ATC 40 Vol. 2

"
Seismic evaluation and retrofit.

of concrete buildings
Volume 2-Appendices
Applied Technology Counr:;;i

CALIFORf\IIt1. SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION
Proposition 122 Seisn lie Retrofit Practice8 impr<Jvement Program
Report
sse 96-01
"
'oh
4.183~
G8 ~
'"
,'.
.j
.....,
I-:';':~::,;~::;:;"1
\ /"U" I
1
of Roorkee
I
~llivel'5ity
I
\
\
I
I
Call No ........... .. ..
unci}
California Seismic Safety Commission
) is a non:d in 1971
ineers Asso1 Board of
ppointed by
, the StrucI, the Western
,ssociations,
oed with the
}irector
. :. .=. .\
i
In practitiodesign spe.1quake) in
vely using
lentifies and
_
s consensus
opinions on structural engineering issues in a nonproprietary fonnal. ATC thereby fulfills a unique role in
funded infonnation transfer.
I'
L~:c~:.=~.=
The California Seismic Safety Commission consists

of fifteen members appointed by the Governor and
two members representing the State Senate and State
Assembly. Disciplines represented on the Commission include seismology, engineering, geology, fire
protection, emergency services, public utilities, insurance, social services, local government, building code
enforcement, planning and architecture.
As a nonpartisan, single-purpose body, the mission of
the Commission is to improve the well being of the
people of California through cost-effective measures
that lower earthquake risks to life and property. It
sponsors legislation and advocates building code
changes to improve buildings and other facilities,
provides a forum for representatives of all public and
private interests and academic disciplines related to
earthquakes, and publishes reports, policy recommendations, and guides to improve public safety in earthquakes.
It works toward long-term improvements in all areas
Project management and administration are carried

out by a full-time Executive Director and support
staff. Project work is conducted by a wide range of
highly qualified consulting professionals, thus incorporating the experience of many individuals from
academia, research, and professional practice who
would not be available from any single organization.
Funding for ATC projects is obtained from government agencies and from the private sector in the form
of tax-deductible contributions.
affecting seismic safety by: encouraging and assisting

local governments, state agencies, and businesses to
implement mitigation measures to make sure that they
will be able to operate after earthquakes; establishing
priorities for action to reduce earthquake risks; identifying needs for earthquake education, research, and
legislation; and reviewing emergency response, recovery, and reconstruction efforts after damaging
earthquakes so that lessons learned can be applied to
future earthquakes.
1996-1997 Board of Direetors
Current (1996) Commission Members
John C. Theiss, President

C. Mark Saunders, Vice President
Lloyd S. Cluff, Chairman

James E. Slosson, Vice Chairman
Alfred E. Alquist. State Senator
Dominic L. Cortese. State Assemblyman
Hal Bernson
Jerry C. Chang
Robert Downer
Frederick M. Herman
Jeffrey Johnson
Corliss Lee
Gary L. McGavin
Daniel Shapiro
Lowell E. Shields
Patricia Snyder
Keither M. Wheeler
H. Robert Wirtz
Bijan Mohraz, Secretaryffreasurer

Edwin T. Huston, Past President
Arthur N. L. Chiu
John M. Coil
Edwin T. Dean
Robert G. Dean
Douglas A. Foutch
James R. Libby
Kenneth A. Luttrell
Andrew T. Merovich
Scott A. Stedman
Jonathan G. Shipp
, S:;harles Thornton
Disclaimer
While the information presented in this report is believed to be correct, the Applied Technology
Council and the California Seismic Safety Commission assume no responsibility for its accuracy or
for the opinions expressed herein. The material presented in this publication should not be used or
relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of information from this publication aSSume all liability arising from such use.
Cover IllustratIOn: SLate Office Bldg, 12'h and N St.. Sacramento. CA, provided by Chris Arnold.
lmissio:
n consists
morand
! and State
Cornmis,ogy. fire
ities, insUl
ATC-GO
,ilding cod
~
mission c
ng of the
! measures
Jerty. It .
g code
cilities.
public anI
related to
recommer
ory in earth
in all areas
md assisti"
iinesses to
ure thaI Ihl
!stablishinl
risks; iden!
!arch. and
)onse, remaging
! applied I(
bers
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit

of Concrete Buildings
volume 2-Appendices
~~D TECHN~LOGY
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
lblyman
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Craig D. Comartin
CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PROJECT DIRECTOR
Richard W. Niewiarowski
SENIOR ADVISOR
Christopher Rojahn
logy
lracyor
,sed or
its accu; publi-
Report No. SSC 96-01

November 1996
preface
Proposition 122 passed by California's voters in
1990, created the Earthquake Safety and Public
Buildings Rehabilitation Fund of 1990, supported by a $300 million general obligation
bond program for the seismic retrofit of state
and local government buildings. As a part of
the program, Proposition 122 authorizes the
California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC)
to use up to 1% of the proceeds of the bonds, or
approximately $3 million, to carry out a range
of activities that will capitalize on the seismic
retrofit experience in the private sector to improve seismic retrofit practices for government
buildings. The purpose of California's Proposition 122 research and development program is
to develop state-of-the-practice recommendations to address current needs for seismic retrofit provisions and seismic risk decision tools. It
is focused specifically on vulnerable concrete
structures consistent with the types of concrete
buildings that make up a significant portion of
California's state and local government inventories.
[n 1994, as part of the Proposition 122 Seismic
Retrofit Practices Improvement Program, the
Commission awarded the Applied Technology
Council (ATC) a contract to develop a recommended methodology and commentary for the
eismic evaluation and retrofit of existing con~rete buildings (Product 1.2). In 1995 the
:::ommission awarded a second, related contract
:0 ATC to expand the Product 1.2 effort to in:lude effects of foundations on the seismic per'ormance of existing concrete buildings
Product 1.3). The results of the two projects
lave been combined and are presented in this
\TC-40 Report (also known as SSC-96-01).
rwo other reports recently published by the
:a1ifornia Seismic Safety Commission, the
'rovisional Commentary for Seismic Retrofit
1994) and the Review of Seismic Research Re'ults on Existing Buildings (1994), are Products
.. 1 and 3.1 of the Proposition 122 Program, re.pectively. These two previous reports provide
he primary basis for the development of the
ecommended methodology and commentary
:ontained in this document.
This document is organized into two volumes.

Volume One contains the main body of the
evaluation and retrofit methodology, presented
in 13 chapters, with a glossary and a list of references. This volume contains all of the parts of
the document required for the evaluation and
retrofit of buildings. Volume Two consists of
Appendices containing supporting materials related to the methodology: four example building
case study reports, a cost effectiveness study
related to the four building studies, and a review
of research on the effects of foundation conditions on the seismic performance of concrete
buildings.
This report was prepared under the direction of
A TC Senior Consultant Craig Comartin, who
served as Principal Investigator, and Richard W.
Niewiarowski, who served as Co-Principal Investigator and Project Director. Fred Turner
served as CSSC Project Manager. Overview
and guidance were provided by the Proposition
122 Oversight Panel consisting of Frederick M.
Herman (Chair), Richard Conrad, Ross Cranmer, Wilfred Iwan, Roy Johnston, Frank
McClure, Gary McGavin, Joel McRonald, Joseph P. Nicoletti, Stanley Scott, and Lowell
Shields. The Product 1.2 methodology and
commentary were prepared by Sigmund A.
Freeman, Ronald O. Hamburger, William T .
Holmes, Charles Kircher, Jack P. Moehle,
Thomas A. Sabol, and Nabih Youssef (Product
1.2 Senior Advisory Panel). The Product 1.3
Geotechnical/Structural Working Group consisted of Sunil Gupta, Geoffrey Martin, Marshall Lew, and Lelio Mejia. William T. Holmes, Y oshi Moriwaki, Maurice Power and
Nabili Youssef served on the Product 1.3 Senior
Advisory Panel. Gregory P. Luth and Tom H.
Hale, respectively, served as the Quality Assurance Consultant and the Cost Effectiveness
Study Consultant. Wendy Rule served as Technical Editor, and Gail Hynes Shea served as
Publications Consultant.
Richard McCarthy
CSSC Executive Director
Christopher Rojalm
ATC Executive Director & ATC-40 Senior
Advisor
III
Oversight Panel for

proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices
Improvement program
Frederick M. Herman, Chair
Seismic Safety Commission
Local Government/Building
Official
Richard Conrad
Building Standards Commission
Ross Cranmer
Building Official
Structural Engineer
Roy Johnston
Structural Engineer
Frank McClure
Structural Engineer
Joel McRonald
Division of the State Architect
Joseph P. Nicoletti
Structural Engineer
Dr. Wilfred Iwan

Mechanical Engineer
Gary McGavin
Architect
Stanley Scott
Research Political Scientist
Lowell E. Shields
Mechanical Engineer
Seismic Safety commission Staff

Richard McCarthy
Executive Director
Karen Cogan
Deborah Penny
Carmen Marquez
Iv
Fred Turner
Project Manager
Chris Lindstrom
Ed Hensley
Teri DeVriend
Kathy Goodell
V
Ii
s
1
~
Product 1.2 Senior Advisory Panel

IS
Sigmund A. Freeman
Wiss. Janney. Elstner &
Associates
Charles Kircher
Charles Kircher &
Assocates
Ronald O. Hamburger
EQE International
William T. Holmes
Rutherford & Chekene
Jack Moehle
Earthquake Engineering
Research Center
Thomas A. Sabol
Engelkirk & Sabol
Nabih F . Youssef
Nabih Youssef &
Associates
Product 1.3 Senior Advisory Panel

mission
William T. Holmes
Maurice Power
Geomatrix Consultants. Inc.
Yoshi Moriwaki
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Nabih F. Youssef
Nabih Youssef & Associates
Product 1.3 Geotechnical/structural working Group

Sunil Gupta
Q Tech Consultants
Geoffrey R. Martin
University of Southern California
Marshall Lew
Law/Crandall. Inc.
Lelio Mejia
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Quality Assurance Consultant

Jregory P. Luth
'Jregory P. Luth & Associates
Technical Editor
Wendy Rule
Richmond. CA
:ost Effectiveness study Consultant

rom H. Hale
fimmy R. Yee Consulting Engineers
Publications Consultant
Gail Hynes Shea
Albany. CA
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings

products 1.2 and 1.3 of the proposition 122
seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program
Table of Contents
Volume 1
Preface ................................................................................................... iii

Glossary ................................................................................................. xi
Executive Summary ................................................................................... xv
Chapter 1
Introduction ........................................................................... \-1
1.1
Purpose ........................................................................ \-\
1.2 Scope .......................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Organization and Contents ................................................. 1-5
Chapter 2
Overview .............................................................................. 2-1
2.1
Introduction ............................................................ : ..... 2-\
2.2 Changes in Perspective ..................................................... 2-3
2.3
Getting Started ............................................................... 2-6
2.4 Basic Evaluation and Retrofit Strategy ................................. 2-11
2.5
Evaluation and Retrofit Concept ........................................ 2-14
2.6
Final Design and Construction .......................................... 2-19
Chapter 3
Performance Objectives ............................................................. 3-1
3.1
Introduction .................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Performance Levels ......................................................... 3-\
3.3
Earthquake Ground Motion ................................................ 3-8
3.4 Performance Objectives .................................................... 3-9
3.5
Assignment of Performance Objectives ................................ 3-12
Chapter 4
Seismic Hazard ...................................................................... .4-1
4.1
Scope ......................................................................... .4-1
4.2
Earthquake Ground Shaking Hazard Levels ............................ .4-1
4.3 Ground Failure .............................................................. .4-2
4.4
Primary Ground Shaking Criteria ........................................ .4-5
4.5 Specification of Supplementary Criteria ............................... 4-12
Chapter 5
Determination of Deficiencies ..................................................... 5-1
5.1
Introduction .................................................................. 5-1
able Of
contents
vii
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Chapter 6
Chapter 7
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
viii
5.2
Description: Typical Layouts and Details ............................... 5-1
5.3
Seismic Performance ....................................................... 5-5
5.4
Data Collection ............................................................ 5-12
5.5
Review of Seismic Hazard ............................................... 5-17
5.6
Identification of Potential Deficiencies ................................ 5-18
5.7
Preliminary Evaluation of Anticipated Seismic Performance ...... 5-20
5.8
Preliminary Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendations ....... 5-21
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
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
Nonlinear Static Analysis Procedures ............................................ 8-1
8.1
Introduction .................................................................. 8-1
8.2
Methods to Perform Simplified Nonlinear Analysis ................... 8-3
8.3
Illustrative Example ....................................................... 8-34
8.4
Other Analysis Methods .................................................. 8-54
8.5
Basics of Structural Dynamics .......................................... 8-57
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
Foundation Effects ................................................................. 10-1
10.1 General. . .. .... . . . . . . . .. .. .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . .. .. . .. . . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. .. 10-1
10.2 Foundation System and Global Structural Model .................... 10-2
10.3 Foundation Elements ..................................................... 10-7
10.4 Properties of Geotechnical Components .............................. 10-12
10.5 Characterization of Site Soils ........................................... 10-20
10.6 Response Limits and Acceptability Criteria .......................... 10-28
10.7 Modifications to Foundation Systems ................................. 10-29
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
Nonstructural Components ....................................................... 12-1
Table of Contents
~S
12.1 Introduction ................................................................

12.2 Acceptability Criteria .....................................................
Chapter 13 Conclusions and Future Directions ..............................................
13.1 Introduction ................................................................
13.2 Additional Data ............................................................
13.3 Potential BenefIts ..........................................................
13.4 Major Challenges ..........................................................
13.5 Recommended Action Plan ..............................................
References ...........................................................................................
12-1
12-1
13-1
13-1
13-1
13-4
13-5
13-6
14-1
volume 2-Appendlces
Appendix A Escondido Village Midrise, Stanford, California .............................. A-I
Appendix B Barrington Medical Center, Los Angeles, California ......................... B-1
Appendix C Administration Building, California State University at Northridge,
Northridge, California .. : .......................................................... C-l
Appendix D Holiday Inn, Van Nuys, California .............................................. D-l
Appendix E Cost Effectiveness Study ........................................................... E-l
Appendix F Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects ............................. F-l
Appendix G Applied Technology Council Projects and Report Information .............. G-l
Of contenl'able Of contents
Ix
f
APpendix A
Example Building Study

Escondido village Mldrlse
stanford, California
prepared by
EQE International
44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94104
'1Il1endlx A, Escondido village Mldrlse
A-'
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................. A-5
1.1 Purpose ...................................................................................... A-5
1.2 Scope of Example Building Study ....................................................... A-5
1.3 Summary of Findings ..................................................................... A-5
2. Building and Site Description ............................................................................ A-7
2.1 General ...................................................................................... A-7
2.2 Structural Systems and Members ....................................................... A-8
2.3 Soil and Seismicity ........................................................................ A-9
2.4 Building Performance During the Lorna Prieta Earthquake ........................ A-9
3. Preliminary Evaluation ................................................................................... A-9
3.1 Summary .................................................................................... A-9
3.2 FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements ..................................................... A-II
3.3 Elastic Analysis ........................................................................... A-I4
4. Evaluation by Product 1.2 Methodology .............................................................. A-IS
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................ A-IS
4.2 Analysis Methodology ................................................................... A-IS
4.3 Structure ryIodeling ....................................................................... A-IS
4.4 Pushover Analysis ........................................................................ A-22
4.5 Performance Point. ....................................................................... A-27
4.6 Performance Assessment ................................................................ A-31
5. Conceptual Retrofit Designs .......................................................... , ................. A-33
5.1 Performance Objectives ................................................................. A-33
5.2 Retrofit Strategies ........................................................................ A-33
5.3 Retrofit Systems .......................................................................... A-34
6. Assessment of the Product 1.2 Methodology ......................................................... A-36
6.1 Damage Prediction ....................................................................... A-36
6.2 Comparison with Preliminary Evaluation Findings ................................. A-36
6.3 Comparison with Inelastic Time-History Analysis .................................. A-37
6.4 Conclusions ................................................................................ A-37
7. Foundation Analysis ...................................................................................... A-38
7.1 Introduction ................................................................................ A-38
7.2 Varying Soil Parameters ................................................................. A-38
7.3 Comparisons with Inelastic Time-History Analysis ................................. A-42
7.4 Conclusions ................................................................................ A-43
8. References ................................................................................................. A-43
I!Ipendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
--SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
APpendix A

Escondido village Midrise
stanford, California
1.
Introduction
1.1
purpose
The purpose of this example building study is

to illustrate and evaluate the techniques outlined in
products 1.2 and 1.3 of Proposition 122 as a tool
for the evaluation and retrofit of existing concrete
buildings. Titled Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit
of Existing Concrete Buildings, Volume 1, the
document is referred to herein as the .
Methodology.
1.2
scope of Example Building study
This study presents the evaluation and

conceptual retrofit design of a concrete building
located on the Stanford University campus,
following the recommendations of the
Methodology. This study was performed
;oincident with the various draft stages of
:ievelopment of the Methodology and feedback
from this study was used to affect final
nodifications of the Methodology. Our scope
neluded:
Preliminary evaluation (Section 3 of this
report)
Modeling, analysis, and assessment by

nonlinear pushover analysis (Section 4)
Conceptual retrofit (Section 5)
Assessment of the Methodology (Section 6)

Foundation analysis (Section 7)
1.3
summary of Findings
The tools currently available to the structural

ngineer for seismic evaluation and retrofit of
Ippendlx A, Escondido Village Mldrlse
existing concrete structures are essentially limited

to the building codes for new construction and the
FEMA-178 document. In comparison with these
existing tools, the Methodology appears to
represent a significant enhancement in the state of
practice. Based on the Escondido Village Midrise
(EVM) case study, the Methodology appears to
provide a realistic and conservative, if not
completely accurate, approach to seismic
evaluation of complex reinforced concrete
structures yet also permi ts the engineer to develop
retrofit strategies that are significantly more cost
effective than were traditionally utilized in the
past.
FEMA-178 evaluations of the EVM buildings
indicate an inability to satisfy the life safety
performance level for the design earthquake, due
to a lateral force resisting system comprised of
discontinuous shear walls, with inadequate shear
capacity. Prior to development of the
Methodology, the standard approach for mitigation
of such deficiencies would have been the
introduction of an extensive number of
supplemental shear walls to the structure. This
would have great architectural and economic
impact on the building. In comparison, the
Methodology identified that the existing walls
essentially provide adequate drift control for the
structure, but that several other vulnerabilities
related to shear capacity of the lower story
columns and punching shear capacity of the floor
slabs exist. Retrofit of these vulnerabilities, which
were not specifically identified by the FEMA-178
approach, was found to be possible with much less
architectural impact on the buildings and at
A-5
Table 1.$1. ComparIson Of flOOf DlsPlacemen.;;;ts~ _ _
significantly reduced cost compared to alternative

approaches suggested by the FEMA-178
evaluation. These retrofit modifications have
actually been constructed, within a time period of
approximately 3 months and while the buildings
remained nearly completely occupied.
Compared to existing approaches, the
Methodology does require more complex and time
consuming work on the part of the structural
designer. However, the additional level of effort
required is well within the capability of the
average practicing engineer in California, who has
the familiarity with the basic concepts of structural
dynamics and inelastic behavior of structures that
is essential to being able to design effective
seismic resistant systems, either for new or
existing buildings. In the case of the EVM
buildings, the additional effort and cost invested in
the evaluation and analysis of the structure resulted
in a very substantial reduction in retrofit
construction costs, and consequently in overall
project costs.
Notwithstanding the above, it can not be
overemphasized that this Methodology does not
provide an "exact" tool for the seismic evaluation
of structures, and that in fact, such an "exact" tool
does not exist within our current technological
capabilities. In the EVM case study, target
displacements were determined by two alternative
methods encompassed by the Methodology, the
Displacement Coefficient Method and the
A-a
Capacity-Spectrum approach; as well as by two

other approaches that are commonly cited in the
literature - the so called "Equal Displacement
Approximation" and non-linear response history
analysis, in which the average result for 20
different response histories is shown. Table 1.3-1
indicates the range of computed roof displacement
obtained by these alternatives methods, and also
provides a normalized index that consists of the
ratio of the displacement computed by each
method to the maximum displacement predicted by
the nonlinear response history analyses.
As can be seen by evaluating the data
contained in Table 1.3-1, the various approaches
for estimating the maximum roof displacement
produced in the building vary by as much as
+ 25 %, to 35 %. The method with the largest
variation, and the least conservative estimate, is
actually the use of the average of the series of
non-linear response history analyses. The two
methods contained in the methodology; the
displacement coefficient approach and capacity
spectrum approach, produce the most conservative
estimates. This apparent conservatism would
appear to be the result of the way in which the
various approaches treat the pinched hysteretic
response. The equal displacement rule and
response history analyses both neglect the effects
of hysteretic pinching. Both the displacement
coefficient and capacity spectrum techniques
account for this effect. Although the research
Appendix A, EscondidO Village Midrise
il
b
\I
A~
'oof
(zed,to
'fIum
onse
'ory
- - ,-
/8
34
JO
r-
..
..
~.
[X
33
25
'c>ZIl" I
.,
: by two
I ...... 1 ... iii' ... , .
~
ed in the
10'-7"
ement
.... C
",",L_',.~. . . .:. . .
- - - . - - - - " - - - . ..............-"'1
8'-3e history
.1..
L ...... ~ ..
- - - . B
: 20
I
. . . . . . . . . " .... ' . s... W
~ ... l ' .. I
able 1.3-1
12'
.
12'
12'_7"
12'
12'
:
12'
:
splacemen
'2'
'2'
and also
,ts of the
Figure 2.1,1. Typical Floor Plan
!ach
)redicted 1:community is currently divided with regard to the
2.
Building and Site
importance of pinched hysteresis to overall
Description
Ita
building response, it would seem pruden~ given the
pproaches wide range of variation in the response history
2.1
Ceneral
Icement analyses to take the conservative approach as has
The Escondido Village Midrise buildings are a
lch as
been done by the methodology. Such conservatism
set of five, similar, reinforced concrete shear wall
,argest
is further warranted, given that our ability to
structures. The buildings were constructed in two
timate, is Iccurately estimate the ground motions that a
phases. The first phase, designed in 1961,
!ries of milding will be subjected to is quite limited.
consisted of three structurally identical buildings 'he two
As noted earlier, although the Methodology
Abrams, Barnes, and Hulme. The second phase,
; the
Ippears to provide conservative estimates of
designed in 1964, consists of Hoskins ll?d .
capacity lUilding response, compared to other approaches,
McFarland, which are also structurally Identical to
;onservativetrofit designs developed using the Methodology
each other. The two phases of construction were
would
ICtually appear to be quite cost effective and
designed by the same designers and have nearly
hich the :conomical relative to the designs commonly
identical floor plans. The primary difference
ysteretic Iroduced in the past using more traditional
between the two phases is in the layout of
and
pproaches.
basement
areas.
the effects
The buildings have overall plan dimensions of
cement
65 feet by 109 feet, and are approximately
niques
rectangular in plan (Figure 2.1-1). They are
esearch
IX
"W
T.
lIIage Mldr!bpendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
A7
,!
.. ':'.:i
, , "
: . ' , " " " " " " .' ,'.j
t;.:._':.":~.::.:~::_:
..;.'.:":.:; ;.... .'_ .. _.
{COO: -060000000 0 ' :0000
Figure 2.2,1. Typical Floor

Slab constructfon
arranged in random directions on the Stanford

campus, but are all located at the northeast corner
of the site, near EI Camino Real and Stanford
Avenue.
Each building is 8 stories tall, with a
mechanical equipment penthouse and a full
basement. The typical story height is 9'-1" (the
basement story height is 12'-7"). The basements
are only partially embedded within the ground,
with the first floor located about 4 feet above
adjacent grade.
2.2
structural systems and Members
Figure 2.2-2. Typical Connection

Of Floor to wall
Continuous strip footings support walls
Isolated spread footings support columns
LaterallDad-reslstlng system
Materials
Per original design drawings, specified 28-day

concrete strength: 3000 psi for slabs, beams,
and walls; 3750 psi for columns
Per test program conducted in 1989, tested

concrete strength: 2470 psi for slabs
Concrete strength used in analysis: 2470 psi

for slabs, beams, walls; 3000 psi for columns
Gravity IDad-reslstlng system
12" one-way concrete core slabs (7" diameter

hollow cores spaced 9" apart) carry floor loads
to walls and columns (Figure 2.21)
Strips of slabs aligned with column lines are

solid and provide a beam-like element at the
columns
10" concrete walls at stairs, elevators, and

perimeter of typical floors
12" concrete walls at basement
15x24 interior concrete columns, 15x22

re-entrant corner columns, i Ix II balcony
columns
A-a
Load-path: rigid slabs, through shear walls, to

foundation
Specified steel reinforcing: "intermediate" (40

ksi) grade for slabs, beams, and walls; "hard"
(60 ksi) grade for columns
Concrete shear walls are typically reinforced
with two curtains of reinforcing steel. Vertical
steel is lap spliced at each floor level. Floor slabs
are doweled to the wall, as indicated in
Figure 2.2-2.
Above the first floor level, the walls are of
uniform layout in all of the buildings, as shown in
Figure 2.1-1. There is a substantially larger
Appendix A, Escondida Village Midrlse
;S
umber of walls in the basements of the buildings
~an there is in the upper stories, and the two
phases of construction have slightly different

arrangements of basement walls. Figure 2.2-3
shows the arrangement of typical basement walls
in the first increment of buildings.
5011 and seismicity

The Escondido Village is underlain be
approximately 200 feet of alluvial soils over
Franciscan formation bedrock. As reported in
various project geotechnical reports''J .." the
alluvial soils are generally dense interbedded
layers of clayey sands, sandy clays, sands, and
gravels. Woodward-Clyde Consultants" developed
estimates of the force-deformation relationships
for shallow spread foundations, like those for the
valls
Escondido Village Midrise buildings, founded on
these
soils. These force-deformation properties,
lumns
that were evaluated at loading rates similar to
those expected during an earthquake, are presented
II in Figure 2-3.1.
As indicated in the figure, an effective
:ar wa s, I
subgrade modulus of 800/B tons/ft2/ft is estimated.
Initial stiffness of footings founded on this material
is estimated as being 4K,A, where A is the area of
ified 28-da the footing and J(, is the subgrade modulus.
)s, beams, Ultimate permissible bearing pressures are
estimated by Woodward-Clyde as being on the
9, tested order of 15 tons/ft'. It is projected that the
)s
foundation conditions could vary from 2/3 to
. 2470 . 150 percent of the stiffness projected in the figure.
:
I pSI
The Escondido Village Midrise buildings are
orcouIDIlJlocated on the Stan.or
~ dU"
.
mverslty campus In
nediate" (4northern California. The western border of the
alls; "hardcampus along Junipero Serra Boulevard is
approximately 4.0 miles northeast of the
reinforcedmid-peninsula segment of the San Andreas fault,
Vertical and the eastern border along El Camino Real is
Floor slababout 5.5 miles northeast of the fault.
2.3
2.4
Building Performance During the

Lama Prieta Earthquake
lls are of
as shown i The Escondido Village Midrise buildings were
larger
jamaged during the October 17, 1989 Lorna Prieta
lIIage Mldril'ppendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
Earthquake. This included moderate but

widespread cracking of the cast-in-place concrete
walls, including both shear cracking in classic
diagonal "x" patterns, flexural cracking consisting
of cracks that were approximately horizontal near
the bases of the walls, and horizontal cracking
along the construction joints present at floor
levels. The walls around the stair towers
experienced the heaviest damage. Most damage to
the walls was repaired shortly after the earthquake
with the injection of epoxy grout.
3.
Preliminary Evaluation
3.1
summary
As recommended in Chapter 5 of the
Methodology, a preliminary seismic evaluation of
the Escondido Village Midrise buildings was
conducted using the procedures contained in
FEMA-178" to determine if nonlinear analysis is
warranted. The FEMA-178 evaluation procedure
was developed with national consensus of the
engineering community and is intended to serve as
a preliminary screening tool to determine if a
building is a potential unacceptable risk to life.
The procedure contains a series of checklists,
organized by model building type, that guide the
evaluator through examination of important
structural features of the building, relative to
earthquake performance. In some cases, rapid
approximate calculations of capacity are
performed. The premise of the procedure is that
most building failures in earthquakes can be traced
to a relatively limited number of critical flaws,
that the checklists are designed to specifically
explore. Failure of a building to pass the screening
test of the checklist does not necessarily indicate
that a life safety hazard exists. It is expected that
some buildings that fail the checklist screening can
be demonstrated to be adequate to a substantial life
safety performance objective upon more detailed
evaluation.
A9
- -, - ,~
---
---
-,
.. ,---------.
--
---
- - -
-.~.-
r
I
-- - -- --r---......,I--"""i
....-t- -- J - _11_ --
~I~ _J
-+-+-.~
..
10'-7~
rlr --II
... :-,' ..
....._
12'
12'
. )1:
. . .~_l_______ _
12'
12'
12'
'2'
Figure 2.2/1. Basement Floor Plan
16
B_
feet
.. Jolm
I'
12
i2'
.[
10
8
Note - "B" is the footing width
,
"
6
cc
.I!
2
0
O.OS
0.10
O.IS
Foundation DisD]acement rfeetl
Figure 2./11. $011 ForceDeformatlon Relationships
A-10
Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
~---------------------------------------
G)
,
I"'"W20
(0 0
(0
G)
G)
W23
...1
~1~r~1
-.
><
;..
W1.1:.
L
___~.....I_wiii,..'_ _j,---~,___
. .,
'
12'
- -
12'.r
12"
12'
'
12'
W26
10'7"
iI
-ill
--0
W41
Stair #2 .
-. - - .. - - -iII- -ill - -. --
GD
G)
_J
J.
,
i5<J
W31
12'
- - -iI
_ _ __ " _
12'_7" '
'2'
'2'
Figure 3.21. Typical Floor Plan
It should be noted that the ground motion

criteria used in FEMA-178 is substantially less
than projected by Woodward-Clyde for the
Stanford campus. Therefore, FEMA-178 may not
be suitable for use as a life safety hazard screening
tool at this site. This evaluation was performed for
the Escondido Village Midrise buildings primarily
to ensure that all important critical flaws were
identified, prior to proceeding with more detailed
analyses.
For the Escondido Village Midrise buildings,
the FEMAc 178 Evaluation Statements identified a
number of deficiencies in the original design.
Primary concerns include:
Vertical discontinuity in major shear resisting
elements
Inadequate boundary reinforcing in shear walls
Inadequate overturning resistance of

foundations.
3.2
FEMA178 Evaluation statements

The FEMA-178 methodology utilizes a series
of Evaluation Statements that can be answered as
true or false. Typically, these statements are based
on qualitative issues regarding the building's
construction. In some instances, limited
calculations are performed to determine the
appropriateness of a statement. An answer of false
typically indicates a potential seismic deficiency.
For this study, FEMA-178 Evaluation
Statements are used as a preliminary evaluation
tool in accordance with Chapter 5 of the
Methodology. No detailed analysis was performed
to verify potential deficiencies. No testing of
materials was performed. Non-structural elements
were not considered. This evaluation is based on
review of the original structural drawings and a
site walkdown.
False FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements
indicating potential seismic deficiencies include:
General
Weak Story. The story strength at each story
is at least 80 percent of the stories above,
Ullage MldrllPpendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
A-n
SEISMIC EVALUATION ANIi RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
8tbfloor
7tbfloor
-i!-6th floor
TypicallrUllverK wall
(Walll3t and 41)
sthnoor
Typical comer wall
4tbfloor
3rdfloor
~-
n'....'tinu"" at lhear
41
2ndfl"",
Buemcnt
n... .......
Figure S.22. Discontinuity at Transverse Shear
Walls (Walls S1 and 41J
however, there are local discontinuities in some of

the vertical elements of the lateral force resisting
system. These are located at stairways #1 and #2
and at the primary shear walls along lines 1 and
10, designated as W31 and W41, respectively in
Figure 3.2-1. Figure 3.2-2 presents an elevation of
walls 31 and 41, indicating the discontinuity
condition that occurs at the first floor level in these
walls. The effect of this discontinuity is to create a
severe condition for the boundary elements of
these walls.
Figure 3.2-3 presents partial plans of stairway
#1 at the basement, first floor and typical floors.
The primary lateral load resisting components of
this stairwell core are designated as walls "a",
"b", "en, "d" and "e". Wall "a" is offset below
the second floor and walls "CO, "d" and "e" have
large door openings in the mid length of each wall
at the basement level. The discontinuity of wall
"a" is not believed to represent a severe problem
because the return walls "c" and "d", that serve as
the flanges of wall "a" under flexural behavior,
are continuously connected to the wall above, and
are continuous themselves through the zone of
A-12
discontinuity. Therefore, it is believed that an

adequate load path exists across this discontinuity.
The openings in walls "c", "d", and We" are not
considered significant because there are an
extensive number of additional shear walls present
in the basement, and the portions of these walls
that are removed are not critical to the flexural
behavior of this element.
Figure 3.2-4 is a plan of stair way #2. Primary
walls resisting lateral load are indicated as walls
"f", "gH, "h", "iH and "j". Wall "f", along
column line 6 is discontinuous at the first story,
where it is replaced by a column at grid coordinate
D-6. This represents both a shear and flexural
discontinuity, but is primarily a concern because
of the flexural condition. The column at D-6 and
boundary element at B-6 must resist all of the
overturning demands delivered by wall "f" above.
Vertical Discontinuities. As described above,
under "Weak Stories", there are three
conditions of vertical discontinuity - the
transverse walls (W31 and W41), stairway #1,
and stairway #2.
Deterioration of Concrete. Many of the floor

slabs have horizontal cracks present. These
cracks appear to be a result of drying
shrinkage of concrete that was cast too wet.
Concrete Wall Cracks. The buildings

experienced significant cracking in the Lorna
Prieta Earthquake of 1989. Nearly all such
cracks have been repaired with epoxy
injection, except at the basement, where some
cracks with widths as much as 4mm width
were observed. It is not believed that these
cracks are detrimental to the building's future
behavior, however.
Complete Frames. The concrete shear walls

resist a significant portion of the building's
total weight.
Shear Walls
Shearing Stress Check. The maximum
calculated stress in the walls, when the
Appendix A. Escondido Village Midrise
App.
,
~
--------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
,"',
',;!)
an
mtinuity,
are not
it
,i'
Wall"b"
C~) .
(~l
Wall"b"
(~;
Wall
'd'
:j':
'd'
Wall
'e'
Wall"a"
Wall
an
an
'e'
an
e'
c'
c'
Wall "a"
(~l
i,~)'
Wall "a"
1.,
T~!:'
is walls'
ong
t story,
coordinru '
!xural
because
D-6 and
of the
;'f" above
Jed above
'ee
. the
:airway #1
Basement
Aoor
Figure ~,2-~. Partial Floor Plans at stairway NO. 1
(if
(~
(7
All .".
Wall
'r
Wall
'g'
~.
Wall
Wall
"g"
'h'
Wall
"h'
all
. "f'
,~.
<if ...._ _ _ _ _
Wall "I"
Jf the flrnJ
t. These
19
too wet.
TYPical
Floor
Wall 'I'
all
g'
Wall
"h'
'1' .-I' .,,'1

LL-J.
Wall"i"
Basement
'"
FI(ItI(
Figure ~.24 partial Floor Plans at Stairway NO.2
building is evaluated in accordance with the

FEMA-178 Quick Check procedure is.125 psi,
which is substantially in excess of the 50 psi
specified as the limiting value. However, the
walls are well reinforced for shear and the
computed value is well within ACI 318 limits.
;hear walls
,uilding's
,imum
\!:
:,~,'
Wall
'c'
t. Primar
ngs
the Lorna
all such
,xy
Nhere som
n width
lat these
ing's futu~
Wall"b"
Wall
Is presen
! walls
!xural
"
f,',~;
Wall
'd'
<!:l.
In
/-',
(~)
Overturning, Many of the building's walls

have slenderness ratios that substantially
exceed the indicated amount, with the ratio on
some walls approaching 10: 1. Major walls of
the building in the transverse direction have a
ratio of 5: I, while walls in the longitudinal
direction have a ratio of 3.5: 1. Walls are
IlIlage Mldr/Ppendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
provided with special boundary reinforcing

for overturning demands.
Coupling Beams. Coupling beams are

generally poorly reinforced and have no
stirrups.
Column Splices, Longitudinal reinforcing

steel in wall boundary elements are spliced
with 24 diameter lap lengths. These are not
adequate to develop the reinforcing steel. Bar
splices are staggered with not more than
50 percent of the bars spliced at a given
location. Therefore, the effective bar splice in
boundary elements is equivalent to the strength
A-15
of 50 percent of the longitudinal reinforcing

provided. (This was an assumption made
during the initial evaluation, see Section 4.3.4
for additional discussion.)
Reinforcing Steel. The typical reinforcing

pattern for walls provides a ratio of 0.0023
times the gross cross sectional area.
Reinforcing at Openings. Trim bars are
typically provided at openings, however, these
are not confined with special ties.
Plan Irregularities. Re-entrant corners occur

at column locations B-3, B-7, G-4, and G-8.
Special chord bars have not been provided in
these areas. However, the distribution of shear
walls throughout the building is such that
diaphragin flexural demands are moderate and
slab reinforcing is generally adequate to handle
corner stresses.
Transfer to Shear Walls. Dowels provided
between the floor slabs and walls are not
adequately embedded to fully develop their
yield strength. Consequently, the connection
of diaphragms to walls cannot develop the
diaphragm strength. In addition, most walls do
not extend the full length of the diaphragm,
and collector reinforcing has not been provided
to drag diaphragm loads into the walls.
Vertlcalcor.nponents
Conrmement Reinforcing. Ties provided at

boundary elements of shear walls are #3 at 12
inch spacing. However, ties are provided with
1350 hooks, so that confinement could be
considered of intermediate quality.
Diaphragms
capacity of Foundations
Shear Wall Boundary Columns. As

previously described, the lap splice of wall
boundary reinforcing is not adequate to
develop the reinforcing strength.
A'4
3.3
Overturning. The ratio of the effective

horizontal dimension, at the foundation level
of the seismic force resisting system, to the
building height exceeds 1.4Av . Neglecting
near-source effects, A. for the Stanford
campus is 0.4 and the ratio is 0.56. In the
transverse direction, the ratio of foundation
width to building height is 0.38.
he
thl
bu
thl
on
m:
an
re
Elastic Analysis
Elastic analysis is the conventional method of

evaluating the seismic demands on elements of a
structure used in both design of new structures and
detailed evaluation of existing structures. For this
project, a dynamic response spectrum method
analysis was performed. Using the ETABS21
software package, a three-dimensional computer
model was constructed and analyzed. The resulting
displacements are a reasonable estimate of those
that the real structure would see, if it remained
elastic. Forces calculated for individual elements
by this technique are also a reasonable estimate of
the maximum demands on these elements if the
structure were to remain elastic.
The primary benefits of the elastic analysis is
that it provides a rapid method of determining the
strength of the building relative to current code
requirements, the distribution and locations of
large strength demands on the structure, and the
overall level of lateral displacement the building
would experience in the design earthquake.
Buildings with limited displacement demands, well
distributed elastic strength demands, and relatively
moderate conditions of strength deficiency relative
to current code can generally be judged to provide
acceptable performance.
On the basis of the elastic analysis, using
cracked section properties and accounting for
elastic flexibility of the foundation system, the
Escondido Village Midrise buildings are
demonstrated to have strength in the longitudinal
direction, comparable to that required by the
current UBC. Strength in the transverse direction,
4.
Iy
m
bl
M
is
d)
In
fo
pI
e~
W
su
d(
m
m
of
stl
ei
bI
di
th
di
th
su
Sl
in
n(
df
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION ANO RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
--------------------------------------------
level
the
:ting
d
the
lation
1
.0
however, is substantially less than that required by

the current UBC. The effective periods of the
building are 0.83 and 0.71 seconds respectively in
the transverse and longitudinal directions. Based
on the elastic response spectrum analysis,
maximum elastic interstory drifts of l. 2 percent
and I percent are estimated in these directions
respectively.
4.
ethod .of
nts of a
:tures ali
For this
:thod
IS"
,mputer
e resultin
)f those
nained
4.1
Evaluation by Product
1.2 Methodology
Introduction
A series of simplified inelastic analyses of the

type known as static pushovers were performed to
more accurately evaluate the behavior of the
buildings in response to strong ground motion.
Most design of buildings for earthquake resistance
is based on an elastic analysis of the building's
dynamic response to the expected ground motion.
In such analyses, it is assumed that the amount of
force induced in an element is directly
~lements
stimate (j proportional to the amount of deformation it
.s if the experiences in response to the ground motion .
While all buildings behave in this manner when
nalysis is subjected to low levels of loading, most structures
nining the do not have adequate strength to respond in this
nt code manner when subjected to intense levels of ground
.ons of
motion. In reality, when subjected to such levels
, and the of ground motion, individual elements of the
building structures will be stressed to a point at which they
Ike.
either yield - that is continue to deform while
nands, we maintaining a relatively constant stress state, or
,d relativel break. Following such yielding or breaking, the
ncy relatil distribution of both deformations and stresses
I to provid throughout the structure can be significantly
different than predicted by an elastic analysis.
. using
Elastic design and analysis procedures, such as
those contained in FEMA-178 incorporate
ing for
[em, the substantial factors of safety in the permissible
re
stress states and configuration limits they specify,
mgitudinal in recognition of the fact that the elastic analysis is
by the
not accurately predicting the distribution of
;e directiordemands at high load levels. Inelastic analyses,
'lIIage Mld~pendlx A, Escondido Village Mldrlse
such as that outlined in the Methodology allow for

more accurate prediction of the demands on
individual elements of the building and therefore
permit lower factors of safety to be used in
evaluating the adequacy of specific structural
components. Many buildings that appear to be
highly deficient when evaluated by elastic analysis
methods can be demonstrated to be only modestly
deficient, or perhaps completely adequate, when
evaluated to these more accurate approaches.
4.2
Analysis Methodology
The static pushover technique is one of the

simpler types of inelastic analyses. Essentially it
consists of a series of elastic analyses of successive
models of the building that have been
progressively modified to represent the stiffness of
the structure at a given stage of lateral
deformation. In other words, as structural
components yield, the stiffness of the structure is
reduced to reflect that yielding.
For the example building study, tl1e following
basic steps were implemented based on the
Metl1odology:
Structure modeling (Section 4.3 of this report)
Pushover analysis (Section 4.4)
Performance point (Section 4.5)
Performance assessment (Section 4.6)
4.3
Structure Modeling
4.$.1
Software Limitations
The static pushover analyses of tl1e Escondido
Village Midrise buildings were performed using
DRAIN-2DX software. As with any software
package, limitations can significantly affect the
nature of the analysis. Some of the limitations
imposed by the DRAIN-2DX software include:
No Inelastic Panel Elements. Walls subject to
potential flexural and shear yielding were
modeled as column elements. See
Section 4.3.4.
A15
W23
Stair #1
W16
W20
I>"?J
I
W31
WIO
W41
WI7
Stalr#Z
WI3
FIgure 4.$-1. wall Element Numben
No Degrading Elements. All yielding

elements maintain their strength, but the
Methodology requires degrading for elements
with high ductility demands. See Section 4.4.2.
Two-Dimensional Modeling. The program

allows for twodimensional modeling only;
resulting in the loss of torsional effects.
No Graphics or Post-Processing. This limits

the efficiency of the analysis.
4.$.2
Materials
The same material properties used in the
elastic analysis (see Section 2.2) were used for the
nonlinear static analysis:
Existing Concrete Strength. 2470 psi for
slabs, beams, walls; 3000 psi for columns
Existing Steel Reinforcing Strength. 40 ksi

for slabs, beams, walls; 60 ksi for columns
4.$.$
structural systems
DRAIN 2DX is capable only of analyzing two

dimensional structures. Therefore, independent
analyses of the building response were performed
for the longitudinal and transverse building axes,
using different models. Figure 4.3-1 is a typical
floor plan for the building, indicating the
numbering scheme used for various walls
A-'.
contained in the buildings. Figure 4.3-2

schematically represents the model developed for
the longitudinal axis of the building.
The principal disadvantage of using
two-dimensional models to represent the building
is that torsional effects are lost, as are the
combination of effects from simultaneous loading
in different directions. The elastic analysis,
previously performed, demonstrated that the
building is torsionally quite regular. Therefore, it
was not felt necessary to model its torsional
response characteristics. Modeling of the effects of
combined response in two directions on those
elements of the lateral system which participate in
both directions could not be captured. In addition
to the inability of the two dimensional approach to
capture this behavior, it was not possible to
develop constitutive models (force-deformation
curves) for the infinite number of combinations of
loadings about the two axes of these walls that are
possible.
As seen in Figure 4.3-2, the longitudinal
model essentially consisted of 7 stick type
sub-models interconnected at each floor level by
rigid translational links. Each stick represents one
or more vertical elements of the lateral force
resisting system. Individual sticks were provided
to represent each of the major shear wall
co
cal
sti,
W
the
reI
f01
co
an
26
we
sui
ch
the
#2
re~
reI
e1c
fie
in
be
--------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
i:,"
W13
U
.
;- W23
_
..
WLO
, W20
WL7
W26
~~-l!~
~-
~,
flexural elements
'-1
shear elements
,
J -'
"
W70',
~;,'
,
Roof
Frame
8th
7th
6th
5th
p,
1c"
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
- Foundation
soil springs
Figure 4.~2. Non-linear Model-Longitudinal Direction
JUilding
configurations contained in the buildings,

categorized
by response direction. Thus, a single
loading
stick was provided to model both walls W13 and
s,
W23,
the long rectangular walls along the sides of
the
the
building
(Figure 4.3-1). Since the stick
efore, it
represented
two
identical walls, the
Lal
effects d force-deformation relationship for the stick
consisted of a composite of both walls stiffness
lose
cipate in and capacity characteristics. Walls 10, 17, 20, and
lddition 26, all of which are identical "L" shaped walls,
)roach to were combined into two different stick
sub-models, each sub-model representing the
to
of these walls when pushed in either
characteristics
lation
the
positive
or
negative direction. Stair #1, Stair
ations of.
; that are #2, and the elevator core (W70) each have unique
response characteristics and were provided with
separate
models.
nal
As shown in Figure 4.3-2, each of the sticks
representing the shear walls is comprised of two
:vel by
elements
at each story. One element represents the
:ents one~
of the walls and is infinitely rigid
flexural
behavior
,rce
in
shear.
The
second
element represents the shear
rovided
behavior of the walls and is infinitely rigid in
Ie Mldrl'
AIIpendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
flexure. Each stick is also provided with a rigid

beam a,t its base, supported by a series of inelastic
soil springs. The soil springs are preloaded with
the calculated dead load soil pressure under the
foundation and are set with compressive spring
rates. The springs have null tensile stiffness.
Stair #2 has the additional complication of the
vertical irregularity at the first story, previously
described in Section 3. This was modeled by using
altered flexural stiffness properties for this wall at
the first story.
A horizontal linear translational spring is
attached to the model at the level of the first floor.
This spring represents the shear stiffness of the
numerous additional concrete wails present in the
basement story of the buildings (Figure 2.2-3).
The value of this spring was calculated as the
difference in stiffness of the basement story of the
building in the linear elastic ETABS model, and
the DRAIN model constructed without this spring.
A final sub-model stick was provided to represent
the stiffness of the concrete frame (beams and
floor slabs) and the smaller walls within the
A-17
Roof
8th
7th
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
- Foundation
soil springs
Figure 4.88. Nonlinear Model Transverse DirectIon
building that do not contribute significantly to the

lateral load resistance. The initial stiffness of this
stick was chosen such that the initial stiffness of
the entire inodel matched that of the elastic
analysis model. Based on evaluation of the elastic
analysis results, a lateral deformation was selected
for each story at which flexural yielding of the
frame would commence. This information was
than used to construct an elastic-purely plastic
representation of the frame stiffness at each story.
The model for the transverse building response
was constructed in a similar manner to that for the
longitudinal direction. A schematic diagram for
that model is presented as Figure 4.3-3. An
important difference between the two models is the
way in which the discontinuity at the base of the
main transverse walls was handled in the
transverse model. This problem was previously
discussed in Section 3.2 and illustrated in
Figure 3.2-2. At this discontinuity, the wall
boundary elements are the only continuous
components. The behavior at this discontinuity
A-'8
was modeled by running two columns, each

representing the boundary element properties of
the wall, through the basement and first stories of
the building. These boundary element columns
were linked together by a rigid beam at the
underside of the second story. The rigid beam was
provided at the underside of the second story since
the first story wall would not be completely
effective due to the discontinuity below. To
illustrate, Figure 4.3-4 shows an assumed effective
axial zone of the first story wall panel relative to
the door and louvre openings at the basement
level. Because of the modeling of this
discontinuity, the transverse model was judged to
be slightly more flexible than the real structure,
but of adequate accuracy to investigate the
concentrations of demands likely to occur in the
real structure at this area of discontinuity.
It should be noted that coupling beams between
the main transverse walls and comer walls were
not modeled. From the elastic analysis, it was
fo
an
Cc
co
re
4.
cb
us
pe
m
se
sp
df
to
se
bf
w
aI
Vl
c(
fr
Pl
c(
Appendix A, Escondido Village Midrlse
--....
---
--....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
transverse wall
effective
'. "
area of wall -t------H~Jl...
i,
\ :
2nd floor
comer
wall, typo
1st floor
basement wall
Foundation
louvre opening
door opening
vertical shear
crack forms at
wall, typo
Figure 4.S4. Effective Axial zone at Discontinuous Transverse wall
i1
.es of
lries of
mns
found that these beams would be highly stressed

and would fail early during a severe earthquake.
Consequently, these beams were judged to
contribute minimally to the building's lateral-load
resistance.
4.So4
structural Elements and

components
Wall Element Flexural Properties. Flexural

,am was: characteristics of wall elements were determined
Iry since, using the software package BIAXI7. This software
permits the development of non-linear
y
moment-curvature relationships for concrete
o
effective' sections of arbitrary cross section, subjected to
specified axial load. The program was actually
tive to
developed for use in analyzing columns as opposed
ent
to walls and incorporates the Euler assumption that
sections
that are plane prior to initiation of
dged to.
bending
remain
plane after bending. Since the
cture,
walls in the Escondido Village. Midrise buildings
are quite slender, this assumption is thought to be
in the
valid. The program has several concrete
compressive
behavior models programmed into it,
s bet'lVeri.
from which the user may choose. These include
s were
parabolic stress-strain distributions for both
was
confined and unconfined models.
Ie Hllrlrl,;' Appendix A, Escondido village Mldrlse
For this project, moment-curvature curves

were generated based on an unconfined model with
an ultimate compressive strength (f' c) of 2470 psi,
matching the findings from previous testing
conducted at the buildings. The comer L-shaped
walls, elevator C-shaped walls, and stairwell walls
were each modeled as complete walls with entire
flanges assumed effective. All concrete was
assumed to be unconfined.
As previously described in Section 3.2, the
splices of boundary reinforcing for the shear wailS
are inadequate to develop the tensile strength of
the bars. General notes on the original
construction documents indicate that lap splices in
continuous bars should be staggered. It was
judged, therefore, that 50 percent of the
longitudinal boundary bars would be fully effective
in tension at any horizontal section through the
walls. Therefore, in the BIAX models, only
50 percent of the boundary steel was incorporated.
Assumed strength of the steel is 40 ksi, based on
the notes contained in the drawings.
It should be noted that there was some
uncertainty with regard to these assumptions. Lap
splice details for chord reinforcing in walls are not
A-1.
300000
-+-Iongitudinal Mlls
~ comer .:lis
1-.
-M- comer 'Mll1-X

.....,&- elevator
-4-ltair#l +:1
_ 200000
-+-Itair 4H -x
-B-Itair #2 +x
___ .tair #2 -x
"L.~!"
;! 150000
Looooo
'0000
o~--~-----+----~----~----+---~-----+----~
O.OOBofOO
2.00E-04
4.00&.04
6.00E-04
8.00B-04
1.00E03
1.20E'()3
1.40E-03
1.60E03
Curl'8ture [radlaa5llncb}
Figure 4.11-5. longitudinal Moment-curvature Relations lOr First Floor wails
specifically shown on the drawings, while column

splices are. In details for column reinforcing
splices, all of the bars in a column are lap spliced
just above each floor level. There was some
possibility that the boundary steel for the shear
walls was spliced in a similar manner. This would
result in lower flexural capacity for these walls.
There was also some uncertainty with regard to the
strength of the reinforcing used for the boundary
elements of walls. The general notes on the .
construction drawings indicate that Intermediate
Grade steel, with a yield strength of 40 ksi, was to
be used for all reinforcing except longitudinal
column bars, where Hard Grade steel, with a yield
strength of 60 ksi was specified. It was possible
that the Hard Grade steel was also used for the
boundary elements of walls. In such a case, the lap
splices provided for the bars would be even less
adequate.
After the completion of our analyses, it was
subsequently learned, through x-ray photography
and minor destructive testing, that the boundary
element reinforcing had lap splices just above the
floor level. Chemical and tensile testing also
confirmed the reinforcing to be Intermediate Grade
steel.
It should also be noted that BIAX tends to
under-estimate the flexural stiffness of elements
A-20
with minimal steel reinforcing. Professor Jack

Moehle at the University of California, Berkeley,
recommended that the initial effective stiffness of
the wall elements be one-half of the gross sectional
value. Based on the moment-curvature relations
from BIAX, the initial effective stiffnesses were
generally on the order of 25 percent of the gross
sectional value.
Figures 4.3-5 and 4.3-6 present the moment
curvature relationships for each of the major walls
of the building, acting respectively in the
longitudinal and transverse directions of the
building. These curves are based on the
assumption of 40 ksi boundary steel with staggered
lap splices. The curves were computed for the
dead load axial stress condition at the base of the
walls. They have been terminated at peak concrete
compressive strains of 0.005, as suggested in the
Commentary of Section 9.5.4.2 of.the
Methodology.
Examination of the curves for the longitudinal
direction (Figure 4.3-5) indicates that the primary
lateral load resistance for the structures in this
direction is provided by the main longitudinal
walls (W13 and W23, Figure 4.3-1), and the walls
around stairways # 1 and #2 and at the elevator
core. The wall at stairway #2 has substantially
greater strength and deformation capacity in the
Appendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse
+
di:
de
pr
rei
60
pr
m:
the
co
ea
on
stl
is
the
\ir
ac
Ie'
10
w,
ca
as:
fu
51
afl
-----
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.......... transverse walls

-+- comer "'03.1.15 +y
",","*,,-comer walls-y
-6-eievator +y
400000
350000
- . - elevator-y
-+- stair #1
-+- stair -#1
t~:..:-a-a-~
d2S0000~
1300000
200000
150000
-y
+y
-B-nair-#2+y
_5tair#2 -y
1l
:Ii
o~----~----~------+_----~----~------+_----~
O.OOE..oo
2.00E-04
4.()(JE.Q4
6.00E-04
8.00E-Q4
l.OOE-03
l.20E03
1.40EQ3
Curwture [radlansllncb.]
Figure 4.~6. Transverse Momentcurvature Relations for First Floor Walls
ack
:keley,
less of
;ectional
.tions
were
gross
+X direction than in the -X because of the

discontinuity in the first story, previously
described. The two main walls (W13 and W23)
provide more than 50 percent of the total lateral
resistance in the + X direction and more than
60 percent in the -X direction.
In the transverse direction (Figure 4.3-6) the
primary lateral resistance is provided by the two
)ment
or walls main walls (W31 and W41, Figure 4.3-1) and by
the walls around the two stair wells. The
configuration of the stairwell walls is such that
Ie
each stairwell has substantially more resistance in
;taggered one direction than the other. Stairwell # 1 is
strongest in the + Y direction, while Stairwell #2
: the
is strongest in the -Y direction.
l of the
Manual calculations of the shear capacity of
concreW
:I in the the walls indicated that they are, in general,
limited by the shear friction capacity of the walls
across the construction joints present at each floor
gitudinal level. Typically, this capacity is approximately
primary 10 percent less than the nominal capacity of the
walls derived using UBC formulas without
1 this
capacity reduction factors (cp). It was arbitrarily
!inal
the walls assumed that a 114 inch displacement is required to
fully mobilize the shear friction strength. A
,vator
. 5 percent strain hardening factor was permitted
ltially
r in the after attainment of the 114 inch initial slip.
Ige Mldrll', Appel1C1lx A, Escondido Village MIClrise
It should also be noted that by using BIAX, the

modeling rules for flexural properties in shear
walls presented in Chapter 9 of the Methodology
were ignored. This is allowed per Commentary in
Section 9.5.1 of the Methodology.
Wall Element Shear Properties. As noted
above, each wall element in the DRAIN model was
built with two elements - a flexural element and a
shear element. Shear properties used in the DRAIN
model were computed based on the shear capacity
of the wall as calculated per ACI 318. Although
shear friction capacities per ACI 318 were
typically less than wall shear capacities, shear
walls generally do not fail at their construction
joints when sufficient dead loads are applied to the
walls. Strain-hardening was not included in the
modeling of these shear elements. The inclusion of
strain-hardening would have slightly increased the
overall shear capacity of the building, but not the
deformation capacity. By not including
strain-hardening, we could more easily account for
shear degradation in the wall elements. (See
Section 4.4.2 for discussion on shear degradation.)
Foundation Rotational Stiffness. Non-linear
springs were used to model the rotational stiffness
of foundations beneath the major shear walls.
Initially, the stiffness assumptions provided by
A-21
, Linear !tOil tprinp
.. "",......on LoDgIh
~;=Jm..
DdI ..........
FIgure 4.$-7. DetermlnatiDfl OF Effective

Foundation length
Woodward-Clyde were used as the basis of the

model. Finite vertical translational soil springs
were incorporated into the model. Each spring
represented the stiffness of a length of the wall
foundation, equivalent to its width. Beams, with
springs representing the foundation stiffness were
provided beyond the width of the shear walls, with
linear elastic properties corresponding to a section
comprised of the basement walls, the strip
foundations and a portion of the first floor slab.
The effective width of the first floor slab was
taken based on the limitations for flange widths in
"T" beams contained in the ACI code.
The length of the foundation systems effective
in resisting shear wall overturning was taken based
on independent, beam-on-elastic foundation type
analyses. These analyses are schematically
represented in Figure 4.3-7. The effective
foundation length was taken as the point at which
foundation uplift was produced beyond the
compressive side of the shear wall.
In performing visual surveys of the buildings,
it was noted that some of the basement walls have
vertical cracks through them. It was surmised that
these cracks may be the result of shear failures,
induced in the walls by the Lorna Prieta
Earthquake, as they attempted to spread
overturning demands from the shear walls.
A-22
Therefore, the computed shear capacity of these

basement walls was programmed into the DRAIN
model to simulate this failure mode.
As determined by the DRAIN analyses, initial
inelastic behavior of the structure was dominated
by foundation rotation and liftoff effects. It was
expressed by Stanford Facilities Management that
the stiffness suggested by Woodward-Clyde for the
soil springs appeared to be significantly larger than
revealed by previous plate load test data for
various locations on the campus. Therefore, a
series of sensitivity analyses were performed in
which the spring stiffness and ultimate capacities
of the soil compression springs were evaluated for
150 percent, 67 percent and 25 percent
respectively of the values suggested by
Woodward-Clyde. It was found that these
assumptions had negligible effect on the overall
behavior of the model. The predominant factor in
the inelastic behavior of the foundation, as
predicted by the model is the liftoff of the
foundation on the tension side. This appeared to be
independent of the compression spring stiffness
assumed. The total effect on structural elements of
the model, for the various assumed soil stiffness
properties, was a change in demands of
approximately 2 percent. Therefore, it was
concluded that the structure's behavior is
insensitive to the spring stiffness of the soils
beneath the foundations, but is quite sensitive to
the ability of the foundations to rock about their
bases.
4.4
pushover Analysis
T
d
cl
4
tl
d
P
CI
tl
d
u
b
a:
fl
IT
tJ
n
d
p
fc
sl
P
b
c
d
TI
Deriving and Applying Pushover

FOl'Ces
Per Section 8.4 of the Methodology, the
Escondido Village Midrise buildings were
evaluated based on a Level 3 pushover analysis.
Level 3 is prescribed as the basic level of analysis
for the Methodology. Lateral forces are applied in
proportion to the product of story masses and first
mode shape of the elastic model of the structure.
4.4.1
C
SI
o
TI
s
p
c
c
--
~-~==~-----------------------
--
This distribution is obtained from the initial

dynamic DRAIN-2DX model in each direction.
Although the fundamental mode shape will
change due to changing stiffnesses (see Section
4.4.2 below), the initial load distribution was used
throughout the analyses for each respective
direction. Changing the load distribution would
probably yield a slightly more accurate pushover
curve. However, the overall effect on the building
behavior and evaluation results was judged to be
negligible.
The effects of higher modes on the structure
were also ignored in this study. Evaluation of
these higher modes may result in additional
damage to the building that was not discovered by
using just the fundamental mode. However,
because the building is relatively regular in plan
and stiffness (with the exception of the basement
floor), higher mode effects are anticipated to be
minimal.
~se
AIN
nitial
ated
vas
t that
for the
~r than
a
I in
:ities
~ed for
:rall
;tor in
ed to be
ness
Jents of
Jness
Is
ive to
: their
Shover,
:
he
alysis. ,
analysis(
.pplied in;
and first;
ructure.!
}
Model Degradation
4.4.2
Element properties can be characterized by a
typical elastic-plastic force-deformation
relationship with strength degradation at high
ductility demands as shown in Figure 4.4-1. As
previously indicated, the flexural
force-deformation relationships for the concrete
shear walls were obtained using the software
program BIAX. For walls exhibiting ductile
behavior with strain-hardening, force-deformation
curves were terminated at a peak concrete
compressive strain of 0.005. For walls with
degrading strength at large rotations prior to
reaching a concrete compressive strain of 0.005,
curves were terminated at the point of initial
strength degradation. As a result, we constructed
Our own component force-deformation
relationships that were implemented into the
DRAIN-2DX models.
Unfortunately, DRAIN-2DX does not have
strength degradation capabilities built into the
program. Consequently, the continuous pushover
curves shown in Figures 4.4-5 and 4.4-6 were
constructed from a series of incremental pushover
ge Mldrt!'; Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
~Yield
residual strength
Deformation
FIgure 4.4,1. TYpical Force-Deformation

Relationship for Model Elements
curves. Each increment was defined at the

displacement that a critical element reached its
degradation point. The degraded element would be
replaced by a similar, weaker element (with a new
yield strength that was 20 percent of the original
yield strength per Methodology Table 9- 10). With
this new element, the pushover analysis would
then be started again and continue until the next
critical element reached its degradation point.
In addition, it should be noted that not only
was the strength of the degraded element reduced
to 20 percent of the initial undegraded element,
but the degraded stiffness was also similarly
reduced to 20 percent of the initial. The
Methodology provides no quantitative guidance
with respect to post-yield shear stiffness, axial
strength, axial stiffness, or degradation rate as a
function of ductility demand.
In the case of our building models.
consideration of a ductile model with no strength
degradation would have overestimated the
maximum pushover base shear by less than
10 percent. Although this is not significant, the
implementation of a degraded model, per
requirements of the Methodology, would more
accurately determine a building's seismic
behavior. In some buildings, the effect of
degradation may be significant.
A-25
2!iOO
2000
hingefi ~tion
at floor
. /
/ \
"-
- hmge fonnation at
basement waDs
20
10
bor DI.pJ.cement. d [Incher]
Figure 11.11,2. LDngltudlnal PushDver Curve fDr EXlst/ng structure

2000
lr
ex
1>00
I
1000
!
'00
;inge !ormati n'l

floor beams
I,i
~ hinse fomation ~lstnoor

and buem:nt w:
1/
o
II
10
I'
20
25
to
su
th
pt
sh
re
re.
Roor DllpI.CUltDt. d [IDdlel]
Figure II.IIS, Transverse PushDver curve fDr EXisting structure
Pushover Force-Displacement
Curve
Figures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3 show the pushover
curves for the existing (unstrengthened) Escondido
Village Midrise buildings, when pushed in the
longitudinal and transverse directions,
respectively. As can be seen, the first critical
events consist of hinging of floor beams
throughout the frame. This is considered
4.4.S
A-24
potentially life threatening because of the lack of

adequate development of the bottom reinforcing of
the beams through the beam column joint. Hinging
of the beams - first in positive flexure and on the
return cycle in negative flexure - will result in
formation of a vertical crack through the beam
column joint. Following such behavior the floor
systems would rely on the catenary behavior of the
sh
ro
po
ob
ca
tho
co
aI
ex
to
be,
di!
---------
r
"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
r
2500
hinge fonnatio at
floor beams
-~
2000
~ 1500
:;.
1000
500
/
t!
o
./
Y{J
'01
~"
compression failure at "toe" ~

ofbaserrent orner walls
/ \
compression failure
Lhing fonnation at
bas, frent walls
baserrent stairs #1 a
10
/
I
~#2 J
15
20
Roof Displacement, d [inches]
Fll/Ure 4.44. Longitudinal Pushover curve For strengthened Building
top reinforcing steel in the beams for vertical

support. However, because there are no stirrups in
the beams, there is potential for this top steel to
pull free of the slabs, resulting in floor collapse.
In addition to the hinging of floor beams,
shear failure of first floor columns occurs at
relatively small roof displacements. This also
results in significant collapse hazard.
Because the beam hinging and the column
shear failure mechanisms form at relatively small
roof displacements (3.5" to 4.0"), a performance
point as defined by the Methodology cannot be
lack of obtained since the demand spectrum and the
orcing oI capacity spectrum do not intersect. This indicates
. Hinginl' that the structures, as they are, present significant
Ion the collapse hazards when subjected to the demands of
a large magnitude earthquake. Furthermore, the
Iltin
existing structure does not present a good example
beam
to evaluate the procedures of the Methodology
e floor
'ior of tIt, because of the high collapse potential at small
displacements. Consequently, for the purposes of
this example building study, it is more

instrumental to follow the Methodology using the
life-safety retrofit concept.
To create a more stable structure and allow the
pushover analysis a chance to develop some
ductility, the problems of the hinging beams and
shear critical columns were initially addressed.
The retrofit concept is discussed in Section 5 of
this report. For the purpose of continuing our
discussion of the pushover curve, assume that the
hinging of floor beams and the shear failure of
first floor and basement columns are adequately
addressed with structural upgrades.
Figures 4.4-4 and 4.4-5 present the pushover
curves for the strengthened building. Significant
events in the progressive lateral response of the
building are annotated on the figures, and more
fully described in Tables 4.4-1 and 4.4-2. Critical
events listed in the tables are indicated in italics.
A-25
2000
rocking oH undation at
stair II 1
hinge fonmtion at
floor bearna
J500
v:r
-0; ""l"""'"
JOOO
!
sao
1/
o
/'ompreSSion til ure at

.un"
mpression failure at
b~ement transverse" aDs
W~
\
\
ion failure at
base_ t elevator core
co~res
'-- shear failure of .. emont and

1st floor inteno coluIIIlS
II>
-----Ie
V-
hin e fonnation at bas e lOnt

and 1st floor walls
5
JO
J5
20
25
Roof Dlaplac:ement, d [lnche.]
Figure 4.45. Transverse pushDver curve IDr strengthened Building
4
4
SI
11
compression failure at "toe" of basement corner

walls
12.84
te
E
S
A-2G
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.4,2 Transverse Pushover Events
.... ...........
. EVent<. ....
4.5
...
.Description
. .
/toOl p/sP!acement
(inCheS)< ..
I.
hinge formation at basement stair #2
1.55
hinge formation at basement stair #1
1.80
hinge formation at 1st floor elevator core
2.00
hinge formation at basement corner walls
2.29
hinge formation at 1st floor corner wailS
2.45
hinge formation at 1st floor stair #2
3.21
hinge formation at 3rd8th floors beams
3.78
rocking at transverse walls
4.04
hinge formation at 2nd floor beams
4.10
10
shear failure of 15x241st floor colUmns
4.23
11
shear failure Of 15x221st floor colUmns
4.90
12
hinge formation at roof beams
5.10
13
shear failure of 15X24 basement COlumns
5.15
14
Shear failure of 15X22 basement COlumns
5.96
15
shear failure of 1st floor transverse wailS
6.10
16
hinge formation at basement transverse walls
6.81
17
compression failure of basement transverse walls
10.11
18
hinge formation at 2nd floor stair #2
10.11
19
rocking Of foundation at stair #2
12.01
20
shear failure of 11x11 basement colUmns
13.73
21
rocking of foundation at stair #1
14.90
22
shear failure of 11 X11 1st floor columns
15.58
23
compression failure of basement corner walls
16.81
24
compression failure of basement elevator core
23.11
Performance point
4.5.1
Perfol'l11ance Objectives
Per Section 3.4 of the Methodology, various
performance objectives can be selected in the
; evaluation of a structure. In this example building
study, the owner selected a performance objective
to satisfy Life Safety requirements for a Design
! Earthquake ground motion that is defined in
, Section 4.5.3.
!.
MldrlSl~ AppenCllx A. EsconClIClo Village MIClrise
Capacity spectrum
4.5.2
The forcedisplacement pushover curves
shown in Figures 4.4-4 and 4.4-5 are converted to
spectral coordinates per Section 8.3.2 of the
Methodology. The capacity spectra for the
longitudinal and transverse directions are shown in
Figures 4.5-1 and 4.5-2, respectively.
Tables 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 show the conversion for
the longitudinal and transverse direction pushover
curves respectively. Since the loading function was
A-27
,.,r--------------,---------------,--------------,
rr
1'' 1/
,
'.00 ~_-------_+----------__+_--_----___i
SpeClnll DI.plaeemeat. Sd
"
"
(ID~UJ
Figure 4.S1. Longitudinal capacity Spectrum
as
afi
ef
0.30
:; 020
II'" !
'.00
_--1
,-----
---
4.
TI
pa
M
bt
I,
I
!
!,
/,
!
i
"
SptdJ1ll DI.pI.ceraut. Sd (ladle.]
"
"
Figure 4.S2. TranSverse capacity spectrum
Table 4.S1. conversion Of v and d,.., to So and Sd for Longitudinal Direction

A
1633
2.07
0.138
1.449
0.653
0.211
1.43
0.83
1756
3.08
0.148
1.449
0.653
0.227
2.13
Q98
2011
11.37
0.170
1.449
0.653
0.260
7.85
2052
12.84
0.173
1.449
0.653
0.265
8.86
1.85
2011
18.08
0.170
1.449
0.653
0.260
12.48
2.H
A-28
sp
----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---
Table 4.5,2. conversIon 01 V and d,.., to Sa and Sd lor Transverse DIrection
.,j,/W
PIT"",
T,seCI '
1137
1.80
0.096
1.451
0.671
0.143
1.24
0.94
1258
2.29
0.106
1.451
0.671
0.158
1.58
1.01
1354
3.28
0.114
1.451
0.671
0.170
2.26
1.17
1478
6.10
0.125
1.451
0.671
0.186
4.20
1.52
1790
14.10
0.151
1.451
0.671
0.225
9.72
2.10
1824
17.02
0.154
1.451
0.671
0.229
11.73
2.29
1839
23.11
0.155
1.451
0.671
0.231
15.93
2.65
Demand Spectrum
4.5.S
The 5 percent damped spectrum is derived from
parameters described in Chapter 4 of the
Methodology. For the Escondido Village Midrise
buildings, the following parameters were used:
Soil Profile Type = D for stiff soil

(Methodology Table 4-3)
Seismic Zone, Z = 0.4 for seismic zone 4

(Methodology Table 4-4)
Near Source Factor, N = 1.18 for seismic

source type A, linearly interpolated between 5
and 10 kIn (Methodology Table 4-5)
Seismic CoeffIcient, CA = 0.47 for shaking

intensity larger than 0.4 (Methodology
Table 4-7)
Seismic Coefficient, Cv = 0.76 for shaking

intensity larger than 0.4 (Methodology
Table 4-8)
Based on the capacity spectra, the demand
spectra can be reduced with the modification
Sdfln.1
d""" fln.1
assumed to remain constant throughout our

analysis, the participation factor (PFroof) and the
effective mass coefficient (CXm) remain constant.
'Idrlse
" 0/"'< 1"'5.'91'"
V'klpil
point "
Appendix A, Escondido Village Mid rise
factors SR. and SR, as calculated by the following

relations (see Chapter 8 of the Methodology):
d ' - d a)
])
SR, = - -1 - ( 3.21- 0.681n [63.7 K(a'P"
pi + 5
2.12
ap;d p;
p;
p.)
SR, = - 1 ( 2.31- O.4l1n[63.7 K(a,d - d,a + 5] )
1.65
ap;d p;
By guessing the maximum displacement of the

capacity spectrum, the values of dp; and ap; (based
on the capacity spectrum) can be calculated.
These, in turn, effect the values of SR, and SR,.
Through an iterative process of adjusting the value
of dp; until the capacity spectra intersects the
demand spectra at dp, a performance point can be
determined. Figure 4.5-3 shows the relationship
between api, ay, dp; and dy.
For the longitudinal direction, the total
spectral roof displacement at the performance
point was Sdmox=9.51" (see Figure 4.5-4), which
corresponds to a total roof displacement of
d.,.,= 13.8". For the transverse direction, the total
spectral roof displacement at the performance
point was Sdmox= 11.2" (see Figure 4.5-5), which
corresponds to a total roof displacement of
d.,.,=16.2".
A-29
,.
api
actual
pushover curve
. _. _. _. _ .J. _. _. _. _. _. _.:-................. ................ ..

