Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

ASCE/SEI 31/41 EVALUATIONS OF

BUILDINGS DAMAGED IN THE 2010
MAULE EARTHQUAKE
A. C. Birely 1, L. N. Lowes2, D. E. Lehman 2, A. Aviram3, and D. J.
Kelly 4

ABSTRACT

Many mid- and high-rise structural wall buildings were damaged as a result of the 2010 Maule,
Chile earthquake. Damage to these buildings was extensively documented by reconnaissance
teams, and in some instances, building plans were obtained to allow detailed evaluations of the
structure. As part of a project by the ATC-94 committee, a number of these buildings were
evaluated to determine if the observed building deficiencies would be identified by the
ASCE/SEI 31/41 evaluation procedures. ASCE/SEI 31/41 evaluations were conducted at three
levels: Basic screening checklists (referred to as Tier 1 analysis), linear dynamic analysis
(referred to as Tier 2), and nonlinear dynamic analysis and systematic building evaluation
(referred to as Tier 3). This paper discusses the results of Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations. Tier 1
evaluations involve identifying potential deficiencies by performing a series of simple
calculations or basic inspection of building design and construction characteristics. The results of
Tier 1 evaluations for four buildings in the Concepcion region, both damaged and undamaged,
are summarized here. When deficiencies are identified, Tier 2 evaluations are performed to
further investigate the potential deficiencies. A Tier 2 evaluation was conducted for two
buildings that are wings of the same building complex. The buildings had similar designs, yet
exhibited significantly different damage levels. The results of these Tier 2 evaluations are
presented in this paper. Although the simulated demands exceed those allowed for a Tier 2
evaluation to be applicable for determining the seismic adequacy of the structures, the
evaluations provided valuable insight into the behavior of structures during the earthquake. The
results of a Tier 3 evaluation carried out for the severely-damaged wing using nonlinear response
history analysis in Perform-3D, is presented in a companion paper.

1
Assistant Professor, Zachry Dept. of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Seattle, University of Washington, WA 98195
3
Senior Staff Engineer, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., San Francisco, CA 94111
4
Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Waltham, MA 02453

Birely AC, Lowes LN, Lehman DE, Aviram A, Kelly DJ. ASCE/SEI 31/41 Evaluations of Buildings Damaged in
the 2010 Maule, Chile Earthquake. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
ASCE/SEI 31/41 Evaluations of Buildings Damaged in the 2010 Maule,
Chile Earthquake

A. C. Birely1, L. N. Lowes2, D. E. Lehman 2, A. Aviram 3, and D. J. Kelly 4

ABSTRACT

Many mid- and high-rise structural wall buildings were damaged as a result of the 2010 Maule,
Chile earthquake. Damage to these buildings was extensively documented by reconnaissance
teams, and in some instances, building plans were obtained to allow detailed evaluations of the
structure. As part of a project by the ATC-94 committee, a number of these buildings were
evaluated to determine if the observed building deficiencies would be identified by the ASCE/SEI
31/41 evaluation procedures. ASCE/SEI 31/41 evaluations were conducted at three levels: Basic
screening checklists (referred to as Tier 1 analysis), linear dynamic analysis (referred to as Tier 2),
and nonlinear dynamic analysis and systematic building evaluation (referred to as Tier 3). This
paper discusses the results of Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations. Tier 1 evaluations involve identifying
potential deficiencies by performing a series of simple calculations or basic inspection of building
design and construction characteristics. The results of Tier 1 evaluations for four buildings in the
Concepcion region, both damaged and undamaged, are summarized here. When deficiencies are
identified, Tier 2 evaluations are performed to further investigate the potential deficiencies. A Tier
2 evaluation was conducted for two buildings that are wings of the same building complex. The
buildings had similar designs, yet exhibited significantly different damage levels. The results of
these Tier 2 evaluations are presented in this paper. Although the simulated demands exceed those
allowed for a Tier 2 evaluation to be applicable for determining the seismic adequacy of the
structures, the evaluations provided valuable insight into the behavior of structures during the
earthquake. The results of a Tier 3 evaluation carried out for the severely-damaged wing using
nonlinear response history analysis in Perform-3D, is presented in a companion paper.

