FEMA 356 Evaluation

PEER Van Nuys Testbed

May 23, 2002
by: Jon Heintz, S.E. & Robert Pekelnicky

Van Nuys Holiday Inn

Van Nuys Holiday Inn

Designed

in 1965 & Constructed in

1966
Seven Stories, 65 Height
150 x 61 Approximate Plan
Non-Ductile Exterior Concrete Frame
Interior Slab-Column Frames
Masonry infill in four bays
Building Instrumented

Typical Floor Plan

Exterior Frame Elevation

North Elevation

South Elevation

Evaluation Methodology
Perform

ASCE 31 (FEMA 310) Tier 1

screening.
Create 3-D linear dynamic model.
Determine Modes & Periods
Evaluate Torsion

Perform

2-D nonlinear pushover of

longitudinal exterior and interior
frame.

Tier 1 Deficiencies

Soft First Story (44% of 2nd story)

Quick Check Column Shear >> Capacity
Members Shear Controlled
Weak Column / Strong Beam
(Mc=0.8Mb)
Inadequate Lap Splices
Minimal confinement reinforcement
Stirrups & Ties w/o seismic hooks

3-D Model

Elastic Model Assumptions

Concrete strength fce 150% of specified

Frame beams modeled with ACI effective slab
widths
Interior flat slabs modeled as effective beams
(Luo et. al. 1994, Pecknold 1975)
Effective stiffnesses used:

Columns = 50% of Gross (FEMA 356)

Beams = 50% of Gross (FEMA 356)
Slabs = 33% of Gross (Vanderbilt 1983)

Beam-Column Joints partially rigid

Columns fixed at pile cap

Transverse Fundamental
Mode
T = 1.27 sec.
PMR = 85%

Longitudinal Fundamental
Mode

W/O Infill: T = 1.20 sec.

PMR = 89%

W/ Infill:

PMR = 77%

T = 1.12 sec.

Plan Torsion Fundamental

Mode

W/O Infill: T = 1.03 sec.

PMR = 0%

W/ Infill:

PMR = 8%

T = 1.00 sec.

Comparison with Recorded

Periods (longitudinal)
Pre-1971

T=0.52 sec
San Fernando
early T=0.7 sec
peak response T=1.5 sec

Northridge

early T=1.5 sec

Elastic

model

FEMA 356 empirical equation T=0.73 sec

T=1.2 sec w/o infill

Plan Torsional Irregularity

Torsion triggers amplified target disp.
Infill has 1 expansion gap between frame.

Two models used: one with infill panels and

one without infill panels.

Models compared to determine whether

presence of infill has dramatic effect.
3-D model results did not trigger
3-D model results did not show significant
response modification for higher modes

2-D Nonlinear Pushover

Model longitudinal direction as critical

Include both exterior and interior frames.
2 exterior frames = 40% of stiffness
2 interior frames = 60% of stiffness

2-D Nonlinear Pushover

Place hinges at all member ends

Use criteria in FEMA 356 for hinge properties
Flexural hinges limited by:
flexural strength
shear strength
lap splice strength
embedment (development)

Include two load patterns

Uniform based on floor mass

Modal based on CQC combination of Modes

Pushover Curves

Target t= 29 inches
(10%/50)
Target t= 7 inches
(50%/50)

Hinge locations

Flexural hinges at base of columns (lap-splice controlled)

Flexural hinges below 2nd floor beams
Shear controlled hinges in 1st, 2nd, 3rd floor beams
Still need to check:

shear in columns
shear in joints
local hinge rotation limits
slab punching shear on interior frames

Response Spectra

Roof Displacement
Peak

displacement during Northridge

9.2 inches

Calculated

displacement capacity is
significantly less. Why?

Conservative hinge assumptions? (actual

elements can go farther)
Conservative limitations on lap splice capacities?
Conservative accounting for degradation (C 3)
Higher Mode Effects? (not a factor based on our
linear model results)
Plastic hinge not a reliable EDP?

Summary
ASCE

31 Tier 1 does a good job of

predicting possible deficiencies
FEMA 356 does reasonable job of
predicting cracked stiffness, in lieu of
more detail
FEMA 356 NSP yields very conservative
results for this building
Can PEER Methodology more
accurately predict recorded response?