An ACI Standard

Standard Requirements
for Seismic Evaluation
and Retrofit of Existing
Concrete Buildings
(ACI 369.1M-17) and
� Commentary
' Reported by ACI Committee 369

~
'
•

m
<D
(Y)

u
<( �
� acI •
___,
American Concrete Institute
Always advancing
 First Printing
American Concrete Institute
February 2018
Always advancing
ISBN: 978-1-64195-002-2

Standard Requirements for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings
(ACI 369.1M-17) and Commentary

Copyright by the American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI. All rights reserved. This material
may not be reproduced or copied, in whole or part, in any printed, mechanical, electronic, film, or other
distribution and storage media, without the written consent of ACI.

The technical committees responsible for ACI committee reports and standards strive to avoid
ambiguities, omissions, and errors in these documents. In spite of these efforts, the users of ACI
documents occasionally find information or requirements that may be subject to more than one
interpretation or may be incomplete or incorrect. Users who have suggestions for the improvement of
ACI documents are requested to contact ACI via the errata website at http://concrete.org/Publications/
DocumentErrata.aspx. Proper use of this document includes periodically checking for errata for the most
up-to-date revisions.

ACI committee documents are intended for the use of individuals who are competent to evaluate the
significance and limitations of its content and recommendations and who will accept responsibility for
the application of the material it contains. Individuals who use this publication in any way assume all
risk and accept total responsibility for the application and use of this information.

All information in this publication is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or
implied, including but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose or non-infringement.

ACI and its members disclaim liability for damages of any kind, including any special, indirect, incidental,
or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result
from the use of this publication.

It is the responsibility of the user of this document to establish health and safety practices appropriate
to the specific circumstances involved with its use. ACI does not make any representations with regard
to health and safety issues and the use of this document. The user must determine the applicability of
all regulatory limitations before applying the document and must comply with all applicable laws and
regulations, including but not limited to, United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) health and safety standards.

Participation by governmental representatives in the work of the American Concrete Institute and in
the development of Institute standards does not constitute governmental endorsement of ACI or the
standards that it develops.

Order information: ACI documents are available in print, by download, on CD-ROM, through electronic
subscription, or reprint and may be obtained by contacting ACI.

Most ACI standards and committee reports are gathered together in the annually revised ACI Collection of
Concrete Codes, Specifications, and Practices.

American Concrete Institute

38800 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
Phone: +1.248.848.3700
Fax: +1.248.848.3701
www. concrete.org

