How to evaluate the seismic resistance of an existing RC

building by simplified ATC – 14 methodology?

Problem statement: The greatest risk to human lives and property in the event of an
earthquake is due to damage and collapse of existing buildings. In spite of this, there is
presently no well known procedure for the seismic evaluation of existing buildings. The
ATC-14 methodology is intended to this need, which leads not only to conclusions
concerning the adequacy of the structure for a given event, but also identifies the
structure’s weakness and, therefore, area of needed rehabilitation. The methodology
assumes that the successful performance of the buildings depends on the base shear
strength of the main structural elements, the connection strength and ductility of the
connections, the building configuration, the material type, and the interconnection of the
structural parts. This example describes the evaluation procedure for reinforced
concrete buildings based on ATC-14 methodology, modified as per Indian Codal Provisions,
and its application to an existing three storey reinforced concrete building .

INTRODUCTION

There are many buildings that have primary structural system not meeting the
current seismic requirements. Such buildings might suffer extensive damage or
even collapse if shaken by a severe ground motion causing injury to the occupants
or people living in the vicinity. Therefore for earthquake hazard mitigation it is
necessary to identify these buildings and to evaluate their seismic capacity to
resist the future earthquakes. To this purpose ATC-14(1) developed a
methodology on the basis of past performance of buildings during previous
earthquakes. The methodology assumes that a “hazardous building” endangers
human lives in an earthquake if one or more of the following events occur. Such as
the entire building collapses, portion of the building collapses, components of the
building fail and fall, exit and entry routes are blocked. Hence, a major portion of
the methodology is dedicated to direct the evaluating engineer on how to
determine if there are any weak links in the structure that could precipitate
structural or component failure. Potential weak links have been identified from
detailed review of building performance data from past earthquakes.

BASIS OF ATC-14 METHODOLOGY

In 1987, ATC-14 project developed a practical methodology to determine

potential earthquake hazards and identify buildings or building components that
are risky to human lives. To develop the building seismic evaluation methodology
the main literature surveyed by ATC –committee are (1) earthquake damage
reports (2) existing and proposed Code Provisions (3) previously developed seismic
evaluation methodologies (4) reports on analytical and experimental research,
including a special focus on the various materials utilized in building structural
system; and (5) test methods. The following are the main features of this
methodology.
Data Collection: Methodology begins with the data collection procedures which
are required together with the information necessary to classify the building and
perform the evaluations. It includes the following items:
(i) Contract documents, such as construction drawings, specifications, soil reports,
and calculation.
(ii) Field surveys of the structure’s existing condition.

Building Classification: The evaluation procedure of the methodology depends on

the type of model buildings which are classified in 15 categories (ATC 1987).
These categories are based on material or type of construction employed in the
principal gravity and lateral force resisting elements.

Evaluation Procedure: The evaluation procedure for each model building consists
of a collection of statements with related concern. Each statement relates to a
vulnerable area in the structural system that requires specific consideration and
its concern explains why the statements are written. The evaluation statements
that have a positive or “true” response to a statement imply that the building is
adequate in that area. If a building then passes all the related statements with
true responses, it can be passed without further evaluation. For statements that
are “false” additional evaluation is necessary. It includes the following items:

1. A description of the performance characteristics exhibited by structure

of this type during past earthquakes of severe intensity.
2. Evaluation statements of buildings which are based on their performance
characteristics.

A detailed description of evaluation procedure for reinforced concrete buildings,

suitably modified as per Indian Code, is given below.

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF MOMENT RESISTING REINFORCED CONCRETE

BUILDING

The evaluation of any building is a difficult task which requires a wide knowledge
about the seismic behavior of buildings. The procedure outlined below is to be
treated as a guide to that decision making process and not as the absolute method
of evaluation.
Performance Characteristics

