1 INVESTIGATION OF CORNER COLUMN AXIAL FAILURE IN A 14-

2 STORY RC BUILDING

3 Aishwarya Puranam and Santiago Pujol

4 Biography: ACI member Aishwarya Puranam is a Graduate Student in the School of Civil

5 Engineering at Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. She received her BS and MS in Civil

6 Engineering from Purdue University in 2013 and 2016, respectively.

7 ACI Fellow Santiago Pujol is a Professor in the School of Civil Engineering at Purdue

8 University. He is a member of ACI Committees 133, Disaster Reconnaissance; 314,

9 Simplified Design of Concrete Buildings; and ACI Subcommittee 318-R, High-Strength

10 Reinforcement; and Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 445, Shear and Torsion. He received his

11 BSCE from National University of Colombia, Bogota, Colombia, in 1996, and his MSCE and

12 PhD from Purdue University in 1997 and 2002, respectively.

13 ABSTRACT

14 This paper discusses plausible causes for the failure of a corner column in a 14-story

15 reinforced concrete moment-frame building in Tainan, Taiwan, during the Meinong

16 Earthquake of February 6, 2017. It is concluded that the failure occurred because of the

17 effect of discontinuous partition walls. Nevertheless, the analyses presented suggest that, in

18 strong ground shaking, the column would have been subjected to excessive axial compression

19 even in the absence of said walls.

20 Keywords: Corner, Column, Axial, Compression Failure, Discontinuous Walls, Partitions

21 INTRODUCTION

22 A residential complex consisting of four 14-story reinforced concrete moment frame

23 buildings was surveyed in Tainan City following the 2016 Taiwan (Meinong) Earthquake. A

1
 1 corner column failed at the basement level in one of the buildings in the complex. A study

2 was conducted to investigate the probable cause of failure and the extent to which

3 conventional design approaches and past field observations can be used to avoid this type of

4 failure.

5 The studied building was one of four 14-story towers that shared a common basement used

6 for parking. It had a rectangular floor-plan and four reinforced concrete (RC) moment frames

7 in each direction. Its long direction coincided roughly with the NS direction. A detailed

8 photographic record of the state of the structures after the earthquake and photographs of

9 original drawings (in Chinese) are available here: https://datacenterhub.org/resources/14098

10 The failure in the corner column appeared to have features common in axial compression

11 failures. Other elements in the basement (columns, beams, partitions) were nearly free of any

12 damage, including beams framing into this column. These observations and the stiffening

13 expected from the peripheral retaining walls described suggest that the failure was unlikely to

14 have been caused by lateral displacement and/or shear force. Three approaches were used to

15 investigate the demands in the column that failed: 1) Conventional Design Approach, 2)

16 Limit Analysis and 3) Unconventional Treatment of the Problem as that of a Stiff Cantilever

17 on a Soft Base. Results obtained using the three approaches are discussed.

18 RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

19 Brittle failure in columns during an earthquake could lead to catastrophic outcomes. Field

20 evidence has shown that columns at the base of a building can be vulnerable if they support

21 discontinuous walls. Results of this study indicate that even in the absence of said

22 discontinuous walls, exterior columns in moment frames designed using conventional

23 methods based on reduced earthquake demands could be vulnerable to axial compression

24 failure.

2
 1 ANALYTICAL INVESTIGATION AND DISCUSSION

2 Description of Ground Motion

3 Within 3.5 km from the subject building PGA (Peak Ground Acceleration) reached

4 approximately 0.2 g and PGV (Peak Ground Velocity) reached 60 cm/s (24 in./s). Figures 1

5 and 2 show response spectra (for a damping ratio of 2%) for the records from which these

6 peaks were extracted. In the nearly constant acceleration region, mean spectral acceleration

7 was 0.4 g with the mean plus the standard deviation of the same quantity being close to 0.5 or

8 0.6 g. The period at the transition between the ranges of nearly constant acceleration and

9 velocity (Figure 1) was approximately 1.1 s, indicating the presence of soft soils. Records

10 were provided by CWB (Central Weather Bureau, Taiwan) and are available here:

11 https://datacenterhub.org/resources/14098.