Standard Requirements for Seismic Evaluation and
Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings (ACI369.1M-17)
and Commentary
An ACI Standard
Reported by Committee 369
Wassim M. Ghannoum, Chair
Anna C. Birely Mohammad Iqbal
Sergio F. Brena Jose M. Izquierdo-Encarnacion
Casey Champion Afshar Jalalian
Jeffrey J. Dragovich ThomasKang
Kenneth J. Elwood Dominic J. Kelly
Una M. Gilmartin InsungKim
Arne Halterman Laura N. Lowes
Wael Mohammed Hassan Kenneth A. Luttrell
The committee would like to thank G. Hagen for his contribution.
Consulting Members
Sergio M. Alcocer Charles J. Hookham
David Bonowitz Shyh-Jiann Hwang
PREFACE
This standard provides retrofit and rehabilitation criteria for reinforced
concrete buildings based on results from the most recent research on
the seismic performance of existing concrete buildings. The intent of
this standard is to provide a continuously updated resource document
for modifications to Chapter IO of ASCE 4I-I7, similar to how the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recom­
mended Seismic Provisions produced by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) (FEMA 450) have served as source
documents for the International Building Code (IBC) and its prede­
cessor building codes. Specifically, this version of ACI 369.IM serves
as the basis for Chapter I0, "Concrete, "of ASCE 4I-17.
This standard should be used in conjunction with Chapters
I through 7 of ASCE 4I-17. Chapter I of ASCE 4I-I7 provides
general requirements for evaluation and retrofit, including the
selection of performance objectives and retrofit strategies. Chapter
2 of ASCE 4I-I7 defines performance objectives and seismic
ACI Committee Reports, Guides, and Commentaries are
intended for guidance in planning, designing, executing, and
inspecting construction. This document is intended for the use
of individuals who are competent to evaluate the significance
and limitations of its content and recommendations and who
will accept responsibility for the application of the material it
contains. The American Concrete Institute disclaims any and
all responsibility for the stated principles. The Institute shall
not be liable for any loss or damage arising therefrom.
Reference to this document shall not be made in contract
documents. If items found in this document are desired by
the Architect/Engineer to be a part of the contract documents,
they shall be restated in mandatory language for incorporation
by the Architect/Engineer.
ACI369.1M-17
Siamak Sattar, Secretary
Adolfo B. Matamoros Murat Saatcioglu
Steven L. McCabe Halil Sezen
Murat Melek Roberto Stark
Jack P. Moehle Andreas Stavridis
ArifM. Ozkan John W. Wallace
Robert G. Pekelnicky Tom C. Xia
Jose A. Pincheira
Mario E. Rodriguez
Regan Milam Raj Valluvan
Andrew D . Mitchell
hazards. Chapter 3 of ASCE 4I-I7 provides the requirements for
evaluation and retrofit, including treating as-built information and
selecting the appropriate screening procedures. Chapter 4 of ASCE
4I-I7 summarizes Tier I screening procedures, while Chapters 5
and 6 summarize Tier 2 deficiency-based procedures and Tier 3
systematic procedures for evaluation and retrofit, respectively.
Chapter 7 of ASCE 4I-I7 details analysis procedures referenced in
ACI 369.IM, including linear and nonlinear analysis procedures,
acceptance criteria, and alternative methods for determining
modeling parameters and acceptance criteria. Chapter 8 of ASCE
4I-I7 provides geotechnical engineering provisions for building
foundations and assessment of seismic-geologic site hazards.
References to these chapters can be found throughout the standard.
The design professional is referred to FEMA 547 for detailed infor­
mation on seismic rehabilitation measures for concrete buildings.
Repair techniques for earthquake-damaged concrete components
are not included in ACI 369.IM. The design professional is referred
to FEMA 306, FEMA 307, and FEMA 308 for information on eval­
uation and repair of damaged concrete wall components.
