Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Atc40 1

    Uploaded by

    Hong Ming
    8 views334 pages

    Original Title

    ATC40_1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    8 views334 pages

    Atc40 1

    Uploaded by

    Hong Ming

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 334
    ATC A Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings Volume 1 CALIFORNIA SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program Report SSC 96-01 Applied Technology Council ‘The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a non- profit, tax-exempt corporation established in 1971 through the efforts of the Structural Engineers Asso- ciation of California. ATC is guided by a Board of Directors consisting of representatives appointed by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Struc- tural Engineers Association of California, the Western ‘States Council of Structural Engineers Associations, and four at-large representatives concerned with the Practice of structural engineering. Each director serves a three-year term, ‘The purpose of ATC is to assist the design practitio- ner in structural engineering (and related design spe- cialty fields such as soils, wind, and earthquake) in the task of keeping abreast of and effectively using technological developments. ATC also identifies and ‘encourages needed research and develops consensus ‘opinions on structural engineering issues in a nonpro- prietary format. ATC thereby fulfills a unique role in funded information transfer. 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 incor- Porating 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 govern: ‘ment agencies and from the private sector in the form of tax-deductible contributions, 1996-1997 Board of Directors John C. Theiss, President ‘C Mark Saunders, Vice President Bijan Mohraz, Secretary/Treasurer Edwin T, Huston, Past President Douglas A. Foutch James R. Libby Kenneth A. Latrell ‘Andrew T. Merovich Scow A. Siedman Jonathan G. Shipp ‘Charles Thornton California Seismic Safety Commission ‘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 Commis sion include seismology, engineering, geology, fire protection, emergency services, public milities, insur- ance, 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 recommen: dations, and guides to improve public safety in carth- quakes, I works toward long-term improvements in all areas 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; ident fying needs for earthquake education, research, and legislation; and reviewing emergency response, re- covery, and reconstruction efforts after damaging ‘earthquakes so that lessons learned can be applied 10 future earthquakes. Current (1996) Commission Members Lloyd. Cluff, Chairman James ESlosson, Viee Chairman Alfred E. Alquist, State Senator Dominic L. Conese, State Assemblyman Hal Bernson Jerry C. Chang Robert Downer Frederick M. Herman Jeffrey Johnson Corliss Lee Gary L. MeGavin Daniel Shapiro Lowell E. Shields Patricia Sayer Keither M, Wheeler H. Robert Wirtr Disclaimer ‘While the information presented in this report is believed to be correct, the Applied Technology Council and the California S je Safety Commission assume no responsibilty 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 v fication ofits accu- racy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of information from this publi cation assume all liability arising from such use. Cover illustration: State Ofice Bldg, 12" and N St. Sacramento. CA, provided by Chris Arnold. ATCc-40 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings Volume 1 by APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 550 Redwood City, California 94065 Funded by SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION State of California Products 1.2 and 1.3 of the Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Craig D. Comartin CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR PROJECT DIRECTOR Richard W. Niewiarowski SENIOR ADVISOR Christopher Rojahn 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, sup- ported 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 retrofit experience in the private sector to im- prove seismic retrofit practices for government buildings. The purpose of California’ s Propo: tion 122 research and development program is. to develop state-of-the-practice recommenda tions to address current needs for scismic retro- fit 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 invento- Ties. In 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 recom- mended methodology and commentary for the seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing con- ‘rete buildings (Product 1.2). In 1995 the Commission awarded a second, related contract. to ATC to expand the Product i.2 effort to in- clude effects of foundations on the seismic per- formance of existing concrete buildings (Product 1.3). ‘The results of the two projects have been combined and are presented in this. ATC-40 Report (also known as SSC-96-01).. ‘Two other reports recently published by the California Setsmie Safety Commission, the Provisional Commentary for Seismic Retrofit (1994) and the Review of Seismic Research Re- sults on Existing Buildings (1994), are Products 1.1 and 3.1 of the Proposition 122 Program, re- spectively. These two previous reports provide the primary basis for the development of the recommended methodology and commentary contained 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 alist of ref- erences. 