Evaluation of Existing

Reinforced Concrete Buildings

Greg Deierlein, Stanford University

Kenneth Elwood, Univ. of British Columbia
Dawn Lehman, University of Washington
John Wallace, Univ. of Calif. at Los Angeles
8NCEE Tutorial, April 21, 2006

OUTLINE
1. Introduction and Current Approaches
2. Columns (Elwood)
3. Slab-Column Connections (Wallace)
4. Beam-Column Joints (Lehman)
5. Walls (Wallace)
6. System Performance (Deierlein)

Introduction and Current

Assessment Methods

O
P
E
N

O
P
E
N

O
P
E
N

Greg Deierlein
Stanford University
with contributions by,
Jack Moehle
University of California, Berkeley

8NCEE Tutorial, April 21, 2006

Concrete Design, Codes, Events

1900

1920

Concrete
building
construction
begins

1940
First
UBC

1960
Blume,
Newmark,
Corning
book
published

1980

2000

Imperial
County
earthquake
1976
UBC
San
Fernando
earthquake

FEMA 273

Northridge
earthquake

Columns

Older
Today

Beam-column connections

Older

Today

Walls

Older

Post-1976

Seismic assessment through mid-1990s (FEMA 178)

Checklist to identify
critical deficiencies
Minimum strength
requirement

3 ZICS
V
W
4 R

Seismic assessment since mid-1990s (FEMA 273)

Checklist to identify critical
deficiencies
Detailed requirements for
condition assessment
Performance approach

Performance objectives
Seismic hazard characterization
Nonlinear, displacement-based
analysis
Detailed acceptance criteria

Performance objectives
Building Performance Level

Design Shaking Level

Operational

Occupiable,
Life Safe,
Damaged Major Damage

Near
Collapse

Frequent
(50%/50yr)

Occasional
(20%/50yr

Rare
(~10%/50yr)

MCE
(~2%/50yr)

Most commonly selected

performance objective

Performance objectives
O
P
E
N

Base
Shear

O
P
E
N

O
P
E
N

Collapse
Onset

Damage
Threshold

Deformation
IO

Rare
(10%/50yr
MCE
(~2%/50yr

LS

CP

FEMA 356 Levels

Modeling, analysis, and acceptance

EQ effect

G lo
b al

disp

dj

l a ce

me
nt,

qj
qi
di
Component Model

Global Model

Life Safety limit

Force
B
A

C
D

Deformation

Acceptance Criteria

Component Tests

FEMA 273/356 - Best Practice

Nonlinear Pushover Analysis

- Modeling Assumptions
- Force Distribution

- Target Displacement (Sa)

roof

Component Modeling Criteria

Global Pushover Response

- Backbone Curve
6

Component Acceptance Criteria

- Force Controlled Elements

- Deformation Controlled Elements

Displacement demand

Equivalent linearization (formerly capacity-spectrum)

General concept shown below. See FEMA 440 for details.
Acceleration

Te
5%-damped
spectrum

spectrum reduced for

equivalent damping

Tsecant
pushover curve

T = Target Displacement

Displacement

Displacement demand Coefficient method

Te2
t = C0C1C2C3 S a 2 g
4

Spectral
Acceleration,
Sa

Elastic roof displacement

Period, Te

Co =

converts SDOF spectral displacement to MDOF

roof displacement

C1 =

amplification for nonlinear response of bilinear

system = 1 + R 21

C2 =

aT

amplification for pinched hysteresis, stiffness

2
1 R 1
degradation, and strength deterioration = 1 +

800 T

C3 =

amplification due to dynamic P- effects

replaced by minimum strength requirement

FEMA 440

Component Backbone Response Curve

Deformation Controlled

Force Controlled

Example: Criteria for RC Beams (FEMA 273)

Shortcoming: component models

500
Experimental Res ults
400
300
200

)
N
k(
e
cr
o
F
r
a
e
h
S

100
0
-100
-200

Element backbone
predicted by
FEMA 356
(Table 6-8)

-300
-400
-500
-100

-50

50

100

150

Column Top Horizontal Deflection (mm)

Component Backbone Curve:

- Overly Idealized
- Conservative
- Deterministic

Shortcoming: static vs. dynamic response

Regular0.5 %

Regular4 %

8-story wall2 %
Mean
Min

Max
+/-SD

FEMA 440

Median

First Mode
Inverted Triangular

9-story frame 2 %
Rectangular
Code

Adaptive
SRSS

Multimode

Shortcoming: sensitivity to assumptions

small
High forces
cause shear
wall damage

Foundation
yielding and
rocking protects
shear wall

Small displacements protect

frame from
damage

Stiff/Strong Foundation

large
Large
displacements
cause frame
damage

Flexible/Weak Foundation
ATC 40

Shortcoming: Component-based system criteria

SYSTEM

O
P
E
N

Base
Shear

O
P
E
N

O
P
E
N

Collapse
Onset

Damage
Threshold

Deformation

Component Force

COMPONENT

IO

LS

CP

FEMA 356 Levels

Immediate Occupancy
Life Safety
Collapse Prevention

Component Deformation

Assessment to retrofit
Various
upgrading
measures

Base
Shear 2000
(kips)
1500

1000

Capacity curve
after retrofit
Column shear
failures

Displacement
Demand

Floor beam
shear failures
500

Capacity curve before

retrofit

Shear wall
boundary splice
failure
5

10

15

Roof displacement (in.)

Comartin

OUTLINE
1. Introduction and Current Approaches
2. Columns (Elwood)
3. Slab-Column Connections (Wallace)
4. Beam-Column Joints (Lehman)
5. Walls (Wallace)
6. System Performance (Deierlein)