The moment resisting reinforced concrete frame buildings are typically more
flexible than shear wall buildings. This low stiffness can result in large inter-
storey drifts that may lead to extensive nonstructural damage. The following list
shows specific performance characteristics that these buildings may exhibit
during the past earthquake.
 Large tie spacing in column can lead to a lack of confinement for the concrete
core and/ or shear failures.
 Insufficient column lap lengths can cause concrete to spall.
 Location of inadequate splices for all column bars at the same section can lead
to column failure.
 If the column shear strength is insufficient to develop the full moment hinge
capacity, the column can exhibit a brittle shear failure.
 Insufficient anchorage of shear tie reinforcing in column cores can prevent
the column from developing its full shear capacity.
 Lack of continuous beam reinforcement can cause hinge formation during load
reversals.
 Inadequate reinforcing of beam-column joints or location of beam bar splices
at columns can lead to joint failures.
 Foundation dowels that are insufficient to develop the capacity of the column
steel above can lead to local column distress.
 Use of bent-up longitudinal reinforcing in beams as shear reinforcement can
result in shear failure during load reversal.
 The relatively low stiffness of the frames can lead to excessive interstorey
drifts. These large drifts can cause damage to nonstructural items such as
partitions, window, etc.
 Pounding between immediately adjacent structures of different heights can
occur. This could lead to column distress and possibly local collapse where the
floors of adjacent building are not at the same elevation.
 Building with substantial plan irregularities, such as T, L, U, or cruciform
configurations, may generate large torsional effects. Depending on the
rigidities of the lateral system, different wings of the structure may vibrate
independently, which could lead to a concentration of damage at the junctures
(i.e., reentrant corners) if separation joints or special reinforcements have
not been provided.
 Buildings with abrupt change in lateral resistance have often performed poorly
in past earthquakes. Significant vertical strength discontinuities tend to
concentrate damage in the “soft” stories.
 Improper detailing in beams and columns reduce the toughness and ductility,
therefore these are not capable to undergo extensive inelastic deformations
and dissipating seismic energy in a stable manner.
Evaluation Statements

Statement 1: Rapid Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Column

Related Concern: Reinforced concrete frame buildings have generally failed in
past earthquake due to inadequate column shear capacity. So, a quick estimation
of the shear stress in the concrete frame column should be evaluated in the region
of high or moderate seismicity.

Statement 2: Rapid estimation of Storey Drift

Related Concern: Drift must be limited, even if the structure can tolerate more
because of its effect on nonstructural components, particularly partition,
exterior skin and ceiling elements, and on the comfort of occupants.

Evaluation of Material

Statement 3: For all buildings which are more than 3 storeys in height, the
minimum grade of concrete shall preferably be M20.
Related Concern: The concrete strength below M20 may not have the requisite
strength in bond or shear to take full advantage of the design provision.

Statement 4 Steel reinforcement upto grade Fe415 shall be used.

Related Concern For reinforcement, firstly the provisions, of adequate ductility
and secondly, of an upper limit on the yield stress or characteristics strength, are
essential. General practice is to limit the yield stress of reinforcement to 415
N/mm2 i.e HYSD bars.

Evaluation of Structural Components

Statement 5: There are no in-fills of concrete or masonry placed in the concrete

frames that are not isolated from the structural elements.
Related Concern: In-fill walls used for partitions or walls around the stair, that
are not adequately isolated, will alter the seismic response of the structure.
Random stiffening of a frame structure by masonry infill is a common instigator
of damage and failure. The mechanism is that the earthquake forces are
attracted to the areas of greatest stiffness, and if these are not designed to
accommodate forces, they are prone to failure.

Statement 6: The lateral force resisting elements form a well-distributed and

balanced system that is not subjected to significant torsion.
Related Concern: Plan irregularities may cause torsion or excessive lateral
deflections that may result in permanent set or even partial collapse.

Statement 7: There are no significant strength discontinuities or soft storey in

any of the vertical lateral force resisting elements.
Related Concern: The condition is most critical when it occurs at the first storey,
because the loads are generally greatest at this level. The essential
characteristics of a soft storey consist of a discontinuity of strength or
stiffness, which occurs at the second storey connections. This discontinuity
caused due to lesser strength, or increased flexibility, in the first storey
structure results in extreme deflection in the first storey which, in turn, results
in a concentration of forces/stresses at the second storey connections.

Statement 8: There are no significant vertical irregularities caused by either

geometric or mass irregularities.
Related Concern: Torsional forces will be introduced into the structure, resulting
in great complexity of analysis and behavior.

Statement 9: All of the frames continue to the building base.

Related Concern: All of the frames carry shear and overturning forces. Any
frames that do not continue to the foundation must deliver their shear and
overturning to the other structural elements. Unless there are supplementary
elements specifically detailed to take these loads, these elements may not have
sufficient capacity.

Statement 10: The moment capacity of the columns appears to be greater than
that of the beams.
Related Concern: This is based on the reasoning that as beams start to fail, they
will move from elastic to inelastic behaviour and start to deform permanently.
This action will dissipate and absorb some of the earthquake forces. Conversely,
if the column fails first and begins to deform and buckle, major vertical
compressive loads may quickly lead to total collapse.

