Shear Walls. The introduction of sequentially overstressed and fait shedding the
shear walls into an existing 'concrete structure is excessive loads to the next group of connectors.
one of the most commonly employed approaches Some failures have occurred in seismically retro-
to seismic upgrading. It is an extremely effective fitted structures in the past as a result of this
method of increasing both building strength and effect.
stiffness. A shear wall system is often economical 6.2.1.2.3 Buttresses. Buttresses are braced
and tends to be readily compatible with most frames or shear walls installed perpendicular" to an
existing concrete structures. exterior wall of the structure to provide
Commentary: The addition of shear walls to supplemental stiffness and strength. This system is
an existing structure can have some adverse often a convenient one to use when a building must
impacts that the engineer should be aware of. If a remain occupied during construction, as most of
large number of shear walls are added to a . the construction work can be performed on the
building, they can result in a significant increase building exterior, rn.inimizing the inconvenience to
in building mass and therefore increase seismic building occupants. Sometimes a building addition
forces and strength requirements. Shear walls can intended to provide additional floor space can be
often result in significant architectural impact " used to buttress the original structure for added (
through the loss of windows and the introduction seismic resistance.
of barriers within areas offloor space. They also Commentary: Braced frames and shear walls
tend to produce large overturning forces at their placed within a building can often be designed to
(

6·14 Chapter G, Retrofit strategies

(
(

seiSMIC EVALUATION AND ·RETIIUJFIT @F CONCR~T~ !i;;UJn.DnNG~


- -
:

mobilize the weight of the structure to resist performance of a building. If significant


overturning. demands. Buttresses, situated outside diaphragm.deformation.orinelastic. behavior is
the structure cannot do this and typically require expected in the building, then this behavior should
the construction offoundations to provide the be modeled in the building analysis and the
necessary overturning resistance. Because the resulting deformations included in the construction
work is performed outside the building line, of the capacity curve for the building.
however, the cost of buttresses may be
substantially lower than that for interior shear 6.2.1.3 Enhancing DeFormation capacity
walls or braced frames, even given the added Improvement in building seismic performance
foundation requirement. Because they are located through enhancement of the ability of individual
at the building exterior, buttresses can have elements within the building to resist deformations
significant aesthetic impact; they are seldom induced by the building response is a relatively
appropriate for buildings that are considered new method of seismic upgrading for concrete .
historically important. buildings. Figure 6-7 illustrates the effect of
6.2.1.2.4 Moment Resisting Frames. enhancing deformation capacity on building
Moment-resisting frames can be an effective performance.
system to add strength to a building without As illustrated in the figure the capacity curve
substantially increasing the building's stiffness. for the original building (A-B-C-D-E) is unable to
Moment frames have the advantage of being intersect the demand curve at a performance point
relatively open and therefore can be installed with because critical failure of an element occurs prior
relatively minimal impact on floor space. to this intersection. If this critical element is
Commentary: Deflection compatibility is often modified, such that its deformation capacity is
a problemfor this system, since moment-resisting increased, then the capacity curve for the building
frames must experience relatively large lateral can extend (A-B-C-D-F-G) to larger spectral
deflections before their strength can be mobilized. displacements, allowing the performance point
Marry 'concrete buildingshave relatively limited at
intersection to occur an acceptable structural
deformation capacity, and therefore the usefulness performance level. .
of this system in the retrofit of concrete structures Systematic methods of enhancing deformation
is somewhat. limited. capacity include adding confinement to existing
6.2.1.2.5 Diaphragm Strengthening. Most elements, making local reductions in stiffness,
concrete buildings pave adequate diaphragms. modifying columns to alter mechanisms, and
Exceptions occur where large openings are present providing supplemental support at areas subject to
or where offsets in the vertical elements of the deformation-induced failure. These methods often
system produce locally high demands. Methods of have significantly less architectural impact than do
enhancing diaphragms include the provision of approaches that involve structural strengthening
topping slabs, metal plates laminated onto the top and/or stiffening.
surface of the slab, or horizontal braced Commentary: This strategy is typically most
diaphragms beneath the concrete slabs. For effective when the necessary enhanced deformation
. buildings with timber diaphragms, diaphragm capacity can be obtained by modifying only a few
strengthening can be achieved by increasing the existing elements. If the required modifications
existing nailing in the sheathing, replacing the must be placed throughout the structure, this
sheathing with stronger material, or overlaying the strategy can become quite costly and disruptive of
existing sheathing with plywood. occupancy during construction.
Commentary: It is important to consider the 6.2.1.3.1 Adding Confinement. The
behavior of diaphragms when evaluating the deformation capacity of nonductile concrete

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDIINGS

:
(

(
IJ,
. ------.--.. - ... - -. ··-S- -_. .--- - - !1/-
""' ..--- .-:
a q /
Elastic t.. / (
Demand ,
,/ (
(
Reduced'
Demandt ( I
/ (
I

/
/
(
,
I (
,
/ l' ",'1_~_--
I -- --
" "
, " " -----E "" -~--.._-----
,,,,," -----
A -:.- -::::.::-----------
on T 4 U
6n 8 U
10"
Spectral Displacement, 5.t (
(
(
Figure 6-7. Effect of Deformation Enhancement on structural performance (
~
columns can be enhanced through provision of develops within the story in which the mechanism (::-
exterior confinement jacketing. Jacketing may OCCll...TS. The concentration of these displacement
consist of continuous steel plates encasing the demands within the single story results in very
existing element, reinforced concrete annuluses, large local inelastic deformation demands on the
and fiber-reinforced plastic fabrics. columns at relatively low levels of total structure
Commentary: Confinement jacketing can lateral displacement. If the- columns can be
improve the deformation capacity of concrete- strengthened such that the beams become the
elements in much the same way that closely spaced weaker elements, this will inhibit the formation of (
hoops in ductile concrete elements do. To be story mechanisms and will permit much larger
effective, the jacketing material must resist the overall structural drifts to be attained.
bursting pressure exerted 1Yy the existing concrete Commentary: .Strengthening columns to
element (under the influence of compressive prevent the formation ofstory mechanisms may be
stresses.) in a rigid manner. Circular or oval difficult to accomplish effectively. In addition to
jackets can provide the necessary confinement in strengthening the columns, it is necessary to
an efficient manner through the development of strengthen the connection between the beams and
hoop stresses. Rectangular jackets tend to be less columns to allow development of the larger
effective and require cross ties in order to develop moments. In addition, many concrete frames are (
the required stiffness. not reinforced to permit reversing flexural yielding (
6.2.1.3.2 Column Strengthening. Many of the beams. Thus the ductility of a frame in (
older concrete frames incorporate a strong which the columns have been strengthened may' (

beam-weak column configuration. Buildings with still be quite limited. (


this configuration tend to develop single-story 6.2.1.3.3 Local Stiffness Reductions. Local I
mechanisms in which all of the inelastic reductions in stiffness can be an effective way to (
deformation demand produced by the earthquake prevent undesirable damage modes as well as to (

(
(

(
.~
Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies ( ~~
(

(
(

(
minimize damage to a few scattered elements that more-conventional approaches. However, these
are not essential to the building's overall special systems do have the. added.benefit of ....
.performance. Many older concrete structures are providing for reduced demands on building
subject to short-column failures at perimeter walls, contents. Consequently, these approaches are often
resulting from the presence of deep spandrels. appropriate for buildings housing critical
These effects can often be reduced by introducing occupancies with sensitive equipment or a need to
joints between the face of the column and adjacent attain rapid postearthquake functionality. They
architectural elements, such as spandrel panels or may also be attractive for the retrofitting of
infiIls, that create the condition. Some buildings historic structures because they may make it
may have one or more walls that are present for possible to retrofit the structure to be retrofitted
architectural rather than structural reasons. These without extensive invasive construction within the
walls may be quite stiff and either attract more historic spaces. This benefit can sometimes be
lateral force than they can resist or introduce over estimated, however, and many structures
torsional response or discontinuous load paths into employing a strategy of reducing earthquake
the structure. Local demolition of these elements, demands also require supplemental strengthening
or modification of them to reduce their stiffness, and stiffening.
can result in a cost-effective performance Commentary: Seismic retrofits that
improvement for the structure. incorporate base isolation and energy dissipation
6.2.1.3.4 Supplemental Support. This systems have drawn the structural engineering
approach can be effective for the mitigation of industry's attention in recent years, and many
deficient gravity load bearing elements that are not engineers are eager to apply these technologies in
significant to the lateral force resistance of the retrofit projects. The practical applicability of both
structure but whose support can be jeopardized by ofthese technologies is somewhat limited,
large lateral building deflections. For example, flat however. Further, since these technologies are
slabs that may be subject to punching shear complex, a significant amount of engineering effort
failures due to induced lateral building is often required in order to develop a preliminary
deformations could be provided with supplemental design incorporating them. Engineers should be
bearing supports at columns. Similarly, precast cautious in committing to detailed evaluations of
beams with inadequate bearing length could be the applicability of either ofthese systems unless
provided with supplemental bearing supports. the added cost appears to be warranted. Further
information on the conditions most likely to result
6.2.1.4 Reducing Earthquake Demands in favorable application of these technologies is
Rather than modifying the capacity of the provided below.
building to withstand earthquake-induced forces 6.2.1.4.1 Base Isolation. This approach
and deformations, this strategy involves requires the insertion of compliant bearings within
modification of the response of the structure such a single level of the building's vertical load
that the demand forces and deformations are carrying system, typically near its base. The
reduced. In effect, the demand spectrum for the bearings are designed to have relatively low
structure, rather than the capacity spectrum, is stiffness, extensive lateral deformation capacity
modified. Methods for achieving this strategy and may also have superior energy dissipation
include reductions in the building's mass and the characteristics. Installation of an isolation system
installation of systems for base isolation and/or results in a substantial increase in the building's
energy dissipation. The installation of these special fundamental response period and, potentially, its
protective systems within a building typically effective damping. Since the isolation bearings
entails a significantly larger investment than do have much greater lateral compliance than does the

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

(
"

(
NOTE: The family of (
reduced.demand .._ _ . __ T'=; 112 sec ..
spectra reflect the iT=fseC .
I I
effect of damping on I I ,
I I (
response. See I I T'=2sec
ChapterS I d ;=4" I
"'" "'" Family of reduced
(
0.60g
: d'p;=8" /" "'" "'" demand spectra (
/" "'"
uf I
I -'- depending on (
maximum
6 0.50g f-~~~L.,
displacement dfor
! system without (
~ 0.40g isolators and d' for t:
~ system with (
~ 0.30g isolators.

w
S- 0.20g (
("