.. .. . .. .. .
ay - _._._.-
idealized
pushover curve
dy
dpi
Displacement
Figure 4.5-$. Idealized Bilinear RepresentatIon of MDt/al Pushover curve
1.0
de
pc
de
of
fo
0.0
CL
bl
0.'
4.
s~
0.1
10
in
.ll
0.'
4.
-< 0.4
0.'
0.2
P(
0.1
ac
Ie
0.0
0
10
11
12
13
14
"
C(
C(
Figure 4.5-4. Demand vs. capacity Spectra Showing performance point

for longitudinal Direction
PI
PI
s:
A-SO
Appendix A. Escondido Village Midrlse
~--------------------------------------------

~--------------------------------------------
---7--_____
1.0
0.'
0.8
dpi=3.0"
0.7
0.'
<
0.'
0.3
0.'
0.2
Sd=l1 "
0.1
0.0
0
,.
10
II.
12
13
14
IS
Spectul D11p1aeement,Sd [Inches]
Figure 4.55. Demand VS. capacity spectra showing performance point for Transverse Direction
4.5.4
Performance point
The intersection point of the capacity and
demand spectra is the performance point. This
point represents the expected level of seismic
demand on the structure. The spectral coordinates
of the performance point can be converted back to
force-displacement coordinates on the capacity
curve. For the Escondido Village Midrise
buildings, the performance point occurs at a base
shear of 2010 kips and 13.8 inches in the
longitudinal direction, and 1750 kips and 16.2
inches in the transverse direction.
4.6
Performance Assessment
Component deformations at the performance

point displacements must be checked against
acceptable limits. The acceptable deformation
levels for various structural elements and
components are presented in Chapter II of the
Methodology. Individual evaluation of these
components is required to determine not only the
performance level of the component, but also the
performance level of the entire structure.
4.6.1
Drift Limits
Based on story drifts, the Escondido Village
Midrise buildings (as strengthened with the Life
Safety Objective scheme presented in Section 5 of
Ildrlse
this report) satisfy the Immediate Occupancy

performance level criteria in the longitudinal
direction and the Life Safety performance level
criteria in the transverse direction.
Component Deformabllity
4.6.2
Walls. With the exception of basement walls,
typical concrete shear walls are flexure critical.
Adequacy of these walls are based on plastic hinge
rotations. In general, existing shear walls satisfy
immediate occupancy requirements (Methodology
Table 11-7) with the exception of some first floor
walls that satisfy the Life Safety performance level
as shown in Table 4.6-1. Basement walls are
checked by drift ratios shown in Methodology
Table 11-8. Because of the large number of walls
in the basement level, deformations are small and
meet Immediate Occupancy requirements.
The inability of the transverse walls to transfer
required shears at the first floor level is due to the
door and louver openings which reduce the
number of dowels that make the required shear
transfer. In the degraded model these walls are
allowed to resist only 20 percent of their yield
shears. As shown in the pushover curve, there is
still substantial strength after the "failure" of these
walls. Per requirements of Methodology
A-31
Table 11.6-1. NumerIcal Acceptance criterIa for Plastic Hlnlle Rotations In ReInforced concrete walls and
wall sellments CDntrolled by Flexure
h(
th
c!
M
ot
Zf
SI
sl
T,
Sf
n(
/I
d,
1.
{A,-A,)f,+P
t,..lwfr'
3.
; assume A.i
= Ax"
flY =
19.5". I", = 25'
.J.g
N.A. (Not Applicable): Deformations remain elastic.
Table 11-9, the expected sliding displacement

satisfies the Life Safety performance level.
Columns. Columns were initially checked
using simple SAP90 stick models. These models
were displaced at each floor level based on the
final building displacements at the performance
point. Since columns were determined to be shear
critical. only shear capacities were checked.
Columns typically had adequate shear capacity to
resist required demand which indicates that
columns generally remain elastic. Nevertheless.
first floor and basement interior 15xZ4 columns
were found to have demand-to-capacity ratios
ranging form 1.4 to 2.0. Consequently. these
columns would not remain elastic and can be
evaluated per the Methodology. As noted
previously. the beam-column frame system does
not contribute significantly to the
lateral-load-resisting system. but rather goes along
for the deformation "ride". Therefore. columns
that undergo inelastic deformation were checked
A-32
2.
using the secondary member performance criteria.

Because of the lack of adequate confining steel.
these first floor and basement columns fall under
the category of Columns controlled by shear, other
cases in Methodology Table 11-4 and are judged
to be unacceptable.
Shown below is a simple calculation of the plastic
hinge rotation at an interior 15x24 first floor
column:
b,
fa
a(
e1
th
el
5
. = "t
n
LI
tota I h'mge rotatlon
=L
VL2
elastic hmge rotatIOn = 8. = L' = 12EI
..
LI
plastic hinge rotation

= 8 = 6 -6 _ 1.148
pt.
109
since
~A gf.
s.
N
0.00997
P,
4~1.8) = 03n 0.1 and
al
hi
C
34.4(109)2
12(3490)(17280)
360 3.750
n(
AI
f'
~
---
-----------------------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION ANO RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------.
hOoP spacmg
eria.
:1.
der
other
~ed
!tic
22
11",
the column member falls in the other cases

category for columns controlled by shear. Per
Methodology Table 11-4 for secondary elements in
other cases. the allowable plastic hinge rotation is
zero for both the Life Safety and Structural
Stability Performance Objectives.
Beams. Floor beams are checked using the
slab-column connection criteria in Methodology
Table 11-6. As noted above. these beams are
secondary elements. In general. these beams do
not satisfy the Structural Stability requirements.
4.6.S
=12"~2=1l=
Summary of Deficiencies
LifeSSfetY oblectlile.:> Damag:e c(Jntrol

.....
ObJectfve., '.
. ~ : ~~i.V:: . ' ," ,," " :'In DesIgn Earthquake ,r:
in. DesIgn Earthquake ,.
Reinforcement of shear
critical columns
Floor beam supports
Discontinuity at
transverse Shear walls
Shear wall boundary
elements
Reinforcement of shear
critical columns
Floor beam supports
New concrete shear walls
New pile foundations
For a Life Safety Performance Object.

deficiencies are summarized as follows:
Lack of confining steel in first floor and
basement columns render them unacceptable
for any level of plastic deformation.
of a large magnitude earthquake causing strong

ground motion at the site. For the purposes of this
study. only the Design Earthquake with soil type
D was considered .
The required structural work for the
, two
objectives is summarized in Table 5.1-\'
S.2
S.
Conceptual Retrofit
Designs
5.1
performance Objectives
After determining that an existing structure is

unable to resist design earthquake demands. the
engineer often evaluates a number of alternative
retrofit concepts to determine feasibility.
applicability, and cost. Technical strategies, as
well as management strategies. are employed to
obtain the required seismic risk reduction.
The advantage of using a nonlinear. pushover
analysis is the ability to determine the potential
failure mechanism of the building as it deforms.
As a result. the engineer can focus his retrofit
design solely on the elements that are deficient so
that the building can reach the desired
performance level without changing the entire
behavior of the structure.
Using conventional elastic evaluation
techriiques, the retrofit of the Escondido Village
Midrise structures would probably include the
addition of new concrete shear walls. While this
solution is included in the Damage Control
objective retrofit work. the addition of shear walls
would not have addressed the most critical
structural deficiency. As shown in the Table 5.1-1.
Lack of adequate reinforcing in floor beams

result in significant hinging and potential
collapse of most beams above the first floor
level.
As previously mentioned. the hinging of
beams and shearing of columns were significant
failures. These were assumed to be included and
addressed in retrofit schemes so that the inelastic
evaluation could continue. It is interesting to note
that these deficiencies were not apparent in the
elastic FEMA-178 evaluation.
Retrofit designs for the Escondido Village

Midrise buildings were developed for two
Performance Objectives: the Life Safety objective
already described and used for evaluation. and a
higher Damage Control objective. The Damage
Control objective is to limit structural and
non-structural damage to the building in the event
drlse
Table 5.1-1. Required Retrofit Work for

Different performance Objectives
Retrofit strategies
A-!!
even with the addition of shear walls, additional

upgrade schemes must be incorporated to address
the shear critical columns, and hinging floor
beams.
5.3
Retrofit systems
A combination of technical issues and

management issues were considered in the design
and implementation of the seismic upgrade
schemes. Some of those issues are discussed
below.
5.5.1
RetroFit FDr the LIFe saFety

Objective
Reinforcement of Shear Critical Columns.

To retrofit the first floor and basement columns,
either the shear capacity could be increased or
addition confinement could be provided. The
provision of bolted steel jackets would provide
additional confinement as well as added shear
capacity. However, Stanford required the building
to remain functional during the entire construction
process which meant drilling of concrete would be
limited to keep noise levels at a minimum for
residents. Consequently, the first floor columns
were confined with fibrewrap reinforcement.
Unfortunately, basement columns were typically
built into adjacent concrete walls. The use of
fibrewrap reinforcement is impossible. Therefore,
bolted steel jackets are used in the basement area.
Drilling of concrete would be required at only
three column locations.
Floor Beam Supports. To strengthen the floor
beams at each level to resist expected earthquake
demands would be impractical from an
engineering, as well as a construction perspective.
Since the performance criteria is for life safety,
significant damage that required repair after a
large earthquake would be acceptable as long as
the structure did not collapse. Therefore, the
approach was to allow the beams to hinge and
form vertical cracks at the slab-column joints, but
provide secondary vertical support to prevent the
beams and slabs from collapsing.
A54
A steel corbel around each interior column

was devised to provide secondary vertical support.
Initially, this was to be a series of welded steel
angles bolted to the concrete column directly
below the floor slab. However, this was judged to
be unacceptable on two counts. This type of
connection required a large number of anchors
drilled into the existing concrete column.
Installation of such anchors would have been
extremely difficult since existing column
reinforcing could not be damaged. In addition,
Stanford had the low noise requirement previously
mentioned.
Nevertheless, the corbel idea was not
abandoned. Instead of relying on tension and shear
of bolts embedded into the concrete column, we
decided to try friction collars. These collars will
derive vertical support through friction between
the steel tubes directly below the slab and the
existing concrete columns. No drilling of concrete
will be required. Since this friction collar concept
is an unproved method, a testing program was
setup to verify the adequacy of these restraints.
Through the testing program, we were able to
determine an appropriate friction coefficient that
enabled the design of the final friction collars.
Discontinuity at Transverse Shear Walls.
The discontinuity created by the door and louver
openings greatly reduce the effectiveness of the
transverse shear walls. The transverse walls
reached their shear capacity prior to the
performance point. The limited displacement of
the walls satisfied the Life Safety performance
level. Nevertheless, in the interest of ensuring
ductile behavior, bolted steel jackets at the
columns will provide additional confinement and
shear resistance.
Shear Wail Boundary Elements. As
mentioned in Section 4.3.4, the shear wall
boundary elements were assumed to contain
intermediate grade (40 ksi) steel reinforcement
with staggered lap splices. Concrete at one of
these boundary elements was chipped away to
reveal the steel reinforcement and splices. After
chemical and tensile testing, the steel was
\\
jl
sl
(
b
tI
P
n
n
\\\
II
I~
I
el
n
I~
-----.
umn
SUppOrt,
;reel
:ly
dged to
If
10rs
:n
ion,
:viously
ld shear
1,
we
swill
ween
he
oncrete
oncept
",as
ints.
, to
It that
--
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS
confirmed to be 40 ksi steel. However, lap splices

were not staggered, but instead were all located
just above the floor slab. In addition, these lap
splices lacked adequate development length.
Consequently, the actual building would not
behave as modeled. After consideration, we felt
that the modeled building behavior met
performance objectives and the building should be
retrofitted to behave as the model. Therefore,
reinforcement in boundary elements are to be
Iwelded or lengthened to provide adequate splices.
In addition, boundary elements at the first floor
level would be provided additional confinement to
ensure ductile performance since this was the
region of most significant wall hinging. Figure
5.3-1 shows a typical floor plan of this life safety
level retrofit scheme.
5.~.2
New Concrete Shear Walls. New concrete

shear walls provide additional stiffness and shear
resistance to the buildings. As a result,
deformations are reduced as well as demands on
other shear walls.,'
New Pile Foundations. New cast-in-place
drilled concrete piers are required to support the
new concrete shear walls for overrurning forces.
Because the new walls are significantly more rigid
than other walls, earthquake loads will tend to be
resisted by these walls resulting in substantial
overturning forces. The piers are anticipated to be
on the order of 30" diameter by 50' long with
about 40 piers required for the four new walls.
Despite eliminating the need for boundary element
reinforcing and jacketing of basement transverse
walls, the addition of new shear walls still requires
the provision of column collars throughout the
building (except the roof level) and column jackets
(fibrewrap)at the first floor. Furtherfnore, these
walls greatly alter the architectural appearance of
the buildings and require new pile foundations.
Retrofit for the Damage Control

Objective
Reinforcement of Shear Critical Columns.

See Section 5.3.1.
Floor Beam Supports. See Section 5.3.1.
lTS.
ails.
ouver
fthe
"~'''I''~
.,
,. . . .
-~--'~~'--.ji:
ir'
. .. .. "
.111..
I
18''''"
l.q.pllce '
I ...
. ~ .. (i),' ... @,' . . .

liJ ...,: ~I..I"IJ"
~
11---.' . . . '. . . '!''''!''!' ~oIl., '!P: . :. . . . . . . .
_______1 - - _. . . . . , . . .
lent
of
to
\fter
.: .......
~.~: G
EJj)
, .' .... , ... a-........."",'. CV
nt of
nce
ing
It and
...
~-_--";'r--rt---I
J--1'-_L~L---.oI
.....
(Q)
10'-7"
... ..0
....3. G
10--__- -.....:----.01..... :.... :....: .. ~'~'. CAl

12'
12'
12'-7"
12'
12'
12'
12'
7"
12'
'2'
Figure 5.:1,1. TYpical Floor Plan Showing strengthening for Life Safety
Mldrlse
A-IS
6.!
/ "3 ~
to I
pre
ace
dir
giv
fau
ree
spe
wo
onl
... ,
coli.
typo
II ..... "'"
1~
,..
'N
,~
,..
'--I-,..
,~.~
fo"-- -'
,..
,..
Figure 5.62. TypIcal Floor Plan ShowIng StrengthenIng For Damage Control
Figure 5.3-2 shows a typical floor plan for this

Damage Control retrofit scheme.
The additional work does not seem warranted for
the limited reduction of damage.
6.
Assessment of the
product '.2
Methodology
Damage Prediction
The Escondido Village Midrise buildings were
damaged during the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta
Earthquake. This included moderate but
widespread cracking of the cast-in-place concrete
walls, including both shear cracking in classic
diagonal "x" patterns, flexural cracking consisting
of cracks that were approximately horizontal near
the bases of the walls, and horizontal cracking
along the construction joints present at floor
levels. The walls around the stair towers
experienced the heaviest damage. Most damage to
the walls was repaired shortly after the earthquake
with the injection of epoxy grout.
Pushover analysis predicted flexural yielding
of concrete shear walls. The most significant
6.1
A36
damage was accurately predicted to be in the stair

towers. However, damage due to shear cracking
was not predicted. Perhaps this is due to the fact
that shear capacities in the model are based on the
combination of concrete shear capaci ty and steel
shear capacity. Diagonal cracking of concrete
shear walls does not indicate that concrete walls
have reached their calculated capacities.
The Lorna Prieta event was only a moderate
short duration earthquake for the Escondido
Village Midrise buildings; consequently, damage
to the interior columns and beams did not occur.
comparlsori with preliminary

Evaluation Findings
FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements accurately
indicated the problems associated with the vertical
discontinuity in the transverse shear walls and the
inadequate boundary reinforcing in shear walls.
The Evaluation Statements, however, failed to
discover the inadequacy of the beams and
columns.
Therefore, for this example building study,
nonlinear pushover analysis prescribed by the
Methodology proved to be a very useful tool in
predicting damage and focusing retrofit efforts.
6.2
APpendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse
usi
ele
Ra
ela
tin
pre
hy:
pre
bel
wi
as~
bel
is :
di!
Ti
A
fII
ill.
----
---------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINCS

--------------------------------------------------------------6.3
~ stair
king
fact
)n the
:teel
:e
alls
rate
nage
cur.
'Y
Comparison with Inelastic

TimeHistory Analysis
Limited time-history analyses were performed

to determine the accuracy of the performance point
predicted by the Methodology. Five near-field
acceleration records, each with components in two
directions, were selected. For each record, the
given components were transformed to
fault-parallel and fault-normal components. These
records were then scaled so that the average
spectral acceleration of the ten time-histories
would be O.64g for a structure with a period of
one second.
The time-history analyses were performed
using DRAIN-2DX. These models did not include
element degradation or pinched hysteretic curves.
Rather, the element constituitive models presumed
elastic-purely plastic behavior.
Table 6.3-1 compares the average maximum
time-history displacements with the displacements
predicted by the Methodology assuming similar
hysteretic behavior and with the displacements
predicted assuming pinched and degrading
behavior. Comparison of the time-history results
with the Methodology are good, when the same
assumptions are made with regard to hysteretic
behavior. However, when more realistic behavior
is assumed, the Methodology predicts larger
displacements, as would be expected.
Table 6.S1. comparison of Maximum Roof
Displacement
ately
~rtical
td the
lls.
to
Time-History
Average
7.5"
8.3"
MethOdology wlo
Degredatlon and
Pi
7.5"
10.2"
Iy,
e
in
'Is.
For shears and overturning moments in the

main longitudinal walls, the time-history average
Ildrlse
maximum compares well with the Methodology,

as shown in Table 6.3-2. However, shears and
overturning moments in the main transverse walls
are substantially different. The shears obtained in
the time-history evaluation are more than 5 times
larger than those obtained through analysis per the
Methodology. The overturning moments from the
time-history analysis are only 30 percent larger
than that from the Methodology.
The large difference in shear and smaller
difference in overturning moment indicates that
higher mode effects are significant in the
transverse direction of the building. The
discontinuity in the transverse walls may be a
significant contributor to the need for evaluating
the structure for higher mode effects. In fact, the
Methodology does suggest that irregular buildings
(vertical discontinuity makes this an irregular
building in the transverse direction) should be
evaluated based on a Level 4 or Level 5 approach
that does include the contribution of higher modes.
Also note that the shear and overturning
moment demands for the transverse walls are in
the elastic range. Although forces in the
time-history average and in the Methodology vary
significantly, the transverse walls do not yield in
either case. In other words, the Methodology did
not miss any significant yield event. Consequently,
the overall building behavior determined by the
Methodology remains consistent with that
determined by time-history analysis.
6.4
Conclusions
The following broad are reached conclusions

regarding the use of the Methodology:
The Methodology adequately predicted the
shear wall damage observed after the Lorna
Prieta Earthquake.
The Methodology also determined failure

mechanisms that were not readily apparent in a
conventional elastic evaluation, such as the
hinging of beams and shearing of columns.
Also note that the shear and overturning moment
demands for the transverse walls are in the elastic
A-57
Table 6.6'2. Comparison Of Shea' and overtumlnll Moment
I.
2.
Longitudinal wall forces are taken from first floor elements of the main longitudinal walls (W13 and W23).
Transverse wall forces are taken from second floor elements of the main transverse walls (W3l and W41).
range. Although forces in the timehistory average

and in the Methodology vary significantly, the
transverse walls do not yield in either case. In
other words, the Methodology did not miss any
significant yield event. Consequently, the overall
building behavior determined by the Methodology
remains consistent with that determined by
time-history analysis.
7_
Foundation Analysis
7.1
Introduction
As an additional part of our study, effects of

various foundation parameters on the expected
building behavior were evaluated. The large
number of shear walls in the basements of the
Escondido Village Midrise buildings essentially
provide a fixed base foundation at the first floor
level. Consequently, varying soil properties had
negligible effect on structural behavior.
Because the Escondido Village Midrise
buildings were not very sensitive to varying
foundation effects, the DRAIN2DX models were
modified by removing the spring at the first floor
level representing the additional basement walls.
In this manner, we produced a model that could be
affected by varying soil parameters. It should also
be noted that element degradation was not
considered in the foundation evaluations presented
here.
7.2
Varying Soli Parameters
Eight independent DRAIN-2DX models (four

in each direction) were constructed to evaluate the
effects of varying soil parameters. These models
included:
A-sa
Fixed base model

Stiff soil model (with soil stiffnesses and
yields that were 100 percent greater than the
average values)
Average soil model

Soft soil model (with soil stiffnesses and yields
. that were 50 percent less than the average
values)
Figures 7.2-1 and 7.2-2 show the pushover
curves for each of these models in the longitudinal
and transverse directions, respectively.
As shown in these figures, it appears that soil
stiffness and yield only effect the initial portion of
the pushover curve. Regardless of the soil
parameters, all curves seem to converge after
yielding of members. This indicates that soil
stiffness can effect the response of the building
prior to yielding of structural elements. Once
structural elements start yield, soil stiffness has
negligible effect on building behavior.
A more detailed evaluation of soil effects was
performed for models in the longitudinal direction.
Table 7.2-1 presents the roof displacement and
base shear data points along the pushover curves
where wall hinge formation initially occurs. In
general, as soils become less stiff, hinge formation
at basement walls occurs at larger displacements
and shears. Figures 7.2-3 and 7.2-4 show the point
of hinge formation of basement longitudinal walls
and stair #1 walls, respectively, with various soil
parameters. In addition, as shown in Table 7.2-2,
the estimated performance point also moves
further down the pushover curve for softer soils,
resulting in larger expected displacements and
shears for the same design earthquake.
IPU8C1C1y
eUUOj~p
UIJOjl~
~!A\
'l~qul1J
UllOjl~d
llalfl Aq
)ds~lJOJ
'!lUA
2000
~lfI
1800
ljj!d
.....-:;:.,
1600
.J>.
(!.,. ,.'..
,. ..,
/~'
"00
,-
200
J
Ii
,
base
I!\,~ ,tiff,
400
-'"
,.
I.v'/-fu
600
~-t
,,40'"
I
II
i': .."'~,avclll e soil
:: ,
/
,
",--,
soil
o
0.00
'.00
u.oo
10.00
Root Dilplacemenl [lnchell
Figure 7.2,1. Longitudinal Pushover curves wIth Various Sail Parameters
1600
1400
\" fucd base

1200
~ ..
j
'"~
JI~S
JI~S
O~eAa13
800
400
200
'i,-~
600
JaUJOJ
n~!6uO'
~'/
.i~~
,
.'
,i
i
I
!
,,
average s il
,I
soft soil
.
o
0.00
!
I!
""'- stiff s il
1/,..",,-
i ".
....J,:
I,
(~l
i'- .'
...... -
.....
',"
1000
-~
'.00
10.00
I,
15.00
RoorOllplacemeDt [inebes]
Figure 7.2,2. Transverse Pushover Curves with various Sail parameters
IAr:'Delndli]( A, Escondido Village Mldrlse
A-39
----------------------'-----------------_
eslAPI
'sJ'
2000
1800
' \ 1.86". 1337 k

1600
IZ
1200
11.
J
!'"
., .'
1000
1..
"-5.67". 1319k
3.25" 1316k
..
I
!
fuo dbase
800
600
400
200
nO!
sIle,
lu!od
Sl1
'f'f
<
liL' ;:I// Y----
1400
'\2.59". 1~37k.
..,... - .. - .. - .. I
, ..- .
'z-,
U0!lll
S;l,
'UOp
seN
h(,~ stiffs il
i/'..~~,avera e soil
::
J,;:',I
II
~s soil
.,1
I
!j
i
!
o
0.00
5.00
IS.00
10.00
JO
t
nO!
RoofDllplacemeat {Inebel]
Figure 7.2-S. Longitudinal pushover curves showing Hinge Formation

at Main Basement Longitudinal Walls fW1S and W2S)
2000
v- 3.28".1455k
1800
~ 1.65".I225k
1600
/ Ir
\ y:, ..L
.
1400
'iLi
I
/,i/ Y----
,. ..
., . ".-
400
:,.'
".
'. I
' - - 10.33".1628 k
,..
,,
I
fuo d base
~s
I
I
soil
l
~
o
5.00
10.00
IS.00
Figure 7.2-4. Longitudinal pushover curves showing Hinge Formation

at Basement stair #1 Walls
A-40
;II
Ii
0.00
SP!<l'
_.. ' !I
L.., - .- .. -".
,1~.z.,"-. stiffs n
i/ ,..~~,avcm c soil
::
600
200
4.45 ".1494k
11lU!
laaay
---------------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILOINGS
----------------------------------------------------------rallle 7.2,1. comparison of wall Flexural Yield poInts for Varying Soli Stlffnesses
SOft Soil
drool.. .\~.."
" . > . " .1" (iff.} '1' (kips} .
.....,
'..... '
~;'.V_.,.
..' (In.,..' I (kips) . .
LOngitudinal wailS
1.86
1337
2.59
corner wails
2.33
1407
2.76
Elevator Core
1.70
1263
2.67
stair #1
1.65
1225
3.28
stair 62
2.10
1375
3.03
.drDDf .. ','V.... ...

.. flnJ. (kips)
1337
drDDI ">11'..... .
(In.) .. (kips)
3.25
1316
5.67
1319
1388
3.16
1293
3.84
992
1362
3.63
1404
6.82
1439
1455
4.45
1494
10.33
1628
1449
4.04
1462
7.98
1534
2000
r 11.0".I650k
9.7".I600k \
1800
9.3". 1620k
1400
~ 1200
j
!'"
"
,..
'~'-"-"-L
14.4". 1720 k ..J
;....
,.
Il/~M d base
800
/!/,,~ stiffs il
/!.;i~~.vera esoil
600
iN.'
1/
200
/{/
1000
400
,.
~\
, ..
1600
'. I
~sc ft soil
ji
o
0.00
'.00
10.00
IS.CO
RoofDllplacement [Inchel]
Figure 7.2S. longItudinal pushover Curves ShowIng performance Points
Figure 7.2-5 shows the pushover curves for

the various longitudinal models with their
corresponding performance points as determined
by the Methodology. As shown, it is apparent that
performance points for models with softer soils are
further out on the pushover curves
With larger expected roof displacements at the
performance point for softer soils, larger
deformation demands will be placed on structural
and nonstructural elements. For the modified

Escondido Village Midrise buildings, only the
comer basement walls at the basement experience
compression failure within the expected
performance points for the cases with average and
soft soil stiffnesses. The compression failure at
toes of comer walls occurs at approximately 10.3"
and 11.5" for the average soil and soft soil
models, respectively. No walls experience
-,
Appenalx A. Esconalao Village Mldrlse
A-41
compression failures for the fixed base and stiff

soil models.
Additional lateral deformations throughout the
building due to softer soils will also result in the
building's inability to satisfy required performance
objectives. In the fixed base case, the building
satisfies the Methodology's Immediate Occupancy
Objective when based on the maximum drift. (The
building satisfies the Life Safety Objective when
based on the inelastic drift.) On the other hand, the
soft soil case can only meet the maximum drift
requirements for the Life Safety Objective. It can
be inferred that perhaps for other buildings, stiffer
soil assumptions may result in satisfaction of
higher performance objectives as compared to the
same building with softer soils. (Note that the
example models evaluated here meet the
Methodology's Life Safety Objective only because
of the inelastic drift requirements.)
It was previously shown that the shear critical
columns at the first floor and basement levels
req~ir~d strengthening to satisfy the Life Safety
ObJective. Because of larger interstory drifts at all
levels with the soft soil assumption, additional
columns in floors above the first floor would
require .strengthening. The beam supports would
be required regardless.
7.3
Comparisons with Inelastic

TlmeHlstory Analysis
A series of time-histories were ran for the

fixed base (no basement wall spring) model as well
as the average soil stiffness (no basement wall
spring) model. For average soil stiffness, the
Methodology predicts a maximum roof
displacement of 17.7" which is substantially larger
than the 9.72" calculated as the average for the
time-history analysis. A comparison of
time-history average demands and Methodology
demands at the basement level of main longitudinal
walls (WJ3 and W23) is shown in Table 7.3-1.
The overturning moment at the longitudinal walls
calculated by the Methodology compares well with
that calculated from the time-history analysis.
However, the shear at these walls as calculated by
A-42
Table 7.~1. Comparison Of Time-History Average

Demands and Methodology Demands (with
Average So/I stiffness) at Basement Level of Main
LongitudInal Walls fW1S and W2SJ
7
st
CI
TimeHlstory
Average
1280
364,000
Table 7.S2. Comparison Of Time-History Average

Demands for Fixed Base and Average soli
Models at Basement Level Of Main Longitudinal
walls fW1S and W2SJ
I
I.
the Methodology is approximately 30 percent of

the time-history average value. As previously
noted in Section 6.3 of this report, the longitudinal
walls do not yield in flexure or shear at this level
of demand. Consequently, the apparent
discrepancy in the Methodology is not considered
critical in determining the overall building
behavior.
Table 7.3-2 presents the shear and overturning
moment demands for the time-history averages of
the fixed base model and the average soil stiffness
model. As shown, the shear demand in the fixed
base model is larger than that in the average soil
model. This is consistent with the fact that a more
rigid structure would attract more lateral loads. It
is interesting to note that the fixed base
overturning moment is slightly lower than the
average soil overturning moment. This indicates
that higher mode effects are more dominant in a
structure with a flexible base. Also note that the
maximum roof displacements are 7.26" and 9.72"
for the fixed base model and the average soil
model, respectively.
APpendix A, Escondido Village Mldrlse
2.
verage
~
alMaln
'i!menf
~
7. 4
conclusions
Based on limited analysis of varying soil

stiffness and yield strength, the following
conclusions were made:
Soil stiffness controls a building's initial
stiffness until major structural components
start to yield.
Walls tend to yield at larger roof

displacements as foundation assumptions
became more flexible.
Roof displacement and base shear at the

expected performance point for a design
earthquake typically increases as soils became
less stiff.
'verage
Idinal
8.
I.
ent of
Isly
gitudinai
is level
2.
lsidered
murning 3.
rages of
stiffness
~
fixed
ge soil
t a more 4.
loads. It
1 the
dicates
5.
nt in a
hat the
nd 9.72"
soil
Additional structural and nonstructural

elements will fail with softer soils because of
larger deformation demands for the same
design earthquake.
Higher mode effects were increased with a

more flexible foundation.
Desired performance levels may not be

reached as foundation assumptions became
more flexible.
References
6.
Gilbert, Forsberg, Diekmann, Schmidt;

Structural Drawings. "Stanford University
Married Student Housing" December 15,
1961
7.
Abbot A. Hanks, Inc., Report "Foundation

Investigation for Married Student Housing
Increment 2 Buildings 134, 135, & 136
Stanford University", March 16, 1962
Gilbert, Forsberg, Diekmann, Schmidt;

Structural Drawings. "Stanford University
Escondido Village Increment 2" April 1,
1964
8.
Gribaldo, Jones and Associates, Report

"Foundation Investigation for Escondido
Village, Increment III; Stanford, California",
October, 1970
Campbell & Wong & Associates;

Architectural Drawings; "Stanford
University Escondido Village Increment 2"
April 1, 1964
9.
Gribaldo, Jones and Associates, Report "Soil

Investigation for Escondido Village,
Increment IV; Phases I & II Stanford,
California", July, 1970
Meserve Engineering; Letter Report "Barnes

Hall Slab Cracking"; October 27, 1989
10.
Gribaldo, Jones and Associates, Report "Soil

Investigation for Escondido Village,
Increment V; Stanford, California",
February, 1969
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. "Evaluation

of Site Response and Design Earthquake
Ground Motions, Stanford Urtiversity, Palo
Alto, California" December 2, 1991.
11.
Building Seismic Safety Council;

FEMA-178, "NEHRP Handbook for the
Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings,"
June 1992.
Woodward-Clyde-Sherard & Associates,

Report: "Soil Investigation for the Married
Student's Housing Project Stanford
University, Stanford, California", January
27, 1958
Ie Mldrlse Appendix A. Escondido Village Mldrlse
A45
12.
Department of the Army, The Navy, and The

Air Force. "Techriical Manual for Seismic
Design Guidelines for Essential Buildings
TM-5-809-10, NAVFAC P-355.2, AFM
88-3" 1986.
International Conference of Building

Officials. "Uniform Building Code"
Whittier, CA. 1991.
20.
Iwan, W.O. "Estimating Inelastic Response

Spectra from Elastic Spectra". Journal of
Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics. Vol. 8. 1980.
E
L
21.
Computers and Structures Inc. "ETABSThree Dimensional Elastic Analysis of

Building Structures". Berkeley, CA.
PI
13. American Concrete Institute. "Building Code

Requirements for Reinforced Concrete - ACI
318-92" Chicago, IL. 1992.
14.
15.
Prakash, V.; Powell, G.H.; and Fillipou,

F.C., "DRAIN-2DX" Report No.
UCB/SEMM-92/30, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of California,
Berkeley, December 1992.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. Report: "Soil
Spring Evaluations - Escondido Midrise
Buildings" February, 1994.
16.
Newmark, N.M. "Dynamic Response of

Structures to Earthquakes" EERI, 1980.
17.
Moehle J.P. and Wallace J. W. "BIAX: A

Computer program for the Analysis of
Reinforced Concrete Sections" Department
of Civil Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, Report No.
UCB/SEMM-89/12, July 1989.
18.
Merovich A. and Zsutty T.C.: "Boundary

Element Behavior in Shear Walls".
Proceedings of the Structural Engineers
Association of California 1993 Annual
Meeting. Scottsdale, AZ.
A-44
,.
19.
22.
Aboutaha, S.M., Engelhardt, M., Jirsa, J.~.

and Kreger, M.E. "Seismic Retrofit of RIC
Columns with Inadequate Lap Splices" 1994
ASCE Structures Congress, Atlanta Georgia.
23.

and Kreger, M.E. "Seismic Shear
Strengthening of RIC Columns Using
Rectangular Steel Jackets" 1994 University
of Texas, Austin.
24.

and Kreger, M.E. "Seismic Retrofit of RIC
Columns Using Steel Jackets". Proceedings
of the 1994 American Concrete Institute
spi-ing Convention. San Francisco, Ca.
25.
Priestly, M.J.N., Seible, F. "Seismic

Assessment and Retrofit of Bridges" ,
Department of Applied Mechanics and
Engineering. University of California, San
Diego. July 1991. .
,
~
-------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

-------------------------------------------------------------IlPpendlx B
;ponse
Iof
II

Barrington Medical Center
LOS Angeles, California
3S f
;a, J.O.
fRIC
" 1994
eorgia.
prepared by
303 Second Street, Suite BOON
San Francisco, California 94107
a, J.O.
!rsity
a, J.O.
fR/C
dings
te
San
~Idrlse:
Appendix B. Barrington Medical center
a-'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .................................................................................................. B-5
1.1 Intent of Example Building Study ........................................................ B-5
1.2 Scope of Example Building Study ........................................................ B-5
1.3 Summary of Findings ...................................................................... B-5
I. 4 Update ........................................................................................ B-6
2. Building and Site Description ............................................................................. B-9
2.1 General ....................................................................................... B-9
2.2 Structural Systems and Members ...................................................... B-lO
2.3 Soil and Seismicity ....................................................................... B-lO
3. Preliminary Evaluation .................................................................................. B-lO
3.1 Summary .................................................................................... B-lO
3.2 FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements ..................................................... B-ll
3.3 Elastic Analysis ........................................................................... B-12
4. Evaluation by Product 1.2 Methodology .............................................................. B-12
4.1 Summary ................................................................................... B-12
4.2 Scope ....................................................................................... B-13
4.3 Structure Modeling ....................................................................... B-13
4.4 Pushover Analysis ........................................................................ B-18
4.5 Identifying Limit States on the Capacity Curve ...................................... B-21
4.6 Determination of Demand and Performance Point. ................................. B-23
4.7 Performance Assessment ................................................................ B-26
5. Conceptual Retrofit Designs ............................................................................ B-28
5.1 Performance Objectives ................................................................. B-28
5.2 Selection of Retrofit Elements .......................................................... B-28
5.3 Comparative Evaluation by Product 1.2 Methodology ............................. B-31
6. Assessment of the Product 1.2 Methodology ......................................................... B-32
6.1 Damage Prediction ....................................................................... B-32
6.2 Comparison with Preliminary Evaluation Findings ................................. B-34
6.3 Comparison with Inelastic Time-History Analysis .................................. B-34
7. References ................................................................................................. B-36
aJ
,...-----------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

~---------------------------------------------------------------
APpendix B

LOS Angeles, California
1.
Introduction
1.1
Intent of Example Building study

Product 1.2 of the Proposition 122 Seismic
Retrofit Practices Improvement Program, entitled
Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Concrete Buildings, is referred to here as the
Methodology. Example Building Studies were
executed primarily to "test" draft versions of the
Methodology and to provide feedback to its
developers.
This study also illustrates techniques described
in the Methodology and attempts to convey the
scope of work and the level of engineering
judgment involved in evaluating an actual
building. However, since the study ignores some
Methodology requirements for brevity, it does not
represent a complete evaluation or retrofit design.
This report assumes that readers are familiar with
the basic Methodology scope and terminology.
This study was completed by Rutherford &
Chekene in several phases, in parallel with
development of the Methodology. This report
describes work done in the last phase, in
March-April 1996. Some references to the latest
Methodology requirements, equations, or scope
may be out of date. Section 1.4 updates principal
results to the latest Methodology requirements.
1.2
scope of EXample Building study

This study presents the evaluation and
conceptual retrofit design of an actual concrete
building in Los Angeles, following the
recommendations of the Methodology. Topics
include:
Preliminary evaluation (Section 3 of this

report)

nonlinear pushover analysis (Section 4)
Conceptual retrofit (Section 5)

In addition, Section 6 of this report provides a
limited assessment of the Methodology.
Practical implementation of pushover analysis
is also discussed. Issues include:
Idealizations and simplifications (Section 4.3

of this report)
Modeling shear-critical components

(Section 4.4.3)
Modeling stiffness and strength degradation

(Section 4.4.4)
"Effective" yield point for performance point

calculation (Section 4.6.4)
1.3
summary of Findings
This study confirms the anticipated value of
the Methodology as an analytical tool. Compared
with conventional elastic analysis, the
Methodology provides a more complete
description of expected structural performance,
allowing and encouraging better understanding by
the engineer. Except in rare cases where elastic
analysis clearly reveals exceptionally good or bad
behavior, such an understanding is essential, and a
nonlinear Methodology is worthwhile.
The Methodology is valuable even where it
relies on judgment or approximation, as it demands
explicit consideration of expected inelastic
response. Though software limitations and
8-5
bookkeeping requirements may make the

Methodology more difficult to implement than
elastic analysis, these hurdles will certainly be
lowered with time and widespread usage.
Specifically, the Methodology can be assessed
by comparing its results with other perfonnance
estimates (see also Section 6):
The Methodology's modeling rules adequately
predicted the exterior column damage observed
after the Northridge earthquake. (Interior walls
were not inspected after the earthquake.)
Evaluation Statements, supported by

engineering experience and to a lesser extent
by elastic static analysis, probably would have
led to a retrofit scope similar to that indicated
by the Methodology's inelastic pushover
analysis. However, the pushover analysis
provides a more detailed understanding of
expected building and component
performance. Additionally, the Methodology
addresses the relative significance of potential
damage (by defining multiple performance
levels) and discusses retrofit approaches.
Limited time-history analysis suggests that

pushover analysis can overestimate
displacement and underestimate base shear.
See Section 6.3 for further discussion.
Key findings regarding implementation of the
Methodology are also worth noting here. Each is
discussed more fully in the text below. These
findings are not intended as criticism of the
Methodology. Rather, they should remind the
prospective engineer that better analytical tools do
not remove the need for engineering judgment and
careful work.
Substantial engineering judgment may be

required in applying modeling rules and
deformation limits.
Engineering judgment and approximation may
be required where available software can not
directly model anticipated behavior.
Some of the Methodology's demand and
capacity estimates may be sensitive to
B-G
assumptions or approximations. For this

example building, acceptability was heavily
influenced by assumed soil type, assumed
foundation properties, and deformation limits
sensitive to assumed building conditions.
Judgment and "envelope" techniques should be
applied where equally reasonable assumptions
yield very different conclusions.
1.4
Update
Some Methodology requirements have been
significantly revised since this study was first
executed. This Section briefly discusses the most
critical changes.
Modeling
The Methodology now includes an explicit
discussion of techniques for modeling degradation
in its Section 8.2.1. The recommended technique,
resulting in a "sawtooth" composite curve, is very
similar to the approach taken for this study
(described in Section 4.4.4), although there may
be some minor differences. The previously
determined capacity curves are assumed to comply
with the latest Methodology requirements.
1.4.1
Del'lvlng Pel'fol'mance Points

The Methodology offers several different
procedures for deriving bilinear capacity curves,
performance points, and/or target displacements.
Among these are the displacement coefficient
method and the capacity spectrum method (CSM).
This study originally used a hybrid of what are
now called Procedures A and B of the CSM.
Updated performance points tabulated below were
derived with Procedure A. Also, the revised
Methodology now specifies use of the most
appropriate yield point for the bilinear
representation. This corresponds to the
"subsequent yield" discussed in Section 4.6.4.
The most significant revision to the CSM
involves assignment of Structural Behavior Types
and corresponding Damping Modification Factors
(lC) and Spectral Reduction Factors (SRA and SRv).
With reference to Methodology Table 8-4,
1.4.2
APpendix B, Barrington Medical Center
Bal
an
bel
dUl
COl
bel
is
spe
dis
em
Fi~
del
soi
pel
is :
4.S
spe
dis
typ
Co
chi
pel
ori
de!
on
inc
75'
the
rel!
2iJ
poi
del
am
Ag
gO(
hig
bel
dis
pre
Wit
Api
r ---------------------------------------------------------------------

~
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barrington Medical Center would be classified as

an "Average Existing Building" and assigned
lvily
behavior type B or C depending on expected
ed
duration of shaking. If retrofit, it might be
limits
,l.
considered an "Essentially New Building" with
behavior type A or B. (Note that the behavior type
lould be
is assigned on the basis of primary elements only.)
lptions
With corresponding K values and limits on
spectral reduction, performance point
displacements increase significantly, in many cases
enough to affect acceptability. For example,
,een
Figure 4.6-4 below shows the performance point
st
derivation for the fixed-base original building on
most
soil type D in a Design Earthquake. The
, performance point spectral displacement, dp or Sd,
is 3.45 inches, and the actual roof displacement is
cit
4.9 to 5.4 inches (see Table 4.6-2). With limited
dation
spectral reduction, however, this expected roof
lique,
displacement increases to 8.1 inches with behavior
s very
type B or about 12 inches with behavior type C.
Comparison with Figure 4.4-2 suggests that such a
may
change can have significant impacts.
Table 1.4-1 summarizes the increases in
omply
performance point roof displacements for both the
original building and the retrofit building
described in Section 5. For the original building
on soil type B, Methodology revisions have
increased displacements by 1 to 3 inches (25 to
yes,
75%) depending on behavior type. On soil type D,
!nts.
the increase is 3 to 7 inches (50 to 120%). For the
t
retrofit building on soil type D, the increase is 1 to
:SM).
2 inches (30 to 100%).
Ie
Table 1.4-2 compares the updated performance
point displacements (Table 1.4-1) with those
were
derived using the displacement coefficient method
and the equal displacement approximation.
Agreement between the three methods is very
good for soil type B, but the CSM appears to give
higher values for soil type D. Also, structure
behavior types B and C lead to CSM
displacements significantly higher than those
ypes
predicted by displacement coefficients, especially
ctors
with soil type D (12" vs. 5.5", 14" vs. 9.5").
SRv).
:enter
Table 1.41. Changes In Design Earthquake

performance point displacements due to
Methodology revisions finches}
. ... COndition
'Behavlor' From
TO
original building
Fixed Base
Soil Type B
2.7
4.7
Soil Type 0
5.4
8.1
5.4
12
Soil Type B
3.6
5.0
3.6
6.4
Soil Type 0
7.2
10
7.2
14
2.0
3.0
2.0
4.8
4.3
5.4
4.3
6.7
2.7
3.4
Soft Foundation
RetrOfit Building
Fixed Base,
Soil Type 0
soft Foundation
Soil Type 0
Table 1.42, comparison Of Design Earthquake

performance pOint displacements calculated by
various methods (Drlglnal building only) finches/
a-7
Note that Framing Type 2 was used for the

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

assessments due to MethodoltIIIY revisions
(check olllle saFety performance In Design
Earthquake onlyl
4.7.2 columns: ok with

soli type B, not ok with
soli type D.
4.7.2 Walls: limit of 5

Inches Ok for all cases:
4.7.2 Pile slip: soil type
B: .25-.50', soli type D:
1.0-1.25'.
4.7.3 5011 type B
deficiencies: unreliable
exterior frame columns
only.
4.7.3 5011 type D
defiCiencies: Walls
marginally acceptable.
a-8
Column performance is
not ok with either soli
type. Exception: barely
ok for fixed-base mOdel
on soli type BIf behavior
B Is assumed.
Barely ok with soli type B
14.7' vs. 5'); not ok with
soli type D IS' or 12' vs.
5').
soli type B: .70-1.0', soli
type D: 2-4', depending
on assumed behavior
type. With 4' Slip, pile
mOdel Is suspect.
unreliable and
unacceptable ext. frame
columns. walls
marginally acceptable.
Walls unacceptable;
other deficiencies same.
Table 1.4-4. Changes In retrofit requirements

due to MethodolOflY revIsions (desilln lor soli
0 ..'",,, onlyl
5.1 Original building

meets Economic
objective. only soli type
D considered.
Table 5.1-1, Flxedbase
model wi either
Table 5.1-1, Flxedbase
model WI Economic
Objective
Table 5.1-1, 50ft-Fdn
model WI Economic
objective
5.3 Check retrofit on
soli type Bagainst
column L5 deformation
limit: fixed base easily
ok, soft foundation
I I
5.3 Beams adjacent to
retrofit Inflll panels ok.
wails not ok. Columns

not ok.
same, but tighter
requirement on frame
column deformation.
Add: limit deformation
In frame columns;
Strengthen or add
wailS.
confirm pile model.
dis
val
rec
bel
me
his
(i.
bel
am
bel
bui
Fixed base Ok assuming

behavior A13.0" vs. 3.S"),
not ok assuming
behavior B14.S' VS. 3.8").
Soft foundation not Ok
15.4-6.7" vs. 4.2").
Not checked.
Appendix B, Barrington Medical Center
Api
-----
r ---------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

~----------------------------------------------------
Its
.,- ----------[-----------i
'e
:0
(ElINFlll PANEL.
EDGE OF 2ND
I
FLOOR ROOf ~
TYP, AT J PIfCES
,,
l--+--+--t--------@----@----.
..
.
,
for
nt
,,
,,
20'-5"
104'-0"
20'-5"
ckl' -t----~ --~--.-.-
i i i
}-+-+-...... ----.-.,-.-.
:hes
'ry
lis
!
!
!
20'-5"
~s
!
!
!
!
TYP. FRAME C'olU~N: 12"x42" I
!
;
([)8" WAll
G~OUP, TYP.
8}-+--+-.. ----~N~~~:;t~:--~----i----~-- -.-.

21'-4\1.
,1/
ELEVATOR
!
22'-4"
TYP. FRAME BEAM (NOr SHOWN): 8"x84"
21'-6"
21'-6"
21'-6"
21'-6"
22'-4"
130'-8"
1~tfl,~
ns
me
n.
tion
Figure 2.11. Plan of OrigInal BuIlding
discrepancy arises from pushover analysis with K

values significantly less than 1.0 and from spectral
reduction limits imposed on buildings with
behavior type B or C. Even if a structure is
modeled with degraded strength and stiffness, time
history analysis with DRAIN-2DX assumes full
(Le. not pinched) hysteresis loops associated with
behavior type A. Therefore, such time history
analyses may not account adequately for the poor
behavior expected from some existing concrete
buildings.
ling
3.8"),
3.8"),
tok
:enter
2.
Building and Site

Description
General
Prior to its demolition in 1994, Barrington
Medical Center was a six-story reinforced concrete
office building in West Los Angeles. Although the
building footprint was rectangular, a substantial
setback of the northeast comer above the second
floor resulted in the L-shaped plan shown in
Figure 2.1-1. The building had a 17-ft first story
(plus 1'-10" to top-of-pile cap), five 12ft stories,
a small (about 2000 sf), light penthouse with steel
diagonal braces, and no basement.
Barrington Medical Center was designed in
1963. Damage sustained during the Northridge
Earthquake of January, 1994 is described in
Section 6.1. No records of damage from previous
2.1
B9
earthquakes were available for this study, but the

building is assumed to have been in good condition
at the time of the Northridge earthquake.
Documents available to this study are listed under
References. Original calculations and drawings do
not cite a specific building code.
exterior spandrel beams were deep, they shortened

and stiffened the exterior columns.
Further, the strength and stiffness of piles
relative to the walls they supported is unclear.
Finally, the L-shaped typical floor may have given
rise to torsional force distributions.
2.2
Materials
Specified 28-day concrete strength: 3000 psi
for slabs, beams, columns, walls, and grade
beams; 2500 psi for pile caps and piles
structural Systems and Members
Barrington Medical Center was constructed of

cast-in-place concrete. Typical elements included:
Gravity load-Resisting System (see

Figure 2.11)
7 1/4" two-way flat slabs carrying floor loads

to walls, frames, and columns
8-inch wall groups at stairs and elevators
Perimeter frames of deep rectangular spandrel

beams and columns
Round interior columns with 4-foot diameter

capitals
Under interior columns and walls, pile caps

and friction piles 26 to 43 feet long
Under perimeter frames, grade beams and

36-foot long piles
lateral load-ResIsting system (see

Figure 2.11)
Load-path: relatively rigid slabs, through shear

walls and frames, to foundation
East-west direction: interior shear walls and

perimeter frames
North-south direction: interior walls,

perimeter frames, and three perimeter frame
bays infilled to form de facto exterior walls
Structural calculations from 1963 show that
the shear walls and frames were both expected to
resist earthquake forces. However, the distribution
of forces and ultimate behavior of this building are
unclear from a visual review of drawings. The
interior shear walls were configured as stiff boxes,
but were lightly reinforced in some areas and were
softened by numerous openings. Because the
B1D
2.3
dist
Bec
los!
as-t
Stat
defi
con
3.2
exi~
Stat
all'
Fall
apl
FEI
Reinforcing was called out as "intermediate

grade deformed bars. "
Soli and Seismicity
The original soil report shows "moderately

firm" sands and silts to a depth of about twenty
feet, with somewhat firmer sands below and no
water encountered for fifty feet. The description is
consistent with Uniform Building Code Soil Type
S2: "dense or stiff soil." The 1963 report does not
address site seismicity. Located at the intersection
of Olympic and Barrington in West Los Angeles,
the building was about 5 km from the trace of the
Newport-Inglewood fault in the COMO Beverly
Hills quadrangle.
.
Stat
accl
anal
defi
rest
wer
FEI
avai
full
dra1
:I.
preliminary Evaluatlan
indi
3.1
summary
Gel
Methodology Chapter 5 recommends a

preliminary evaluation to determine if nonlinear
analysis is warranted. Such a preliminary
evaluation identifies potential deficiencies using
FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements and static
elastic analysis. For Barrington Medical Center,
Evaluation Statements identify a number of
deficiencies in the original design. Some of
these-particularly poorly-confined, shear-critical
columns-require retrofit if structural damage in a
Los Angeles Design Earthquake is to be avoided.
Without substantial analysis, however, Evaluation
Statements are unable to predict aspects of actual
behavior such as elastic and post-yield force
--------------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Jrtened
es
If.
: given
) psi
'ade
iate
:ly
nty
no
lion is
Type
es not
!clion
!les,
fthe
'rly
on
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
distributions, hinge patterns, or ductility demands.

Because it does not account for post-yield stiffness
loss in perimeter frames, elastic analysis of the
as-built structure adds little to Evaluation
Statement findings and is still unable to quantify
deficiencies. The preliminary evaluation is thus
conclusive in a qualitative sense only.
FEMA178 EValuation Statements

FEMA-178 is a methodology for evaluating
existing structures by responding to Evaluation
Statements. When the appropriate Statements are
all True, no analysis is required. When some are
False, elastic static analysis is used to determine if
a particular condition is a real seismic deficiency.
FEMA-178 force levels check life-safety only.
For this study, FEMA-178 Evaluation
Statements are used for preliminary evaluation in
accordance with Methodology Chapter 5. No
analysis was performed to verify potential
deficiencies. No testing or field investigation
results were available. Non-structural elements
were not considered. It is important to note that
FEMA-178 evaluation relies heavily on the
availability of design drawings; for this study, a
full set of original structural and architectural
drawings was available.
False FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements
indicating potential seismic deficiencies include:
ng
er,
tical
>in a
led.
ltion
:ual
!nter
Frames
No Shear Failures. Exterior frame columns

with clear heights reduced to 5' -0" by deep
beams are probably shear-critical, but only if
the Methodology's shear capacity is used. That
is, the columns' nominal shear capacity, as
defined in FEMA-178, may be enough to
develop their flexural strength. The degrading
shear capacity defined in the Methodology,
however, indicates shear-critical behavior at
expected deformation levels.
Strong Column/Weak Beam. Columns can

not develop the strength of deep frame beams.
Detailing. Tie spacing, stirrup spacing, joint

reinforcing, and bar splices are all potential
deficiencies. Typical ties in columns and joints
are #2@12" and are drawn (but not specified)
with 135-degree hooks. No special ties are
provided at hinge regions, joints, or splice
zones.
Flat Slab Frames. Slabs have #5 bottom bars

spliced over columns. With typical column
capital, however, splice is two feet from
critical section at edge of capital.
3.2
Ceneral
!ar
may be significantly higher than 60 psi in

frame columns and 50 psi in shear walls.
Vertical Discontinuities. Elevator and stair

wall cores have significant setbacks,
discontinuities, and/or openings.
Torsion. If the exterior frames are weak or
shear-critical (as suggested by False
Evaluation Statements below), the center of
rigidity after one frame yields is unclear. Also,
the L-shaped plan and full second floor
complicate predictions of two-dimensional
response.
Shearing Stress Check. Depending on the
distribution of story shear between walls and
frame columns, shears under FEMA-178 loads
Appendix B. Barrington Medical Center
Shear Walls
Wall Overturning. Interior core wall hll

ratios exceed 4.
Coupling Beams. Effective coupling beams

over wall openings are not specially
reinforced.
Confmement Reinforcing. Boundary elements

have only typical ties: #2@12".
Reinforcing Steel. Typical wall steel ratio

(#4@12"e.w.) is less than .0025.
Reinforcing at Openings. Typical detail calls

for only 2#5 trim bars around door openings.
Evaluation Statements requiring analysis or
field investigation for a complete response are
B-11
SEISMIC I!VALUATION AND RI!TROFIT OF CONCRI!TI! BUILDINGS
conSidered Unknown. Among the Unknown

conditions are:
General pre-earthquake condition of concrete

Walls, columns, or frame components.
D~ft check. Drift is usually not an issue in

bUIldings with concrete shear walls, but with
shear-critical frame elements, small drifts may
be Sufficient to cause damage.
Stirrups and tie hooks. Bar details are drawn

with 135-degree hooks but do not specify hook
angles or extensions.
FOUndation settlement or deterioration.
Lateral force on deep foundations. Pile

bending and shear transfer to soil not checked.
LiqUefaction potential.
3.3
avaluatlon by Product
1.2 Methodology
4.1
summary
Specific technical findings are given in Tables

4.5-1 and 4.6-2. Deficiencies are summarized in
Section 4.7.3. General assumptions, conclusions,
and lessons regarding the Methodology include:
Consideration of element inelasticity in the
structure model allows a more complete and
useful understanding of expected performance
through a full range of lateral movement than
is generally available from linear elastic
analysis.
Evaluation may be unable to satisfy some

Methodology requirements because of software
limitations. In particular, three-dimensional
inelasticity and multi-linear load-deformation
relations are difficult to model.
Engineering judgment is required to determine

an appropriate model scope. A full inelastic
model accounting for all potential failure
modes is often unfeasible, but reduction to
oversimplified "equivalent" models may miss
key points of the Methodology.
Elastic Analysis
. Elastic analysis of existing buildings has been

wlde!y accepted because it is procedurally
consIstent with building code requirements for new
construCtion. Elastic analysis can complement
Evaluation Statement responses by predicting
stresse.s and small deformations. Computerized
:malysls can also account for peculiar structural
Irregularities. However, elastic analysis does not
acco~~t for post-yield force redistribution or
ductIlIty demands.
For this study, a three-dimensional elastic
computer model, built and analyzed with ETABS
soft~are, was used only to assess potential
torsIOnal effects in the L-shaped structure.
Member stresses were not checked.
When the elastic model is subjected to
east-w~St loads, torsional effects have no
ap~reclable effect on response and can reasonably
be Ignored. Loading in the north-south direction,
however, indicates significant torsion.
a12
4.
Engineering judgment may be required where

building conditions are not directly addressed
by available modeling rules. In particular,
post-yield capacity of shear-critical and
degrading elements (likely to be found in
existing concrete buildings) is not fully
addressed. Over-simplified or careless
modeling can cause misleading analysis
results.
Engineering judgment may be required when
categorizing elements as "primary" or
"force-controlled, " when setting deformation
limits, and when comparing limits to expected
performance point displacements. Relative
sensitivities, sources of uncertainty, and error
magnitudes must be considered.
sub
bey
eva
pro
eng
4.~
jus1
her
pre
invi
EVI
in (
ana
mal
sei!
rep
ana
pot
bas
4.!
4.. ~
nor
gen
Api
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- -----------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
c:t
Assumed soil type can control the most basic

evaluation conclusions.
abies
in
ons,
de:
le
md
lance
than
Soil-structure interaction, represented by a

reasonable range of foundation models; can
significantly affect the global nature of
building performance.
While the Methodology still requires
substantial engineering judgment, it goes well
beyond the practical limits of linear elastic
evaluation procedures. Also, the Methodology
provides for a peer review process as a check on
engineering judgment.
4.2
ftware '
lal
:tion
rmine
tic
:0
miss
'here
ssed
scope
The complete Methodology involves more than

just the nonlinear pushover analysis described
here. Methodology Chapter 5 recommends a
preliminary evaluation including field
investigation, material testing, execution of
Evaluation Statements, and limited elastic analysis
in order to determine the need for nonlinear
analysis. For this study, field investigation and
material testing were not possible, and site-specific
seismology data was not available.
Preliminary evaluation (see Section 3 of this
report) suggested that a nonlinear pushover
analysis to quantify wall-frame interaction and
potential column failure may be warranted. The
basic steps of a pushover analysis are:
Structure modeling (Section 4.3 of this report)
Application of pushover forces (Section 4.4)
Determination of limit states (Section 4.5)
Determination of inelastic demand and

expected performance point (Section 4.6)
'hen
Assessment of building elements and systems

at the performance point (Section 4.7)
Ition
ected
4.3
'e
!rror
:enter '
these are often the same conditions ignored by

commercial analysis programs. The limitations of
currently available software can significantly affect
the level of effort required to model and analyze
the building, the nature of analysis results, and if
not understood by the engineer, the correctness of
analysis results as well. However, this does not
necessarily reflect on the value of the
Methodology; in time, more comprehensive
software will be available.
For this study, DRAIN-2DX was used for the
nonlinear pushover analysis. Among its limitations
relative to requirements of Methodology Chapter 9
are:
No Inelastic Panel Elements. Walls subject to
potential flexural or shear yielding were
modeled as columns. See Section 4.3.4.
No Shear-Critical Elements. Only flexural

yield can be simulated with a simple model,
but the Methodology requires consideration of
all relevant failure modes. See Section 4.4.3.
No Degrading Elements. All yielding

elements maintain their strength, but the
Methodology requires degrading for some
elements with high ductility demands. See
Section 4.4.4.
Limited Post-Yield Behavior. Upon yielding,

the program modifies flexural stiffness only,
not flexural strength on subsequent cycles
(degrading), shear strength or stiffness, or
axial strength or stiffness.
Two-Dimensional Framing Only. As noted

above, the east-west direction is reasonably
approximated by two-dimensional models, but
a two-dimensional study of north-south loading
would require special modifications to account
for torsion. Methodology Commentary 9.3
questions the utility of three-dimensional
inelastic analyses.
Limited Model Size. The Methodology

recommends modeling joints, stairs, gravity
framing, and other elements of uncertain
rigidity, but this quickly increases model size
structure Modeling
4.s'1
SoFtware Considerations
For an existing building, the point of a
nonlinear pushover analysis is to assess conditions
generally avoided in new designs. Unfortunately,
a-13
and analysis time. Also, premature failure

modes such as shear can be modeled with
multiple elements in series, but this can double
the model size.
No Graphics OR Post-Processing. This
affects the efficiency of the analysis.
Other Methodology requirements that are
handled by DRAIN-2DX but might not be in other
software packages include:
P-delta effects or geometric stiffness
modifications.
Reinforcing rupture strain: .05. Refer to

Methodology Figure 9-8.
Initial stiffnesses: Per Methodology table 9-3

with two exceptions per Section 9.5.3
Commentary. First, no reduction from gross
stiffness for shear-critical frame columns.
Second, reduction by .75 factor, not .50, for
frame beams expected to stay below yield.
Unlimited range of rigid end offsets.
Explicit modeling of shear stiffness (but not

shear yield) in primarily flexural elements.
Eigen solution at any point of the pushover
4.s'2
Materials
Material test results were not available for this
study, so strength data was taken from available
design documents. Structural materials were
modeled with the following assumptions:
Existing concrete strength: 3600 psi = 3000
psi design strength factored by I. 2 to reflect
higher in-situ values (See Methodology
Commentary 5.4.4.1.) The 1.2 value is a
matter of engineering judgment only.
Concrete Young's modulus, E = 3400 ksi.