Introduction

Following the 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake, minor to extensive damage occurred in dozens of
mid- and high-rise reinforced concrete shear wall buildings and other infrastructure in Santiago,
Concepcion, Vina del Mar, and Constitucion. Reconnaissance teams visited the affected areas
and documented the observed damage. Chilean seismic design practice is primarily based on the
ACI 318 code provisions but does not enforce special ductile detailing in boundary elements of
special structural walls and coupling beams. For some buildings, reconnaissance teams were able
1
Assistant Professor, Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
2
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195
3
Senior Staff Engineer, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., San Francisco, CA 94111
4
Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc., Waltham, MA 02453

Birely AC, Lowes LN, Lehman DE, Aviram A, Kelly DJ. ASCE/SEI 31/41 Evaluations of Buildings Damaged in
the 2010 Maule, Chile Earthquake. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering,
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
to obtain structural drawings providing full details of the structures. These drawings, along with
extensive sets of photographs documenting damage states of the buildings, enabled the detailed
study of the structures. Such a project was undertaken by the Applied Technology Council ATC-
94 program to determine what lessons can be learned from the Maule earthquake and the
potential impact on U.S. codes and standards [6]. As a part of this effort, the authors were tasked
with the study of four buildings (three damaged and one undamaged) to assess two related U.S.
standards: ASCE/SEI 31-03 Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings [1] and ASCE/SEI 41-06
Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings [2]. These standards are used in determining the
seismic adequacy of existing buildings and identifying rehabilitation needs, if any. Ideally,
evaluation of the selected Chilean walled buildings would flag a damaged building as inadequate
and identify components requiring rehabilitation, while undamaged buildings would not be
flagged as seismically deficient. Evaluation of an existing structure with ASCE/SEI 31/41
evaluation procedures essentially involves three levels of analysis: 1) a series of basic checks
on key building characteristics (Tier 1), 2) linear analysis of potentially deficient components or
subassemblies (Tier 2), and 3) nonlinear analysis and systematic building evaluation (Tier 3).
Results of the four buildings using Tier 1 and Tier 2 evaluations are discussed in this paper. Tier
3 evaluation for two buildings are discussed in a companion paper.

Building Description

Four reinforced concrete walled buildings, located in Concepcion, Chile, were evaluated. All
buildings (i) were primarily residential with limited mixed use, (ii) were mid-rise, ranging in
height from 12 to 26 stories including basement, (iii) had distributed concrete walls serving as
both lateral and gravity load-carrying systems, and (iv) were built by modern construction
practice in Chile following the NCh433, 1996 building code, applicable at the time of the
earthquake. Two of the buildings were severely damaged, one building sustained minor damage,
and one building was reported undamaged. Figure 1 shows the layout of walls on the main floor
of each building studied. The observed damage level is indicated by the color of the walls
according to Table 2.

Table 1. General characteristics of mid-rise reinforced concrete walled buildings studied.

Typical Dimensions
Longitudinal
Year No. Floors Soil Wall Slab Plan,
Name Axis
Built (No. Basements) Type* thick., in thick., in ft (m)
Orientation
(cm) (cm)
PR-A 2006 12 (0) D-E N-S 6 (15) 5 (12) 79 x 47
(III) (24 x 14)
PR-B 2006 13 (0) D-E E-W 6 (15) 5 (12) 131 x 43
(III) (40 x 13)
CM 2005 18 (1) D-E N-S 8 (20) 6 (15) 134 x 57
(III) (41 x 17)
CU 2008 24 (2) D-E N-S 8 (20) to 6.3 (16) 159 x 75
(III) 12 (30) (49 x 23)
*Soil type per: ASCE/SEI 7 (NCh433)
Table 2. Descriptions of damage levels.

Damage Name (#) Color Description

None (0) Grey No visible damage
Minor (1) Cyan Minor cracks
Moderate (2) Yellow Initial spalling
Severe (3) Orange Exposed reinforcement; Initial bar buckling or concrete crushing
Total (4) Red Extensive concrete crushing and bar buckling

(a) PR-A (b) PR-B

(c) CM

Figure 1. Observed damage to walls on main floors of buildings (see Table 2 for color legend).

Tier 1 Evaluations

The Chilean buildings evaluated in this study had reinforced concrete shear walls as the lateral
load resisting system, thus, the appropriate ASCE/SEI 31 checklists were the basic and
supplemental checklists for the building type Concrete Shear Walls with Stiff Diagrams (Type
C2); non-structural and geotechnical hazard checklists were not considered in this study. Each
checklist consists of a series of checks that requires the engineer to evaluate a buildings
characteristic and, for some characteristics, to perform a simple calculation. Each item is then
determined to be compliant (C) or noncompliant (NC).