0.10g

(
4" S" 12" 16" 20" 24" r
Spectral Displacement, ScI
FIgure 6-8. Typical EFfect of Base Isolation on Demands and capacities

structure itself; lateral deformation demands The effective elastic period of the base isolated
produced by the earthquake tend to concentrate in structure is lengthened to approx-imately 2.5
the bearings themselves. Together these effects seconds. Initial yielding of the fIxed-base structure
result in greatly. reduced lateral demands on the (point B) occurs at a spectral displacement of
portion of the building located above the isolation approximately 1/2 inch. For the isolated structure,
(
bearings. Figure 6-8 illustrates the combiried effect this same yield behavior (point B') occurs at a
on the demand and capacity spectra of introducing spectral displacement of approximately 4 inches.
base isolation into a building. Similarly, ultimate spectral displacement capacity
In the figure, Curve A-B-C-D-E represents of the isolated structure increases from six
the capacity spectrum for the original, unretrofitted inches (point D) to approximately 24 inches ,r
structure. This structure has an initial elastic period (point D'). (
of approximately 1/2 second, and an ultimate When a structure is base isolated, the energy
deformation capacity of about 6 inches. First dissipation that occurs at a given displacement is (
significant yielding occurs at point "B" and the significantly different from that which occurs for
ultimate strength is developed at point D. Since the the same structure in a fixed-base condition.
capacity spectrum does not intersect a demand curve Consequently, in order to overlay the demand and
from the dp family at a corresponding max-imum capacity spectra for a base isolated structure, it
displacement, the structure would not survive the becomes necessary to recompute the effective
design earthquake. Curve A-A'-B'-C'-D'-E' damping of the family of demand curves at various
is the capacity curve for the structure with base maximum structural displacements. This is
isolation installed. The yield and ultimate strengths denoted in the figure by the d'» values indicated
of the structure remain unchanged; however, the for each of the demand spectra. As can be seen,
displacements at which yielding and ultimate because the base isolation bearings introduce sig-
behavior occur are greatly increased by the nificant reductions in overall structural stiffness, it
displacement contribution of the isolation bearings. takes greater displacements to achieve the same

6 ..18 Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


effective damping. However, because the isolated performing substantial modifications to the
systemis capable of safety accommodating far superstructure, thus sparing the important historic
greater displacements than the fixed base fabric oj the building from damage during the
structure, it is also capable of mobilizing much construction period. Often, however, substantial
larger effective damping once it is isolated. modification to the superstructure has been
The performance point for the base isolated necessary in order to obtain the required stiffness
structure, as shown in Figure 6-8, occurs at a and strength above the isolators. When this
spectral displacement of approximately 14 inches. occurs. it has resulted in some very large project
Of this 14-inch displacement, approximately costs as well as a loss of the presumed benefits for
12 inches, the distance along the displacement axis historic preservation.
of the plot between the performance point and the Base isolation ma:y be most effective as a
corresponding point on the fixed-base curve, is retrofit system when applied in buildings for which
accommodated by the isolator. The structure itself there are enhanced performance objectives. The
displaces only the residual amount, approximately significant reduction in displacement response and
two inches. It should be noted that all of these accelerations that occur within the superstructure
displacements are in spectral coordinates. In order of an isolated building results in much better
to determine the actual displacements, it would be performance of equipment, systems, and other
necessary to transform the isolated capacity nonstructural elements than is attainable with most
spectrum back into a capacity curve (base shear other retrofit systems.
vs. roof displacement coordinates). Chapter 8 6.2.1.4.2 Energy Dissipation Systems.
provides guidance on the procedure for doing this. Energy dissipation systems directly increase the
Commentary: For base isolation to be ability of the structure to dampen earthquake
effective, most of the displacement induced into the response in a benign manner, through either
isolated structural system must occur within the viscous or hysteretic damping. This approach
isolators. In order for this to occur, the structure requires the installation of energy dissipation units
above the isolation system must have an effective (EDUs) within the lateral force resisting system.
stiffness that is significantly in excess of that of the The EDDs dissipate energy and in the process
isolation bearings. The effective stiffness of the reduce the displacement demands on the structure.
superstructure is a junction of both its elastic The installation of EDUs often requires the
stiffness and the amount oj inelastic behavior it installation of vertical braced frames to serve as a
exhibits under the residual demands transmitted by mounting platform for the units and therefore,
the isolators. Base isolation works best for typically results in a simultaneous increase in
structures that have an initial, unmodified elastic system stiffness. Energy dissipation systems
stiffness of 1 second or less. Further, isolation is typically have a greater cost than conventional
most effective if the superstructure can. remain systems for stiffening and strengthening a building
nearly elastic under the residual demands but have the potential to provide enhanced
delivered by the isolators. In order to achieve performance.
these two conditions, the installation of a base Figure 6-9 illustrates the effect of energy
isolation retrofit frequently also requires stiffening dissipation on the capacity and demand curves for
and strengthening of the structure as well. a retrofitted structure. Curve A-B-C-D is the
Base isolation has most commonly been used capacity spectrum for the structure without energy
in the past as a method of retrofitting historic dissipation units. A performance point occurs for
structures. Initially the decision to use base this unretrofitted structure at a spectral
isolation for this purpose is often based on a belief displacement of approximately 5 inches resulting
that the upgrade can be accomplished without

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

(
NOTE: The family of
Family of reduced (
reduced demand .. - --demand-spectra-
-spectra'reflect the
depending on
effect of damping on
maximum
response. See
displacement d for
(
Chapter 8 '
system without (
0.50g energy dissipators (
and d' for system with (
cIJ energy dissipators
c:
0 0.4Og
(
:;::
T'=2sec (
s(J)
iii
-' f
0
~
0.30g Initial performance (,
ets point
(
(

(J)
0-
0.20g T'=3se~.
(
C/)
--- (
0.10g {
(
r
4" 6" SD 10" (
Spectral Displacement, &! (
(
(::
,
Figure 6-9. EfFect ofEnhanced Damping on Building perFormance

in a Structural Stability structural performance the individual EDUs and the displacement across (
(
level. Curve A-B' -C' -D'-E' is the capacity the EDUs. If a bitilding is relatively rigid, the
spectrum for the structure after installation of the energy dissipation system will not be able to
r
EDUs. This curve indicates a structure that has effectively dampen its response before damage has (
both added stiffness, the initial elastic period has occurred. Therefore, these systems are most r
shifted from approximately 1.5 seconds to applicable to frame structures. (,
approximately 0.75 second, and also somewhat An important aspect of buildings retrofitted
greater strength. The most important effect with energy dissipation systems is that the damping (
however is on the demand spectra. The efficiency of building response provided by these systems
of the EDUs in dissipating energy results in much - greatly reduces the amount of motion delivered to
greater effective damping at any displacement. building contents. As a result, the use of energy
This is evidenced by the lower d p values com- dissipation systems should be considered for
pared to dp values for the demand spectra. The buildings for which the protection of critical
result is that the performance point for the retro- systems or contents is important. r
fitted structure shifts to a.spectral displacement 6.2.1.4.3 Mass Reduction. The performance (
that is slightly less than three inches, resulting in of some buildings can be greatly improved by - (
attainment of the Life Safety structural reducing the building mass. Building mass (
performance -level. reductions reduce the building's natural period, the
Commentary: Energy dissipation systems are amount of inertial force that develops during its (
most effective when installed in structures that response, and the total displacement demand on
have a significant lateral deformation capacity. the structure. Mass can be reduced by removing (
The amount of energy dissipated by these systems tf
heavy nonstructural elements, such as cladding,
(
is directly proportional to the force developed by water tanks, and storage. In the extreme, mass
Ii
(
if
&-20 Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies (~-

il
:

reduction can be attained by removing one or more level, but not the Immediate Occupancy level
building. stories. . would not be an acceptable risk.for an acute care
Commentary: Although mass reduction can be facility at a hospital. It might be very adequate,
a very effective method of improving a building's however, for use as a day care center or for
seismic performance, it is also a relatively radical medical offices. An appropriate strategy for such a
technique and consequently is seldom actually situation may be to use the existing building for
implemented. In most cases, the reductions in one of these latter occupancies and construct a new
building mass that can be achieved by removing acute care facility. The desirability of this
contents are quite limited in comparison to the approach would obviously depend on a number of
overall weight of the structure. The removal of factors, including a need for the building in the
building stories can result in more significant alternative use, the availability of funding to
reductions in weight but has obvious detrimental construct a replacement facility, and the
impacts with regard to the amount offloor space availability of land.
available.
6.2.2.2 nemoutton
6.2.2 Management strategies In some cases, the cost of improving a
Management strategies are programmatic in building's seismic performance to the desired level
nature and are typically controlled by the building may exceed its economic value. In others, the
owner rather than the design team. Management required structural modifications may render the
strategies tend to be of two types: strategies that building undesirable for its intended occupancy.
affect the acceptability of the building's probable The best approach to improving the seismic risk of
performance and strategies that regulate the way in such buildings may be demolition. As an example,
which a technical strategy is implemented. They consider the case of a large warehouse with many
include such approaches as occupancy change, large truck loading doors. The doors may render
demolition, temporary retrofit, phased retrofit, the shear walls incapable of meeting the Life
retrofit while occupied, retrofit while vacant, Safety structural performance level. Retrofitting
exterior retrofit, and interior retrofit. would require a strengthening strategy, consisting
Commentary: While the engineer typically either of infilling selected truck doors or placing
does not have the latitude to select from among new braced frames or shear walls within the
management strategies, these are an important warehouse space. The building owner might
consideration in the way a seismic risk reduction determine that the reduced truck access space or
project is executed and should be considered by loss of interior space would make the building
the engineer and discussed with the client. Often, unrentable as a warehouse. This may trigger a
the client for a retrofit project, being unfamiliar decision to demolish the structure and replace it
with these issues, may not be aware of some of the with a new building.
alternative strategies that are available. Commentary: The decision to demolish rather
than seismically retrofit a building is often the
6.2.2.1 Occupancy Change result of a cost-benefit study. While nearly all
Some buildings with inadequate performance buildings can be successfully retrofitted to provide
capability for the current occupancy may be an acceptable performance, the cost ofperforming
acceptable seismic risk if assigned other such work may be prohibitively high and could
occupancies. The best risk reduction approach for approach or even exceed the cost of constructing a
such buildings may simply be to alter the use of replacement facility. Unless a building is an
the building. For example, a building capable of important landmark or contains functions that
meeting the Substantial Life Safety performance cannot be taken out of service or relocated, it

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


(~
(.