12 Description of the Building

13 The studied building was one of four 14-story towers that shared and common basement used

14 for parking. The perimeter of this basement extended well outside the perimeters of the

15 towers which were labeled A, B, C, D (Figure 3). Towers A and B had similar configurations.

16 This paper focuses on Tower B. Tower B had four reinforced concrete (RC) moment frames

17 in each direction. Its long direction coincided roughly with the NS direction. A typical floor

18 plan is shown in Figure 4.

19 The Exterior columns in lower stories were 60 cm x 120 cm in cross section (24 in. x 48 in.)

20 and had high longitudinal reinforcement ratios (2.7% - from 24 #10 bars with a nominal

21 diameter of 1.27 in = 32 mm) – Figure 5. Interior columns had 32 in. x 44 in. sections (80 cm

22 x 110 cm) and their reinforcement ratio was 2.8%. The transverse reinforcement ratio was

23 approximately 0.9%. Beams in lower stories were approximately 50 cm x 80 cm (20 in. x 30

3
 1 in.) in cross section. Longitudinal reinforcement ratios ranged from 1.2 % (for bottom

2 reinforcement near columns) to 2% (for top reinforcement near columns). Transverse

3 reinforcement ratio was approximately 0.6 %. Slab thickness was ~ 15 cm (6in.). Top slab

4 reinforcement ratio near columns was approximately 0.4%. Specified concrete strength was ~

5 28 MPa (4000 psi). Specified steel yield stress was 415 MPa (60 ksi).

6 Partitions were made of reinforced concrete. Their thickness was 12 cm (4.7 in.). The

7 longitudinal reinforcement ratio of RC partitions was 0.4%. Partitions were present in all

8 stories. Partition wall density (relative to unit floor area and considering walls in both floor-

9 plan directions) varied from 3 to 5% in stories above ground. In the basement, where

10 partitions were present around the elevator only, partition wall density was 0.3% (Figure 6).

11 The perimeter of the basement was lined by 24 cm (9.5 in.) thick retaining walls. These walls

12 were cast on the inside (i.e. towards the center of the floor plan) of a series of concrete and/or

13 steel piles cast and/or driven to allow basement excavation. Near grade level, a 20 to 24-cm

14 (8-10-in.) thick slab acted as a diaphragm connecting towers A, B, C, and D to these retaining

15 walls.

16 Buildings in Tainan tend to be relatively heavy. The estimated unit weight (relative to unit

17 floor area) was ~ 14.5 kN/m2 (300 psf). The slab near grade supported additional weight

18 from landscaping materials (soil, stone, and pavement) and vegetation. This additional

19 weight was estimated to be ~ 29 kN/m2 (600 psf).

20 Estimate of Mean Roof Drift Ratio

21 Building height (H) was 44.8 m (147 ft.). Initial period (To) was estimated to be 1.5 sec. a)

22 for gross un-cracked sections, b) for a modulus of elasticity of 25GPa (3600 ksi), c)

23 considering the slab segments within a 45-deg. projection of beam webs to act as beam

24 flanges, and d) ignoring the effect of partition walls.

4
 1 For the estimated period To=1.5s , and for a value of PGV of 60 cm/s, the expression

2 proposed by Sozen (2003) to estimate peak roof drift ratio for nonlinear systems, as modified

3 by Laughery (2016), yields:

5 Inter-story drift ratio is likely to be 1.5 times this value (i.e. 3%).

6 State of Towers A and B after the Earthquake

7 A detailed photographic record of the state of the structures after the earthquake and

8 photographs of original drawings (in Chinese) available here:

9 https://datacenterhub.org/resources/14098

10 Towers A and B had hairline inclined cracks in partition walls, especially in the first story.

11 But this damage is not commensurate with the drift estimated ignoring the stiffening effect

12 from partitions. According to Algan (1982), at inter-story drift ratios exceeding 1%, partitions

13 have so much damage that they require total replacement (instead of repair).

