Guidelines for

Seismic Retrofit of Weak-Story

Wood-Frame Buildings
ATC 71-1

The Team
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

Michael Mahoney
(Contracting Officers Technical Representative)

TASK ORDER CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

David Mar - Project Technical Director

David Bonowitz
Kelly Cobeen
Dan Dolan
Andre Filiatrault
John Price
Mike Korolyk - Analysis Consultant

Christopher Rojahn
(Project Executive Director)

PROJECT REVIEW PANEL

Cathleen Carlisle
(Contracting Officers Technical Representative)

Thomas R. McLane
(Project Manager)
Jon A. Heintz
(Project Quality Control Monitor)
William T. Holmes
(Project Technical Monitor)

Chris Poland - Chair

Bret Lizundia
Andrew Merovich
Laurence Kornfield
Joan MacQuarrie
Tony DeMascole
Tom Tobin
Daniel Shapiro
(Subject Matter Expert)
Robert Hanson
(Subject Matter Expert)

4,400 Dangerous Multi-unit Buildings: 8% of population

Create Seismic Retrofit Program for

Weak-Story Wood-framed Apartment Buildings
in Western US

Inexpensive to Construct
(Work Only In Ground Story)
Inexpensive to Design
(Unsophisticated Engineers)
Performs Well
(Shelter-In-Place)

Inexpensive to Construct
(Cheap)
Inexpensive to Design
(Fast)
Performs Well
(Good)

The Scope

Typically:
Non-Engineered
No Plans
Archaic Materials
Archaic
Construction
Practices

The Problem

1989 Loma Prieta earthquake

Image by Raymond B. Seed
National Information Service for Earthquake Engineering
University of California, Berkeley.

San Francisco, CA, Loma Prieta Earthquake 11/17/1989

Beach and Divisadero in the Marina District. U.S.G.S. by Nakata, J.K.

FEMA News Photo

Northridge, CA: Northridge earthquake

FEMA News Photo

Design for a Population

of Buildings,
not an Individual Building

Pattern Recognition

Pattern Recognition

Strong but Brittle

Upper Structure

Weak and Brittle

Lower Structure

Pattern Recognition

Limited Damage to
Upper Structure

Damage Concentrated
in Lower Structure

Overturning Reductions

300

Story Shear, kips

250

200

150

100

Ground story fixed

50

Ground story with uplift

0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

Interstory Drift Ratio

300

Story Shear, kips

250

200

150

100

Second story fixed

50

Second story with uplift

0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

Interstory Drift Ratio

300

Story Shear, kips

250

200

150

100

50

Third story fixed

Third story with uplift

0
0.0%

0.5%

Overturning Reduction Factor Qot , for Upper Structure

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

Interstory Drift Ratio

300

Two or more stories

above

Perpendicular to
Framing
0.95

Parallel to
Framing
0.85

Unknown or
mixed
0.85

One story above

0.85

0.8

0.8

Top story

0.75

0.8

0.75

250

Story Shear, kips

Level

200

150

100

Fourth story fixed

50

Fourth story with uplift

0
0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

Interstory Drift Ratio

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

Pattern Recognition

400

350

300

Elevation, in.

250

Overly strong retrofit

200

(E) Structure

150

100

The Relative-Strength Method

50

Optimal-cost retrofit
Optimal-performance retrofit
0
0%

1%

2%

3%

Drift Ratio

4%

5%

6%

Can a Buildings Capacity be

Determined from a Few
Parameters?

Epidemiology

Predict Risk of Heart Disease

Based on a Few Indicators

Genetics

Local Seismicity
3.5

Mean

Median

Geomean

Spectral Acceleration, g

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Period, sec.

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

Body Mass Index

Translational Weakness

Structural Use of
Non-conforming
Materials

Load-Drift Data for Wall Bracing Material

Standard Drift Ratio, aj
Material

ID

0.5 %

0.7 %

1.0 %

1.5 %

2.0 %

2.5 %

3.0 %

L01

333

320

262

L02

85

96

L03

429

L04

4.0 %

110

132

145

157

171

540

686

913

440

538

414

200

L01

333

320

262

L05

354

420

496

549

565

Gypsum wallboard

L06

202

213

204

185

172

151

145

Plaster on gypsum lath

L07

402

347

304

L08

521

621

732

812

836

745

686

L09

513

684

826

943

1,018

1,080

1,112

798

L10

1,072

1,195

1,318

1,482

1,612

1,664

1,686

1,638

L11

1,607

1,792

1,976

2,222

2,418

2,496

2,529

2,457

L12

548

767

946

1,023

1,038

1,055

1,065

843

L13

707

990

1,275

1,420

1,466

1,496

1,496

1,185

L14

940

1,316

1,696

1,889

1,949

1,990

1,990

1,576

L15

1,414

1,979

2,551

2,841

2,931

2,993

2,993

2,370

Up to late 1940s
Stucco
Horizontal 1x wood
sheathing
Diagonal 1x wood
sheathing
Plaster on wood lath
After the 1950s
Stucco
Plywood panel siding,
T1-11