(
(
(
SEISMIC EVAI.UATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS (
. "(
'\
(
I

seldom makes sense to invest greater resources in more severe. As an extreme example, consider
the seismicretrofiuing.of a.building than would.be that an.owner wishes to strengthen.aframe .
required to replace it. building in phases, to coincide with the turnover of (
tenants in leased spaces. It would not be
6.2.2.5 Temporary RetroFit appropriate to add shear walls or braced frames in
In some rare cases it may be desirable to an upper story before performing the work in a
retrofit a building in a highly economical manner lower story, as this would create a soft/weak story
for continued short-term service. The technical condition. Similarly, it would not be desirable to
approach used to retrofit the building under this install the retrofit measures on only one side of the
strategy may be quite unacceptable for normal building, as this could create a torsional
applications and may include extensive use of irregularity. Care should be taken to ensure that at (
exposed structural elements, shoring, bracing, and I,
the completion of each stage, the building's
the like. This approach would make it possible to (
probable performance is at least as good as it was (,
provide economical protection of the building
occupants and contents while plans are developed
prior to the performance of the work.
When performing phased retrofit, it is
e (
and financing is obtained for complete building desirable to perform the design work for all phases ( ,
replacement or, possibly, facility phase-out. concurrently. This ensures that when taken r
6.2.2.4 Phased RetroFit together, the various phases will result in a (
complete and integrated structure with the desired \
Building owners may elect to implement a (
seismic performance characteristics.
retrofit in phases for a number of reasons, such as ~
Com.mentary: There is not unanimous (~
an inability to obtain funding for a complete
agreement that when phased retrofit workis
retrofit, a wish not to disturb certain tenants or (.
r
performed on a building, no phase should make
functions within the building, or a desire to
the building more vulnerable than it was prior to
perform the retrofit work concurrently with tenant
the initiation ofthe work. Some believe that as
improvements in various areas of the building.
long as the increase in risk caused by phased \
When a phased retrofit is selected because of
construction is temporary, the short-term (
economic constraints, it is usually desirable to
additional risk is acceptable. The problem with
obtain a complete incremental improvement in the
such an approach is that with phased construction
building's probable performance with each phase
projects. there is always a risk that the project will
of the work. As an example, consider a frame
be terminated before all phases are completed.
building with a weak first story as well as
This could occur as a result of a number of events:
inadequate capacity in the stories above. The weak
change of building ownership, .change of
first story could result in collapse in relatively
occupancy. economic limitations, and similar
moderate earthquakes, while the deficient upper
issues. Thus, a phase of construction that was
stories would be judged capable of resisting
intended to result in a short-term condition of
collapse except in very large earthquakes. A
reduced building capacity and increased risk could
phased approach that might be desirable for this
result in a permanent high-risk condition. (
structure would be to strengthen the weak first
story in one phase and address the balance of the 6.2.2.5 RetroFit During Occupancy (
building deficiencies in later stages. One of the largest costs of a retrofit project
When performing a phased retrofit, it is may be the loss of use of building floor space
important to ensure that the work installed in any during the construction phase of the project. When
particular phase does not unintentionally create a a building is vacated to allow retrofit work to be (
serious seismic deficiency or make an existing one performed, the tenants must find alternative space
(

(
6-22 Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies

(
and bear the moving costs. Upon completion of the 6.2.2.7 Exterior RetroFit
work, the owner must.find.new tenants to occupy -When an owner-elects to retrofit a-building-
the space, which may take many months. while it remains occupied, it is often beneficial to
Consequently, many owners will desire to perform perform as much work as possible at the exterior
retrofit work while the building remains occupied. of the building so as to minimize interruption of
Although it is often possible to do this, a number internal functions and inconvenience to tenants.
of challenges are posed to the design team, Technical strategies that can be implemented in
contractor, and tenants. Often in these situations this manner include building stiffening and
work must be performed in phases to allow strengthening and demand reduction. Stiffening
temporary relocation of tenants. Work involving and strengthening can be accomplished through the
excessive noise or disruption of building utilities addition of exterior buttresses and/or shear walls
usually must be performed during evening or and braced frames aligned with the existing
weekend shifts. Precautions must be taken to perimeter wall lines. Demand reduction strategies
ensure the security of the construction site as well can be implemented from outside the building by
as the safety of the building tenants. The cost of placing damping devices within exterior braced
construction in an occupied building may be as frames or between exterior buttresses and the
much as 50 percent more than the same work in a building. In at least one case, a mid-rise building
vacant building. In addition, construction was base isolated while it remained occupied, by
schedules can be substantially lengthened when the using an "exterior" strategy. In this case, the base
work is performed in occupied spaces. isolation system was installed within the building's
Commentary: Prior to making a decision to first story, which was essentially a lobby and was
perform a seismic retrofit project while a building not part of the normally occupied building space.
remains occupied, a cost-benefit analysis should Work on the upper stories was done on the
be performed to determine the advisability of exterior surface of the perimeter walls,
adopting this approach. Often it may be found that It should be noted that most exterior retrofit
the apparent savings to the tenants and building projects involve, some interior work. Required
owner are outweighed by the added cost and interior work may include the addition of
schedule of construction and the inconvenience to diaphragm drags and collectors to deliver seismic
building operations during the work. Even when'a forces to the new exterior elements and the bracing
building remains occupied during construction, it and anchoring of internal nonstructural
is usually necessary to temporarily relocate components.
occupants away from areas of direct construction. Commentary: Obviously, exterior retrofit
This results in cost as well as inefficiency for the approaches are not generally applicable to
occupants. historically significant buildings.
6.2.2.6 RetroFit of Vacant Building 6.2.2.8 Interior RetroFit
This is the typical approach to seismic An important consideration in the retrofit of
retrofitting and results in the lowest direct costs of many buildings is the preservation of exterior
construction as well as the most rapid project appearance. Except in a few cases, the braced
execution schedules. As noted inSection 6.2.2.4, frames, shear walls, and buttresses commonly
however, many building owners will desire not to employed in retrofitting are viewed as an
take this approach. In some cases, particularly unacceptable modification of a building's
when extensive work must be done on the character. Even the simple wall anchors used to tie
building, this is the only practical approach. exterior walls to diaphragms can be viewed by
some as an unacceptable alteration of building

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


(

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS


"(
(
(

appearance. These concerns are particularly code for new buildings or to some fraction of that
important.for historic structures and..arcbitectural resistance; In such. cases the. viability of phased or
landmarks. partial retrofit strategies may be affected.
In such cases, the owner may direct that all (or Nonstructural code considerations can have a (
nearly all) retrofit work be performed from inside significant impact on project cost. Seismic retrofit (
the building. In historic buildings, interior spaces work commonly triggers collateral upgrades for (
and fabric niay be as significant as exterior disabled access and fire life safety systems. Often (
features. Cases of this type usuallyrequire that these collateral upgrades are limited to those (

work be performed in spaces normally hidden spaces in which actual structural retrofit work is (
from public view or that new vertical elements of f
performed and along the "path of travel" to the
the lateral force resisting system "are placed in the work area. As an example, if retrofit work is (
(
same location as historic elements and are finished performed in the second story of a two-story (
to have the same appearance as the original building, collateral upgrades may have to be
historic materials. As an example, an existing performed in the actual work areas as well as at (
hollow clay tile wall could be replaced with a new the building entrance, along corridors, in
reinforced concrete shear wall with plaster finishes elevators, and in stairways leading to the (
matching those of the original construction. second-floor work areas, since these are within the
path of travel. Retrofit projects in which work is (
6.3 Design constraints and performed on relatively limited locations in a
Considerations building will generally trigger fewer collateral
upgrades than projects that entail work throughout
(
,
(c;::-,
The selection of an appropriate retrofit
the structure. (
strategy requires evaluation of the important (
Commentary: Qualified historic structures ",
design constraints. These typically include code
may not be 'subject to the same code restrictions as (
requirements, performance objectives, available
other buildings. In California, the modification, (
budget and schedule, aesthetics, construction
alteration, and repair ofhistoric structures is
period occupancy disruptions, and permanent
governed by the state's Historic Building Code
impacts on occupancy and function. In addition,
(SHBCB 1993). This code encourages. alternative
project risk can be an important design constraint (
solutions that would not normally be permitted in
in the selection of an appropriate design
most other buildings.
alternative. (
Another important consideration is the
6..3.1 Code Requirements presence of hazardous materials. Worker safety
(
The legal constraints on a retrofit project laws and environmental protection regulations
result in increasing restrictions on the way retrofit
should be established prior to embarking on the
projects are performed.-Work -involving removal
development of particular retrofit strategies. Code
requirements' include both structural and or disturbance of asbestos-containing materials and
nonstructural considerations, The primary lead-based paint can result in significant project
cost impacts, as can excavation for foundations on (
structural code considerations include limitations
on the design criteria employed and potential a site with subsoils- contaminated by materials
deemed to be hazardous. The selection of (
restrictions with regard to partial or phased
retrofits. Some municipalities require that when . strategies that minimize the potential for such
impacts can be beneficial. An appropriate level of (
substantive work is done on a building, the entire
building be upgraded to provide lateral force hazardous materials investigation during the (
resistance equivalent to that specified by current project development phase can help to identify
these potential impacts. For many buildings there (
(
6-24 Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies
:

are likely to be existing survey reports on relating to the loss of use of floor space both
asbestos-containing materials. Reports.on .. during and.after construction,. and the. owner's.
lead-based paint are less likely to exist. If a project management and supervision costs.
building has a substantial quantity of structural Generalizations with regard to the likely costs of
steel, the presence of lead-based paint should be different strategies are difficult to make, as the
suspected and an evaluation obtained. Typically, if cost of a particular strategy is directly dependent
soil borings are obtained in order to develop on the characteristics of the individual building .
foundation design recommendations, the and the project performance objectives.. Projects
geotechnical engineer will also evaluate soil that call for Immediate Occupancy or Damage
samples for the presence of hazardous materials. Control will, however, be significantly more
costly on the average than projects with lower
6.3.2 Performance Objectives performance objectives. Although costs are
The project performance objectives are extremely important to the selection of a" strategy,
perhaps the most important design constraint. they are also very difficult to assess without a
Performance objectives can range from avoidance well-defined design plan. It is usually necessary to
of collapse under a specified design earthquake, to develop a schematic-level design for each strategy
protection of building contents, to rapid considered in order to assess the probable cost
postearthquake recovery of function.. A given impacts with any reliability.
retrofit strategy may be appropriate to some
objectives but not to others. Strategies that involve 6.5.4 Aesthetics
strengthening and stiffening of a structure are Aesthetics are often an important factor in
highly effective at achieving Structural Stability selecting a retrofit strategy. Retrofit elements
and Substantial Life Safety performance placed at the exterior of a building, including infill
objectives. However, such strategies may not be walls, new walls, buttresses, and braced frames,
appropriate to the protection of building contents: are typically perceived as having a negative impact
In fact, stiffening and strengthening a building will on building appearance. To the extent that these
often deliver more-severe forces to the building's elements are viewed as degrading the building's
contents, potentially resulting in damage. A appearance, they detract from its value. In some
demand reduction strategy, such as the cases, architectural redesign of the building
introduction of a base isolation or energy exterior can mask the new structural elements or
dissipation system is often more appropriate for incorporate them into the building's design. The
obtaining performance objectives involving cost of such remodeling is typically high,
protection of contents or immediate postearthquake however.
occupancy. Aesthetic impacts must also be considered
within the interior spaces of buildings. Retrofit
6.~.3 Project Budget measures that result in decreased ceiling heights or
Cost is often the overriding factor in narrow corridors are often viewed as undesirable,
determining the project performance objectives, even if the spaces are within the legally specified
the retrofit strategy employed, and even whether a requirements. In many occupancies, exposed
retrofit will be performed. Different strategies can structural elements are perceived as undesirable
have widely different costs. When evaluating the aesthetically unless special precautions are made to
costs related to a particular strategy, it is important provide a "finished" look to the elements. As an
to include all cost components. These include example, braced frames that incorporate bolted
design fees, construction costs, operating and connections will often be viewed negatively by
maintenance costs, tenant relocation costs, costs building occupants. Similar bracing with welded