14 The axial demand caused by gravity in column D4 in the first story was approximately 5340

15 kN (1200 kip). The increase of tributary area at grade level, and the weight of landscaping

16 materials may have caused the demand in the basement to increase to 7560 kN (1700 kip)

17 (close to the axial load at the balanced point). Yet, the nominal axial capacity (estimated for

18 specified material strengths) for concentric loads was ~ 24,500 kN (5500 kip). Three

19 approaches were followed to try to account for plausible increases in axial demand that may

20 explain the failure.

21 Approach 1: Conventional Design Approach

22 Design approaches seldom serve well as tools to understand failure. Nevertheless, they can

23 provide a frame of reference. In conventional design, spectral acceleration Sa is reduced by an

5
 1 “R factor.” For the case at hand, and given the spectra in Figure 1, it seems reasonable to

2 assume Sa = 0.4g even though the spectra in Figure 1 were produced for a damping ratio of

3 2% and not 5% as it is routinely done in design. For R=8, the resulting seismic coefficient is

4 0.05 (i.e. the design base shear would be 5% of the building weight).

5 In design, base shear is “distributed” along building height in linear proportion to the product

6 of story weight and floor elevation (relative to grade). In late versions of U.S. codes,

7 elevation has been modified by an exponent k related to period. In ASCE-7 (2010), for a

8 period of 1.5 s, k=1.5, resulting in the “equivalent” lateral force distribution shown in Figure

9 8.

10 An analysis of a linear model of the building structure was carried out with 100% of the

11 forces in Figure 8 applied in one direction and 30% of them applied in the other direction.

12 The increase in axial load caused by earthquake demands estimated for column D4 with this

13 approach was nearly 2670 kN (600 kip), for a total axial demand of 7560 kN + 2670 kN =

14 10,230 kN (1700 kip + 600 kip = 2300 kip). This number is still much smaller than the

15 nominal axial strength of 24,500 kN (5500 kip). It is difficult to reconcile the two numbers,

16 therefore, a different perspective and the effects of bending are discussed next.

17 Approach 2: Limit Analysis

18 If beams yield at each end under earthquake demands, the vertical reaction at one end

19 increases in direct proportion to the sum of negative and positive moment capacities, and

20 inverse proportion to beam span. This vertical reaction is shear force (adding to gravity

21 shear) in the beam. In interior columns, additional shear forces from opposite beams tend to

22 counteract one another. But in an exterior column, the described increases in beam shear

23 result in net increases in axial load. At a corner column, increases in axial load from

24 perpendicular frames are additive when the building displaces at the same time in the

6
 1 directions of both frames and towards the corner column (Moehle, 2015).

2 From Figure 1, it is clear there was enough demand to mobilize the strength of the building

3 had it worked as a space frame.

4 For the beams framing into corner column D4 above ground, mean probable negative

5 moment capacity (estimated for a yield stress of 520 MPa or 75 ksi) is approximately 2710

6 kN-m (2000 kip-ft.) and mean probable positive moment capacity is approximately 1350 kN-

7 m (1000 kip-ft). Spans were 7.7 m (25 ft.) in one direction and 11.6 m (38 ft.) in the other.

8 Assuming beams at all levels yielded (an extreme but plausible scenario), the corresponding

9 increase in axial load in column D4 is nearly 12,000 kN (2700 kip), for a total axial demand

10 of 7560 kN + 12,000 kN = 19560 kN (1700 kip + 2700 kip = 4400 kip). Although still

11 smaller, this value is much closer to the nominal capacity for concentric demand (24,500 kN

12 = 5500 kip) than the value obtained through Approach 1.

13 The stark difference in estimates from Approaches 1 and 2 i.e. 10,230 kN v. 19560 kN (2300

14 kip v. 4400 kip) should call the attention of designers and code writers. We design for

15 reduced lateral forces because we realize these forces are not critical as long as the structure

16 can form a ductile mechanism of failure. We proportion structures to do so by forming

17 “plastic hinges” in beams (preferably). If we design beams to yield, we do not achieve the

18 desired ductile mechanism if the columns supporting them cannot resist the reactions

19 associated with said yielding, especially if we consider that the failure of a column under

20 heavy axial load is one of the least ductile failures there are.