Statement 11: There is no pounding

Related Concern: The possibility of pounding is a function of the vertical
deflection or drift of adjoining buildings (or parts of a building).
Evaluation of Structural Details

Flexural Members

Statement 12: Limitation on flexural reinforcement ratio.

0.24 f ck / f y 
min   
two continuousbars at both top and bottomof the member
max  0.025

Related Concern: The limiting ratio of 0.025 is based mainly on consideration of

steel congestion and also on limiting shear stresses in beams of typical
proportions. From a practical stand point, low steel ratios should be used whenever
possible. The requirement of at least two bars, top and bottom, is intended to
insure integrity of the member under reversed loading.

Statement 13: Restriction on lap splices - Lap splice shall not be used (i) within
joint (ii) within 2d from face of support, where d is effective depth of beam (iii)
at locations of potential plastic hinging.
Related Concern: Lap splices of flexural reinforcement are not allowed in regions
of potential plastic hinging, since such splices are not considered to be reliable
under reversed inelastic cycle of deformation.
Columns
Statement 14: Restriction on use of Lap splices - Lap splices shall be provided
only in the central half of the member length. It should be proportioned as a
tension splice; hoops shall be provided over the entire splice length at spacing not
exceeding 150 mm c/c. Not more than 50% of the reinforcement shall be spliced
at one section.
Related Concern: Splices of inadequate length may lead to column distress and
even failure.
Evaluation of Foundation

Statement 15: All longitudinal column steel is dowelled into the foundation.
Related Concern: The lack of sufficient dowels create a weak plane that may not
have adequate shear or torsion capacity, essential for overturning forces.
 AN EXAMPLE OF SEISMIC EVALUATION OF RC BUILDING

A three storey reinforced concrete building, situated in Zone V ( Ah  0.36) ,is

examined with this methodology. The selected building consists of a moment
resisting frame. The structural plan of the typical floor is shown in Figure 1. A
typical frame in transverse direction is shown in Figure 2. The detailing of this
frame is shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The evaluation statements are evaluated
after a visit to the site and with the help of original structural drawings and their
results are summarized in evaluation checklist (Table 1.)

Table 1: Seismic Evaluation of 3 storied Reinforced Concrete Building

No. Statement True/False

Evaluation of concrete column* True
Rapid estimation of storey drift* True

The sample calculations of these two statements are given in Appendix I.

Evaluation of Material
No significance deterioration of reinforcing bar True
Minimum grade of concrete shall preferably M20 True
Steel of grade Fe415 or less shall be used True

Evaluation of Structural Components

No infill True
No torsion True
No vertical strength discontinuities True
No vertical mass or geometric discontinuities True
Frame continuous to the base True
Strong column-weak beams False
No pounding of adjacent structure True
No eccentricity between column and beam True

Evaluation of Structural Details

Flexural Members

Limitation of sectional dimension

The member shall preferably have a width to depth ratio of more than 0.3. True
The width of the member shall not be less than 200 mm. True
The depth D of the member shall preferably be not more than ¼ of the clear span. True

Longitudinal Reinforcement
The top as well as bottom reinforcement shall consist of at least two bars throughout the True
member length.
The tension steel ratio on any face, at any section, shall not be less than min = 0.24fck/fy; True
where fck and fy are in MPA.
The maximum steel ratio on any face at any section shall not exceed pmax = 0.025. True
Moment capacity requirement at beam ends True
M+y > 0.50 M-y
Moment capacity requirement at beam span True
M+y or M-y > 0.25
Restriction of Lap Splice (i) within joint (ii) within 2d from face of support (iii) location of False
potential plastic hinge region
In an external joint, both the top and the bottom bars of the beam shall be provided with
anchorage length, beyond the inner face of the column, equal to the development length in
tension plus 10 times the bar diameter minus the allowance for 90 degrees bend(s). In an
internal joint, both face bars of the beam shall be taken continuously through the column.
The longitudinal bars shall be spliced, only if hoops are provided over the entire splice
length, at spacing not exceeding 150 mm. The lap length shall not be less than the bar
development length in tension. Lap splices shall not be provided (a) within a joint, (b) within
a quarter length of the member where flexural yielding may generally occur under the
effect of earthquake forces. Not more than 50 percent of the bars shall be spliced at one
section.