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


(

SEISMIC EVALUATION' AND RETROFIT OF ·CONCRETE BUILDINGS

(
connections that have been ground smooth may placement of dowels and anchors. It is advisable to (
provide. an acceptable appearance,.. however.. . .. perform such.operations.in.off-houra. such as- --- .
The issue of aesthetics is most important in evenings and weekends, to minimize the disruption
historic landmark structures. The retrofit strategies to building occupants. Although such off-hour
selected for these buildings should result in construction activities increase direct labor costs, (
(
minimal impact on the building configuration or they may actually result in a decrease in total
appearance and, to the extent possible, minimal project costs through avoided costs related to (
alteration of the actual materials and fabric that tenant relocation.
make up the building. Base isolation may often be Other considerations related to work on
occupied buildings include the need to keep
r
an appropriate strategy for such structures. (
Although base isolation is highly disruptive of a utilities in service and the need to ensure a secure
building's base story, using this approach may work area and maintain a safe working (
make it possible to minimize the work that must be environment for the occupants. Construction sites
performed at levels above the base, where are potentially dangerous, and precautions must be (
important historic features may be situated. taken to ensure that building occupants do not have (

Another technique that can be useful in historic free access to' areas where work is actively being (
buildings is to place new shear walls behind performed. In addition, protection of occupant
existing walls, using the existing wall as a veneer. safety requires that construction operations not (
(
block exits or corridors. Additional care must also
6.3.5 construction Period occupancy . be taken to contain potentially hazardous .materials
(
Disruption used or exposed in the construction process, since
The ability of tenants to continue to occupy a building occupants will not in general be wearing
building during retrofit construction can have a' protective clothing. (
significant benefit with regard to overall project (
cost. This can make strategies. that permit such 6.3.6 Permanent o~cupancy Impacts (
construction period occupancy more attractive. As Many retrofit strategies will result in some
previously stated, strategies that make it possible permanent impairment of the future occupancy and (
to perform retrofit work from the building exterior use of the building. As.an example, the installation
are the most conducive to continued occupancy of vertical braced frames or shear walls within the (
during the construction period. But, even interior of a building will limit future traffic
(
strategies that entail substantial work within the patterns within. the building as well as limit the
building interior can be implemented in partially possibility for placing partitions in certain areas. (
occupied buildings. If it is possible to temporarily' The placement of frames or walls at the perimeter
relocate a portion of a building's occupancy during of a building may reduce the amount of natural
the construction period, then if is possible to rotate light available and make office space less
other occupants from their normal locations to the desirable.
empty space, giving access to discrete areas of the Seismic retrofitting can also confer an
building for construction operations. occupancy benefit. A building that has been (
Most retrofit work. entails a substantial amount retrofitted to provide immediate postearthquake
(
of noise and dust, which the occupants of a occupancy should have significantly more value to
building must be prepared to live with if they are tenants than a building which must be closed for (
to remain in residence during the construction repairs following an earthquake. The extent of this {
period. The most noisy retrofit construction value will be related to the cost of finding (
activities include selective demolition by means of replacement space and the cost of relocating
chip hammers and rotc-hammer drilling for the equipment and contents within the building. (
(
fi
6-26 Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies

(
(
-----------------------------------,---,-~,~--,-------,----.-.= -'-'"

6.3.7 project Risk approaches. One way is to include project risk as


Typically the selection of a retrofit-strategy an actual.design. constraint; evaluating it along
and system occurs early in the design process and with the other design constraints when selecting a
must be based on only very limited study of the strategy. A more common method of treating
various options. Consequently, at the time the project risk in the evaluation is to assign a unique
evaluation of the alternatives is made there are cost contingency allowance, based on the
likely to be a number of poorly. defined factors that perceived uncertainty, to the estimated project
could affect the cost and even the feasibility of one cost. A system that seems to have a high risk could
or more of the design alternatives evaluated. These be assigned a contingency allowance on the order
factors could include such things as unknown .of 30 percent or more, while approaches that
materials strengths, undefined foundation . appear to be relatively free of risk could be
conditions, incomplete structural analyses, and assigned lower contingencies, perhaps on the
grossly estimated element sizes. The level of risk order qf10 percent.
associated with these undefined design conditions
should be evaluated independently for each SA Strategy Selection
strategy and system. In general it will not be the In order to select a retrofit strategy, it is
same for all of the alternatives. necessary to establish the basic performance
Another source of project risk that should be objectives desired for the building and the existing
considered is construction risk. Although seismic deficiencies relative to those performance
retrofit design projects typically include some objective. Once these have been determined, it is
exploration of the existing condition and possible to evaluate each of the various strategies
configuration of a building, it is not usually to determine whether they are technically and
feasible to verify all conditions that will be practically capable of mitigating the identified
encountered during construction. One of the deficiencies. If the engineer has an adequate
largest sources of project delays and cost overruns understanding of the various design constraints
on retrofit construction projects is the discovery of before starting this process, it may often be
unexpected conditions when selective demolition is possible to eliminate many of the available
performed during construction. Retrofit systems strategies without detailed study. It is important,
that require frequent attachment to the existing therefore, to meet with the building owner prior to
structure generally have a greater risk in this starting this process to define these design
regard. constraints and their relative importance.
Commentary: The risk associated with Table 6-1 is a checklist that may be useful in
discovering unanticipated conditions during the obtaining an understanding of these issues.
construction phase can not be overemphasized. Table 6-11ists several of the more important
The unanticipated conditions can include such design constraints, discussed previously in
things as framing that does not conform to original Section 6.3. Each of these constraints will. apply in
construction documents, materials that are some degree to every project. Their relative
substantially different than expected, and similar importance on a given project will not be the
features that could affect the feasibility of same, however, and it will vary from one project
constructing the design as intended. In order to to another. It is important to understand the
minimize such risks, it is extremely important that relative importance of each for the specific project
there be an appropriate program of investigation being considered. Project cost limitations should
of the building during the design phase. be established as early as possible. Unless a study
There are several ways to include potential of retrofit alternatives has been performed, the
project risk in an evaluation of alternative retrofit

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


SEISMIC EVA.LUA.TION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

--Table 6-1. Checklist ofRetrofit Design CORsider-ations- _. --- - --- .. -.- --"

Performance structural level_


(
(
objective for_ % in 50 years
Nonstructurallevel_for
(
(
_ % In 50 years
(
f'
project cost constr: $,-- _
other: $ _ (
(

project schedule _ _ _ months


(

Construction,
occupancy = Building vacant
Partial occupancy
Full occupancy
{

Hazardous materials none known


(
l
known present
(
Intended remediation
6
(,
Building appearance _ May be altered r
MUstbe preserved
(
t.
Floor space impact No obstruction
Obstruction allowed (
{

(
I(
(
building owner will typically have noidea as to Building appearance is nearly always '\
how much the project could or should cost. , important. However, alteration of a building's (
,r
However, most owners will be able to determine a appearance does not always result in a less
maximum cost beyond which the project would not attractive building. If there are specific reasons for (
proceed. An understanding of this limit will assist
in eliminating some strategies from consideration.
preserving the appearance of a building (for
example, if the structure is a landmark), these
c- -(

Construction schedule may be nearly as should be understood before a strategy is selected.


important as cost. Often retrofit projects are Many buildings are constructed for a given
conducted simultaneously with other occupancy and use and are expected to remain in (
improvements to a building, such as modifications that use throughout their lives. As an example, a (

to accommodate a new tenant. Some strategies classroom building on a college campus can be (
(
may require a significantly longer design and expected to house individual classrooms ,

construction duration than others 'andmay throughout its life. In such a building, the (
(
therefore be eliminated quickly through replacement of non-structural partitions with
consideration"of this constraint. structural walls would probably be acceptable. In (
(
an office building however, it is highly desirable
(
(
(
~
&-28 Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies
~-
(

(
:

retne 5-2. sample strategy Evaluation Matrix

Importance 10 3 7 3 10
(1·10; 10 very importantl
system completion 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not viable
system strengthening 9 10 7 10 6 259
and stiffening
Exterior shear w.alls 9 10 7 10 6 228
Exterior braced frames 10 9 3 10 5 228
Interior shear waus 7 8 10 0 6 224
Interior braced frames 8 7 10 0 5 221
Exterior buttresses 9 10 3 10 6 231
Demand reduction
Base isolation 3 5 10 0 10 215
Enhanced damping 0 0 0 0 0 0 NotviabJe
Mass reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 Not viable

to retain flexibility in the layout of offices to constraints. This evaluation should include
accommodate the needs of different tenants over development of preliminary cost estimates, project
the years. The installation of permanent walls schedules, schematic floor plans, and elevations
within such a structure would be less desirable. for the retrofitted building and any other .materials
Once the deficiencies and design constraints that may be helpful to the building owner and
are properly understood, the evaluation of occupants in understanding the potential impacts of
alternative strategies can begin. In general, it will the proposed work. A matrix format similar to that
be necessary to generate a design for each viable presented in Table 6-2"may be useful in evaluating
strategy to at least a schematic level so that the the relative merits of each strategy and in selecting
alternative strategies can be compared. Capacity a final strategy for development of the design.
and demand spectra should be drawn for the In the matrix shown in Table 6-2, alternative
structure in the unmodified state in order to strategies for retrofit of a particular building have
determine the types and extent of retrofitting been evaluated. A relative weight, presumably
required, as described in Section 6.2 and below. based on discussions with the owner, has been
The viability of and approximate requirements assigned to each of the design constraints, based
for various strategies can be judged directly from presumably on discussions with the Owner" Then
the demand-capacity plots, as described in the for each strategy that is viable, an evaluation
Section on Preliminary Design. Once a schematic rating is assigned for each design constraints"
design has been developed, cost estimates can be Ratings range from 1 to 10, with 10 representing
generated and the impacts on building appearance, little impact or the most desirable effect and 1
and function judged. representing the least desirable impacts. A
For each strategy investigated and found to be weighted score is then obtained for each strategy,
viable, an evaluation should be made of the extent consisting of the sum of the individual evaluation
to which the strategy can meet the design scores factored by the weight for each design

Chapter 5, Retrofit strategies


( -=

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

::

(
(
constraint. In this particular case, a system the structure is incapable of meeting the desired (
streng~ening_strategy_consisting o f the installation. _.... _ performance.objectives.at.the performance.point;
of extenor shear walls was rated the most than the specific deficiencies should be identified.
favorably. For other projects, however, each Structural performance is most closely tied to the
de~ign cons~~~would be ~signed a different lateral deflection induced in the building by the
~elght and individual strategies would have earthquake ground motions. If the performance ('
different scores. predicted for the unretrofitted structure is ( I