21 Next, we examine to what extent bending moment may have caused enough additional

22 demand to trigger failure. If beams in frames in perpendicular directions had yielded, the

23 first-story corner column could have also yielded under bending about an axis making a finite

24 angle with the principal cross-sectional axes. As an example, imagine the first story column

7
 1 bending about an axis at 45 deg. relative to the principal axes (Figure 9). The probable

2 moment capacity of the first-story column under the estimated axial load of 5340 kN or 1200

3 kip (from gravity) plus 12,000 kN or 2700 kip (from the mechanism described above) is 2300

4 kN-m or 1700 kip-ft. (for a yield stress of 75 ksi), with equal NS and EW components of

5 2300/√2 kN-m ( (1700/√2 kip-ft.) each. If one distributes these moment components to the

6 beams at grade level and the basement column in direct proportion to moment of inertia and

7 inverse proportion to span, one obtains 310 kN-m (230 kip-ft.) and 1250 kN-m (920 kip-ft.)

8 as the EW and NS components of the bending moment demand at the top of the basement

9 column. These moment components are represented by the solid black dot in Figure 10. In

10 this figure, the X axis represents moment causing bending about the (weak) EW axis, and the

11 Y axis represents moment causing bending about the (strong) NS axis. Open circles represent

12 demands obtained assuming different angles for the axis of bending in the first-story column.

13 The bilinear “curve” in the same plot represents the nominal capacity of the basement column

14 to resist biaxial moment obtained joining capacities related to bending about the NS and EW

15 axes with the capacity related to bending at 45 deg. Capacities were calculated for an axial

16 force of 19,600 kN (4400 kip) and a yield stress of 415 MPa (60 ksi).

17 The markers representing biaxial bending and axial demands in Figure 10 are also included in

18 moment-axial load interaction diagrams in Figures 11 and 12. Figures 10-12 demonstrate that

19 although bending would have approximated demand to capacity further, the increase in

20 demand caused by bending was not dramatic. The driving factor was the axial load. One can

21 almost argue that plausible variations in material properties and strength estimates would

22 suffice to justify the failure on the basis of Figures 10-12. Nevertheless, as discussed above,

23 had the structure responded as a space frame, the drift would have been much higher than it

24 was apparent from the condition of the partitions. And the bending demands estimated were

8
 1 obtained assuming the first-story column reached its flexural capacity. But the first story

2 column would have been working above the balanced point also and, contrary to the

3 basement column, it is likely to have experienced large shear and lateral deformation. And

4 yet, the first-story column had not clear signs of distress. So perhaps a different issue was at

5 play.

6 Approach 3: Unconventional Treatment of the Problem as that of a Stiff Cantilever on a

7 Soft Base

8 In Caracas, in 1967, at least four RC buildings had compression failures in columns at

9 building base: The Caromay Building (19 stories), The Sucre Building (14 stories), The Mene

10 Grande Building (16 stories), and the Altamira Building (14 stories). Reconnaissance reports

11 (Portland Cement association, 1967, Sozen et al., 1968, Hanson and Degenkolb 1969) point

12 to partition walls as the cause. In Caromay, Sucre, and Altamira, the failures took place in the

13 first story or a basement. In all three cases, these stories (or basement) had a reduced amount

14 of partitions (Figure 13). In all three cases, the reported observations suggest that the

15 buildings acted as stiff cantilevers supported by a softer base. In the case of Caromay,

16 Hanson and Degenkolb (1969) suggested that column axial compression failures (Figure 14)

17 occurred because of overturning forces causing bending of the entire building (acting as a

18 large cantilever) about one of the principal axes of the floor plan.

19 The Imperial County Services building (Kreger and Sozen, 1989) also had a discontinuous

20 wall supported by a series of (offset) columns. Kreger studied the demands on these columns

21 assuming their unit axial strains varied in linear fashion relative to distance to a neutral axis.