The value reflects the increased strength.
Ultimate compression strain (per Methodology

Section 9.5.2.2 and Commentary 9.5.4.2):
. 005 for most elements, .003 for poorly
confined boundary zones subject to high
compression.
Existing reinforcing strength: 40 ksi.

(Methodology table 9-2 indicates a strength of
60 klii for "intermediate grade" bars. The use
of 40 klii was an error left uncorrected.)
Reinforcing strength increases: 25 percent per

Methodology Section 9.5.4.1, ignoring the
40 percent increase recommended in
Section 9.5.4.2.
B-14
structural Systems
4.8.8
Three-Dimensional Effects. Only the
east-west lateral load-resisting system was
modeled for this study, in part due to software
limitations. Elastic analysis confirmed that torsion
is reasonably ignored for east-west loads.
However, torsion may be more significant than
elastic analyses indicate because the perimeter
frames are brittle; if frames on opposite sides of
the building yield at different times, the system
could become subject to torsion. Even without
torsion, bi-directional effects (ignored here) should
be considered in a real building evaluation. These
could affect corner columns, corners of wall
assemblies, and the perimeter frame columns
which have little strength out of plane.
Idealized Fixity. Rigid diaphragms were
assumed. This simplifies the model by reducing
the number of elements and degrees of freedom.
For a long narrow floor plate, this assumption
might be inadequate. The small piece of slab
between the reentrant corner at grid D-4 and the
nearby stair shaft is an area of potential concern
whose strength should be confirmed by hand .
Other idealized fixity assumptions included:
Horizontal translation fixed for all ground
floor nodes, assuming infinite soil stiffness.
For fixed-base models, all walls and columns

fixed at ground floor against rotation and
vertical translation.
For foundation models, bottom end nodes of
piles fixed, otherwise ground floor nodes free
in rotation and vertical translation.
grie
eaSi
Mel
as t
"eq
con
gra'
mOl
pari
Sec
bay
thrf
mOl
4.3
loae
stue
rela
Lin
In ~
wit!
f --------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------)
Ie 9-3
gross
"C
IS.
1
I
I
ca
...J
l, for
Id.
--. .. --
"C
ca
..9
. - -I
I
I
Deformation
are
IS
'e
cing
iom.
on
b
i the
cern
:I.
nd
less.
lumns
d
es of
's free
center
...
!L-""
--
-~
I
Deformation
Figure 4.S1. toad'Deformatlon Relations for Deformatlon'Controlled and DegradIng Elements

Methodology RecommendatIon { J and Model SImplificatIon {-J
torsion
han
ter
~s of
tern
)ut
should
These
I
...
Beam-column joints rigid and infinitely strong

over full beam depth and column width. (For
shorter beams, Methodology Section 9.4.3.2
might have applied.)
Secondary Elements. Gravity framing along
grid lines B, C, D, and E was modeled as
east-west slab-column frames in accordance with
Methodology Section 9.4.2.2. Slabs were modeled
as beams framing directly into columns; that is,
"equivalent frame" stiffnesses from ACI were not
computed. Some later models eliminated the
gravity framing on line E in order to reduce the
model to an executable size.
Nonstructural elements such as stairs and
partitions were not modeled, despite Methodology
Section 9.3.1. Had there been solid infills of frame
bays in the east-west direction, as there were in
three north-south bays, these would have been
modeled as shear walls.
4.$.4
structural Elements and

components
The Methodology cites a generalized

load-deformation relation in its Figure 9-15. This
study used a simplified elastic-perfectly plastic
relation; the "Lateral Resistance Deformation
Limit" was monitored by hand. See Figure 4.3-1.
In general, elements were modeled in accordance
with Methodology Sections 9.5.5.2 through
9.5.5.7, using the material idealizations listed

above. Most elements were modeled with a yield
overshoot tolerance of 5-10 percent in accordance
with Methodology Commentary 8.2.1. Unique
modeling aspects included the following.
Beams. No provision was made for hinges
within the beam span, but this was adequate for
this building where column hinging limited beam
forces to less than yield. Because the beams were
fairly deep, shear stiffness was included. Shear
strength of each beam type was computed per
Methodology Section 9.5.4.3; a value of k = 1
was used because beams were expected to remain
essentially elastic. In each case, the shear strength
was found sufficient to develop the full yield
strength of the beam in reverse curvature, so
careful monitoring of beam shears during pushover
was unnecessary. Although design drawings show
longitudinal bars spliced within the column depth,
splice and development length were judged to not
control beam strength.
Columns. Since columns were not loaded
within their clear height, hinging was anticipated
at member ends only. The column clear
span-to-depth ratio was small, so inclusion of
shear stiffness was essential. Flexural yield
strengths were computed as for beams, and a yield
curve accounting for P-M interaction was specified
for each column type.
a-15
For each column type, shear capacity was

checked against the shear associated with flexural
yield. For typical frame columns, Methodology
equations 9-3 to 9-5 with k = 1 give a shear
capacity sufficient to develop the nominal moment
capacity. However, the columns are the first
components to yield and may be subject to high
ductility demands. If so, this would require the use
of k = 0 in the shear strength equations, reducing
the shear capacity and making the columns
shear-critical. In a large enough earthquake, then,
the columns may yield in flexure on one or two
cycles, then yield at a low shear value on
subsequent cycles as cracks open and shear
strength degrades. Refer to Section 4.4.4 of this
report.
. . Joints. Beam-column joints were modeled as
ngld zones, without separate model elements. Had
the columns been stronger in shear, it might have
been necessary to check the shear in the joint,
es.pe~ially considering that tie spacing is large
Within the panel zone. Note that separate modeling
of the joints would have increased the model size
substantially.
. Slabs. Two-way slab behavior was modeled
With one-way beam elements. Potential hinge
locations were limited to the face of column
capita\. Despite the recommendations of
Methodology Section 9.5.5.6, slab column
C?nn~ctions were not explicitly modeled; all slab
Yleldmg was limited to simple flexural yielding of
the Slab. This was considered appropriate because
the slab-column "frames" were secondary
elements that did not control overall performance.
Walls. Because DRAIN-2DX does not offer an
inelastic panel element, wall groups were modeled
as eqUivalent columns (see Figure 4.3-2). The
three wall groups at grid C-3, 0-3, and C-S.S
were modeled. For each variation in a wall
~roup's reinforcing and geometry, a P-M
mteraction diagram was developed with PCACOL
software. For some wall groups,
moment-curvature relations were also developed to
confirm that yield moments did not violate

assumptions of ultimate concrete or steel strain.
Lintel sections over stair and elevator doors
are expected to behave as (unintended) coupling
beams but are not properly reinforced. To account
for these conditions, the concrete and steel area .
input to PCACOL was limited to that which could
be developed by the lintel in shear. This resulted
in reduced model wall capacities that represented
potentially non-ductile failure modes. In general,
inelastic deformations in idealized model walls
must be checked for local effects at critical
locations such as openings. This building's walls
were found to be shear-critical, so it was not
necessary to consider local stresses associated with
flexural yielding.
Wall shear capacities were calculated by
Methodology equations 9-6 to 9-8, using a beta
value of 0.58. Capacities were such that,
depending on the interaction of walls and
perimeter frames at different stories, the wall
might have been controlled by shear, so careful
monitoring of wall forces during pushover was
necessary. Where shear con trolled, wall flexural
strength was modi fied to simulate a shear yield at
the proper stage of the pushover. Potential sliding
failure along construction joints was not modeled;
this deformation mode is expected to occur before
wall shear capacity is reached, but is further
expected to stiffen or strain-harden, allowing
development of wall nominal strength.
The wall properties described above were
assigned to single equivalent columns at wall
centroids. To maintain deformation compatibility
with adjacent components, artificially rigid and
strong "outrigger" beams were provided (see
Figure 4.3-2). As noted in the commentary to
Methodology Section 9.4.3.1, this equivalent
column approach can be kinematically incorrect.
For this building, however, yielding was either
shear controlled or concentrated in the piles. Also,
walls are not rotationally linked to each other or to
other primary lateral load-resisting elements, so
the Methodology's concern was not prohibitive.
will
moe
COUI
moc
9.3,
pre)
to fI
suff
sucl
is IT
perl
mee
inte
pro'
soft
COlT
prel
Wer
and
elas
moc
on ~
Pile
AppendIx B, BarrIngton MedIcal tenter
f -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ain.
)ors
ling
;COunt
.rea
could
Ilted
mted
.eral.
lis
14TH
TRIBUTARY FLOOR
LOAD + WALL
WEIGHT. TYP.
3RD
~
2ND
4-~9
~~
9'
:1.
C1..l.
~4TH
RIGID OUTRIGGER,
TYP.
..l.
EA H CORNER
EQUIVALENT COL.
I, ETC
CI~TYPE
1ST
8-~9
EA H CORNER
~alls
x~
:d with,
<~~~
~,~
'-'~>
1ST
eta
Figure 4.$2. Idealization of Wall croup as Equivalent column
II
:ful
las
~ural
eld at
liding
ieled;
Jefore
,,
'e
I
bility
md
e
:0'
It
rect.
ler
Also,
r or to
, so
ive.
center
Foundations. This study considered models

with and without foundation elements. In some
models, wall and column bases were fixed. In
counterpart models, foundation elements were
modeled in accordance with Methodology Sections
9.3,9.3.2. and 9.4.6, and recommendations ,
prepared specifically for this study. It is important
to remember that the foundation model is not
sufficient to assess specific foundation components
such as piles; rather. foundation and soil stiffness
is modeled primarily to assess potential impacts on
performance of the superstructure and its ability to
meet given Performance Objectives.
A range of model parameters for friction piles,
intended to envelope actual properties, was
provided as shown in Figure 4.3-3. Only the
soft-weak relation was fully analyzed for
comparison with fixed-base models. Results from
preliminary analyses with the stiff-strong relation
were about half way between the soft-foundation
and the fixed base-models. Piles were modeled as
elasto-plastic axial elements. Grade beams were
modeled as spanning between piles; direct bearing
on soil was not modeled. Rotational stiffness of
pile groups under frame columns was modeled
Appendix B, Barrington Medical center
with additional spring elements. Rotational

stiffness under shear walls did not require
modeling because pile groups at each wall end
provided rotational resistance as a couple.
K = 2EA
ci.
E
0
!d.
(ij
!
0
L/
/iI
/'
K =.5EAlL
Tenston capac tty

may be limned by
bar strength.
Displacement
Figure 4.$$. Force-Displacement RelatIons for

Friction Plies (stlffstrong and SOft-Weak). ((hit
provided In soli report. see References.)
B-17
,Shape:
:hape:
0.00; 0.16 l.3

0.47
O.~
1
i
o.n
1.45
,~a~__~4.f~~'. 8~~0~.OO~'~
11.2~3.~
1~.~~2.67~1~.6II,~(M~~~~~1~8l.~5~~1~2~
. 79 __~4-~~~
IO!~
: = 01a
0;
..
l.OI:"
o.oo,!
4;
i.()
4.5~
4~'4.5E
i~::i .~ ~~"~'~::'Hr i~:: !:Ei~

Pl
.. ,028
,"6f~106
0'
;Shape: '.' 'O~~.'
; =~,
6:
15ha1le:03b
EFf;;.7
~ ~
!,
6,1'=.7
fShaP8: lOab
?iT=.9
03b
'(f;;.9
0.00; 1.'~: 1.66! 2.s8

00:
00':
'
00, 0.09. O. . 0.38
"Ii:OO~ I
2.14
O.
0.39
0.00' 0.461 1.21 2.21
o:oo:-o.oe
0.13
,
..... "'1:4S:
-,
1.00
'
1-" 2''!"~'0e "-;0:74

i-:- ...:-~,~'i-:--:-. ~. ~j-~
17:60;;;;"'''''"'-.-:
.
3.584.61,4.5;
18.13:12.43
;.461
0.76.
:
'1.01
.' ..
.
0.1:
1.00
4.51
4.56.
4.56:
0.56 0:79. --,:Qi .
,
'{4'7!
0.69.
3.2E4.45: -4':51;.-'_1:.:61.=;..24_..:.111;.::1.0:::.77:....1._"::::::~---':.::!!.~
0.59 0.79, "1.iii .
i
3.3~ 4.4 4.51"---=
16I.'.:d
0.611;
24 . -~-~II'"IC'"'.'2""3;"-"-.:=+-----~=J
1.45'
SShhaa~~':: ~,03b~~_~8
~~.I~.~~.OO~'
~~)~.4
0.70.
1.451
,
a . T=I.
.00:. ~_~~~~'
0.62~
!.3~... ~0~.61L~~+,~I~.0~I,;==~~~t:
3.41 4] i! 4.56'16.n =J[!4==J~~t==Ig~i_
11.57:
--.
l
~. ~.,
'ShaP&: i03br
.... .. .... ..' O:ibr ..
'!j[T=2 ..
..
9.IT=2.11
3'T=7.
3t~7.4
.00.' 0.23i
::[OOi 1.74,
).54 0.69 o.SSi --,:oc,

-,
;:42.
13.C! 3.91 4. it5l"--....::=
201 . 2~4:......:,1:!.:41. 2::::;....:_::::
O~" __~:L_
["'"OM 0.70 0.15' TI'
i
.,.. . " 1
o:Dii: 0.24!
0.00 . . i:8oi2.2~, . 3.07 i3:9:l4.794.5i:
"'20.39
.... 0.84
1.42:
Figure 4.4-1. spreadsheet calCulation of Changing Pushover Forces, alpha, and PF from clven Masses and
calculated First Mode shape, Flxed/lase Model
4.8.5
Masses and cravlty Loads
For pushover analysis, masses are needed only

to derive mode shapes and pushover forces.
Because floor nodes were slaved together as
assumed rigid diaphragms, only lumped floor
masses were needed for the eigensolution. Model
masses are shown in Figure 4.4-1.
Conservative dead loads were applied to
appropriate model elements as gravity loads. The
conservatism (estimated as 10-15 percent) is
expected to make up for exclusion of "Typical
Service Live Loads" recommended by
Methodology Section 9.2.
4.4
pushover Analysis
Capacity curves resulting from the pushover

analysis are shown in Figures 4.4-2 and 4.4-3.
Each curve is actually the composite of curves
a-'8
from separate analyses needed to capture

degradation effects in some elements. The
following sections describe derivation of these
curves.
4.4.1
SoFtware Considerations
Solution strategies of different software

packages can affect analysis efficiency and, if not
understood by the engineer, correctness of analysis
results. The first issue, as discussed in
Methodology Section 8.2.1, involves a choice
between direct nonlinear analysis and a series of
linear analyses. This study used DRAIN-2DX for
direct nonlinear analysis. The Methodology
requires software capable of P-delta analysis and
eigensolution. Other useful features for pushover
analysis, some of which are offered by
DRAIN-2DX, include:
Appendix B, Barrington Medical center.
App
----..,.'
.------------------------------------------
3000
2'
1.43
1~45:
'"
Ii
--;-.."
---:----.
Tool
1500
--r---i
.. --f
1.46
.t:
(J)
Gis
---:----.,
1".001
.,"
'"
pasO
03br
J/\)~,
Max[
{3b
W II
M chanls
Wan
I~ Fn me
1000
Oe 6 Ma
sr
~,d:'!-
c-
-7
Wall
I olSS
oiLS
I'
_<Ft
. l&~
"
't 2000
------y
Shear
Canae Iv
2500
1:36
W.II~
WaY 10
/'waIiO 3
"
Yield In
"" 'W"'W
Oe amatl n Limit
10 =Irnme ~lal. 0 cupan y
LS = Life afety
SS = Stru tural S obllRy
Pe ~ormar ~e Pol s.
Oe ~ = O. Ign EQ Max = Maxim mEQ
500
--1.
1".47'
N. e: Col mno.
10
Model
eluatac as Se ondary
EI manta
10
Roof Displacement [in1
Figure 4.4'2. Annotated Capacity curve for FixedBase Model

(see Update section 1.4.2 regarding performance point displacements)
1.42:
1.42:
'and
3000
2500
:;y
ColA
Wall
PII. , 1:ld /
Pile' 1.1
!se
'"
Ii
I
1500
malysis;,
ce
!S of
IX for
"
"
m
.t:
(J)
.'"
."
I 2,.113
"~.~--'
1000
.'
500
l S
Ico
I~
"D';"4'0
Max
0.s6
Da10 "",lion ImH.

10 = mmedla Ie Occ pancy
LS = en. sa .'Y, .... = ".ru
Fn me
HI glng
MaxD
Perla rmance Points
ItU18' :
,~
6=S 011 Ty," 6,0= SOIlT 'Pe 0
110
Mode
Note:
0
0
Mach "ism
14a
I
J
lii
if not ,
,"
./
Pu.
$v-
'icol L
,
"'.2000
lie Vie
,;
2'
0
0
!/all C
land
lover
Colu"" seval ated a S.con dalY Eh menta
10
Roof Displacement [in1
Figure 4.4S. Annotated capacity curve for SoftFOundatlon Model

(see Update Section 1.4.2 regarding performance point displacements)
a-,.
Displacement controlled solution or other

stability controls
Event-to-event strategies
User-controlled yield tolerances or overshoot
factors
Graphics and data extraction tools for
post-processing
Deriving and ApplyIng Pushover

Forces
Pushover forces were derived in accordance
with Methodology Section 8.2.1. First, the initial,
elastic mode shape was computed by DRAIN-2DX
and the value at each floor was multiplied by the
corresponding floor mass to derive an initial set of
floor forces (see Figure 4.4-1). Only the relative
values of forces from one floor to another, not the
absolute values, are important. The initial force
pattern is used throughout the pushover even as the
structure model yields and the first mode shape
changes (refer to Methodology Section 8.2.1). For
this study, a series of analyses was required to
capture degrading effects. This provided
opportunities to update the mode shape and
pushover forces between analyses (see
Figure 4.4-1). Despite an effective mass
coefficient at times as low as 70 percent (see
Figure 4.4-1), only the first mode was used for
this study. (Refer to Methodology Section 8.2.4.)
4.4.2
4.4.8
Monitoring Shear-Critical
Elements In DRAIN2DX
Barrington Medical Center had potentially
shear-critical frame columns and walls. Because
DRAIN-2DX does not offer a shear-yielding
element, it was necessary to monitor column and
wall forces at each stage of the pushover and to
adjust the model where necessary. The process of
monitoring degrading frame columns is described
in Section 4.4.4. For the fixed-base walls,
modeled as equivalent columns, initial pushover
results showed that first story walls would
probably reach their shear capacity before their
flexural capacity (depending in part on the level of
a-20
column degradation and resulting wall-frame

interaction). The wall flexural properties were then
revised so that "yield" would occur at the proper
stage of the pushover.
4.4.4
I
If
Modeling strength Degradation

In DRAIN2DX
!,
Barrington Medical Center had potentially
shear-critical frame columns and walls. In
accordance with Methodology Sections 9.5.4.1
and 9.5.4.3 Commentary, shear-critical columns
(but not walls) are subject to degrading strength at
moderate to high ductility demands. Degrading
behavior is reflected in Methodology equation 9-4
and Figure 9-11. As discussed in Methodology
Section 8.2.1, degrading components must be
modeled different from ductile yielding
components. When ductile components yield, they
maintain their internal forces through additional
displacements. When degrading components yield
and reach a critical ductility demand, they release
their internal forces to adjacent components. If
degrading elements are modeled as ductile, the
model will overestimate base shear by the amount
held in all such elements. For this building, ductile
modeling of degrading frame columns would have
overestimated the pushover base shear by 30 to
50 percent.
DRAIN-2DX does not offer an element with
degrading strength. In order to model degradation,
critical elements had to be removed from the
model and replaced with softer, weaker versions
(see Table 4.4-1 and Figure 4.3-1). The pushover
analysis would then start again with the revised
model and continue until more frame columns
became critical (i.e. ready to degrade). A series of
models was thus used to represent the degrading
nature of the building.
For example, consider Figure 4.4-2. The first
portion, starting at the origin, is valid until a
group of frame columns reaches a ductility
demand of 2. Analysis results indicated that frame
columns in stories 3 through 6 yield in flexure
when roof displacements are between 0.20 and
0.35 inches and reach twice the yield drift
Ta,
co.
Iien
Axl
MO
lin'
ShE
Yle
lin
(rep
disp
first
secc
floo
disp
anOI
toge
Figl
degl
moe
dem
initi
recc
may
typi,
degl
Met
wit!:
strel
func
Tab
onl)
4.5
4.5.
Figl
App
~f~---------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~'
~------------------------------------------------------------------------
,e
Ta,,'e 4.4,1. properties Used to Model Frame

Columns With Degrading strength and stiffness
~re then
-roper
Model property
,
,.'
.',
Initial
"
..
3400
3400
250
(50%)
250150%)
74088
7400
110%)
3700 (5%)
snear Area Iin'J
504
300
(60%)
100120%)
YleJd Moment
2016
1200
160%)
400120%)
lly
Mom of Inertia
lin')
with
dation,
;ions
hover
sed
ns
cries of
ding
e first
I
linkl
(representing a ductility demand of 2) at roof

displacements of 0.40 to 0.60 inches. Thus, the
first partial curve is valid until D" = 0.60". A
second model, with partially degraded columns at
floors 3 through 6, does not apply until the roof
displacement is about 0.60" and is valid until
another set of columns becomes critical. Taken
together, the series of partial curves shown in
Figure 4.4-2 approximate the behavior of a single
degrading model. While it is impractical to change
models whenever individual columns reach
demands of exactly 2 or 4, jumping from the
initial model to a final fully-degraded model is not
recommended either because intermediate models
may represent key points in the analysis.
Table 4.4-1 gives model properties of the
typical frame column in its initial, partially
degraded, and fully degraded state. The
Methodology provides no quantitative guidance
with respect to post-yield shear stiffness, axial
strength,
axial stiffness, or degradation rate as a
'
function of ductility demand. Thus, values in
Table 4.4-1 are based on engineering judgment
only.
4.5
frame
Ire
nd
FullY
Degraded
504
Axial area Iin'l
i, they
anal
; yield
elease
.If
the
mount
ductile
d have
) to
"
3400
-E Iksil
ftion
4,1
amns
ngth at
ling
on 9-4
Jgy
Je
partiallY
Degraded
Identifying limit states on the

capacity Curve
4.5.1
EVents
Yielding. As shown in Figure 4.4-2 and
Figure 4.4-3, initial frame column hinging does
center. Appendix B, Barrington Medical center
not significantly reduce the structure's lateral

stiffness. A noticeable turn in the capacity curve
occurs only when either walls (Figure 4.4-2) or
piles (Figure 4.4-3) yield. This supports the
decision to treat exterior frame columns as
"secondary" elements. Yielding of slab-beams at
gravity columns does not control and is not shown.
Other premature failure modes, such as bar
buckling or splice failure, were not explicitly
modeled and were assumed not to control based on
visual review of design details. Bar buckling in
this building should be carefully checked,
however, since ties in wall boundary elements are
small and widely spaced. This concern may be
partly mitigated by limiting allowable compression
strains to low values in deriving element
properties. Sliding along wall construction joints
also was not modeled (refer to Section 4.3.4).
Mechanism. For the fixed-base model
(Figure 4.4-2), a story mechanism is created when
all three of the first story wall groups reach their
shear or flexural capacities. In the soft-foundation
model (Figure 4.4-3), a pile mechanism develops
instead. Although a mechanism indicates
essentially no remaining lateral stiffness, it does
not necessarily represent the end of the pushover.
Deformation controlled elements may sustain
displacements beyond mechanism as long as they
remain stable with respect to gravity loads, that is,
as long as they do not collapse from P-delta
effects. For this reason, me capacity curve can
extend beyond mechanism.
Building Limits
4.5.2
Methodology Section 11.3 sets limits for
overall building response. Section II. 3.2 limits
degradation to "20 percent of the maximum
resistance of the structure." As noted above, frame
columns would account for one fourth to one third
of the structure's base shear capacity if they did
not degrade. Because the columns are judged to be
secondary elements (see below), this apparent
violation may be overlooked.
Drift limits are given in Methodology
Table 11-2. Barrington Medical Center has a
B21
typical story height of 12 feet and a roof height of

about 79 feet. The Life Safety drift limits (at 0.02
in/in) are thus 2.9 inches in each story and 19
inches at the roof. This is well beyond yield,
mechanism, and the expected displacement
demand (derived below), so the drift limit does not
control the evaluation. For Immediate Occupancy,
the roof drift limits are 9.5 inches total or 4.7
inches beyond the effective yield displacement.
While this limit might be reached, it would not
control the evaluation. A rough check at the
Structural Stability performance level gives a drift
limit of .05 or a roof displacement of 48 inches.
4.5.$
Element and CompDnent Limits
Categorization. Methodology Section 9.5.4.1
defines force- and deformation-controlled actions.
For this building, the walls are
deformation-controlled primary elements. Slabs
and gravity columns are secondary elements. The
piles, not specifically addressed by the
Methodology, are primary elements where they
support the walls and are considered
deformation-controlled because slipping of friction
piles is expected to be repeatable over many
cycles. However, as noted above, the foundation
was modeled to assess overall softening effects,
not to evaluate specific foundation components.
The exterior frame columns, because they
degrade and become shear-critical, are considered
force-controlled. They would normally be
considered primary elements due to their
significant initial stiffness. As force-controlled
primary elements, however, their early yielding
would stop the pushover before the walls could
develop full strength. This was considered an
unreasonable representation oCthe building's
capacity, so the exterior frame columns were
allowed to deform as secondary elements as they
could support gravity loads. The Methodology
provides no guidance regarding post-yield axial
capacity of shear-critical columns, so engineering
judgment on this point is critical. For this study,
degrading columns were kept in the model as long
a-22
Table 4.5'1. RDDf DIsplacements CO"espondlntl

to Deformation Umlts
ineio
wou
Stat
pusl
Life
(Me
fran
acce
60 i
colu
Primary WailS,
EQulv. Flexure
no yield
no
yield
no yield
secondary elements but were earmarked for

gravity load retrofit regardless of expected
deformations.
Limits. The Basic Safety Objective (see
Methodology Section 3.4.1) requires checks of
both Life Safety and Structural Stability
deformation limits. Roof displacements
corresponding to stages in the pushover analysis
where deformation limits are reached are
summarized in Table 4.5-1 and noted on Figures
4.4-2 and 4.4-3.
Columns. Frame columns are checked as
secondary elements controlled by shear.
Methodology table 11-4 allows inelastic
deformations depending on column details and
axial load. Although tie spacing is less than d/2, it
is still large by current standards. Also, the ties are
small, lack substantial cross ties, and have
unknown hooks and extensions. Table 11-4 also
allows inelastic rotation in columns with small
axial loads; the critical third story columns have
P/A.f, values of .07 to .11, at or near the table
limit of .10. Because the frame columns barely
comply with either table condition, engineering
judgment must be applied here. For this study, the
columns are treated as eligible for inelastic
rotation, but are earmarked for gravity load retrofit
regardless. Were the columns not eligible for
inelastic rotation, or were they needed as primary
elements, then by Methodology table 11-4 no
Sh01
stor:
inch
the:
are:
"eql
tabl.
tang
com
equi
inel:
plas
(Me
wall
is re
the I
Stab
are I
reml
(poc
rota'
chee
was
an a
cap,
rupt
Met
rota:
high
Why
than
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
---
inelastic, rotation would be allowed and their yield

would mark both the Life Safety and Structural
Stability limit states.
~lIlty
Table 4.5-1 is constructed from detailed
,8"
pushover analysis results. For example, with a
Life Safety inelastic rotation limit of .01 radians
3"
(Methodology table 11-4), and considering that
frame rigid zones will force all drift to be
accommodated within the column clear height of
60 inches, the inelastic drift limit for typical frame
2"
columns is 0.6 inches per story. Analysis results
show that this inelastic drift is reached for most
field
stories when the roof displacement is about 3.8
inches in the fixed-base model, about 4.2 inches in
the soft-foundation model.
Walls. Walls modeled as equivalent columns
are most conveniently checked against
"equivalent" hinge rotation limits in Methodology
table 11-7. Table 11-8, which is based on
of
tangential drift with an inelastic shear drift
component, can not be used effectively because the
equivalent column model is unable to reflect
ysis
inelastic shear drift. Table 11-9 was not checked.
For the fixed-base walls, the Life Safety
ures
plastic rotation limit is .0033 to .0040 radians
(Methodology table 11-7), depending on each
s
wall's axial load and shear when flexural capacity
is reached. All three walls reach their limits when
the roof displacement is about 5 inches. Structural
ld
Stability rotation limits of .0060 to .0080 radians
i/2, it
are reached at about 8 inches. It is important to
:ies are
remember that the wall details in this building
(poorly confined boundaries, etc.) may limit
Iiso
rotation and ultimate compressive strength. To
~I
check this, a separate moment-curvature relation
ave
was derived for the critical wall at grid 0-3 with
ble
an axial load of 850 kips. It showed a curvature
!Iy
capacity of 2.4E-4 radianslinch Iim:ited by bar
rupture (with concrete strain at only .002).
ng
y, the
With a plastic hinge length of Ill" (per
Methodology Section 9.5.5.7), the ultimate
retrofit' rotation capacity is .027 radians, substantially
higher than the Methodology's limits. It is unclear
mary
why the Methodology limits are so much smaller
than a moment-curvature analysis suggests.
1ng
_raJ
-'
-'
:enter
Piles. The Methodology provides no limits for

slip of friction piles. Instead, engineering
judgment is applied to pile slip at the performance
point (see Section 4.7.2). The emphasis is not on
the piles themselves but on the impact of pile yield
on overall behavior.
Slab Beams. Slab plastic hinge rotations did
not approach the limits of Methodology table 11-6
for secondary elements with Continuity
Reinforcement. However, these elements were not
carefully modeled.
4.6
Determination of Demand and

Performance point
4.6.1
Performance Objectives
This study evaluates Barrington Medical
Center relative to the two-part Basic Safety
Objective defined in Methodology Section 3.4.1.
Expected performance in both the Design
Earthquake (DE) and the Maximum Earthquake
(ME) must be determined.
Elastic Response spectrum

4.6.2
The 5 percent damped demand, called the
elastic response spectrum, is derived from
parameters described in Methodology
Section 4.4.2.4. For this building, the Seismic
Zone Factor, Z, is 0.4, and the Near-Source
Factor, N, is taken as 1.0, although a factor of 1.2
or 1.5 may be warranted. Two soil types, B and
0, are considered for this study. Table 4.6-1 gives
coefficients; Figure 4.6-1 shows elastic response
spectra.
Table 4.6-1. Seismic Coefficients for Elastic
Response spectra (Z .4, N 1.0, 596 dampedl
= =
Design
Earthquake
E = 1.0
CA
Cv
= .40
= .40
CA = .44
Cv = .64
Maximum
Earthquake
E = 1.25
CA = .50
Cv = .50
CA = ,55
Cv = .80
a-25
1.4
:i
c: 1.0
~
GJ
0.8
0.6
DOBa
"
\ "'\
"-
"-...
"'- " I'-..
iii
"
MaxB
12
0.4
DeaD
..............
B= Sol Type B
D;; Sol TypeD
Del= t 0019" ee ,,"quake E=1.0
Max = M axlmum anhqua ., E=1. 5
/Ji
02
MaxD
""
............
r---.....
--I-
r--....
r-......
0.0
3
4
5
Spectral Displacement [in]
FIgure 4.61.
Elastic RespDnse spectra
(Z=.4, N= 1.0,59(, damped)
4.E
cap
per
is c
sho
par
coe
for
sho
cal!
Fig
con
PF
poi:
FIgure 4.6,2. PartIal spreadsheet calculatIon for ConversIon of capacIty curve to capacIty spectrum,
FlxedBase Model
B-24
Appendix B. Barrington Medical center.
ApI
~\
~~
------------------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.30
0.25
:
<:
0.20
IV
~ 0.15
//,,,
"V
,re 4.6-1.'
'Spectra'
rtampel/J'
~I,,-S1
,,
,
0.10
en
Fixed-Base
/ ~~
~
,.
BV
,.
.J
-'
.,.---
I
0.00
0
f-- - -1 - - - Soli Foundation
Blllne r Represen ~tlon Contra Points

IV = If.cllve Inltl I Vleld
SV = ~lfecllve Su sequent Vie d
U=E fectlve URI, ",te, at Sd > 6"
FI ed-Base: SI = .22g
S II-Foundallo ~: Sa = .18g
0.05
---
Spectral Displacement [in]
Figure 4_6-S_ Capacity spectra, Fixed Base (-) and Soft Foundation (- -) Models, With control PoInts for
Bilinear RepresentatIon
4.6.S
Conversion of Capacity Curve to

capacity spectl'Um
For comparison with demand spectra, the

capacity curve is converted to spectral coordinates
per Methodology Section 8.2. The converted curve
is called the capacity spectrum. Figure 4.4-1
shows the first mode shape with calculated modal
participation factor (PF) and effective mass
coefficient (alpha) at various stages of pushover
for the series of fixed-base models. Figure 4.6-2
shows some of the corresponding conversion
calculations. Converted curves are shown in
Figure 4.6-3. The somewhat jagged nature of the
converted curves is due to the fact that values of
PF and alpha were computed at a few discrete
points only.
4.6.4
Bilinear Representation of
capacity Spectl'Um
One Methodology procedure for determining

effective damping and corresponding demand
spectra is based on a bilinear representation of the
capacity spectrum. The bilinear representation
requires three points: the origin, an effective yield
point, and an ultimate point that represents either
collapse or any stage of pushover beyond expected
demand. The area under the bilinear representation
should approximate the area under the capacity
spectrum.
For buildings with degrading stiffness, the
"yield" point at the "corner" of the capacity curve
(or capacity spectrum) may be different on each
cycle. This effect is represented by the partial
curves in Figure 4.6-3. Each model has an "initial
yield," which may best represent behavior in
B-25
Ca =:0.44
cv =:0.64
Ji"'.,
0.50
JIS.,
0.40
.!!!
c
I
!
i!
!
I
i'"
0.30
Ell jotl.
/'
'"
/<
fo.'ors
0.10
~:;~I
I.-,i ,.,
1.00
2.00
., -- r-...
'.:=~~, r:'~.h
ii,
~.~.'
3.45
cf' ;.
~=
...
apla{;;
..
'
0.10
DeSI
' PoI~t
du
au
,nee. Point!
(ip';!
.,= ....... o.~ .....
5.00
Vidy =,
ay =:
...........-
..........
4.00
...
...,...
(SeE
. ".p'n OJ
l.--"'"
3.00
/'
II not .hown 1....1 V
0.20
0.00
0.00
,FI.4: 1,1 for 5
TalJ
'fFla iii:,) "-
Ma~
. 1.42.
coel= 3.99
SRa=; 0.23
SAY=: .. 0.41
SAd=; 0.53
Des
E=
... 1'09 . .... .
slODe a =,' 0.60]

de =: 2.85
sloDe
b
=;
0.005
............ "e.= ! . -0.. 1.6
" .. .
E=
. . ,A"',,;;,
6.00
21%
Spectral Displacement rll1)
resp
disc
roof
(Tal
limi
are i
so tI
Objl
Figure 4.6-4. partial Spreadsheet GraphIcal CIIlculation 01 perFormance pOint, FlxedBase Model (Z = .4, E= 1.0,
N= 1.0, Soli Type D, InItIal YIeld} (see upaate section 1.4.2.1
events with one or two dominant pulses, and a

"subsequent yield," which may be better for long
events with many inelastic cycles and potential
degradation. (See Methodology Sections 4.5.2 and
9.5.4.1.) It is generally conservative to use the
subsequent yiel(,l for computing demands. (See
Update Section 1.4.2.)
4.6.5
Derivation of Demand spectrum

and Performance Point
(See Update Section 1.4.2.)
Iterative procedures are needed to find the

unique "performance point." Figure 4.6-4 is a
sample performance point calculation from a
spreadsheet written to aid the necessary iteration.
Performance point displacements are summarized
in Table 4.62 and noted on Figure 4.4-2 and
Figure 4.43. Table 4.6-2 illustrates a few trends
for performance point roof displacements in this
building:
Displacements are about 113 higher with the
soft-foundation than with a fixed-base.
With Z = 0.4, ME displacements are about

50 percent higher than DE displacements.
Soil type D doubles the displacements relative

to type B.
Using.the subsequent yield instead of the
initial yield increases the performance point
spectral displacement by little more than the
difference between the two yield values: about 0.4
inches with a fixed-base, about 0.6 inches with the
soft-foundation.
4.7
4.7.
(the
of3
Earl
dem
inch
softcom
B 01
perf
coni
performance Assessment

Performance point displacements (Table 4.6-2)
must be checked against limits (Table 4.5-1).
Global Building Performance
4.7.1
The building as a whole must be checked for
stability, strength degradation, and excessive
deformation (see Methodology Section 11.3).
Pushover analyses showed no instabilities with
agai
simi
the,
type
B-26
Appendix B, Barrington Medical center,
ADD
-------l--
I
~, --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.6,2. Performance point spectral Displacements and corresponding Roof Displacements
(see update section 1.4.2.1

FlxedBase Model
.'
-Design Earthquake
E ~ 1.0
Maximum Earthquake
E ~ 1.25
Soft;FoundlltIDnMOde/
Design Earthquake
E = 1.0
Maximum Earthquake
E = 1.25
Yield point '.'
SOilt"/Pe,S .
~
1.5"
Drf = 2.2"
5,
Subsequent
5,
1.9"
Off = 2.7"
5,
Initial
5,
2.2"
D"
3.1"
5,
5.2"
D"
7.4"
Subsequent
5,
2.6"
3.7"
5,
5.6"
0"
7.9"
.,<.","" '.
5,
2.0"
D"
2.9"
Subsequent
5,
2.6"
D"
3.6"
5, - 4.5"
5, ~ 5.1"
Initial
5,
2.9"
D"
4.2"
5,
6.6"
0"
5, = 3.5"
0"
5.0"
5, = 7.3"
0"
Subsequent
component Force and

Deformation Checks
~e
,d for
e
).
'ith
center
Initial
4.7.2
: 4.6-2)
).
D"
Columns. The fixed-base Life Safety limit

(the capacity) was reached at a roof displacement
of 3.8 inches (Table 4.5-1). The Design
Earthquake performance point displacement (the
demand) is 2.2-2.7 inches on soil type B, 4.9-5.4
inches on soil type D (Table 4.6-2). For the
soft-foundation model, a capacity of 4.2 inches
compares with a demand of 2.9-3.6 inches on type
B or 6.3-7.2 inches on type D. Expected
performance therefore depends on site soil
conditions.
Checking the Structural Stability capacity
against the Maximum Earthquake demand yields
similar conclusions: with either foundation model,
the capacity falls between the soil type B and soil
type D demands.
= 4.9"
~
5.4"
:''i.e''"'' 1"'\'.';"""'." ,I."',""""""", , I":,"; ,
Le
out 0.4
vith the
5,
'elative
lbout
ts.
..
Initial
respect to gravity loads. Degradation was

discussed in Section 4.5.2. All performance point
roof displacements in the Design Earthquake
(Table 4.6-2) are less than the 19 inch Life Safety
limit, and the Maximum Earthquake displacements
are less than the 48 inch Structural Stability limit,
so the building as a whole meets the Basic Safety
Objective.
E=1.0,
soi/TYpeD
3.5"
Drf
3.8"
D"
<
0"
6.3"
0"
7.2"
9.4"
10.4"
Walls. For the fixed-base model, the Life

Safety roof displacement limit of 5 inches exceeds
the Design Earthquake demand. With soil type B,
the building has some margin, but on soil type D,
the capacity just matches the demand. Similarly,
the Structural Stability capacity of 8 inches is
sufficient on soil type B but barely acceptable on
soil type D.
With a soft-foundation modeled, the walls do
not reach their shear or flexural capacity, so
Methodology deformation limits do not apply.
Instead, pile actions should be checked.
Piles. Piles are modeled to assess potential
softening of building response, not to evaluate
specific foundation components in the way that
columns or walls are evaluated. The important
questions are whether the assumed bilinear pile
model applies at the performance point and
whether modeled pile behavior affects the
building's ability to meet a given Performance
Objective. From the pushover analyses, maximum
soft-foundation pile slips corresponding to
different performance points are:
Design Earthquake, Soil Type B:
.25 to .50"; Type D: 1.0 to 1.25"
Maximum Earthquake, Soil Type B:

.50 to .75"; Type D: about 2"
a-27
I
These are judged to be within the bounds of
the simple bilinear pile model (Figure 4.3-3),
although a 2 inch slip probably approaches the
limit of plastic behavior. Had slip values been
much higher (on the order of a foot or more), the
bilinear model would not apply, and analysis
results might have been invalid.
Most importantly, development of a pile
mechanism in the soft-foundation model protects
the walls from demands requiring their full shear
or flexural capacity. This conclusion can
significantly impact the scope and cost of retrofit
and even the decision to continue occupying the
building. Confirmation of the pile model is
therefore warranted.
4.7.S
DeFiciency summary

With respect to a Basic Safety Performance
Objective, deficiencies are summarized as follows:
With Soil Type B
Because of expected degradation and unknown

tie details, the post-yield gravity load carrying
capacity of exterior frame columns is
unreliable.
With Soil Type 0
Expected deformations in exterior frame

columns are unacceptable.
Because of expected degradation and unknown
tie details, the post-yield gravity load carrying
capacity of exterior frame columns is
unreliable.
Expected deformations in interior wall groups
are only marginally acceptable with a
fixed-base model. (A soft-foundation may
protect the walls.)
The bilinear pile model requires confirmation
if its beneficial effects are to be accepted.
a28
5.
5.1
conceptual Retrofit
Designs
!I i,\l4
>--'Z'<':"'"
Retrofit designs for Barrington Medical Center !

were developed for two Performance Objectives: !
the Basic Safety objective already described and
used for evaluation, and a lower, "economically
driven" objective as described in Methodology
table 3-4c. For brevity, only the Design
Earthquake with soil type D is considered here.
The "Economic" objective requires only
Structural Stability in the Design Earthquake.
Tables 4.5-1 and 4.6-2 show that the building as
designed might meet this standard already. The
walls are acceptable. With a fixed-base model, the
secondary frame columns are barely acceptable as
well. With the soft-foundation model, however,
the Structural Stability roof displacement limit of
6.2 inches (the capacity) is exceeded by the
expected Design Earthquake roof displacement of
6.3-7.2 inches (the demand). Column detailing
remains a likely deficiency as well.
Required structural work for the two
objectives is summarized in Table 5.1-1.
5.2
Selection of Retrofit Elements
FIXE
SOf
ion
5.2
5.2.1
Structural Considerations
Retrofit requirements can be met with a
variety of structural schemes. Considerations
include:
Because the building is already stiff, additional
frames or coupled piers will not be as effective
as additional walls deep enough to match
existing stair and elevator cores. As an
alternative, diagonal steel braces forming an
"exoskeleton" may be sufficiently stiff.
.,Tal
(SeE
shol
infil
CODI
adv:
If the soft-foundation is an accurate model,

then ultimate behavior is controlled by pile
yielding. Therefore, where walls are stiffened
or added to limit frame deformation, they may
require foundation strengthening.
APpendix B. Barrington Medical Center ,
t
Table 5.1,1. Required Retrofit work for Different performance Objectives (Soli Type 0)
(see update section 1.4.4.1
....
. .",odei
I Center'
:tives:
I and
.cally
ogy
lere.
FixedBase
ditional
ffective
:h
Enhance gravity resistance of frame columns.
Limit deformation in frame cols.
Assume foundation ok.
sofHoundat Enhance gravity resistance of frame columns.

ion
Limit deformation in frame eols.
confirm pile model with tests.
mit of
1S
"EConomiC" Objectlve- ;,.

(structura/stablllty In DesIgn Earthquake)
Assume foundation ok.
~ver,
lent of
ling
. llaslc Safety Objective

.. '(l.kesaFtJty in Design Earthquake) ........
strengthen or add walls .
:e.
ng as
The
jel, the
able as
If walls are added, column deformations in the

stiffened building may be acceptable. If not,
supplemental gravity load-carrying elements,
such as steel columns, can be designed to pick
up gravity loads as the concrete columns crack
and lose integrity.
Alternatively, frame columns can be wrapped
or plated to maintain integrity after cracking.
Or, part of each beam-column connection can
be cut, effectiv\!ly lengthening the columns and
making them less shear-critical. These
approaches are beyond the scope of this study.
5.2.2
Practical Considerations
Wall strength and stiffness can be added by
shotcreting against existing core walls or by
infilling exterior frame bays with cast-in-place
concrete. The latter approach has practical
advantages:
Effectiveness of shotcrete on core walls is
limited by openings and setbacks.
del,
pile
ffened
ey may
Interior walls are probably limited by pile

capacity already, so strengthening these walls
may require foundation work for which access
will be difficult.
At the interior walls, coordination with

mechanical and elevator systems may be
difficult.
I center

Limit deformation in frame cols.
Accept pile model.
Perimeter infill walls provide an opportunity to

deal with torsion and bi-directional issues
ignored for this two-dimensional study.
Although some strengthening may be required,

existing grade beams at perimeter frames
provide convenient footings for new infill
panels.
5.2.3
preliminary Sizing with the

Capacity spectrum
For this study, new walls are proposed; they

will add capacity and limit column deformations as
required. A preliminary approach to sizing these
walls uses hypothetical capacity spectra to find
performance points within required deformation
limits. Spectral values at the hypothetical
performance point are then converted back to
absolute values, and the required strength of
additional shear walls can be determined. Further
assumptions include:
The new mode shape matches the existing
mode shape. Assume modal PF = 1.4; choose
appropriate alpha for hypothetical new
performance point from evaluation data.
Initial and post-yield stiffness of the
hypothetical capacity spectrum match those of
the original building.
B-29
0.40
Hypo hetical
Perfo manca Pc int
at Sd < 2.7" ......
.9 0.30
I'.:.....
c:
0
:;::
I!!
~
CD
l:l
0.20
"" ""
"
\ Hypothet cal billne ar
............. r-
capacity spectrum Slopes

match or ginal bUil ~ing (Fig
I!!
u
CD
Co
en 0.10
... u-.. "
.,
Y'''''U ..
ultimate apacltiet are

raised as necessa
IV'
0.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Spectral Displacement [in)

Figure 5.2-1. Hypothetical capacity spectrum for preliminary sizing Of Retrofit Elements
For the hypothetical strengthened building, the

initial yield point is appropriate.
New walls have approximately the same yield

displacement as existing walls.
Effects of new wall weight and material

properties can be ignored.
For the fixed-base model, the Life Safety roof
displacement of 3.8 inches corresponds to a
spectral displacement limit of about 2.7 inches.
Figure 5.2-1 shows a hypothetical capacity
spectrum that satisfies this requirement. The
hypothetical performance point acceleration is
.26g. With alpha = .83 at the hypothetical point,
this corresponds to a base shear of about 2900
kips, about 600 kips more than the pre-retrofit
capacity. Similarly for the soft-foundation model,
the limiting spectral displacement is about 3.0
inches, the hypothetical performance point requires
a-so
.27g, and the new shear capacity required (with

alpha .83) is 3000 kips, about 1000 kips higher
than the original capacity. By comparison,
achieving the "Economic" Performance Objective
requires even less additional capacity.
Figure 5.2-1 suggests that a minimum scheme
might still rely on substantial inelastic behavior.
Because new infill panels will engage poorly
confined and lightly reinforced existing columns as
de facto boundary elements, high compressive
strains should be avoided. Therefore, while two
panels may be sufficient for the "Economic"
Objective, four panels are assumed for a
conceptual Basic Safety retrofit scheme. Four
panels also provide reserve capacity against
potential torsion and should be able to
accommodate exits, windows, or other
architectural requirements. New piles and pilecaps
will also be required. Figure 5.2-2 shows the
COl
as!
eat
S.l
Sol
wa
bu
cal
ev:
lip
T-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F l---t------r~.....,..~-I--~~-i_
TYP. I
21'-4\:1.
TYP.
@-.@-
- - - - - (N) 'NFILL WALL
(N) SHOTCRETE WALL
(N) PILE & PILE CAP
--I
(N) TS COLUMN
~~
}-J-----1.--l- ~
t."t[J~ NOTE SOME (E) ELEMENTS NOT SHOWN
20'-5"
}-J-----1.--l104'-0"
20'-5"
20'-5"
8 J-+---+---E!!!l'
'~OL
@- . -
@-
@- - . @-
~)
8" WALL, TYP.
@-
~E)Ol.,EXTTYP. I'
21'-4\;.
.. TYP.,
22'-4"
21 '-6"
21'-6"
'ith
gher
!ctive
;cheme
vior,
y
umns as
ive
: two
."
,ur
22'-4"
21'-6"
Figure 5.22. conceptual Plan of Basic safety RetrOfit Scope Of work
conceptual Basic Safety retrofit scope of work,

assuming that similar work will be required in
each direction.
5.3
comparative EValuation by
Product 1.2 MethodolOgy
Figure 5.3-1 shows the fixed-base and
soft-foundation capacity curves with four infill
wall panels together with the curves of the original
building. It is important to note that the retrofit
capacity curves represent "comparative
evaluations" more than they do retrofit designs.
Actual design must comply with Building Code

force levels, strength reduction factors, and
allowable deflections that may differ from those in
the Methodology. The analyses presented here
merely apply the same Methodology procedure to a
hypothetical upgrade.
Relative to the original building, the retrofit
models include:
New wall elements, as described in
Figure 5.2-2, modeled as equivalent columns.
Existing columns engaged by new infill panels

and acting as boundary elements: checked for
ultimate concrete compression strain of .003.
lilecaps
he
II center
a-S1
4000
/
3500
1500
500
I / --, --r ," -'/1.

f
2000
~ 1000
,,
~ 2500
~
.,
DeaD
~ 3000
~
g
L
_
;.. Ret pill Fix. d-Basa
JlIfIIIT
1--
.8iIIiI!rDeaD
Retrol Solt-, oundat on

Orlllin I Fixe. Ba
"'DeaD
---
..2!ISlnal S It-Fou dallon

DeaD
,
J
,,
Pe orman e Poln
De D = De Ign EC , Soli , ype D
4
5
6
Roof Displacement [In)
10
Figure 5.11-1. capacity Curves and perFormance points lor Original and Retrofit structures
(see Update Section 1.4.2 regardIng performance point dIsplacements.!
Separate material properties for new elements:

f'c = 4 ksi, fy = 60 ksi.
Additional pile stiffness and strength at ends of

new walls, for the soft-foundation model.
Figure 5.3-1 also shows performance points
for the two retrofit models. With four panels, the
fixed-base model's expected performance requires
a roof displacement of 2.0 inches, less than half
the expected displacement for the original building
and well below the column Life Safety
deformation limit. The soft-foundation roof
displacement is 4.3", about two-thirds of the
original building value but not yet below the
column LS limit of about 4.2". With a soft,
yielding foundation that controls overall behavior,
additional walls alone are of marginal value unless
foundations are also strengthened. With exterior
frame bays stiffened by infill, beams in adjacent
bays become subject to high local rotations and
i'
must be checked against limits in Methodology

table 11-3. At the calculated performance points,
.
I,
bearns actmg as secondary elements were found to
be acceptable.
G.
6_1
Assessment of the
product t.2
MethodologV
Damage Prediction
I
!
.
Barrington Medical Center was inspected twice :

after the 1994 Northridge earthquake, classified as
"unsafe," closed, and later demolished.
Figure 6.1-1 shows typical severe column damage
along the south facade. Exterior frame columns in
the second, third, and fourth stories are visibly
cracked within their clear height in classical
X-patterns indicative of shear failure. North and
west side columns show similar damage to a lesser
deg:
sho'
SOUl
darr
buc:
buci
X-c
colt
and
the
elen
the
for
Stat
Wer
haVI
loss
r --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~,
---J --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIgure 6.1,1. EXterIor Column Damage on LIne A 'rom January 1994 Northridge Earthquake
ogy
oints,
lUnd to
lamage
mns in
bly
I
1 and
1 lesser
degree. Beams and connection panel zones do not

show damage. As shown in the photographs, the
southwest corner colurrm (grid A-I) is severely
damaged, with extensive spalling, shortening, and
buckled reinforcing. Shortening of colurrms and
buckled window mullions indicate that typical
X-cracks extend through the full width of the
colurrms and that the colurrms have lost both axial
and shear capacity. No information is available on
the performance of interior walls or foundation
elements.
In terms of Methodology performance levels,
the observed damage is beyond the level acceptable
for Life Safety and is at or near the Structural
Stability limit. Although the interior shear walls
were not observed, some of the exterior colurrms
have clearly shortened, indicating at least a partial
loss of gravity load resistance. However, they did
I Center
:d twice
ified as
not collapse, and they may still be capable of

holding their loads through additional lateral
deformations. Note that assessment relative to
Performance Objectives requires some knowledge
of ground motion at the site.
Pushover analysis predicted flexural yielding
in third and fourth story frame columns under
relatively small displacements, followed by
strength degradation and shear-critical behavior.
However, no significant flexural cracking is
visible in available photographs. Second story
colurrms, with greater flexural strength, were not
expected to be as critical as photographs suggest
they were. Actual yield strength of 60 ksi, as
opposed to the erroneous model value of 40 ksi,
may explain why frame colurrms appear to have
been even more shear-critical than the model
assumed.
a-JJ
The pushover analyses showed that exterior

frame columns, while the first to yield, were not
as important to overall building response as the
interior walls. With no inspection of these walls, a
full assessment of the Methodology's damage
prediction capabilities is not possible.
6.2
Comparison with preliminary

EValuation Findings
FEMA-178 Evaluation Statements (if coupled

with engineering judgment regarding concrete
column shear capacity) uncovered all of the
deficiencies found by inelastic pushover analysis,
except for effects of a potentially soft, weak
foundation. However, the Evaluation Statements
and elastic analysis use a broad brush, pointing to
high shears and low reinforcing ratios, but nearly
missing the shear-critical degrading columns and
failing to distinguish their impact on building
performance. By contrast, the Methodology's
pushover analysis showed that the columns yield
early and degrade, controlling performance even
as secondary strength elements. The inelastic
analysis also quantified potentially significant
soil-structure effects.
Although software limitations and other
practical considerations preclude assessment of
some complex behaviors (e.g. potential torsion or
higher mode effects), the Methodology's nonlinear
static procedure are still expected to provide a
more complete and more useful picture of
expected performance than is linear elastic
analysis.
6.3
Comparison with Inelastic

TlmeHistory Analysis

Limited inelastic time-history analyses were
executed as a rough check of performance point
displacements predicted by the Methodology. Four
near-field acceleration records, each with
components in two directions, were selected. For
each record, the given components were
transformed to fault-parallel and fault-normal
components. Scale factors were computed so that
a-:54
the average spectral acceleration of the eight

histories would be O.64g for a structure with a
I-second period. That is, the records used as time
history input were scaled to match a single
representative point on the elastic response
spectrum for the Design Earthquake on soil
type D.
Time-history analyses were executed with
DRAIN-2DX. Five percent damping was assigned
to the first two modes. Only the soft-foundation
model with fully-degraded frame columns was
analyzed due to two software limitations:
Potentially shear-critical walls modeled as
equivalent columns. In a pushover analysis,
critical conditions are apparent, and flexural
capacities are easily adjusted to simulate shear
yield at the proper stage of loading. In
time-history analysis, this can not be done, so
results for fixed-base models (which require
adjustment) are not reliable.
Capacity curves were constructed with a series

of models in order to capture degradation
effects. In time-history analysis, this can not
be done. Only the fully degraded model was
analyzed, meaning that the model began each
time-history run with already reduced
stiffness.
Figure 6.3-1 shows the soft-foundation
capacity curve with combinations of maximum
roof displacement and base shear taken from the
time-history analyses.
The Design Earthquake performance point,
also shown, appears to overestimate displacement
and underestimate base shear. Possible
explanations for this discrepancy involve both the
relative and absolute precision of pushover and
time-history analysis. For this study, whether the
pushover or the time-history results are closer to
the "truth" is unclear.
The most likely explanation for the
discrepancy is that higher mode effects are
considered in the dynamic time-history analysis
but are ignored for this static pushover.
dis
psc
rei:
COl
sca
or
am
ste
for
PUi
in 1
ele
dUI
dru
Sir
del
Unl
del
--f,
. '--------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---i,
a
3500
time
3000
-- ......
2500
:. In
:;;0
0
h
igned
ion
"
2000
~:
IS
.
rn
.
~
1500
Q)
.r=
IS
;is,
lral
shear
Q)
III
1000
In
500
Ie, so
.'1
:
,
.. '"
..
-'
.s
m
the
nt,
ment
h the
nd
r the
:r to
'sis
I.
.m
. ..... . .. - ..
.~-'
I I
. . . . ..
~m
:.h
--~
~Parfor lnanee
EQ,
~:I~I~
'n..
~ Istory F eak Re ponse

g,h Cppltola
I
m,n ! ylmar
S,I R naldl
Time
I
o
oint,
10
Roof Displacement [in]
series
not
was
each
..... -
I~ .g
lire
...":'
Mea n+1 sla~dard

dey tion a 14 pol Is
"'
ri
"
~
g. h
FIgure
6.~1.
capacIty Curve wIth peak Responses from Nonlinear TIme HIstory Analyses (Scaled and weIghted
to O.Ug at T= 1.0 sec), softFoundation Mode/(see Update Sections 1.4.2 and 1.4.5.1
Other factors contributing to the observed

discrepancy may include: inapplicability of
pseudo-acceleration, velocity, and displacement
relations, implicit in the pushover analysis, to
conditions of high damping; use of time-histories
scaled to the design spectrum at one period only;
or numerical inaccuracies in the time-history
analysis due to rough overshoot tolerances or time
steps.
In the end, if the Methodology underestimates
force levels, it is only unconservative when the
pushover analysis predicts nearly-elastic behavior
in buildings governed by force-controlled
elements. When the analysis indicates high
ductility demands in force-controlled elements,
damage will be indicated regardless of force level.
Similarly, where performance is governed by
deformation-controlled elements, an
underestimated force level is not important since
deformation levels determine acceptability.
Three observations about the reliability of

inelastic analysis for this example building:
The simply modeled piles would typically
yield in compression but not in tension. This
led to "ratcheting" inelastic displacements that
are probably not realistic. If displacements
ratchet in one direction, it raises a question
about the meaning of "maximum
displacement" and which peak values should
be used to gauge the pushover results.
Even with the soft-foundation model (whose

walls do not yield in pushover analysis),
time-history results gave wall forces much
higher than the expected wall capacities,
leading to peak base shear values well above
the pushover curve. This indicates that the
time-history analyses were probably invalid for
this building.
a-Is
However, even if this building had had

stronger walls, its capacity curve (controlled
by pile yielding) would have been the same,
and valid time-history results would have been
off the curve. This suggests that pushover
analysis can underestimate component forces
and/or overestimate roof displacements.
,_
References
General references (e.g. FEMA-!78) are given

in the Methodology. Documentation for
DRAIN-2DX, ETABS, and PCACOL is widely
available. Only available documents specific to
Barrington Medical Center and this study are listed
here.
I.
"Barrington Medical Center." Cover sheet,
ten architectural drawings, and seven
structural drawings by Charles Wormhoudt
AlA Architect & Associates and Eugene D.
Birnbaum and Associates, Structural
Engineers. February 17, 1964.
2.
"Olympic Barrington Medical Building."