This standard does not provide modeling procedures, accep­
tance criteria, and rehabilitation measures for concrete-encased
steel composite components. Future versions will provide provision
updates for concrete moment frames and will add provisions for
concrete components and systems omitted in the present version of
the standard.
ACI 369. 1 M- 1 7 was adopted September 22, 2017, and published February 2018.
Copyright © 20 1 8, American Concrete Institute.
All rights reserved including rights of reproduction and use in any form or by any
means, including the making of copies by any photo process, or by electronic or
mechanical device, printed, written, or oral, or recording for sound or visual reproduc­
tion or for use in any knowledge or retrieval system or device, unless permission in
writing is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
2 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)
CONTENTS
PREFACE, p. 1
INTRODUCTION, p. 3
CHAPTER 1 -GENERAL, p. 5
1 . 1-Scope, p.5
CHAPTER 2-MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND
CON DITION ASSESSM ENT, p. 6
2. 1-General, p.6
2.2-Properties of in-place materials and components, p.6
2.3-Condition assessment, p. l 5
2.4-Knowledge factor, p. l 7
CHAPTER 3-GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
R EQUIREMENTS, p. 1 8
3 . !-Modeling and design, p. l 8
3 .2-Strength and deformability, p.21
3 .3-Flexure and axial loads, p.22
3 .4-Shear and torsion, p.24
3 .5-Development and splices of reinforcement, p.25
3 . 6-Connections to existing concrete, p.29
3. 7-Retrofit measures, p.3 1
CHAPTER 4-CONCRETE MOMENT FRAMES, p. 32
4.1-Types of concrete moment frames, p.32
4.2-Reinforced concrete beam-column moment frames,
p.33
4.3-Post-tensioned concrete beam-column moment
frames, p.43
4.4-Slab-column moment frames, p.46
CHAPTER 5-PRECAST CONCRETE FRAMES, p.
53
5 . 1-Types of precast concrete frames, p.53
5.2-Precast concrete frames expected to resist seismic
forces, p.53
5 .3-Precast concrete frames not expected to resist
seismic forces directly, p.54
CHAPTER 6-CONCRETE FRAMES WITH INFILLS,
p. 56
6. 1-Types of concrete frames with infills, p.56
6.2-Concrete frames with masonry infills, p.56
6.3-Concrete frames with concrete infills, p.60
CHAPTER 7-CONCRETE STRUCTURAL WALLS,
p. 63
7. 1-Types of concrete structural walls and associated
components, p.63
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
7 .2-Reinforced concrete structural walls, wall segments,
and coupling beams, p.65
CHAPTER 8-PRECAST CONCRETE
STRUCTURAL WALLS, p. 77
8. 1-Types of precast structural walls, p.77
8.2-Precast concrete structural walls and wall segments,
p.78
CHAPTER 9-CONCRETE B RACED FRAMES, p. 83
9.1-Types of concrete-braced frames, p.83
9.2-General, p.83
9 .3-Stiffness of concrete braced frames, p.83
9.4-Strength of concrete-braced frames, p.84
9.5-Acceptance criteria for concrete-braced frames, p.84
9.6-Retrofit measures for concrete-braced frames, p.85
CHAPTER 10-CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE
DIAPHRAGMS, p. 86
1 0. 1-Components of cast-in-place concrete diaphragms,
p.86
1 0.2-Analysis, modeling, and acceptance criteria for
cast-in-place concrete diaphragms, p.86
1 0.3-Retrofit measures for cast-in-place concrete
diaphragms, p.87
CHAPTER 1 1 -PRECAST CONCRETE
DIAPHRAGMS, p. 88
1 1 . 1-Components of precast concrete diaphragms, p.88
1 1 .2-Analysis, modeling, and acceptance criteria for
precast concrete diaphragms, p.88
1 1 .3-Retrofit measures for precast concrete diaphragms,
p.88
CHAPTER 1 2-CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS, p. 89
1 2 . 1-Types of concrete foundations, p.89
1 2.2-Analysis of existing concrete foundations, p.90
1 2 .3-Evaluation of existing condition, p.90
1 2.4-Retrofit measures for concrete foundations, p.91
CHAPTER 1 3-NOTATION AND DEFINITIONS, p. 93
1 3. 1-Notation, p.93
1 3 .2-Definitions, p.98
REFERENCES, p. 1 04
Authored references, p. l 06
 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 3