Web Reinforcement
False
Web reinforcement shall consist of vertical hoops. A vertical hoop is a closed
stirrup having a 135 hook with a 10-diameter extension (but not < 75 mm) at each
end that is embedded in the confined core. In compelling circumstances, it may
also be made up of two pieces of reinforcement; a U stirrup with a 135 hook and
a 10-diameter extension (but not < 75 mm) at each end, embedded in the confined
core and cross tie. A crosstie is a bar having a 135 hook with a 10 diameter
extension (but not < 75 mm) at each end. The hooks shall engage peripheral
longitudinal bars.

True
The minimum diameter of the bar forming a hoop shall be 6 mm. However, in beams
with clear span exceeding 5 m, the minimum bar diameter shall be 8 mm.

False
The shear force to be resisted by the vertical hoops shall be the maximum of: a)
calculated factored shear force as per analysis, and b) shear force due to
formation of plastic hinges at both ends of the beams plus the factored gravity
load on the span.

False
The spacing of hoops over a length of 2d at either end of a beam shall not exceed
(a) d/4, and (b) 8 times the diameter of the smallest longitudinal bar; however it
need not be less than 100 mm. The first hoop shall be at a distance not exceeding
50 mm from the joint face. Vertical hoops at the same spacing as above shall also
be provided over a length equal to 2d on either side of a section where flexural
yielding may occur under the effect of earthquake forces. Elsewhere the beam
shall have vertical hoops at a spacing not exceeding d/2.

Columns and Frame Members subjected to Bending and Axial load

Limitation on sectional dimensional

The minimum dimension of the member shall not be less than 200 mm. However,
in frames, which have beams with center-to-center span exceeding 5 m or columns
of unsupported length exceeding 4 m, the shortest dimension of the column shall
not be less than 300 mm.
The ratio of the shortest cross sectional dimension to the perpendicular
dimension shall preferably be not less than 0.4.

Longitudinal Reinforcement

False
Lap splices shall be provided only in the central half of the member length. It
should be proportioned as a tension splice. Hoops shall be provided over the entire
splice length at spacing not exceeding 150 mm center to center. Not more than
50 percent of the bars shall be spliced at one section.

True
Any area of a column that extends more than 100 mm beyond the confined core
due to architectural requirements shall be detailed in the following manner. In
case the contribution of this area to strength has been considered, then it will
have minimum longitudinal and transverse reinforcement as per this code.
However if this area has been treated as non-structural, the minimum
reinforcement requirements shall be governed by IS 456:1978 provisions
minimum longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, as per IS 456:1978.

Transverse Reinforcement

False
Transverse reinforcement for circular columns shall consist of spiral or circular
hoops. In rectangular columns rectangular hoops may be used. A rectangular hoop
is a closed stirrup, having a 135 hook with 10-diameter extension (but not <75
mm) at each end that is embedded in the confined core.

The parallel legs of rectangular hoop shall be spaced not more than 300 mm center
to center. If the length of any side of the hoop exceeds 300 mm, a crosstie shall
be provided. Alternatively, a pair of overlapping hoops may be provided within the
column. The hooks shall engage peripheral longitudinal bars.

False
The spacing of hoops shall not exceed half the least lateral dimension of the
column, except where special confining reinforcement is provided as 7.4.

False
The design shear force for columns shall be the maximum of: a) calculated
factored shear force shear forces as per analysis and b) a factored shear force
 M bL u ,lim  M bR u ,lim 
given by VU  1.4  
 hst 
Where MbLu,lim and MbRu,lim are moment of resistance, of opposite sign, of beams
framing into the column from opposite faces and hst is the storey height. The
beam moment capacity is to be calculated as per IS 456:1978.

Special Confining Reinforcement

This requirement shall be met with, unless a larger amount of transverse

reinforcement is required from shear strength considerations.

False
Special confining reinforcement shall be provided over a length lo from each joint
face, towards midspan, and on either side of any section, where flexural yielding
may occur under the effect of earthquake forces. The length ‘lo’ shall not be less
than (a) larger lateral dimension of the member at the section where yielding
occurs, (b) 1/6 of clear span of the member, and (c) 450 mm.

False
When a column terminates into a footing or mat, special confining reinforcement
shall extend at least 300 mm into the footing or mat.

False
When the calculated point of contra-flexure, under the effect of gravity and
earthquake loads, is not within the middle half of the member clear height, special
confining reinforcement shall be provided over the full height of the column.

NA
Columns supporting reactions from discontinued stiff members, such as walls,
shall be provided with special confining reinforcement over their full height. This
reinforcement shall also be placed above the discontinuity for at least the
 development length of the largest longitudinal bar in the column. Where the
column is supported on a wall, this reinforcement shall be provided over the full
height of the column; it shall also be provided below the discontinuity for the
same development length.