In completing the checklists, a number of noncompliant characteristics were identified in

the buildings evaluated. Extend discussion, including the completed checklists, can be found
elsewhere [4,6]. Noncompliant characteristics observed included:
1. Presence of walls with vertical discontinuities, defined as walls that were not
continuous to the foundation. Such walls were found in all four buildings studied.
2. Weak stories, defined as a reduction in the total wall length that results in a strength
discontinuity from one floor to an adjacent floor. This type of deficiency was identified
in three of the four buildings studied (CU, CM, and PR-A).
3. Soft stories, defined as a reduction in the total wall length that results in a stiffness
discontinuity from one floor to an adjacent floor.
4. Shear stress demands exceeding allowable levels were observed in all buildings.
5. Longitudinal reinforcement ratios less than the specified minimum (CU).
6. Detailing of coupling beams (all buildings).
7. Detailing at wall openings where stress concentrations are expected (all buildings).
8. Plan irregularities and reentrant corners (CM and CU).

Tier 1 evaluations provide an essentially qualitative analysis of the buildings studied. In

the process of this qualitative analysis, a number of observations about the structures were made
beyond that of the Tier 1 checklists. These observations included (i) walls lacking a clearly
defined location where a plastic hinge could form, (ii) non-ductile detailing, including lightly
spaced confining reinforcement that lacks 135 degree hooks, (iii) wall longitudinal bars that
terminated into a lower region without sufficient vertical and horizontal reinforcement that
resulted in damage between the two terminated bar regions, (iv) significant uplift of mat
foundations, and (v) thin walls (e.g. thickness smaller than H/16, where H is the wall height)
resulting in a small core area for confined regions and potential for buckling instability.

Tier 2 Evaluations

Tier 2 evaluations are conducted to determine if building components are adequate for a specific
performance objective using a more in-depth analysis than is provided by Tier 1 evaluation, but
the analysis is only a linear-elastic dynamic analysis of the building. Tier 2 evaluations were
conducted for three of the buildings: PR-A, PR-B, and CM. Linear elastic models were created in
SAP2000 using shell elements for the walls and slabs, beam-column frame elements for the
beams, and rigid diaphragm constraints at each floor; no columns were present in the buildings.
Effective stiffness properties for all elements were assigned in accordance with ASCE/SEI 41.
Gravity loads were assigned to be the total dead load plus 25% of the live load according to
Chilean design practice. Additional details of the models are provided elsewhere [4,6].

Tier 2 evaluations are performed using the linear dynamic procedure (LDP), response
spectrum analysis, for any buildings taller than 100 feet (30.5), which applies to the three
buildings studied. Either a mapped response spectrum or a site specific response spectrum may
be used in the analysis. As the objective of the study was to evaluate the LDP rather than to
apply it, multiple response spectra were considered in evaluating the structures: (i) the
ASCE/SEI 7 spectra for the Design Basis Earthquake (DBE) level and the Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) level (1.5 times the DBE level), with Sds and Sd1 values selected based on
regions of similar soil types and high seismicity in California on account of ASCE/SEI 7 values
not providing values for the building sites studied, (ii) the elastic response spectrum from the
Chilean building code, and (iii) two response spectra derived from ground motions recorded near
the building sites (the downtown Concepcion and San Pedro de la Paz records).

(a) PR-A (b) PR-B (c) CM

Figure 2. Elastic response spectra used for LDP analysis.

Figure 2 shows, for each of the three buildings studied, the response spectra used and the
fundamental building periods. It is evident that the spectrum used can have an impact on the
response and, consequently, the determination of seismic adequacy of a building. For the PR-A
and PR-B buildings, the first mode periods fall along the plateau of the ASCE/SEI 7 spectrum.
The spectral accelerations are essentially the same for San Pedro de la Paz spectrum; however,
the spectral accelerations are much lower for the Concepcion spectrum. For the CM building, the
first mode period is larger and the spectral acceleration is taken from the descending branch of
the ASCE/SEI 7 spectrum. As with the other buildings, the spectral accelerations from the San
Pedro de la Paz spectrum are similar to those of the ASCE/SEI 7 spectrum, while those for the
Concepcion spectrum are significantly lower.

Unfactored Demand-Capacity Ratios

Unfactored demand-capacity ratios, DCRu, are used (i) to determine whether or not the use of the
linear dynamic procedure is appropriate for evaluating building, and (ii) to identify critical
components. If any components have a DCRu > 2.0, ASCE/SEI 41 requires nonlinear analysis of
the building. Critical components are those with the highest DCRu values.