Commentary: The specific design constraints unacceptable, the capacity curve for the structure (

that are contained in the evaluation matrix will be should be evaluated in order to determine a target (
(~
unique to each project, as will the relative weights lateral displacement at which acceptable
that are assigned to them. The specific evaluation performance can be attained. Data required for use (
criteria used, and their relative assigned weights, in performing a preliminary design of retrofit
should be based on discussions with the client elemerits can then be obtained by adjusting the ['
agency, the building occupants, and other capacity and demand spectra in an appropriate (
stakeholders. manner relative to the retrofit strategy, as
explained in previous Sections of this Chapter, and
6 . .5 Preliminary Design by then obtaining data on the required
Once a retrofit strategy has been selected, it is supplemental strength, stiffness, period or
necessary to develop a preliminary retrofit design. effective damping from the adjusted curves. The
A preliminary design should include the following sections describe the application of this
approximate sizes and preferred locations for all technique to specific retrofit strategies.
major elements of the retrofit strategy including
6.5. '1 stiffening and strengthening
braced frames, shear walls, buttresses, base
isolators, and energy dissipation units. The Stiffening and strengthening of a structure will
preliminary design may be used for several typically be accomplished by the addition of
purposes including coordination. between the braced frames, shear walls, buttresses and similar
various design disciplines, for example elements that add both strength and stiffness to the
architectural, mechanical, and electrical; structure. The effect of this will be to shift the
development of preliminary cost estimates; and, performance point for the structure to a lower
development of the strategy evaluation matrices spectral displacement (or .lateral deflection). In
(described in the.previous Section). The order to perform a preliminary design for this
preliminary design also provides a basis upon strategy, it is necessary to decide what target
which to perform a structural verification analysis spectral displacement is desired for the retrofitted
used to ensure that the design approach is capable structure, and then, to determine the approximate
of meeting the project performance objective and additional strength and stiffness that will shift the
for determining forces used in the final detailing of performance point to this spectral displacement.
the retrofit structural elements. . Figure 6-10 illustrates the way this information (

The first step in the preliminary design process may be obtained for a representative structure. In (
is to prepare and overlay demand and capacity the figure, the capacity spectrum for the
unretrofitted structure, shown as a bold curve, (
spectra for the unretrofitted structure, using the
procedures described In Chapters 4 and 8. The indicates an initial period for the structure of
approximately 1.5 seconds and an ultimate spectral (
performance point for the unretrofitted structure
should be determined and the behavior of the acceleration capacity of approximately O.lg. The (
structure at this performance point understood. If first step is to determine what spectral displace- (
ment would result in acceptable performance (

(
6-30 Chapter 6, Retrofit Strategies
(

NOTE: The family of T' = 1/2 sec


reduced demand I
spectra reflect the I Elastic displacement

,,
effect of damping on I
response. See
line
Family of reduced
Chapter 8 demand spectra
dol=2"
,,,
I
depending on
.
U>
0.70g maximum
displacement d.

.e 0.60g d ,=4",
I

"§ Target displacement


"*oo 0.50g /l""'1f-'r.------j at desired performance
<:( OAOg T' = 2 sec
~
o
d ~~c----I Desired performance -'
U>
&. 0.30g
----'------
,
, I
point for retrofit
, I~,
0.20g
I
I I / / J
Performance
point - original
T'
--- -- -
= 3 sec

-.-
I /
0.10g - T-I/-----------_~
--- structure
-;"',-'---J.-------.-j
I
/-
/ .
- - - - I - - -

0" 2" 4" 6" 8" 10" 12"


Spectral Displacement, S d

Figure 6-10. preliminary calculation for Retrofit Using strengthening andstiffening

for the retrofitted structure. For this example, For the purpose of developing a preliminary
assume that examination of the damage state that design for a strengthening and stiffening strategy it
exists at each of the various points on the capacity is appropriate to make several approximate
curve indicates that acceptable performance can be simplifying assumptions. The first of these
obtained at a spectral displacement of 4 inches. assumptions is that the demand spectra for the
This is illustrated in the figure by the vertical structure will not be significantly affected by the
dashed line drawn at a spectral displacement of 4 retrofit and that therefore, the same demand
inches and labeled as the target displacement for spectra used in finding the initial performance
the desired performance. Note that this target point can be used on a preliminary basis to solve
displacement will be different for every structure for the retrofitted performance point. In reality,
and every structural performance level. The strengthening and stiffening the structure will
displacement of 4 inches used in this example has result in somewhat altered demand spectra.
simply been selected for illustrative purposes only. However, this assumption will typically lead to a
Similarly, the ultimate shear capacity for the conservative solution for the preliminary design.
structure of O.lg has been arbitrarily selected for Therefore, the approximate solution for the
the purposes of this example. The actual ultimate retrofitted performance point is obtained by
shear capacity for a given structure should be . extending the 'vertical line at the target spectral
determined directly from the capacity curve for displacement, 4 inches in the case of the example
that structure. illustrated by the figure, until it intersects the
demand curve calculated using a value of d p equal

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

to this target displacement. This point is annotated


on the figureas the "desiredperformance point•." T=032 Sd5%
-- - - - S' .- - . - -- .- (6-2).
A horizontal line extending from the desired a5%

performance point to the y axis indicates the where T' is the target initial period for the
minimum spectral acceleration capacity desired for retrofitted structure, Sd5% is the target displacement
the retrofitted structure. With this information and, S~$ is the: spectral. acceleration corresponding
mown, the required ultimate base shear capacity to the mtersection of the target displacement line
for the retrofitted structure can be obtained from with the elastic response spectrum, expressed in
the following equation: units of the acceleration due to gravity, g. For the
case illustrated in the figure, Sd5% is 4 inches, Sa5%
S' is O.6g and T' is calculated as 0.8 seconds.
Vrequi red = S au Vu (6-1) . The target stiffness for the retrofitted structure
au
can than be calculated from the equation:
where V required is the desired ultimate shear capacity
for the retrofitted structure, S'ou is the spectral
acceleration at the desired performance point, Sau Kr=K{~r (6-3) (
is the ultimate spectral acceleration for the
where Kr is the stiffness required of the retrofitted (
original, unretrofitted structure and Vu is the .(
structure, Xi is the initial stiffness of the
ultimate base shear capacity for the original
unretrofitted structure and Ti and T' are (
structure. In the case of the example illustrated in (
respectively the initial periods for the unretrofitted
figure, S'au is 0.3g and Sou is 0.1 g, indicating that .~
structure and the retrofitted structure.
the retrofitted structure should have a lateral shear
Once the required stiffness and strength for the C'
strength that is three times (O.3g/0.1g) times th~t {'
retrofit elements has been determined, as indicated (
of the original structure, or, that the retrofit
above, it is possible to develop preliminary sizes
elements should have twice the lateral shear (.
for shear walls, braced frames or other elements to
strength of the existing structure.
provide these properties. While this approach is (
The next step is to determine an appropriate
suitably accurate to lead to a preliminary design (
initial stiffness for the retrofitted structure. As an
solution, it is extremely important that the actual (
approximation, an estimate of the initial period (
demand and capacity spectra for the retrofitted
required for the retrofitted structure can be'
structure-be formally computed as part of the final
obtained by extending the vertical line through the (
design process. A number of simplifying
desired performance point until it intersects with
assumptions bave been made in the formulation of
the elastic response spectrum (demand spectnim
the .~ove equations and approach and designs
(
for 5 percent viscous damping). In the example
denved by the method described may either be
shown in the figure, this demand curve is the one
excessively conservative or inadequate for
labeled as having a dp. value of two inches. A (.
individual structures. Design verification, through
radial line, drawn from the origin of the
development of the revised demand!capacity (
demand/capacity spectrum plot through the
spectra is an essential part of the final design (
intersection of the vertical target displacement line
process. (
with the elastic response spectrum defines the (
desired initial stiffness for the retrofitted structure 6.5.2 Base Isolation
expressed as a period with units of seconds. This ' (
Most base isolated buildings have a period that
period can be calculated from the equation:
ranges between two to three seconds and effective
viscous damping ratios that range from fifteen to
(
twenty-five percent. Consequently, in order to (
(

&·32 Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


:

,
5% damping ""J;'
~4r;/
I .<:,:,
,
en" I
I

, ,,
,,
I
I
c
,,
o I

~0> I Approximate structural


(j) I
o 20% dampif'g performance point
o

~
<l:
,
, Target performance
ti
0> ,, point
,,
0- I
en
I A'
0.17g I , ,
-7- ,"'- :;-r- - ... =-_-- . - T':::: 3 s~ ---
f ,r.r
/' , .... ' .. _
....' .. - I
1
----
/~-:;/'::_-:.- »> -- t- -- --

A ----- I
0" 4" 8" 12" 16" 20" 24"
Spectral Displacement, Sd

Figure 6-11. Approximate Solution for Base Isolation preliminary Design

perform a preliminary design for base isolation it line representing a period of 2-112 seconds. This
is convenient to assume that the base isolated line will have a slope equal to 0.0164 g/in. The
structure will have an effective period of 2-1/2 intersection of the 2-112 second period line with
seconds and an effective damping of twenty the 20 percent damped spectrum solves for the
percent. By overlaying the capacity spectrum target performance point for the preliminary
developed for the unretrofitted structure with an design of the base isolated structure. In the case of
appropriate demand curve for 20 percent effective the example shown in Figure 6-11, this is
viscous damping, it is possible to evaluate the represented by a spectral acceleration of O.17g and
feasibility and requirements for a base isolated a spectral displacement of approximately 10.4
design. This is illustrated in Figure 6- n. inches.
As shown in the figure, the first step is to Once the target performance point is known,
overlay the capacity spectrum for the unretrofitted the structural performance point, for the
structure with the 20 percent damped demand superstructure should be solved for. This is
spectrum. The 20 percent damped demand obtained by drawing a horizontal line from the y
spectrum may be derived by using values of SRA axis through the target performance point. The
and SRv of 0.55 and O.65,-respectively, in the intersection of this line with the capacity curve for
Chapter 8 procedures for developing families of the structure indicates the structural performance
demand spectra. The next step is to draw the radial point for the isolated structure. This will either

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


(=
f
(
,"
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF C'ONCRETE BUILDINGS
-;.
(
~ I"
(
,
(

# (
(;:I
......
1/1
5% damping t.,,'
,I

I
I
,
I

I
,
I
Target performance point for
I
200/0dampirg superstructure - alone

Target performance
, point

A'
0.179
, »>" - - - - - -
I ___,!,-==- s~_-------
I
---------~------

4" 8" 12" 16" 20" 24"


Spectral Displacement, Sd
Figure 6-12. preliminary Determination of strengthening and stiFFeningl Base Isolated structure

occur at an acceptable performance level, for the experience any yielding under the project
project performance objectives, or not. If it does performance objectives. Consequently, a vertical
not represent an acceptable performance level then line has been drawn through. the spectral
this indicates that for base isolation to be an displacement at which this occurs, ill this case
appropriate strategy, it is necessary to perform. approximately one inch. The intersection of this
supplemental stiffening and strengthening of the vertical line with the horizontal line drawn at
structure in addition to base isolation. 0.17g represents the target performance point for
In order to determine the amount of stiffening the retrofittted superstructure, independent of the
and strengthening required, it is necessary to base isolation system. With this information the
examine the capacity curve for the unretrofitted required supplemental stiffness and strength of the
structure to determine the maximum spectral. retrofit elements can be determined as previously
displacement associated with an acceptable. indicated in Section 6.5.1. The radial line drawn
structural performance. Similar to the procedure from the origin of the figure to the target
indicated in Section 6.5.1, a vertical line should be performance point for the superstructure alone
drawn through this new target displacement for the provides the period T' for the retrofitted structure
superstructure. The intersection of the vertical line for use in the formulas of Section 6.5.1. In those
drawn through the target displacement with the formulas, the term Sa20% should be substituted for
horizontal line drawn through the intersection of the term. Sa5%. The value for Sao« is simply given (
the 2-112 second period line and the 20 percent by the intersection of the horizontal line through "'

damped response spectrum defines the required this target performance point and the vertical axis, (
stiffness and strength of the retrofitted structure if in this case 0.17g. The term Sd20% should be
base isolation is to achieve the project performance substituted for the term Sd5%. The Sd20% value is (
objectives. Figure 6-12 illustrates this approach. obtained as the intersection of the vertical line
In Figure 6-12, it has been assumed that the through this target performance point and the
base isolated structure will not be permitted to horizontal axis, in this case one inch. (

