Update of ASCE 41 Concrete

Provisions

Kenneth Elwood, Univ. British

Columbia
Craig Comartin, CDComartin Inc.
Jon Heintz, ATC
Dawn Lehman, Univ of Washington
Adolfo Matamoros, Univ of Kansas

Andrew Mitchell, Degenkolb

Jack Moehle, UC Berkeley
Mark Moore, Forell/Elsesser
Michael Valley, MKA
John Wallace, UCLA

SEAONC 2007 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards

Scope of Work
Concrete Chapter of ASCE 41
Research from PEER and elsewhere
EERI/PEER seminars New
Information on the Seismic
Performance of Existing Concrete
Buildings
Compelling and urgent findings

Components addressed

Columns

Slab-Column
Connections

Joints

Walls

Onset of column shear

failure
1.0

v 3 fc '
FEMA 356

0.8

Proposed, ( =0.0005)

0.6

Proposed, ( =0.006)

0.4
0.2
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

plastic rotation (rad)

0.06

0.07

Example:
Improved reliability, clearly
expressed
Parameter a for flexure-shear columns:

p meas

p calc

Proposed

10

FEMA 356

conservative
1
0
0.0

0.2

0.4

Ag f c '

0.6

unconservative

Examples of other changes

Proposed / FEMA 356

1.5

0.5

0
column
stiffness for
low axial load

max steel
stress for
typical lap
splice

slab-column
qp
p at
punching
(Vg/Vo=0.2,
continuity)

wall drift at
shear failure
(low axial load)

wall drift at
axial failure
(high axial
load)

Impact on REAL projects

V
V

shear-critical captive columns

Elevation

Impact on REAL projects

Shear-Critical Columns
Life
Safety
BSE-1

BSE-2

Collapse Prevention

6,000

2,000
1,000
0
0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

Total Hinge Rotation (rad)

4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000

0.008

0
0.010
0.000

0.002

0.004

ASCE 41 Supp.
CP

3,000

5,000

Hinge Moment (kip-in)

FEMA 356 CP

4,000

ASCE 41 Supp.
LS

5,000

FEMA 356 LS

Hinge Moment (kip-in)

6,000

0.006

0.008

Total Hinge Rotation (rad)

0.010

Impact on REAL projects

Impact on bottom line:

New stiff shear wall or column

strengthening needed based on FEMA
356
No retrofit needed to address columns
based on ASCE 41 Supplement.
= less disruption and $$$$
Savings

End result = more retrofit projects

done

Acknowledgments
American Society of Civil Engineering

Chris Poland

Jim Rossberg

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Cathleen Carlisle

PEER Center
Laura Lowes University of Washington

Update of ASCE 41 Concrete Provisions

Abstract:

A supplement to ASCE/SEI 41 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing

Buildings has been developed for the purpose of updating provisions related to existing
reinforced concrete buildings. Based on experimental evidence, the proposed
supplement includes revisions to stiffness models for beams, columns and beamcolumn joints, and substantive revisions to acceptance criteria for reinforced concrete
columns, structural walls, and slab-column frames. These revisions will result in
substantially more accurate, and in most cases more liberal, assessments of structural
capacity of concrete components in seismic retrofit projects.

Stiffness Models:

Andrew Mitchell, Degenkolb

Kenneth Elwood, Univ of British Columbia
Engineers
Craig Comartin, CDComartin Inc.
Jon Heintz, Applied Technology Council Jack Moehle, UC Berkeley
Mark Moore, Forell/Elsesser
Dawn Lehman, Univ of Washington
Michael Valley, Magnusson
Adolfo Matamoros, Univ of Kansas
Klemencic
Proposed Condition
Johni vs.Wallace, UCLA
Calibrated to experimental data:
FEMA 356 Conforming
Columns:

Accounts for slip

from B-C joints.

Highlights:

Highlights:

New development length model.