For the buildings analyzed, the DCRu for the walls were calculated. For each wall, the
ratio of the demand to the capacity for shear, flexural, and axial forces was calculated; the largest
of these was reported as the DCRu value. Figure 3 shows, for the main floor in the PR-A and PR-
B buildings, the DCRu values resulting from analysis using the ASCE/SEI 7 response spectrum.
Many of the components have DCRu values exceeding 2.0, indicating that significant inelastic
response is expected and a full nonlinear analysis of the building is required. Despite the need for
nonlinear analysis, the linear analysis provides significant information on the expected response
of the building. For example, the most critical components in building PR-A were identified to
be small wall piers, many of which were significantly damaged during the Maule earthquake (see
Fig. 1). Similar components are identified as critical components in the PR-B building yet
remained undamaged following the earthquake. A possible explanation for this is the orientation
of the two buildings, as the primary orientation of the ground motion was E-W, which correlates
with the damage in the E-W walls in PR-A; however, the results of the Tier 2 evaluation
procedures are unable to provide answers to this as it considers, via response spectrum analysis,
strong-ground motion in both directions and does not specifically consider which direction
experienced larger demands during the earthquake.

(a) PR-A (b) PR-B

Figure 3. Unfactored demand-capacity ratios, DCRu, for the PR-A and PR-B buildings from
linear dynamic analysis using the ASCE/SEI 7 response spectrum.

DCRu values were also used to determine the controlling action for each of the walls,
with the critical action (shear, flexure, or axial) being that for which the DCRu value controlled
the DCRu value for the component. The controlling action was found to be independent of the
spectra used. Comparison of the damage to the controlling action indicates that the analysis
correctly identified walls with shear damage as being shear controlled and walls with flexural
damage as being flexure controlled.

Factored Demand-Capacity Ratios

Linear dynamic analysis results in realistic displacement demands and large force demands. To
account for these large demands, ASCE/SEI 41 specifies m-factors that are used to increase the
capacity of the components. Component adequacy is then evaluated based on the ratio of the
simulated demands to the increased capacities, referred to here as DCRf. Components with a
DCRf less than unity are considered to be adequate and those with a DCRf greater than unity are
considered to be inadequate.

The m-factors used to calculate the DCRf values vary as a function of the performance
level and earthquake hazard level considered, as well as whether the components are considered
to be primary or secondary. For purposes of evaluation of the Tier 2 procedures, all walls were
considered to be primary components and three performance objectives were considered:
Immediate Occupancy for the design level event (IO-DBE), Life Safety for the design level
event (LS-DBE), and Collapse Prevention at the maximum event (CP-MCE). The design event
used the ASCE/SEI 7 design spectrum. The maximum event used the ASCE/SEI 7 design
spectrum scaled by a factor of 1.5. Additionally, all three performance levels (IO, LS, and CP)
were considered for demands determined from the unscaled spectra derived from the measured
ground motions.

(a) ASCE/SEI 7 (b) Concepcion (c) San Pedro

Figure 4. PR-A first-floor wall damage for walls inadequate regardless of performance level
using the ASCE/SEI 7 and ground motion spectra. The wall color indicates the level of damage
observed (see Table 2). Walls with gray outlines indicate that the walls are adequate for at least
the collapse prevention performance level and possibly other more stringent performance levels.

Fig. 4 shows, for the first floor of the PR-A building, the walls that were found to be
inadequate for all performance levels. Results are shown for the ASCE/SEI 7 response spectrum
and for the spectra derived from the Concepcion and San Pedro de la Paz ground motions. For
the ASCE/SEI 7 response spectrum (Fig. 4a), almost all walls were found to be inadequate. For
the Concepcion and San Pedro response spectra, fewer walls are inadequate for all performance
levels; however, many walls are adequate for the CP-MCE performance level but inadequate for
the LS-DBE and IO-DBE performance levels. This level of detail of the Tier 2 results is
summarized in Figure 5, which indicates the number of walls that are adequate (DCRf < 1) and
inadequate (DCRf > 1) for each performance level for the Concepcion and San Pedro Spectra. It
is evident that the results of the Tier 2 evaluations are highly dependent on the spectral values at
the dominant periods of the structure and the characteristics of the spectrum used for analysis;
almost all walls are adequate at the LS and CP levels for the Concepcion spectrum, yet
significantly fewer are adequate at these same performance objectives when the San Pedro de la
Paz spectrum was used.