Wood structural panel

8d@6
Wood structural panel
8d@4
Wood structural panel
8d@3
Wood structural panel
8d@2

Wood structural panel

10d@6

Wood structural panel

10d@4
Wood structural panel
10d@3
Wood structural panel
10d@2

107

Structural Use of Non-conforming Materials

3,500

Stucco
Horizontal wood sheathing
3,000

Diagonal wood sheathing

Brick veneer
Plaster on wood lath

2,500

Unit Force, plf

Plywood panel siding

Gypsum wall board

2,000

Plaster on gypsum lath

Wood structural panel 8d@6
1,500

Wood structural panel 8d@4

Wood structural panel 8d@3
Wood structural panel 8d@2

1,000

Wood structural panel 10d@6

Wood structural panel 10d@4

500

Wood structural panel 10d@3

Wood structural panel 10d@2
0
0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Drift Ratio, %

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

shear force

Translational Weakness

1,y

2,y

3,y

1,y

1,y

drift ratio

Wall: 1

Translational strength
of the Ground Story

1,y
2

V1,y
Ground Story translational
load-deflection curve in the
y-direction, F1,y

1,y
Drift ratio at which translational
strength occurs

4,y

1,y
4

Smoking

Torsional Weakness

Torsional Imbalance

0.60
0.80

0.00
0.00

0.60
0.80

0.33
0.33

Ground Floor Plans

Upper Floor Plans

eq. eq.

CT

0.67
0.67

0.60
0.80

1.00
1.00

0.0

0.60
0.80

0.2L

AW

Edge of floor above

Lateral strength proportional

to building length in each
direction

Torsional Imbalance

Direction of drift
assessment

1.2

Capacity Reduction Factor

1.0

0.8

0.6

Ductile, Aw = 0.60AB
Ductile, Aw = 0.60R
Ductile, Aw = 0.80AB

0.4

Ductile, Aw = 0.80R
Brittle, Aw = 0.60AB
Brittle, Aw = 0.60R

0.2

Brittle, Aw = 0.80AB
Brittle, Aw = 0.80R
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Torsion Coefficient, C T

1.2

1.4

1.6

Stress

Low Displacement Capacity

1.5

Force

0.5

0
-6

-4

-2

-0.5

-1

-1.5

Drift Ratio, %

Hysteresis of low displacement capacity material

High Activity Level

High Displacement Capacity

1.5

Force

0.5

0
-6

-4

-2

-0.5

-1

-1.5

Drift Ratio, %

Hysteresis of high-displacement capacity material

Strength Degradation Ratio

1,200

Peak Strength, V
Load-Deflection Curve
1,000

Strength at 3% Drift, V3%

Unit Force, plf

800

600

Strength Degradation Ratio,

C D = V 3% /V

400

200

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

Drift Ratio, %

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

Characteristic Structural Coefficients

Ground-story Strength

C s, x

V1, x
Ns

W
j 1

Upper-story Strength

CU , x

V
min N s i , x
W j
j i

Upper to Ground Strength Ratio

CW , x

Toughness

CD ,x

Torsional Imbalance

CT

i 2 N s

Cs,x
CU , x

F1, x ( 3%)
V1, x

Create a Controlled Experiment

Determine the Influence of
Each Characteristic

Analytical Engine:
Surrogate Structure
Concept

Material forms:
(2) total

Brittle

Ductile

Upper-story strength ratios, Au:

(4) per mat'l form
0.1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.1

0.2

0.4

Weak-story ratios, Aw:

0.6 to 1.1 by 0.1
(6) per upper-story strength

Retrofit strengths:
Aw to 1.6
(51) per upper-story strength ratio

TOTAL NUMBER OF
BUILDINGS:
612

Time-history
seed records:

(22) Bi-directional records = (44) individual

Scaled so that median Sa( T = 0.3 sec ) = 1.0g

(35) intensities per seed

record varying from 0.1
to 3.5 by 0.1
Recover peak interstory
drift ratios for each
analysis