22 The ideas by Hanson, Degenkolb, Kreger, and Sozen were combined here to study the subject

23 building. The building was idealized as a 14-story stiff cantilever sitting on a series of

24 vertical springs. Each vertical spring represented a basement column. Lateral movement of

9
 1 spring ends was restrained by pins representing the foundation and the diaphragm connecting

2 Tower B to retaining walls at grade level. The axial strain in each spring was assumed

3 proportional to distance to a neutral axis parallel to the bending axis in Figure 15. The

4 bending axis in Figure 15 was chosen to be perpendicular to the SW-NE diagonal of the floor

5 plan because this orientation puts column D4 in a vulnerable condition. Other axis

6 orientations yield similar results. Spring or column force was obtained from the stresses

7 associated with the mentioned strains. These stresses were obtained using the stress-strain

8 relationship proposed by Hognestad (1951) for concrete in compression. Tensile stresses in

9 concrete were ignored. Bar stresses were assumed proportional to strain up to yield stress.

10 The location of the neutral axis was chosen so that the sum of all column forces was equal

11 and opposite to total building weight. The summation of moments about the centroid of the

12 floor plan provided an estimate of the overturning moment capacity of the building. It was

13 observed that nearly at the same time as column yielding (in tension) was reached at the

14 South-West corner of the building, a compressive strain of 0.003 was reached at the North-

15 East corner of the building. This observation suggests that the building (as idealized) had

16 limited ductility if any. The calculations are presented in Appendix A.

17 Dividing the estimated overturning capacity by 2/3 of building height provides an estimate of

18 base shear strength. This value was approximately 50% of building weight. Form the Spectra

19 in Figure 1, and assuming period of the building was well within the region of nearly constant

20 acceleration, it seems plausible that what occurred in Tower B was nothing but a repeat of

21 what occurred in Caracas and El Centro decades before. Discontinuous walls created axial

22 demands in supporting columns well beyond their strengths. Why did this mistake have to be

23 repeated in the 21st century? The profession ought to make an effort to learn and remember

24 more from its own experience. In the age of artificial intelligence, we have the means to prop

10
 1 up our memories to avoid forgetting again. The website mentioned above

2 (datacenterhub.org) is an experiment funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation to help

3 engineers preserve and retrieve more quickly what they learn in laboratories and field.

4 Other Considerations

5 A. Assuming yielding of columns in tension prompts two questions:

6 1. Was there evidence of such yielding?

7 Hairline cracks were observed in a number of columns. To reach the compressive capacity of

8 column D4 requires only incipient yielding without large inelastic deformations.

9 2. Was there enough strength in the foundation to resist said yielding?

10 The foundation consisted of a 0.7 m (27.5 in.) RC mat stiffened by 1.2 m (47 in.) RC deep

11 beams (protruding 0.5 m or 20 in. beyond the mat). A 4 m x 4 m (13 ft. x 13 ft.) grid of steel

12 beams was cast in this mat. These beams were connected to 20-m long steel “W-shape”

13 piles. All four towers shared the same foundation.

14 Uplift on one side of the subject tower would have left signs of distress on the floor of the

15 parking area. No such signs were observed. Nevertheless, we estimated the base shear

16 required to uplift the foundation assuming each tower had its own mat isolated from other

17 mats. We found the associated spectral acceleration to be much more than the value obtained

18 assuming deformations concentrated in the basement.

19 B. We also considered whether vertical acceleration could have been one the main drivers

20 behind the observed column failure. Figure 16, nevertheless, shows that this is unlikely to be

21 the case because:

22 -Vertical accelerations were modest (0.15g at most)

23 -Peak vertical accelerations occurred early in the ground motion, before large overturning

24 moments are likely to have occurred

11
 1 C. How likely was the building to lean towards the column that failed (D4) as assumed in

2 Figure 15?

3 To address this question, we estimated the initial period of the building idealizing it a stiff

4 cantilever pivoting about the elevator core, with columns acting as parallel linear springs

5 producing resistance against rotation in the basement. The estimate ranged from 0.2 s (NS

6 direction) to 0.3 s (EW direction) for un-cracked sections. Figure 17 shows a trace of

7 displacement in the NS direction (x axis) v. displacement in the EW direction (y axis)

8 estimated for a linear SDOF with a period of 0.25 s. The trace was obtained for the ground

9 acceleration record obtained closest to the building. The trace is superimposed on the

10 building floor plan from Figure 4. Figure 17 shows that the majority of the displacement

11 cycles for the SDOF studied occurred in directions approaching the SW-NE diagonal of the

12 building implying that the condition depicted in Figure 15 is plausible. The amplitude of the

13 displacements estimated would require strains in corner columns approaching 0.003 in the

14 basement.