One volume of structural calculations by
Eugene D. Birnbaum & Associates.
Variously dated from 8/63 to 2/64 with
additions 9/64 and 10/65.
B-3&
AI
E:
At
C.
a1
3.
"Report of Foundation Investigation,

Proposed Building, Olympic Boulevard and
Barrington Avenue, Los Angeles,
California." Cover letter and 5 page report
with Appendix, by LeRoy Crandall &
Associates. September 20, 1963.
4.
"City of Los Angeles Department of

Building and Safety Rapid Screening
Inspection Form." Two forms for 11665 W.
Olympic Boulevard. Dated 1-17-1994 and
1-19-94.
5.
Letter from Craig Comartin regarding

Foundation Effects for Case Study Buildings.
January 16, 1996.
pre
__...r_-----------------------------------------------------------------,
--...:.
~
APpendix C
Example Building Study:

Administration Building
california State University
at Northridge
i and
prepared by
'port
Nabih Youssef & Associates

800 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 510
Los Angeles, California 90017
55 W. '
md
ldings.
center:
Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN
c,
f----------~
~'
--
Table of Contents
I. Introduction .................................................................................................. C-5
1.1 Intent of Example Building Study ........................................................ C-5
1.2 Scope of Example Building Study ........................................................ C-5
1.3 Summary of Findings ...................................................................... C-6
1.4 Update ........................................................................................ C-7
2. Building Description ....................................................................................... C-8
2.1 General ....................................................................................... C-8
2.2 Structural System ........................................................................... C-8
3. Observed Earthquake Damage ........................................................................... C-9
3.1 1994 Nortbridge Eartbquake .............................................................. C-9
4. Preliminary Evaluation .................................................................................... C-9
4.1 General ....................................................................................... C-9
4.2 Dynamic Characteristics of Building .................................................. C-lO
4.3 Elastic Analysis ........................................................................... C-lO
5. Evaluation Of Existing Building By Product 1.2 Metbodology ................................... C-l1
5.1 General ..................................................................................... C-II
5.2 Structure Modeling ....................................................................... C-l1
5.3 Pushover Analysis ........................................................................ C-13
5.4 Seismic Demand ......................................................................... C-16
5.5 Response Limits .......................................................................... C-17
5.6 Performance Objectives ................................................................. C-17
5.7 Performance Evaluation ................................................................. C-18
5.8 Evaluation of Foundation Effects ...................................................... C-19
5.9 "Limited" Nonlinear Time History Analysis ......................................... C-20
6. Evaluation Of Strengthened Building By Product 1.2 Metbodology ............................. C-20
6.1 Retrofit Scheme ........................................................................... C-20
6.2 Dynamic Characteristics of Strengtbened Building .................................. C-21
6.3 Evaluation of Strengthened Building .................................................. C-21
7. Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... C-21
AppendIx C, Administration Building, CSUN
CI
,,
r~-------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~--------------------------------------
APpendix C
Example Building Study:

Administration Building
California state university
at Northridge
1.
Introduction
1.1
Intent of Example Building Study

This example building study is an application
of the analytical procedures incorporated in
Volume 1 of the document Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings to a real
concrete building, the Administration Building of
the California State University at Northridge. The
primary intent of this study is to validate, or "test"
the (draft versions) Methodology, and to provide ,
feedback to its developers, Secondarily, the study
also demonstrates the use of the Methodology and
provides an evaluation of its applicability.
1.2

This example building study report presents an
illustration of the use of the Methodology for the
seismic evaluation and retrofit of an existing
concrete building. This report describes work
performed in earlier phases of the development of
the Methodology up to March-April 1996.
Accordingly, some references to Methodology
requirements, equations and scope may be out of
date. Section 1.4 provides a limited update of
principal results to the latest (final draft, August
1996) Methodology requirements.
A seismic evaluation of the Administration
BUilding (pre-Northridge Earthquake) is performed
Using the Methodology. The methodology requires
a nonlinear analysis of the building to determine
the force-displacement characteristics of the lateral
"ppendlx C, Administration Building, CSUN
force resisting system. The seismic hazard of the

building site, determined from site soil conditions
and the proximity of the site to seismic sources
determines the seismic demand. The force'
displacement characteristics and the seismic
demand are used to predict the performance of the
building. The predicted building performance is
compared with the desired performance objective
to determine if seismic retrofit is required. ,
In this study, the structural behavior of the
building predicted by the Methodology is
compared to the observed earthquake damage. An
elastic response spectrum analysis is performed
and the results compared to that of the
Methodology to determine whether it produces
more useful results and greater insight into the
behavior of the building.
A conceptual retrofit strategy is developed
using the Methodology to satisfy the selected
Performance Objective.
The deformation and movement of foundations
can significantly affect the seismic response and
performance of structures. The effects of
foundations on the building response is
investigated using a simplified two-dimensional
model of a portion of the building, where the
stiffness and capacity of the foundation and soil
materials are considered. A pushover analysis of
the "fixed" base and "flexible" base models are
performed to determine the effects of the
foundation on the building performance.
cs
Limited nonlinear time history analyses are

also performed to determine the reliability of the
results produced by the Methodology. The
"average" response of a set of time history
. analyses is compared to the response predicted by
the methodology.
1.3
summary of Findings
The subject building is highly susceptible to

torsional response which complicates the
application of the Methodology. In order to
account for the torsional effects using the proposed
methodology, a three-dimensional pushover
analysis is required. At present there is no readily
available (and reliable) computer code that has the
capability of performing automated 3D nonlinear
pushover (nonlinear static) analysis similar to the
currently available 2D codes (such as Drain-2DX).
Therefore, for this case study, a three-dimensional
piecewise linear analysis of the building was
performed. In a piecewise linear pushover
analysis the demand and capacity of every critical
element needs to be updated and checked at each
step of the analysis. Members that have yielded
need to be identified and "removed", and the
model updated at each step. This process involves
a tremendous bookkeeping effort. Based on the
level of effort experienced in this study, the
absence of analytical tools capable of performing
three-dimensional nonlinear pushover analysis
makes the direct application of the Methodology to
three dimensional analysis of torsionally
susceptible buildings impractical to implement at
this time. Alternative approaches, using two
dimensional nonlinear analyses, perhaps combined
with three dimensional linear analyses, will be
more practical.
The proposed Methodology relies on the
results of a pushover analysis to approximate the
post-elastic capacity of the structure. The
analytical tools most commonly used to perform
this analysis (DRAIN-2DX) implicitly assumes
that all components have elasto-plastic behavior
i.e., they are assumed to perform in a ductile
fashion with no strength and stiffness degradation.
e-G
Thi
sim
app
Thf
mo:
pIa:
she.
mo.
efff
Therefore, simplifications in the component

behavior are required in developing the analytical
models. The results of analyses based on such
simplified modeling assumptions requires careful
review and significant engineering judgment .
The Methodology addresses the issue of global
strength degradation (Section 8.2.1) and cautions
that the modeling of this behavior requires
considerable judgment, as strength and stiffness
degradation depends on the magnitude of the
response, and the number of loading and unloading
cycles an element experiences. Strength and
stiffness degradation can have a significant effect
on the nonlinear seismic response and the level of
damage that older concrete buildings experience.
Limited nonlinear time history analyses were
performed on a 2D model of a portion of the
building. Comparison of results obtained from
nonlinear time history analysis and the
Methodology indicates that the methodology
predicts higher roof displacements and lower base
shears than the time history analyses do. This
discrepancy may be attributed, in part, to the
lateral load distribution used in the pushover
analysis (Level 2: code distribution without the
concentrated force at the roof level, described in
Section 8.2.1 of the Methodology). The actual
load distribution is probably significantly affected
by higher mode effects, related to the torsional
mode of response and the irregular mass
distribution found in this building, which is
accounted for in the time history analysis. The
results of a pushover analysis are sensitive to the
lateral load distribution used. Therefore,
modifying the load distribution to include higher
mode effects (see Levels 4 and 5 in Section 8.2.1
or the recommendations of Section 8.2.4 of the
Methodology) may result in better correlation
between the results from nonlinear time history
analysis and the Methodology.
The Methodology does predict the damage to
the shear walls and coupling beams that was
observed after the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.
The extent of damage, however, appears to be
underestimated by the proposed methodology.
ana
insi
ide]
the
yiel
pos
1.11
earl
the
stU(
brif
Ihei
dis]
dell
AUI
add
bui.
COl
ApI
the
ana
dra
"fil
~~---------------------'1--SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
~I
r
__------------------------------------------------------------
It
This discrepancy is the cumulative effect of the

simplifying assumptions that had to be made to
apply the proposed ~ethodology. to this bu.ilding.
The specific assumptIOns we belIeve contrIbuted
most to this "discrepancy" are the bilinear (elastoplastic) component behavior model that ignores
shear strength degradation and the fundamental
mode load distribution that ignores higher mode
effects
The Methodology, using nonlinear static
analysis procedures, does provide important
insight into the building's seismic performance by
identifying failure mechanisms and accounting for
the redistribution of forces during progressive
yielding. This level of understanding is not
possible using traditional linear, elastic analysis.
alytical
mch
:areful
1t.
If global
utions
fness
Ie
110ading:
td
!
effect
:vel of i
!ence.
were
.e
:om
1.4
Update
This case study was performed based on

earlier versions of the Methodology. Revisions to
,r base: the Methodology have been made since the case
study has been completed. This Section provides a
his
brief update of the most significant revisions and
I their effect on the results of the study.
r
The performance point and the associated roof
the
displacement of the existing building has been
:d in
determined based on the revisions contained in the
ual
August 1996 Final Draft of the Methodology. In
fected
addition,
the target displacement of the existing
nal
building was calculated using the Displacement
Coefficient Method and Equal Displacement
Approximation. The following table summarizes
rhe
the
roof displacement results from the various
) the
analyses; including results from both the "earlier
draft" version (as reported in this study below) and
~her
"final" draft version of the CSM.
U.l
the
n
>ry
~e
to
ke.
Ie
, CSU,.,
A summary of the results is tabulated below.

Method' ,........
'..
Roof Displacement (In.)
CSM (Earlier draft)
1.05
CSM (Finall; Type B, K-0.67
0.9
CSM (Final>; Type C, K-0.33
1.3
Displacement coefficient
Method
4.1
Equal Displacement
Approximation
0.9
As can be seen in the table, the roof

displacements computed using the final version of
the CSM differs from that computed using the
earlier draft version. These changes are due to the
introduction of a correction factor, 1(, to
specifically account for the type of structural
behavior expected of the building's primary lateral
force resisting system. For this building,
structural behavior of type B or C is expected,
requiring use of 1(=0.67 or 1(=0.33 respectively
(compared to an implied value of 1(= 1.0 in the
earlier draft version). This factor reduces the
amount of effective damping which can be
assumed, limiting the reduction of the seismic
demand spectrum, and increasing the expected roof
displacement. For the poorer, type C behavior, the
predicted roof displacement shows the expected
increase. However, for type B, "average,"
behavior a decrease in the computed displacement
occurred. We believe that this discrepancy can be
attributed to our use of a graphical approach in our
earlier studies to determine the performance point
(and roof displacement) compared to our use of
the more rigorous "Procedure A" for the final
version.
The equal displacement assumption yields
target displacements which correspond very well
with those calculated using the final version of the
CSM. It should also be noted that the actual
differences in predicted displacements (between the
various CSM procedures) is quite small, and does
not result in revision of any significant conclusions
regarding evaluation or retrofit of the building.
C7
The displacement coefficient method predicts a

roof displacement which is significantly higher
than those calculated using the other methods. We
believe this discrepancy may be due to the unique
features of this building, i.e., significant torsional
(higher mode) response, very short period, and
very irregular mass distribution (40% of total
building mass occurs at the second floor level),
which are not adequately accounted for by these
generalized, and simplified, nonlinear static
procedures.
2.
Building Description
2.1
General
The subject building is located in Northridge,

California and was constructed in 1963. The
building has five floors above grade in the
rectangular main tower segment and one floor
above grade in the attached north and south wings.
The east wing has one floor above grade and is a
separate structure. Plate I shows the northwest
building elevation.
The combined first floor has an area of
approximately 70,000 square feet and measures
400 feet by 260 feet. Figure 1 shows the floor plan
of the first floor level. The upper floors measure
74 feet by 227 feet and provides an area of
approximately 16,500 square feet per floor. The
floor plan of the typical tower floor level is shown
in Figure 2. There is a partial basement floor level
below the north wing.
2.2
Structural System
The building's foundation system consists of

drilled, cast in place, concrete piles, grade beams,
and pile caps. All piles are specified as 3000 psi
concrete. The piles are either 21 inches or 24
inches in diameter. The first floor slab is cast on
grade, and is 6" thick in the main tower area and
5" thick for the one story wings.
The construction drawings specify that the
concrete used for construction of the floor slabs,
beams, columns, girders, and walls were typically
2500 psi. However, 3000 psi concrete was
ca
specified for the first floor columns and walls in

the main tower area of the building. All concrete
reinforcement in the building was specified as
"intermediate grade" reinforcement that has a
nominal yield strength of 40,000 psi.
The typical floor framing consists of a 4" thick
reinforced concrete one-way slab spanning
between 7-112" wide by 15" deep concrete pan
joists. The concrete joists are supported by .
reinforced concrete beams varying in size from
10" to 24" wide and 24" to 80" deep. Typical
columns are rectangular in cross-section (l8"x24")
with 16-#11 at the 2nd floor and 4#9 at the 5"' floor. All columns above the first
floor of the main building are laterally tied
columns (#3 at 10" or #3 at 12 "). A few columns
at the first floor have spiral reinforcement (112"$ 3").
The lateral resistance in both directions for the
building. is provided by concrete shear walls. A
few brick walls at the first floor also act as shear
walls. The concrete floor acts as a rigid diaphragm
to collect and transfer the lateral forces to the
walls. All shear walls in the buildings are lightly
reinforced (#4 at 12" centers). The shear walls
range in thickness from 8" to 14". In the east.west
direction of the building the shear walls are
typically 8" thick concrete, while those in the
north-south direction are typically 10" thick
concrete. A number of discontinuous shear walls
are located in the tower. The most prominent of
these are the east-west running corridor walls in
the tower and the west facing wall at the main
entrance of the building. The discontinuous walls
are supported by concrete columns at the first
floor. The columns supporting the corridor walls
have spiral reinforcement while the other columns
are tied.
I.
3.1
the
EaJ
spe
bee
fun
In I
stn
tOll
con
10\\
eral
obs
loc:
seci
obs
thn
bui
bui
dee
and
app
reir
The
at d
cral
aw~
PIal
con
suff
buil
bea
huil
con
floc
the
eXte
Appendix C, Administration Bulldlnll, CSUN
App
---r
---'
f
Is in
Icrete
as
------S-E-IS-M-IC-E-V-A-L-U-A-T-I-O-N-A-N-D-R-E-T-R-O--FIT-O-F--C-O-N-C-R-E-T-E-a-U-IL-D--IN-G-S---
-------------------------~~---
J.
Observed Earthquake
Damage
1994 Northridge Earthquake

The building site is located within two miles of
the epicenter of the January 17, 1994 Northridge
Earthquake, moment magnitude (Mw) 6.7. The
spectral acceleration at the site is estimated to have
been anywhere between 1.3 to 1.7g in the
fundamental building period range of the structure.
In general, the building suffered substantial
structural damage but was not at risk of partial or
total collapse. The damage was primarily
concentrated in the concrete shear walls of the
tower and included moderate to severe diagonal
cracking, crushing and spalling. Cracks were
observed in most of the concrete shear walls
located in the interior of the building from the
second to fifth floor. The most severe damage was
observed at the east end of the tower. Plates 2
through 4 show the damage at the east end of the
building.
The concrete shear walls at the east end of the
building are linked over the exit door opening by
deep (lO"x60"), lightly reinforced (2-#8 bottom
and 4-#8 top) coupling beams. These beams do not
appear to have ties but instead had vertical
reinforcing which terminated at the bottom steel.
These coupling beams suffered significant damage
at the second through fourth floor levels. The
cracking was so severe that the concrete spalled
away in many areas exposing the reinforcing steel.
Plate 4 shows a damaged coupling beam. The
concrete walls adjacent to these beams also
suffered some of the most severe cracking in the
bUilding. No damage was observed in any other
beam element.
The exterior walls at the east end of the
building displayed signs of lateral sliding at the
construction joint above the beam at the second
floor line. There was evidence of lateral sliding at
the construction joint at several locations of the
exterior stair tower wall. The reinforcing steel
3.1
~" thick.'
Jan
'om
al
;nx24"} t
!,
:st
~/;:. '.
Y
for the
;.A
shear
Jhragm'
Ie
ghtly
ills
st-west
walls
lt of
Is in
lin
walls
'st
walls
)Iurnns.
IIl1l1endlx C, Administration Building, CSUN
dowels across these joints were exposed in some

locations. Similar damage was noted in the stair
tower between Grid 10 and 11.
No damage was noted to any of the columns in
the building, including the columns supporting the
discontinuous shear walls.
The elevated floor slabs adjacent to the heavily
damaged shear walls on the second and third floors
contain moderate to severe cracking. The slab
cracking appears to extend through the full depth
of the slab. This damage can be attributed to the
introduction of a 10" thick concrete wall along
Grid line 11.5 below the third floor. The
introduction of this wall increases the shear
demand on the slab, as the slab has to transfer the
shear load from the wall at grid line 14 to the wall
at grid line 11.5.
4.
preliminary Evaluation
4.1
General
The preliminary evaluation of the building was
based on a comparison of the demand placed on
the structure by earthquake ground motion and the
ultimate capacity of the structural system. The
comparison of strength versus demand was made
using the concept of ductility demand. Generally,
most structural elements have sufficient ductility to
allow demands greater than their calculated
capacity. The measure of ductility demand is
known as the Inelastic Demand Ratio (lOR) or as
sometimes referred to as the Demand Capacity
ratios (OCR). Chapter 8 of the methodology
describes this approach. The lOR allows the direct
examination of the amount of ductility needed to
meet force demands for various structural
elements, and provides a direct measure of
probable building performance.
A three-dimensional linear elastic computer
model of the fixed base building was developed
using the computer program ETABS. This model
was developed to study the overall distribution of
cg
4.2
Table 2. story Mass Distribution
the lateral force and drift response of the building.

The structural model included all elements
believed to contribute to the lateral resistance of
the building. This consists of all shear walls in the
building, columns under discontinuous walls and
coupling beams. Figure 3 shows the threedimensional computer model of the building. The
seismic base of the building was assumed to be the
ground/first floor level. Tables 1 and 2 show
member stiffness properties and mass distribution
used in the analysis, respectively. Note that the
wall stiffness properties used here differs
somewhat from the default stiffness values
included in Chapter 9 of the methodology. The
values selected here are believed to be more
representative for this building. The transverse
walls have been assigned lower stiffness values
because they are expected to have significantly
higher stress levels than the walls in the
longitudinal direction.
C1D
Dynamic Characteristics of
Building
cou
exc,
dan
late
enti
obs,
pro'
def;
eart
tow
foUl
anal
wha
The building periods of vibration were

determined from an eigenvalue analysis using
ETABS and are presented in Table 3. The
fundamental period in the transverse direction
(north-south) is 0.36 sec. and in the longitudinal
direction (east-west) 0.19 sec. Figures 4 through 6
show the fundamental mode shapes of the
building. It is evident from the eigenvalue analysis
that the building exhibits highly torsional behavior.
This behavior can be attributed to the high
concentration of shear walls in the north-south
direction near the west end of the building. This
disproportionate distribution of stiffness places a
higher displacement demand on the walls at the
east end of the building. In the post-elastic range,
the torsional behavior becomes more pronounced
once the coupled shear walls yield. Elastic analysis
does not provide any insight into the probable
behavior of individual elements, and thus the
building as a whole, in the post-elastic range.
valr
disc
suff
onl)
!)let
Tal
V0......0.:..:..
Stt
4.3
-
--
Elastic Analysis
A linear elastic response spectrum analysis of

the building was performed using the 5 percent
damped default site spectrum (presented in
Section 5.4.2 of this report). The maximum roof
displacement measured at the center of mass and at
grid line 14 was 2.4 inches and 3.6 inches,
respectively. This result reflects the torsional
behavior of the building. !DRs' (see chapter 8 of
the methodology for definition) were calculated for
critical elements of the lateral system.
Table 4 gives the !DRs' for selective elements
of the building. The !DRs' of the shear walls and
--
--
I
App,
~~---------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
---: ~-----------------------------------------------------
on
linal
)Ugh 6.
lalysis '
lavior ..
th
:his
es a
:he
mge,
nced
lalysis :
e
coupling beams on the east end of the building

exceed acceptable levels, suggesting severe
damage and probable complete breakdown of their
lateral resisting capability. This result is not
entirely consistent with the actual damage
observed during the Northridge Earthquake which
produced ground motions comparable to that of the
default spectrum. Although, the most severe
earthquake damage occurred at the east end of the
tower (line 14) where the structural elements were
found to be most highly overstressed in the elastic
analysis, the damage was significantly less than
what one would expect from the high lORs' .
No column had an lOR which exceeded a
value of 1.0. The columns supporting the
discontinuous shear walls were found to possess
sufficient strength to meet the force demand, and
only minor damage is anticipated to occur in these
members.
Table 4. IDRS DF selected structural Elements
)k1Mi~j t
_:
--,
--
is of
nt
:,
oof 1
mdat I,
lof
:d for:
Coupling Beam @ Line 14

Roof
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
Wall LP t2nd3rd) @ Line 14
Shear
Shear@C.J.
Flexure
Wall QK t2nd3rd) @ Line 14
Shear
Shear@C.J.
Flexure
COlumns Supporting
Discontinuous Shear Walls
4.2
5.2
5.1
3.9
2.0
2.1
3.7
3.7
1.9
2.6
S.1
< 1.0
5.
Evaluation Of Existing
Building By Product 1.2
Methodology
5.1
General
The seismic performance of the building was

evaluated using the Capacity Spectrum Method
(CSM) presented in Chapter 8 of the
Methodology. This method of evaluation considers
two aspects in the performance of a structure, the
demand placed on the structure during a seismic
event, and the strength/capacity of the structure.
The performance of the building is measured by its
ability to withstand the force demand imposed on
it during a seismic event. This is accomplished
qualitatively by comparing the anticipated
performance of the building to a predetermined
performance objective.
The determination of the strength/capacity of a
building requires a pushover analysis to be
performed on the lateral force resisting system of
the building. The pushover analysis determines the
levels of building lateral forces and corresponding
roof displacements that are associated with
successive stages of the development of yielding in
the major building members.
The determination of the seismic demand on a
structure requires a quantification of the seismic
hazard at a site due to ground shaking for various
earthquake hazard levels. The seismic hazard at a
site considers the local geology and soil
characteristics, and the seismicity chanicteristics
of the site.
5.2
structure Modeling
5.2.1
computer Models
A total of three different "base" models were
developed for this study, a threedimensional
elastic model, a twodimensional elastic model,
and a two-dimensional inelastic model.
lents
and
CSUN
cn
Table s. 2D wall Models for studY Of Foundation
'Hem
Table 6. Assumed Properties Of Clmstruction

Materials
~~
All other strength

calculations
40 ksl
To determine the strength/capacity of the

building a pushover analysis was required. The
preliminary evaluation of the building indicated
that the building is highly susceptible to torsion. In
order to account for the torsional effects in the
building response, a three-dimensional piecewise
linear pushover analysis was performed. The
ETABS model of the building, which was used in
the preliminary evaluation of the building, was
used in the pushover analysis.
A simplified two-dimensional model of a
portion of the Administration Building was also
developed to investigate the effects of foundation
on the seismic response. The wall and coupling
beams along grid line 14 were modeled for this
purpose using the SAP90 computer program. The
properties used in this model were analogous to
those used in the 3-D ETABS model. The
structural properties of the foundation and soil
were modeled with vertical spring elements. To

account for the uncertainty of the soil properties,
upper and lower bound values were used for the
siiffness and capacity of the foundation. The
stiffness and capacity of the foundation system was
determined by a geotechnical engineer. A total of
three models were used to study the foundation
effects, a "fixed" base model and two "flexible"
base models. Table 5 list the models used.
A DRAIN-2DX model of the wall and coupling
beams along grid line 14 was developed to
perform nonlinear time history analyses. This
model is analogous to the "fixed" base SAP90
model used in the evaluation of foundation effects.
The shear walls were modeled using beam/column
elements and joint elements in series. The
beam/column elements were used to represent the
flexural behavior of the walls, and were infinitely
rigid in shear. The joint elements were used to
represent the shear behavior of the walls, and were
infinitely rigid in flexure.
The DRAIN-2DX model was "validated" by
performing two simple analyses. The capacities of
all of the elements were arbitrarily increased to
"linearize" the system, then an eigen-analysis was
performed, and the results compared to that of the
SAP90 model. A pushover analysis was also
performed, and the results compared to that of the
piecewise linear analysis. In both cases the results
from the DRAIN-2DX model compared favorably
with the equivalent SAP90 result.
5.2_2
"spe
over
gain
strai
In th
"ex~
appr
25 p
Ho....
rein1
and
calc\
colU!
valUl
dicta
joint
thee
earli
and,
5.3
5.S.
I
dete!
the I,
The
dime
thet
capa
push
piecf
Modeling Assumptions
The values for the material properties, used in

this study are given in Table 6. The methodology
only gives default strength values for
,
reinforcement (see Section 9.5.2 of the
methodology) which differs somewhat from those I
assumed in this study. The values assumed here are I
the expected strength of the material and are
normally greater than the minimum "specified"
!
values called out in the construction document.
Specified values of material strength are used in
design and reflect the minimum value. The
"expected" values are always larger than the
state
thet
stol)
proc,
top.
(Seci
Alth,
SUch
stren
the ~
it im
C12
Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUIII
,j
lIpPI
~r
----S-E-.S-M-.-C-E-V-A-L-U-A-T-.-O-N-A-N-D-R-E-T-R-O-F-'T-O-F-C-O-N-C-R-E-T-E--B-U-'-LD-'N-G-S---
-----II __----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To
ties,
the
,
'm was:
tal of '
Ion
ble"
ing
is
~O
ffects. ;
olumn ;
nt the
nitely
to
d were
"specified" values because of inherent

overstrengths in the original material, strength
gained over time, and increase in strength due to
strain rates that are expected during earthquakes.
In the absence of in-situ test results, the
"expected" strength of concrete was assumed to be
approximately 20 percent higher and reinforcement
25 percent higher than the "specified" values.
However, the "expected" values of the
reinforcement were used to calculate only the axial
and flexural strength of the members. For all other
calculations such as shear strength of beams,
columns, shear walls, etc., the specified minimum
values of the reinforcement were used.
The limit state of most of the walls were
dictated by the shear capacity at the construction
joint. The effect of gravity loads were included in
the calculation of the friction capacity. As noted
earlier, "expected" values were used for the steel
and concrete strength to calculate all capacities.
Pushover Analysis
5.3
" by
ties of .
Procedure
5.501
I to
A
pushover
analysis was performed to
is was
determine the force-displacement characteristics of
of the
the lateral force resisting system of the building.
The
pushover analysis was performed in threeof the
dimensions
to account for the torsional behavior of
'esults
Jrably I the building. In the absence of analytical tools
capable of performing three-dimensional nonlinear
pushover analyses, the analysis was performed in a
piecewise linear fashion.
The analysis proceeded in sequential stages. As
[sed in
stated earlier, the lateral forces were applied, in
)Iogy
the transverse direction of the building, to each
story in proportion to the 1991 UBC code
procedure without the concentrated FT force at the
those
lere are top. This is described in the methodology
(Section 8.4) as Level 2 pushover analysis.
Although
theoretically other levels of sophistication
ed"
such as direct inclusion of higher modes and
:nt.
strength and stiffness degradation can be used for
din
the pushover analysis, lack of analytical tools make
it impractical to implement at this time.
g, CSU"
Furthermore, the methodology is not clear as to

how to include higher mode effects. The results
presented herein based on force distribution
representing fundamental mode response and no
post-yield strength and/or stiffness degradation
should, therefore, be viewed with some judgment.
Member forces were calculated for the
required combinations of vertical and lateral load.
The lateral force level was adjusted so that an
element was stressed to within 10 percent of its
member strength. Once an element reached its
member strength, the element was considered to
be incapable of taking additional lateral load . The
base shear and roof displacement were recorded.
In the next stage, the yielding element was
removed from the model. Increments of lateral
load were applied to the revised model until
another element yielded, and the increment of
lateral load and the corresponding increment of
roof displacement was added to the previous totals
to give the accumulated values of base shear and
roof displacement. This sequence continued until
either a failure mode or mechanism was obtained.
The procedure followed is consistent with the
Methodology guidelines ..Table 7 is a sample of
the spreadsheet used to track the demand and
capacity of individual structural elements at each
stage of the pushover analysis.
Results
5.502
The results of the pushover analysis indicate
that the walls and coupling beams along grid line
14 are the first elements to yield. The walls
between grid lines G and K yield in flexure, the
walls between grid lines Land P yield in shear at
the construction joint, and the coupling beams
yield in flexure. This behavior is consistent with
the results of the elastic response spectrum
analysis.
As the structural elements of the building
yields the center of rigidity of the tower floors
shift westward. At the last stage of the pushover
analysis, the center of rigidity of the 3rd floor
shifted 92 feet (40 percent of the tower length)
from its original (undamaged) position. The shift
C-1S
SEISMIC EVALU~TION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Table 1. samPle oF Spl"eadsheet used In Pushover Analysis
Tal
J~I
Wal
wal
wal
Wal
11]
wal
wal
--bITS
wal
wal
\I)
wal
Wal
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Taj
i,q,?~
--..
--
...
C-14
APpendix C, Administration Building, CSU'"
Ap~
-r
-1-
-----S-E-.S-M-.C-E-V-A-L-U-A-T-.-O-N-A-N-D-R-E-T-R-O-F-.T-O-F-C-O-N-C-R-E-T-E-B-U-.L-D-.-N-G-S---
TallIe 7. (continued) Sample Of Spreadsheet used in pushover Analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
~,CSUN
Structural Element - Structural element and limit state being tracked.

Element Capacity Computed capacity of element. Updated at each stage of analysis.
Element Demand Force demand on element (from ETABS).
Demand/Capacity - Demand-capacity ratio. Shaded cell indicates elements which have yielded.
Scaling Factor - Scaling factor used for scaling forces and displacements.
Remaining Capacity - Element capacity at end of stage. used to update element capacity at subsequent stage.
C1!
of the center of rigidity accentuates the torsional

behavior of the building.
Eight stages were necessary before a
mechanism was formed in the structure. The
results of the pushover analysis are presented in
Table 8.
A capacity curve was developed from the
results of the pushover analysis and is shown in
Figure 7. The capacity curve represents the forcedisplacement characteristics of the lateral force
resisting system of the entire structure (Chapter 8).
The capacity curve is a plot of the base shear vs.
roof displacement at the various stages of the
analysis.
A capacity curve was also developed for the
wall along grid line 14. It was assumed that the
wall supports 30 percent of the total tower weight.
The assumed distribution of weight is in direct
proportion to the effective stiffness of the wall.
The normalized base shear was computed based
upon the story shear at the 2nd floor level and the
displacement at the roof level of grid line G.
Figure 8 shows the capacity curves computed at
the center of mass and at grid line 14. The figure
illustrates the torsional nature of the building
response and suggests that the displacement
demand on the wall governs the performance of
the building.
5.4
5.4.1
Seismic Demand
Seismic Hazard Level
For this study, the earthquake hazard is

represented by a Maximum Earthquake (ME), as
defined in Chapter 4 of the Methodology. This
level of seismic hazard is defined deterministically
as the maximum level of earthquake ground
shaking wh'ich may be expected at the building site
within the known geological framework. The ME
represents an upper bound level of ground
shaking, which for this site may be taken as the
level of earthquake ground motion that has a
10 percent probability of being exceeded in a 100
year time period, which corresponds to a return
period of approximately 1000 years.
c-nl
Table 9. FaCtors IIsed tD Determine

SeIsmIc Hazard
Ta
~
Wi
Wi
we
W,
N - 1.2
Type B. <
Skm
C. - 1.0ZEN
= 0.6
Cv - 1.6ZEN
- 0.96
Be;
Be,
Bel
Bel
Be;
NOI
5.4.2
Demand Spectrum
A default 5 percent damped site response

spectrum was developed using the procedures of
Section 4.4.3.3 of the Methodology. The building
site has a stiff soil profile corresponding to a SD
Soil Profile Type and is located in seismic zone 4,
seismic zone factor (Z) of 0.4, from Table 4-4 of
the Methodology. The seismic sources used for
design are Type B and are located within 5 km of
the site for a near-source factor (N) of 1.2, froni
Table 4-5 of the Methodology. An E-factor of
1.25, corresponding to ME, was used to determine
the shaking intensity, ZEN. used in Tables 47 and
4-8 of the Methodology. The default value of the
effective peak ground acceleration (C.). from
Table 4-7 of the Methodology, is 0.6g. The value
of the seismic coefficient (Cv), given in Table 4-8
of the Methodology, is 0.96. The coefficients and
factors used in the development of the site
response spectrum are presented in Table 9.
Figure 9 is a plot of the default 5 percent damped
site response spectrum used in this study.
The default site response spectrum is
transformed into the default demand spectrum
using spectral relationships. The demand spectrum
used in this study was constructed from the default
5 percent damped site response spectrum using
spectrum reduction factors (Chapter 4). These
APpendIx C, Administration Building, CSUN
fac
bui
Pu!
stit
bui
res]
bui
5.5
leVI
rOll
at e
rOll
perl
of t
COl
0.9
flex
2.5
limi
C.P
rota
alor
Thil
anal
---r
-----
Table 10, Chord RotatIon of structural Elements Along Grid tine 14

/,Imlt
Parks' .
Stage 1
--
'Soil
-.
_.
l e4
:. EO
S, <
:m
-:
_i
!
: of
ding
So
ne 4,
4 of
Jr
n of
om
f
:mine
7 and
the
alue
; 4-8
and
ped
trum
;fault
g
CSUN
Note: Additional walls are introduced at the lower level of the building. This resulted in the walls between Grd. and 2nd floor to
remain essentially elastic.
factors account for the "effective" damping of the

building above 5 percent of critical. The modal
pushover curve is used to calculate the effective
stiffness and the total energy dissipated by the
building. These characteristics of the building
response define the effective damping of the
building,
5.5
RespOnse Limits
The response limits of the various performance

levels were determined by considering the chord
rotations of the concrete walls and coupling beams
at each stage of the pushover analysis. These
rotations were compared to the maximum
permitted chord rotations presented in Chapter 11
of the Methodology. These limits are as follows:
Coupling Beams: 1.0. = 0.5 percent, L.S. =
0.9 percent, C.P. = 1.4 percent; Walls with
flexural limit states: 1.0. = 0.5 percent, L.S. =
2.5 percent, C.P. = 3.0 percent; Walls with shear
limit states: 1.0. =0.5 percent, L.S. = 1.0 percent,
C.P. = 1.5 percent.
As can be seen from Figure 8, the chord
rotations of the walls at the east end of the tower
along grid line 14 govern the response limit states.
This is consistent with the results of the elastic
analysis and the observed earthquake damage, as
these walls experience high displacement demands.

Table 10 contains the chord rotations of the
structural elements along grid line 14 at every
stage of the analysis. Table 11 summarizes the
response limits as determined from the pushover
analysis.
Table 11. Response limits For BuildIng
performance Levels
Immediate Occupancy
0.98
Life Safety
1.92
structural Stability
2.6
5.6
Structural performance Level

5.6.1
A SP-l Structural Performance Level Immediate Occupancy (Section 3.2.1) was
assumed for the ME. The immediate occupancy
performance level assumes that the structure
experiences very limited structural damage. The
basic vertical and lateral force resisting systems of
the building retain nearly all of their preearthquake characteristics and capacities. The risk
c-"
of structural failure is negligible and the building

should be safe for unlimited entry.
5.6.2
Nonstructural PerFormance
Level
An Immediate Occupancy (NP-B)

Nonstructural Performance Level (Section 3.2.2)
was assumed of the ME. At this performance
level, nonstructural elements and systems are
generally in place, minor disruption and clean-up
should be expected.
5.6.8
Building Performance Level
Based upon the SP-l structural performance

level and the NP-B nonstructural performance
level that has been assumed, the overall
performance level for this building is I-B, from
Table 3-1 of the Methodology. Thus, the building
is considered an essential facility (continuous
occupancy) where the spaces and systems are
presumed reasonably useable after a ME event, but
continuity of lifeline service, either primary or
backup, is not fully provided.
This more restrictive performance objective
was selected to demonstrate the applicability of the
proposed methodology in selecting a retrofit
scheme. A more representative performance
objective for essential facilities would be an
overall performance level of 1-B for a Design
Earthquake and an overall performance level of 3C for a Maximum Earthquake. If this performance
objective was used for this case study the
methodology would have predicted that no retrofit
was required.
5.7
Performance Evaluation
5.7.1
capacity Spectrum
A capacity spectrum was derived from the

capacity curve. The capacity spectrum is a plot of
spectral acceleration (S.) vs. spectral displacement
(S.). It is constructed from the capacity curve of
the pushover analysis by transforming the forcedisplacement points of the capacity curve to
spectral acceleration and spectral displacement
points using relationships developed from modal
C18
wa
me
all
the
pre
analysis techniques (Chapter 8). The

transformation was limited to the fundamental
mode of vibration in this analysis. Table 8
provides the results of the transformation.
PerFormance Point
5.7.2
The performance point of the building was
determined assuming a ME event for the site. The
CSM diagram and the procedure outlined in the
Methodology was used to establish the
performance point. For the existing configuration
of the building, the performance point corresponds
to a spectral acceleration of 0.9g and spectral
displacement of 1.3 inches.
The performance point was transformed from
values of spectral acceleration and spectral
displacement to values of force-displacement. The
transformed performance point has values of 7260
kips and 1.05 inches.
5.7.8
hal
are
dis
bili
stn
5.1
5.1
car
pel
the
exi
Th
stn
sti!
sulldlng Performance
The performance of the building is evaluated

based upon where the performance point lies
relative to the performance goal. Figure 10 shows
the performance point along wi th the performance
levels plotted on the capacity curve. As stated
earlier, a Level 1 structural performance level,
corresponding to immediate occupancy, was
assumed for this study. As can be seen from the
figure, the performance point falls outside of this
performance range and as a result, the
methodology requires the building to be
strengthened in order to achieve the immediate
occupancy performance goal.
The CSM, as outlined in the Methodology,
estimates the performance of the building to be
very close to the immediate occupancy response
limit. This implies that that the building would
suffer "moderate" damage in a ME event. This is
inconsistent with the level of damage sustained by
the building during the Northridge Earthquake.
The damage sustained during the Northridge
Earthquake (which is believed to have generated
less severe ground motion at the site than that
assumed here in the analysis for the ME event)
rna
5.1
the
pel
usi
Me
for
the
mc
ace
roc
of
poi
bas
pel
res
5.1
bui
Var
AlII
--f-------------------------------------,;
- 'i
I
was more severe than that predicted by the

methodology. This discrepancy is probably due to
all the assumptions that had to be made to apply
the proposed methodology to this very complex
problem. The assumptions that are believed to
have contributed the most to this" discrepancy"
are the assumed fundamental mode response, load
distribution that ignores higher mode effects, and
bilinear component behavior model which ignores
strength and stiffness degradation.
11
as
The
the
ation
'ponds
1
from
The
7260
ated
hows
lance
d
the
this
.le
.y,
be
nse
ld
lis is
ld by
;e.
lted
.t
It)
',CSUN
5.8
Evaluation of Foundation Effects
5.B.1
General
The deformation and movement of foundations

can significantly affect the seismic response and
performance of structures. Techniques to include
the effects of foundations in the evaluation of
existing buildings are presented in Chapter 10.
These techniques require the expansion of the
structural model to include representations of the
stiffness and capacity of the foundation, and soil
materials.
5.B.2
i it;
":.',
..
2DWlllt(
',<7,_-,,:;'
:;>:_::
,,, -."
- -Moder;
">
.... "' Fixed I"Flexlble.1,~ Ftexll1le.2
Performance
point
Sa
s,
~Of
Response
Limit
Immediate
Occupancy
Life safety
structural
Stability
0.359
4.6 In.
4.7 In.
0.359
6.0 in.
6.2 In.
0.369
5.9 in.
6.1 in.
1.4 In.
1.9 in.
2.1 in.
2.2 In.
2.9 In.
2.7 in.
3.6 in.
2.9in.
3.8 in.
Table 1S. Chord Rotations at Roof Displacement

of21nches
~~~
Analysis
A pushover analysis was performed for each of

the models, and the performance points and
performance level response limits determined
using the procedures presented in the
Methodology. Figure 11 shows the CSM diagram
for each of the models. The performance point of
the "fixed" base model has coordinates of 4.6
inches spectral displacement and 0.35g spectral
acceleration. These spectral values correspond to a
roof displacement of 4.69 inches and base shear
of 1350 kips. Table 12 gives the performance
point and response limits for the fixed and flexible
base models. Figure 12 shows the plot of the
performance point on the capacity curve with the
response limits superimposed.
5.B.~
Table 12. performance points and Response

Limits for 20 Wall Models
EValuation
To evaluate the effect of the foundation on the

building performance, the chord rotations of
various structural elements were computed for a
Appendix C, Administration BuUdlng, CSUN
roof displacement of 2". These values are given in

Table 13. As can be seen from the table, for a
given roof displacement the foundation has the
effect of reducing the chord rotations of the
coupling beams and walls.
The results of this limited analysis suggest that
the performance point of the fixed base model lies
outside of the structural stability response limit.
This result is consistent with the fact that only one
wall of the building has been evaluated and does
C,g
not reflect the effects of redistribution of loading

between multiple bracing elements that typically
exist in most buildings. The performance points of
the flexible base models also lie outside of the
structural stability response limit.
Here, including the foundation in the analysis
had the effect of shifting the performance point of
the building. The roof displacements
corresponding to the performance points of the
flexible base models are significantly greater than
that of the fixed base model. It may be mentioned
that in the actual case where all the bracing
elements of the building are included and load
distribution is properly accounted for, the
performance points calculated with and without the
foundation effects are not expected to differ by so
much. The increase in the roof displacement can
be attributed to the "rigid body" rotation of the
building due to the flexible foundation, the relative
displacement of the structural members, or a
combination of both.
5.9
"Limited" Nonlinear Time History

Analysis
5.9.1
Ceneral
Nonlinear time history analyses were
performed, and the results used to evaluate the
predicted performance of the building based on the
Methodology. These analyses were performed
using the computer program DRAIN-2DX.
5.9.2
Analysis
A set of twenty ground motion time histories
were used to excite the structure. These time
histories were scaled to the 5 percent damped
default site response spectrum used in the
evaluation of the building performance. Figure 13
shows the scaled composite response spectrum for
the set of time histories along with the default site
response spectrum. Figure 14 shows the peak roof
displacement response and maximum base shear
for all of the time histories, and the average values
of these parameters. The average maximum roof
displacement is 2.35 inches and the average
maximum base shear is 2188 kips.
C2D
5.9.5
EValuation
A comparison of the results from the "limited"
time history analysis and the Methodology
indicates that the methodology overestimates the
roof displacement and underestimates the base
shear (see Figures 14a and 14b). This discrepancy
is primarily attributed to the lateral load
distribution assumed in the pushover analysis. In
the pushover analysis, a triangular load
distribution is assumed. The actual load
distribution is believed to be quite different and is
significantly affected by higher mode effects. The
inelastic analysis considers these effects, thus its
results are thought to better approximate the actual
response of the building.
S.
6.1
Evaluation Of
strengthened Building
By Product '.2
MethOdology
Retrofit Scheme
The structural damage sustained during the

Northridge Earthquake was concentrated at the
east end of the building. This is consistent with the
analytical results which indicate that torsion
dominates the dynamic response of the building.
The torsional response places an increased
displacement demand on the walls at the east end
of the building. To achieve the performance goal,
the proposed retrofit scheme consist of
strengthening of the wall along grid line 14 and the
construction joints along grid line 11.5.
The shear wall along grid line 14 will be
strengthened by a full height six inch thick
reinforced concrete wall constructed adjacent to
the existing wall. The new wall has #6 at 18"
reinforcing and will be connected to the existing
concrete wall by means of #4 dowels at 30" o.c.
horizontal and vertical. New boundary elements
with 4-#9 were added to increase the flexural
capacity of the wall. Additional diagonal
reinforcing was also provided at the construction
NO
ttro
RO
Ea!
(10
join
the
"ba
buil
tors
alor
witl
inse
6.2
mot
wall
vibr
anal
fum
(nol
dire
sho,
sIre)
figu
the
6.3
stre)
Was
mec
coul
elen
disp
alJe'
Table 14. Building period Of Vibration
...
1ited"
....... c
...
....
Mode.. .
.......
perlridISeCJ
$trengthen~
16xlstlng
the
e
'ancy
North South
(transverse)
0.33
0.36
Rotation
0.22
0.23
. In
East west
(longitudinal)
0.19
0.19
nd is
The
; its
actual
ng
joints of the existing wall. The new wall increases

the strength of the existing wall and also
"balances" the stiffness distribution of the
building, although the strengthened building is still
I torsionally susceptible. The construction joints
along the wall at grid line 11.5 are strengthened
with #5 x 1'-5" dowels at 12" o.c. The dowels are
inserted at an inclined angle into the existing wall.
6.2
he
:he
ith the
.ing.
tend
goal,
and the
The ETABS model of the building was

modified to reflect the increased stiffness of the
wall along grid line 14. The building periods of
vibration were determined from an eigenvalue
analysis and are presented in Table 14. The
fundamental period in the transverse direction
(north-south) is 0.33 sec. and in the longitudinal
direction (east-west) 0.19 sec. Figures 15 and 16
show the first two fundamental mode shapes of the
strengthened building. It is evident from the
figures that the strengthened wall helps to reduce
the torsional behavior of the building.
6.3
,. ,
1t to
sting
o.c.
lents
al
Iction
Dynamic Characteristics of
strengthened Building
Evaluation of strengthened
Building
A piecewise linear pushover analysis of the

strengthened building was performed. The analysis
was terminated prior to the formation of a failure
mechanism. The results indicate that the walls and
coupling beams along grid line 14 still are the first
elements to yield. This is expected, as the higher
displacement demand on this end of the building is
alleviated, but not eliminated, by the proposed
Ig, CSUII Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN
strengthening. Thus, this wall continues to

experience a higher force demand.
A capacity curve and capacity spectrum was
developed for the strengthened building from the
results of the pushover analysis. Figure 17 shows
the capacity curve for the existing and
strengthened buildings. As can be seen from the
figure, the capacity of the strengthened building is
greater than that of the existing building.
The performance point of the strengthened
building was determined to correspond to a
spectral displacement of 0.73 inch and a spectral
acceleration of 0.79g. The transformed
performance point has a base shear of 7817 kips
and a roof displacement of 0.86 inch.
The response limits of the various performance
levels were determined for the strengthened
building. The response limit of the immediate
occupancy performance level corresponds to a roof
displacement of 1.18 inches. The performance
point along with the response limits are plotted on
the capacity curve, and shown in Figure 18. The
performance point of the strengthened building lies
within the immediate occupancy performance
range and thus satisfies the performance objective.
7.
Concluding Remarks
This report presented an application of the

document Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of
Existing Concrete Buildings to the Administration
Building in the California State University at
Northridge. The purpose of this example building
study is to evaluate the applicability of this
Methodology as well as to validate and
demonstrate it's application. The following
conclusions can be drawn from this study:
1. For highly torsionally susceptible buildings
such as the one studied here, three-dimensional
analysis is required. Accordingly, a direct
application of the methodology would require
a three-dimensional pushover analysis. At
present there are no analytical tools available
that has this capability. As demonstrated in
this study, piecewise linear pushover analysis
C-21
can be done to approximate the behavior but

that involves tremendous bookkeeping effort
which essentially makes the application of the
Methodology to such buildings impractical.
2. Most analytical tools e.g., DRAIN-2DX
implicitly assumes that all components have
elasto-plastic behavior i.e., they are assumed
to perform in a ductile fashion with no
strength and stiffness degradation. Requisite
simplifications and modeling assumptions,
therefore, are required to create building
models for pushover analysis. Many of these
assumptions can very often yield analytical
results which are misleading and can provide
false sense of security.
3. Comparison of results obtained using nonlinear
time-history and Methodology indicates that
the methodology overestimates the roof
displacement and underestimates the base
shear. This discrepancy is primarily attributed
to the lateral load distribution (code
distribution without the concentrated force at
the roof level) assumed in the pushover
C-22
analysis. The actual load distribution is quite

different as it is believed to be significantly
affected by the higher modes effects.
Therefore, realistic load distribution should be
used for the analysis since the results of the
pushover analysis can be very sensitive to the
lateral load distribution.
4. The methodology appears to reasonably
predict the earthquake damage to the shear
waIls and coupling beams observed after the
Northridge Earthquake. The extent of damage,
however, appears to be significantly
underestimated by the proposed methodology.
This discrepancy is probably due to all the
assumptions that had to be made to apply the
proposed methodology to this very complex
problem. The assumptions that are believed to
have contributed the most to this
"discrepancy" are the assumed fundamental
mode response, load distribution that ignores
higher mode effects, and bilinear (elastoplastic) component behavior model which
ignores strength and stiffness degradation.
__ _________________________________
T~
Administration Building, CSUN
uite
:ly
lid be
:he
Jlhe
ar
the
mage,
logy.
Ie
. the
i
lex
I
'ed to
II
ltal
ores
h
1.
I
f
Plate 1. NDl'thwest BuildIng ElevatIon
I.
,f
I
Plate 2. Flexural Damage at East Wall (GrId 14J
g, csuN
C-2J
Plate s. Slldlnll Damalle at EXterior wall (Crld 111'
Plate II. Damage CouplfnllBeam at East wall (Crld 111'
C-24
Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUIi
I\iIlle
Concrete Walls (Typ.)
Figure 1. Floor Plan DI FIrst Floor level.
g, CSUN
C25.
~~~!'~';~r';/,
'--;,_.- . .
'
-' .."
..
'
;'~~~~~l!~~1'> :!i:~~:MMi#f~~f";r:-'~:-'
,
>, -
"
o.
"",p
..
<=
:;..--'
"',
....
_-
-. 1- I ,.J!...
,
-0-
"
.......
b.
"'"
paa"....
.
;
II
- _ _ "" _ _ _
f~
~"",,,,
10=,
_ _ _..-..c=::===:o:t==m:::=.,=-..-==
=-----.--'''F''-
Concrete Walls (Typ.)
......
iX' ,I I
~=
i,,
...lL-..Jl. _-1L .... JL-----'L-
iL_
l....._ .. t
~It::r.
---'"
ITI
Il
r
.J
-0
Figure 2. Floor Plan 01 TYpical Tower Floor Level. (Only Transverse Walls are ShOwn)
C-2&
---
Coaaete w.... Typ.
FIgure S. Three DImensIonal computer Model.
<2>
----'
,-
If-i-
--I
- L'
FIgure 4. First Mode oF VibratIon (North-South TranslatIon) oF EXIstIng Building.
I, CSUN
C2'
L __ ~_~ ___ JJ I
r.-----!
~-
-.JI
-- - --.---I
----'i/11---
---:I
L1
- -
Fillure 5_ Second Mode DI Vibration (Rotation) DI EXlstlnll Bulldlnll_
----
--- --._. --~ I

!llL
I.
I~
-----rio
1 _____
~J= ~I
I r~l,~---, III
li-
~ II
11"
Fillure 6_ Third Mode 01 Vibration (East-west Translation) 01 EXlstlnll Bulldlnll_
C-28
APpendix C, Administration Building, CSUN
--

0.7
VIW
0.6
0.5
. ...... .......
0.4
....-......' - - - - ' -_ _ ~bear Yle~g
. .
. ...
@
Lini4, 2nd & 3i-d Floors. G P
0.3
Shear tlelding@CJ.
Lin~ 14, 2ndFI~r, L P
.. ; ..
0.2
0.1
o~--~--~--~--~--~--~--------~--~~
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
Roof Displacement (in.)

Figure 7. capacity Curve of EXisting Building at center of Mass.
0.7
VIW
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
o~--~--~--~----~--~--~--~----~--~--~
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5

Figure B. capacity curves of EXIsting Building at Center Of Mass and GrId LIne 14.
I,
CSUN. Appendix C, Administration Building, CSUN
C-2!J

Spectral Acceleration (g)
r----~.- -------------- ------ --------- ----------'- -~-~ ;~~- -----
1.5
-----------------------------------------~--~--~-----~----~----~-----~---
0.5
0.5
1.5
2.5
Period (sec.)
Figure 9. Plot of 596 Dampetl Default site Response Spectra.
0.7
VIW
..... I.!) . (~.98) ......... I.,S. (j,lIl). .. 5.$. (2,6>...
0.6
................ ,..
0.5
0.4
............
0.3
1.0. ImmeIdate Occupancy
0.2
L.S. IJfe Safety
8.S. 8tructural 8tabWty
0.1
0~------~--~--~--~+-----------~--~--4
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5

Figure 10. Performance point anti Response Limits of EXisting Bulltllng Plottetl on capacity CUrve. (Roof
Displacement at Center Of Mass)
c-:so
Appendix C, Administration Building, csuN
----

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
----------------------------------'~---~----~----~----~----~----~---------
0.2
Reduud Demand Spectrum
0.1
12
10
14
Spectral D'isplacement (in)
Figure 11a. CSM Diagram of Fixed Based Two Dimensional wall Model.
0.7
----------------------------------------------~--------------------a.dac.<I D . . . . . . SpeClII ...
0.'
0.5
0.'
-------------------
0.3
__
0.2
_ ____________________
_"!, ~'1'! _51' !c_I,:"_"'_______________________________
0.1
10
Spectral Displaccm cnt (in)
FIgure 11b. CSM Diagram Of Flexlble1 TwO DimensIonal wall Model.

0.7
0.'
0.5
-----------------------------------
0.'
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
Spectral D isplacem eDt (in)
70f
Figure 11c. elM Diagram Of Flexlble-2 TwO Dimensional wall Model.
I, CSUN
C-!1

N~onn~W=-ud~B=ase~=Sh~~~~~~~
035
i-
0.3
____________________________,
........... .
0_25
0.15
1.0. Immediate Occupancy

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

. .. c ............. _.. _.. _.. ___ . . . . .
..... .
o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-J
Figure 12. performance point and Response Limits of Fixed Base, Flexlble-1, and Flexlble-2 TWO Dimensional
wall Model_
1.5
1rI--\-:"....,,-""'-""\-- - - - - - - - - - - -Scaled Composite Spectrum

-5% Default Spectrum
0.5
Spectral Displacement (in)
Figure 1:5. scaled Composite Response Spectra.
C-S2
APpendix C, Administration Building, CSUN
ss-:)
Nn~
Nn~ 'IlUIPllna UOI:j8.l:PIUIWPY ':I XJPueddy
'III
Max. Base Shear (kips)

0
8-
Capitola - 38 Deg.
Capitola - 128 Deg.

Corralitos - 38 Deg.
;U
EI Centro, Station 6 -143

Deg.
ill

Deg.

Deg.
16

Deg.
'" fZ-=
~
~
t
S'
i
is
~
:to
l
';i
ill',
I!
I
;;:
a'l
a
~
n
<:>
C/l
III
'15'
CIl
.e
~
~ a
~
Newhall - 80 Deg.
1:1
1:1
s::<:>...
-<:>
1:1
.:Ii'"
6-
Newhall- 350 Deg.
.
~
51
Petrolia - 350 Deg.

Rinaldi - 32 Deg.
~
~
I~
iii
Rinaldi - 122 Deg.
/eUD/5
Ii ~
~ ....
a Z
'"'" N
.8
Petrolia - 80 Deg.
'""
=
1:1
fIJ
g:
III
'"
.8
m
:t
Sylmar Hospital - 32 Deg.

Sylmar Hospital- 122
Deg.
S=NlallDa iI.LilB:aNO:a ::10 .LhIOB.LilB aN" NOI.L"nl"AIl :aIMlSIIIS
IQIIII1I
,.ns:l 'llulPllna uOI~e.qslulwPV 'J xlPuelldv
.1:.:;'
Max Roof Displacment (in.)
'"
'"
...
'"
'"
....
co
J:;,;"~>'f~:S"':+~**,'4!1fl~;!t:,*.~,';~"l'i7i;~Wi~.,-t~~_"''!'fu..~r,~-:ti
Capitola - 38 Deg.
Capitola - 128 Deg.

Deg.
~
If
:2

Deg.

Deg.
::i

Deg.
!
21
't
a'.l
1:1
J
:..
i...
I
l
a
c:
Q,
Newhall - 80 Deg.
=::
10
Newhall- 350 Deg.
Iil
Petrolia - 80 Deg.
::.
~
S
a.
I
s::
~
sa.
0
g"
til
1'>
..~
.~
.!:!!
."
Rinaldi - 32 Deg.
=
i;!. !it
~ ~
Q
51
~
'"
Petrolia - 350 Deg.
or f:
t=
>Iil
<II
~
f. =
::I
Rinaldi - 122 Deg.
"til
SCS -32 Deg.
~
;!.
-:;;;
.::l
SCS - 122 Deg.

SCSE - 32 Deg.
SCSE -122 Deg.
Sylmar Hospital- 32
Deg.
Sylmar Hospital- 122
Deg.
SDNla'lna II.LIIII:INO:l 110 .LIIIOII.LIIII aNY NOI.Lyn'YAIl :I1 ..SI1I5
'"
,e EVALUAT'. . AND .......F'T DF eDNe . . . . BUILD' '
I,
L __ -==-_-=-__ . JJ I
~I ~-.--...,--i
---' i -
---'1Ii-I-
, - 1_ _
Figure 15. First Mode of Vibration (North-South Translation) OF strengthened Building.
L_--___-_-__ JJ
~I~ ___ ~I
---'III-I-
----:1
< - I- -
Figure 16. Second Mode oF Vibration (Rotation) of strengthened Building
I CSUN
,
css
---------------------------------------------------------------Administration Building, CSUN

0.7
API
EJ
VIW
Sh.... Yieldlnc:@CJ. @:iJDe7,2nd&3rdFloOr,LP
.:.:.:;.:.:..-:
........... ~ ...
0.6
~Ir;'~; ... ~,~""..."".. :11........ifj,:~~.~~-~sfr~@
0.5
G.K
Ha
...........~ ..
I.iDe
Va
45, 3n1 I1oOr , L:P ......... .
0.4
preJ
0.3
. . . . . . . . ;. . . .
EI
0.2
.... ; ....
1-<
21
.Stren thened Buildin
1-" .....".. Yielding@ l.iDe 14, 2nd &
3rd Fioor,Lr
0.1
o~--~--~----~--~--~--~--------~--~----+
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5

Figure 17. capacity curve for EXisting and strengthened Building (ROOf Displacement Is at the Center Of Mass)
0.7
VIW
j 1.0. (1.18)
0.6
............................
~-----
0.5
-_ .......
,...-.~ Sbear Yield..g @ C.J. Ol.iDe 7, 2nd & 3rd FJi.or, L P
0.4
0.3
0.2
aI YIelding
@ ~e
14, 2nd ~ 3rd Fkor, L P
0.1
o~--~--~~--~--~--~----~--~--~----~--~
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5

Figure 1B. performance Point and Response Limits Of strengthened Building Plotted on capacity CUrve.
cos.
I\JIpen
APpendix D

Holiday Inn
Van Nuys, California
prepared by
Englekirk and Sabol Consulting Engineers, Inc.
2116 Arlington Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90018
fMass)
Jlrve.
D'
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................. D-5
1.1 Intent of Example Building Study ....................................................... D-5
1.2 Scope of Example Building Study ....................................................... D-5
1. 3 Introduction to the Methodology ........................................................ D-5
1.4 Summary of Findings ..................................................................... D-6
2. Building and Site Description ............................................................................ D-9
2.1 General ...................................................................................... D-9
2.2 Structural System and Members ......................................................... D-9
2.3 Earthquake Damage ...................................................................... D-11
3. Preliminary Analysis ..................................................................................... D-12
3.1 Evaluation Statements for Basic Building System ................................... D-12
4. Detailed Analysis Using the Product 1.2 Methodology ............................................ D-13
4.1 Introduction ................................................................................ D-13
4.2 Elastic Analysis to Establish First Mode Response ................................. D-13
4.3 Static Nonlinear (Pushover) Analysis ................................................. D-14
4.4 Static Nonlinear Analysis Results ...................................................... D-17
4.5 Time History Comparison ............................................................... D-18
5. Rehabilitation Scheme ................................................................................... D-19
5.1 Introduction ................................................................................ D-19
5.2 Exterior Frames ........................................................................... D-19
6. Concluding Remarks ..................................................................................... D-20
Appendix D. Holiday Inn
DS
APpendix D

Holiday Inn
van NUYS, California
,.
Introduction
1.1
Intent of Example Building study
This report presents the an application of

Products 1.2 and 1.3 of the Seismic Retrofit
Practices Improvement Program, titled Seismic
Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Concrete
Buildings to the Holiday Inn in Van Nuys,
California. The purpose of this example building
study is to illustrate the use of the Methodology
document as an example for other engineers to
follow.
1.2
This study presents the evaluation and concept

retrofit design of an actual concrete building in
Los Angeles based on the recommendations from
the Methodology. Topics include covered in the
case study include:
Preliminary evaluation (Section 3)

nonlinear static procedure (Section 4)
Conceptual Retrofit (Section 5)

This study was undertaken by Englekirk &
Sabol Consulting Engineers, Inc. based on the
Second Draft of the Methodology (December 8,
1995) with updated references to the Third Draft
(May, 1996).
1.3
Introduction to the
Methodology
Chapter 2 of the Methodology outlines the

recommend steps to undertake the evaluation and,
if warranted, the seismic evaluation of the existing
building. This section introduces the steps. Some
of these steps are procedural, not technical, and

are not discussed in this case study. Therefore,
case study will concentrate on Steps 3 through 5
and 7 through 10 of the Methodology.
Step 1:
Initiate the Process: This step is not

addressed in this example because it
addresses owner actions, jurisdictional
requirements, and the like.
Step 2:
Select Qualified Professionals: This step,

presumably, has been taken already.
Step 3:
Establish Performance Objectives: From

Section 3.4.1, the Basic Safety Objective
is taken to be a Building Performance
Level of "Life Safety" for the Design
Earthquake, and the Building
Performance Level of "Structural
Stability" for the Maximum Earthquake.
The implications of this choice are
addressed in Section 4 and 5.
The "Life Safety" Building Performance

Level is intended to achieve a damage
state that presents an extremely low
probability of threat to life safety. The
Design Earthquake is taken to be a
ground motion with a 10 percent chance
of being exceeded in 50 years.
The "Structural Stability" Building
Performance Level is intended to
achieve a damage state involving the
main building frame or vertical load
carrying system and requires only
stability under vertical loads, and no
margin of collapse may be available.
DS
Step 4:
Review Building Conditions: A review of

the existing building conditions is
presented in Section 2 (Building
Description) and Section 3 (Preliminary
Evaluation) .
Step 5:
Formulate a Strategy: As will be seen in

the case study, the preliminary
evaluation explained in Section 3
suggests that a detailed analysis is
required. The analytical procedure
selected for this case study is the
Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM). The
application of the CSM is presented in
Section 4 of the case study.
Step 6:
Begin the Approval Process: This step is

not directly relevant to this case study
and is not discussed further.
Step 7:
Conduct Detailed Investigation: A site

analysis was not undertaken for the case
study, but Section 2 of the case study
outlines the assumed material properties
and relevant construction details.
Step 8:
Characterize Seismic Capacity: The

modeling rules discussed in Chapters 9
and 11 of the Methodology are applied
the case study building in Section 4.
Step 9:
Determine the Seismic Demand: The

case study uses the procedure outlined in
Chapter 4 of the Methodology, and its
application is presented in Section 4. **
of the case study.
Step 10: Verify Peiformance: Based on the