NA
Special confining reinforcement shall be provided over the full height of a column,
which has significant variation in stiffness along its height. This variation in
stiffness may result due to the presence of bracing, a mezzanine floor or a R.C.C.
wall on either side of the column that extends only over a part of the column
height.

False
The spacing of hoops used as special confining reinforcement shall not exceed ¼
of minimum member dimension but need not be less than 75 mm nor more than
100 mm.
NA
The area of cross section, Ash, of the bar forming circular hoops or spiral, to be
used as special confining reinforcement shall not be less than

f ck  Ag 
Ash  0.09 SDk   1 Where Ash = area of the bar cross section , S =
f y  Ak 
pitch of spiral or spacing of hoops , Dk = diameter of core measured to the outside
of the spiral or hoop , fck = characteristic compressive strength of concrete cube,
fy = yield stress of steel (of circular hoop or spiral) , Ag = gross area of the
column cross section and , Ak = area of concrete core =  Dk2/ 4
False
The area of cross section, Ash of the bar forming rectangular hoop, to be used as
special confining reinforcement shall not be less than

f ck  Ag 
Ash  0.18 S h   1 , Where, h = longer dimension of the rectangular
f y  Ak 
confining hoop measured to its outer face. It shall not exceed 300 mm and A k =
area of confined concrete core in the rectangular hoop measured to its outside
dimensions.

Joints of Frames

False
The special confining reinforcement as required at the end of column shall be provided
through the joint as well, unless the joint is confined as specified by 8.2

False
A joint, which has beams framing into all vertical faces of it and where each beam
width is at least ¾ of the column width, may be provided with half the special
confining reinforcement required at the end of the column. The spacing of hoops
shall not exceed 150 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

The results described herein are summarized as follows (1) The building is not
ductile enough to resist the earthquake force. (2) The structural deficiencies
such as lack of shear reinforcement and confinement steel are observed in
columns of the building. (3) The beams of the building are stronger than columns
which violates the condition “strong column-weak beam” for earthquake resistance
design of buildings. (4) The storey drift in the building is within permissible limit.
 C1

4.6m
C5

2.3m
C5

4.6m

C1

11 @ 3.7 = 40.70 m

Fig.1- TYPICAL PLAN OF BUILDING

13 14 16
15

3.35 m

9 10 12
11

3.35 m

5 8
6 7

3.35 m

c1 c5 c5 c1

1 2 3 4

4.60 m 2.30 m 4.60 m

FIG.2 - FRAMING ELEVATION-GRID-4

 2-12 Ø 2-16 Ø

100

100
8 Ø 2 LEG STIR @ 275

4-16 Ø 2-16 Ø
300 300

SEC-AT CENTER SEC-AT SUPPORT

FIG.3 DETALING OF BEAM (For 1st And Iind floor)

4-16 Ø

6-16 Ø
8Ø STIR @ 250

530
SEC-ABOVE Iind FLOOR
8 Ø STIR @ 250

4-20 Ø SEC-ABOVE FIRST FLOOR

8Ø STIR @ 250
6-22 Ø

SEC-ABOVE FIRST FLOOR

530

8Ø STIR @ 250

4-25 Ø
300

SEC- UP TO FIRST FLOOR

8Ø STIR @ 250

SEC-ABOVE GROUND FLOOR

30d

COLUMN- C1

Figure 4: Detailing of column c1 and c5

 Appendix 1: Rapid Evaluation of Concrete Column and Estimation of Storey
drift

(1) Determine Seismic weight at various floors

Assume;
The dead load per unit area of floor is estimated to be = 10.25 kN / m
2

The normal line load = 4 kN / m 2

The seismic weight at various floors

W1  W2 11.5  40.70(10.25  0.25  4)  5265kN , Assume 25% of live load

W3 11.5  40.70  (10.25)  4797.50 kN , Assume no live load considered at roof
Total seismic weight of the building (W) = 5265 2  4797.50  15327.50 kN

(2) Determination of Fundamental Period

T  0.075h 0.75  0 .075  11.50.75  0.468sec , where h = total height of building.

(3) Determination of Design Seismic Base Shear Force.