15 An interesting question remains. Why did Tower A not have a similar failure to the one in

16 Tower B? We do not have a good answer to this question. The partition walls in Tower A

17 were nearly a mirror image of those in Tower B. For this reason, the column in the position of

18 column D4 in Tower A did not have partition walls directly attached to it in the first story.

19 Perhaps this difference was sufficient to lessen the demands in the NE corner column in

20 Tower A. Or perhaps the ground motion intensity was a bit smaller for Tower A and, given

21 the discussed brittleness of the system, this small difference in demand led to a large

22 difference in response. We do not know with certainty.

23 CONCLUSIONS

24 Exterior columns in moment frames designed for reduced earthquake demands can be

12
 1 vulnerable to axial compression failure. Limit analysis can be used to obtain, with little

2 effort, safe estimates of column axial demand.

3 The vulnerability of columns supporting discontinuous walls (made with tiles or concrete)

4 has been known for decades. Nevertheless, it seems that our profession is too distracted by

5 other issues to pay enough attention to simple observations from previous earthquakes.

6 Observations can be as or more useful than the most sophisticated mathematical algorithm or

7 method of analysis.

8 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

9 Discussions with Dr. Mete Sozen and Dr. Luis Fargier were critical to shape our thinking.

10 The EERI student chapter at Purdue University acted as a reliable sounding board to help us

11 arrive to what we believe are reasonable conclusions.

12 REFERENCES

13 1. Algan, B. (1982) “Drift and Damage Considerations in Earthquake-Resistant Design of Reinforced

14 Concrete Buildings,” PhD Thesis, University of Illinois, Urbana.

15 2. ASCE (2010) “ASCE/SEI 7 Minimum Design Loads For Buildings and Other Structures,” American

16 Society of Civil Engineers, Reston Virginia.

17 3. Hanson, R., and Degenkolb, H. J., (1969) “The Venezuela Earthquake July 29, 1967,” American Iron

18 and Steel Institute, New York.

19 4. Hognestad, E. (1951) “A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete

20 Members,” Bulletin 399, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Stations, Urbana.

21 5. Kreger, M. and Sozen, M. (1989) “Seismic Response of Imperial Country Services Building in 1979”,

22 Journal of Structural Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 12.

23 6. Moehle, J. (2015) “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings,” McGraw Hill.

24 7. Portland Cement Association (1967) “Preliminary Report The Behavior of Reinforced Concrete

25 Structures in the Caracas, Venezuela Earthquake of July 29, 1967,” Portland Cement Association,

26 Skokie, Illinois.

13
1 8. Sozen, M.A., Jennings, P.C., Matthiesen, R.B., Housner, G.W., Newmark, N.M., (1968) “Engineering

2 Report on The Caracas Earthquake of 29 July 1967,” National Academy of Science, Washington DC

14
 1 APPENDIX A: APPROACH 3-STIFF CANTILEVER ON A SOFT

2 BASE

3 The building was idealized as a 14-story stiff cantilever sitting on a series of vertical springs.

4 Each vertical spring represented a basement column. Lateral movement of spring ends was

5 restrained by pins representing the foundation and the diaphragm connecting Tower B to

6 retaining walls at grade level.

7 Defining the cross-section of the basement

8 - Longitudinal steel in a column was assumed to be concentrated or "lumped" at the

9 center of each column

10 - Cross-sectional area in compression was also assumed to be concentrated or "lumped"

11 at the center of each column

12

13

15
1 Material Properties

3 - Stresses in concrete were obtained using the stress-strain relationship proposed by

4 Hognestad (1951) for concrete in compression:

6 - Tensile stresses in steel were assumed to be proportional to strain up to yield

7
8

16
 1 Neutral Axis Depth

2 Location of the neutral axis was chosen so that the sum of all column forces was equal and

3 opposite to the total weight of the building

5 Column Forces

6 Sum of forces in longitudinal bars in all columns

8 Sum of concrete compressive forces

10 Note:

11 Tensile strength of concrete was ignored

12 Stress in concrete at a given strain was obtained using the expression proposed by Hognestad

13 (1951)

14 +ve= tension, -ve= compression

17
1 Equilibrium

3 Overturning Capacity

5 Estimate of Base Shear Strength

7
18
 1 FIGURES

2 List of Figures:
3 Fig. 1 – Spectral accelerations obtained for a damping ratio of 2% and for records within

4 3.5 km from building.