Performance Objective selected in Step
3, the CSM was applied to the structure
and, using the seismic capacities
established in Step 8, the performance is
evaluated in Section 4. It will be shown
that the structure does not satisfy the
required Performance Objective, and
conceptual seismic rehabilitation
schemes were developed. Only one
D.
scheme, an exterior concrete frame, is

presented in the case study.
Step 11: Prepare Construction Documents: This
is not within the scope of the case study.
Step 12: Monitor Construction Quality: This is
not within the scope of the case study.
1.4
summary of Findings
1.4.1
Intl'Dductlon
This case study applies the Methodology to a
real building that sustained damage during the
1994 Northridge Earthquake. Since the
performance of the building was known
beforehand, the predictions of the Methodology
can be compared to the observed performance of
building. Just as clearly, however, one had to
guard against altering the model to match the
known results. Within this context, the case study
served as a valuable tool in outlining the strengths
and weaknesses of the methodology.
We believe that it is unreasonable to expect
this, or any other, new approach to evaluating
existing concrete buildings, to be immediately
useable by all. or even a majority of all, licensed
engineers, architects, or building officials. The
exception to this statement might be a set of
extremely conservative, prescriptive provisions
that would quickly prove unacceptably expensive
because all buildings undergoing evaluation would
require extensive rehabilitation. The flexibility of
the Methodology recognizes that concrete buildings
utilize a complex building material, consist of
infinite combinations of physical layouts, framing
system variations, and member proportions, and
are subjected to different and unpredictable site
ground motion. The depth of our knowledge in
addressing these critical issues is very limited.
Our application of the Methodology to the
building in this case study makes us even more
convinced that the goal of a "cookbook" method
that can be applied by all registered engineers to
produce nearly identical results in similar
situations is not currently achievable. The
Appendix D, Holiday Inn
engine
whatl
accur;
availa
in con
and hi
result:
requir
profes
neede,
the av
many
1.4.2
TI
evalu1
rehabi
buildiJ
infom
(Chap
(Chap
model
model
seismi
impor
appro<
Metho
infom
minim
suppOJ
simpli
reach
recom
Tl
consid
dealin:
that th
not su
other,
trainin
a soun
Worth,
Dedic:
and us
are no
unders
AIIpen
--- :, is
This
;tudy.
to a
e
engineering profession must better understand

what parameters control concrete behavior, how to
accurately model concrete structures using
available software, what are the critical limit states
in concrete and the different structural members,
and how ground motion demand, analytical
results, and observed damage are related. This
required level of knowledge in the engineering
profession does not currently exist because much
needed information is not available and much of
the available information is not well understood by
many engineers.
General Findings
1.4.2
The Methodology outlines an approach to
evaluate
and, where needed, propose a seismic
,gy
rehabilitation scheme, for an existing concrete
e of
building.
The Metbodology provides useful
)
information to develop earthquake demand
(Chapter 4), to identify potential deficiencies
,tudy
(Chapter 5), to develop reasonable analytical
ngtbs
models (Chapter 9), to reasonably interpret tbese
models
(Chapter 11), and to consider different
~ct
seismic
rehabilitation concepts (Chapter 6). The
g
importance of a clear, philosophically consistent
y
approach
cannot be overemphasized. The
nsed
Metbodology
brings the above-referenced
he
information into a single package, witb only a
minimal number of references to needed
illS
supporting
documentation (e.g. FEMA 178) to
[sive
simplify
tbe
engineer's task by placing witbin easy
Nould
reach
a
set
of
relatively consistent
tyof
ildings recommendations.
The Metbodology requires tbe use of
,f
considerable
engineering judgment because we are
ming
dealing
witb
very
complex problems. We believe
and
tbat tbe general level of engineering expertise is
.ite
not
sufficiently advanced to apply tbis, or any
in
other,
available metbodology witbout additional
;I.
training.
Nevertbeless, tbe Metbodology provides
Ie
a sound philosophical approach which will be
,re
worthwhile to use as a basis for training.
hod
Dedicated
individuals can take tbis information
s to
and use it to great advantage. However, tbose who
are not willing to put in tbe effort to better
understand tbe issues tbat are critical to seismic
lay Inn
rehabilitation of concrete buildings may not

produce adequate retrofit designs even with this
Methodology at the ready.
The Methodology clearly identifies the need to
establish a performance objective, and tbe
importance of involving the Owner in its selection.
The use of different performance objectives, and
tbe resulting consequences, are presented in very
broad terms. We believe this is appropriate since
tbe engineering parameters in the Methodology
used to evaluate and rehabilitate buildings have not
yet been well correlated with actual earthquake
demands. Therefore, caution must be exercised to
avoid the perception that use of the Metbodology
to execute a retrofit design, intended to promote
"damage control" for instance, cannot constitute a
"guarantee" that such a level of performance will,
in fact, be achieved when tbe building is subjected
to an eartbquake. It is our opinion that such
correlation cannot be expected for many years, and
certainly not before designs based on the
Metbodology are subjected to very large
earthquakes.
Given tbe desire to ensure that nearly all
buildings requiring detailed evaluation and/or
eventual rehabilitation are properly identified, tbe
preliminary evaluation in Chapter 5 is
conservatively written (as is tbe referenced FEMA
178 document). This conservatism can require
substantial effort at tbis preliminary juncture and
still conclude tbat a detailed analysis is needed.
The value of tbe preliminary analysis is tbat it
provides a sound starting point for tbe total
process by helping tbe engineer to focus on
potential deficiencies tbat might be overlooked
while interpreting tbe output generated by the
detailed analysis .
As tbe title suggests, the Metbodology focuses
on concrete elements. The designer should be
aware, however, tbat additional guidance, not
found in tbe Metbodology, is needed to properly
implement non-concrete retrofit elements or
specialized techniques such as energy dissipation.
In addition, tbe Metbodology does not provide
detailed guidance needed to comply with building
D'
code requirements. It is our opinion that this

additional information cannot be comprehensively
treated in a document such as the Methodology,
but appropriate references could be identified.
1.4.$
Specific Findings
An index would greatly simplify use of the

document.
The Preliminary Analysis, described in
Section 3 of this report, did a good job of
identifying the elements that were later found to be
critically deficient (e.g. shear in columns).
Nevertheless, a number of the "false" statements
identified conditions that did not appear to be
relevant to the ultimate evaluation (e.g. most of
the diSCUssion regarding beam bars and splices).
We believe this is an artifact of the general
preliminary evaluation methodology and do not
recommend that it be changed; however,
additional discussion regarding the general nature
of a preliminary evaluation could be provided.
Using information obtained from prior studies
of the SUbject building, we were able to provide a
reasonable match between the measured building
period and the analytical building period using an
elastic mode\. It is not clear if such a good fit
would have beim possible without the detailed
information about the existing building. We did
not examine explicitly how different elastic models
would have varied the vertical distribution of
seismic forces used in the nonlinear pushover
analysis; however, we do not believe that the
difference would have been significant.
Perhaps the greatest challenge in conducting
the nonlinear pushover analysis is that shear, as
identified in the preliminary analysis, is a critical
limit state for the building, yet this limit state is
very difficult to model using currently available
software. Very careful examination of the
computer output is required, and multiple manual
alterations of the nonlinear model are required.
This is a shortcoming of most available software
and not of the methodology; however, the
MethodOlogy could provide additional guidance
that warns the less experienced engineer that shear
D-.
performance must be evaluated manually and the

model adjusted to reflect shear critical elements.
As discussed in Section 4.5, a limited number
of inelastic time-history analyses were executed as
an approximate check of the Methodology. The
results indicate a wide scatter in predicted
maximum roof displacements which is to be
expected because of the differences in the
time-histories frequency content relative the
dynamic response of the building. Two trends
were identified:
1. The time histories predict higher shears, at
lower displacements, than suggested by the
pushover curve.
2. The time histories predict higher maximum
displacements, a lower shears, than suggested
by the pushover curve.
It is our opinion that these results are not
unexpected for the following reasons:
Adjustments made in the nonlinear pushover
model to better account for shear behavior are
not readily made in a time-history analysis.
These would tend to soften the structure,
thereby decreasing the demand that one might
expect for a given level 'of displacement.
The use of assumed, low levels of damping is

consistent with the use of pseudo-accelerations,
displacements, and velocities inherent in a
spectral analysis, but such an analysis will tend
to underestimate the demand compared to
time-history analyses that permit the use of
multiple damping levels. This appears to be the
case in the time-history analyses, and the
reported underestimation of base shears is
probably not completely accurate.
In general, a pushover analysis assumes, a
priori, a vertical distribution of forces
consistent with a single mode of vibration, In
the case study, this corresponds to the
fundamental mode. It is possible that a time
history analysis, which is not limited by this
assumption, will predict higher base shears
because the effects of higher modes are
in
te
p'
w
0
til
th
th
re
til
pI
c.
fo
m
pi
In
of the
proba'
defici,
differ,
nonlir
signif
evalUl
sake (
into tl:
donol
arbitn
memb
effect!
additi,
metho
2.
2.1
Tl
concn
of the
Theb
feet 01
drawh
buildh
Appen
the
Its.
nber
ed as
he
at
Ie
:sted
ver
Ir are
is.
night
ng is
ltions,
a
II tend
)
of
be the
included. While multi-mode pushover analyses

to better reflect these higher shears are
possible, the level of complexity hardly
warrants their use.
One cannot conclude that because the
time-history analysis predicts higher demands
than does the non-linear pushover analysis that
the non-linear pushover analysis is not
reliable. This conclusion presupposes that the
time-history analysis is superior to the
pushover analysis. This is not necessarily the
case because the influence of shear behavior
for example, which can be reflected in the '
nonlinear pushover analysis, is not handled
well by most currently aViliiable nonlinear
programs.
In conclusion, it is our opinion that the results
of the Methodology reasonably describe the
probable behavior and identify essential
deficiencies in me building, and that the
differences between me time history results on me
nonlinear pushover analysis are, ultimately, not
significant. We do not believe that limiting me
evaluation to me use of an elastic model for the
sake of simplicity would provide as much insight
into me anticipated dynamic behavior. Furtl1er, we
do not believe mat it is appropriate to impose
arbitrary limits on acceptable forces in critical
members to account for possible higher mode
effects. This is but one of many areas mat require
additional research before we can produce a simple
memod for evaluating concrete structures.
1.
2.
2.1
In
me
this
Irs
lay Inn
.Date of Cons,trOCtlori
Date Of Drawings
Building and Site

Description
Ceneral
The Holiday Inn is a seven-story reinforced

concrete structure located in Van Nuys, just east
of me San Diego Freeway at Roscoe Boulevard.
The building consists of roughly 63,000 square
feet of floor area. The original construction
drawings are dated February 19, 1965 and me
building is believed to have been constructed
196566
196566
L.A. City BuHdingCode

, 1964 (assumed) , ,
Table 1. Building Summary
Ground Floor
13',6"
second through
sixth Floor
8'8V,"
Seventh Floor
S'8"
during 1965-66. Table 1 presents a summary of

me building's parameters. The building is
essentially rectangular in plan with overall
dimensions of approximately 62'-8" by 150'-0" in
me norm-south and east-west directions,
respectively.
2.2
structural System and Members
Foundations
Foundations supporting me Holiday Inn consist
of 38-inch deep pile caps, supported by groups of
two to four poured-in-place 24-inch diameter
reinforced concrete friction piles. All pile caps are
connected by a grid of tie beams and grade beams.
Each pile is approximately 40 feet long and has a
design capacity of over 100 kips vertical load and
up to 20 kips lateral load.
Gravity Load System
All structural weight and superimposed load
on me building is carried by a system of reinforced
concrete flat slab and perimeter concrete beams
supported by concrete columns. The concrete slab
is 10 inches mick at me second floor, 8 '12 inches
mick at me mird to sevenm floors, and 8 inches
mick at me roof. The typical framing consists of
columns spaced at approximately 20' -0" centers
in me transverse (N-S) direction and 18'-9"
D9
centers in the longitudinal direction. Figure 1

shows the typical floor framing plan.
Lateral Load system

Lateral forces in each direction are resisted by
perimeter spandrel beam-column frames as well as
interior slab-column frames. Typical interior
columns are 20"x20" between the Ground and
Second Floors and 18"xI8" above the Second
Floor. The column reinforcing varies along the
height of the column with 6-#7 above the Fifth
Floor, 6-#8 between the Fourth and Fifth Floors,
8-#9 between the Third and Fourth Floors, and
10-#9 below the Third Floor. The ties are #3 at
12" centers between the Ground and Fifth Floors
and #2 at 12" centers above the Fifth Floors. Slab
reinforcing in the column strip in both directions
typically consists of 16-#6 at the top near the
columns and 8-#6 at the bottom. Figure 2 shows
the elevation of the North perimeter frame; the
South frame is similar. The columns are 14"x20"
and have their weak axis oriented in the plane of
the frames as shown in Figure 3. They are
reinforced wi th 10-#9 between the Ground and
Second Floors, 6-#9 between the Second and
Fourth Floors, and 6-#7 abov.e the Fourth Floor.
The reinforcement is spliced immediately above
the floor level and has a lap length of
approximately 38 bar diameter as shown in Figure
3. The ties are #3 at 12 in. on center between the
Ground and Fourth Floors and #2 at 12 in. on
center above the Fourth Floor. At typical floor
levels, the beams are 16"x22.5" and are reinforced
with 2-#6 at the bottom and anywhere from 2-#8
to 3-#9 at the top.
Figure 2 also shows the location on the north
perimeter frame of four bays of brick infill wall
between the Ground and Second Floors. Nominal
I-inch and Ih-inch expansion joints separate these
walls from the exterior columns and the underside
of the Second Floor spandrels, respectively as
shown in Figure 3. Although, these elements were
not designed as part of the lateral force-resisting
system, they appear to have participated in
resisting the imposed demand as evident from
D10
around - 2nd
Floor
5,000 psi
6,250 PSi
Columns,
2nd - 3rd
Floor
4,000 psi'
5,000 PSI
Beams and
slab,2nd
Floor only
4,000 psi
5,000 psi
stre]
exhi
stiff
load
that
the]
test
buil,
the I
Eart
3,000 psi
3,750 psi
secc
estir
stan,
15-2
"exI
appr
Beams and
Slabs
Column Bars
Note:
intermediate
grade ASTM
A-15 and
A-305)
401<51
Deformed
Billet bars
ASTM A-432)
60 ksl
50 Ksl
75 ksi
"Expected" values used in this study are

approximately 25 percent higher than the "specified"
values giyen above.
the damage sustained by these walls during both

the Northridge (1994) and the San Fernando
Earthquake (1971).
In the transverse (N-S) direction, the perimeter
columns have their strong axis in the direction of
the frames. These frames are hidden behind 1"
thick cement plaster supported by metal studs.
Materials
Table 2 presents typical material properties
obtained from available record drawings, The
structure is constructed of regular weight
reinforced concrete. The values in Table 2 are
"specified" values which can significantly
underestimate the actual strength (referred to
hereafter as the "expected" strength) of the in-situ
material. The "expected" values are nearly always
larger than the "specified" values because of the
inherent over strengths in the original material and
"spe
the;
on tl
of d
used
strer
calcl
colu
rein!
2.3
dam
Eart
seve
wen
eart!
leve:
dam
was
infOJ
engi:
eard
relia
to th
to th
flext
---
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROIilIT 0111 CONCRETE BUILDINGS
,_~,
o psi
o PSi
I()
PSi
;0 psi
Ksl
; ksl
ified"
Jth
meter
Ion of
nd 1"
es
e
I-situ
ways
the
Ii and
ay Inn
strength gained over time. Furthermore, concrete

exhibits a significant increase in both strength and
stiffness and reinforcing steel in strength when
loaded at increased strain rates, e.g. at strain rates
that are expected during earthquakes. Compared to
the normal rate of loading for standard cylinder
test which is 35 psi/sec, the concrete in this
building was strained at a rate estimated to be on
the order of 8,000 psi/sec during the Northridge
Earthquake assuming a building period of 1.5
second. This higher rate of loading alone is
estimated to increase the strength obtained from
standard cylinder tests by as much as
15-20 percent.
In absence of in-situ test results, the
"expected" values of all materials can be
approximately 33 percent greater than the
"specified" values, and this fact was reflected in
the analysis as shown in Table 2. However, based
on the Methodology guidelines, "expected" values
of the reinforcement given in the document were
used to calculate only the axial and flexural
strength of the members. For all other
calculations such as shear strength of beams and
columns, the specified minimum value of the
reinforcement was used.
2.3
Earthquake Damage
The building experienced extensive structural

damage during the January 17, 1994 Northridge
Earthquake. The building was red tagged and
several bays along the perimeter of the building
were temporarily shored immediately after the
earthquake. Shoring was provided up to fifth floor
level to bays where the adjoining columns were
damaged and the vertical load carrying capacity
was believed to have been compromised. This
information, while typically not available to
engineers analyzing a building prior to a damaging
earthquake, must be considered in evaluating the
reliability of the analytical results.
The structural damage was primarily confined
to the longitudinal perimeter frames with damage
to the transverse direction frames limited to minor
flexural cracks in the end bay beams. Figure 4
Appendix D, HOliday Inn
iIIustrates the elevation of the longitudinal

perimeter frames indicating the location of major
damage. The damage was most severe between the
Fourth and Fifth Floors of the south perimeter
frame (Line A). Figures 5 and 6 show photographs
of the damage sustained by these frames. Damage
primarily consisted of shear failure of the columns
immediately below the Fifth Floor spandrel beam.
At several locations, extensive shear cracking may
also have promoted the buckling of vertical
column reinforcement as shown in Figure 6.
In addition to damage to the columns, many
beam-column joints below the fifth floor level also
sustained minor to moderate shear cracks. The
damage was observed in beam-column joints of
both longitudinal frames although the south
perimeter frame appeared to have slightly more
damage. Along with shear cracks, concrete
spalIing was also observed in one of the joints. In
addition, all four perimeter frames experienced
structural distress in the form of concrete spalIing
and hairline flexural cracks observed in several
spandrel beams.
Figure 5 shows a close-up view of infilled bay
of the north perimeter frame located towards the
east end of the building. Cracks in the Second
Floor beam-column joint are clearly evident.
Cracks occurred at the same location during the
1971 San Fernando Earthquake. The photograph
also shows typical crack pattern in the
"nonstructural" brick infill walls along the north
face of the building. These cracks occurred at
second floor beam soffit and near the comers of
each panel. The observed damage clearly suggests
that these brick infill walls participated in resisting
the imposed seismic demand.
Nonstructural damage was not very extensive
and was mostly confined to the Fourth floor.
Doors, windows, and drywall partitions in the
east-west direction suffered severe damage
between the Fourth and the Fifth Floors. This is
attributed to the large deformation of this story
during the earthquake.
The response of the building during the
Northridge earthquake was recorded by a total of
D-11
sixteen sensors and analyzed to obtain information

about the dynamic response [Islam, 1995]. Based
on the results of these analyses, the following
conclusions were drawn:
1. The brick filler walls between the Ground and
Second Floors at the northeast end of the
structure interacted with the confining frame
introducing asymmetry in the longitudinal
direction. This is believed to have resulted in
higher displacement demand and therefore,
damage along the south end of the building.
2. The second mode contributed significantly to
the building response. Consequently, the shear
demand between the fourth and fifth floor
levels appears to have been close to if not the
maximum experienced by the building. This,
along wi th the fact that the building shear
capacity of this story is less than that of the
stories below, contributed to the damage being
concentrated between the Fourth and Fifth
Floor levels.
3. The columns between the Fourth and Fifth
Floor levels failed in shear. The lack of
adequate ties in the column exacerbated the
damage and allowed vertical column
reinforcing to buckle where concrete had
spalled off.
Although the subsequent analysis will utilize
seismic loads generated by a first mode response,
the results of the analysis will compare reasonably
well with the observed damage, even though the
analysis predicts significantly more hinging at the
lower floor levels than was observed in the actual
building damage. This deviation between predicted
and observed response may also reflect the
characteristics of the actual earthquake ground
motion experienced at the site. Since it is unlikely
that an analyst will have available to him or her
such detailed response records prior to undertaking
a seismic rehabilitation project, this analysis
proceeded using the Methodology to the maximum
extent possible.
D'12
I.
preliminary Analvsls
Before undertaking a detailed, time consuming

analysis of a building, the Methodology (Chapter
5) recommends conducting a preliminary analysis.
This case study uses the evaluation statements in
FEMA 178. The evaluation statements express a
variety of positions, which, if true, suggest that no
detailed analysiS is required. When the statements
are false, additional analysis is recommended to
examine potential seismic deficiencies. For this
building, many of the statements are "false, and
only the "false" statements are discussed in this
section.
3.1
EValuation statements for Basic

Building system
ConFlgu,.atlon
S.1.1
Weak Story. There is a significant strength
discontinuities in the vertical elements in the
lateral fore resisting system: column shear strength
at fourth/fifth floor.
Torsion. The lateral system may not be well
balanced and may be subject to torsion because of
infill panels at first floor.
$.1.2
concrete Moment F,.ames
Shearing Stress Check. The building does not
satisfy the Quick Check of the average shearing
stress in the columns.
Shear Failures. The shear capacity of the
frame members is not greater than the moment
capacity.
Stirrup and Tie Hooks. The beam stirrups
and column ties are not anchored into the member
cores with hooks of 135 degrees or more.
Column Tie Spacing. Frame columns have
ties spaced greater than d/4 or more throughout
their length and at more than 8 db or more at all
potential plastic hinge regions.
Column Bar Splices. Column bar lap splice
lengths are less than 35 db long and are not
enclosed by ties spaced at 8 db or less.
Beam Bars. At least two longitudinal top and
bottom bars do not extend continuously throughout
the
oft
pos
thre
lonl
witl
are
spal
at 8
at tl
join
of~
dew
sig~
anal
4.
4.1
coni
the
altel
are
MaJ
in 0
Met
calli
case
4.2
Ani
first
dete
Stati
Igth
the length of each frame beam. At least 25 percent

of the steel provided at the joints for either
positive or negative moment in not continuous
through the members.
Beam Bar Splices. The lap splices for the
longitudinal beam reinforcing are not located
within the center half of the member lengths and
are in the vicinity of potential plastic hinges.
Stirrup Spacing. Some beams have stirrups
spaces at d/2 or more throughout their length and
at 8 db or more at potential hinge locations.
Joint Reinforcing. Column ties do not extend
at their typical spacing through al beam-column
joints at exterior columns.
Based on the number and potential significance
of the possible deficiencies ouilined above, a more
detailed analysis is recommended to assess the
significance of the these deficiencies. This detailed
analysis is presented in Section 4 of the case study.
.trength
4.
Detailed Analysis Using

the Product 1.2
Methodology
4.1
Introduction
5
uming
apter
alysis.
ts in
!SS
that no
ments
d to
this
and
this
Basic
well
Luse of
loes not
,ring
;he
lent
rups
lember
have
hout
at all
This section outlines the basic steps required to

conduct a detailed analysis of the structure using
the Methodology. There are a number of
alternative approaches that can be used, and these
are outlined in Chapter 8 of the Methodology.
Many of these alternatives are covered in detailed
in other sources, but the Capacity Spectrum
Method using a static nonlinear analysis, often
called a "pushover analysis, " was selected for this
case study.
4.2
Elastic Analysis to Establish First

Mode Response
An elastic analysis is conducted to establish the

first mode response which will be used to
determine the pattern of force to be applied in the
static nonlinear analysis.
splice
:op and
oughout
IIday
Inn APpendix D. Holiday Inn
Table :So Description 01 the prelimInary

ElastIc Models
".
':<:
<:;~
:EFFectJve
, . MDmentsDf panel
zane I,VI$et1us
'
.Datflplng
: :', ,Ihe/tltif/ '.
,RigIdity'
COlumns
0.61.
50%
Beams
0.81.
Model 1
5%
10%
Model 2
Columns
(4th'5th)
0.051,
Columns
(all others)
0.50 I,
Beams
0.50 I,
* Ig
0%
= Gross moment of inenia
Live Load Estimates

4.2.1
Estimates of typical service live loads were
applied to the model as discussed in Section 9.2 of
the Methodology, rather than the live loads
assumed by the model building codes for design.
Since a "Hotel" occupancy is not listed in
Table 9-1, it was assumed that a "General Office
Area" occupancy was a representative occupancy.
4.2_2
Soli-Structure Interaction
The dispersed nature of the frame elements
and the pile foundation suggested that issues
related to soil-structure interaction as discussed in
Section 9.3 would not be significant. Other case
studies conducted illustrate the application of the
Methodology and soil structure interaction.
4.2.$
MOdeling Assumptions
Table 3 presents member stiffness and other

modeling assumptions used in the analysis. Two
models were constructed to examine the sensitivity
of the structure to different parameters. Modell
assumes constant effective moments of inertia for
the beams and columns. while Model 2 attempts to
account for the reduction in shear strength
anticipated in the columns between the Fourth and
Fifth Floors.
D1!
The building was modeled as a

three-dimensional elastic structure with a fixed
base to establish the first mode response of the
structure for use in applying the lateral loads used
in the pushover analysis. The structural model
included both perimeter beam-column frames as
well as interior slab-column frames, as
reCOmmended in Section 9.4.2.2 of the
Methodology. In the longitudinal direction, there
are two slab-column frames while in the transverse
direction, there are seven such frames. All are
elements believed to contribute to the lateral
resistance of the building. The total model consists
of all structural walls in the building plus the deep
spandrel beam-column frame along the north and
~outh perimeter of the building. Figure 7
Illustrates the three-dimensional computer model
of the building showing the infill wall panels at the
first floor, north elevation.
The effective stiffness properties used herein
are ,:onsistent with Methodology guidelines,
SeCllO? ?~.2. For the perimeter frames, a panel
zone rIgidity of 75 percent is used to account for
the fact that the beams do not cover the full width
of the columns.
The analysis included P-delta, orthogonal
effects, and accidental torsional effects. The
accidental torsional effect was included by
displacing the center of mass at each level by
5 perce?t Of. the dimension measured perpendicular
to the directIOn of the applied force. The
ortho?on~l effect is included through load
co.mb~nal1ons by specifying 100 percent of the
seismiC demand from one direction to be added to
pe~cent of the demand from the orthogonal
dlrecllon. All significant modes were included in
the analysis. Individual modal responses were
combined using the CQC procedure.
The seismic base of the building is assumed at
the Ground Floor level for the purpose of
c~lc~lating the base shear. Building weight
dlstnbutlOn used in the analysis consists of
3?
1390 kips at the Roof, 1424 kips at floor levels

Seventh through Third, and 1747 kips at the
Second Floor. The total seismic weight of the
building is 10,257 kips.
4.2.4
Elastic Model Results
The three-dimensional eigenvalue analysis

yielded the following values for the building
period: 0.60 second for the fundamental period in
the longitudinal (east-west) direction, 0.46 second
for that in the transverse (north-south) direction,
and 0.32 second for the torsional period. Table 4
provides a summary of the building periods
obtained from analysis of the building response
records obtained during the Northridge
earthquake, building periods reported in earlier
studies of the building after the San Fernando
Earthquake, and the building period obtained using
UBC 91 Method A formula (Co = 0.03 assumed).
The significant lengthening of the period in the
longitudinal direction during peak response of the
San Fernando Earthquake as well as after 10
seconds of the Northridge Earthquake is attributed
to the strength and stiffness degradation of the
perimeter frames, particularly the south perimeter
frame.
4.3
static Nonlinear (Pushover)

Analysis
4.8.1
Intl"Dductlon
The predicted performance of the structure
was examined using a two-dimensional, nonlinear
model to represent the expected seismic
performance of the exterior spandrel beam-column
frame, both in its existing state, and after the
proposed rehabilitation. An additional equivalent
frame model was created to check the capacity of
the interior flat-slab-column gravity system to
withstand the deformations imposed by the lateral
system response.
4.s..~
mode
guide
of dif
show.
or 19'
heigh
distri!
first r
in Se(
analy:
beam
Figur,
ORAl
Amor
gravit
the cc
displa
progr:
calcul
allow
analy~
are ac
beam~
D'.
--
els
Table 4. Approximate Fundamental Building Period
'.
'. .
. .'
'
....
UBC 91 Method A
pre1971 san Fernando earthquake

ambient vibration
is
..
. .E-WDlr.
lLongltlldlnall
. ....
N-SDir. .' .
(TranSVerse)
0.68 sec
0.68 sec
0.52 sec
0.40 sec
lod in
San Fernando earthquakel1971)
~cond
Early part of earthquake
0.70 sec
0.70 sec
.ion,
ble 4
During peak response
1.5 sec
1.6 sec
Northrigde earthquakel1994)
lse
ier
o
j using
med).
[he
)f the
ibuted
le
meter
Ire
linear
,olumn
e
alent
ity of
to
ateral
~ay
Inn
Early part 10 10 sec
1.5 sec
2.2 sec
Middle part11020 sec)
2.1 sec
2.2 sec
Towards the end I> 25 sec)
2.4 sec
2.0 sec
4.502
Modeling
The specific parameters used in the nonlinear
model, in accordance with Methodology
guidelines, are tabulated in Table 5. A comparison
of different normalized lateral force distributions
showed that a first mode shape, inverted triangle,
or 1991 UBC lateral force distribution up the
height of the building resulted in nearly identical
distributions. The force distribution given by the
first mode shape from the elastic model discussed
in Section 4.2 was used in the static nonlinear
analysis.
The static nonlinear analysis, using
beam-column subassemblies such as that shown in
Figure 10, was conducted with the aid of the
DRAIN-2DX computer program, Version 1.10.
Among the numerous modeling parameters,
gravity load induced moments, shear capacity of
the columns, maximum base shear, and roof
displacement limits were selected to overcome
program limitations and simplify the resulting .
calculations. Since the present program does not
allow the inclusion of element loads in nonlinear
analysis, the effect of dead and live load moments
are accounted for by reducing the capacity of all
beams by 10 percent.
Column Modeling
4.5oS
Figures 8 and 9a illustrate a column interaction
diagram and a moment-curvature diagram for a
typical north and south perimeter frame column
between the Fourth and Fifth Floors, respectively.
Similar analyses were performed for the columns
at the other floor levels. As noted earlier,
"expected" values were used for the steel and
concrete strength to calculate all capacities. Above
the Fourth Floor, columns typically consist of 6-#7
vertical reinforcing with #2 ties (2 sets per
location) at 12 in. on center. Below the Fourth
Floor, columns consist of 6-#9 vertical with #3
ties (2 sets per location) at 1212 in. on center.
Concrete of higher strength was used for the lower
floor columns as shown in Table 2.
The shear limit state governs the behavior of
these columns, i.e. the shear capacity is less than
the shear (2 MP/hol) associated with flexural
hinging of the column ends. The limiting story
shear capacity is dictated by shear limit states of
individual columns and includes the contribution
of interior as well as exterior frames. This effect
was monitored manually during the analysis using
the spring element shown in Figure 10.
DtS
In til
colu
toth
to c(
mod
resul
asSUl
Actual Material Strength
2S% Increase from expected material strength with

strength reduction factor equals to 1.0
Initial component Stiffness
75% gross moment of Inertia for Columns; 50% gross

moment of inertia for Beams; account for effect of
slab.
... not activated

modeled as linear spring at the bottom of spandrel beamcolumn connection. see Figure 10.
"'*
4.S.4
Beam Modeling
Figure 9b illustrates the moment curvature
diagram of typical Fourth and Fifth Floor spandrel
beams in the longitudinal direction. Typical
stirrups consists of # 3 ties at 3 inches and 5 in. on
center near the two ends and 10 in on center in the
middle portion. For reinforcement, these beams
have 2-#6 at the bottom, 3-#8 at the top and 2-#6
in the slab adjoining the beam. The flexural limit
state governs the behavior of these beams. Because
of low positive (tension at the bottom) flexural
capacities of these beams, even with the effect of
in place dead and live loads, the demand on many
of the beams exceeded their capacities. This is
consistent with the observed damage in the
building where flexural cracks were observed at
the bottom of several beams.
4.S.S
Beam-Column Joint Modeling
Based on probable demands on the beams and
columns, it is estimated that the maximum shear
demand on the beam-column joints at the lower
floor levels were between 8 to I Of,0.5. It was noted
in examining the beam column joint in Figure 6c
that although the record drawings require several
D-'.
ties in the joint, the as-built condition appears to

be somewhat different. At several joints where
concrete had spalled off during the earthqual<e, no
ties were observed. Even without the ties, the
probable joint shear stress demand of 8 to IOf,0.5 is
not considered to be excessive. and cracking of
beam-column joints at this stress level is typically
not expected. This appears to contradict the minor
damage observed in many of the beam-column
joints at the lower floor levels. One possible
explanation of this inconsistency may be that with
the beams not centered with respect to the columns
and complex stress pattern may have developed in .
the joints which in tum may have resulted in shear
cracking and spalling of concrete from the
unconfined portion of the joint (Le. the 4 inch
width of the column not confined by the spandrel
beams).
As discussed in Section 9.5.4.3 of the
Methodology, the shear strength of concrete
structural elements of limited ductility may need to
be adjusted downward. While the precise
relationship to describe that downward adjustment
is not known with certainty, some estimate is
required in order to conduct the needed analysis.
respl
Thes
built
4.S.
1
thec
for tI
. excel
and t
deter
deter
modi
the iJ
prese
modi
4.4
4.4.
1
devel
Chap
discu
resul'
Capa
4.4.;
E
of hiJ
beam
show
figun
hingi
states
II
at the
prese
assoc
------
In the present case, the shear capacity of the

columns was assumed to be a uniform value equal
to the capacity of the column ties only as a means
to conservatively reduce the complexity of the
model. For the purposes of scaling the pushover
results, the base shear and roof displacement were
assumed to be limited to 960 kips and 20 in.,
respectively, for evaluating the existing building.
These limits were never exceeded prior to the
building achieving a mechanism.
Slab Modeling
4.5.6
The equivalent frame model used to evaluate
the contribution of the slab was similar to that used
for the spandrel beam-column frame, with the
exception that the sum of the column dimension
and three times the slab thickness was used to
determine gross moment of inertia as well as
determine the moment capacity of the slab. This
model was generated to compare the capacity of
the interior frames, and is rather limited in its
present iteration in terms of predicting the failure
mode of the various constituent components.
rs to
ere
ke, no
le
static Nonlinear Analysis Results
Of,O.5 is 4.4
of
Introduction
. all
lIC
Y 4.4.1
minor
The goal of the static nonlinear analysis is to
mn
develop a Capacity Spectrum as described in
>
Chapter 8 of the Methodology. This section
;t with " discusses the results of the analysis and how these
:olumns results. were used to construct the required
)ped in Capacity Spectrum.
I
n shear I 4.4.2
pushover AnalysIs Results

I Based on the pushover analysis, the sequence
Ich
andrei of hinging of beams, column shear failure at the
I beam-column connection, and column hinges is
I shown in Figure 11. The numbers shown on the
i figure correspond to the order in which the beam
e
'I hinging, column hinging, or column shear limit
need to states occurred, respectively.
It can be seen that the hinging generally begins
J~tment '[ at the lower floors and progresses upward. Table 6
IS.
i presents the base shear and roof displacement
!lYSIS. ! associated with the first flexural hinging of a beam
I
I
IIday
In~ Appendix D. Holiday Inn
Table 6. Base Shear and Roof Displacement

Associated with First Beam and column to Hinge
sase Shear at
Hinge (kipSJ
Displacemel1t at
Hinge (III.)
Beam
155
1,4
Column
(Shear!
445
5,6
Column
(MOment)
520
8,0
Element " ".

,
"Name
and column element as well as the first column

element to fail in shear. Since the applied shear
and roof displacement required for formation of
the column shear failure are less than those
associated with the flexural limit state in the
column it appears that shear, rather than flexure,
is the more~obably failure mechanism in
columns. This appears to be consistent with the
performance of the structure during the Northridge
, Earthquake.
Over 90 percent of the modal mass
participated in the first mode, and from the story
drift plot in Figure 12, it can be seen that the
initial assumed first mode lateral force distribution
is a reasonable assumption for this building.
The pushover analysis was terminated after a
column shear failure occurred in all columns just
below the third level, resulting in a mechanism.
This behavior is not entirely consistent with the
observed damage from the Northridge Earthquake
because the majority of the damage was observed
in the floor above. Other studies have
demonstrated that it is possible to develop an
analytical model that more closely matches the
observed damage when ground motion generated
by the Northridge Earthquake itself is used.
Nevertheless, the significant column shear
deficiency appears to be recognized by the analysis
and, given the assumed loading distribution, the
analytically predicted failure is not unreasonable.
Load-displacement results, first yield, major
yield and initial deterioration points as defined in
the Methodology are shown in Figure 13. As
Dn
shown in the figure, the existing building reaches a

mechanism just beyond a total roof displacement
of almost 16 in., which corresponds to an overall
drift ratio of 2 percent.
capacity Spectrum
Load-displacement and modal analysis results
were combined to generate the capacity spectrum
using the procedure outlined in Chapters 4 and 8
of the Methodology. The steps are:
J. Calculate the ratio of base shear versus
building weight (V/W).
2. Calculate the modal story participation factor
and modal base shear participation factor.
3. Calculate the spectral displacement versus
spectral acceleration.
Table 7. Demand RespDnse spectrum parameters

seismic zone Factor
Z - .0.40
NearSource Factor
N - 1.0
seismic Coefficient
c. ~ 0.40
Cv
4.4.8
4.4.4
Demand Response Spectrum

The Basic Safety Objective selected for the
case study is Building Performance Level "Life
Safety" at the Design Earthquake and Building
Performance Level "Structural Stability" at the
Maximum Earthquake (ME). Descriptions of these
performance objectives are found in Chapter 3 of
the Methodology and Section 1.3 of this case
study.
The Design Basis Earthquake was assumed to
be described by ground motion with a 10 percent ..
chance of being exceeded in a 50 year period. The .
Maximum Capable Earthquake was assumed to be
described by ground motion with a 10 percent
chance of being exceeded in a 100 year period, but
not exceeding the maximum single event that can
be foreseen within the geologic framework
assuming median attenuation.
A five percent elastic demand response
spectrum, shown in Figure 14, was generated
using the procedures outlined in Section 4.4.2.4 of
the Methodology with the parameters listed in
Table 7 for the Design Earthquake. The Design
Earthquake is represented by the 10 percent
damped inelastic response spectrum shown in
Figure 14 using the spectral reduction factors for
the acceleration (SRA) and velocity (SRv) controlled
regions of the spectrum calculated using Equations
D18
= 0.64
8-9 and 8-10 of the Methodology. The building as

a whole must be checked for stability, strength
degradation, and excessive deformation as
described in Section 11.3 of the Methodology.
Static inelastic analyses of this building showed no
instabilities with respect to gravity loads. All
performance point roof displacements in the
Design Earthquake are less than the 0.02 x 65.67
ft x 12 inlft = 15.76 in. Life Safety Limit shown
in Table 11-2 of the Methodology. Similarly, the
Structural Stability Limit is found from the
expression 0.33 V;/Pi = 0.33(815/4,661) = 0.058,
which translates to Structural Stability Limit of
0.058 x 65.67 ft x 12 inlft = 45.5 in.
The resulting demand spectrum in shown in
Figure 14. Iterative procedures are needed to find
the unique "performance point." The desired
performance point is Point B in Figure 14, and it
can be seen that the building is not capable of
achieving this level of spectral displacement at the
given load. For this reason, the rehabilitation
scheme discussed in the following section is
proposed.
4.5
Time History comparisons
Limited inelastic time-history analyses were

executed as an approximate check of the
performance point displacements predicted by the
Methodology. A group of ten near-field
acceleration records, each with components in twO
directions, were selected. For each record, the
given components were transformed to
fault-parallel and fault-normal components. Scale
factors were computed so that the average spectral
accelerations of the 20 histories would be 0.64g for
a structure with a I-second period. That is, the
records used as time history input were scaled to
mate
(unrf
DRA
to thl
push,
roof
time
very
trend
J. 1
I,
P
2. 1
d
b
1
undel
oven
a pus
effec
force
s.
5.1
1
achie
14. 1
progJ
and s
objec
Meth
objec
stabil
p
provi
to sal
inclu,
Basel
level.
struc;
each
requi
was!
IIppe
---
ters
g as
,d no
i.67
)wn
the
1.058,
)f
in
find
Id it
f
it the
ere
y the
in two
he
5cale
,ectral
64g for
he
:d to
~ay In"
match a single representative point on the 5 percent

(unreduced) spectrum for the Design Earthquake.
Time-history analyses were performed using
DRAIN -2DX. Five percent damping was assigned
to the first two modes. Figure IS shows the
pushover curve with combinations of maximum
roof displacement and base shear taken from the
time-history analyses. It can be seen that there is a
very wide scatter in the results; however two
trends appear relatively clearly:
I. The time histories predict higher shears, at
lower displacements, than suggested by the
pushover curve.
2. The time histories predict higher maximum
displacements, at lower shears, than suggested
by the pushover curve.
Thus, the pushover analysis appears to
underestimate the maximum shear and
overestimate the displacements. This suggests that
a pushover analysis, in general, may miss critical
effects of higher modes that increase component
forces without increasing roof displacement.
S.
Rehabilitation Scheme
5.1
Introduction
The subject building is not capable of

achieving the performance point shown in Figure
14. This suggests that a seismic rehabilitation
program is required to provide the needed strength
and stiffness to satisfy the required performance
objectives identified in Section 1.3 of the
Methodology. Two alternative performance
objectives are considered: life safety and structural
stability.
A number of alternatives are available to
provide the needed strength, ductility, and stiffness
to satisfy the required performance characteristics
including internal shear walls and external frames.
Based on a review of the desired performance
level, the existing architectural character of the
structure, the level of disruption associated with
each scheme, and access required to execute the
required construction, the exterior frame system
Was selected. Alternative analyses are possible
~ppencllx D, Holiday Inn
using the interior shear wall scheme, however,

these are not presented in this paper because they
do not further explain the application of the
Methodology to the analysis and rehabilitation of
concrete structures.
5.2
EXterior Frames
The Basic Safety objective requires that for the

Life Safety Building Performance Level, that the
designers enhance gravity resistance of the frame
columns, limit deformation in ,the frame columns,
and reduce the vulnerability of the frame columns
to shear failures. Figures 16 through 19 illustrate
the conceptual distribution and member sizes of
the exterior frame concept shown in plan,
elevation, and details.
Using the methodology outlined in developing
the nonlinear model for the existing frame,
Section 4 of this case study, a pushover analysis of
the structure was undertaken. A preliminary
approach to sizing these frames uses hypothetical
spectral pushover curves to find performance
points within required deformation limits. Spectral
values at the hypothetical performance points are
then converted back to absolute values, and the
required strength and stiffness of additional frame
elements can be determined.
Assumptions inherent in the new design
include:
The new mode shape matches the existing

mode shape. An modal participation factor
P = 1.4 was assumed, and an appropriate alpha
for the hypothetical performance point was
chosen from the evaluation data.
Initial and post-yield stiffness of the

hypothetical pushover curve match the existing
building.
For the hypothetical strengthened building, the

initial yield point is appropriate.
New frames have lower yield displacements

than do the existing frames.
The effects of new frame weight and material

properties can be ignored.
D'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results of the analysis are presented in

Figure 20 showing the new capacity spectrum for
the rehabilitated structure.
A similar analysis was conducted for the
structural stability performance goal. As can be
seen from Figures 21 and 22. significantly less
rehabilitation work is required to satisfy the
requirements of this performance goal. Figure 23
illustrates the capacity spectrum for this more
modest rehabilitation effort.
G.
Concluding Remarks
This report presented an application of the

Concrete Buildings to the Holiday Inn in Van
Nuys, California. The purpose of this example
building study was to illustrate the use of the
Methodology document as an example for other
engineers to follow.
The analysis of the existing structure
concluded that it could not satisfy the requirements
of the assumed level of seismic performance and a
D20
----
seismic rehabilitation scheme consisting of exterior

concrete frames investigated. The resulting
rehabilitated structure satisfies the required seismic
performance level.
The static inelastic analysis appears to do a
reasonable job of identifying critical limit states in
the structure and provides a simplified design
criteria against which the rehabilitation of the
building can be undertaken. Although there are a
number of other evaluation methods, the
guidelines contained in the Methodology appear to
offer the design engineer a well-structured
approach to evaluating and seismically
rehabilitating existing concrete structures.
Additional case studies are available that
examine the application of the Methodology to
other structures. These should be consulted to
obtain a broader picture of how this methodology
should be applied and to the1\nge of engineering
judgment required to evaluate and seismically
rehabilitate existing concrete buildings.
APpendix D, Holiday In"
Appe
------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iday Inn Appendix D. Holiday Inn
D-21
llu,,;
~.
UJIO
North/South Perimeter Frame

Clevation
Holfday Inn. Van Nuy., CA
D22
nCUR[
Appendix D. Holiday .JIII
--
,---------------------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROI=IT 01= CONCRETE BUILDINCS

,----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
~
c
a
a
a
a
,r:.
..
b~
"
"
~'
'"
~
~
"
""
~
'"
~
...
,.-
16'
SECTION-B
"
SECTION-A
"
"
~~~
~ f5~
SLOPE 1:6
~~~
MAXII.IUt.l~
"I
u,
"
'.
,
.,.
,
,
.'
1-'-7,f-
"
..
"
"
'
. ..
..
= PRESENT
TIES MAY NOT

BE
'N
THE AS-8UILT-----1
'
"
.
' ,
"
,
"
,
,
STRUCTURE
,6'
::.::I!
a;J
~ ~,
~
"
'/
EXPANDABLE
JdI NT
1:-:.
..
~+
"o
ANGLE J"X,J"
MATERIAl
CONT.
BRICK WALL
24"o.c.
SECTION-D
4-14 CONT.
--L.,tt---1-14 CONT.
SECTION-C
Beam Sections and

Elevation at Column
FIGURE
Holiday Inn, Van Nuy.. CA
' Appendix D, Holiday Inn

,llday In!,
D-21
~
FI
!
I
I
;
2gb
~'I;
~.
U."'.D
North/South Perimeter rrame

Showing Northridge Earthquake
Damage
Exempt. Bundlng Study

Hollda, Inn, Van Nu,a, CA
D-24
nCUR[
Appendix D, HOliday Inn
N,
---------
~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FIGURE 5(a)
North Frame Elevation Showing Damage
FIGURE 5(b)
Close-up of North Frame Column Shear Damage
FIGURE 5(c)
Beam Column Joint Damage at North Frame
Damage Photographs

Holiday Inn. Van HUYSt CA
Iiday 1l1li
fIGURE
D-25
FIGURE6(a)
Column Shear Failure
FIGURE6(b)
Column Shear Failure
F/GURE6(c)
Beam Column JOint Damage - Note Absence of
Specified JOint Reinforcing
Damage Photographs
Holiday Inn, Van Nuys, CA
D26
FIGURE
6
Appendix D. Holiday I"~
ETABS
moc.~
with infUl wall
Existing Structure
IGURE
example BuDding Study
F'lGURE
Halldl, Inn. Vln NUYI. CA
D27
--
PCACOL V2.30
r--'-1000
-\ ------~-------~ -
,,
-\
.------~.------~-------~--------~------.-
---
:
,
,
-------:--------~------------
,,
,
,
,,
600Ir~~~~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~_~_
200 I' ------ ,
,,
: fs=O.Sfy :
-:-------:-------~--------'
300
~Mny
(ft-k)
-200
,
,
-----------.-------~-----------------------.,
-600 , ........... _- . . _______
"
oi>_ ..... _ - - - ....... - - - - - - - - - - ... - - - - - _ ..... - - . . . .
Existing Column Interaction
F1C~RE
Diagram at 4th and 5th floors

eumpt. aulldln, Sbldy
Haltday Inn. Van Nuya. CA
D28
Appendix D. Holiday 1l1li
--
IS)
fm ~
'2
120
"0..
:.E
1040
~
~u
:Cii
20. in..
Lw"
~90
~
....,
3i":O. psi
i'j::
14-. in.
O. l<ips
Ot;C""..:ity::=l
1.ca
sc~,
JO-'"
",
j
o ..
a
92
1$4-
2:0
:!22
CURVAn.i;<:: (rcd/in x 10-6)

Mo",.ni Cutva;t:r. Oia..,.em - 14-" x 20" Coit.:rms
FIGURE 9(a)
.
Existing Column Mame,rt-Curvature Dia...",
in-
--""-
!.lor
CUd1y
__ __ m __
a+---~~--~
~~
CIJRVA~ (rr::(1fI
__
1~
it.
n ...
Q.1oips
8.IJ
____
x '~l
FIGURE 9(/l)
ExisIing Beam Moment-Curvatura Diagram
Existing Column one S.am

Mamlnt-Curvatvr. Diagrams
~.
Building Study
HOlIday bin, Von IIuyo. CA
D29
I
I
I
BEAM COLUMN ELEMENT

RIGID END ZONE
____ .J
NODE
BEAM COLUMN ELEMENT
PLASTIC HINGE
ZERO LENGTH HORIZONTAL

SPRING ELEMENT
(MONITOR SHEAR FAILURE
IN COLUMN)
ACTUAL BEAM AND COLUMN SHOWN

IN DASHED LINE FOR REFERENCE
Droin-2DX Modeling of Concrete
fiGURE
Beam-Column Joint
Ex.mple BuildIng Study
Holld_, Inn. Van Nuy., CA
D-:SO
10
Appendix D. Holiday In"
Ap~
,.
;;
iiC
!~
:z:
!:!.
ROOF
678
7TH
I.PIJ___ U~ __ .00
120
61H
51H
& --91.
30
T28
ii I
:1 H
Z
Q'"
~~
!..
0'"
I-
3RD
.17
~'!'
~'"
::
~ 9.
2ND
~ ~... I
1ST
,I::
81
115
t --- --. ,_ .. _... - .

!!'16-- II:: 84 '09 ~ -tl~
34 103
82
.'11-
~~ _ _ .B~13_2.
153
.76
33102
37 104
1:: 81
83
36 105
1:
35 114
1::
42
'12-- '0-8- . '07--
I. 13
. . _. ;.j;2--;~44--;~43
65.1 15
-;~42
70 21
- -
56 19_43 8_74 6_~2 9-.:?3.1.1O..._75.1.769.1.18

38
40
t t
~6. ~
149
139
86
95
93
85 1:: 78
129
1~~
1~1
1~
1~8 53 127
.. ~8 _~2 _ _5~ _ _
~ __ ~ .?_59.
.u7
80
.77
20 BB 1 28 49 112 64 1 11 63.1 14 87
2.:c
J[ -g.;:
,.
4TI-I
122
141 106 145
.62
'17
23
22
4
57
-.134
3~
141
140
II45
I135
4-58
147
99
100
97
96
!l8
92
.101
- - '" - - - - - - Beam'CoILnTI Plaslic t-linge
II
r:
o
Z
II
Z
..'"
',.-"
.o.
55.
46
148
CoILnTI Shear Failure
-"
ut
-,--------r--,-----,,------. --_.
ut
,.
"oz
"..'m"
.-III
r:
Z
ut
..
a
III
~...
Base Shear Level
--.-
-+-
......-
)E
-+-
V=10Ck
V=2O(k
V=3Q(J(
V=4OCk
V=5OOk
V=6OOc (d > 2%driiI)
I..
1
0
STORY DRIFTON)
Story Orift Ptot. Existing

Siructun
Eumt>to
Building Sbld,
10
"GURE
12
HDlIdo, Inn. Van "UYO. CA
D-S!
AII~
----- 1---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fare. Displacement
Existing SInlc:lu..
CUI"YI.
!DmpIe . . . - . Slucly
H - , ..... Ya Nuya, CA
laylnn
FlGtlR
13
D:!:!
Capacity Spectrum. Existing

Siructurl
~.B_I
Stud,
RGURt
14
HallOy 1M, Va. Hup, CA
D-34
1000
LEGEND
900
Fault Normaa. Muimum Sh,
o Fault NonnaJ. Mulmum Displacement