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 re- lated 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 condi- tions on the seismic performance of concrete buildings. This report was prepared under the direction of ATC Senior Consultant Craig Comartin, who served as Principal Investigator, and Richard W. Niewiarowski, who served as Co-Principal In- vestigator 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 Cran- ‘mer, Wilfred Iwan, Roy Johnston, Frank McClure, Gary McGavin, Joel MeRonald, Jo- seph 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. Mochle, ‘Thomas A. Sabol, and Nabih Youssef (Product, 1.2 Senior Advisory Panel). The Product 1.3 Geotechnical/Structural Working Group con- sisted of Sunil Gupta, Geoffrey Martin, Mar- shall Lew, and Lelio Mejia. William T. Hol- mes, Yoshi Moriwaki, Maurice Power and Nabih Youssef served on the Product 1.3 Senior Advisory Panel. Gregory P. Luth and Tom H. Hale, respectively, served as the Quality Assur- ance Consultant and the Cost Effectiveness Study Consultant. Wendy Rule served as Tech- nical Editor, and Gail Hynes Shea served as Publications Consultant. Richard McCarthy CSSC Executive Director Christopher Rojahn ATC Executive Director & ATC-40 Senior ‘Advisor Oversight Panel for Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program Frederick M. Herman, Chair Richard Conrad Ross Cranmer Seismic Safety Commission Building Standards Commis- Building Official Local Government/Building sion Structural Engineer Officiat Roy Johnston Frank McClure Dr. Wilfred Iwan Structural Engineer Structural Engineer Mechanical Engineer Joel McRonald Joseph P. Nicoletti Gary McGavin Division of the State Architect ‘Sructurat Engineer Seismic Safety Commission Architect Lowell E. Shields Seismic Safety Commission Stanley Scott Mechanical Engineer Research Political Scientist Seismic Safety Commission Staff Richard McCarthy Fred Turner Executive Director Project Manager Karen Cogan Chris Lindstrom Deborah Penny Ed Hensley Carmen Marquez Teri DeVriend Kathy Goodell Product 1.2 Senior Advisory Panel Sigmund A. Freeman Wiss, Janney, Elsner & Asso- ciates Ronald O. Hamburger EQE International William T. Holmes Rutherford & Chekene Jack Moehle ‘Thomas A. Sabol Charles Kircher Earthquake Engineering Re- Engelkirk & Sabol Charles Kircher & Associates search Center Nabih F. Youssef Nabih Youssef & Associares Product 1.3 Senior Advisory Panel William T. Holmes Rutherford & Chekene Yoshi Moriwaki Woodward-Clyde Consultants Maurice Power Geomaurix Consultants, Inc. Nabih F. Youssef Nabih Youssef & Associates Product 1.3 Geotechnical/Structural Working Group Sunil Gupta EQ Tech Consultants Marshall Lew Law/Crandall, Inc Quality Assurance Consultant Gregory P. Luth Gregory P. Luh & Associates Cost Effectiveness study Consultant ‘Tom H. Hale Jimmy R. Yee Consulting Engineers Geoffrey R. Martin University of Southern California Lelio Mejia Woodward-Clyde Consultants Technical Editor Wendy Rule Richmond, CA Publications consultant Gail Hynes Shea Albany, CA Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings Products 1.2 and 4.3 of the Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program Table of Contents Volume 1 Preface. Glossary Executive Summary Chapter | Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter § Table of contents Introduction Ll Purpose.. 12 Scope 13 Organization and Contents Overview 7 2.1 Introduction = 2 Changes in Perspective 3 Getting Started 4 Basic Evaluation and Retrofit Strategy 5 Evaluation and Retrofit Concept 2.6 Final Design and Construction .. Performance Objectives. 3.1 Introduction 3.2. Performance Levels 3.3. Earthquake Ground Motion 3.4 Performance Objectives... 3.5 Assignment of Performance Objectives. Seismic Hazard 4.1 Scope 4.2 Earthquake Ground Shaking Hazard Levels. 4.3 Ground Failure secon 44 Primary Ground Shaking Critei 4.5 Specification of Supplementary Criteria. Determination of Deficiencies 5.1 Introduction SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS 5.2 Destino: Typical Layouts and Dea. 5.3 Seismic Performance 5.4 Data Collection . 5.5 Review of Seismic Hazard oe ification of Potential Deficiencies ary Evaluation of Anticipated Seismic Performance 5.8 _ Preliminary Evaluation Conclusions and Recommendations Chapter 6 Retrofit Strategies. 6.1 Introduction . 6.2 Alternative Retrofit Strategies. 6.3. Design Constraints and Considerations... 6.4 Strategy Selection .... 6.5 Preliminary Design Chapter7 — Quality Assurance Procedures 7.1 Genera... 7.2 Peer Review.. 73 Plan Check : 7.4 Construction Quality Assurance... Chapter 8 Nonlinear Static Analysis Procedures .. 8.1 Introduction... 8.2 Methods to Perform Simplified Nonlinear Analysis 8.3 Illustrative Example... 8.4 Other Analysis Methods 85 Chapter 9 Modeling Rules 9.1 General. 9.2 Loads. 9°3 Global Building Considerations 9.4 Element Models 9.5 Component Models 9.6 Notations Chapter 10 Foundation Effects. 10.1 General 10.2 Foundation System and Global Structural Model 10.3 Foundation Elements. 10.4 Properties of Geotechnical Components 10.5 Characterization of Site So 10.6 Response Limits and Acceptability Criteria, 10.7 Moifeaions to Foundation Systems Chapter 11 Response Limit. ML Genera... 11.2. Descriptive Limits of Expected Performance 11.3 Global Building Acceptability Limi 114 Element and Component Acsepaiiy Limits. Chapter 12 Nonstructural Components .... vill Table of Contents: SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE 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. a 13.5 Recommended Action Plan . References . Volume 2—Appendices Appendix A. Escondido Village Midrise, Stanford, California Appendix B Barrington Medical Center, Los Angeles, California ..... Appendix C Administration Building, California State University at None, Northridge, California .... . Appendix D_ Holiday Inn, Van Nuys, California Appendix E Cost Effectiveness Study. Appendix F Supplemental Information on Foundation Effects Appendix G Applied Technology Council Projects and Report Information ‘Table of contents 41 212-1 BA es 1341 213-1 13-4 2135. 213-6 SMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Glossary Acceptability (response) limits: Refers to specific limiting values for the

    You might also like