5 Fig. 2 – Spectral displacements obtained for a damping ratio of 2% and for records within

6 3.5 km from building

7 Fig. 3–Plan View of Building Complex – Perimeters of Basement and Towers

8 Fig. 4–Typical Floor Plan

9 Fig. 5–Column (D4) cross section. Transverse reinforcement was #4 stirrup and cross-ties

10 spaced at 10 cm on center.

11 Fig. 6–Locations of Columns and Partitions in Floor Plans of Tower B

12 Fig. 7–Column D4

13 Fig. 8–Equivalent Lateral Forces Used to Emulate Conventional Analysis for Design

14 Fig. 9–Definition of First-Story Column Bending Axis

15 Fig. 10–Probable moment demands and nominal capacities, basement column D4.

16 Fig. 11–Interaction Diagram for Basement Column D4, Strong Axis Bending.

17 Fig. 12–Interaction Diagram for Basement Column D4, Weak Axis Bending.

18 Fig. 13–Locations of Columns and Partitions in Floor Plans of Caromay Building (Hanson

19 and Degenkolb, 1969).

20 Fig. 14–Column 5D, Caromay Building (Hanson and Degenkolb, 1969)

21 Fig. 15–Assumed axis of bending for entire building

22 Fig. 16–Closest acceleration records.

23 Fig. 17–Displacement trace for a linear SDOF

24

19
 1.0
0.9
0.8 Mean + Standard Deviation
0.7
Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.6
Mean
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (s)
1
2

3 Fig. 1–Spectral accelerations obtained for a damping ratio of 2% and for records within 3.5

4 km from building.

6 Fig. 2–Spectral displacements obtained for a damping ratio of 2% and for records within 3.5

7 km from building

20
 N
D

B A

2 Fig. 3–Plan View of Building Complex – Perimeters of Basement and Towers

6 Fig. 4–Typical Floor Plan (Dimensions in cm, 1in=2.54cm)

21
 N

2 Fig. 5–Column (D4) cross section.

3 Transverse reinforcement was #4 stirrup and cross-ties spaced at 10 cm on center.

6 (a) Typical Floor Plan (b) Basement Level

7 Fig. 6–Locations of Columns and Partitions in Floor Plans of Tower B

10

11

22
1

2 Fig. 7–Column D4

4 Fig. 8–Equivalent Lateral Forces Used to Emulate Conventional Analysis for Design

23
 TENSION

Bending axis

COMPRESSION N
1

2 Fig. 9–Definition of First-Story Column Bending Axis

30⁰
Probable Moment
45⁰
Nominal Capacity for P=4400 kip
60⁰

4 Fig. 10–Probable moment demands and nominal capacities, basement column D4. Angles

5 marking symbols representing demands refer to the angle between the axis of bending in the

6 first-story column and the NS direction.

24
 60, 45,30°

2 Fig. 11–Interaction Diagram for Basement Column D4, Strong Axis Bending.

30,45,60°

4 Fig. 12–Interaction Diagram for Basement Column D4, Weak Axis Bending.

25
1

2 (a) Typical Floor Plan

4 (b) Basement Floor Plan

5 Fig. 13–Locations of Columns and Partitions in Floor Plans of Caromay Building (Hanson

6 and Degenkolb, 1969).

26
1

2 Fig. 14–Column 5D, Caromay Building (Hanson and Degenkolb, 1969)

27
 TENSION

Bending axis

COMPRESSION

54 deg
1

4 Fig. 15–Assumed axis of bending for entire building

28
1

3 Fig. 16–Closest acceleration records.

-1

5 Fig. 17–Displacement trace for a linear SDOF

29