(
(

(
~~
Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies c;
I
(
::

Preliminary design for the base isolators In addition to determining the size of the base
themselves should be done with the assistance of isolators, it is necessary to select a location for the
one or more of the several suppliers of these plane of isolation in the structure. This consists of
devices who have design tools available to assist in a horizontal plane, cut though the structure, in
the selection of isolators. The design displacement which the isolation bearings are placed. The
for the isolators is obtained as the difference in isolation system displacement occurs across this
spectral displacements at the target performance plane. It is typically necessary to provide
point and the structural performance point horizontal diaphragms above and below this
respectively, converted back to actual isolation plane. The diaphragm above the isolation
displacement (rather than spectral displacement) plane must distribute the lateral forces from the
coordinates using the procedures of Chapter 8. superstructure to the individual isolator bearings,
Base isolated structures behave as almost ideal in proportion to their relative stiffnesses. Note that
single degree of freedom systems. Consequently, it is likely that several different size isolators will
the modal participation factor and modal mass be recommended by the isolation system vendor,
contribution for base isolated structures is very depending on the dead and live column loads that
nearly 1. Therefore, for a first order are supported, each having somewhat different
approximation, the spectral displacements from the stiffness. The diaphragm below the isolation plane
demand/capacity spectra plots may be taken as must be capable of distributing the lateral loads
equal to the actual displacements, without further from the individual isolators to the foundation
conversion. In figure 6-11, the isolation system system for the structure. If each individual isolator
displacement would be calculated as a spectral is provided with a foundation capable of resisting
displacements of 10.4 inches - 3 inches, or the forces from the isolator, this diaphragm may
approximately 7.4 inches. If the superstructure is not be required.
strengthened and stiffened, as indicated in Note that the procedures indicated above are
Figure 6-12, then this would be obtained as the not adequate for a final design either of the
difference in spectral displacements between the superstructure retrofit or of the isolation system.
target performance point and target performance The procedures contained in Chapter 8,
point for the superstructure alone. In the case of supplemented as appropriate by the procedures of
the structure represented by figure 6-12, this the building code should be used to perform the
would be 10.4 inches - 1 inch, or approximately final design of base isolation retrofits.
9.4 inches. This data will be required by the base
isolation bearing supplier to perform a preliminary 6.5.3 Energy Dissipation
,size of the bearings, as well as the estimated Most retrofits employing energy dissipation
weight on each bearing and the estimated design units will have an effective viscous damping
base shear in the, structure. The estimated design ranging between 20 percent and 40 percent. In
base shear is obtained from the equation: order to determine if a retrofit employing EDUs is
appropriate, the first step is to prepare a plot of the
V=Sa20%W (6-4) capacity curve for the unretrofitted structure,
overlaid with damped spectra for 5 percent, 10
where W is the effective seismic weight of the percent, 20 percent, 30 percent and 40 percent
structure as defined elsewhere in this viscous damping. Such a curve is shown in
methodology. Figure 6-13. The intersection of the capacity curve
with each of these spectra indicates the
performance point that would be obtained if

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


-c=
c
(
SEISIIIIUC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUI~DINGS
(
(
:
(
r
(
(

5% damping

(
20%
(
(

(
A'

>:----_---------r-=:~5~-------­
~:-=--~

4" aa 12a 16" 20" 24" /.

Spectral Displacement. Sd (

(
Figure 6-13. preliminary Design of RetroFit With Energy Dissipation Units (

(
EDDs capable of providing the indicated damping is determined to be effective, it is necessary to
were to be installed. select the particular EDDs that will be used, on a
fe, iiifJ

The demand spectra for the different effective preliminary basis, and the method of installation of
viscous damping ratios can be obtained using the these units in the structure.
(
procedures of Chapter 8 and values for the There are a number of different EDD systems (
coefficients SRA and SRvobtained from Table 6-3. available in the market, each of which have
significantly different force-displacement and
Table 6-5. Values of the coeFFicients force-velocity relationships. Consequently, there
SRA andS~v are no readily available rules of thumb that can be
used to select a generic EDD for the basis of
preliminary design. Preliminary selection of EDDs
5% 1.0 1.0 should be done with the assistance of a supplier of
10% 0.77 0.82 . these devices. The supplier will need to know the
20% 0.55
characteristics of the structure, including its mass
0.65
and existing stiffness; the effective damping
30% 0.42 0.55
desired, represented by the coefficient p,
40% 0.33 0.48 determined from the demand/capacity spectrum
plot and the displacement or interstory drift in
Once the capacity spectra and various damped which this effective damping must be developed.
demand spectra have been drawn, the performance With this information, the vendor will be able to
points for each effective damping should be make a preliminary determination of the required
examined to determine if the indicated damping damper size and also provide an estimate of the
would result in acceptable performance in forces that will develop in the EDUs. These forces
accordance with project performance objectives. If must be developed into the structure. EDDs are
performance for a given level of effective damping typically installed in structures as part of lateral
/
(
Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE IiUULDUliGS

Existing frame

Figure 6-14. tvptcst mstsustion of Energy Dissipation Units

bracing systems. Figure 6-14 indicates two ways in approach. For such systems, it will be necessary to
which such dampers can be installed. Once the perform a nonlinear response history analysis.
forces in the dampers have been estimated by the
damper supplier, it is possible to use these forces 6.5.4 other strategies
directly in the preliminary design of the bracing Preliminary designs for retrofits employing
elements as well as to check the adequacy of the strategies other than stiffening and strengthening,
existing structure and foundations to resist these base isolation and energy dissipation must be
forces. performed using a trial and error process. In this
As with other retrofit strategies, [mal design of process. a retrofit design is assumed, the resulting
retrofits employing EDUs will require that the capacity and demand spectra developed and the
capacity and demand spectra be redeveloped using performance point determined. If the assumed
the procedures of Chapter 8 and that the design-results in an acceptable performance point
performance point be evaluated for adequacy. It for the project performance objectives, then the
may not be possible to characterize the behavior of design is adequate. If not, then the design must be
some types of EDUs using the capacity spectrum revised and the process repeated or an alternative
strategy employed.

Chapter 6, Retrofit strategies


:

(
(
(
Chapter 7
Quality Assur nee Proce ures
AUdience Interest spectrum
Owner Architect Bldg. OFficia; Engineer Analyst
11t.III_r~~f:'{;;;\W.i"':;!.;1

7.1 Ceneral design team, a testing and inspection program, and


To ensure the appropriate application of the a contractor's quality control plan.
methodology during the evaluation, design and Comprehensive programs for each of these
construction phases, a quality assurance program processes are presented; however, it is likely that
should be required. Since performance-based design the circumstances surrounding a particular building
and the methodologies presented in this document project will require varying levels of the scope
are relatively new and may be somewhat unfamiliar outlined below. The owner should require some .
to the broad engineering community, procedures for form of a quality assurance program on all projects,
assuring the appropriate criteria and application of and this program should be developed and
the methodologies are critical. Even though the initialized during the preliminary evaluation/design
procedures 1..."1 this document do not explicitly extend phase of the project. It is the responsibility of
into the construction phase, the importance of owner and/or building official, in consultation with
construction quality on building performance in the design team, to ensure that the program
general and the likelihood of encountering implemented satisfies the needs of the particular
unforeseen conditions in retrofit construction in project.
particular warrant special attention to construction Though the extent and formality of the quality
monitoring and quality assurance. assurance program should be tailored to the
This chapter presents the major features of such particular project, such a program should
a program consisting of the following three encompass the major phases of the project and
processes: peer review, plan check, and address, within the above framework, the following
construction quality assurance. Peer review issues:
provides an independent second opinion regarding + The adequacy of the information generated by
the building evaluation and retrofit design criteria, the field investigations (see Chapter 5)
retrofit strategies, and issues involving engineering + The adequacy and appropriate application of the
judgment. Plan check provides a more detailed analytical methods used to identify and quantify
review of the construction documents for the building response and vulnerabilities
conformance to the established criteria and
strategies. Construction quality assurance provides + The validity of the proposed retrofit concepts
a measure of confidence that the retrofit design + The completeness and accuracy of the design
intent is properly implemented during construction calculations
and includes site observations on the part of the

Chapter 7, ouality Assurance procedures


SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

.. The adequacy and proper execution of the services associated with peer review are additional
items of scope which should be reflected in the (
testing and inspection program during
engineering contract. f
construction
.. The conformance of construction materials and 7.2.1 purpose (
execution with design requirements
The purpose of the project peer review is to
improve public safety and to enhance the quality,
7.2 Peer Review reliability, and performance of the retrofitted
Because of the complexity and uncertainty building. The project peer review team fulfills this
inherently involved in the seismic evaluation and purpose by confirming the overall criteria,
retrofit of concrete buildings, an independent concepts, strategies, and execution of concepts;
second opinion in the form of a project peer review providing a second opinion on issues involving (
can enhance the quality and reliability of the design. engineering judgment; and providing added (
(
Moreover, since the procedures and methodologies assurance that new and/or complex analysis
(
outlined in this document require the thoughtful methodologies or retrofit strategies are applied
(
exercise of engineering judgment supported by appropriately. The owner, with input from the (
relatively new and unfamiliar and sometimes design team, will determine appropriate objectives (
complex analysis procedures, a project peer review for the project peer review. (~- -
should be implemented in order to assure the owner Commentary: Performance based design and ~(

that these procedures and methodologies have been the analysis techniques presented in this document (
appropriately applied and followed. are relatively new and advanced methodologies. J,-
Commentary: Though peer reviews have been There will be a certain amount of time before the C-
.(
performed for some time, f017rtalized peer review engineering community becomes familiar and
standards and requirements are less established comfortable with these techniques, and there will be
(
and, in some cases, still in development. This an associated learning curve leading to the effective
(
section should serve as a guide towards establishing use ofthem. Additionally there are often differences (
a project peer review process for a specific building of opinion on the applicability and use of the ( ~

project. There are several standards that are methodologies for a specific building project. It is
currently in use for peer review including ASCE's for these reasons that a project peer review should
Standard for Independent Peer Review (ASCE be viewed as not only beneficial but essential when (
1995), Recommended Guidelines for the Practice of these methodologies are employed. (
Structural Engineering in California (SEAOC (
1995a), and Guidelines for the Seismic Retrofit of 7.2.2 Objectives ~ "