Fig. 6 summarizes the walls found to be adequate and inadequate for the PR-A and PR-B
buildings using the ASCE/SEI 7 response spectra. For the PR-A building (Figure 6a), which was
severely damaged, many walls with damage were identified as inadequate, while many
undamaged walls were also identified as inadequate. A number of walls sustained damage but
were identified as adequate; these walls tended to be small wall piers identified as critical
components (those having the largest DCRu values) and many of these walls were also flagged
shaped walls. For the PR-B, which had minimal damage, the percentage of walls identified as
inadequate was similar to that for PR-A. As noted in the discussion of DCRu values, this may be
due to the orientation of the buildings and the direction of the strongest component of the ground
motion, and, due to the nonlinearity expected in the buildings, nonlinear analysis of the
structures is necessary.

(a) Concepcion (b) San Pedro

Figure 5. Summary of adequate (DCRf < 1) and inadequate (DCRf > 1) walls on PR-A 1st floor
using the site specific response spectra. Color indicates the observed damage level (see Table 2).

(a) PR-A: ASCE/SEI 7 (b) PR-B: ASCE/SEI 7

Figure 6. Summary of adequate (DCRf < 1) and inadequate (DCRf > 1) walls on PR-A 1st floor
using the ASCE/SEI 7 spectrum. Color indicates the observed damage level (see Table 2).
 Conclusions

The 2010 Maule, Chile earthquake resulted in minor to extensive damage to many reinforced
concrete shear wall buildings. In response to the observed damage, a project was undertaken to
study shear wall buildings and identify the potential impact on U.S. codes and standards. This
paper summarized a portion of that project in which four buildings were evaluated using the
approach of the ASCE/SEI 31 and 41 provisions. The three tiered approach consists of (i) basic
checklist evaluations to identify potential deficiencies (Tier 1), (ii) linear analysis of the structure
to assess deficiencies in critical elements or subassemblies (Tier 2), and (iii) nonlinear dynamic
analysis and systematic evaluation of the structure (Tier 3). Tier 1 and 2 evaluations were
addressed here; nonlinear analysis results are presented in a companion paper.

Tier 1 evaluation, which involved completing a series of checklists, identified a number

of noncompliant characteristics, including soft and weak stories, vertical discontinuities, and
inadequate shear strength. These noncompliant characteristics were not necessarily found to
correlate with damage. In addition to the checklists, a number of additional characteristics were
identified that should be considered for inclusion in future revisions of checklists of
noncompliant characteristics. These additional characteristics included low longitudinal
reinforcement ratios in walls, detailing of coupling beams, detailing at wall openings, and plan
irregularities and reentrant corners

Tier 2 evaluations were conducted for three buildings using response spectra analysis of
linear models created in SAP2000. The results of the analyses were used to identify the
controlling response mechanisms (axial, shear, or flexure) of the building components and to
identify the critical components (those expected to experience the largest ratio of demand to
capacity). In general, the controlling response mechanism as indicated by the models was
consistent with observed damage in the buildings (e.g. shear control components had extensive
shear cracking) and the critical components were often times those most severely damaged. Use
of the response spectra results in indicating building components damaged during the earthquake
was inconsistent and sensitive to the response spectrum used and fundamental periods of the
buildings. The analysis results indicate that a high degree of nonlinearity is expected in the
buildings, thus, a nonlinear analysis is required by ASCE/SEI 41; results of nonlinear analysis
for the buildings discussed here are presented in a companion paper.

Acknowledgments

Funding for the research presented here was provided by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture
(a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and Consortium of Universities for Research
in Earthquake Engineering), under Contract SB134107CQ0019, Earthquake Structural and
Engineering Research, issued by the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

References

1. ASCE. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 31-03, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia, 2003.
2. ASCE. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia, 2006.
3. ASCE. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard 7-10, American Society of
Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, 2010.
4. Birely, AC. Seismic Performance of Slender Reinforced Concrete Structural Walls, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Washington, 2012.
5. INN. Earthquake Resistant Design of Buildings, NCh433.Of96, Instituto Nacional de Normalizacion, Santiago,
Chile, 1996.
6. ATC. Recommendations for Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Wall Buildings Based on
Studies of the 2010 Chile Earthquake. ATC-94 Report. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
California, 2013.