... Fault PInIUet. Maldmum Shear
.6 Fault Parallel. Maximum DIsplacement
800
700
lil
Il.
eCap
Pet
4Cor
-'!C. eCor
eNH
;l'He RI.
ICS" sr, "'Cap
....... CE
600
eEC7
-- --
... eC7r
eSCE
a:
iii::c
en
W
en
~
500
o Per
"Rln
400
',/
300
. .-
.-
.-
A'c.~SCE
I
- - - ':>sci,.
,6Cor
SCS
ANH
,/
,/
ORIn
,/
AeC7
,/
200
Cor
A .t
OSy!
'ii
100
ARln
o
a
ap
10
12
14
16
18
ROOF DISPlACEMENT (IN)
Time-History/Pushoyer Comparison.
Existing Structure
E.urn!>lo
a-. Study
15
HoIIdoy Inn. Von Nup, CA
~ay
Inn
D-35
_.
.....
....r
Ill"
. ..
----------- :
,,,
II
II
II
_______I";.-;M
~fi
v~~.'r
MDIOIt
:n
-
,
I
--
~
7
~
"'+
~
5
r-,
.
~
-'4"
@-
TItCII C:OIICIITt
k4~"'.II.o.
-,
~~~
' - ,,,
~.
,,
,,
,,,
,,
:
3
l
-
"
!I><I:
I
---------
___________ ~
---------- "" ----
---j
~
Typical Floor F'romlng Pion

Life Sofety Retrofit
Exempli Building Study
,",,"""
.,""""
FIGURE
16
HolldlY Inn. Vln Hurl, CA
D-:sa
~w
-.
u.N.G.
South Perimeter Frame

Elevation : Lit. Safety Retrofit
Enmple BuRdlng Stud)'
F'IGURE
17
Hollda, Inn, Van Muva, CA
lay Inn
DS'
GRID
I
EXIST1N
COLUMN
VNEW
CONCR8~
rRAME
COLUMN BEYOND
SEYOND
j-:-:' . .
~ ..
, 8
0
. -L.
'.
I:'
"
, ,-,-
'.
. :
;~.~ J,.~ NEW
. '.;:
. ), .
... f
\0
.;-
[T'
,'.
EXISTIN G B E A M / :
'/i
"'g
b" , ' "
FRAME BEAM
"c
~
N
N
"'0
0'
~o
Lo..~
,...
f"
N
"0
0
"'
\
'- 8-#9
"-8"
TOP & Bon.

#4 TIES 0 4' o.c.
SECTION
FRAME BEAM SECTION
Enmple 8undlng Study
Holkl.r Inn. Ven HurSt CA
D-SS
rlGURE
18
Appendix D. Holiday I""
GRID
I
I
EXISTING
BEAM~
EXISTING
CONCRETE
COLUMN ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
. L
.
",'J.. ~
I.
___ .
~+
.
1---'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NEW FRAME BEAM
NEW FRAME COLUMN
.
~
8-#9
_____ #4 TIES @ 4" o.c .
11.' ...
to
'"
..'
2-#9
. .
GRID
8-#9
EXISTI~
BEAM
NEW FRAME BEAM
1'-8~
PLAN VIEW
FRAME COLUMN OET AIL
Eumpl. BuDding Study
FIGURE
19
Holldl,. Inn. Y_n Nur., CA
lay Inn
DSS
1.2
I ~I
I
1.1
1.0
L.
r-
----:2.5Ca~
1:1
a
.
.. ""'4I----=----"'tll .f
Darrsge Ca1IrCI
0.8
:~
1:
0.9
::. I
I::J
armx=O.37g
ay=O.35g
drTax=3.6"
cI"9
0.7
0.5
1!y=2Z'
EfI'edIve Darqling =21 %
0.8
0.4
0.3
21% EIfedive Oarr-ping Spednm

I
0.2
0.1
-- I
0.0
--~_=_-:-:-:-~----=-_=_.:l- TckcCe
- - ---
1L-..J...:::...J:.....:J.~L...-l-LL-...L...!....-.l..--L.--L...wL...-l-.l-...!....-.l..--L---I
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
SPEC"TlW.DlSI'IACEMENT. Sd ON)
Capacity Splctrum.
Ufo-Sofoly R.trofit
Eumpt. 8 _ . Study
20
Holiday Inn, 'OIl Nuya, CA
D-4D
---
6J'-r
[B iif
I
II
______ ~-iI
:l/i""xJ(I"
~~
r~rlHr IKl'tIIIM
=ntCOl.uu..
(l(I[IIIOR
-""'"
---1f
~
7
~
"
6 H - I - - - - ..I!------<;----. -----"'-l1li1-'
\:~
:
i"
@--m.
--.
L-!
19
I"I'P.
~
----@jm
~
3
;
2
"
1\:5>1
-----------
:1[-----------1
----,
,-
_______ .ll! _____

.
_____
:' >-
____ ..J
Typical rloor Framing Pion
FIGURE
Structural Stability Retrofit

Holkl8W Inn, V.n Nuy., CA
day Inn
21
DQt
iii
i i i i
South Perimeter Frome Elevation :

Structural Stability Retrofit
Ex.mple Building Study

Holiday Inn. Van HUYI, CA
..,.. D-42
22
Appendix D. Holiday Inll
Ap~
TS<Cde
1.2
1.1
1.0
2.5Ca
0.9
c2l
O.S
0.7
0.5
anm:=0.24g
ay=O.25g
.dTai( 4.5'
0.6
I
. t:larr1Jing = 34%
~
0.4
0.3
-'.... Pel fa Ii ElliCe Point (4.5'. 0.24g)
0.2
0.1
: Redu:ed Spe~~;;~~_~,~_:-:-::""",-,,,::,-...;-:.....::...::....:..:j- Td-ccde
-- -
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
SPECTRAl.. DlSf'lACEM3'.IT. ScI ON)
Copocily Spectrum.
SI",clurQl-Stobilily Retrofit
Exoa"Ie
8.-.
Sludy
FIGURE
23
Holiday ..... V. . Nup, CA
day Inn
D-43
APpendix E
Cost Effectiveness Study

prepared by
Jimmy R. Yee Consulting Engineers
4850 Alta Drive
Sacramento, California 95822
Appendix E. cost effectiveness study
E1
Table of Contents
I. General ..................................................................................................... E-5
2. Example Building Descriptions and Retrofit Schemes ................................................ E-5
2.1 Barrington Medical Building .............................................................. E-5
2.2 Escondido Village Midrise ................................................................ E-6
2.3 CSU at Northridge Administration Building ........................................... E-6
2.4 Holiday Inn at Van Nuys ...................................................... ............ E-6
3. Example Building Demolition/Replacement Costs .................................................... E-6
4. Example Building Retrofit Costs ......................................................................... E-7
4.1 Definition of Retrofit Costs ............................................................... E-7
4.2 Retrofit Costs and Performance Levels ................................................. E-8
4.3 Itemization of Retrofit Costs ........................................................... , .. E-8
5. Benefits/Costs ............................................................................... .............. E-13
6. Comparison with FEMA Projects for Estimation of Seismic Rehabilitation Costs ............ E-14
6.1 Typical Costs of Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings ............................... E-14
6.2 University of Southern California Medical Center .................................. E-15
7. Ease of Use of the Seismic Retrofit Analysis ........................................................ E-15
7.1 Traditional Approaches ............................... ,.~ ................................ E-15
7.2 Analysis and Retrofit Design Methodology .......................................... E-16
8. Consistency of Application of the Evaluation and Retrofit Methodology ........................ E-17
8.1 Preliminary Evaluation .................................................................. E-17
8.2 Modeling ................................................................................... E-17
8.3 Nonlinear Static Analysis ................................................................ E-17
8.4 Foundation Effects ....................................................................... E-18
9. Cost Effectiveness of the Evaluation and Retrofit Methodology ................................ E-18
10. References ................. , ................................................................... , ......... , E-18
AppendIx E, cost EffectIveness Study
E-5
~----------------------------------

~-----------------------------------
APpendix E
cast Effectiveness study

t.
General
A benefit/cost model study was undertaken to

analyze the results generated from the four example
building studies reported in Appendices A, B, C,
and D in this volume. This study reports on the
feasibility of using the structural performance levels
for seismic retrofit designs and on the application of
the seismic retrofit analysis and design
methodology contained in Volume" 1 of this
document. The nonstructural performance levels
were not considered in the example building
analyses and therefore were not addressed in this
benefit/cost study.
The objectives of this study are to: 1) estimate
example building retrofit costs (direct or hard
costs), 2) provide a comparison between the
example building retrofit estimated costs and cost
ranges from traditional retrofit analysis
methodologies, 3) develop a relationship between
costs and extent of change in the retrofit due to
selection of the performance level for the four
example buildings, 4) perform a benefit/cost
analysis for the performance levels evaluated for
each example building, 5) evaluate the ease of use
of the seismic retrofit analysis, and 6) identify the
consistency of application between engineers.
The reader should be aware that most of these
retrofits were designed based on known actual
earthquake damage. Differences in retrofit schemes
and costs may result in cases where the benefit of
knowing the actual earthquake damage to a
particular building is not available or has not been
realized.
All of the example buildings occur within the
high seismicity areas of California. Therefore, the
conclusions drawn from this study may not be fully
applicable to other geographic locations.
Appendix E, cost Effectiveness study
2.
Example Building
Descriptions and
Retrofit Schemes
The four example buildings consist of the

Barrington Medical Building in Los Angeles,
Stanford University Escondido Village Midrise,
CSU Northridge Administration Building, and the
Holiday Inn in Van Nuys. For all buildings, seismic
retrofits for one to two structural performance
levels were completed using the newly developed
methodology. A summary of the existing buildings
and their retrofit schemes are given below.
Barrington Medical Building

The building was designed in 1964 and is
located in Los Angeles. The building has
approximate plan dimensions of 104' by 130' and is
six stories in height with no basement. The floor
systems consist of a cast-in-place (CIP) two-way
concrete 7-1/2" flat slabs. The apparent lateral
force resisting system is a combination of CIP
perimeter moment resisting frames with "short"
columns ( between spandrel beams) and shear
walls. The foundation system consists of CIP
drilled concrete piles.
Structural Stability Level Retrofit.
Supplemental steel column support of the slab and
spandrels at the perimeter moment resisting frame
columns or alternatively, the strengthening of the
perimeter moment frame "short" colu~s by th~
use of a fiber reinforced epoxy composIte materIal
2.1
(FRP).
Life Safety Level Retrofit. New CIP concrete

infill waIls, shotcrete strengthening of existing
walls, the addition of pile caps and drilled CIP
piles, and all items in the Structural Stability Level
Retrofit.
E-5
Escondido Village Mldrise

located on the Stanford University campus in
Stanford, California. The building has approximate
plan dimensions of 114' by 57' and is eight stories
in height with a basement. The floor systems
consist of a 12" voided CIP concrete one way slabs
with integral beams. The apparent lateral force
resisting system is CIP concrete shear walls. The
foundation system consists of spread footings.
Life Safety Level Retrofit. Confinement of the
concrete columns and shear wall boundary
members in the lower three stories by the use of
steel plates and fiber reinforced epoxy composite
(FRP) material, the welding of short longitudinal
bar splices in shear wall boundary elements and the
strengthening of the column-slab connection using a
steel collar at all levels of the structure.
Damage Control Level Retrofit. New full
height concrete shear walls and drilled pier
foundations, confinement of the concrete columns
in the lower three stories by the use of steel plates
and fiber reinforced epoxy composite (FRP)
material, and the strengthening of the column-slab
connection using a steel collar at all levels of the
structure.
2.2
CSU at Northridge Administration

Building
located on the CSU campus in Northridge,
California. The building tower has approximate
plan dimensions of 227' by 68' and is five stories in
height with no basement. The floors consist of 19"
deep cast-in-place (CIP) one-way joist and slab
systems. The lateral force resisting system is CIP
concrete shear walls. The foundation system
consists of CIP drilled concrete piles.
Immediate Occupancy Level Retrofit.
Strengthening of existing shear walls using
shotcrete and the strengthening of existing shear
wall construction joints.
Life Safety Level Retrofit. None required.
2.3
Ea
2.4
Holiday Inn at Van NUys

located in Van Nuys, California. The building has
approximate plan dimensions of 150' by 63' and is
seven stories in height with no basement. The floor
systems consist of 8" thick cast-in-place (CIP)
twoway flat plate slabs. The apparent designated
lateral force resisting system is ClP perimeter
concrete moment resisting frames and interior
slab-column frames. The foundation system consists
of ClP drilled concrete piles.
Structural Stability Level Retrofit. Addition
of reinforced concrete ductile moment resisting
frames up to the fifth floor at the perimeter of two
sides. The transverse direction retrofit is not
addresse~ in the example building study.
Life Safety Level Retrofit. Addition of
reinforced concrete ductile moment resisting frames
full height of the building at the perimeter of two
sides. The transverse direction retrofit is not
addressed in the example building study.
I.
Example Building
Demolition/Replacement
Costs
The building demolition/replacement cost for

each of the example buildings was estimated for
comparison with the estimated construction costs
for the retrofits. These costs were established
through a professional cost engineer in conjunction
with general construction contractors. The
demolition/replacement costs do not include any
soft or indirect costs, or contingencies. For
purposes of demolition/replacement costing, direct
costs are defined as construction (primary) costs
including mechanical, electrical, plumbing and
architectural features. The contractor's field/home
office expenses, profit margin, and bonds are
included in the direct cost. All costs are based upon
the Engineering News Record Cost Index of May 1,
1996. The replacement construction is
Appendix E, cost Effectiveness studY
cons
mate
inclu
code
for e
Tabl,
4.
!
were
will,
tecru
build
simil
4.1
I
this I
cons!
by rr
this!
profe
vend
Conti
losse
impa
inclu
can I
non-I
Table 1. Building Demolition/Replacement costs

~
has
md is
, floor
IP)
ated
BuildIng
Barrington Medical
Center
stanford University
Escondido Midrise
CSU Northridge
Administration Bldg.
Holiday Inn at van
NUys
:onsists
lition
ng
ftwo
frames
'two
for
for
:osts
d
mction
;t
$151.30
$7,485,000
53,400
$140.20
$16,208,000
120,200
$134.80
$8,613,000
69,700
$123.60
Example Building
Retrofit Costs
Definition of Retrofit Costs
Estimated retrofit construction costs given in

this study are direct costs. Direct costs are the
any
construction costs (primary) and were determined
by material quantities and associated unit prices in
, direct
this study. Unit prices were established through a
:osts
professional cost engineer in conjunction with
rod
vendors, material suppliers, subcontractors, and
IIhome
contractors. Indirect or soft costs such as housing
re
losses, business and industry loss, relocation
:ed upon
impacts, employment loss, and tax impacts are not
f May I,
included in this study. Direct construction costs
can be further divided into earthquake and
non-earthquake related costs (Hart, 1994).
Appendix E, Cost Effectiveness study
Estimated
",cost/SF
72,500
A variety of materials and retrofit systems

were selected for the four example buildings. This
will give the reader information as to what retrofit
techniques can be utilized for existing concrete
buildings and also the construction costs for
similar buildings associated with these techniques.
4.1
.Bulldlng Area
'{$FJ
$10,970,000
considered "in-kind" consisting of "like type"

materials of the existing facility. No betterment is
included, except for meeting the current building
code. The estimated demolition/replacement costs
for each example building are summarized in
Table 1.
4.
lent
EStlma,ted ."
Dem(UReplacement.
cost
Earthquake related costs for this study include

the structural work to upgrade the existing lateral
force resisting system and/or to provide additiomil
vertical stability to the gravity load carrying
system. Damage repair is excluded from the direct
costs.
Non-earthquake related costs include the
non-structural work of removing and replacing
architectural, mechanical, plunibing and electrical
features in order to carry out the structural work.
For this study, the non-earthquake related costs are
included in the total direct cost for the building but
will be separated from earthquake related itemized
retrofit costs.
Non-earthquake related costs which are
excluded from this study are:
Fire and life safety system improvements
Mechanical, electrical and plumbing system
improvements
Architectural improvements
Hazardous material abatement
Providing access for the disabled
Retrofit costs include the contractor's
field/home office expenses, profit margin, and
bonds.
All costs are based upon the Engineering News
Record Cost Index of May 1, 1996. The retrofit
costs do not include any soft or indirect costs, or
contingencies. The building is assumed occupied,
except for the portions of the building under
construction. The influence on the cost of the
E7
----------------------------------------~-------------------
..~
Table 2. seismic Retrofit com VS. performance Levels
Barrington Medical
center
structural Stability
Life safety
stanford University
Escondido Mldrlse
Life safety
Control
CSU Northridge
Administration Bldg.
Life safety
None
5170,000
None
Immediate Occupancy
Holiday Inn at van

Nuys
Structural stability
Life safety
5800,000
$1,530,000
511.50
retrofit by a fast-track or phased construction

schedule or by pressures to reopen or occupy the
building as soon as possible is not considered in
this study.
4.2
Retrofit Costs and Performance

Levels
A Summary of the estimated retrofit costs for

each structural performance level is given in
Table 2.
The retrofit costs for the four example
buildings show a direct increase in construction
cost incremental with the selection of a higher
performance level. For the CSU Northridge
Administration Building, the existing structure was
determined to have satisfied the requirements for
the Life Safety and Damage Control performance
levels without retrofit. The existing Stanford
University Escondido Midrise structure was
considered to be already at the Structural Stability
performance level. The Holiday Inn's total retrofit
cost was based upon the assumption that the
retrofit in the transverse direction would be
approximately the same as in the longitudinal
direction of the building.
The relationship between retrofit costs and
changes to the structural performance level for
each example building are graphically illustrated in
E-8
5550,000
57.60
51,700,000
523.50
5460,000
58.60
529.96
51.40
522.00
Figures 1 through 4. A composite graph including

all example buildings is given in Figure 5.
CSU Northridge Administration Building,
Figure 3, illustrates the situation where the seismic
resistance of the original structure is at a high
performance level already. The incremental cost
for the Immediate Occupancy level is small as a
result of this condition.
The generation of these Cost-Performance
curves allows for an estimation or extrapolation of
incremental performance level changes with only a
very few points. However, future studies including
additional performance levels and example
buildings are recommended to determine the
accuracy of the extrapolation.
4.3
Itemization of Retrofit costs
The detailed construction cost estimates for the

retrofits allowed itemization of the various tasks
involved in the retrofit. Although these tasks are
specific to the four example buildings, it is
expected they will be representative of the kind
and cost of retrofits which may be encountered for
other similar concrete buildings. Graphs are given
in Figures 6 through 9 illustrating the various
retrofit tasks and associated unit costs for each
example building.
APpendix E, Cost Effectiveness studY
--
Figure 2. stanford Escondido village Mldrlse costperfOrmance curve
55 studY Appendix E. cost Effectiveness Study
E-9
----------------------~----------~---------------------------
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT DF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
2~~~----------------------------------------~ 16.64
CSU Northridge Administration Bldg.
13.31
9.98
6.66
400000
3.33
0+------,------~-----r------r_----~~--_4 0.00
Not
Considered
Structural
Stability
Limned
Safety
Lije
Safety
Damage
Control
Immediate
Occupancy
Performance Level
Figure s. CSU Northridge Administration Building CDstperformance curve
20~
28.70
Holiday Inn at Van Nuys

16~
22.96
11.
10
8c:
1200000
17.22
c:
2
10
c:
~0
0
800~
11.48
tl::I
~
10
c:
0
400000
5.74
0.00
Not
Considered
Structural
Stability
LImited
Safety
Life
Safety
Damage
Control
Immediate
Occupancy
Performance Level
Figure 4. Holiday Inn costperformance curve
11
1
E-10
APpendix E. Cost Effectiveness stucIY
IIPII
40,-------------------------------------------,
Building Case Studies
LL
~6
1
"o
30
20
Legend
-v- Holion, .:l1n

.CSUN Admin
-eStanfortCEVM
10
. . .Me
Not
Considered
Structural
Stability
Limited
Safety
Life
Safety
Damage
Control
Immediate
Occupancy
Performance Level
FIgure 5. Building case studies costperformance curves
Add Pile Foundations

Supplemental Column Support or
Strengthen Columns (FRP)

CIP Cone. Infill Wall
Shotcrate Walls
Mech . Elect., Plumb., Arch
O.H., Expenses. Profit. Bonds
1.00
2.00
For LIfe Safety Performance Level
4.00
5.00
3.00
Construction CosVSF
6.00
7.00
8.00
FIgure 6. Barrington Medical center Retrofit Tasks/costs
s studY
Appendix E. cost EHectlveness study
E-n
Stanford University Escondido Village Midrise

Strengthen Rebar Splices
Strengthen Columne (FRP)
Slab Shear Strengthening at Columns
Strengthen cols & walls (steel plata)
Mach" Elect. Plumb.. Arch
-F~===c~
D.H., Expanses, Profit, Bonds
5.00
For life Safety Pertonnence Level
7.00
8.00
Construction CosVSF
FIgure 7. stanFord IInlverslty EScondIdo Village Mldrlse RetroFIt TaSks/costs
s.
perf
orig
othe
1.
CSU Northridge Admin Bldg.

Strengthen Wall Construction Joint
2.
3.
Mach., Elect Plumb.,
c.H., Expenses, Profft, Bonds
this
cost
199:
cost
(FE
0.0
1.00
2.00
For Immediate Occupancy Performance Level
5.00
3.00
4.00
Construction CosVSF
6.00
7.00
8.00
FIgure 8. CSII Northridge Administration Building RetroFit Tasks/costs
E12
Appendix E, Cost effectiveness studY
repl
----
Holiday Inn at Van Nuys

Concrete Moment Frame
Mach . Elecl., Plumb., Arch
D.H., Expenses, Profit, Bonds
.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
For Ufe Safety Performance Level
4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00

Construction CosVSF
B.OO
9.00
10.00
Figure 9. Holiday Inn RetroFit Tasks/Costs
5.
Benefits/Costs
In this study, an increase in the structural

performance level from that established for the
original building is considered as the "benefit". In
other studies, retrofit benefits typically include:
1. Lowered repair costs.
2. Reduced loss of building function and
therefore indirect costs.
3. Improved life safety for occupants.
Although indirect costs are not addressed in
this study, they may be at least equal to the direct
costs of repair and retrofit of the building (FEMA,
1992a). For a more thorough discussion of indirect
costs, the reader is referred to the references
(FEMA, 1988 and FEMA, 1989).
It is apparent from reference to the
replacement costs that the direct costs of the
studY
AppendIx E, cost EffectIveness study
retrofit are small in comparison to the replacement

costs. In this study, the direct costs of retrofit
range from 5 percent to 18 percent of the
replacement cost, excluding the special case of the
CSU at Northridge Administration building.
Consideration needs to be given to the indirect
costs in the project to obtain a rigorous cost
effectiveness analysis.
The expected effectiveness, or reduction in
damage, of traditional concrete building retrofits
for the Life Safety performance level over
non-retrofitted concrete buildings averages from
30 percent to 18 percent, for MMI IV to MMI XII
level seismic events respectively (FEMA, 1992a).
As a result of the more exact analysis methodology
proposed herein, a further reduction in damage is
expected.
EIS
eno
Me'
low
Barrington Medical
Center
Large
concrete
Frame with
InflllWall
Life safety
$29.93
516.54
stanford University
Large
Concrete
Shear wall
Life safety
526.13
57.45
Large
concrete
Damage
531.67
527.59
5hearwall
Control
Escondido Mldrlse
Stanford university
EsCOndido Mldrise
abo
retr
redt
and
elef
con
mel
foUl
CSU Northridge
Administration
Bldg.
Very
Large
concrete
Shear Wall
Immediate
Occupancy
511.72'
Holiday Inn at Van

NUYS
Large
concrete
Moment
Frame
Life safety
529.93
inel
51.10
retr
Saft
retr
517.30'
NOI
1.
Seismicity Category of Very High, 1996 construction start and 4% inflation.
2.
3.
4.
Immediate Occupancy minus Damage Comrol level costs
Star
Wh,
reqt
stre
Nonstructural work costs omitted or not considered.

Cost for longitudinal direction retrofit used also for transverse direction.
G.
Comllarlson with FEMA

projects for Estimation
of Seismic
Rehabilitation Costs
6.1
Typical Costs of Seismic

Rehabilitation of Buildings
Typical retrofit costs for each example building

were determined using the FEMA document
Typical Costs of Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings, Volume I, Second Edition (Hart, 1994) to
obtain a comparison with the building specific cost
estimates from this study. Cost option 2 of the
FEMA methodology was selected to determine the
typical retrofit costs. This option accounts for
building type, floor area, geographic location, date
of retrofit construction. seismic map area.
performance objective. the number of buildings and
other considerations. The FEMA document
CSt
min
waI
Nor
be <
elefi
eart
alre
the
considers only the direct cost of the structural

work for retrofit and does not address retrofitting
to performance levels below Life Safety.
Therefore. cost comparisons at the Structural
Stability performance level were not undertaken.
Table 3 presents the direct structural retrofit
costs estimated for five separate retrofit schemes
developed in the four example building studies of
bast
this project and the corresponding mean costs
belc
determined using the FEMA document.
Thi!
Comparison indicates that the estimated costs of
reh~
the retrofit schemes developed using the
perl
Methodology are all lower than the FEMA mean
fror
costs. in some cases substantially lower. However.
Imn
one must be very cautious interpreting this limited
expJ
data. The FEMA cost estimation methodology.
, the
based on the averages of large numbers of highly
incr
variable costs. is specifically not intended for use
Dafi
in estimating the retrofit cost for individual
i Imn
buildings and this comparison does not provide
E'4
1~
:ing
en.
,fit
nes
s of
of
ean
fever,
nited
y,
~Iy
'use
de
studY
enough data to support a claim that the

Methodology will consistently deliver significantly
lower cost retrofit designs.
On the positive side, however, the comparison
above does suggest that the potential exists for
retrofit cost reduction using the Methodology. The
reduction can be attributed to the ability to define
and focus on retrofitting the most critical structural
elements. This ability stems from the more
complete understanding of earthquake demands,
member limit states, failure mechanisms and
foundation effects associated with the
inelastic/nonlinear anal ysis.
Furthermore, the high variability in estimated
retrofit costs, notably for the higher than Life
Safety performance levels, can be explained by the
retrofit measures established for the CSU
Northridge Administration Building and the
Stanford University Escondido Village Midrise.
Whereas the Stanford University Escondido Midrise
required major concrete shear wall and foundation
strengthening to improve the performance level, the
CSU Northridge Administration Building required
minimal strengthening of one line of concrete shear
wall. The minimal retrofit work for the CSU
Northridge Administration Building may, in part,
be attributed to knowing the exact structural
elements to be retrofitted based on previous
earthquake caused damage and the presence of an
already adequate lateral force resisting system for
the higher performance levels.
The FEMA document and database appear to be
based on the existing building condition being at or
below the Structural Stability performance level.
This is reasonable since facilities are not typically
rehabilitated if they meet the Life Safety
performance level. Therefore, the incremental cost
from Life Safety or Damage Control to the
Immediate Occupancy performance level is not
explicitly addressed by the FEMA document. For
the CSU Northridge Administration Building, the
incremental cost was obtained by subtracting the
Damage Control level retrofit cost from the
Immediate Occupancy retrofit cost.
AppenCllx E. Cost effectiveness study
6.2
University of southern California

Medical Center
A study was undertaken by FEMA to ascertain

the need and extent of retrofit for the Psychiatric
Hospital at the Los Angeles County USC Medical
Center (FEMA, 1995). Structural Damage was
sustained during the 1994 Northridge Earthquake
which indicated a need for seismic retrofit. In this
case, the structural elements to be retrofitted were
damaged by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake.
Analyses using recently published research on
reinforced concrete shear walls in the post-elastic
range helped to confirm that the "short" column or
wall pier elements were critical.
A construction cost estimate was undertaken in
the FEMA study for I) damage repair and 2) the
"Optional Structural Hazard Mitigation Scheme".
The second scheme was defined as the retrofit of
119 selected exterior wall/columns which would
result in a building performance level greater than
or equal to Life Safety. From the detailed
estimate, the hard or direct cost for the "Optional
Structural Hazard Mitigation Scheme" was
determined to be $3,098,148. This cost does not
include the scope and construction contingency,
but does include non-structural costs. This cost
figure differs from the subtotal given in the FEMA
study and is not the net cost change from the base
repair scheme. With a floor area of 115,030 SF, a
cost per SF of $26.91 was calculated for this
particular scheme. Comparing the $26.91/SF for
this building and the average Life Safety level cost
from th:is study in Table 2, the FEMA retrofit cost
is approximately 50 percent higher.
7.
EaSe of use of the

Seismic Retrofit
Analvsls
7.1
Traditional Approaches
Traditional detailed seismic retrofit analyses of

existing concrete buildings in structural
engineering practice have typically incorporated
the use of an equivalent static lateral force
E15
-------------------------------
..
------------------------------------.
procedure or linear dynamic analysis (response
spectrum) to determine deficiencies. The analysis
criteria consisting of a percentage of the force level
required in recent editions of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC, 1994) or the use of the force level
required by an older edition, such as the 1970
UBC, has been adopted by many municipalities and
state agencies. In other cases, the detailed analysis
procedures established by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency in the NEHRP Handbookfor
the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings
(FEMA 178) or Methodsfor Evaluating the Seismic
Resistance of Existing Buildings (ATC-14) have
been used or approved in lieu of some percentage
of the UBC equivalent static lateral forces. FEMA
178 and ATC-14 address archaic and non-ductile
lateral force resisting systems in high seismic
zones, whereas the UBC does not. The differences
between FEMA 178 and ATC-14 included the fact
that FEMA 178 earthquake forces are at strength
level and the ATC-14 forces are at allowable stress
design (ASD) level. When converted from ASD to
Strength methodology, the force reduction factors,
R, does not always agree. There is also a concern
whether these global force reduction factors are too
conservative for existing buildings.
The above criteria are all very similar to the
methodology used for design of new building
structures, so those familiar with current building
codes could easily convert to these procedures for
existing buildings. We would expect that a new
methodology for seismic retrofit analysis, which
includes inelastic effects modeled explicitly and
considerations of restricted component ductility,
would be more time consuming in understanding
and implementing.
7.2
Analysis and Retrofit Design

Methodology
Results from a questionnaire given to the
structural engineers performing the building case
studies indicate that the new methodology, using
the Capacity Spectrum Method, is more time
consuming than those in previous guidelines, such
as the detailed analysis procedures of ATC-14,
FEMA 178, or the UBC. The extensive amount of 1 eml

time indicated to implement the methodology may j rela
can
be, at least in part, due to the time to learn and
utili
understand the developing methodology and to
.!'
as d
familiarize themselves with the presently available
nonlinear analysis computer programs. The
! pusl
demands of time required to: I) generate the
non
various demand curves, 2) determine the nonlinear
elas
capacity curve by manual iteration using elastic
info
analysis computer programs or semi-automatic
und
iteration using nonlinear computer programs, and
desi
3) find the performance point, including the time
part
to learn the tools of the methodology, appear to
to b
result in an increase in retrofit design time by a
anal
factor of two to four times that of traditional
mO(
analyses. Also, the influence of the structural
eval
engineer's background and experience with
abil
performance-based earthquake engineering of
post
concrete structures is also a consideration.
resi:
Another important factor in the analysis time
to
b
is the limitation of the computer software. One
wid
software program used by all the building case
rna)
study participants is the DRAIN 2-D (two
allo
dimensional) series of non-linear analysis
retT!
programs developed at the University of
California, Berkeley (PoweJI, 1992). Three
8.
dimensional nonlinear analysis programs with a
similar origin to the DRAIN 2-D series are also
available (Maison, 1992) to explicitly account for
torsion. These programs do not have pre- or
post-processors to easily examine data and do not
explicitly account fOf all the types of concrete
rece
member failures or desired force-deformation
for I
relationships. As an illustration, the global
metl
capacity curve for each building was established
by the participants using incremental pushover
8.1
curves to account for the degradation of members
with restricted ductility. This procedure turned out
for 1
to be very lengthy. Post-processors were typically
rneti
generated by the use of spreadsheets. Even with
eval
the spreadsheets, examination and transformation
the I
of the data is a time consuming process. The
rem
participants all indicated they are unaware of any
FE~
commercial software program which completely
automates the nonlinear static analysis process,
1
:j
E-'&
Appendix E, COst Effectiveness studY
--It of
nay
I
able
near
c
md
me
o
a
me
emulates the desired member force-deformation

relationship and transforms the data into that which
can be easily evaluated. Only one participant
utilized a three dimensional linear analysis program
as the primary tool for the non-linear static
pushover analysis.
However, the methodology's incorporation of
nonlinear analysis gains insight unavailable from an
elastic code based type of analysis. More
information is obtained and a more complete
understanding is gained using the new analysis and
design methodology. As an illustration, one
participant noted that buildings which may appear
to be highly deficient when evaluated with elastic
analysis methods can be demonstrated to be
moderately deficient, or even adequate when
evaluated with the nonlinear analysis methods. The
ability of the nonlinear analysis to provide
post-yield force redistribution in the lateral force
resisting system was considered by all participants
to be an extremely important benefit. In summary,
with the methodology, critical structural elements
may be identified with greater confidence thus
allowing for easier determination of the degrees of
retrofit necessary for the desired performance level.
B.
;0
for
not
ed
r
bers
d out
:aUy
ith
tion
any
ely
s,
studY
Consistency of
Application of the
Evaluation and Retrofit
Methodology
Only portions of structural calculations were

received from the building case study participants
for use in evaluating consistency. These indicate the
methodology was generally followed.
8.1
preliminary EValuation
AU, except for one participant, used FEMA 178
for the preliminary seismic evaluation phase of the
methodology. The FEMA 178 preliminary
evaluation procedure appears to have found most of
the obvious deficiencies in the buildings. The
remaining participant did not indicate the use of
FEMA 178, but instead used an alternate analysis
Appendix E. Cost Effectiveness study
methodology (Inelastic Demand Ratio) for the

preliminary evaluation.
8.2
Modeling
Building models for the nonlinear analysis
using DRAIN-2DX varied between participants.
CSU Northridge Administration building was
modeled using one line of coupled shear walls.
The Holiday Inn model consisted of complete
moment resisting frames in the longitudinal
direction. Stanford University Escondido Valley
Midrise was modeled using multiple stick elements
to represent the shear walls and moment resisting
frames. The Barrington Medical Cen.ter model
consisted of complete moment resisting frames.
Interior shear walls were modeled as single
beam-column elements. The effects of the different
types of model representations on their results has
not been established.
In all the buildings, except for one, the interior
gravity load resisting beam and column frames
were included in the analysis. Contrary to the
methodology, it appears that these frames could
have been omitted in several of the shear wall
building models.
All of the participants took into account the
effects of member strength degradation in their
model.
NOnlinear static Analysis
Three of the participants selected the level 3
Capacity Spectrum Method which uses the shape
of the first mode response as the basis of the
lateral load distribution. The remaining participant
selected the level 2 Capacity Spectrum Method
which follows the code type triangular force
distribution. In several of the buildings, the
selection of the level 3 and under Capacity
Spectrum Method was found to result in the
underestimation of the higher mode effects when
compared to nonlinear time history analyses.
Assuming the nonlinear time history analysis to be
correct (or at least better able to predict maximum
forces since the effects of higher modes are
represented), an increase in maximum member
8.3
En
shears could result in increased retrofit work on

shear walls and-moment resisting frames from that
given in this study. However, careful review of
time-history analysis results is required to assess
whether peak forces are appropriate retrofit design
criteria.
8.4
Foundation Effects
The effects of foundation flexibility was studied
by three out of the four participants. The
participant, which did not consider foundation
flexibility, concluded it would have little effect on
their particular retrofit design.
The effect of foundation flexibility was found to
be of significance for the Barrington Medical
Center. Considering estimated foundation
flexibility, the capacity curve was controlled more
by pile slip at the foundations than by frame
hinging and shear wall failure. In this case,
consideration of foundation flexibility could lead to
a reduction in retrofit work and therefore
construction costs.
The Stanford University Escondido Village
Midrise model showed minimal change due to
foundation flexibility considerations. Whereas the
initial inelastic behavior of the structure was
dominated by foundation rotation and rocking,
subsequent behavior was still controlled by the
superstructure components yielding.
9.
Cost Effectiveness of
the Evaluation and
Retrofit Methodology
This limited study indicates the potential for

identifying construction cost savings in retrofits
provided by the choice of.different performance
levels combined with the new evaluation and
retrofit methodology. Comparison between
expected Life Safety retrofit mean costs from a
recent FEMA project (Hart, 1994) and that of this
study shows an average 40 percent decrease in
direct costs with the use of the new evaluation and
retrofit methodology.
E'8
6.
The increase in design time presently

associated with the new methodology, which
equates to an increase in engineering fees, can be
rationalized by the savings in construction cost and
increased confidence in predicting performance
levels. In addition, as the methodology is used
more, enhancements to computer analysis and
design software should result. These software
enhancements will automate the tasks, incorporate
failure mechanisms and force-deformation
relationships now not addressed and thereby
significantly decrease the design time associated
with the new methodology. Until such time as the
nonlinear computer programs are coded specific to
-this process, the design time and therefore
engineering fees may be much higher than the
previous approaches have traditionally required.
'0.
1.
7.
8.
References
ATC, 1987, Evaluating the Seismic
Resistance of Existing Buildings (ATC-14),
Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
California.
\
2.
1
FEMA, 1988, Typical Costs for Seismic
Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, Volume - 1I
Jl- Supporting Documentation (FEMA 157),
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), September 1988.
3.
FEMA, 1989, Establishing Programs and
Priorities JOT the Seismic Rehabilitation oj

Buildings - A Handbook (FEMA 174),
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), May 1989.
4.
FEMA, 1992, NEHRP Handbookfor the
Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings

(FEMA 178), Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), June 1992.
5.
FEMA, 1992a, A Benefit-Cost Modelfor the
Seismic Rehabilitation of BUildings, Volume

1: A User's Manual (FEMA 227), Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
April 1992.
lI
6.
be
and
'ate
d
the
c to
FEMA, 1995, Los Angeles County /

University of Southern California Medical
Center, Psychiatric Hospital - First Appeal
Response Findings, LACO 2641, FEMA
IO08-DR CA 037-91033, Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), October 16,
1995.
7.
Hart, 1994, Typical Costs of Seismic

Rehabilitation of Buildings, Volume I SUMMARY, Second Edition, FEMA, July
1994.
8.
Maison, 1992, PC-ANSR, A Computer

Program for Nonlinear Structural Analysis,
developed by B.F. Maison, Berkeley,

California.
9.
Powell, 1992, Drain 2DX, Static and

Dynamic Analysis of Inelastic Plane
Structures, developed by Allahabadi,
Prakash, and Powell, University of
California, Berkeley.
10.
UBC, 1994, Uniform Building Code, Volume

2, International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, California.
11.
UBC, 1970, Uniform Building Code,

International Conference of Building
Officials, Whittier, California.
I.
~),
:ity,
Ime
57),
if
2.
. the
Ime
'al
\),
ItudY
Appendix E. cost effectiveness Study
E1.
--------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
APpendix F
Supplemental Information
on Foundation Effects
Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
F1
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ............................................................................................... F-5
2. Seismic Performance of Building Foundations ................... , ................................... F-6
3. Historical Perspective on Foundation Design ......................................................... F-7
4. Pertinent Research ......................................................................................... F-8
5. Key Conclusions ........................................................................................... F-9
6. References ............................................................................................... F-9
Resource Summary 1 ....................................................................................... F-12
Resource Summary 3 ...................................................................................... F-26
Resource Summary 6 ................ : ...................................................................... F-37
Resource Summary 10 ..................................................................................... F-52
Resource Summary II ..................................................................................... F-54
Resource Summary 12 .................................................................... , ................ F-61
Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
F!
APpendix F
Supplemental Information
on Foundation Effects
1.
Introduction
This Appendix is a supplement to Volume 1 of

Concrete Buildings (Report No. SSC 96-01)
Product 1.211.3 of the Proposition 122 Seismic
Retrofit Practices Improvement Program. The
methodology includes a Chapter 10 on the effects
of foundations on seismic response. This
supplement compiles and summarizes selected
information and research on the seismic
performance of building foundations. The
guidance in the general methodology for
foundation effects is based in part on the
summarized material. The user of the general
methodology can refer to this material as a
resource for the practical evaluation and retrofit of
concrete buildings.
The methodology focuses on the structural
analysis of concrete buildings to evaluate
anticipated performance during earthquakes. Since
seismic forces are proportional to mass it is logical
to consider them a property of the building itself.
Accelerations which combine with the masses to
generate the seismic forces also are related to the
stiffness properties of the building. While the
magnitude and distribution of these forces are
affected by the properties of the building, in
reality the initiating cause of seismic forces is the
shaking motions of the ground beneath it. As the
building responds to the ground movement, forces
are limited by the stiffness and capacity of the
foundation and soils materials. The types of
mechanisms at the foundation which limit seismic
forces include rocking or uplift, crushing of soil
material, and sliding. Neglecting these effects can
lead to two quite different, yet equally
undesirable, results.
1. The use of traditional, force-based analysis

procedures often results in the prediction of
unrealistically large forces beneath existing
buildings, particularly with a fixed base
modeling assumption. The engineer is left with
a fundamental dilemma. The rocking, crushing
and sliding of the foundation implied by the
large forces, in many instances, can dissipate
energy relatively harmlessly and protect the
superstructure from damage. Stiffening and
strengthening existing foundations to avoid
these behaviors is costly. The result of the
retrofit conceivably may be to transfer the
energy dissipating damage to the more
sensitive structure above. It is possible, and
for some buildings probable, that retrofitting
of foundations will result in poorer
performance for higher cost.
2. Foundation effects typically reduce the force
demand on the primary lateral resisting
elements such as shear walls. At the same
time, however, the rotational flexibility of the
base of the shear walls often result in larger
lateral displacements of the entire structure.
The larger drifts can lead to failures in the
beams, columns, or slabs of vertical load
carrying system. There is evidence of this type
of damage from past earthquakes. Traditional
fixed base analysis techniques do not identify
this potential for serious damage.
The difficulty for the practicing engineer is
that there have not been procedures and
methodologies for design that treat foundations and
soil properties explicitly. Geotechnical engineers
provide soil capacities and displacements
developed to limit long term settlements due to
F5
-------------------------------------------------------------,
vertical loads. Seismic forces and displacements in

soils and foundations are intrinsically nonlinear
and difficult to include in traditional linear
analyses. Recent proposals to change the approach
to evaluation and retrofit design for existing
buildings are displacement-based and provide an
opportunity to treat foundations much more
rationally (ATC, 1995). Within the methodology
presented in Volume 1, Chapter 10 on foundation
effects presents procedures to include the
foundation directly in the structural model for
analysis in an effort to capture this behavior. The
objective is to facilitate a more accurate prediction
of building behavior than that provided by analysis
techniques which neglect foundation effects.
A group of practicing structural and
geotechnical engineers (Geo-Structural Working
Group) developed the procedures in Chapter 10
based on their collective experience and
knowledge in several basic areas including:
Performance of building foundations in past
earthquakes,
Past and present structural and geotechnical
design practice for buildings,
Theoretical and empirical research on
foundation performance.
The following sections of this supplement
summarize the current state of know ledge in each
of these key areas and offer suggestions for future
development to improve understanding of
foundation effects. Attached also are brief
summaries of papers, articles, research reports,
and other pertinent documents.
2.
Seismic Performance of
Building Foundations
Society's knowledge of earthquakes and their

effects on the environment is empirically based to
a large degree. This has lead to an intense interest
on the part of the scientific and engineering
community in reconnaissance after major
earthquakes to document the performance of
building and their various systems, elements and
components. The result has been an increasingly
FG
complete record of performance providing

valuable guidance for both researchers and
designers. Naturally, however, the tendency has
been to concentrate on visible damage to buildings
and structures. Explicit by its very nature, "nonperformance" is more dramatic than
"performance". The more subtle issues of why
some systems and elements may have performed
well and how this performance may have affected
the overall response of buildings receive relatively
less attention. One example is building foundation
systems.
Admittedly, there are abundant, welldocumented examples of damage to foundations in
earthquakes. These examples, however, are
predominantly the result of permanent ground
displacements caused by liquefaction or subsequent
block sliding, seismic compaction, and other
effects independent of the ground shaking response
of the building itself. Damage to foundations
resulting from building response to seismic
shaking is difficult to document since most
foundations are not easily accessible for
inspection. Damage to structural components of
deep foundations generally consists of distress in
pile or pier caps, or at the tops of the piles or piers.
themselves where loads are transferred to the caps.
Evidence of downward or upward movement of
piles and piers themselves is rare. A notable
exception is the behavior of piles in highly
sensitive clays in Mexico City. Structural damage
to shallow foundations components is also rare and
usually concentrated at the connection of the
structure to the foundation.
Soil bearing failures in compression due to
increased contact pressures caused by seismic
overturning forces are very difficult to document.
Mexico City is, again, the exception. Some poorly
designed bearing foundations with very marginal
factors of safety under static loads appear to have
contributed to major structural failures. Evidence
of uplifting of bearing foundations where seismic
forces exceed compensating dead and live loads is
more common. The direct consequences of uplift
normally have not been life threatening. The
glot
Strul
the:
. I.
resi!
(SE.
allo
bew
bear
(lCI
buill
defil
bear
squa
desi:
rudi
actu
joinl
San
Civi
Ass(
seisl
reco
the j
(Ani
diffe
eartl
inch
base
Buil
inch
ener
reco
buil(
whic
stru(
reco
pred
Wou
sam,
-laS
lings
Iny
led
cted
ively
Ition
ns in
quent
ponse
of.
~
in
piers
caps.
of
nage
'e and
:0
lent.
oorly
inal
lave
!nce
.mic
,ds is
plift
ffeetS
global consequences of foundat~on uplift on o~erall

structural behavior are not readIly dlscermble In
the field without supplemental theoretical analysis.
S.
Historical Perspective on
Foundation Design
The first provisions for design of buildings to

resist earthquakes appeared in U.S. codes in 1927
(SEAOC, 1990). These original provisions
allowed lower lateral loads on structures with
better foundation conditions in terms of allowable
bearing pressures. The Uniform Building Code
(ICBO, 1994) of 1935 recognized lower forces for
buildings founded on "good" soils, which were
defined as those which would have an allowable
bearing pressure of greater than 2,000 pounds per
square foot. These initial provisions for seismic
design of buildings were based on very
rudimentary understanding of how structures
actually respond to ground shaking. In 1948, a
joint committee on lateral forces, c~nsistin~ of the
San Francisco Section of the Amencan SocIety of
Civil Engineers and the Structural Engineers
Association of Northern California, recommended
seismic design provisions which included
recognition that forces in buildings were rela~ed. to
the fundamental period of vibration of the bUlldmg
(Anderson, 1952). The observed performance of
different types of structural systems during actual
earthquakes led the engineering community to
include modification to design force requirements
based on building systems in the 1960 Uniform
Building Code. These "K" factors were meant to
include consideration of the structure to absorb
energy without failure. The K factor was the first
recognition of ductility in seismic performance of
buildings.
The 1960 code also introduced a factor "J"
which reduced design level overturning forces in
structures for two reasons. First of all, it was
recognized that the story shears that were
predicted to occur in the building at each level
would not necessarily reach their maximum at the
same time, thereby resulting in an over-estimation
of overturning effects. Secondly, it was suspected

that building foundations tended to move slightly
under earthquake loads, relieving some of the
forces that may otherwise have been generated.
The J factor, however, was eliminated from the
codes in the early 70s due to damage which
occurred in structures during the Caracas
earthquake.
In the early 1970s procedures were developed
to modify the base shear coefficient by a soils
factor" S" to reflect the fact that local soils
conditions affect seismic ground motion. The S
factors were included in the 1976 Uniform
Building Code. Effectively, the S factor extends
the maximum plateau of the design spectrum to
include buildings with longer periods founded on
relatively softer soils. These factors are based on
empirical data and not directly upon site soil
conditions. In the late 70s, provisions were
developed to approximate the effect of th~
.
interaction of buildings and their foundatIons with
the supporting soil (ATC, 1978).
Seismic design provisions for buildings are
normally incorporated into building codes which
have sections relating to the various materials
(wood, steel, concrete, masonry) used for
construction. These chapters provide design
specifications and material properties for all of the
elements of the structure. The Uniform Building
Code provides a table of allowable working loads
for bearing and passive resistance for several
generic soils types. These may be used in lieu of
specific recommendations by a geotec~ical
.
engineer. Geotechnical engineers routmely provIde
structural engineers with allowable soil loads for
specific building sites and foundation systems.
These allowable working loads were normally
permitted to be increased by a factor of 1/3 for
short-term loads such as wind or seismic. The
allowable loads usually are based on
considerations to control long-term vertical
displacements due to dead plus real live loads .
Ultimate capacities and stiffnesses for short term
loads are not provided except for special cases. In
the elastic analysis of structures for working loads,
F7
the structure is part of a larger system that

includes the foundation and a supporting medium
with their own strength and stiffness properties.
This has been termed inertial interaction effect.
Technically, the spatial variability of ground
motion over the area of the building is also a
parameter. This effect, known as kinematic
interaction, is the difference between free field
ground motion and the actual input to the structure
and its foundation. Inertial interaction is generally
more important than kinematic for typical
buildings and foundation systems. The procedures
in Chapter 10 of Volume 1 neglect kinematic
effects.
Past theoretical and empirical research
indicates that foundation strength and stiffness has
a significant impact on the response of buildings to
seismic demand. Studies of performance of
specific buildings during past earthquakes
document the importance of including the
foundation in the structural analysis model for
design (Rutenberg, 1982; Wallace, 1990).
Housner (1963) initiated the practical theoretical
consideration of foundation rocking which has
been developed further by others (Priestly, 1978;
Psycharis, 1982). Large scale shaking table tests
have confirmed the influence of uplift on seismic
response (Hucklebridge, 1978). Simplified
theoretical modeling techniques demonstrate good
correlation with more rigorous solutions for both
single and multiple degree of freedom systems as
well as empirical data (Bartlett, 1976; Chopra,
1985; Vim, 1985). These have been extended to
study the practical behavior characteristics of
typical buildings (Nakaki, 1987).
Pertinent data on the nonlinear stiffness and
strength properties of soils materials themselves
are rare. Theoretical elastic stiffness properties are
fairly well documented for shallow foundations
(Gazetas, 1991). The inelastic behavior of piles
and piers subject to seismic demand has received
some attention recently in the research community
(Pender, 1993; Martin, 1995). Research on the
behavior of bridge foundations provides valuable
WO I
Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
App,
it often is assumed that the foundation of a

building is fixed obviating the need to consider
stiffnesses or displacements due to short term
loads.
The current NEHRP provisions (BSSC, 1995)
specify the analysis and design of buildings for
seismic loads according to ultimate strength
concepts rather than working stress. These
provisions also include a chapter on foundation
design requirements. This chapter specifies that
soil materials have sufficient capacity to support
all the loads supported by the foundations
including seismic loads. The use of ultimate
capacity for soils materials as opposed to the
working stress values previously utilized for
design represents a major change. The provisions
note that the determination of soil capacities shall
be based on acceptable levels of strain considering
the short duration and dynamic properties of the
loading. Specific guidance on the determination of
ultimate capacities and deflection is not provided.
In another significant departure from previous
procedures, the provisions require investigation of
site hazards, including slope instability,
liquefaction, and surface rupture as a result of
earthquake motions.
The treatment of geotechnical and foundation
materials in seismic design procedures for
buildings has been implicit in most cases. Specific
guidance on the design and behavior
characteristics, similar to that included for
structural materials and systems, has not been
included.
4.
Pertinent Research
Procedures for including the effects of the

interaction of structures with their foundations first
appeared in building standards in the 1970s (ATC,
1978). Veletsos (1988) developed the basis for
these procedures by separating the interaction into
two components. Seismic response of a structures
traditionally has been evaluated assuming a fixed
base and considering the motion of the base to be
equal to the free-field ground motion. In reality
FB
insig
1989
5.
1
effec
ofbt
conc
s
t
,
(
I
I
5.
revil
pro\
met!
mea
pert'
reso
insights for buildings as well (Lam, 1991; Levine,

1989; Martin, 1995),
5.
ture
Illy
Ires
The prevailing situation with respect to the

effects of foundations on the seismic performance
of buildings is characterized by several key
conclusions:
Geotechnical and foundation response can
significantly influence the performance of
buildings during earthquakes,
has
~s
to
:al
78;
sts
nic
;ood
oth
; as
Key Conclusions
Costs of rehabilitation of existing buildings

warrant realistic assessment of seismic
performance of components including
foundations and underlying soils,
Traditional seismic design procedures do not
reflect realistic consideration of geotechnical
and foundation effects,
Proposed methodologies require estimates of
force-displacement relationships for foundation
elements and geotechnical components subject
to seismic loads,
Existing empirical data on geotechnical

materials is inadequate to provide sufficient
design information for all cases,
Research to investigate force-displacement

behavior of geotechnical materials and
foundation assemblies is needed,
to
Damage reconnaissance for earthquakes should

include documentation of geotechnical and
foundation effects on buildings,
Anderson, Blume, Degenkolb, Hammill, Knapik,

Marchand, Powers, Rinne, Sedgwick, and
Sjoberg, 1952 "Lateral Forces of Earthquake
and Wind," Transactions of ASCE, Vol. 117.
Applied Technology Council, 1995, Guidelines
and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings (ATC 33.03),
75 % Draft, Redwood City, California~
Applied Technology Council, 1978, Tentative
Provisions for the Development of Seismic
Regulationsfor Buildings (ATC 3- 06),
Redwood City, California.
Bartlett, P. E., 1976, "Foundation Rocking on a
Clay Soil", University of Auckland, School
of Engineering, Report No. 154, M. E.
Thesis. See Resource Summary Number 1.
Building Seismic Safety Council, 1995 (and other
editions) NEHRP Recommended Provisions
for the Development of Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings, Federal Emergency
Management Agency Publication 222,
Washington, DC.
Chopra, A. K., and Yim, S. C-S, 1985,
"Simplified Earthquake Analysis of
Structures with Foundation Uplift",
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal
of Structural Engineering, Vol. 111, No.4,
pp. 906-930. See Resource Summary
Number 2.
ld
G.
'es
:s are
es
ved
unity
Ie
Ible
The Geostructural Working Group has

reviewed selected references, as noted below, to
provide further insight to engineers using the
methodology, The Resource Summaries are not
meant to comprise a complete review of all
pertinent literature, since many other useful
resources are available. The Geostructural
Working Group chose these as particularly useful
ffeetS
IS
References
based on their own individual practical experience.

The intent is to assist users of the methodology by
providing a starting point in their search for more
detailed information.
Gazetas, G., "Foundation Vibrations", Foundation

Engineering Handbook. See Resource
Summary Number 3.
Housner, G.W., 1963, "The Behavior ofinverted
Pendulum Structures During Earthquakes",
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
F'9
.SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
America, Vol. 53, No.2, See Resource

Summary Number 4.
HuckJebridge, A. A. and Clough, R. W., 1978,
"Seismic Response of Uplifting Building
Frames", American Society of Civil
Engineers, Journal of the Structural Division,
Vol. 104, No. ST8, pp. 1211-1229. See
Resource Summary Number 5.
International Conference of Building Officials,
Uniform Building Code, Whittier, California,
multiple editions.
Lam P.I., Martin G.R., and Imbsen R., 1991,
"Modeling Bridge Foundations for Seismic
Design and Retrofitting", Transportation
Research Record 1290, Proceedings of the
Third Bridge Engineering Conference,
Denver, Colorado. See Resource Summary
Number 6.
Levine M. B. and Scott R. F., 1989, "Dynamic
Response Verification of Simplified BridgeFoundation Model" Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No.2, See
Martin, G. R. and Lam, 1. P., 1995," Seismic
Design of Pile Foundations: Structural and
Geotechnical Issues", Third International
Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, See
Martin, G. R. and Yan, L., 1995, "Modeling
Passive Earth Pressure for Bridge
Abutments", ASCE Conference Geotechnical Special Publication # 55,
Earthquake Induced Movements and Seismic
Remediation of Existing Foundations and
Abutments, San Diego, CA, See Resource
Summary Number 9.
Martin, G. R., 1988, "Geotechnical Aspects of
Earthquake Engineering", Journal of the
Australian Geomechanics Society, Special
F1D
Issue, 5th ANZ Geomechanics Conference,

See Resource Summary Number 10.
Nakaki, D. K., and Hart, G. C., 1987, "Uplifting
Response of Structures Subjected to
Earthquake Motions", U. S.-Japan
Coordinated Program for Masonry Building
Research, Report No. 2.1-3,
Ewing/Kariotis/Englekirk & Hart, See
Pender, M. J., 1993, "Aseismic Pile Foundation
Design Analysis", Bulletin of the New
Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering, Volume 26, No. I, See
Priestly, J.N., Evison, R.J., and Carr, AJ., 1978,
"Seismic Response of Structures Free to
Rock on Their Foundations", Bulletin of the
New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering, See Resource
Summary Number 13.
Wal
Psycharis, I. N., 1982, "Dynamic Behavior of

Rocking Structures Allowed to Uplift",
Report No. EERL-81-02, Earthquake
Engineering Research Laboratory, Cali fornia
Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, See
Rutenberg, A., Jennings, P. C. and Housner, G.
W., 1982, "The Response of Veterans
Hospital Building 41 in the San Fernando
Earthquake", Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Volume 10, pp. 359379. See Resource Summary Number 15.
Structural Engineers Association of California,
Recommended Lateral Force Requirements

and Commentary, Sacramento, California,
multiple editions.
Veletsos, A.S., Prasad, A.M., and Tang, Y.,
1988, "Design Approaches for Soil-Structure
Interaction", Proceedings of the Ninth World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Tokyo, See Resource Summary
Number 16.
Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects:. I\pPE
-ce,
'ling
ling
Wallace, 1. W., Moehle, J. P., and MartinezCruzado, J., 1990, "Implications for the
Design of Shear Wall Buildings Using Data
from Recent Earthquakes", Proceedings of
Fourth U.S. National Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Palm Springs, CA,
pp. 359-368. See Resource Summary
Number 17
Yim, S. C-S and Chopra, A. K., 1985,

"Simplified Earthquake Analysis of
Multistory Structures with Foundation
Uplift", American Society of Civil
Engineers, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. Ill, No. 12, pp. 2708-2731. See
.on
1978,
'the
ornia
See
G.
o
~d
5915.
I,
nts
ia,
Icture
"orld
ffeets
Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
P-'I1
---------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
MF.
as
Resource Summary'
Bartlett, P. E,
Foundation Rocking on a Clay Soil
University of Auckland, School of Engineering, Report No. 154,
M. E. Thesis, November 1976
This is a comprehensive theoretical and
experimental study of the moment-rotation
relationship of a spread footing on a clay soil. The
effect of uplift and soil plasticity are included.
Generally good correlations between theoretical
and experimental results were observed. The effect
of foundation rocking and yielding was found to
lengthen the natural period of vibration of the
structure and can be expected to lead to a
reduction in internal structural forces for
earthquake motions. This work concentrates on the
development of relationships between moment and
rotation for a rigid foundation rocking on a clay
soil. These relationships were found to be both
amplitude and path dependent.
Overturning Moments on Spread Footings.
The interaction of foundations with the supporting
soil has been modeled in two distinct ways. The
solution for a rigid foundation supported on a
linear elastic half-space model is based on an
assumption of complete continuity of the subgrade.
This means that the deformation of a particular
point beneath the footing is dependent on all the
loads acting at all points on the contact surface.
This formulation is complex and rigorous solutions
for moment rotation behavior are confined to a
few simple foundation shapes. As shown in Figure
I, the contact stress beneath the circular plate is
not necessarily proportional to displacement. The
extension of the linear foundation model to include
inelastic soil behavior is theoretically possible but
practically very complex.
A simpler model, particularly for inelastic
solutions, is the modified Winkler model. In this
F-12
1
with
j
model, the contact pressure beneath any point
ther.
beneath the footing is assumed to be proportional
. conti
to the deformation of the soil (see Figure 2). If a
reael
model of a rectangular footing is subject to vertical
.i
the
r,
load as shown in Figure 3, the resulting downward
!
folio'
displacement is
~
ro = ks LB
In the above expression 'Yo is the initial contact
stress, ks is a stiffness coefficient for the soil
material, and L and B are the footing dimensions.
Using this basic model, the author develops a
moment-rotation relationship for overturning
forces on the footing in terms of the initial contact
pressure as follows
I
less t
fullc
FOr!
2, yi.
.full r
FigUi
capac
r =....!iJL.
o
F.., ks
In this expression, qu is the ultimate strength

of the soil material and Fv is a factor safety
against bearing failure. This factor safety normally
varies by design between 2.0 and 3.0. For some
structures on particularly settlement-prone soils the
factor safety may be somewhat higher to control
vertical settlements.
The moment-rotation relationship with an
initial factor of safety against bearing failure of
less than 2.0 is shown in Figure 4. The footing
maintains contact over its entire width so long as
the eccentricity lies within the middle third of the
footing. As the eccentricity increases, the moment,
1
is illt
some
Conta
limit
uplifl
rotati
. Appe
1__-----------------------------------
Ii
-- 1----------------------------------------------MF. at which uplift is initiated may be calculated
and the elastic limit is
as
(JE=(JF(2(;.-I)r
VB
M F =-
The corresponding rotation, OF. of the footing

with a full contact moment of inertia, 10 , is
-~
8F6 k, I.
mal
If a
:rtical
Iward
After uplift the contact pressure at the base of

the footing is as shown in Figure 5. As rotation
continues the elastic limit of the soil is eventually
reached in shown in Figure 6. It can be shown that
the rotation of the building, at this point, is as
follows
F
(JE = (JF7
mtact
I
ons.
Dntact
It can be shown that if the factor of safety is

less than 2, then the elastic limit is less than the
full contact limit and yield will occur before uplift.
For the case where the factor of safety is exactly
2, yielding and uplift occur simultaneously. The
full plastic capacity of the footing is illustrated in
Figure 7. The expression for the plastic moment
capacity, Mp , is
M = V
ngth
maIly
me
ils the
trol
I
of
.ng
Ig as
f the
,ment,
ffects
B(I_J...)
F.
The situation for a factor of safety less than 2

is illustrated in Figure 8. Where the rotation is
sO\llewhere between the elastic limit and the full
contact limit. If rotation continues, a full contact
limit will be reached and the footing will begin to
uplift. It can be shown that full contact limit on
rotation is
(J - q.
F.
r 2k,B (F.-I)
Figure 9 summarizes graphically the basic

expressions for overturning moment and rotation
for various values of initial factor of safety. These
values have been normalized to the full contact
limit state. Table 1 illustrates the change in
stiffness for a footing as it rocks or the soil yields
beneath it.
The author summarizes three mechanisms for
energy storage of dissipation in the model of the
rigid foundation rocking on a clay soil. Prior to
plastic deformation of the soil, energy may be
stored as elastic strain in the soil material (Es ). If
the structure uplifts, potential energy is stored in
the structure itself (Ep). Energy may also be
dissipated by plastic yielding of the soil (Ed ). This
is illustrated in Figure 10 for an initial factor of
safety of 3. If the factor of safety falls below 2,
the center of rotation actually moves down into the
soil under the action of gravity and rotations
exceed the elastic limit. In this case the structure is
doing work and this must be added to the
rotational energy input to give the total energy.
This condition is illustrated in Figure 11 for an
initial factor of safety of 1.5. In general, it can be
seen from this development of energy conservation
that soils with low factors of safety generally will
dissipate a lot of energy in plastic deformation of
the soil. Alternatively, for soils or foundations
. with high initial factors of safety the energy
dissipated in the soil will be relatively smaIl and
the potential energy transferred to the structure by
uplift will be relatively high.
Repeated Loadings on Winkler Models. The
author uses the basic relationship developed
between moment and rotation to study the effects
of repeated and reversed rotations on the modified
Winkler model. The exact solutions, although
simple to express, are highly path-dependent and
amplitude-dependent. This is due to the fact that
inelastic displacements build up as the foundation
"ppendlx F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
F-1S
rocks back and forth as illustrated in Figure 12.

Consequently the author developed a computerized
solution to generate moment-rotation relationships
for repeated, reversed loading. The results are
illustrated in Figure 13 for a factor of safety of 3.
Finite Element Model. Using the basic theory
developed previously, the author formulates a
finite element approach to the solution of momentrotation relationships for spread footings. This
allows for the study of rocking at arbitrary
amplitudes of plastic behavior beneath the footing.
The basic relationships for the finite element soil
components are shown Figure 14. These are used
in a model that is schematically shown in Figure
15. The results of the final formulation as shown
in Table 2 agree well with the basic theory.
Experimental Studies. In order to verify the
theoretical development, the author conducted a
series of relatively large-scale laboratory tests on a
model of a spread footing rocking on a clay
subgrade. The equipment involved the following:
a. The foundation medium consisting of
remolded clay enclosed in a rigid steel-walled
container.
b. A rigid steel footing restrained in a horizontal
direction by tie rods.
c. A system applying constant vertical load to the
footing.
d. An independent system applying dynamic
rocking displacements to the footing.
e. A system of instrumentation to measure
displacements and pressures.
The design and use of the test system is
described in detail in the thesis. Two types of
.footings were investigated as shown in Figure 16.
Type B examines rocking about the weak axis and
Type A about the strong axis of the footing.
The results of these experimental studies
confirmed the general qualitative theoretical result.
The behavior of the soil material for various initial
factors of safety was as predicted by the theoretical
work. A quantitative comparison of test results
versus theory is illustrated in Figure 17. It can be
seen that the experimental forces generally fall
below that predicted by theory. This is due to the
F-'4
fact that the soil stiffness and subsequent strength

upon reloading is amplitude-dependent in reality.
Subsequent experimental and theoretical work
allowing amplitude variation in the soil stiffness
parameters demonstrates that the experimental and
theoretical results converge.
Conclusions and Implications. For static
loads, a moment-rotation relationship for a rigid
footing on clay soils is linear only while the
footing remains in full contact with the soil in its
elastic state. Rotations in excess of the full contact
limit or in excess of the elastic limit cause a
softening or reduction of the stiffness of the
footing. The parameter determining which limit is
reached first is the initial factor of safety against
bearing failure. If this is greater than 2, the
footing separates from the soil before yield occurs
on the compression side. If the factor of safety is
exactly 2, uplift and yield occurs simultaneously.
If the factor of safety is less than 2 the soil yields
plastically before uplift can occur. Systems with
factors of safety less than 2 tend to be energy
dissipative as the center of gravity actually moves
down into the soil.
The moment rotation behavior for repeated
reverse rotations is similarly dependent on initial
factor of safety but is additionally strongly
amplitude-dependent. Solutions for steady state
rocking and a factor of safety greater than or equal
to 3 generally show four types of characteristic
behavior depending on amplitude as follows:
a. If the amplitude is less than the full contact
limit for the footing, behavior is generally
linearly elastic .
b. For amplitudes greater than the full contact
limit but less than the elastic limit, the
behavior is elastic but nonlinear when the
amplitude exceeds the full contact condition.
c. For amplitudes greater than the elastic limit
but less than a critical value, limited soil
yielding at the footing edges effectively
reduces the amplitude range over which the
footing rocks in full contact until a modified
full contact limit is exceeded. Thereafter the
behavior is nonlinear elastic.
d. I
~
e
r
s
l
t
I
1
solut
exce:
case
mom
the ~
- 1-----------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
:th
y.
s
and
.ts
tact
It is
st
:urs
is
ly.
Ids
th
d. If the amplitude exceeds a critical value,

plasticity effects are such that the footing never
regains full contact, resulting in nonlinear
elastic behavior over the entire amplitude
range with a permanent reduction in rotational
stiffness. This can be visualized as the soil
underneath the footing becomes rounded-off at
the edges thereby offering less overturning
resistance.
The factors of safety less than 3 computer
solutions for variable rocking amplitudes show
excellent agreement with theoretical results. In the
case of a factor of safety of 1.5, the steady state
moment-rotation relationship was shown to take
the form of a stable hysteresis loop with plastic
yielding and continuous energy dissipation for all

rocking amplitudes in excess of the elastic limit.
The implications of the foundation rocking
inferred from this research including the effect of
partial separation and soil yielding indicate that
forces will generally be reduced in the structure at
the expense of larger total displacements. This
researcher concentrated on clay soil for which the
ultimate bearing strength is not dependent on the
width of the footing. On future studies for granular
soil materials where the ultimate strength is
dependent upon the width of the footing are
warranted. AdditionaIly, the subject research
concentrated on surface footings. Future study
should evaluate the effect of foundation
embedment.
Table. 1. Reduction In stiFFness With Racking Amplitude
Footing
Rotation
Factor
of Safety
Secant
Stiffness
0/0
Fv
k/k
ves
Tangential
Stiffness
,
,
Reduction
k/k'
ro
ro
1.5
2
3
0.74
1.0
1.0
26
0
0
0.32
1
1
68
0
0
0.42
0.68
0.79
58
32
O. OS'
1.5
2
3
0.13
0.35
95
87
65
0.29
0.48
0.60
71
0.01
0.03
0.13
99
97
87
ial
:qual
Reduction
t
3
:t
1.-5
2
3
21
52
40
Table 2. Comparison oF Moments Computed Numerically With EXact Values
In.
lit
0/
OF
Ie
THEORY
ed
he
FINSTRIPS
\ diff.
1
104.2
104.0
-0.19
2
165.2
165.1
-.06
4
197.3
197.4
.05
Appendix F, supplemental InFormation on Foundation efFects
'fectS
6
203.5
203.0
-0.25
8
205.6
205.2
-0.19
10
206.6
207.0
0.19
F-15
contact
pressure
e"T ",,,,"
qu
- - - -
-._---1-.,;..-.;
ks
D~------------
________
soil deformation
Figure 1. Angular DIsplacement oF RigId

CIrcular Plate (after Weissmann & White, 1961)
Figure 2. Assumed statIc

Sol/Behavior
~
T 11811111
1:'""
.-
,,,"
o~,"
,,
,;
"'~
//'i!i.1&/1
qo
1'
8/ 2
B/2
1 '
FIgure S. InitIal contact Pressures
F-'&
Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation EffectS
1
,
[a]
---J,I
-----e
I'
[b]
0'.
x'
.... -_ .... --- .. _---
v1
Yc
0
Ja
Figure 4. faJ Contact pressure,. fbJ Geometry
[a)
B
I'
I'
B'
0
:I
ksBO
Flflllre 5. faJ contact Pressure,. fbJ Geometry In Uplift case
.ffects
+.
[OJ
'-
,i
j
I
I
~
qu
B'
[ bJ
-9
B"
~~ ~: ----T-m-----------f~-iiilliQ,.,,--c
..
,-I
a+s"
'~
Figure 6. raj CDntact preure; rbJ Geometry fDr Yield ca.e
I.
B"
,I
Figure 7. Fully Pla6tlc ca.e
F-1S
API
,
1--------------------------------__
__
e'
Figure 8, Full Contact
Mp/
~E_
1----
- - /-
l/
-'-~- I-
M7 it-1l
.1!!
oE
--
Fy
= "5
Fy = 2
/J
~~ if
!J
II
o
.
,
2
Normalised
3
Rotation
OF
Figure 9. static Moment'Rotatlon RelatlonIlhlp lor a Rigid Rectangular FOoting
EffectS
F19
!!
!
~
.x
Energy stored as
in
P. E.
I,,
struc.ture
...
,l,
~E
..'"
~
<:
a
Normalised
Rotation
Figure 10. Energy Balance, F. = S
.x
'I'0
1/ Energy
2
Work done b
struc.ture
...
..'"
~
<:
W
/'
.. .-
~'\ ~stored
sipated in
soil
".
.-
";.-
'\
.- .-
".
,'\' I~n:r~~
so
2
Normalised
".
in
Rotat ions
Figure 11. Energy //aIance, F.
F-20
/,
=1.5
Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation EffectS

t
1------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Figure 12_ Yield Zone Geometry (end of sr" quarter cycle)

2
16
1-2
;/ /
,'/ II
---- ~,'L
f\_.. _.VT!\V2T!\\
3 .;""
I
~3 if
-9.
INPUT
ROCKING
2.
I
, 18~ '1.
11.
0-8
...z
0'4
--- -
1st
--
2nd
cycle
+
I,
subseqUE'nt
';III
12
1
11
o
o
-..
UI
Vl
. .J
'
,, '
cycles
UI
-0'4
, f'
,
~61
,,
.j/('
, I
It
-0 8
lOJ ~lR"
/'
17
"
I,
10
-1' 2
-1' 6
-2
-8
VI
17:,
'7
V. l7~
9~ ~----'
-6
-2
'NORMAUSEO
2
ROTATION
9/
9F
Figure 1S. NOrmalized Moment-Rotatlon Relationships For Repeated Reversed Loadings with F. = S
FfeetS
F-21
PIJI
.
..".
..
~
qu
";;
....
C
E
ti
qu
)'k
YSIJ I
.element
soil
displacement
Figure 14. Element soli Behavior
x <vo
1
2 3
- ... __ ._._---- .. --...
J N
"x 1
.....
il
0
~
.1
Figure 1S. Division Into Finite strips
F-22
FIIIU
1 __--______________________________________
500 mm
E
E
0
!ocking
/'
~I
axis
rocki~g
Ul
'I
250 mm
axis
E
E
0
0
'"
TYPE
TYPE
Figure 16. Foundation lor Test specimens

MOMENT! N - m)
vMphheo y)
2000
_ _ _
- --;< -~~ ;.- -
--2j V
~
1000
",
---
-- -
experime 101
envelop e
thpory
~
~
1
001
002
ROTATION I radians)
FIgure 17. Comparison DI ExperImental and tehoretlcal Moment-Rotational BehavIor lor Type A FDotlng, Fv= S
ffeets
Appendix F. Sup(llementallnformatlon on FOundation Effects
F2S
(0)
Resource Summary 2
Chopra, A. K., and Vim, S. C-S
Simplified Earthquake Analysis of Structures with Foundation Uplift
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 111, No.4, April, 1985. pp. 906-930
In this work, analysis procedures for analyzing
single degree of freedom elastic systems
considering soil flexibility and foundation uplift
are developed. The system considered is shown in
Figure I. It consists of a single degree of freedom
Fig.
Initi
both cases were obtained from the rocking

stiffness and damping coefficients for a rigid
massless footing on elastic half-space.
Time-history analyses were performed for the
Bel>
Und
~=~
......... RIGID ~'ION
- - - TWO-EL'MlMT fOUNDATION
_ _ _ ,NII..I:III FOUNDATION
allo'
base
stm
vibr
secc
peri
to h
sma
_ . _ . - I:OUtY.f.LlHTYWO-ll.I:MrNt
,.
fOUNDATION
"cll'll1b .............; : , , - ; - - - - - -
~b/./il-......,~~.-.-.-.-.-.
,.,
'"
,.,
Figure 1. Slmclure Supported on Three Different

Foundation Soil Idealizations: (a) Rigid Foundation;
(b) Two-Element Foundation; (e) Winkler Foundation
structure bonded to a rigid massless foundation

mat which, in turn, is supported on the foundation
soil. It is assumed that slippage between the
foundation mat and the supporting soil is not
possible. The equations of motion for this system
considering uplift were first developed for the case
in which the foundation soil is considered to be
infinitely rigid. The formulation of the equations
of motions was then extended to the case with
flexible foundation soils. As shown in Figure I,
the flexibility of the foundation soil was
represented by either a two spring-dashpot system
or the distributed Winkler spring-dashpot system.
The values for the spring and dashpot constants for
-----....,{,/.................
"
Figure 2. Moment-Rotation Relations for Unbonded

Foundation Mat Supported on Different Foundation
Soil Idealizations
north-south component of 1940 El Centro ground

motion. The results of the analyses were presented
in the form of base shear response spectra. Figure
2 shows the results of the analyses for the case of
rigid soils for slenderness ratios (height of the
structure divided by the half width) ranging from 5
to 20. Also shown in this figure is the curve for
the case when uplift is prevented and the critical
base shear values below which there is no uplifting
of the structure. From this figure it can be
observed that there is a significant reduction in the
earthquake base shear when the structure is
Appendix F. supplemental Information on FOundation effectS
App,
la)
UNDAMPED STRUCTURE
(b) DAMPED STRUCTURE, (_005
8OHDlOCONTACT, UPl..I" PR(VfJnlD

_
UJrIaoHD(D CONT4CT.U~IFT PEJllIII'TTlO
, .,
I! )L-'-'-_l--o---'--':-~'
'0
5
i,
L.....L---'---'_-'---'-'
,"
Figure 3. Response of Structures (h/b=lO) to
! Initial Velocity for Two Conditions o!Conwct

the
...
Between Foundation Mat and Supporting Soil: (a)

Undamped Structure; (b) Damped Structure,
g=O.OS
.. GAYlON
!l.EIItIN'
-.
allowed to uplift. The beneficial reduction in the

base shear due to uplift is more pronounced for
structures with higher slenderness ratios and for
vibration periods between about 0.3 to 2.0
seconds. However, it was noted that for very short
periods of vibration, the foundation uplift can lead
to higher base shear demand in structures with
smaller slenderness ratio.
The base shear response spectra for the case
with flexible foundation soil were then developed.

Figure 3 shows these spectra curves for the
slenderness ratio of 10 for the Winkler foundation
with two different foundation soil properties.
Comparison of results presented in Figures 2 and 3
shows that consideration of foundation flexibility
leads to further reductions in the earthquake base
shears.
The authors also developed simplified
approximate expressions for estimating the
earthquake base shear of the uplifting structures.
In these approximate expressions, the maximum
base shear is related to the system parameters and
the peak spectral acceleration for a corresponding
fixed base structure and does not require time
history solution of the equations of motion. The
base shear spectra obtained from this simplified
approach are plotted in Figure 2 for the case of
rigid soil and in Figure 3 for flexible soils showing
a reasonably good agreement with the exact
solution. These simplified analysis procedures can,
therefore, provide estimates of maximum base
shear and deformations to a reasonable degree of
accuracy for practical structural design and can
also be used to quickly perform parametric studies
of the effect of foundation flexibility and uplift on
seismic response.
~ded
tion
,und
ented
gure
e of
rom 5
'or
cal
lifting
in the
Hects
F-25
Resource Summary!
I
Gazetas, G.
Foundation Vibrations
Foundation Engineering Handbook, Fang, H.Y., Editor,
VanNostrand-Reinhold, New York, 1991,40 pgs.
Introduction. The focus of this chapter in a

foundations engineering handbook is on the
dynamic aspect of machine vibrations as they
relate to foundations. However, most of the
relationships that are presented are useful to
determine the properties of building foundations
for use in analysis of seismic loads. The chapter
focuses on stiffness and damping properties for the
analysis of rigid plate vibrating on an elastic
halfspace. Some information also is provided for
deep foundations.
Effective Soil Properties. The chapter
provides basic relationships for soil stiffness and
damping properties. The shear modulus, G, and
the mass density, p, of the soil are related to the
shear wave velocity, Vs, as follows
v = {Q
, VI'
As illustrated in Figure I, the shear modulus,

G , and the damping factor, f3 , are strain
F-Z&
dependent. The chapter presents a number of

empirical relationships for calculating the initial
shearing modulus for different types of soil
material for a low strains. Also included are field
and laboratory test procedures for determining
shear moduli.
Theoretical Development of Vibration of
Equations. The chapter presents basic theoretical
equations of motion for oscillations of foundation.
These include vertical oscillation and
generalization to all modes of oscillation,
including coupled rocking.
Presentation of Data and Accompanying
Example. Most of the chapter is devoted to a
series of very useful tables providing static and
dynamic stiffness and damping properties for
various types of foundations and soil conditions.
Figure 2 shows several examples of the conditions
for which tables are included. Table I is an
example of the type of tables that are included in
the document. There are also a number of
illustrative examples.
ON,
'"
App
Table 1. EXample oF Table oF Sol/-FOundation PropertIes

Dynllmlr: StiNne" /( - K '*(w)
St.,1c Stiffness K
Dynamic Srit/ness
Genual Shape
Vibrlltion
Mode
Vertical, 1
(found8lion-,oil cont&c1 surfac. is of area A.
andhasacircumscribedrectangl.2L bV2B;L > Bl
2GL
K, _ - - (0.73 + 1.64Xo.715)
1 -,
wilhX ..
:ld
HOffronl.l, y
L-B
X;", 4,54GB
1 -,
2GL
K, _ 9GB
2-,
2-,
lal8f.1
direction)
cal
on.
Horizontal, x
(in the
longitudinal
direction)
Rocking. rx
(around
longitudinal
x allis)
Rocking.",
(.round
181er.1 allis)
"0,,2)'
It,
zo
k.(i. v;.o) .
is ploned in Graph a
4L'
K,_-- (2 + 2.50x088)
(in the
Co.fficiMl k
(Gan.,., IlMfM:
Squa,.
k,=k,(i;1I0)
B)
G (L)"'( 2.4 +0.5-B)

L
K. ___ /g1 5 _
1 -'
8
wilh
X._K,
1t.:lI: 1
K,... 3.6GB'
Ie,. :. 1 - 0.20'0
1 -,
G [ (')''']
B
s.
in
feets
Torsional
K, ..
~_n[ 4 + 11( 1 _~)10]
~,-t,(LI8.Y;lIo)
i. plotted in Graph c
C, ... C,gIB:llol
is ploned in Graph d
pV.A,
C, .. (pVL.IbA-) l,.
~,. - l,.(L/8; .0)
is plotted in Graphs e and f
/(,., _ K,.
C,., .. (pVL./~) 'l,y
{ ,<0.45
fr,.,:. 1 - 0.30s o
l,y"" C,.,(L/8; so)
v::: 0.50:
is plotted in Gr.ph g
(LFlO
fr" ::: 1 - 0.25s o j
ions
C, = (pVt.A.) . t,
ell::llt
'1J,,(/6y ) .reamoment of inartia ofthefoundation-soil

contact surface around th, Mer) axis
71
K'Y""'.,..-:-;fh 3
(Gene,.' Shllpes)
C, - (pV,A e ) . t,
is ploned in Graph b
02
( 1-K,,=K,----GL
0.75-v
L
Radilltion Ollshpot
Coefficient
C
K,"" S.3GBl
with J. "" flu + I. v baing the pol., moment of the

soil-foundation contact lurflCe
Ie,:. 1 - 0.14so
C, ... (pV.Jb ) 'l,
l,,,,,l,(L/B;.o)
Not. that as LIB ..... I (stnp footing) the tn-.tiall valua of K. and K,_ 0: the "aluu comPlltlllOm the two given lo,mulll COtrHpol"ld 10. footing Wllh LIB a. 20.
'.o-wIIIV,.
F-27
l6.
I.
I,
G<GQ';'G_.
Monotonic loodiM,l CIIr\'e
I
I
I
I
I
I
y,
'0"
r-;:
10-"
10-"
y,
10a
10. 2
0.'
D.S
"
"
.,,'
10"
0.01
0.'
20
So Pll'Wlt
10
"
"AVlf1Jge. CUr'll for ~

GRAVELLY soill
,
0.001
.,,,
,.,.."
'-......::,
""'<,
SANOS
CLAYS
0.001
10-"
10.1
0.01
""
0.'
20
10
SANDSANQ
GRAVELS
0.001
0.01
Yc ,percent
0.1
0.001
001
Yc' percent
,
0.1
Figure 1. Effect of Nonlinear stress-Strain on Shear Modulus, C, and Damping, p
F-28
Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation effectS
App
.J
Pion
"
L>'
I
~ ~mOII'.'1
,i,ill
'"und.liO~
t?>??2??C"
......
,'
'"
..":'
-:,:.'
. .-..... : ..
..
..
',
'""
.... ;....
',Homogl"eou. "'HolI.paco; ,,'

G Y P
".",::;
'.,"
,'-.
",
'
..
... G
",.
....
,.---....
';.,'
,1
~ ~ ~-~: ~ ~-~ '..: ~ .' '5' ~';'~'I: ~'~ ',:.

G. v P
M"i..L,,,
rigid
.,',
-"
-: :' ..
"
:..
-,,'
fO,,"Olion
--------~--.r1,~.--,,-o\~~~,~,~,-
. ".~ :.
I I
in"omog~nlO~~
HaLllpo~.
. Gell
: F.
11\I'Iomog.notclin
0,
Homoge",ou. ,:
Oepolit,'
-I i: ,.I 1..
'I: .
'\"
.\11
fi;" -,'
I'"
-: j ~;:
II'
L
._~S~::>
Figure 2, Soil and Foundation systems for Various Tables of properties
Effects
F29
Resource Summary 4
Housner, G.W.
The Behavior of Inverted Pendulum Structures During Earthquakes
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 53, No.2,
February, 1963
Introduction. This is a classic paper on the
theoretical behavior of rocking structures. During
the Chilean Earthquake in May of 1960, several
water towers resembling inverted pendulums
rocked about their foundations. Other water towers
that appeared likely to rock about their foundations
were similarly damaged. Evidence of rocking of
apparently unstable structures was also observed
during the Arvin-Tehachapi Earthquake in
California in 1952. In an effort to explain this
behavior, Housner develops theoretical equations
describing the rocking of blocks during
earthquakes. The basic model that he used is
shown in Figure 1.
Free Vibrations. Housner reduces the
equation of motion for the block shown in Figure 1
to the expression
9=a-(a-90)coshpt
In this equation the parameter p is
p=~WR
--e;
1
I--
a
This equation is shown in Figure 2. In general
it can be seen that the period lengthens with
increasing angle of rotation and shortens to near
zero as the initial angle of rotation diminishes.
Housner goes on to calculate the dissipation of
energy which occurs when the block impacts its
base during each half-cycle of rotation. For this
development he assumes that all of the reaction to
the impact is inelastic which means that there is no
"bouncing" due to elastic response of the block or
its foundation. With this assumption, the reduction
in energy for each impact may be expressed as
r=
10
where 10 is the rotational moment of inertia
about point O. This expression represents the
motion of a block if it is raised or rotated to an
initial angle, 90. From this expression, the period
of vibration as a function of the initial angle of
rotation is as follows
F-IO
T=-cos
4
h-
mR2
)
l-lo(l-COS2a)
The effect of this reduction is shown in Figure

3. The parameter t/I on Figure 3 represents the
ratio of the initial angle of rotation, 90, to the
characteristic angle of the block itself, cc.. From
Figure 3 it can be seen that for large amplitudes of
rocking, the energy of vibration decreases rapidly
but for smaller amplitudes, the energy dissipates
very slowly. When including the effects of energy
dissipation the expressions for the period of
vibration is modified to
APpendIx F. SUPPlemental Information on Foundation EffectS
Hou
ofa
of ti
exru
ove)
acce
osci
com
whil
gra'
requ
the I
for 1
com
due
dura
grou
The)
over
acce
Hou
desc
acce
max
the i
two
1
Overturniug by Constant Acceleration.

Housner develops equations to describe the effects
of a constant acceleration, a, lasting for a period
of time, t I, acting at the center of mass of the
example block. The block mayor may not
overturn depending on the magnitude of the
acceleration and its duration. For small angles of
oscillation it can be shown that the necessary
conditions for motion to be initiated is that
at g> a
which specifies the fraction of the acceleration of
gravity required to begin tilting of the block. The
required acceleration in time required to overturn
the block is expressed in the equation
leral
ar
~WR
cosh-t,=l+
10
2~ ~-l
ga
mof
ts
is
n to
is no
k or
ction
s
igure
om
les of
lidly
ltes
lergy
ffeets
ga
This relationship is illustrated in Figure 4.

Housner carefully points out that the analysis
for a constant acceleration pulse is not a realistic
comparison for earthquake ground motion. This is
due to the fact that constant acceleration of finite
duration followed by a constant velocity of the
ground does not occur during an earthquake.
Therefore, it is not meaningful to discuss
overturning of blocks in terms of a percent gravity
acceleration.
Overturning By Sinusoidal Acceleration.
Housner continues to develop a theoretical
description of the rocking block to a sinusoidal
acceleration load. If the variable a represents the
maximum acceleration and (i) is the frequency of
the sine wave, then the relationship between the
two parameters required to overturn the block is
Another version of this equation is:
~= 1 +~(21r)2
WR To
ga
In the second expression, To is the period of

the ground acceleration. These relationships are
illustrated in Figure 5.
Overturning by Earthquake Motion.
Overturning can be caused by successive smaller
pulses at certain frequencies that may occur during
actual earthquakes. Housner illustrates this effect
by developing conservation of energy and
momentum equations describing the response of a
rocking block to earthquake motion. As a result he
develops an expression relating the geometry of
the block to the spectral velocity which would
result in a 50% chance of the block overturning.
This expression is:
a- S ,
-.fiR
~MR2
For a relatively slender structures, this

equation reduces to:
S
a=-'-
.fiR
This equation may be interpreted as stating

that for a given structural velocity, Sv , a block
forming an aspect angle a will have an
approximately 50% chance of being overturned.
The significance of results of this development is
that the stability of the block is dependent on its
size, as expressed by the factor R. Thus, when
comparing two blocks of the same relative
proportions, the larger block is more stable than
the smaller. This is explained by the fact that the
ground motion is the same for both and the effects
of the mass of the block in providing stability is
greater for the larger block. This effect is
summarized in terms of the half-width of the block
by the following three equations
F-II
Earthquake motion:
b=Svl
Square pulse:
Sine pulse:
b- a.-,==.;;h==
g
l+;(~J
It can be seen from these equations that the

half-width of the block required for stability does
not increase linearly with its height. The general
conclusion is that tall, slender structures may be

more stable than might be supposed intuitively.
Housner goes on to study the inverted
pendulum water tank structures from the Chilean
earthquake. He does some comparative
calculations which verify that such structures could
have rocked about their foundations during a
strong ground shaking.
Summary. The key conclusion of this work is
that it is misleading to infer stability from
considerations of a constant horizontal force acting
on a rigid block. In fact, taller slender structures
may be more stable than such considerations
would imply. It should be noted that this
theoretical work was extended with an
experimental study by other researchers. This is
summarized in Research Summary No. 13.
cosh p,T = 1 1
..
- 8,la
5
4
.... e~
II
I~WR
4 I..
cg
~
h,
IW
O
Figure 1. A Rocking BlOCk
F:S2
V
/'"
eX..
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0
Figure 2. period T 01 a Block Rocking
With Amplitude 60
App
Je
'an
1.0
;ould
0.8
rk is
0.6
<Pn
:ting
r=0.7
~I.O
~ "N"" ~
0.2
0.4
ies
...............
is
-- --
r=::::::
NUMBER OF IMPACTS
Figure S. Amplitude <pn Sub$equent to nth Impact
t ffiif
1'-':
\
\
1.0
'"
1.2
........ ............
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
go<
Figure 4. Con$tant Acceleration of "a" Of Duration t, Required for overturning
'feets I Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
---------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
2.2
2.0
/'
1.8
"'-'"
/'
1.4
1.2
/"
,,
02 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
~1.i~
'i
wer
infh
thei
eval
anal
upJi
.~;I
,/
g~ 1.6
LO
1.4
1.6 1.8 2.0
seal
FIgure 5. SInusoIdal AcceleratIon pulse "a" sIn all RequIred for OverturnIng
mOl
Uni
Eng
the I
base
of II
was
the
botl1
whil
pert
upli:
buill
inve
fixel
eom
pro~
selel
with
end!
mod
tensi
direl
neol
eolu
Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation EffectS
ApPI
j
Resource Summary 5
Hucklebridge, A. A. and Clough, R. W.
Seismic Response of Uplifting Building Frame

American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of the Structural
Division, Vol. 104, No. ST8, August 1978. pp. 1211-1229
The primary objectives of this investigation
were to make an experimental assessment of the
influence of allowing the columns to uplift from
their foundations during an earthquake and to
evaluate whether commonly available structural
analyses programs can accurately predict this
uplifting nonlinear response.
Shake table tests on an approximately 1I3rd
scale model representing a 9-story, 3-bay steel
moment frame building were performed at the
University of California, Berkeley's Earthquake
Engineering Research Center. Figures 1 and 2 show
the key features of the test model and the uplifting
base detail. The slenderness ratio, defined as ratio
of the height of the structure and the half width,
was 3.1. The test model structure was subjected to
the 1971 Pacoima Dam S74W earthquake motion in
both the fixed base condition and the condition in
which the columns were allowed to uplift. This is
perhaps the only work where the effect of allowing
uplift of the columns on seismic response of
building structures has been experimentally
investigated.
The response of the test structure, for both
fixed base and uplifting condition, was also
computed analytically using the nonlinear analysis
program DRAIN-2D. In these computer analyses,
selected beam and column elements were modeled
with concentrated bilinear plastic hinges at member
ends. The uplift at the base of the columns was
modeled with nonlinear truss elements having zero
tensile force capacity and stiffness in the upward
direction and having compressive stiffness of the
neoprene impact pads at the base of test structure
. columns in the downward direction. These uplift
elements were assumed to be rigid in the fixed base

computer model.
The key observations of this work are
summarized below:
Allowing uplift generally had a beneficial
effect on the seismic response of the test
structure.
Test structure exhibited a very low damping of
about 0.7 percent in uplifting/rocking mode of
response as compared to a damping of about
3.2 percent for fixed base response.
Fundamental period of the structure softened
from about 0.5 sec. for fixed base response to
about 0.76 sec. uplifting/rocking response.
Vertical earthquake input had little influence
on the building response.
A tangent stiffness proportional damping
matrix predicted the response of uplifting
structure very well.
Analytical results from the DRAIN-2D
nonlinear analyses predicted the measured
response very well.
Based on these observations, the authors
concluded that allowing transient uplift during an
earthquake does not imply imminent toppling of a
practical building structure even during a
maximum credible earthquake, and, in fact,
allowing uplift can lead to considerable reduction
in earthquake loading or ductility demand or both.
The authors also made the case for incorporating
seismic uplift of structure in a rational design to
achieve enhanced ductility and earthquake
performance at reduced costs, especially for
reinforced concrete structures.
ffectS \, Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
F-35
__ K -
"
r7""1 "
...
r-;r-,
,.
.u
....
....
..,...,
.-;;-
......
I.'
Figure 1. Test MDdel Schematic
I
1
..
.....
pap'
abul
::
J:"r'"
.-
....,. ,
r=-"'
fI'"'
acc(
ofs
spre
The
calil
engi
"
:"7
r--,:---'.
"
.-
"I
.J
'r.
~,
//.0:~"-
.....:,,~~y
--1'
9 STORY STEEL TEST FRA"E
that
seisl
dire
anal
brid
beel
behi
bacl
expi
pres
abUl
appl
valu
gem
are I
-..11
,
use
on a
coe!
hori
roc~
Figure 2. Upllflng CDlumn Base Detail
F-S.
Appendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation effectS
func
of tl
emb
l
Resource Summary 6
Lam P.I., Martin G.R., and Imbsen R.
Modeling Bridge Foundations for Seismic Design and Retrofi~ting .
.,
Transportation Research Record 1290, Proceedings of the ThIrd Bndge Engmeenng
Conference, Denver, Colorado, March, 1991.
This paper presents simplified procedures with
accompanying design charts for the development
of stiffness coefficients for abutments, piles and
spread footing foundations for highway bridges.
The procedures presented in the paper were
calibrated to design practice adopted by bridge
engineers. Several examples are presented in the
paper to illustrate various sensitivity issues in
abutment and foundation design.
In its discussion about abutments, it is stated
that the abutments attract a large portion of the
seismic force, especially in the longitudinal
direction. The problem is not an easy one to
analyze because of the uniqueness of individual
bridges and the soil conditions at each site. It has
been recognized that there is highly nonlinear
behavior in abutments due to failure of the
backfills and from structural nonlinearity at
expansion joints. An iterative procedure is
presented in the paper to determine the appropriate
abutment stiffness in a linear dynamic response
approximation of a very nonlinear system. Typical
values of initial stiffness used by Cal trans and a
generalized equation to estimate abutment stiffness
are presented.
The analysis of spread footings involves the
use of stiffness equations for a rigid footing sitting
on a semi-infinite elastic half space. The stiffness
coefficients are presented for vertical and
horizontal translation and for the torsional and
rocking rotations. The stiffness coefficients are
functions of the shear modulus and Poisson's ratio
of the soil, the size, shape, and depth of
embedment of the foundation. The stiffnesses of
feets
an embedded regular footing can be found from

the equations given below:
Vertical Translation
Horizontal Translation
Torsional Rotation
Rockl ng Rotation
IX~8GR/(2'v)
IX~16G R'/3
IX ~ 8 G R' I 3 (1 v)
where G and v are shear modulus and Poisson's

ratio for an elastic half-space material; R is the
equivalent radius as shown in Figure 1. Figures 2
and 3 present the IX and ~ factors, which represent
the embedment and shape correction factors,
respectively. The stiffness of the rectangular
footing can then be found by multiplying the
stiffness found from the table above by IX and ~.
Pile foundations are the most commonly used
foundation system for support of bridge structures.
The equivalent coupled foundations stiffness
matrix model is the most general method of
representing the foundation stiffness. The paper
outlines the steps to determine this type of
foundation stiffness. The paper also discusses the
variations in some parameters that can cause the
results to very sensitive to those assumptions.
Considerable engineering judgment must be
applied to estimate the stiffness coefficients for a
pile foundation.
The paper gives a broad overview of the
assumptions and variations in foundations for
bridges, but there is still application to foundations
of buildings.
F-:n
.'
I
J
"
lL
EQJIVAUHT RADIUS:
TRANSLATIONAl.:
ROTATIONAl.:
R _
r alItZl.)l ]"-,._ _ _ _ _ b.-AXIS ROCKINGI

t:
3"
Figure 1. PrDcedure for Determining Equivalent Radius Df a Rectangular Footing
p-:sa
App
1
I.
1
c
~
~
W
L
'"
iii
LJII
Figure 2. Shape Factors For Rectangular Footings, ex
...0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
O.Y
0.5
D/R
Flgure:S. Embedment Factors For Footings, fJ
feet5 . Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
FSS
Resource summary ,
Dynamic Response Verification of Simplified Bridge-Foundation Model

Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No.2,
pp. 246-260, February, 1989
F-40
I
t-.'.:'~i
Levine M. B. and Scott R. F.
This paper presents a simplified method to

evaluate the rotational stiffness' of bridge
foundations, and the application of the method to
calculate the dynamic response frequencies of the
Meloland Road overpass (MRO) during the 1979
Imperial Valley earthquake of magnitude 6.4. A
comparison of the calculated and recorded
response frequencies of the bridge indicates that
simple foundation models such as those presented
in the paper, allow modeling of the response of
structures with reasonable accuracy for practical
engineering purposes.
The MRO consists of a continuous reinforced
concrete box-girder road deck monolithically
supported on open-end diaphragm abutments and a
single, reinforced concrete column pier as shown
in Figure 1. Each abutment is supported by a
single row of seven timber piles. The central
column footing is supported by a square grid of 25
timber piles. The soil conditions at the site are
relatively uniform and consist of medium stiff to
stiff clays to a depth of at least 60 feet. The
dynamic soil properties used to develop the
foundation models were estimated based on data
from a standard site investigation program which
did not include direct measurement of dynamic
properties.
The dynamic response of the bridge was
calculated using a simple finite element model
consisting of ten 3-D beam elements. The
abutment and column foundations were
represented by rotational springs along the three
main axes of the bridge. Translational springs
were not necessary since the bridge was analyzed
ltk~~
r~d'
using the recorded motions at the column footing

and abutments as, input motions. The models used
to calculate the rotational springs at the column
base are shown in Figure 2 while those used for
the abutments are shown in Figure 3. In these
figures, the x, y, and z axes correspond to the
longitudinal, vertical, and transverse directions on
the bridge, respectively.
To calculate the rotational springs of the
column footing the soil-pile foundation was
represented by a uniform Winkler foundation with
vertical stiffness I<.,y and horizontal stiffness I<.,h.
The rotational springs of the abutments were
calculated by representing the fill with equivalent
spring stiffness' ki, and kiy , and the piles with
equivalent vertical springs kay and lateral and
torsional springs K" and Ka. The dynamic spring
constants were assumed to be equal to the
equivalent static rotational spring constants. The
soil spring constants were calculated from the
coefficient of subgrade reaction and the modulus
of elasticity of the soil which were estimated from
in situ standard penetration tests and laboratory
unconfined compression tests.
The bridge model was used to calculate the
response frequencies of the structure for the first
transverse and vertical symmetric modes of
vibration of the structure. The response
frequencies were also calculated using models with
fixed and pinned ends at the foundations. The
calculated frequencies are compared with the
measured frequencies below.
,"O'i,-
~(,-.-~
Tra,
ver
SVIT
with
at tl1
mea
calc
subs
pinr
vert
mea
the 1
mea
App
Parametric analyses were performed to

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

with the bridge model using the rotational springs
at the foundation are in good agreement with the
measured frequencies (within 10 percent). The
calculated frequencies assuming fixed ends are
substantially higher than those measured. The
pinnedend assumption yields a frequency for the
vertical mode in excellent agreement with the
measured value. The corresponding frequency for
the transverse mode is substantially lower than that
measured.
!nt
ng
10'1l1.1~)
'08
C~
..~-
10''JI.1m)
III"..~)
==j
7"
a '2
us
rom
y
AINI. 3
ELEvATION
r_
TYPICAL
with
I.
Akt.1
rst
"J.'~)
Figure
_ r ; ._ :
1.
SECTION
MeIDland Road overpass-General Plan
fects Appendix F. supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
F41
_.':" ....
... ....
I
I
ke
ry
-,
M-J ..... J.8" I
IS'
14.6 m)
(,
keo
... ......
....
mar
~ 14.6
I.SI
...
role
soil:
grOl
m)
disTl
sum
(b)
Fillure fl. Models Used to calCulate Rotational Sprlnlls at Column BaSe;

aJ About x and z Axes; b} About y AXis
ti
~.
3e-,o.I5 m 1
'
r-----
8 ' 3.'-------,
I1.S 1ft,
I
H_l"-
'.)M,
:J'
K..
11111/1111
'
'01
101
J-.
'"
resp
soil
char
The:
the!
the!
to.&"'1
that
are I
,!)/oI,
char
sour
sour
undf
coO(
at th
influ
eart!
exiSI
requ
estal
whel
Fillure S. Models Used to calculate Rotational Sprlnlls at Abutments;

fa} About z AXis; fb} About x Axis; rc} About y AXis
resp'
influ
acce
pres.
met!
and,
F-42
ApPI
1
Resource Summary 8
Martin, G. R.
Geotechnical Aspects of Earthquake Engineering
Journal of the Australian Geomechanics Society, Special Issue, 5th ANZ
Geomechanics Conference, August 1988
This is a state-of-the-practice overview of the
many aspects of geotechnical engineering plays a
role in earthquake engineering. The behavior of
soils has contributed to major structural damage,
ground, embankment and slope failures, and
disruption of lifeline facilities and systems. A brief
summary of significant recent earthquake events
that led to greater understanding of soil behavior
are given in the paper.
The paper presents a discussion of site
response. The significant influence of local site
soil conditions on the acceleration and frequency
characteristics of the ground motions is discussed.
These factors include the earthquake magnitude,
the source mechanism of the earthquake including
the speed and direction of the rupture, the geologic
characteristics of the wave propagation path from
source to site, the distance of the site from the
source of energy release, the geologic topography
underlying the site soils, and the local soil
conditions (soil type, stiffness, layering and depth)
at the site. A discussion is given about the
influence of local soil conditions. Design for
earthquakes have a strong reliance on the use of
existing strong motion records. Scaling is often
required of a sufficient number of records to
establish a smoothed spectra for design. However,
when suitable re~ords are not available, a site
response analysis may be needed to evaluate the
influence of the local soil conditions on the ground
acceleration and spectral characteristics. The paper
presents a discussion of available analytical
methods that require modeling of the shear strain
and damping characteristics of the soils. A brief
feets
discussion about the developing role of centrifuge

testing to understand dynamic soil behavior is also
presented.
The paper also presents the state-of-thepractice in the understanding and prediction of
ground settlement. The paper discusses the
application of laboratory testing to prediction and
how multi-directional shaking should be accounted
for. The paper also has an extensive discussion
about ground liquefaction. First the issue of
liquefaction on level ground is addressed. The
paper discusses the development of laboratory tests
to predict liquefaction behavior, but points out
many of the problems associated with good quality
undisturbed soil samples. The paper goes on to
discuss the Seed and Idriss simplified procedure
for evaluating field liquefaction potential based on
in situ liquefaction strength curves determined
from a laboratory test program. The paper also
discusses the empirical approach that uses the
standard penetration test (SPT) results to predict
the potential for liquefaction. The paper also
discusses the mechanistic analytical approach to
determine the liquefaction potential; this requires
an understanding of the progressive pore water
increases during cyclic loading of sand. The paper
describes the approach and several analytical codes
available to perform such an analysis. The paper
also discusses earthquake induced settlement of
saturated sands. The paper comments that our
understanding about post-liquefaction behavior is
still far from complete and needs further research.
The paper also has a discussion about the
response of earth structures, such as earth dams,
FIIS
embankments and slopes. The paper points out that

the importance of dynamic response was not fully
recognized until the early 1960s when it was the
practice to represent the effects of earthquake
loading by an equivalent static seismic coefficient
independent of the height and stiffness of the earth
structure. A discussion of several analytical
methods developed using equivalent linear
response are given; these programs are QUAD-4
and LUSH.
The paper also discusses embankment and
slope stability. This section of the paper first
discusses earthquake induced deformations of
limited extent. The paper discusses the Newmark
simple method which assumes that rigid plastic
behavior only occurs when the accelerations
exceed a well defined yield acceleration. This
method was extended by Makdisi and Seed for
earth dam analysis. The paper also describes other
methods based on stress path dynamic testing in
the laboratory. This section of the paper goes on to
discuss liquefaction induced instability. The paper
stresses that the prediction of deformation during
earthquake loading of saturated cohesionless earth
structures is clearly a difficult problem due to the
added complexity of time varying changes in
effective stress. The problem of determining the
undrained residual strength of the soil for the
analysis is highlighted.
The paper also discusses the topic of retaining
structures. With regard to the design and analysis
of gravity or cantilever retaining walls, the paper
comments that the Mononobe-Okabe pseudo static
approach is widely used to compute earth
pressures induced by earthquakes. The paper notes
that if the peak ground acceleration is used for the
lateral coefficient, the size of the retaining
structure often becomes excessively great. For a
more economical design, a small earthquake
F-U
induced lateral deformation is preferable. The

paper describes the Richards and Elms method
which is a displacement method that proposes to
use an acceleration less than the peak value. A
discussion about the effects of liquefaction on
retaining structures is presented. The consequences
of pore pressure build-up are discussed and
possible mitigation strategies are presented.
The last topic is pile foundations and the paper
discusses the vulnerability of pile foundations to
ground liquefaction. Degradation of the lateral soil
support stiffness (p-y curves) may occur from
either pore pressure increases from the earthquake
free field response, or from localized pore water
pressure increases in the vicinity of the pile head
generated by relative displacements caused by
structural inertia loads. If this occurs, either total
or partial loss lateral stiffness support may result
as shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 illustrates the
degradation of lateral stiffness with pore pressure
increase for a pile embedded in sand subjected to
earthquake loading. Figure 3 illustrates the effects
of liquefaction on pile bending moments and
deflections. The paper describes how this problem
might be analyzed. A discussion of bridge
foundations is presented where it is noted that
although the first option may be to improve
liquefaction resistance through replacement or in
situ densification of the soils, piles may be
economically designed. Potential for liquefaction
exists if the piles are ductile and founded well
below the zone of liquefaction. A case history is
presented to illustrate this.
This paper presents a broad overview of the
effects of soils on structures. Although the paper is
somewhat dated, it points out the need for research
and gives insight into how soil related problems
can be analyzed.
APpendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
.li
r
addV
__-------------------------------------------------------------------------SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
1"",1.", MO""""
O"d S~eo. rO'ce,
I,om StrUC'VI,
Olutlace"'cnl
due to ."',I'oCho"
Q,lalt",
Beftd,nq Mo""~"t'
dominated by Lolrlol
1"le,octo" LOOd\
_VI>
Chi
Pdf 0"D10C'''''"'
o. rll'''' I Tl'o""
~I
...,./\ 11.-1
~V I
I'tte I'"ld
O'OloC."'~"1
Tu".
ItOft
Be"d'"q Mo"'en',
do"".o'td by
Eo' '''ova ~t
~'u I"eld
Olloloetmeft',
O"oIOCt'""ru
O.
T.m,
H."o".,
Figure 1. SollPlle InteractIon MechanIsms DUring seismic loadIng
F45
su
qOJ1!d'
S! Jdd
dq
nor
1.0
Sl,lIness S' r/6

16'0-18,", I
SPdJ
06
IJ
3Jn!
...
U'I
U'I
-...
0
10' r'ee and

Head Poles
0.6
fo'
U'I
F
--.
a:
Pll(
- 04
02
lIn!
I1!le
p1!:
Jdl
dl[1ln
'AE( 14(&0
,.;
nos I
F'e e Hend
Smol16
01
J:ld1!1
'll(O .. (AO
PIL [
S:lOU;
o~----~----~------~----~----~
4
'10
o
6
6
2
TIme
01
sec
Figure 2. lateral stlHness Degradation WIth pore Water Pressure Increase
F-4&
wdlc
Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation EffectS
--
Be ll d' ft 9 Molftelll (_IOrlb

.7.
0
?
Oellecl'oll y 1,"1
3
0
....
30.
.....
,,,"
I ,
~O
,,
'I
40
... ...
,,
,
,,
10
20
."
"
... ...
,
,,
...
otrr '1f"1 n '""l.aTOy(

at ..
/"I~I'I. aCllI(" I
.. ,
sees
70
T
,~,
,,
tn" It-
.~.
~~~,
_"'_. n
,
,,
I
, .,,, ,
-.. --1\".,.
.. ... c ......
.. ,
,.-"
,., . n 4 , ..
'!"I(I> ,<an ..... r
_ " . n
- - --111\ ' " .
80
f;
60
ft
'fr. ...... ,
,
I
I
I
Figure $. Effects of Liquefaction on Pile Bending Moments and Deflections
F4'
Resource summary 9
Martin, G. R. and Lam, I. P.
Seismic Design of Pile Foundations: Structural and Geotechnical Issues
Third International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, April, 19\
In this state of the art paper design concepts
and issues related to the seismic design of piles
foundation systems are presented. Design aspects
discussed include:
I.
Questions related to modification of free
field earthquake ground motions by pile
foundation systems.
2.
Methods for determining the stiffness
characteristics of pile foundation systems for
incorporation in earthquake structural response
analysis.
3.
Questions related to degradation of lateral
stiffness arising from liquefaction.
4.
Questions related to potential design
concerns arising from seismic overload of
foundations causing permanent ground
displacements.
A brief introduction is provided on approaches
used for a rigorous analysis of the dynamic
response of soil-pile-structure systems to incoming
seismic waves in a fully coupled manner taking
into account both kinematic and inertial interaction
(Figure 1). It is noted that due to the complexity of
nonlinear coupled models. the Winkler model
represented by series of independent or uncoupled
lateral and axial springs simulating soil-pile
interaction. provides the most convenient means of
analysis. It is noted that for most pile foundation
systems. piles may be assumed to deform in a
compatible manner with the free field ground
motions and the effects of kinematic interaction in
modifying input ground motions to structures can
be neglected. In addition. it is noted that due to the
relatively low frequency range of earthquake
F-48
inertial loading. stiffness functions for pile