State Buildings (DSA 1995). Among the objectives that may be appropriate ?
When project peer review. is implemented, the for a given project are the following: (
owner, or in some cases the building official, will .. To stimulate thought and discussion ofa
contract directly with the project peer review team. collaborative nature by examining the basis for (
The structural engineer of record will be the evaluations and judgments made and
responsible for meeting with the team at regular offering alternative interpretations and solutions (
intervals, providing them with information (which for consideration by the design team ( .
may include a preliminary investigation plan, a (
.. To provide confirmation of the appropriateness (
proposed analysis methodology, conceptual design
of performance objectives, basic assumptions,
schemes, progress sets of design documents and
and design criteria (
calculations, and a testing and inspection plan), and
(
responding to the team's review comments. The
(
(
(
Chapter 7, Quality Ass'urance procedures
(
(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUiLDINGS

:-

+ To review the proposed analysis methodology deficiencies are discovered and corrected.
for appropriateness Furthermore, any suggestions regarding economy
and constructibility of the retrofit that result from
.. To provide independent validation of
the peer review are both desirable and appropriate.
engineering judgments that contribute to the
Peer review is not intended to be a checkfor
evaluation, retrofit design, and assessment of
code compliance, although some code issues will be
seismic performance
addressed in the process of defining design criteria
.. To provide review and comment regarding the and objectives. Code compliance is addressed more
reliability, constructibility, and economy of the explicitly in the plan check process.
retrofit design solution
.. To track the progress of the evaluation and
7.2.3 Requirements
design process to ensure a comprehensive Project peer review is recommended on all
vulnerability assessment and retrofit solution projects unless the owner (and in some cases the
building official), in consultation with the structural
+ To review the final design documents to ensure engineer of record, determines that the project
that the concepts developed during evaluation qualifies as a "simple" project. In order for the
and preliminary design are implemented in the project to qualify as simple, the following
actual retrofit conditions should be present:
• To provide review and comment regarding the .. The building is one or two stories.
performance of non-structural components
+ Complete as-built drawings are available.
Commentary: In most cases the following three
junctions are provided solely by the structural • Observed existing conditions substantially
engineer of record. They are included here for the conform to as-built drawings.
rare instances when the complexity of the +- Any existing structural irregularities do not
construction process or unforeseen conditions might specifically affect the building's dynamic
warrant the objective oversight function as an added response.
quality assurance measure.
• Conventional (linear elastic) analysis procedures
• To provide review and comment regarding are used.
special construction such as shoring or special
Commentary: The above list is by no means
sequences that may be required
comprehensive. Other considerations include the
+ To provide review and comment regarding the size of the building (relatively small), the regularity
completeness and appropriateness of the testing and redundancy of the lateral force resisting system,
and inspection plan the occupancy (no special functions or contents),
.. To monitor the progress of the construction and the performance required (no special damage
process to ensure that the quality assurance control or lower seismic hazard). The judgment as
plan is implemented to whether eliminating the peer review is warranted
must be made by the owner or building official with
The peer review process is not intended to be a
the input of the design team.
value engineering exercise. However, the process
often yields a similar economic benefit simply by
providing the added assurance that all the

Chapter 7, ouautv Assurance procedures


(

("
(

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS ~.


(

,;
G (
Er (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
f-
(
(

(
Drawings/cales submitted;
Panel or individual tracks
reviewed by individual; written Basic Process (
progress of engineer- of -record
. comments returned

Familiarity with code Equal to


requirements Qualifications of Reviewer(s) engineer-of-record

Not required Strategy for Evaluation and Retrofit Should be reviewed .

Not reviewed Conceptual Design Consensus required

Detailed review Check for conformance


Construction Documents with concept
(
Primary focus Code Compliance Secondary focus (

Not explicitly (-
considered Seismic Performance Primary focus
f0-

e
Not considered Potential forum for
Construction Cost Control discussion
Included in permit Additional but (
fees Cost of Review normally reasonable
i
Conflict Resolution (-
(

(
(

Ch-apter 7. Quality Assurance procedures

(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT ~F. CONCRETE BUILDINGS

7.2.4 Qualifications of Peer Review evaluation or preliminary analysis and design


Team phase and should serve through the review of
The project peer review team should consist of essentially complete (90-100 percent) construction
one or more engineers whose collective experience documents. Although covering most of the project
spans the technical issues anticipated in the design design schedule, the peer review process will
project, especially a strong background in usually be completed as a series of discrete
performance-based design and the nonlinear static reviews at defmed project milestones, such as the
analysis procedures presented in this document. In following:
order to be effective, the review team should + Conceptual phase-focusing on evaluation
possess qualifications at least equal to those of the criteria and performance design basis
design team in analysis methods, a thorough
., Preliminary evaluation and conceptual design
understanding of materials and system behavior,
phase-focusing on results of preliminary
and familiarity with construction means and
investigation, identification of deficiencies,
methods. The lead peer review engineer should be
assessment of expected performance, decision
a California registered structural engineer, familiar
to retrofit, and proposed detailed analysis
with the regulations governing the retrofit work
being reviewed, and experienced in the seismic + Design development phase-focusing on
retrofit of similar concrete structures. analysis and preliminary retrofit design
The project peer review team must not have strategies and reconfirmation of criteria and
involvement in the project other than the tasks performance basis.
associated with the peer review. • Construction document phase-focusing on the
Commentary: One possible exception to this design of systems used to implement the
prohibition exists. In the case where the owner is retrofit strategy and conformance to
not subject to plan check review by an independent established design and performance criteria
agency, the owner may also retain the project peer
review team (or a member of the team) to perform 7.2.6 Scope
the detailed plan check. However, there is not The scope of the peer review must be
universal consensus on this exception: the sufficient to serve the purposes and desired
alternative viewpoint that is sometimes' objectives described above. The owner (and in
encountered is that the project peer review team, some cases the building official), in consultation
having been intimately involved in the concept and with the structural engineer of record, should
strategy development, would be in the position of determine an appropriate scope for the project peer
reviewing its own work when performing plan review. The level of peer review effort required
check services. will vary depending on the individual project; and
It is essential that there be good commun- may range from no review to a comprehensive
ication between the structural engineer of record independent check similar to that required for the
and the project peer review team and that the design of new hospitals. Factors influencing the
review team be objective, unbiased, and fair. scope of the peer review include the complexity of
Commentary: It is desirable that the review the proposed evaluation procedures and retrofit
team and the structural engineer of record have schemes and the capability and experience of the
mutual respect. design team. The scope should be sufficiently
broad to enable the project peer review team to
7.2.5 Schedule for Peer Review gain a thorough understanding of the project
The project peer review team should be constraints and context.
selected, and the peer review initiated, early in the

Chapter 7, Quality Assurance Procedures


SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

(
The following list contains possible scope •. Review the contract documents at 90 percent
items. It is intended to be comprehensive and to completion for consistency, completeness, (
encompass a wide range of items that could be conformance with design work plan
included in the scope of the peer review depending (
• Review the proposed construction phase test-
on the requirements of any specific project.
Commentary: This list may be far too.
ing and inspection plan developed by the (
structural engineer of record. (
comprehensive for all items to be required or (
includedfor most individual retrofitprojects. .. Review plan check scope, meet with the
However, they are included as a menu to assist the structural engineer of record and the plan (
owner and design team in determining the check engineering team to review and discuss ('
appropriate scope for a project based on the the plan check methodology and to assist in (
specific conditions and desired level of assurance identifying conditions that warrant special (

for that project. The published peer review attention. (


guidelines referenced above contain addition Commentary: In order to get the maximum
information and specific scope items that may be benefit out ofthe plan check process, it is (
useful in determining the appropriate scope for desirablefor the structural engineer of record (and
peer review. as deemed appropriate the peer reviewer) to
(
• Review quality assurance program provide the plan checker with an introduction to t~ -
the project including the identification ofprimary , -(

• Review as-built information and the results of objectives, criteria, and assumptions, complex
the preliminary investigation (
portions ofthe design and/or construction, and (

• Review preliminary evaluation and analysis critical elements of the load path. C;>
{.
approach and results . In mostcases the peer review services will
• Review strategy for final analysis and design terminate with the review of the 90 percent to 100
at the end of the design development phase percent construction documents. However, it may
be desirable to consider some involvement of the
• Review the design work plan to ensure that all project peer review team beyond that point in
pertinent elements of the evaluation and cases where there will be issues of construction
analysis procedures are addressed: sequence and/or means and methods that shouldbe
III Performance and seismic hazard criteria defined during design or where it is anticipated
that significant engineering decisions will have to (
• Assigned capacity of structural systems
made after destructive testing and/or partial
and elements and load paths
demolition. An example would be temporary ( >0

• Degree of redundancy, ductility, and shoring and bracing requirements where the (.
compatibility retrofit strategy involves temporarily interrupting (
III Acceptance limits load paths to facilitate construction.
Such scope items could include: reviewing of (
• Nonstructural systems construction plan and assisting in identifying
.. Special conditions including base isolation conditions that require special construction I
and damping systems and devices procedures or sequences, reviewing additional (-
• Monitor design progress, review changes, information discovered during construction, and
verify execution of design work plan for reviewing changes as a result of hidden conditions (
potential effects on achievements of desired . or constructibility constraints.
These items are not intended to address the (
performance objectives
general construction plan, but only should be (
(

(
7·6 Chapter 7, Quality Assurance Procedures

(
SEISMIC eVALUATION AND RETROFiT OF CONCRETE BUllLDINGS

.:

considered in situations which deviate from review team, they should attempt to resolve the
methods and sequences of standard construction. differences through direct interaction. The
In these situations it is often prudent to have a structural engineer of record has the ultimate
second opinion, and the owner may wish to include responsibility for the structural design, and,
additional items of scope in the peer review. therefore, must have the control of the design
Items of scope selected from·the above list or solution. However, differences of opinion between
other items of scope, as deemed appropriate by the the project peer review team and the structural
structural engineer of record and the owner and/or engineer of record should be resolved to the
building official, should be identified in the written satisfaction of the owner and/or building official.
agreement for peer review services. All issues raised by the review team should be
addressed by the structural engineer of record and,
7.2.1 Reporting ifpossible, resolved by consensus. However, the
Specific form and timing of report(s) are to be structural engineer of record-should not be
determined by mutual agreement in coordination required to defer to the judgment of the review
with the design team, the project peer review team and is not obligated to jncorporate all of their
team, and the owner. It may be desirable for the recommendations.
review team to produce progress reports at major Commentary: One means to provide for
milestones in the design process. conflict resolution is to incorporate provisions for
Each report should include the following: . a peer review board, separatejrom the project
• Scope of review peer review team, that can fill the role of arbiter of
disputes. Such a resource provides an ideal forum
~ Statement of status of project documents at
in which to resolve professional differences of
each review stage
opinion. Unfortunately, such a review board may
• Statement of findings, comments, and any not be available to the general building design and
recommendations construction community.
.. Statement of items requiring further review In the case of a total impasse, the owner
and/or building official must either accept the
A comprehensive report summarizing findings,
recommendation of the structural engineer of
comments, and recommendations should be
record or replace him/her. It should be
produced after the .review of the 90 percent
emphasized that such a step may have grave
complete construction documents. The 90 percent
implications for the project schedule and budget.
report should address explicitly each of the items
Under no circumstances should the project peer
that have been included in the scope of the peer
review team be retained to replace the structural
review. The report should distinguish between
engineer of record.
comments that involve life safety issues, comments
that have to do with constructibility or economy, 7.2.9 Peer Review Agreement
and comments that have to do with the clarity of
There should be a written agreement between
the information presented in the documents.
the owner and the project peer review team
7.2.8 Conflict Resolution and defining the terms and conditions under which the
Responsibility peer review will be performed. Such an agreement
should address the following:
The structural engineer of record should
respond explicitly to each comment or .. The specific items of scope to be addressed by
recommendation made by the project peer review the peer review
team. Where there are differences of opinion + The schedule for the peer review
between the structural engineer of record and the