1.0

Given drift criteria, fit

log-normal CDF

0.5

0
0

1.0 (Sa = 1g)

Earthquake Intensity

3.5

0.6

Simplified Building Model

W
H
L
q
cos(q)
Astrut
Mg

50
100
111.8
1.107
63.4
0.447
1
1

in.
in.
rad,
deg.
in2
kip

(total weight of building)

Perform Tool
Post Processing Utility

Analytical Engine:
Surrogate-Structure Concept

612 surrogate structures x 44 EQs x 35 intensities

1 million nonlinear response-history analyses

Analysis Results
2.7

Aw=1.1

Spectral Capacity, Sc

2.2

Au = 0.6
Aw=1.1

Au = 0.4

Aw=0.8

1.7
Aw=1.1

Aw=0.6

Aw=0.8

Au = 0.2
Aw=0.6

1.2

Aw=1.1
Aw=0.8
Aw=0.6

Au = 0.1

Aw=0.8

Aw=0.6

0.7
0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Total Ground Floor Strength/Upper Floor Strength

1.5

1.6

Analysis Results
20th Percentile Intensity Spectral Capacity, Sc,20

1.8

S c , 20 0.34 1.47 AW , x AU0.,48x

Aw = 1.2

1.6
Aw = 1.1
Aw = 1

1.4

Aw = 0.9
1.2

Aw = 0.8
Aw = 0.7

Aw = 0.6

0.8
0.6
0.4

Curve fit for

Incremental Dynamic Analysis

0.2
0
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

Upper-Story Strength Ratio, A U

Excel
Visual Basic Applications

0.5

0.6

0.7

Structural Capacity
Sc1, x 0.660.525 2.24 AW , x 1 0.5CT Qs AU0.,48x

S c 0, x 0.600.122 1.59 AW , x 1 0.5CT Qs AU0.,60x

Modifier for POE = 0.2

S c , x C D3 S c1, x 1 C D3 S c 0, x

Sc, x S MS

CD = 0.0

Mean spectral capacity, Sm

for intermediate values

if true no retrofit required

Onset of Strength Loss drift criteria, OSL

20% Probability of Exceedance, POE

CD = 1.0

Retrofit Strength Requirements

upper limit

lower limit

Vr max,x 0.11AU , x 1.22 VU , x

SMS X 2CD3 Y2 1 CD3

Vre,x
X1CD3 Y1 1 CD3

X0 AU0.48Qs 1 0.5CT

Y0 AU0.6Qs 1 0.5CT

X1 1.48X 0

X 2 0.35X0

Y1 0.96Y0

Y2 0.07Y0

Range of Retrofit Strength

Spectral Capacity, Sc

Acceptable Retrofit Range

S c = S MS

Au = 0.4, Aw = 0.6

Minimum Strength, V r min

(Adequate Performance)

Vre, x

S MS X 2C Y2 1 C
X 1C D3 Y1 1 C D3
3
D

3
D

Maximum Strength, V r max

(Best Performance)

Strength of Retrofitted Ground-Story

Vr max,x 0.11AU ,x 1.22 VU , x

Spectral Capacity, Sc

Range of Retrofit Strength

Acceptable Retrofit Range

S MS

Sc
2/3 S MS

Estimated Minimum
Strength, V re
Au = 0.1, Aw = 0.6

Minimum Strength,
V r min = 0.9V r max
Strength of Retrofitted Ground-Story

Maximum
Strength, V r max

Vr max,x 0.11AU ,x 1.22 VU , x

Given Spectral Demand, Find Probability of Exceedance

Probability of exceedance before retrofit

1 (P = 0.87 in this example)

0.9

Fragility curve before retrofit identified by

mean spectral capacity S .
(S = 0.30 in this example)

0.87

0.7

Fragility curve after retrofit identified by

mean spectral capacity S .
(S = 0.55 in this example)
0.55

0.6
0.30

Probability of Exceedance of
Selected Drift Criteria

0.8

0.5

0.47
0.4

Log-normal standard deviation, , determines relavent set

of fragiltiy curves. ( = 0.5 in this example)

0.3

Probability of exceedance after retrofit

0.2 (P = 0.47 in this example)
Site-specific seismic intensity, S S ( = 0.521 in this
example).
0.1

= 0.5
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

Site-Specific Spectral Acceleration, S S

1.8

2.2

2.4

WST IDA
Data Base Graphic Utility

Weak-StoryTool IDA Application

Purpose:
The Weak-StoryTool
IDA application exists as
an interface to query the
raw IDA data.

Predictive Understanding