foundations are in most cases frequency
independent.
In discussing analysis methods and design
issues. the paper first addresses lateral loading of
single piles using the conventional p-y curve
approach. The sensitivity to boundary conditions is
discussed together with simplified methods for
linearizing the nonlinear behavior in terms of a
pilehead stiffness matrix. Useful charts for
determining the components of pilehead stiffness
matrices. such as that shown in Figure 2. are
provided. Current thinking on the effects of
liquefaction on lateral stiffness is also presented.
Methods for analyzing the axial load stiffness
characteristics of piles are then discussed. The
importance of axial stiffness in determining
rotational stiffness of pile groups is emphasized.
Both computer program approaches and simplified
methods for determining lateral and axial pilehead
stiffness characteristics are presented.
The paper then presents the methodology for
combining the lateral and axial stiffness of single
piles to determine a pile group stiffness matrix for
structural analysis. An example is provided
illustrating the methodology. using the idealized
pile group shown in Figure 3. The influence of the
pile cap on lateral stiffness is also discussed along
with the influence of battered piles on load
deformation behavior of pile groups. The question
of moment-rotation capacity of pile groups is
discussed in detail in relation to seismic retrofit
problems. The paper notes that a key element in
retrofit design relates to the provision of adequate
Appendix F. Supplemental Information on Foundation Effec:ts
fou
mo
sUF
rot
dOl
cor
paF
stn
ten
ana
det.
cha
App.
"' 199
foundation capacity to resist the base overturning

moment arising from the inertial forces of the
superstructure. It has been shown that the momentrotational characteristics of a pile group can have a
dominating effect on the response of a structure, as
compared to lateral stiffness characteristics. The
paper points out that as performance criteria for
structures are now more often being evaluated in
terms of nonlinear time history or pushover
analyses, geotechnical engineers are being asked to
determine nonlinear load-deformation
characteristics of foundation systems and the
consequences of pile foundations exceeding pile

capacity. An example of a pile group system
subjected to axial and moment loading and the
consequences of allowing permanent foundation
deformation arising from transient pile foundation
yield is examined.
Overall, the paper provides a useful summary
of design issues and approaches related to the
needs of structural modeling including pile
foundation systems.
If
s is
TIiE WHOL.E SYSTEM
<n.
k.
1. KJnematic SeLsmlc Response:
It. .lield malion
...n.u....
'n.
.....
... ' ..........
1I,IO"U,c iWl
...
u,II)ooU,c-
gtO~
inp.,A malion
s.il.mlC w:veS
,r
2.. Pile Group Oynamic: Impedances

(~ dislriOU'oIOtI 01 ina~ loading
to individual piles,
3. Supe,-sINctl,lr. Inlni;,1 Aespanse
Ie
for
I
the
ng
ion
II. J. . . .
k.
hrw'--~,;..,
m,
I
T
Iouncilhon i(lput molion
Figure 1. General procedure for SeismIc sol/Plle FOundatlonstructure Interaction
~te
eets
Fes
10 9
','
10 10
10"
10 12
BENDING STIffNESS, EI (lB-IN')
10 13
C't.,
T
FIgure 2. Coefllclent for FIxed Pile Head Lateral Stiffness
F-SD
APpendix F. Supplemental Information on FOundation EffectS
Ij1bJc J
rns Srjffns;s$ Sglutign

Single
Pi'''
Pile Gml!~
42
9 x 42 =378
U1Cr.II T=sloation
Ic" = kc .11:iplin)
Venial Tr.a.nsLation
(kil"in)
.
9 x 1.200 = 10.SOO
1.200
k~.
Rocking RollltiOQ
l'o-~ +
193.000
k..zkH ("...kiplr>.d)
TorsiouJ RoULion
K... (in.ldpl=l)
c.oss-Coupling
kIJ=k,.=..k::14=k.:. (kip)
4.42.48' + 4x42.(4S.... S)
= 1.16 x 10'
9 x 2.250 = .20.250
2Z0
,. S
".
.., :-
, ....
1S"'" '-
4'
r.!f K.. S.l
= 1.74 x 10' + 1.66. 10'

= 1.83 x 10'
e e
.-.
,:. e;. e- '-- ': Diameler
.- '
4'
11'
~'"i
1;,--';-'-'r--,"":'-.:!,l"I
...
,-
IS',
I...
"
rF f--L c--
70'
120 pcf
~.
=:
30
,. Diameler
pipe pile
0.25' wall
Ihickness
filled with
concrete
'-
Figure S. Idealized Pile croup In sand
:eets
F-S1
Resource Summary 1D
Martin, G. R. and Van, L.
Modeling Passive Earth Pressure for Bridge Abutments
ASCE Conference - Geotechnical Special Publication # 55, Earthquake
Induced Movements and Seismic Remediation of Existing Foundations
and Abutments, San Diego, CA, October 1995
As a component of a bridge structure,
abutments not only act as a retaining wall for
backfill soils, but also serve the additional function
of providing resistance to deformation to
earthquake induced longitudinal inertial loads from
the bridge deck. Quantifying an abutment stiffness
and ultimate passive capacity is an important issue
in modeling bridge structures for earthquake
loading. In this paper, design procedures are
briefly reviewed and the results of a numerical
study modeling the passive earth pressure
characteristics of bridge abutments are presented.
Although the paper relates to bridge abutments,
the results are also applicable to building
structures in relation to the lateral passive capacity
ability to be mobilized by footings or building
basement walls.
F-S2
The paper utilizes a finite difference numerical

approach to analyze the load-deformation and
passive load capacity of abutments simulated as a
rigid wall, (as shown in Figure 1) for both
cohesive and cohesionless soil backfill materials.
Classical passive pressure solutions are first
presented and are followed by numerical
parametric studies to examine the influence of wall
height and material properties on mobilized
passive pressures. The effects of wall friction on
results are also examined in the parametric studies.
The computer program FLAC used for analysis is
shown to provide reasonable numerical results
when compared to classical solutions.
Overall the paper presents useful charts which
can be of value in assessing the problem of lateral
passive capacity for building foundation
components, such as that shown in Figure 2.
App
r.'
I';~
I
I
I
I
r";"
.,
l/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/I I I I I I I
I \\I I I I I
ical
I
I I I III I I
III
>
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
! !
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
Figure 1
s.
.vall
n
lies.
; is
Cal
CowanlfJ
Pr.:o,:.:-n!
14.0 T
SLud~. uIH = 1ort:!
15:8 i
~:8
4.0 ~
2.0
0.0
- . ~ ..... _~ __ ___ _.4
-L;_ _ _ _~_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _~_ _ __ ; _ - - - _ _ _ <

~
IS
10
20
25
lI"ali Hei::ht 1ft)
(bl
14.0
C,)Ulllnth
12.0 I
. Prll!:~~n\ 'stut.:y.UlH = If)~(';
10.0
s.O T
6.0 T
'
.
- ~ .
4.0
2.0
0.0 +-----;-----+----~
.. .....
.... - - -. - - .. -~
____;_---...;
10
W,II
15
20
25
Hei~ht (ft)
Figure 2. Normalized Total passive Force Np vs. wall Height H:y = 120 pcf, c = 1.0 ksf, rp= 0; E 200 ksf,
v = 0.45faJ 6 = 0; and fbJ 6 = S!r
fects
F-51
imp
SI6
Resource summary"
Dar.
Nakaki, D. K., and Hart, G. C.

Uplifting Response of Structures Subjected to Earthquake Motions
U. S.-Japan Coordinated Program for Masonry Building Researcb,
Report No. 2.1-3, Ewing/Kariotis/Englekirk & Hart, August 1987
In this study, the effect of foundation
flexibility and uplift on the response of slender
shear wall type structures is investigated. The
slenderness ratio (defined as the height divided by
half the width) of structures studied has been
limited to 3.5. This slenderness ratio is
representative of shear wall structures of about 10
story height. Effect of inelastic behavior of the
structure on response was also considered.
The structurefoundation system considered in
this investigation is shown in Figure I. As shown,
the flexibility and damping of the soil was
modeled by elastic Winkler springs with viscous
damping for energy dissipation: The superstructure
was represented as an inelastic, single degree of
freedom system on a rigid foundation. Relative
horizontal displacement between the base of the
structure and the Winkler elements was not
considered. The vertical Winkler foundation
springs were considered effective only for the
compressive forces and have zero tensile capacity.
The properties of the distributed Winkler springs
and dashpots were computed from the rocking
spring and dashpot for a rigid foundation resting
on an elastic half space. Using this approach the
Winkler spring and dashpot constants, ko and Co
respectively, are
ko
= 3 Ka/(2 b 3)
Co = 3 Ca/(2 b 3)
In the above equations, b is the half width of
foundation and Ka and Ca, the stiffness and
F-S4
damping coefficients of a rigid circular massless

foundation on an elastic half-space, are
Ka = 8 G r 3/[3(I-y)]
Ca = a 8 G r4/[3(I-y)v s]
where G is the shear modulus of the soil, r is the
radius of foundation, y is the Poisson's ratio, Vs is
the shear wave velocity and, a is a dimensionless
coefficient dependent on the frequency of
excitation, the radius of foundation, and the shear
wave velocity. The value of ex was taken as 0.2 in
this study.
The study was aimed at concrete and concrete
masonry shear wall type structures. Therefore, the
inelastic behavior of the superstructure was
represented by stiffness degrading hysteresis
mqdel developed by Newmark and Riddell. Two
distinct limit states were defined for the system
under consideration. The first limit state is
associated with the initiation of uplift and marks
the first change in the stiffness of the system. The
second limit state corresponds to the yielding of
the super structure. P-A effects, since they were
considered to be small, were not included.
Direct time-history analyses were performed
for two types of ground motion: a long duration
strong motion and a short duration impulsive type
motion. The long duration motion was represented
by the SOOE component of 1940 EI Centro
earthquake. This record has a peak horizontal
ground acceleration (PGA) of 0.35g. The PGA in
the vertical direction is 0.2Ig. The short duration,
of il
stud
the,
eart
For
pres
spec
and
appl
iIlus
wid,
30'
MOl
stud
wall
sum
sign
rod
fixe,
Whc
fixe,
muc
som
high
had
Wit!
was
prod
peri,
the I
moti
stTU(
than
ApPI
is
s
Ir
in
te
he
he
pe
ted
impulsive type motion was represented by the

Sl6E component (PGA = l.l7g) of the Pacoima
Dam record scaled down to 50 percent. Influence
of including vertical ground motions was also
studied.
Parametric studies were performed to study
the effect of foundation flexibility and uplift on the
earthquake response and the potential for damage.
For this purpose, the results of the analyses were
presented both in the form of the ductility demand
spectra and time history plots of the input energy
and the dissipated and absorbed energy. Practical
application of the concepts developed was then
illustrated by analyzing a 9-story, 78' high and 27'
wide concrete masonry shear wall supported on a
30' long by 4' wide by 3' thick concrete footing.
Monte Carlo simulations were also performed to
study the influence of yield capacity of the shear
wall on response.
The key findings of this investigation are
summarized below:
As shown in Figures 2 and 3, uplift resulted in
significant reduction in ductility demands when the
rocking frequency of the system was less than the
fixed base natural frequency of the structure.
When the rocking frequency was greater than the
fixed base frequency of the structure, uplift had
much smaller effect on ductility demands and, in
some cases, allowing uplift produced slightly
higher ductility demands.
The frequency content of the ground motion
had significant effect on the ductility demand.
With uplift allowed, the EI Centro motion, which
was richer in short period motions, tended to
produce higher ductility demands for shorter
period structures founded on stiffer soils; whereas,
the Pacoima Dam motion, richer in longer period
motions, was more severe for longer period
structures. When the rocking frequency was less
than the fixed base natural frequency of the
structure, including the vertical ground motion, it

typically increased the higher mode coupling thus
increasing the ductility demands. For cases where
the rocking frequency was greater than the fixed
natural frequency of the structure, inclusion of
vertical ground motion typically had little effect on
overall response.
Time history energy plots for a system with
fixed base natural period of 0.4 sec., see Figure 4,
showed that the hysteretic energy loss in a system
with uplift permitted is smaller than without uplift
thus implying less earthquake damage in the
uplifting structure. However, the energy spectra
plots, Figure 5, showed that allowing uplift, in
most cases, resulted in larger hysteretic energy
loss than without uplift. This was especially true
for the Pacoima Dam motion which was rich in
long period motion and for periods greater than
about 0.5 sec. Thus, it was concluded that on the
basis of energy dissipated, it can not be
conclusively stated that allowing uplift will reduce
the damage sustained by the structure and, also,
ductility demand alone may not be a true indicator
of damageability. Including the vertical ground
motion generally increased the energy dissipated
by hysteresis.
The shear wall studied had a fixed natural
period of vibration of about 0.5 sec. The results of
the analyses for this case study showed that
allowing the structure to uplift from its foundation
resulted in an essentially elastic response. The
authors, however, cautioned that the reduction in
the inelastic deformations in the structure comes at
the expense of uplift displacements at the
foundation level which must be accounted for in
the design. Monte Carlo studies on the variability
of yield capacity of the shear wall showed that the
foundation rotation and uplift were more sensitive
to yield capacity of the wall than the displacement
response.
in
In,
F-SS
he
\I
II
e
h
IB
mF
i
c
kO
Co
,
b
YG'L
XG
Figure 1. Structure-FOundation system Madel
P-s&
FI9
App
IZ.O
1t.0
10.0
t.O
'.0
I~
7.0 -
S
Ii
;:)
Q
\
\
\
\
uplift
\
\
uplift prcycn'ted
'.0 -
,\
5.0 -
\
\
4.0 U
1.0 -
,, - -
...
--- ...
1.0 0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
mal
1.0
1.1
IA
(SEC)
Figure 2. Ductility Demand for structures Allowing Uplift and With Uplift Prevented for the EI Centro Motion,
1=$.5, P 0.9, fJ 0.7, 01. 161r rad. sec., ~s 0.05, ~. 0.20
lets , Appendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
F-S7
5.0
4.0
,.- ....
" ....
3.0
/
I
" ....
I
\
Z.O
" "- ....
....
\ I
..
uplift
1.0
uplift prevented
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.4
a.1
0.'
I"tRQ)
1.0
1.4
(SEC)
Figure S. DuctIlity Demand for structures Allowing Uplift and With Uplift prevented for the Scaled pacoIma
Dam MotIon, .It = s.s, P = 0.9, f3 = 0.7, 01. = 1IiTC rad. sec., ~. = o.os, ~. = 0.20
F-S8
...
000.0
"00.0
upfin preveRled
300.0
.....
..
!
!;
200.0
6
~
~
100.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
nUE
10.0
1:l.0
'4.0
1 . 0
18.0
(SEC)
Ina
Figure 4. Hysteretic Energy with Up/1ft and with Wl/ft Prevented for the scaled pacoima Dam Motion,
t=O.4 SEC., Cy=D.261, A=S.S, p=O.9, /3=0.7, mr= 161c rad. sec., ~1=O.05, ~r=O.20
'ect5
F-S!J
---------- _._-
-- -----.------
--.----- --
Figure 5. Input Energy and Hysteretic Energy per unit Mass spectra for the Scaled pacoima Dam Motion,
).=5.S, P =0.9, fJ = 0.7, mv= 161r rad. sec., ~s=O.OS, ~v=0.20
P-60
Resource summary 12
>'>YL
Pender, M. J.
Aseismic Pile Foundation Design Analysis
Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, Volume
26, No.1, March 1993
This paper presents a comprehensive

presentation of methods of assessing, for
preliminary design purposes, the stiffness and
capacity of pile foundations under seismic forces.
Emphasis is placed on expressions for pile
stiffness and capacity in the form of simple
formulae and illustrations on the use of formulae
through a number of worked examples.
Comparisons between data from field testing of
foundations and analysis methods are also
presented.
Specific topics covered in the paper include the
following:
Observed seismic response and damage to pile
foundations during past earthquakes
Discussions on the role of kinematic soil-pile

interaction and dynamic response of pile
groups
The case history documentation on the
response of pile foundation systems to seismic
loading provides a comprehensive overview. One
interesting documented case history relates to the
response of the Imperial County, California,
Services Building (Figure 1) during the 1979
Imperial Valley magnitude 6.3 earthquake. Forced
vibration tests on pile caps following building
demolition provided the means for earthquake
response studies including the effects of foundation
interaction.
The objectives of the paper are focused heavily
on design analysis, particularly preliminary
design. The approach presented is suitable for use
with spread sheets albeit more sophisticated
methods and computer approaches are also
discussed. The emphasis on assembling an
extensive set of simple formulae and the use with
examples make this paper particularly readable for
design engineers. Nearly all the methods discussed
focus on the common idealization that the soil-pile
system will respond in an equivalent linear elastic
manner to applied loading. In this respect a useful
compilation of correlations between Young's
modulus and the coefficient of sub grade reaction
with standard penetration blowcount are provided.
The reality of nonlinear soil behavior which occurs
during strong seismic loading is discussed briefly,
and illustrated using the results of field load tests.
The presentation also identifies limitations of
the various analysis methods and topics requiring
Models for pile lateral stiffness including

Winkler and elastic continuum models
Models for pile vertical stiffness including

Winkler and elastic continuum models and
discussion on battered piles
Methods for evaluating stiffness of pile groups

including vertical, rotational and lateral
stiffness components
Discussions on the influence of nonlinear soil

behavior on soilpile interaction including case
studies
Discussions on correlations between subgrade

soil properties and penetration resistance from
field tests
In,
Discussions on results of dynamic tests on

prototype scale piles and pile groups and
Ffects
APpendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation EHects
F-G'I
further research. A detailed valuation of the

relative role of inertial and kinematic interaction of
pile foundation subjected to dynamic loading,
clarifies the relative importance of the two effects.
The significance of pile group effects is also
addressed using analytical data and results of field
load tests, as for example shown in Figure 2.
Questions not addressed in detail in the paper
include the effects of liquefaction and potential

degradation in stiffness of soils adjacent to the pile
due to cyclic loading.
Overall the paper provides good insight as to
the mechanics of soil-pile interaction and is
perhaps one of the most comprehensive state-ofthe-practice publications available on seismic pile
foundation design.
(ASr 'ACt
SHEAII WALL
WEST rACE
SH[AR WALL
TYPICAL FLOOR PLAN

WEST ELEVATION
II
4
)
2
G
\
LONG
SECTION
EAST ELEVATION
Figure 1. COnfiguration Of the Imperial County Services Building (after Hall, 19B4J
F-62
Appendix F, Suppiementallnformation on Foundation Effects
FIG
App
)iie
o
30
Je
on
Cr.m.J
...
.~
.!! 20
n:
,/
'"
/0
O'"b
.~"
0 /:"'.,..,
/'"
'if',---'''''-' .g....~.-.. -
/0 ,,/
10
..J
~
a.
>
/~/
/ 0/
~ .-
/J\/
/ cS v
c..
/. /' -8-'
~.c
.",
0.0
0--<>
Single Pile
O--OLeadinq Row, Group
<>-..... Middle Row, Group
o--oBack Row, Group
1.5
1.0
0.5
Deflection 01 Load Poinl, inches
2.0
30
0
'"
Q.
~ycle I
:;z
.~ 20
Il..
....
QI
Il..
"C
..J
10
C.
>
.~
;a
<I:
500
o Single Pile
o Leading Row, Group
'" Middle Row, Group
o Back Row, Group
1000
1500
Maximum Bending Momenl, Inch-kips
Figure 2. Pile Head DeFiectlan and Maximum Moment Against Average Farce lor a Sxs group and a Single Pile
1 klp=4.54 kN, 1 In. =25.4 mm(after Brown et al., 198B)
ffects
FSS
Resource Summary 15
2.
Priestly, J.N., Evison, R.J., and Carr, A.J.
Seismic Response of Structures Free to Rock on Their Foundations

Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering,
September, 1978
This work is an experimental extension of a
theoretical development of the behavior of rocking
blocks by Housner (see Resource Summary No.4
and Figure 1). The paper begins by discussing the
fact that rocking of structures may be beneficial to
their seismic response. The seismic code in New
Zealand, at least at the time the paper was written,
implicitly recognizes this by allowing the forces on
foundations systems to be limited in the recognition
of the possibility of rocking. The writers concur
with this approach since they feel that rocking and
possible deformation of soil beneath footings have
improved overall seismic performance for some
structures. They point out, however, the possibility
that substructure rocking and possible deformation
of foundation materials can cause damage at the
foundation and first floor slab levels.
The authors note that, in spite of its beneficial
effects, that rocking has received very little
attention by other researchers. One exception is
Housner and the other that they note is the work of
Bartlett (see Resource Summary No.1).
Review of Basic Theory. The authors begin by
reviewing the theoretical development by Housner.
They expand Housner's work in one interesting
way. Housner expressed the energy loss due to the
inelastic collusion of the block with its base by an
energy reduction factor
2
MR2
r= ( I-T(I-cos2a)
where M is the mass of the block, 10 is its mass

moment of inertia about the point of rotation, and
P-&4
3.
a is the aspect angle for the block (see Figure 1).

This enabled the prediction of the peak of
rotational displacement as a function of the
.
number, n , of impacts as
det
per
cen
where
6
(l
tP. =-"- and 1/10 =-l!.

The authors point out that the fraction of
critical damping, A. ,for single degree of freedom
oscillator may be expressed as
A=_I In (1/10)
It n
tP.
Using this equation for fraction of critical
damping and the previous energy reduction factor
from Housner, the two variables can be related as
illustrated in Figure 2.
Response Spectrum Design Approach. If a
roCking block is represented as a single degree of
system with constant damping, the period of
vibration depends on the amplitude of rocking, and
a trial and error approach can be used with a
response spectrum to determine peak displacement
during earthquake motion. The following
procedure is outlined:
1. Use the no-rocking natural period of vibration
and damping of the structure combined with
the acceleration response spectrum of the
design earthquake to calculate the elastic
4.
5.
6.
pro
wei
Thi
con
pre
0.4
mo
a.
b.
Ilg,
response and check that this will induce

rocking.
2. Using the relationship between Housner's r
factor and critical damping. A, shown in Figure
2, calculate the equivalent viscous damping of
the rocking system.
3. Using Housner's equation
4
-1 [ 1-1~ T=pcosh
where
p=~WR
Jr
as
I
Jf
and
ent
on
Itts
10
determine the relationship between the rocking
period, T, and the amplitude of rocking at the
center of mass, 00 (see Figure 3(a.
4. Estimate the maximum rocking displacement,
Ll1, and determine the corresponding period of
vibration, TI.
5. The maximum displacement response, Ll2, of
the equivalent elastic system can then be found
from the displacement response spectra as
shown in Figure 3(b). A new period, T2, can
then be used to refine the estimate of
displacement using Figure 3(a).
6. This iterative procedure usually converges
within three to four cycles yielding an estimate
of the peak displacement of the single degree of
freedom system.
Model Study. In order to verify the theoretical
procedure outlined above, experimental studies
were conducted on a model as shown in Figure 4.
This model was a one-sixth scale simulation of a
concrete shear wall building with a prototypical
pre-rocking fundamental period of approximately
0.40 seconds. The foundation conditions for the
model were varied as follows:
a. model supported directly on shaking table.
b. model supported on 25 mm. rubber pads at the
corners of the foundation resulting in a three-
fold increase in natural, pre-rocking period of

the structure.
c. similar to b. except that the pad was placed
beneath the entire footing as opposed to the
four corners.
In addition to these foundation conditions,
some free-rocking tests were carried out in the
field on the model supported by well-compacted
clay soil. The purpose of these foundation
conditions was to investigate the general effects of
foundation compliance on the results.
The model was subjected to four different
types of dynamic tests.
I. The natural decay of the system for free
vibration at amplitudes less than that required
to initiate rocking was documented.
2. The natural decay of the rocking motion was
investigated by uplifting the model beyond its
rocking limit and releasing it. The relationship
of amplitude of rocking to natural period and
the rate of decay provided experimental data to
compare with Housner's basic theoretical
equation.
3. The model was subject to forced sinusoidal
base accelerations to study the response to
different frequencies.
4. The response of the structure to actual seismic
excitation was studied using a scaled record of
the 1940 EI Centro Earthquake.
The authors report only on the results of the
free rocking and seismic testing in their paper.
The results of the experimental studies
correlate excellently with Housner's theoretical
relationship between rocking frequency and
amplitude. This is illustrated in Figure 5. It should
be noted that the models on the rubber pads had a
maximum rocking frequency of about 3.7 hz and,
above that level, Housner's theory does not apply.
The experimental results show that Housner's
assumption of completely inelastic energy
dissipation due to impact may be incorrect in some
cases. For the model, Housner's theoretical
equations would have predicted a reduction factor,
r, of 0.70. The authors adjusted the results of the
natural decay of rocking of the model to match
FBS
----- --- -' -------... ----'--- '"
Housner's general relationship. To do so they had

to use a reduction factor of 0.87. The results are
shown on Figure 5(a).
The result of the earthquake excitation from the
essential records indicate that they response
spectrum approach proposed by the authors provide
a very good estimate of the maximum displacement
of a rocking block. The predicted maximum
displacement was 50 mm. and the corresponding
experimental value was 45 mm.
Design Example. The authors provide design
example for a masonry structure. The procedure
used is that of the New Zealand building code. The
authors determined that the code value accelerations
will result in rocking of the structure. This is
confirmed by a rocking elastic response spectra
calculation using procedures developed in the
paper. These calculations indicate that for the EI
Centro records, a roof displacement of
approximately 160 mm. would occur in the sample
structure for a period of 1.6 seconds. The authors
note that this amount of rocking is not necessarily
excessive but that possible damage to the slab on
grade and the foundations might be induced.
Conclusions. The authors offer the following
general conclusions:
1. Response of a rocking structure is similar to
base isolation in that lateral accelerations are
limited to that which induced rocking.
Structural damage might be reduced by
designing structural elements which remain
elastic until the rocking acceleration is
exceeded.
FGG
2. Housner's theoretical equations for frequency

and amplitude of a rocking block are verified.
Foundation conditions in this study did not
appear to have a significant influence on the
rocking response; however, Housner's
assumption that rocking impacts are inelastic
was found to not be valid from the models in
this study.
3. Extension of Housner's theory to a simple
method to predict maximum displacement
utilizing response spectra has been developed
and verified by limited shaking table testing.
4. This approach might be extended to structures
other than buildings including bridges and nonstructural applications such as the rocking of
stacked containers.
5. Further research is required to verify the scope
and the feasibility of the methods developed in
this work. In particular high equivalent viscous
damping predicted for squat rocking structures
needs verification.
It should be noted in reviewing this material
that the foundation conditions for the model were
probably highly elastic. This may explain why
Housner's assumption of inelastic impact was not
born out. Bartlett's work, which was reviewed in
Resource Summary No.1, may provide an
interested opportunity to estimate the foundation
yielding at the base of rocking blocks. It is Iikel y
that this inelastic effect is dependent on the initial
contact pressure as a percentage of the ultimate
bearing capacity of the foundation material.
1
-
Ap,
cy
:d.
ic
in
,. 15
'"
~ 10
ed
res
.3
!I
- --I
O~:~
____~______~~--__------~__~~~
05
10n-
0.6
)f
:ope
j in
all
0.7
Energy Reduction
1.0
Factor. r.
FIgure 2. ApproxImate RelatIonship Between

EquIvalent VIscous DampIng and Energy
ReductIon Factor
FIgure 1. Housner's RockIng Block
;ous
nes
're
lot
in
ly
:ial
,,
,, ,,, ,,,
, I
II
"
a:
,, ''
,,
, I
, I
.2
, n
estimate~
I
,st
4.:
Amplitude
(al
ROCKING
I'
T. T,
Period
dtl : 4l,
of
Rocking
CHARACTERISTIC
(bl
TRIPARTITE
RESPONSE
SPECTRA
FIgure S. EstImate 01 MaxImum DIsplacement From Response spectra
'ects
FG'
I
lnstrum.ntation
--= : DC-LVDT
o : Accrl.rom.trr
an
ef:
de
rei
!hI
fOI
bl!
pe
-INPUT-
Fil
-QUTPUT-
COi
di!
Fillure 4. SChematIC tJI MtJdel tJn Shake Table
Ih~
me
ani
anI
SPI
Theory (tbusner)
"O~
a:
Exp.
"
0.6
Exp . rigid
'$
0.<4
""''$..,.
02
rubber
pad
base
Exp,
rubber pad
Exp.
SOl'
soi
by
the
base
-----.-
nor
"~
4
a
12
W
O~------------------------~----~
No
(a)
Exp. rigid baS(>
r: 0.B7
Theory
OB
G!.
Wi
Iha
api
Wi
DECAY
01
OF'
Impacts (n)
ROCKING
24
16
Horizontal
Ib)
FREQuENCY
vs
OisPlacemQ'nt
32
(mm)
AMPLI TUDE
Figure 5. ThetJry VI. Experiment ItJr MtJdel
F-G8
Appendix F. Supplemental Information on FtJundatlon Effects
iml
ene
use
effi
the
Slrl
bot)
Resource Summary 14
Psycharis, I. N.
Dynamic Behavior of Rocking Structures Allowed to Uplift
Report No. EERL-81-02, Earthquake Engineering Research Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, 1982
-32
nml
iCts
In this report, the equations of motion for the

analysis of simple structures considering the
effects of foundation flexibility and uplift are
developed. The presentation begins with the
recapitulation of the classical work of Housner for
the case of a rigid block allowed to rock on a rigid
foundation. The equations of motions for the rigid
block resting on flexible foundation and with uplift
permitted were then developed. As shown in
Figures 1 and 2, two types of soil model were
considered: the two spring model and the
distributed Winkler spring model. It was observed
that the equations of motions for the two spring
model are much simpler than the Winkler model
and are more useful for simplified practical
analyses. Therefore, expressions for the two
spring model in terms of the parameters of the
Winkler springs were developed. It was observed
that the equivalent two springs model can
approximate the response of a structure with a
Winkler foundation reasonably well.
The effect of energy dissipation and nonlinear
soil behavior in foundation soils was approximated
by three different mechanisms: viscous dampers in
the foundation model; elastic-perfectly plastic
nonlinear foundation spring elements; and an
impact mechanism that allows dissipation of
energy during impact. It was concluded that the
use of viscous dampers was the most practical and
efficient way of modeling the energy dissipation in
the foundation soils.
The equations of motions for a flexible
structure allowed to uplift were then developed,
both for a single degree of freedom system (Figure
3) and a multistory structure (Figure 4). For the

multistory structure, an approximate analysis
procedure considering only the first vibration
mode was also developed. The approach developed
was used to analyze the response of the Millilken
Library building subject to the S16E component of
the Pacoima Dam record obtained during the 1971
San Fernando earthquake. The building is a 9story concrete building with a one story basement,
see Figure 5.
The key conclusions and observations of this
investigation are summarized below:
Allowing uplift leads to a softer vibrating
system, i.e. the first period of the uplifting
system is always greater than the first period
of the structure with uplift prevented.
Higher periods of vibration are not

significantly affected by uplift.
When damping is considered in the foundation

springs, uplift tends to reduce the critical
damping in the first mode of vibration.
Allowing uplift can have significant effect on

the seismic response of structures. For the
rigid superstructure, uplift tends to reduce the
rocklng accelerations while the angle of
rotation can either be larger or smaller. For a
flexible superstructure, uplift always tends to
increase the angle of rotation of the foundation. However, no conclusive statements
could be made about the response of the
structure. For the Millilken Library building
studied, it was observed that the building
displacements were not significantly affected
F-GI
and the accelerations and base shears were

slightly increased due to uplift.
d~
___
The simplified fundamental mode approach for

the analyses of multistory structures provides
reasonably good approximation of response.
IE_-_ o
01_ ..
1--
--..
r
y
FIg
MO
mg
of!i-{ __ (...,
-tt
t.)Three-dhnen,tonlll clse
(b) Equivalent tNo-dimensional 'Probl.
FIgure 1. Tipping Block on a "TWo-Spring" FOundatIon