Lap splices typical of older columns:
fs Supp / fs FEMA 356 = 1.45

Low axial-load columns and beams:

EIeff FEMA 356 = 0.5EIg
EIeff Supp = 0.3EIg
Accounts for shear
deformations in
B-C joints.
Rigid end zone

Rigid end zone

a) Mnc/Mnb > 1.2

b) Mnc/Mnb < 0.8

Rigid end zones

c) 0.8 Mnc/Mnb 1.2

kcalc/kmeas

New models provide better estimate

of measured stiffness from 57 beamcolumn sub-assembly tests.

Walls:
Highlights:
Tri-linear backbone for walls
controlled by shear.

Proposed

MeanQ

1.22

MinQy

0.19

Max

2.52

cov

0.41

d
0.36
B

Highlights:

0.36

Specific parameters for PT slabcolumn connections.

C
D

E
c

RC modeling parameters and

acceptance criteria revised based
on new data.
-continuity reinforcement
values
-no continuity reinforcement
values

@ axial failure

v 3 fc '

Acceptance Criteria:

R C c o n n e c tio n s /S u b a s s e m b lie s
E d g e c o n n e c tio n s
A S C E 4 1 - C o n t in u it y ( C )
A S C E 4 1 - N o C o n t in u it y ( N C )
F E M A 3 5 6 - C /N C

0 .0 5

0 .0 4

/V
test

1
O n e C u r ta in
T w o C u rta in s

No penalty for walls with one

curtain of reinforcement.

f y ) m in = 0 . 2 5 % * 4 1 4 M P a

Shear-controlled walls dependent on axial load.

Low axial load: total Supp = 2.0% (Sec. - CP)
High axial load: total Supp = 1.0% (Sec. - CP)

f y ) m in = 0 . 1 5 % * 4 1 4 M P a

0
0

( f y)M

3
IN

Highlights:
Allow for secondary nonductile
elements to lose lateral load
capacity, but still sustain gravity
loads.

R e f: K a n g & W a lla c e , A C I 1 0 3 (4 ), 2 0 0 6

0 .0 3

0 .0 2

0 .0 1
A C I 3 1 8 - 0 5 2 1 .1 1 .5 L im it
0

0 .1

0 .2

0 .3

0 .4

0 .5

0 .6

G ra v ity S h e a r R a tio (V g /V 0 ), w h e re V

0 .7

0 .8

= 4 f 'c 1 /2 b o d

0 .9

(F E M A 3 5 6 )

Secondary shear-critical columns.

Low axial loads:
FEMA 356 (CP) p = 0.004 rad
Supp. (CP) p = 0.006 to 0.06 rad

0 .0 6

5.18

Ag f c '

Proposed Condition ii vs.

FEMA 356 Non-Conforming

Slab-Column Connections:

2.59

Relax confinement requirements.

Considered as confined if:
Ash > 0.75Ash ACI
s < 8db
Increase shear stress limits.
Deformation capacity approximately
v 4 fc '
constant for

1.0

Flexure-shear failure mode.

p depends on axial load and and v

High axial loads:

FEMA 356 (CP) p = 0.004 rad
Supp. (CP) p = 0.0 to 0.008 rad

FEMA 356

Flexure-controlled columns.
p depends on axial load and

D rift R a tio (T o ta l R o ta tio n ) a t P u n c h in g

Beam-Column Joints:
FEMA 356: rigid zone
Supplemental: Dependent on
Mnc/Mnb

@ shear failure

Modeling recommendations:
Guidance on stiffness and
nonlinear models to model
influence of punching.

(MPa)

SEAONC 2007 Excellence in Structural Engineering Awards

Facilitate development of more

liberal acceptance criteria of other
materials.
Alternative Acceptance Criteria
Backbone created using peak
of first cycle of each increment
of loading (or deformation).
- less exaggeration of rate
of degradation.
- more realistic backbone.

Ag f c '