V  AhW
Ah = Design horizontal acceleration spectrum
Z I Sa 0.36 1
 . .  . .2.5  0.09
2 R g 2 5
Assume

Z  0.36 (corresponds to Zone V )

I  1.0 ( for ordinarystructures)
R  5.0 ( SMRF )
Sa
 2.5 for medium soil site 0.10  T  0.55
g

Therefore,
Vb  .09  15327.5   1380kN

(4) Determination of Lateral force at Each Floor

Level A Vavg
2
Wi hi Wi hi Wi hi2 Qi Vi
(kN ) (m) ( kN  m 2 ) Wh
i
2
(kN ) (kN ) (m2) (N/mm
2
)
roof
3 4797.50 10.05 484,560 0.60 828 828 5.976 0.138
2nd floor 5265 6.70 263,346 0.32 442 1270 5.976 0.212
1st floor 5265 3.35 59,086 0.08 110 1380 5.976 0.232
 806,992.46
  1380
(5) Evaluation of storey hear in Column by ATC 14 method

n  j Wj
Storey shear V j  . .Vb
n 1 W
Where, n= number of storey = 3, Wj = Total weight of all storey above consideration
W = Total weight of building = 15327.5 kN, V = base shear = 1380 kN

First Storey

3  1 15327.5
V1  . .1380kN 1380kN
3  1 15327.5

Second Storey

3  2 10062.5
V1  . .1380kN 1132.50 kN
3  1 15327.5

Third Storey

3  3 4797.5
V1  . .1380kN  648 kN
3  1 15327.5

Average shear stress at First storey as per ATC -14

nc Vj
Vavg  . .
nc  n f Ac

Where nc = Total number of column = 48, nf = Total number of frame in the direction of loading =
12
Ac = Sum of cross – sectional area of all column in the storey under consideration
= 24 (0.3x0.53)+ 24 (0.3x0.3) = 5.976 m2 = 9262.82 inch2

48 1380 x1000
Vavg  . .  0.307 N / mm 2 < 0.1 f ck = 0.1 20 = 0.447 N/mm2
48  12 5.976 x 10 6

(6) Lateral displacement x and storey drift.

Assume building is a shear building; in this case the stiffness for a column between two
12EI
consecutive floors is given by K 
L3
Where,

h  3.35 m, E  25kN / m 2
1
I C1   0.53  0.303 1.1925 x 103 m 4
12

1
I C5   0.30  0.303  6.75 x 10 4 m 4
12

Total stiffness at each floor

12 x 25 x 103 x 1.1925 x 103 12 x 25 x 103 x 6.75 x 104 

K c  24     364.80 x 10 N / m
6

 3.353 3.353 
 Level Storey shear Storey Stiffness Storey drift Total lateral
(kN) (N/m) x (mm ) Drift (mm)
3roof 828 364.80 x 106 2.27 9.53
2nd floor 1270 364.80 x 106 3.48 6.05
1st floor 1380 364.80 x 106 3.78 3.78

  9.53

The code stipulates that storey drift

 0.004  Storeyheight i.e 0.004  3.35 13.4 mm
Storey drifts by ATC -14 Method

Kb  Kc h
 . .Vavg
K b K c 12E
Where:
 = Drift ratio, inter-storey displacement divided by storey height
k b = I/L for the represented beam
k c = I/L for the represented column
h= storey height (in.)
I = Moment of inertia (in.4)
L = beam length from center to center of adjacent column (in.)
E = modulus of elasticity (ksi)
Vc = Shear in the column (kips)

 0.30 x 0.483 
K b   K b  24( I / L)  24
3
  0.00432 m
 12 x 4.6 

 0.30 x 0.533 0.30 x 0.303 

K C   K c 12( K C1  K c 5 )  12
3
   0.01575m
 12 x 3.35 12 x 3.35 

Further Reading

1. ASCE/SEI 31-03 (2003). “ Seismic Evaluation of Existing Builings”, ASCE, USA.

2. BIS (2002). “Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures” IS 1893
(Part 1): 2002, Manak Bhawan, 9 Bhhadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi.

3. Agarwal, P. (1994). “Assessment of Seismic Vulnerabity of RC Buildings”, [Link]

Thesis, Department of Earthquake Engineering, University of Rorkee, Roorkee.
4. Agarwal, P., Thakkar, S.K. and Bose, P.R. (1994). “Assessment of Seismic
Vulnerabity of Existing RC Buildings”, 10th Symposium on Earthquake Engineering,
University of Roorkee, Roorkee.

5. ATC 14 (1987). “ Evaluating the Seismic Resistance of Existing Buildings”, Applied

Technology Council, Redwood Cot, California.