'E---_.. __ a
-----
..
..
/('-
~~~.~..~--.-~
..Jy
b
mg
y,L"
(a) Full-contact case
y,L"
(b) After lift-off
FIgure 2. RockIng Block on ContInuous ElastIc FoundatIon' (WInkler made/)
'-70
App
1/ iii/
r!
J
;h for
ides
\se.
1 ,
1.1-.:
Flgure:s. Simple Oscillator on a TwO-SprIng

MOdel of a ROcking Foundation
~'
r - -;.- - - -
;::,I --u'";"I" - - -""'l~?~~
;--r--T--- I
Hn
(n I
'
~-~--~-~-~~~~
,----,-I
{'
I
I
I
I' "
:
{ ,
,
~.'\P'>_
. L __ -/
I.._-
r
I;
I .'
e.:y- e
1/
I; "
'Y.l,. .
"
Figure 4. Rocking n-story structure on Two-Sprlng FOundation
fects
APpendix F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
F71
oj
w
di
I!
bl
nl
SU
TI
e~
bl
....--\l=.;;:.,.jl---II ~ .....
of
Ie'
ge
Ff
''';
i--~=';;:"'Io-_-II~UII so'
'
lhl
is
ap
fir
lat
pic
Fo
fOI
Th
FIgure 5. Milliken library BuildIng: fa) FoundatIon Plan and N-5 section; fb) TypIcal Floor Plan;
fC) a NS SectIon VIew; fd) VIew oF Building LookIng Northwe$t
F72
the
Ce
tra
bel
vel
Resource Summary 15
Rutenberg, A., Jennings, P. C. and Housner, G. W.
The Response of Veterans Hospital Building 41 in the San Fernando
Earthquake
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, John Wiley and
Sons, Ltd., Volume 10, 1982
Description of Building and Earthquake
Damage. This paper documents an analytical study
of the Veterans Administration Hospital Building
which was located in San Fernando, California,
directly over the fault plane of the February 9th,
1971, earthquake. Although several V.A. Hospital
buildings at the site collapsed, as did the
neighboring Olive View Hospital, Building 41
survived the earthquake with only minor damage.
This was in spite of the fact that the building
experienced very intense ground shaking. The
building was designed for a lateral force coefficient
of only 10 per cent. This study consists of several
levels of analysis in an attempt to reconcile the
good behavior of this building during the San
Fernando earthquake.
The subject building was designed in 1937 by
the Veterans Administration Engineering Office. It
is four stories in height with plan dimensions of
approximately 200 by 50 feet (see Figure 1). The
first floor is partially below grade. The vertical and
lateral load carrying system consisted primarily of
pierced reinforced concrete shear walls and frames.
Foundations were continuous with isolated spread
footings under the walls and interior columns.
There were approximately twice as many walls in
the longitudinal direction as the transverse.
Consequently, the analyses concentrates on the
transverse direction. Wall thicknesses varied
between 10 and 16 inches and reinforcement, both
vertically and horizontally exceeded .002 times the
Fects
cross-sectional area of the walls. Boundary

reinforcement was provided around openings and
the general level of detailing of the reinforcing was
quite good from an earthquake performance
standpoint. These details were also evident in the
spandrels between walls, allowing for coupling
between adjacent wall panels. For the purposes of
the analyses and this study, an aged nominal
concrete strength of 4,000 psi was assumed. The
yield strength of the plain and deformed
reinforcing bars was assumed to be 30 ksi.
Soil conditions at the site consisted of alluvial
deposits and the allowable design bearing stresses
were up to 8,000 Ibs. per square foot including
earthquake effects. The material was reasonably
competent and had virtually no potential for
liquefaction. For the purposes of the analyses, a
shear wave velocity of 1000 feet per second was
assumed for all strain levels. The unit weight for
the soil is assumed to be 100 lbs. per cubic foot.
These assumptions yield a shear modulus for the
soil material of 3600 ksi.
The building suffered very minor damage
during the earthquake. Some of the shear walls
exhibited hairline diagonal cracks. There was a
small, continuous crack running in the basement
and first floor slab. Some settlement of the
exterior grade was noted on the upslope side of the
building. In the analyses, this settlement was taken
as a possible sign of foundation movement.
However, it could also have been caused by the
F7J
consolidation of poorly compacted fill adjacent to

the basement wall. Major yielding of the coupling
beam between walls probably did not take place
based on field observations. The overall cracking in
the concrete walls was indicative of the fact that in
some locations the diagonal strength of the concrete
may have just been exceeded.
Ground Motion. There were no records of
ground motion at the site or in the near vicinity. It
was, therefore, impossible to reconstruct the high
frequency components of ground motion at the
Veterans Administration Hospital site. The nearest
accelerograms were at the Pacoima Dam (1.25 mi.)
and at the Orion Holiday Inn (8 mi.). From an
analysis of these records it is estimated that a peak
spectral acceleration in the range of 0.1 to 0.3
seconds was on the order of 0.7 to 1.5 g.
Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis. An
analysis based on a 1976 Uniform Building Code
including modifications for soil structure interaction
in accordance with ATC 3-06 was performed for
the building in its transverse direction. Considering
the symmetry of the building, three of the six
transverse walls in Figure 2 were included in the
analysis. Several alternatives were considered for
distribution of shear to the individual walls. These
are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Also noted in
the tables are the fundamental periods for the
various analysis assumptions including a rigid base
and one including foundation compliance. It can be
seen that the rigid base period of approximately
0.14 second was substantially lower than of 0.20
second estimated from the foundations that were
assumed to be flexible. The code equation for
period indicates an even a longer period of 0.36
second.
The 1976 Code would have required a base
shear coefficient of 0.28 due to the essential nature
of the facility and the local soil conditions.
Calculations for this study indicate that the first
yield in the building would occur at a base shear
coefficient of between 0.15 and 0.20 (see Table 3
and Figure 3). The total capacity of the building
assuming redistribution after initial yielding would
have been in the order of 0.30 and 0.40 g. The base
F-'4
overturning moment for stability would have

limited the capacity to 0.45 to 0.50 g (see Table
3).
Comparisons with these general capacity
estimates with the inferred level of ground shaking
implies a degree of damage much greater that that
which actually occurred. In order to further
resolve this inconsistency subsequent analyses
were performed.
Linear Dynamic Analysis. Investigators
performed a linear three-dimensional dynamic
analysis of the building using the program
ETABS. In this analysis the structure was assumed
to be supported on a rigid foundation. This
analysis indicated that the response of this building
was primarily in its first mode of vibration. This
analysis resulted in a higher prediction for first
yield in the building (see Table 4) due to the more
accurate inclusion of the coupling beams between
the shear walls. The capacities shown in Table 4
are in terms of spectral acceleration. Reducing
these by the modal participation factor of
approximately 85 - 90% would indicate a capacity
similar to that of the code analysis. As a result, the
Linear Dynamic Analysis corroborates the basic
strength of the building. but fails to explain the low
level of damage for the high level of seismic
shaking. For this reason the analysis was extended
to include nonlinear effects.
Nonlinear Analysis Including Foundation
Effects. The researchers developed a simplified
two-dimensional model of one of the shear walls
using the computer program DRAIN-2D (See
Figure 4). In addition to nonlinear elements for the
shear wall and coupling beam, the model included
a nonlinear representation of the soil material
beneath the footings. This foundation model could
accommodate both uplift and plastic yielding of the
soil material (see Figure 5).
This model was subject to two earthquake
records. The Pacoima Dam (PD) and the Holiday
Inn (HI). The records were modified to yield
approximately the same fixed-base shear as a
constant acceleration spectrum at 0.9g. Numerous
analyses were made of the model with variations
ir
SI
a!
t1:
VI
Sl
VI
c!
in
c(
ill
to
ar
cc
F
H
O.
th
TI
pr
Wi
Ap
ng
at
led
ing
s
lre
ity
the
:
iOW
jed
Is
. the
jed
uld
f the
lay
The authors find that Wall A (see Figures 2

and 3) would not have experienced forces greater
than its capacity for the majority of the load cases
in the nonlinear analyses. They also note that the
hysteretic energy dissipated in the vertical soil
springs was small. The results indicate that the
effects of uplift tend to predominate over the
strength of the soil at the compression toe.
Although the displacements for the vertically
flexible, weak soils were larger than for stiffer,
stronger soils, the forces in the shear walls
themselves were generally less. A long period
acceleration pulse, evident in the Pacoima Dam
record, did not appear to have a large effect on the
response of the building. Even though the period
lengthened to approximately 0.35 seconds, it still
was substantially less than the 2.0 second period of
the impulse.
Conclusions. Based on their analyses, the
authors concluded that the observed successful
performance of Veterans Administration Hospital
Building #41 during the San Fernando Earthquake
was the result of its initial large strength and good
design details, as well the unanticipated beneficial
effects of nonlinear soil/structure interaction. For
this reason they conclude that partial uplift and
yielding in foundation soils generally tend to
reduce seismic forces in the structure and should
not necessarily be avoided by designers. They also
found that many of the simplified assumptions that
they made for modeling appear to have little effect
when compared to the results from more
sophisticated models .
in a number of different parameters. These are

summarized in Table 5. In this table, the case listed
as CSA is the constant spectral acceleration of 0.9g.
The damping coefficients a and f3 are both from
the conventional Rayleigh damping relationship of
C=aM+!3K
The soil properties are tabulated for lateral and

vertical movement. The variables Cx and Cy are the
stiffnesses for the soil components in the lateral and
vertical direction respectively. Yx and Yy are the
capacities of the soil components.
The results of all the analyses are summarized
in Tables 6, 7, and 8. In Table 6, the fixed base
comparison between the three input motions
illustrates the adjustment of the two actual records
to approximately 0.9g base shear. The interactive
analysis shown are for linear soil properties in
compression and tension with no uplift allowed.
From the interactive results, it is apparent that the
Holiday Inn record has higher accelerations in the
0.20 second period range than those associated with
the fixed base period of approximately 0.14 second.
This amplification is not apparent in the Pacoima
Dam (PD 2) record.
Examination of the results in Tables 7 and 8
provide a number of interesting conclusions. The
wall shears and base shears for the nonlinear
analyses are consistently lower than that predicted
by the linear analyses. An even greater percentage
reduction was found for overturning moments in the
walls. The effect of vertical acceleration was not
found to be significant for these ground motions.
Table 1. Lateral Force Distribution Over Building Height (approximate analysis)
Level
F.' (kip)
Shear (kip)
Moment (kip/ft)
PH
605
2,770
2,710
1,875
1,040
605
3,375
6,085
7;960
9,000
0-0
9,500
50,000
123,000
219,000
354,000
Roof
3
2
I
ous
ns
'ects
These (orces are arbitrarily scaled so the base shear equals

the weight of the building.
F75
Table 2. uteral Shear Farce DIstrIbution Among walls (percentJ; and natural perlad (s)
Wide flanges
Narrow flanses
WaD
B+S
B+S+F
B+S
B+S+F
A
B
C
Period
25
25
29
21
29
50
0-233
0-243 (I)
31
25
44
27
29
44
0-123
27
29
44
0-204
0-213 (I)
27
48
T,
46
0-140
OriEina!
analf,is
(19 7)
29
40
31
B - Bending derormation: S - Shear derormation.

F - Foundalion compliance.
(I) Including mass and rotary inerli. or roundation.
Table S. ute,.al Farce capacIty of BuildIng 41 (app,.oxlmate analysIs)
Percent
or weight
Overturning
First
yield
Cumulative-
(minimum)
It redislribulion
15-20
3S-45
45-50
50-55
Overturning
Yield and redistribution.
Table 4. Spect,.al AcceleratIon levels at Different stages of Res/stance
Per cent
9
F-7G
First
yield
Yield and
redi<tribution
Cumulative
capacilY
25-30
3S-45
45-50
Ap
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROI=IT 01= CONCRETE BUILDINGS
Table 5. soil and Superstructure parameters for cases Analyzed

SoH properties
Lateral
Vertical
Damping
E.Q.
fects
. Case
scale
CSA
HI.I
HI.2
HI.3
HI.4
HI.5
HI.6
HI.7
HI.8
HI.9
111.10
0-9
20
20
20
2-0
20
20
2-0
20
20
20
HI.! I
20
III.! 2
Ill.! 3
111.14
pO.!
PO.2
PO.3
PO.4
I'S
20
20
04
0'4
04
04
PO.S
1'1).6
rO.8
PO.!!
04
0-4
(}4
O'S
rz,{I
'"
'"
'"II
""
...,
'"
II
to
a-O
P. - (}00228
~=O
P=
0,0028
'"
'"
.'"
II
""
...,
II
to
c,
Y,
c,
y.
(Idp/ftl)
(ksl)
a,
'"ex::
400
ex::
400
I'S
I'S
HI
HI
o-S
I'S
I'S
1$
1,000
1000
1000
0333
0-333
0-333
0'2S0
0-333
0-333
0333
0-333
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
1,200
500
500
500
400
1'5
0-333
400
400
400
I'S
I'S
I'S
'"
'"'"
1'5
15
0-333
0-333
0333
1,000
1-000
(}333
0-333
1,200
1,200
1,200
3-75
3-75
0333
0,250
(}333
(}333
1,200
1,200
500
1,200
3-75
3-33
3-75
3-7S
400
400
400
400
400
400
167
400
400
400
400
400
400
400
ex;
'"
HI
. 1,0
I'S
1,5
(kiplftl)
(kll)
a,
<Xl
<Xl
co
3-75
3-75
3-75
3-33
3,00
3-75
3-75
3-75
1-000
1-000
1-000
0-333
(}333
0,333
0-250
0-333
(}333
(}333
(}333
500
3-75
(}333
500
SOO
500
3-75
3-7S
375
<Xl
<Xl
<Xl
<Xl
ex;
, Variations
in super.
structure
properties
"c
E = 0-8E.
1
u
Z
(}333
(}333
(}333
1000
1-000
(}333
(}333 I, = OSI
4\op beams
(}333
(}250
"0c
(}333
Z
(}333
F77
._-
Table 6. l.Inear Response: CDmparatlve Results

Interactive
FIXed base
CSA'"
HI.I
PD.I
HI.2
PD.2
562
559
571
802
580
6,858
6,730
6,991
8,043
5,728
724
661
698
1,0;35
859
(kips)
Base shear
(kips)
1,124
1,118
1,142
1,787
1,331
Foundation
1,561
1,367
1,449
2,507
2,048
0021
0020
0023
0066
0-48
0011
0-09
0006
0-07
Wall sbear
(kips)
Wall moment .
(kip-ft)
Wall axial
compression
axial force
(kips)
Lateral roof
displacement
(in)
Downward
displacement
(in) (2)
Upward
displacement
(in) (2/
(1) Constant spcclral acceleration at 0-99.

(2) At extemal column line; includes static: settlement of about 0-03 in.
Table 7. Nonlinear Response: comparative Results

Response
Wall shear (kips)
Wall moment (kip-ft)
Wall axial
compression (kips)
Base shear (kips)
Foundation axial
force (I) (kips)
Lateral roof
deBection (in)
Downward displacement (2) (in)
Uplift (2) (in)
HI.3
PD.3
HI.4
PD.4
HI.5
PD.5
HI.6
PD_6
HI.8
PD.8
HI.7
HL9
481
4,754
901
367
3,499
SOO
469
4,795
890
354
3,692
748
507
4,997
898
370
3,583
712
481
4,830
940
337
3,264
644
455
4,574
944
358
3,833
611
518
5,156
944
4,0.12
1,223
1.911
839
1,591
1,245
1,948
828
1,573
1,195
2,018
842
1,525
1,157
1,985
750
1,428
1,068
2,047
875
1,462
1,313
2,039
1.139
2,112
0095
0-46
HlI
0047 _ 0079
0046
1-00
0-46
1'33
0071
107
1-24
0016
0-12
0016
0012
0018
0011
0023
0013
0-42
0025
019
0-.$4
0040
0-10
0042
0011
0-27
0-09
0034
O{)S
0-50
0015
045
0-46
407
1,004
(1) Upper bound.
(2) At external column line; includes static settlement of abouI 0,03 in.
F78
App
Table 8. Nonlinear Response: ComparatIve Results (contInued)
Wall shear (kips)

Wall moment
(kiprt)
Wall axial
compression (kips)
Base shear (kips)
Foundation axial
rorce (1) (kips)
Lateral roor
deftection (in)
Downward displacement (2) (in)
Uplift (2) (in)
(I)
.HI.3
PD.3
HI.10
HI.1I
HI.12
PD.12
-H1.13
PD.13
481
4,754
367
3,499
525
5,298
539
6,364
371
3,605
410
4,012
458
4,617
359
3,525
901
800
864
1,611
685
785
925
806
1,223
1,911
839
1,591
1,297
1,907
1,536
3,158
887
1,570
976
1,761
1,134
1,927
821
1,618
095
046
094
2-29
0-48
0'65
084
0-44
016
0-12
0-16
0'31
0'12
0'15
015
012
040
010
035
1-21
011
023
031
010
Upper bound.
lin~
(2) At eXlernat column
@l
,0
includes slatic scnlement or about 0-03 in.
2,
20
IIT
@
22
21
@
@
(Bl
32
3S
19 '\.. CO&.U"'''' JoIU"I[It
34
'''liST FLOO" ONL.Y
.,
"
@
@
I!I
'0
'\..I:OLU ... '" "u"'SEA
11.9
407
.042
,004
<
..;
CJ
"'"
1
,139
~112
'24
0

.@
11
0lC>~
2
111,2
'@@
,.
41
IS
I~
@@@@
X
@
WlE ....
"
cgJD
'0
@@
2
"
Iii!
:l
,",U"SEIt
@ ID
@
so
31
52
<:;;>
$I
.0
Figure 1. TypIcal Floor Level and Plan oF Assumed Framing System
!ets
F79
fl
DO
DO
DO
D0
D0
D0
D0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
0
0
0
-A-
-for.
11
0 0
00
wALL 8
WALL A
0
0
0
0
WALL
Figure 2. Slmplllled COupled Shear Wall Model
mill I -IOks!
l--~-rw
IFill
AREA IN CONTACT
WITH SOIL
SECTION A- A
Figure S. Equilibrium at Incipient overturning, static AnalysIs
F-8D
App
..
II.~
C4-
C3
o---,c
!.2~ ~.';J.ll
9.2~
-..:o'lsbl
C6
I
!
C6
C6
C'
C'
r,t:: sir
,
'"
"q
C3
C6
0-'"
CO
C.
zero dlstonce
"q
C5
: -'"
C/
?'
sir
......... &,
C4
I-
S:2
C,
"-
"q
'-HUNG" 'STRUCTURE DETAIL
'"
,-:U.J&,
DETAIL 2
Figure 4. schematic Representation of Nonlinear Model
u;
...z
~
8
SPRING I
u;
...
Z
(0)
SPRING 2
(b)
I.S
II.O,O.S)
u;
...
Z
COMBINED ACTION
Figure 5. fal TrIlinear Soli Behavior Modelled WIth TWO parallel BilInear SprIngs; fbI BilInear BehavIor Of
Horizontal Soli Spring
fects
F-B1
Resource Summary ,&

Veletsos, A.S., Prasad, A.M., and Tang, Y.
Design Approaches for Soil-Structure Interaction
Proceedings of the Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Tokyo, August, 1988
In this state-of-the-art report, soil structure
interaction concep~ expressed in terms of
kinematic and inertial interaction are discussed
with reference to a simple linear structure of mass,
m, and height, h, supported ona rigid mat
foundation of mass, mo. at the surface of a
homogeneous elastic half space. The authors note
that seismic response of a structure is frequently
evaluated considering the motion of its base to be
equal to the stipulated free-field ground motion at
a reference or control point, normally taken at the
ground surface. However, an exact analysis
requires that the structure be considered to be part
of a larger system which includes the foundation
and a supporting medium and that spatial
variability of ground motion and properties of soils
need to be considered. For such an analysis a two
step approach is defined. First, the motion of the
foundation is evaluated considering the foundation
and the structure to be massless. The resulting
foundation input motion (FIM) generally includes
torsional and rocking components in addition to
translational components. Next the response to the
FIM of the actual foundation-structure system with
mass is evaluated using actual properties of a
supporting medium and providing for the dynamic
interaction. The difference in the response of a
superstructure computed for the FIM and the freefield control point motions represents kinematic
interaction effect. The difference of the responses
computed with and without regard for the
flexibility of the supporting medium is known as
the inertial interaction effect. The total soil-
F-82
structure interaction is given by the sum of both

effects.
For the simplified structure considered, the
effects of inertial and kinematic interaction are
examined in the paper. Expressions are given for
increases in the natural period of the structure on a
flexible support system and for the effects of
foundation damping, including radiation damping
arising from foundation interaction. To address the
question as to whether soil-structure interaction
increases or decreases the maximum response of
the structure, a number of cases are considered
where it becomes clear that the answer is a
function of the response quantity under
examination and the characteristics of the ground
motion and the system itself. Kinematic interaction
effects are discussed including the effects of wave
passage and ground motion incoherence. The
relative importance of kinematic and inertial
interaction is examined using response spectra
plots, such as those shown in Figure I, where the
ratios of pseudo spectral velocity divided by peak
ground acceleration are shown as a function of the
natural frequency of the structure.
Because the presented material and analysis
results assume a simplified idealized building and
a rigid mat foundation system resting on a semiinfinite elastic medium, it is difficult to draw
specific quantitative conclusions regarding the
significance if kinematic and internal interaction
effects for actual building structures, where more
complex foundation systems also involve nonlinear
or inelastic soil response to earthquake ground
motions. However, it is clear that for many
iJ
iJ
II
s:
n
e'
k
1<
SI
ri
bi
Ap
building systems, the effects of kinematic

interaction are small in relation to inertial
interaction effects and that inertial interaction has
the greatest influence on the response of structural
systems in the medium and high frequency spectral
regions. The authors note that inertial interaction
effects are generally more important than that of
kinematic interaction and the interaction effects for
low frequency highly compliant structures are
negligible because such systems "see" the
supporting half space as a very stiff effectively
rigid medium.
The above research and conclusions form the
. basis for existing NEHRP Guidelines (for the
seismic design of buildings) on the effects of soilstructure interaction. However, the authors note
the limitation of these studies and the approach
used, and that additional research is needed to
evaluate the behavior of structures for embedded
foundation and pile foundation systems.
Additionally interaction effects for structures
responding in a nonlinear range of deformation are
recommended. Clearly, the behavior of individual
foundation elements supporting column loads
under earthquake loading and nonlinear response
can be major factors in determining structural
loads, and more research in these areas is needed
to formulate improved guidelines.
)r
lOa
19
the
ld
tion
lye
2.--------------------;
he
ak
the
v,
x.
v,
1;,
---No 551
nd
i-
0.1
0.05
0.1
_Klonly
--Total 551
0.1
, f CPS
10
30
"
10
30
fa' cps
Ire
lear
ects
Figure 1_ Response Spectra For Interacting structures with nlR = 2; ObliquelY Incident EI Centro Record, sin
a=0_4, 1:=0_05 sec.
FBS
Resource Summary 17
Wallace, J.W., Moehle, J.P., and Martinez-Cruzado, J.
Implications for the Design of Shear Wall Buildings Using Data
from Recent Earthquakes
Proceedings of Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Palm Springs, CA, May 1990
This paper presents the results of a study of
the measured response and observed seismic
performance of reinforced concrete load bearing
shear wall buildings during past earthquakes.
First, the response of two 10-story concrete shear
wall buildings in California during earthquakes
was analyzed. Both buildings were designed and
built in early 1970s. Figure 1 shows the plan
configurations of the two buildings. Both buildings
have been instrumented with strong motion
instruments by the California Strong Motion
Instrumentation Program. Because of the
symmetry of the first building, a 2-dimensional
computer using SAP-90 computer model was
developed; whereas, a three dimensional model of
the second building was developed using ETABS
computer program. The first building, located in
northern California, was analyzed for the motions
recorded during the 1984 Morgan Hill (Ms = 6.2)
earthquake. The second building, located in
southern California was analyzed for the motions
recorded during the 1987 Whittier (Ms = 5.9)
earthquake.
It was observed that when soil flexibility and
the effect of initial concrete cracking were ignored
in the analysis, the periods of vibration obtained
from the computer model were smaller than those
measured from recorded response. The correlation
between the measured and computed time-history
response was also poor, Figure 2. Therefore, the
computer model was modified to incorporate these
effects. Foundation flexibility was modeled using
the relatively simple soil springs approach outlined
F-B4
in the ATC-3-06 document. As shown in Figure 3,

good correlation between the recorded motions and
the time-history analyses results was observed
when the effects of foundation flexibility and
cracked section properties were included.
Comparison were then made with the response
of shear wall buildings during the March 1985
Chilean earthquake (Ms = 7.8) which had a peak
acceleration of 0.36 g and duration of strong
shaking of more than 60 seconds. Even though the
Chilean buildings are designed to similar force
levels as California, their ductile detailing and
quality control requirements are quite lax by US
standards. However, these buildings have
performed remarkably well during past
earthquakes.
To understand the reasons for this good
performance, displacement ductility demand
spectra were developed from 5 percent damped
elastic spectra using the method recommended by
Newmark and Hall. These are shown in Figure 4.
The calculated base shear strengths and the periods
measured from ambient vibrations were then
plotted in this figure. It was observed that these
data points correspond to a ductility demand of
about 3 which corresponds to appreciable local
damage. However, when the building strength was
plotted as a function of the building period
considering soil flexibility, it was noted that
several buildings fell on or above the elastic
spectra and the largest ductility demand was 2. It
was, therefore, concluded that foundation
APpendix F, supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
f
d
o
a
\1
t~
All
flexibility was one of the reasons for the reduced

displacement ductility demands in these buildings.
The authors also studied the available ductility
of the Chilean shear walls. They found that, the
available curvature ductility of lightly reinforced
walls was about 10 to 12 and was greater than the
typical ductility demand of about 3 to 5.
3,
nd
...... .,..
Therefore, it was concluded that for rectangular,

symmetrically reinforced walls, concrete
confinement in transverse reinforcement is not
necessary for good seismic performance and that
the US bearing wall buildings should also perform
well during a major earthquake.
1---------,. ,..... ---------ol
se
k
(&) Building 1 - Floorl 25
iii LIJ-+'
-t-'
y
t
Jds
l'r l
las
1.1'"
-=tv.
(b) Building 2 - Floors 210
[t
Figure 1. Building Plans
!ctl
FBS
1.0
;. ,
i
I_--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0.0 ...
1u1l4f"'9 1
.
CIIoMoiI 7-Roof !AWl (NS)
-1.04---~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--~--__~--~~
i '.0
I
.i
0.0
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
llEASURED
- - - COWM'ED
-+---~~~~~'.lJMoI,A.I.+J.l....p..;.l,~~_..........
""toOo.._a__'
Build"', 2
lloof UveI (EW)
-1.04-----~----~--~----~----~----~----~--~
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
TIME (SEC)
FIgure 2. Measured and Computed RDDI Dlsplacement-cross,sectlon Model
~ 1.0
~....
IoIWUIIED
- - - COWPIITED
0.0 -l---"""'AA-A-AN~\.A+\A-I+A-AA~~~p,..j:~tH.w:\-JloL\-H,II:H~+\'f1A1WIn
~III
Buildin9 1
CIlO.....1 7-Roofl..VlI (NS)
is - 1.0 ~-....--....--....--...---....--..--..---..---..---,....,-....,....--l
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
~o.o
IoIEASURED
- - - COIolPUTtD
20.0
FIgure 6. Measure and Computed RooF Dlsplacement-CrackedSectlon and SSI Model
F8a
T-;:;;;;:;;::=:=:---==:::-=-::~~;----I
lastic
Vino del Mar - S20W
0.75
o
o
Measured Periods
Computed PeriodS -
Flexible Bo~e
Plaza del Mar
Acapulco
Festival
Miramar
Torres del Sol
EI Foro
Almendral
Villa Real
2
J
4
5
6
l-....---,.-....,....-:-::::=:;~~~~~~~;;~
-r----------=::--:-:-:::'--:----------,
0.00
0.75
Elastic
ATC Soil Type 2

Fixed Base
Flexible Bose
California Buildings
Plaza del Mar
!0.50
2 - Acapulco
J
restival
ai
Miramar
Torres del Sol
6
EI Foro
7 - Almendral
8 - Villa Real
4
Lo.I
VI
~ 0.25
rn
o.oo+-~....---,.-....,....-~-...._~--~-~-....---,.-....,....~
0.00
1.00
2.00
J.OO
PERIOD (SEC)
Figure 4. Comparison oF Ductility Demands
as
Appendix F. Supplemental Information an Faundation Effects
F-87
Resource Summary 18
Yim, S. C-S and Chopra, A. K.
Simplified Earthquake Analysis of Multistory Structures with Foundation
Uplift
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Structural Engineering,
Vol. 111, No. 12, December 1985. pp. 2708-2731
This investigation is an extension of the
approach for the analysis of single degree of
freedom systems (Chopra and Yim) to the analysis
of IlUIltistory structures with foundation flexibility
and uplift.
Figure 1 shows the system considered in this
investigation. Although, the foundation soil can be
represented by the two spring -dashpot model or the
distributed Winkler spring and dashpot mode, only
the results of analyses with two spring and dashpot
system were presented in this paper. Equations of
motions were developed for this multistory
structure foundation system. It was noted that
although the governing equations of motions were
nonlinear, the dynamic response of the system
under consideration could be obtained as sequential
response of three linear systems corresponding to
three contact conditions for the foundation mat.
The time history response of an idealized 10story structure was analyzed for the north-south
component of the 1940 EI Centro earthquake. The
idealized structure had uniform stiffness, mass, and
inter-story height. The damping was 5 percent in all
modes of vibration and the slenderness ratio for the
first mode of vibration was 10. The base shear and
overturning moment spectra obtained from this
analysis are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The
beneficial effect of allowing uplift were observed in
terms of lowered base shear and overturning
moments for periods of vibration less than about 1
sec.
The authors also observed that foundation
flexibility and uplift have little impact on the higher
F-88
modes of response. Therefore, they concluded that

the analysis of a multistory building with
foundation flexibility and uplift can be simplified
by calculating only the fundamental mode of
response considering these effects; the contribution
from higher modes can be computed using
standard procedures by disregarding the effects of
foundation flexibility and uplift. Excellent
correlation between the exact solutions and the
solutions obtained using this approach was
observed, see Figure 4.
A simplified approach for estimating the
response of uplifting multistory structures was
then presented. In this approach, the maximum
earthquake base shear for the system is obtained as
the SRSS of the modal maxima of individual
modes of vibrations. An approximate expression
for the maximum base shear in the first mode of
vibration considering foundation flexibility and
uplift was developed. This equation is analogous to
the one developed for the single degree of freedom
systems and does not require time history
analyses. The modal maxima for the other mod~s
of vibration are obtained using the standard
procedures for the structure on rigid foundation
without uplift. The base shear response spectra
using this simplified approach as presented in
Figure 5 show reasonable degree of accuracy.
Therefore, the simplified approach can be used for
practical design or for performing parametric
studies on the influence of foundation flexibility
and uplift on response of multistory structures.
SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUlLo::IIGS
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
1
1
1
1
1
...
I.,. ",
1,/
at
1=11
II F=:::::-':=::::::d
II
"
on
,f
"
-ilt
Figure 1. Multistory structure supported on Two Spring-Damper Element Foundation
as
to
,m
s
or
:ts
F-8.
SE~::r;",IC
EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS
. ...\......
o.a
0.1
..,',
CIA
~
'),.0
..
Z
III
"
II:
0.04
.
~
0.2
0.1
0.08
O.Ge
ClIITlCAL lASE SHEAI!
CQUI'ICIENT V.
.,
III
%
III
0.02
CD
0.01
0.008
0.001
- ..-ItIOlD SUHOTJJeG
QOO4
"-U'I"E
S~ItTING
.,n'''. ""-In "lIIrvlNTlD
ITSTtM
.....'.C.T6C'I'.U.... ''' ... h'.TlD
____ DIDe.'..cT." ....I"
.'''''''D
0.002
0.1
0.2
O.~
0.eO.8 I
8 10
20
FUNDAMENTAL VIBRATION PERIOD TI ' SEC.
FIgure 2. Base Shear Response spectra for MultIstory structures Subjected to EI centro Ground MotIon for
Three SupportIng CondItIons
F80
FI
AI
2r----------------------------------,
I
0.1
0.1
~.
0.4
iu
0.2
it11.1
o
0.1
0.08
0.06
....
OIIERTUMING _ENT
~-----------=~~::~::~==~~~~~~'T~~~A~L~.~A~S~E~~~
\ COFFICIEIIT MC
\
\,
\,,
0.04
,
~,
CIJ
""
0.02
...
~ ODI
00.001
=Co.ooa
~
..............0 ",'IIOtIITINQ STIlIM, Ufl\.1'T . .IY'NTE.D
0.004
nIJUI"" ~TING snTIM
UP",,, "1'41""0
IC*OID CowrAC',
u.a.DIDCOtI'..CT.~I"pl_I"U
0.002
0.1
0.2
0.4 0.60.' I
I 10
20
FUNDAMENTAL. VIBRATION PERIOD T, SEC.
Figure $. Base Overturning Moment Response Spectra for Multistory structures Subjected to EI centro Cround
MotIon for Three support conditions
AppenCllx F, Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects
F91
2~--------------------------~----~
I
o.a
o.
..
.
....
E
0.2
:::..
-it
'"
0.1
O.oa
Q.06
II:
C
CI.O.f
'":l
o.oz
'"en:I:
CRITICAL lASE SHEAR
COUFICIENT 1',
III
0.01
0.001
0.001
_ D CCIIT&CT.IW\.I'T ,.,ytNTED
I -
IlAe, lO,-ut,aM
I ___ ....... I. .".~UtlO.
0.004
UOO_DlD CDIIT&CT.UPL"r PPII'TT'D

I -
,lAC' "''''"w
.. - - - - . . . . . . 111&" IOUllIO.
0.1
0.2
0.4 0.60.8 I
8 10
20
FUNDAMENTAL VIBRATION PERIOD TI SEC.
Figure 4. comparison Of Base Shear Response spectra computed by Exact and Approximate Analysis
procedures lor Multistory Buildings
F92
2~-----------------------------------'
I
0.8
0 .
0.4
-:,.0
0.2
...
Z
w
C3
ifw
CRITICAL USE SHEAII
0.1
0.08
COFFICIENT
V.
0.06
a: 0.04
c
w
%
(II
0.02
w
(II
c
III
0.01
0.008
IONO!D co.. rACT. UP,",' r PREVENTED
0.006
2 ---
0.004
'UCT SOWTIO.,
'JIOII'~I'IIDMOO"&. ..... I.'"I'.oelOU".
UNIONOED CONTACT .UPLIFT '1"M.TTD
cueT SOLUTIO ..
- - - - "",I*,,-I"'D MOOM. ..... 1.'111 P'ftOC&DUItI
0.002
0.1
0.2
0.4 0.60.8 I
8 10
20
FUNDAMENTAL VIBRATION PERIOD TI SEC.
Figure S. Comparison oF Base Shear Response Spectra compUted by EXact and Simplified Modal Analysis
procedures for Multistory Buildings
:ts
AppendixG
Applied Technology Council

proJects and Report
Information
One of the primary purposes of Applied Technology
Council is to develop resource documents that
translate and summarize useful infonnation to
practicing engineers. This includes the development
of guidelines and manuals, as well as the
development of research recommendations for
specific areas determined by the profession. ATC is
not a code development organization, although
several of the ATC project reports serve as resource
documents for the development of codes, standards
and specifications.
Applied Technology Council conducts projects that
meet the following criteria:
1. The primary audience or benefactor is the design
practitioner in structural engineering.
2. A cross section or consensus of engineering
opinion is required to be obtained and presented
by a neutral source.
3. The project fosters the advancement of
structural engineering practice.
A brief description of several major completed
projects and reports is given in the following
section. Funding for projects is obtained from
government agencies and tax-deductible
contributions from the private sector.
ATC-I: This project resulted in five papers that
were published as part of Building Practices for
Disaster Mitigation, Building Science Series 46,

proceedings of a workshop sponsored by the
National Science Foundation (NSF) and the
National Bureau of Standards (NBS). Available
through the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA
22151, as NTIS report No. COM-73-50188.
ATC-2: The report, An Evaluation of a Response
Spectrum Approach to Seismic Design of Buildings,
was funded by NSF and NBS and was conducted as
part of the Cooperative Federal Program in Building
Practices for Disaster Mitigation. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1974,270 Pages)
ABSTRACT: This study evaluated the

applicability and cost of the response spectrum
approach to seismic analysis and design that
was proposed by various segments of the
engineering profession. Specific building
designs, design procedures and parameter
values were evaluated for future application.
Eleven existing buildings of varying dimensions
were redesigned according to the procedures.
A TC-3: The report, Tentative Provisions for the
Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings
(ATC-3-06), was funded by NSF and NBS. The
second printing of this report, which includes
proposed amendments, is available through the ATC
office. (Published 1978, amended 1982, 505 pages
plus proposed amendments)
Appendix C, APplied Technology Council projects and Report Information
G-1
ABSTRACT: The tentative provisions in this

document represent the results of a concerted
effort by a multi-disciplinary team of 85
nationally recognized experts in earthquake
engineering. The provisions serve as the basis
for the seismic provisions of the 1988 Uniform
Building Code and the 1988 and subsequent
issues of the NEHRP Recommended Provisions
for the Development of Seismic Regulation for
New Buildings. The second printing of this
document contains proposed amendments
prepared by a joint committee of the Building
Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) and the NBS.
ATC-3-2: The project, Comparative Test Designs

of Buildings Using ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions,
was funded by NSF. The project consisted of a
study to develop and plan a program for making
comparative test designs of the ATC-3-06 Tentative
Provisions. The project report was written to be
used by the Building Seismic Safety Council in its
refinement of the ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions.
ATC-3-4: The report, Redesign of Three Multistory
Buildings: A Comparison Using ATC-3-06 and
1982 Uniform Building Code Design Provisions,
was published under a grant from NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1984, 112
pages)
ABSTRACT: This report evaluates the cost and
technical impact of using the 1978 ATC-3-06

report, Tentative Provisions for the Development
of Seismic Regulationsfor Buildings, as
amended by a joint committee of the Building
Seismic Safety Council and the National Bureau
of Standards in 1982. The evaluations are based
on studies of three existing California buildings
redesigned in accordance with the ATC-3-06
Tentative Provisions and the 1982 Uniform
Building Code. Included in the report are
recommendations to code implementing bodies.
ATC-3-5: This project, Assistance for First Phase
of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being
Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council,
was funded by the Building Seismic Safety Council
G2
to provide the services of the ATC Senior

Consultant and other ATC personnel to assist the
BSSC in the conduct of the first phase of its Trial
Design Program. The first phase provided for trial
designs conducted for buildings in Los Angeles,
Seattle, Phoenix, and Memphis.
A TC-3-6: This project, Assistance for Second
Phase of ATC-3-06 Trial Design Program Being
Conducted by the Building Seismic Safety Council,
was funded by the Building Seismic Safety Council
to provide the services of"the ATC Senior
Consultant and other ATC personnel to assist the
BSSC in the conduct of the second phase of its Trial
Design Program. The second phase provided for
trial designs conducted for buildings in New York,
Chicago, St. Louis, Charleston, and Fort Worth.
ATC-4: The report, A Methodology for Seismic
Design and Construction of Single-Family
Dwellings, was published under a contract with the
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD). Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1976,576 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report presents the results of
an in-depth effort to develop design and
construction details for single-family residences
that minimize the potential economic loss and
life-loss risk associated with earthquakes. The
report: (1) discusses the ways structures behave
when subjected to seismic forces, (2) sets forth
suggested design criteria for conventional
layouts of dwellings constructed with
conventional materials, (3) presents construction
details that do not require the designer to
perform analytical calculations, (4) suggests
procedures for efficient plan-checking, and (5)
presents recommendations including details and
schedules for use in the field by construction
personnel and building inspectors.
ATC-4-1: The report, The Home Builders Guide

for Earthquake Design, was published under a
contract with HUD. Available through the ATe
office. (Published 1980, 57 pages)
Appendix C, Applied Technology Council projects and Report Information
c
c
}j
A
2
ABS1RACT: This report is a 57-page abridged
version of the ATC-4 report. The concise,

easily understood text of the Guide is
supplemented with illustrations and 46
construction details. The details are provided to
ensure that houses contain structural features
that are properly positioned, dimensioned and
constructed to resist earthquake forces. A brief
description is included on how earthquake
forces impact on houses and some precautionary
constraints are given with respect to site
selection and architectural designs.
I,
il
A TC5: The report, Guidelines for Seismic Design

and Construction of Single-Story Masonry
Dwellings in Seismic Zone 2, was developed under a
contract with HUD. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1986,38 pages)
al
:s
ABS1RACT: The report offers a concise

methodology for the earthquake design and
construction of single-story masonry dwellings
in Seismic Zone 2 of the United States, as
defined by the 1973 Uniform Building Code.
The Guidelines are based in part on shaking
table tests of masonry construction conducted at
the University of California at Berkeley
Earthquake Engineering Research Center. The
report is written in simple language and includes
basic house plans, wall evaluations, detail
drawings, and material specifications.
A TC6: The report, Seismic Design Guidelines for

Highway Bridges, was published under a contract
with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
Available through the ATC office. (Published 1981,
210 pages)
ABS1RACT: The Guidelines are the
recommendations of a team of sixteen nationally

recognized experts that included consulting
engineers, academics, state and federal agency
representatives from throughout the United
States. The Guidelines embody several new
concepts that were significant departures from
then existing design provisions. Included in the
Guidelines are an extensive commentary, an
example demonstrating the use of the

Guidelines, and summary reports on 21 bridges
redesigned in accordance with the Guidelines.
The guidelines have been adopted by the
American Association of Highway and
Transportation Officials as a guide
specification.
ATC61: The report, Proceedings of a Workshop
on Earthquake Resistance of Highway Bridges, was
published under a grant from NSF. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1979,625
pages)
ABS1RACT: The report includes 23 state-of-the-
art and state-of-practice papers on earthquake

resistance of highway bridges. Seven of the
twenty-three papers were authored by
participants from Japan, New Zealand and
Portugal. The Proceedings also contain
recommendations for future research that were
developed by the 45 workshop participants.
A TC62: The report, Seismic Retrofitting
Guidelines for Highway Bridges, was published
under a contract with FHWA. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1983,220 pages)
ABS1RACT: The Guidelines are the
recommendations of a team of thirteen

nationally recognized experts that included
consulting engineers, academics, state highway
engineers, and federal agency representatives.
The Guidelines, applicable for use in all parts of
the U.S., include a preliminary screening
procedure, methods for evaluating an existing
bridge in detail, and potential retrofitting
measures for the most common seismic
deficiencies. Also included are special design
requirements for various retrofitting measures.
ATC7: The report, Guidelines for the Design of
Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, was published under
a grant from NSF. Available through the ATC
ABS1RACT: Guidelines are presented for
designing roof and floor systems so these can
Appendix G, Applied Technology Council proJects and Report Information
GoJ
function as horizontal diaphragms in a lateral

. force resisting system. Analytical procedures,
connection details and design examples are
included in the Guidelines.
ATC-7-1: The report, Proceedings of a Workslwp
of Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, was
pages)
ABSTRACT: The report includes seven papers on

state-of-the-practice and two papers on recent
research. Also included are recommendations
for future research that were developed by the
35 workshop participants.
ATC-8: This report, Proceedings of a Workshop on
the Design of Prefabricated Concrete Buildings for
Earthquake Loads, was funded by NSF. Available
pages)
ABSTRACT: The report includes eighteen stateof-the-art papers and six summary papers. Also
included are recommendations for future
research that were developed by the 43
workshop partiCipants.
ATC-9: The report, An Evaluation of the Imperial
County Services Building Earthquake Response and
Associated Damage, was published under a grant
from NSF. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1984, 231 pages)
ABSTRACT: The report presents the results of an

in-depth evaluation of the Imperial County
Services Building, a 6-story reinforced concrete
frame and shear wall building severely damaged
by the October 15, 1979 Imperial Valley,
California, earthquake. The report contains a
review and evaluation of earthquake damage to
the building; a review and evaluation of the
seismic design; a comparison of the
requirements of various building codes as they
relate to the building; and conclusions and
recommendations pertaining to future building
code provisions and future research needs.
G-4
ATC-IO: This report, An Investigation of the

Correlation Between Earthquake Ground Motion
and Building Peiformonce, was funded by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1982, 114 pages)
ABSTRACT: The report contains an in-depth

analytical evaluation of the ultimate or limit
capacity of selected representative building
framing types, a discussion of the factors
affecting the seismic performance of buildings,
and a summary and comparison of seismic
design and seismic risk parameters currently in
widespread use.
a
/;
l'
1
ATC-IO-I: This report, Critical Aspects of

Earthquake Ground Motion and Building Damage
Potential, was co-funded by the USGS and the NSF.
259 pages)
ABSTRACT: This document contains 19 stateof-the-art papers on ground motion, structural

response, and structural design issues presented
by prominent engineers and earth scientists in
an ATC seminar. The main theme of the papers
is to identify the critical aspects of ground
motion and building performance that currently
are not being considered in building design.
The report also contains conclusions and
recommendations of working groups convened
after the Seminar.
A
J,
R
u
ATC-ll: The report, Seismic Resistance of

Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls and Frame Joints:
Implications of Recent Research for Design
Engineers, was published under a grant from NSF.
184 pages)
ABSTRACT: This document presents the results

of an in-depth review and synthesis of research
reports pertaining to cyclic loading of reinforced
concrete shear walls and cyclic loading of joint
reinforced concrete frames. More than 125
research reports published since 1971 are
reviewed and evaluated in this report. The
Appendix C, Applied Technology Council projects and Report Information
preparation of the report included a consensus

process involving numerous experienced design
professionals from throughout the United States.
The report contains reviews of current and past
design practices, summaries of research
developments, and in-depth discussions of
design implications of recent research results.
A TC-12: This report, Comparison of United States
and New Zealand Seismic Design Practices for
Highway Bridges, was published under a grant from
NSF. Available through the ATC office. (Published
1982,270 pages)
ABSTRACT: The report contains summaries of
all aspects and innovative design procedures

used in New Zealand as well as comparison of
United States and New Zealand design practice.
Also included are research recommendations
developed at a 3-day workshop in New Zealand
attended by 16 U.S. and 35 New Zealand bridge
design engineers and researchers.
F.
~,
ATC-12-1: This report, Proceedings of Second

Joint U.S.-New Zealand Workshop on Seismic
Resistance of Highway Bridges, was published
under a grant from NSF. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1986,272 pages)
d
rs
y
ABSTRACT: This report contains written
versions of the papers presented at this 1985

Workshop as well as a list and prioritization of
workshop recommendations. Included are
summaries of research projects being coriducted
in both countries as well as state-of-the-practice
papers on various aspects of design practice.
Topics discussed include bridge design
philosophy and loadings; design of columns,
footings, piles, abutments and retaining
structures; geotechnical aspects of foundation
design; seismic analysis techniques; seismic
retrofitting; case studies using base isolation;
strong-motion data acquisition and
interpretation; and testing of bridge components
and bridge systems.
ts:
3,
ts
h
:ed
1t
on
ATC-13: The report, Eanhquake Damage

Evaluation Datafor California, was developed
under a contract with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). Available through
ABSTRACT: This report presents expert-opinion
earthquake damage and loss estimates for

industrial, commercial, residential, utility and
transportation facilities in California. Included
are damage probability matrices for 78 classes
of structures and estimates of time required to
restore damaged facilities to pre-earthquake
usability. The report also describes the
inventory information essential for estimating
economic losses and the methodology used to
develop loss estimates on a regional basis.
ATC-14: The report, Evaluating the Seismic
Resistance of Existing Buildings, was developed
under a grant from the NSF. Available through the
ABSTRACT: This report, written for practicing
structural engineers, describes a methodology

for performing preliminary and detailed
building seismic evaluations. The report
contains a state-of-practice review; seismic
loading criteria; data collection procedures; a
detailed description of the building
classification system; preliminary and detailed
analysis procedures; and example case studies,
including nonstructural considerations.
ATC-IS: The report, Comparison of Seismic
Design Practices in the United States and Japan,
was published under a grant from NSF. Available
pages)
ABSTRACT: The report contains detailed
technical papers describing design practices in
the United States and Japan as well as
recommendations emanating from a joint U.S.Japan workshop held in Hawaii in March, 1984.
Included are detailed descriptions of new
seismic design methods for buildings in Japan
Appendix G, APplied Technology Council projects and Report Information
c-s
and case studies of the design of specific

buildings (in both countries). The report also
contains an overview of the history and
objectives of the Japan Structural Consultants
Association.
ATC151: The report, Proceedings of Second U.S.Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building
Seismic Design and Construction Practices, was
pages)
ABS1RACT: This report contains 23 technical
papers presented at this San Francisco workshop

in August, 1986, by practitioners and
researchers from the U.S. and Japan. Included
are state-of-the-practice papers and case studies
of actual building designs and information on
regulatory, contractual, and licensing issues.
ATClS2: The report, Proceedings of Third U.S.Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building
Structural Design and Construction Practices, was
published jointly by ATC and the Japan Structural
Consultants Association. Available through the
papers presented at this Tokyo, Japan, workshop
in July, 1988, by practitioners and researchers
from the U.S., Japan, China, and New Zealand.
Included are state-of-the-practice papers on
various topics, including braced steel frame
buildings, beam-column joints in reinforced
concrete buildings, summaries of comparative
U. S. and Japanese design, and base isolation
and passive energy dissipation devices.
ATClS3: The report, Proceedings of Fourth U.S.Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building

papers presented at this Kailua-Kona, Hawaii,
G-G
workshop in August, 1990, by practitioners and

researchers from the United States, Japan, and
Peru. Included are papers on postearthquake
building damage assessment; acceptable earthquake damage; repair and retrofit of earthquake
damaged buildings; base-isolated buildings,
including Architectural Institute of Japan
recommendations for design; active damping
systems; wind-resistant design; and summaries
of working group conclusions and
recommendations.
ATC154: The report, Proceedings of Fifth U.S.Japan Workshop on Improvement of Building
ABs1RACT: This report contains 20
technical papers presented at this San Diego,

California workshop in September, 1992.
Included are papers on performance
goals/acceptable damage in seismic design;
seismic design procedures and case studies;
construction influences on design; seismic
isolation and passive energy dissipation; design
of irregular structures; seismic evaluation, repair
and upgrading; quality control for design and
construction; and summaries of working group
discussions and recommendations.
ATC16: This project, Development of a 5-Year
Plan for Reducing the Earthquake Hazards Posed by
Existing Nonfederal Buildings, was funded by
FEMA and was conducted by a joint venture of
ATC, the Building Seismic Safety Council and the
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. The
project involved a workshop in Phoenix, Arizona,
where approximately 50 earthquake specialists met
to identify the major tasks and goals for reducing
the earthquake hazards posed by existing nonfederal
buildings nationwide. The plan was developed on
the basis of nine issue papers presented at the
workshop and workshop working group discussions.
The Workshop Proceedings and Five-Year Plan are
available through the Federal Emergency
Appendix C, Applied Technology Council ProJects and Report Information
a
fi
(I
A
M
N
(I
,d
Management Agency, 500 "C" Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20472.
:e
ATC-17: This report, Proceedings ofa Seminar

and Workshop on Base Isolation and Passive
Energy Dissipation, was published under a grant
from NSF. Available through the ATe office.
.s
I
ABSTRACT: The report contains 42 papers

describing the state-of-the-art and state-of-thepractice in base-isolation and passive energydissipation technology. Included are papers
describing case studies in the United States,
applications and developments worldwide,
recent innovations in technology development,
and structural and ground motion issues. Also
included is a proposed 5-year research agenda
that addresses the following specific issues: (1)
strong ground motion; (2) design criteria; (3)
materials, quality control, and long-term
reliability; (4) life cycle cost methodology; and
(5) system response.
ATC-17-1: This report, Proceedings ofa Seminar
on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation
and Active Control, was published under a grant
from NSF. Available through the ATe office.
by
et
:ral
n
ms.
a:e
Ion
ABSTRACT: The 2-volume report documents 70

technical papers presented during a two-day
seminar in San Francisco in early 1993.
Included are invited theme papers and
competitively selected papers on issues related
to seismic isolation systems, passive energy
dissipation systems, active control systems and
hybrid systems.
ATC-19: The report, Structural Response
Modification Factors was funded by NSF and
NCEER. Available through the ATe office.
ABSTRACT: This report addresses structural
response modification factors (R factors), which
are used to reduce the seismic forces associated
with elastic response to obtain design forces.
The report documents the basis for current R

values, how R factors are used for seismic
design in other countries, a rational means for
decomposing R into key components, a
framework (and methods) for evaluating the key
components of R, and the research necessary to
improve the reliability of engineered
construction designed using R factors.
A TC-20: The report, Procedures for
Postearthquake Safety Evaluation ofBuildings, was
developed under a contract from the Califomia
Office 'of Emergency Services (OES), Califomia
Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (OSHPD) and FEMA. Available
through the ATC office (Published 1989, 152 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report provides procedures
and guidelines for making on-the-spot
evaluations and decisions regarding continued
use and occupancy of earthquake damaged
buildings. Written specifically for volunteer
structural engineers and building inspectors, the
report includes rapid and detailed evaluation
procedures for inspecting buildings and posting
them as "inspected" (apparently safe), "limited
entry" or "unsafe". Also included are special
procedures for evaluation of essential buildings
(e.g., hospitals), and evaluation procedures for
nonstructural elements, and geotechnical
hazards.
ATC-20-1: The report, Field Manual:
Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, was
developed under a contract from OES and OSHPD.
Available through the ATC office (Published 1989,
114 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report, a companion Field
Manual for the ATC-20 report, summarizes the
postearthquake safety evaluation procedures in
brief concise format designed for ease of use in
the field.
ATC-20-2: The report, Addendum to the ATC-20
Postearthquake Building Safety Procedures was
published under a grant from the National Science
Appendix C, Applied Technology council projects and Report Information
G'
Foundation and funded by the USGS. Available

through the ATC office. (Published 1995.94 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report provides updated
assessment forms. placards. and procedures that
are based on an in-depth review and evaluation
of the widespread application of the ATC-20
procedures following five earthquakes occurring
since the initial release of the ATC-20 report in
1989.
ATC-20-3: The report. Case Studies in Rapid

Postearthquake Safety Evaluation of Buildings, was
funded by ATC and R. P. Gallagher Associates.
295 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report contains 53 case studies
using the ATC-20 Rapid Evaluation procedure.

Each case study is illustrated with photos and
describes how a building was inspected and
evaluated for life safety, and includes a
completed safety assessment form and placard.
The report is intended to be used as a training
and reference manual for building officials.
building inspectors, civil and structural
engineers. architects, disaster workers, and
others who may be asked to perform safety
evaluations after an earthquake.
ATC-20-T: The report. Postearthquake Safety
Evaluation of Buildings Training Manual was
developed under a contract with FEMA. Available
through the ATC office. (Published 1993. 177
pages; 160 slides)
ABSTRACT: This training manual is intended to
facilitate the presentation of the contents of the
ATC-20 and ATC-20-1. The training materials
consist of 160 slides of photographs. schematic
drawings and textual information and a
companion training presentation narrative
coordinated with the slides. Topics covered
include: posting system; evaluation procedures;
structural basics; wood frame, masonry.
concrete, and steel frame structures;
nonstructural elements; geotechnical hazards;

hazardous materials; and field safety.
ATC-21: The report. Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards: A
Handbook. was developed under a contract from
FEMA. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1988. 185 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report describes a rapid visual
screening procedure for identifying those

buildings that might pose serious risk of loss of
life and injury. or of severe curtailment of
community services. in case of a damaging
earthquake. The screening procedure utilizes a
methodology based on a "sidewalk survey"
approach that involves identification of the
primary structural load resisting system and
building materials. and assignment of a basic
structural hazards score and performance
modification factors based on observed building
characteristics. Application of the methodology
identifies those buildings that are potentially
hazardous and should be analyzed in more detail
by a professional engineer experienced in
seismic design.
ATC-21-1: The report. Rapid Visual Screening of
Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards:
Supporting Documentation. was developed under a
contract from FEMA. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1988. 137 pages)
ABSTRACT: Included in this report are (1) a
review and evaluation of existing procedures;

(2) a listing of attributes considered ideal for a
rapid visual screening procedures; and (3) a
technical discussion of the recommended rapid
visual screening procedure that is documented
in the ATC-21 report.
I
(
J.
d
tl
1
l:
Jj
ATC-21-2: The report. Earthquake Damaged

Buildings: An Overview of Heavy Debris and
Victim Extrication, was developed under a contract
from FEMA. (Published 1988.95 pages)
ABSTRACT: Included in this report, a
companion volume to the ATC-21 and
G-a
Appendix C, APplied Technology Council projects and Report Information
AI
al
ATC-21-1 reports, is state-of-the-art information

on (1) the identification of those buildings that
might collapse and trap victims in debris or
generate debris of such a size that its handling
would require special or heavy lifting
equipment; (2) guidance in identifying these
types of buildings, on the basis of their major
exterior features, and (3) the types and life
capacities of equipment required to remove the
heavy portion of the debris that might result
from the collapse of such buildings.
ATC-21-T: The report, Rapid Visual Screening of

Buildings for Potential Seismic Hazards Training
Manual was developed under a contract with
FEMA. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1996, 135 pages; 120 slides)
ail
,
a
:t
)n
ABSTRACT: This training manual is intended to

facilitate the presentation of the contents of the
ATC-21 report. The training materials consist of
120 slides and a companion training
presentation narrative coordinated with the
slides. Topics covered include: description of
procedure, building behavior, building types,
building scores, occupancy and falling hazards,
and implementation.
ATC-22: The report, A Handbookfor Seismic

Evaluation of Existing Buildings (Preliminary), was
developed under a contract from FEMA. Available
through the ATC office. (Originally published in
1989; revised by BSSC and published as the NEHRP
Handbookfor Seismic Evaluation of Existing
Buildings in 1992, 211 pages)
ABSTRACT: This handbook provides a
methodology for seismic evaluation of existing
buildings of different types and occupancies in
areas of different seismicity throughout the
United States. The methodology, which has
been field tested in several programs
nationwide, utilizes the information and
procedures developed for and documented in the
ATC-14 report. The handbook includes
checklists, diagrams, and sketches designed to
assist the user.
ATC-22-1: The report, Seismic Evaluation of

Existing Buildings: Supporting Documentation,
was developed under a contract from FEMA.
160 pages)
ABSTRACT: Included in this report, a
companion volume to the ATC-22 report, are
(I) a review and evaluation of existing buildings
seismic evaluation methodologies; (2) results
from field tests of the ATC-14 methodology;
and (3) summaries of evaluations of ATC-14
conducted by the National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research (State
University of New York at Buffalo) and the
City of San Francisco.
ATC-23A: The report, General Acute Care

Hospital Earthquake Survivability Inventory for
California, Part A: Survey Description, Summary of
Results, Data Analysis and Interpretation, was
developed under a contract from the Office of
Statewide Health Planning and Development
(OSHPD), State of California. Available through
ABSTRACT: This report, completed in 1991,
summarizes results from a seismic survey of
490 California acute care hospitals. Included are
a description of the survey procedures and data
collected, a summary of the data, and an
illustrative discussion of data analysis and
interpretation that has been provided to
demonstrate potential applications of the ATC23 database.
ATC-23B: The report, General Acute Care

Hospital Earthquake Survivability Inventory for
California, Part B: Raw Data, is a companion
document to the ATC-23A Report and was
developed under the same contract from OSHPD.
377 pages)
ABSTRACT: Included in this report, completed
in 1991, are tabulations of raw general site and
Appendix C, APplied TeChnology council proJects and Report Information
Gg
building data for 490 acute care hospitals in

California.
ATC24: The report. Guidelines for Seismic Testing
of Components of Steel Structures. was jointly
funded by the American Iron and Steel Institute
(AIS!). American Institute of Steel Construction
(AISC). National Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research (NCEER). and NSF. Available through
the ATC office. (Published 1992. 57 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report. completed in 1992.

provides guidance for most cyclic experiments
on components of steel structures for the
purpose of consistency in experimental
procedures. The report contains
recommendations and companion commentary
pertaining to loading histories. presentation of
test results. and other aspects of
experimentation. The recommendations are
written specifically for experiments with slow
cyclic load application.
ATC2S: The report. Seismic Vulnerability and
Impact of Disruption of Lifelines in the
Conterminous United States. was developed under a
contract from FEMA. Available through the ATC
office. (Published 1991. 440 pages)
ABSTRACT: Documented in this report is a

national overview of lifeline seismic
vulnerability and impact of disruption. Lifelines
considered include electric systems. water
systems. transportation systems. gas and liquid
fuel supply systems. and emergency service
facilities (hospitals. fire and police stations).
Vulnerability estimates and impacts developed
are presented in terms of estimated first
approximation direct damage losses and indirect
economic losses.
ATC2S1: The report. A Model Methodology for
Assessment of Seismic Vulnerability and Impact of
Disruption of Water Supply Systems. was developed
under a contract from FEMA. Available through the
ATC office. (Published 1992. 147 pages)
G-10
ABSTRACT: This report contains a practical

methodology for the detailed assessment of
seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption
of water supply systems. The methodology has
been designed for use by water system
operators. Application of the methodology
enables the user to develop estimates of direct
damage to system components and the time
required to restore damaged facilities to preearthquake usability. Suggested measures for
mitigation of seismic hazards are also provided.
r
1
A TC28: The report. Development of

Recommended Guidelines for Seismic Strengthening
of Existing Buildings. Phase I: Issues Identification
and Resolution. was developed under a contract
with FEMA. Available through the ATC office.
(Published 1992. 150 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report identifies and provides

resolutions for issues that will affect the
development of guidelines for the seismic
strengthening of existing buildings. Issues
addressed include: implementation and format.
coordination with otber efforts. legal and
political. social. economic. historic buildings.
research and technology. seismicity and
mapping. engineering philosophy and goals.
issues related to the development of specific
provisions. and nonstructural element issues.
ATC29: The report. Proceedings of a Seminar and
Workshop on Seismic Design and Performance of
Equipment and Nonstructural Elements in Buildings
and Industrial Structures. was developed under a
grant from NCEER and NSF. Available through the
A TC office. (Published 1992. 470 pages)
ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 35

papers describing state-of-the-art technical
information pertaining to the seismic design and
performance of equipment and nonstructural
elements in buildings and industrial structures.
The papers were presented at a seminar in
Irvine. California in 1990. Included are papers
describing current practice. codes and
regulations; earthquake performance; analytical
Appendix G. Applied Technology CounCil Projects and Report Information
A
f
\1
IJ
f,
S
(I
A
(
R
[
and experimental investigations; development of

new seismic qualification methods; and
research, practice, and code development needs
for specific elements and systems. The report
also includes a summary of a proposed 5-year
research agenda for NCEER.
ATC-3D: The report, Proceedings of Workshop for
Utilization ofResearch on Engineering and
Socioeconomic Aspects of 1985 Chile and Mexico
Earthquakes, was developed under a grant from
NSF. Available through the ATC office. (Published
1991,113 pages)
ABSTRACT: This report documents the fmdings
of a 1990 technology transfer workshop in San

Diego, California, co-sponsored by ATC and the
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute.
Included in the report are invited papers and
working group recommendations on
geotechnical issues, structural response issues,
architectural and urban design considerations,
emergency response planning, search and
rescue, and reconstruction policy issues.
ri
s
ATC-31: The report, Evaluation of the

Peiformance of Seismically Retrofitted Buildings,
was developed under a contract from the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST,
formerly NBS) and funded by the U. S. Geological
Survey. Available through the ATC office.
ABSTRACT: This report summarizes the results
from an investigation of the effectiveness of 229
seismically retrofitted buildings, primarily
unreinforced masonry and concrete tilt-up
buildings. All buildings were located in the
areas affected by the 1987 Whittier Narrows,
California. and 1989 Loma Prieta, California,
earthquakes.
ATC-32: The report,lmproved Seismic Design

Criteria for California Bridges: Provisional
Recommendations, was funded by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Available

pages)
ABSTRACT: This report provides recommended
revisions to the current Caltrans Bridge Design
Specifications (BDS) pertaining to seismic
loading, structural response analysis, and
component design. Special attention is given to
design issues related to reinforced concrete
components, steel components, foundations, and
conventional bearings. The recommendations
are based on recent research in the field of
bridge seismic design and the p.erformance of
Caltrans-<iesigned bridges in the 1989 Loma
Prieta and other recent California earthquakes.
ATC-3S: This report, Enhancing the Transfer of

U.S. Geological Survey Research Results into
Engineering Practice was developed under a
contract with the USGS. Available through the ATC
ABSTRACT: The report provides a program of
recommended "technology transfer" activities

for the USGS; included are recommendations
pertaining to management actions,
communications with practicing engineers, and
research activities to enhance development and
transfer of information that is vital to
engineering practice.
ATC-3S-1: The report, Proceedings of Seminar on
New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion
Estimation and Implications for Engineering Design
Practice, was developed under a cooperative
agreement with USGS. Available through the ATC
ABSTRACT: These Proceedings contain 22
technical papers describing state-of-the-art

information on regional earthquake risk
(focused on five specific regions-California,
Pacific Northwest. Central United States, and
northeastein North America); new techniques
for estimating strong ground motions as a
function of earthquake source, travel path, and
site parameters; and' new developments
Appendix C, APplied Technology Council !'roJects and Report Information
C-'I1
I
specifically applicable to geotechnical

engineering and the seismic design of buildings
and bridges.
ATe-R-1: The report, Cyclic Testing o/Narrow
Plywood Shear Walls, was developed with funding
from the Henry J. Degenkolb Endowment Fund of
the Applied Technology Council. Available through
the ATC office (Published 1995,64 pages)
panels having the standard 3.5-to-l height-towidth ratio and anchored to the sill plate using
typical bolted, 9-inch, 5000-lb. capacity holddown devices. The report provides a description
of the testing program and a summary of results,
including comparisons of drift ratios found
during testing with those specified in the
seismic provisions of the 1991 Uniform
Building Code.
ABSTRACT: This report documents ATC's first
self-directed research program: a series of static

and dynamic tests of narrow plywood wall
C-'I2
Appendix G, APplied Technology Council projects and Report Information
AI
ATC BOARD OF DIRECTORS

(1973-Present)
s,
(1979-85)
Milton A. Abel
(1978-81)
James C. Anderson
(1988-94)
Thomas G. Atkinson*
(1976-77)
Albert J. Blaylock
(1984-88)
Robert K. Burkett
(1989-90)
H. Patrick Campbell
Arthur N. L. Chiu
(1996-99
Anil Chopra
(1973-74)
(1976-80)
Richard Christopherson*
(1973)
Lee H. Cliff
(1986-87, 1991-97)
John M. Coil*
(1985-86)
Eugene E. Cole
(1996-99)
Edwin T. Dean
(1996-98)
Robert G. Dean
(1978-81)
Edward F. Diekmann
(1973-74)
Burke A. Draheim
(1973)
John E. Droeger
(1989-96)
Nicholas F. Forell *
(1993-97)
Douglas A. Foutch
(1991-92)
Paul Fratessa
(1986-89)
Sigmund A. Freeman
(1986-89)
Barry J. Goodno
(1984-87)
Mark R. Gorman
Gerald H. Haines
(1981-82, 1984-85)
(1985-86)
William J. Hall
(1975-78)
Gary C. Hart
Lyman Henry
(1973)
James A. Hill
(1992-95)
Ernest C. Hillman, Jr.
(1973-74)
(1983-84)
Ephraim G. Hirsch
(1983-87)
William T. Holmes"
Warner Howe
(1977-80)
(1990-97)
Edwin T. Huston"
(1973-75)
Paul C. Jennings
(1974-76)
Carl B . Johnson
(1988-89)
Edwin H. Johnson
Stephen E. Johnston" (1973-75, 1979-80)
Joseph Kallaby*
(1973-75)
Donald R. Kay
(1989-92)
(1984-88)
T. Robert Kealey"
(1975-76)
H. S. (pete) Kellam
(1979-82)
Helmut Krawinkler
(1982-85)
James S. Lai
(1973-74)
Gerald D. Lehmer
(1992-98)
James R. Libby
(1989-92)
Charles Lindbergh
(1983-86)
R. Bruce Lindermann
(1987-90)
L. W. Lu
(1975-78)
Walter B. Lum
(1991-98)
Kenneth A. Luttrell
(1979-82)
Melvyn H. Mark
(1978-82)
John A. Martin
John F. Meehan"
(1973-78)
Andrew T. Merovich
(1996-99)
David L. Messinger
(1980-83)
Stephen McReavy
(1973)
Bijan M ohraz
(1991-97)
William W. Moore*
(1973-76)
Gary Morrison
(1973)
Robert Morrison
(1981-84)
Ronald F. Nelson
(1994-95)
Joseph P. Nicoletti"
(1975-79)
Bruce C. Olsen"
(1978-82)
Gerard Pardoen
(1987-91)
Norman D. Perkins
(1973-76)
Maryann T. Phipps
(1995-96)
Sherrill Pitkin
(1984-87)
Edward V. Podlack
(1973)
Chris D. Poland
(1984-87)
(1976-79)
Egor P. Popov
(1987-93)
Robert F. Preece"
(1985-91)
Lawrence D. Reaveley"
(1986-89)
Philip J. Richter"
John M. Roberts
(1973)
Arthur E. Ross"
(1985-91, 1993-94)
C. Mark Saunders
(1993-97)
(1975-79)
Walter D. Saunders"
(1981-84)
Lawrence G. Selna
(1990-91)
Wilbur C. Schoeller
(1980-84)
Samuel Schultz"
(1977-81)
Daniel Shapiro"
(1996-99)
Jonathan G. Shipp
(1980-84)
Howard Simpson"
(1990-93)
Mete Sozen
(1982-83)
Donald R. Strand
(1975-79)
James L. Stratta
(1996-97)
Scott Stedman
(1976-79)
Edward J. Teal
(1973)
W. Martin Tellegen
(1991-98)
John C. Theiss"
(1992-99)
Charles H. Thornton
(1973)
James L. Tipton
(1975-77)
Ivan Viest
(1977-80, 1981-85)
Ajit S. Virdee*
(1987-90)
J. John Walsh
(1990-91)
Robert S. White
(1980-81, 1982-86)
James A. Willis'
(1974-77)
Thomas D. Wosser
(1987-88)
Loring A. Wyllie
(1981-84)
Edwin G. Zacher
(1982-85)
Theodore C. Zsutty
President
ATC EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

(1973-Present)
Ronald Mayes
Christopher Rojahn
Ion
(1979-81)
(1981-present)
Roland L. Sharpe
Appendix C, Applied Technology Council proJects and Report Information
(1973-79)
GIS

ATC 40 Vol. 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATC 40 Vol. 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

"

Seismic evaluation and retrofit.

Applied Technology Counr:;;i

California Seismic Safety Commission

The California Seismic Safety Commission consists

It works toward long-term improvements in all areas

Project management and administration are carried

affecting seismic safety by: encouraging and assisting

1996-1997 Board of Direetors

Current (1996) Commission Members

John C. Theiss, President

Lloyd S. Cluff, Chairman

Bijan Mohraz, Secretaryffreasurer

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit

SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION

Report No. SSC 96-01

This document is organized into two volumes.

Oversight Panel for

Dr. Wilfred Iwan

Seismic Safety commission Staff

Product 1.2 Senior Advisory Panel

Product 1.3 Senior Advisory Panel

Product 1.3 Geotechnical/structural working Group

Quality Assurance Consultant

:ost Effectiveness study Consultant

Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings

Preface ................................................................................................... iii

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

12.1 Introduction ................................................................

Example Building Study

'1Il1endlx A, Escondido village Mldrlse

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

I!Ipendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse

--SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Example Building Study

The purpose of this example building study is

scope of Example Building study

This study presents the evaluation and

Modeling, analysis, and assessment by

Conceptual retrofit (Section 5)

Assessment of the Methodology (Section 6)

The tools currently available to the structural

Ippendlx A, Escondido Village Mldrlse

existing concrete structures are essentially limited

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

Table 1.$1. ComparIson Of flOOf DlsPlacemen.;;;ts~ _ _

significantly reduced cost compared to alternative

Capacity-Spectrum approach; as well as by two

Appendix A, EscondidO Village Midrise

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

lIIage Mldr!bpendlx A. Escondido Village Mldrlse

SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS

..;.'.:":.:; ;.... .'_ .. _.

{COO: -060000000 0 ' :0000

Figure 2.2,1. Typical Floor

arranged in random directions on the Stanford

structural systems and Members

Figure 2.2-2. Typical Connection

Continuous strip footings support walls

Isolated spread footings support columns

Per original design drawings, specified 28-day

Per test program conducted in 1989, tested

Concrete strength used in analysis: 2470 psi