Chapter 7, Quality Assurance procedures


( ~,
(

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS ( (


• .:>
(
: (

~(
(
since having in-depth knowledge of the structural (
.. The issue of liability
system is an advantage in performing the plan (
Commentary: Typically, peer review
check.. ~
guidelines (ASCE 1995, SEAOC 1995a) (
recommend that the agreement include an (
7..3..1 Purpose
indemnity clause in recognition of the fact that the (
reviewer does not have control of the design. The The plan check process provides the building
intent of the peer review process is to enhance the official (and the general public) a measure of
quality-not distribute the liability. confidence in the implementation and compliance (

.. The process for implementing the peer review


of the retrofit design, as represented by the (
drawings, specifications, and calculations with
including lines of communication
applicable codes, standards; or guidelines. (
.. The methods of reporting and the format of Although the plan checker may identify conceptual
reports analysis and design issues, this is not the intent (
.. The process of reconciliation of differing and should not be a common occurrence.
(
opinions between the project peer review team The purposes of the plan check are as follows:
and the structural engineer of record .. To ensure that the set of calculations prepared (
\

by the structural engineer of record is


.. Compensation
comprehensive and addresses all systems,
.. Methods of addressing additional items of subsystems, elements, and details required as
scope that may become necessary or desirable part of the retrofit
as the design progresses
.. To provide a degree of confidence that the
calculations performed are substantially (.
7.3 Plan Check-- accurate
While the peer review process provides the
.. To provide a degree of confidence that the
owner with quality assurances related to criteria,
drawings are complete and address all
(
evaluation, the analysis and design process, and (
elements deemed pertinent to the performance
achievement of desired performance, the plan
criteria for the project
check is typically performed under the auspices of
the building official and consists mainly of a .. To provide a degree of confidence that the
(
detailed review of the construction documents and details on the drawings are compatible with the
analyses performed and are internally (
calculations for correctness, completeness and (
compliance with applicable codes, standards, or consistent ( >
guidelines. It may be performed by the building Commentary: Many of the activities in a ~..
official or an independent engineer retained by the- typical detailed plan check duplicate activities that
building official. The plan check should generally the structural engineer of record must perform in
not be performed" by the same team that performed house. The plan check is not intended to replace
the project peer review. the internal quality control procedures of the
Commentary: In most cases the plan check is structural engineer of record.
performed by agencies thai are independent of the
owner, e.g., building departments or the OSHPD. 7.3.2 Requirements
Where this is not the case, i.e., where the owner, A plan check should be performed on all
(
agency, or institution is not subject to plan check projects. The level of the plan check will
review by building officials of an independent inevitably vary depending on the requirements of (
agency, the owner may wish to consider having the the specific building department. (
peer reviewer continue in the role ofplan checker, (
(
(
Chapter 7. Quality Assurance Procedures

(
(

(
7.. 3.3 Qualifications of the Plan prepared by the structural engineer of record,
Checker including:
The qualifications of plan checker should be e Verification of lateral analysis performed
similar to those of the peer reviewer. The plan by the structural engineer of record
checker should be familiar with the analysis
procedures employed and experienced in the Iij Diaphragm shears and moments (may be
production of contract drawings and specifications based on verified lateral analysis) and
for construction projects similar in scope and verification of collector forces and
nature to the project being checked. connection designs
Commentary: The plan check must address lit Cross check of details against plans
the critical issue of communication of the design to including a visual check of local load paths
the construction team through the drawings and in details and, where appropriate,
specifications. In order to do this properly the plan calculations for local load paths
check team should have experience in producing \11 Detailed check of typical connections and
contract documents. verification of applicability of typical
details, i.e., verification that typical details
7..3.4 Schedule for Plan Check
cover all conditions intended
The formal detailed plan check should
commence when the construction drawings and et Detailed check of several of non-typical
calculations are no less than 90 percent complete. connection details, beams, columns,
However, the building official responsible for braces, foundations
performing the plan check should be introduced to .. Review of the construction phase testing and
the project at an earlier phase, i.e, during inspection program prepared by ·the structural
preliminary design, in order to become familiar engineer of record, including suggestions of
with the specifics of the particular project and be modifications deemed appropriate based on the
able to determine if the assistance of an outside detailed review of the design
plan checker will be needed.
1..3.6 Reporting and Correction
7.3.5 Scope Process
As a minimum, the plan check should include The plan checker should prepare a written
the following elements: report summarizing the scope of the review, the
• Review of seismic performance, capacity, and specific elements checked, and the results of the
demand criteria check. p.~ red-lined check set should accompany the
• Review of all elements of the lateral system report. The structural engineer of record should
and verification that calculations for each respond to all items noted by the plan checker,
element have been prepared either by revising the calculations and affected
drawings or, where appropriate, clarifying and/or
t- Review of all elements of the gravity system verifying the intent of the original design.
affected by the retrofit construction and Corrections must be resubmitted-to the plan
verification that calculations for each affected checker for back checking.
element have been performed Commentary: It is imperative that there be
+' Preparation of independent calculations for a good communication between the structural
representative sample of each type of element engineer of record and the plan check team. To the
and cross check against the calculations extent possible, questions that are raised during

Chapter 7, Quality Assurance procedures


(
(~<

(
SElswnc EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS (
(
(
: .(
~'
~

(
(
the plan check should be discussed prior to red- progress. Site observations and construction (

lining in order to minimize misunderstandings. monitoring are always critical to the achievement (
(
of a certain level of structural performance, but
7.3.7 Conflict Resolution and (
this is even more the case in concrete retrofit
(
Responsibility construction. No matter how extensive the
(
Where possible, differences of opinion evaluation and design phase exploration, there (
between the plan check team and the structural always exists the potential for unforeseen (
engineer of record should be resolved through conditions to be discovered during construction, (
direct communication. If direct communication some of which can have significant implications (
fails to resolve the conflict, the project peer review for performance and/or assumptions made during (
team should serve as mediator. If the review team evaluation and design and may not be recognized (
is also the plan check team, or if mediation fails to by the contractor. Additionally, because the intent (

resolve the conflict, then the building official of certain details may not be clear to the (
should serve as the mediator and all conflicts must contractor, there exists the potential for
be resolved to his/her satisfaction. Nevertheless, (
misinterpretation, wbich could lead to seemingly
the control of" and the responsibility for, the innocuous yet significant deviations. Therefore,
structural design will remain fully and solely with for the procedures and methodologies of this
the structural engineer of record. document to be effective in providing acceptable
Commentary: The potential for conflicts building performance, the structural engineer of
should be recognized and addressed before the record must play an active roll in assuring that the (
conflicts arise-as they inevitably will. A process retrofitted building conforms to the criteria and
for resolving disputes expeditiously will benefit all intent of the retrofit analysis and design.
(~
parties. A·construction quality assurance program c.
should identify the extent to which the structural
7 ..4 cans_tructlon Quality engineer of record will perform visual
(
Assurance observations and should define his/her role in (
monitoring the performance of the independent
In order to ensure that the constructed project
conforms substantially with an-design testing and inspection agency and the contractor's
quality control personnel.
requirements a three-tiered quality assurance
program should be utilized during the construction 7.4.1.1 Site Visits (
phase of -all projects. The three tiers are' as The structural engineer of record should make
follows: -
site observations at appropriate stages of
• Design team construction services and site construction to verify the conformance of the
visits existing construction with the assumptions of the
• The owner's testing and inspect;ion program, analysis and retrofit design, and to provide
as outlined in the testing and inspection plan reasonable assurance that the new construction is
prepared by the structural engineer of record in general compliance with the design documents.
As a minimum, the number and duration of the
• The contractor's quality control program site visits should be sufficient to allow for
observation of the following:
7.4.1 Design Team Construction
Services and site Visits • Foundation reinforcing details
The primary means of providing construction • Hidden conditions that have been exposed for
quality assurance rests with the involvement of the the first time during construction
structural engineer of record in the construction
(
(
Chapter 7, Quality Assurance procedures

(
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE. BUU..DINC~

::

+ Reinforcement placement for elements of the tested and!or inspected in accordance with
lateral system conventional methods. Examples of items for field
testing and/or inspection include:
.. Critical details that will be obscured by
subsequent construction ., Reinforcing size, spacing, and cover

.. Other conditions or elements critical to the .. Concrete materials and placement


reliable performance of the retrofitted .. Structural steel welding and bolting
structure The testing and inspection program should also
outline a specific testing procedure and frequency
7.4.1.2 Heporting
for all special conditions including, but not limited
The structural engineer of record should to, the following:
provide documentation in the form of written field
• The drilling and grouting of reinforcing steel
reports, ofallsite visits, including the items
or bolts
observed or discussed with the construction team
and any conditions requiring corrective measures. .. The installation of expansion bolts
The contractor's quality control personnel should .. The installation of isolators or dampers
be responsible for notifying the independent testing
and inspection agency when the corrective 7.4.2.3 Reporting
measures are completed. The agency should be The testing and inspection agency should
responsible for verifying and reporting the submit formal reports using standard forms to
corrective measures. facilitate subsequent retrieval of archived
construction information. All reports should be
"].4.2 Construction Testing and submitted to the owner and the structural engineer
Inspection program
of record in a timely fashion to facilitate any
The structural engineer of record should corrective measures that are required.
develop scope of a testing and inspection program
to be implemented by an independent testing and 7.4.2.4 Coordination
inspection agency. The procedures contained in the testing and
inspection program should include provisions for
7.4.2. 1 Inspector QualiFications
coordinating with the contractor's quality control
The owner should retain an independent testing program. For example, where the contractor's
and inspection agency qualified to perform the quality control program requires the use of pour
testing and special inspection required for the checklists, the independent testing and inspection
project. As a minimum, the agency should provide agency should collect and maintain record copies
inspectors that have been qualified in accordance of the checklists.
with lCBO procedures for the type of test or
inspection they are performing. The structural 7.4.3 Contractor's Quality Control
engineer of record may require more rigorous Program
qualifications where deemed appropriate based on The contractor should be· required to institute
the need for special or unusual testing procedures. and follow formal quality control monitoring and
7.4.2.2 Scope reporting procedures independent of the owner's
testing and inspection program. The contractor
The program must address the type and
should identify individuals who are responsible for
frequency of testing required for all construction
ensuring quality control on the job site. There
materials that influence the structural integrity of
should be an established formal means of
the retrofit construction. These materials should be
monitoring and verifying the contractor's quality

Chapter 7, Quality Assurance procedures


SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

(