INTRODUCTION
Earthquake reconnaissance has clearly demonstrated that existing concrete buildings designed before the introduction of
seismic design codes in the 1 980s are more vulnerable to severe damage or collapse when subjected to strong ground motion
than concrete buildings built after that period. Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings where new components are added
or existing components are modified or retrofitted with new materials, or both, can be used to mitigate the risk to damage in
future earthquakes. Seismic rehabilitation is encouraged not only to reduce the risk of damage and injury in future earthquakes,
but also to extend the life of existing buildings and reduce using new materials in the promotion of sustainability obj ectives.
It is not possible to codify all problems encountered in the process of performing the seismic evaluation and retrofit of rein­
forced concrete buildings, nor is the intent of the standard to do so. The standard provides a basic framework for modeling and
evaluation of structures that reflects the latest information available from researchers and practicing engineers, so that seismic
evaluation and retrofit can be performed with a consistent set of criteria. Many provisions in the standard rely on the use of
sound engineering judgement for their implementation. The commentary of the standard provides references that describe in
detail the implementation of methodologies adopted in the standard.

Keywords: acceptance criteria; building; deformation-controlled; dynamic analysis; earthquake; force-controlled; modeling parameters; nonlinear analysis;

retrofit; seismic evaluation.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

4 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

THIS PAGE I NTENTIONALLY LEFT BLAN K.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
CHAPTER 1--GEN ERAL
1.1--Scope
This standard sets forth requirements for the seismic eval­
uation and retrofit of concrete components of the seismic­
force-resisting system of an existing building. These building
standard requirements apply to existing concrete compo­
nents, retrofitted concrete components, and new concrete
components. Provisions of this standard do not apply to
concrete-encased steel composite components.
Chapter 2 specifies data collection procedures for
obtaining material properties and performing condition
assessments. Chapter 3 provides general analysis and design
requirements for concrete components. Chapters 4 through
9 provide modeling procedures; component strengths;
acceptance criteria and retrofit measures for cast-in-place
and precast concrete moment frames; concrete frames with
masonry infills; cast-in-place and precast concrete structural
walls; and concrete braced frames. Chapters 10 through 1 2
provide modeling procedures, strengths, acceptance criteria,
and retrofit measures for concrete diaphragms and concrete
foundation systems.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
5
COMMENTARY
C1.1--Scope
These standard requirements were developed based on
the best knowledge of the seismic performance of existing
concrete buildings at the time of publication. These require­
ments are not intended to restrict the licensed design profes­
sional from using new information that becomes available
before the issuance of the next edition of this standard. Such
new information can include tests conducted to address
specific building conditions.
This standard provides short descriptions of potential
seismic retrofit measures for each concrete building system.
The licensed design professional, however, is referred to
FEMA 547 for detailed information on seismic retrofit
measures for concrete buildings. Repair techniques for earth­
quake-damaged concrete components are not included in
this standard. The licensed design professional is referred to
FEMA 306, FEMA 307, and FEMA 308 for information on
evaluation and repair of damaged concrete wall components.
Concrete-encased steel composite components behave
differently from concrete sections reinforced with steel
reinforcement. Concrete-encased steel composite compo­
nents frequently behave as over-reinforced sections. This
type of component behavior was not represented in the
data sets used to develop the force-deformation modeling
relationships and acceptance criteria in this standard, and is
not covered in this standard. Concrete encasement is often
provided for fire protection rather than for strength or stiff­
ness and typically lacks transverse reinforcement. In some
cases, the transverse reinforcement does not meet detailing
requirements in AISC 3 60. Lack of adequate confinement
can result in lateral expansion of the core concrete, which
exacerbates bond slip and undermines the fundamental prin­
ciple that plane sections remain plane.
Testing and analysis used to determine acceptance criteria
for concrete-encased steel composite components should
include the effect of bond slip between steel and concrete,
confinement ratio, confinement reinforcement detailing,
kinematics, and appropriate strain limits.
To preserve historic buildings, exercise care in selecting the
appropriate retrofit approaches and techniques for application.
6 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)
STANDARD
CHAPTER 2-MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND
CONDITION ASSESSMENT
2.1 -General
Mechanical properties of materials shall be obtained from
available drawings, specifications, and other documents for
the existing building in accordance with the requirements
of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 3.2. Where these documents fail to provide
adequate information to quantify material properties, such
information shall be supplemented by materials testing
based on requirements of Chapter 2. Material properties of
existing concrete components shall be determined in accor­
dance with 2.2. The use of default material properties based
on historical information is permitted in accordance with
2.2.5. A condition assessment shall be conducted in accor­
dance with 2.3. The extent of materials testing and condition
assessment performed shall be used to determine the knowl­
edge factor as specified in 2.4.
2.2-Properties of in-place materials and
components
2.2.1 Material properties
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
C OMMENTARY
C2.1 -General
Chapter 2 identifies properties requiring consideration and
provides requirements for determining building properties.
Also described is the need for a thorough condition assess­
ment and use of knowledge gained in analyzing component
and system behavior. Personnel involved in material prop­
erty quantification and condition assessment should be expe­
rienced in the proper implementation of testing practices and
the interpretation of results.
When modeling a concrete building, it is important to
investigate local practices relative to seismic design. Specific
benchmark years can be determined for the implementation
of earthquake-resistant design in most locations, but caution
should be exercised in assuming optimistic characteristics for
any specific building. Particularly with concrete materials, the
date of original building construction significantly influences
seismic performance. Without deleterious conditions or mate­
rials, concrete gains compressive strength from the time it is
originally cast and in place. Strengths typically exceed speci­
fied design values (28-day or similar). In older construction,
concrete strength was often very low (less than 2 1 MPa) and it
was rarely specified in the drawings. Early adoptions ofconcrete
in buildings often used steel reinforcement with relatively low
strength and ductility, limited continuity, and reduced bond
development. Continuity between specific existing components
and elements, such as beams, columns, diaphragms, and shear
walls, can be particularly difficult to assess because of concrete
cover and other barriers to inspection.
Properties of welded wire reinforcement for various
periods of construction can be obtained from the Wire Rein­
forcement Institute (2009).
Documentation of the material properties and grades used
in component and connection construction is invaluable and
can be effectively used to reduce the amount of in-place
testing required. The licensed design professional is encour­
aged to research and acquire all available records from orig­
inal construction, including photographs, to confirm rein­
forcement details shown on the plans.
Further guidance on the condition assessment of existing
concrete buildings can be found in the following:
a) ACI 201 . 1 R, which provides guidance on conducting a
condition survey of existing concrete structures
b) ACI 364. 1R, which describes the general procedures
used for the evaluation of concrete structures before retrofit
c) ACI 437R, which describes methods for strength evalu­
ation of existing concrete buildings, including analytical and
load test methods
C2.2-Properties of in-place materials and
components
C2.2.1 Material properties
 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
2.2.1.1 General-The following component and connection
material properties shall be obtained for the as-built structure:
a) Concrete compressive strength
b) Yield and ultimate strength of nonprestressed and
prestressed steel reinforcement, cast-in-place and post­
installed anchors, and metal connection hardware
Where materials testing is required by ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 6.2,
the test methods to quantify material properties shall comply
with the requirements of 2.2.3. The frequency of sampling,
including the minimum number of tests for property deter­
mination, shall comply with the requirements of 2.2.4.
2.2.1.2 Nominal or specified properties-Nomina!
material properties, or properties specified in construction
documents, shall be taken as lower-bound material properties.
Corresponding expected material properties shall be
calculated by multiplying lower-bound values by a factor
taken from Table I to translate from lower-bound to expected
values. Alternative factors shall be permitted where justified
by test data.
Table 1 -Factors to translate lower-bound
material properties to expected strength material
properties
Material property Factor
Concrete compressive strength 1 .50
Steel reinforcement tensile and yield strength 1 .25
Connector steel yield strength 1 .50
2.2.2 Component properties-The following component
properties and as-built conditions shall be established:
a) Cross-sectional dimensions of individual components
and overall configuration of the structure
b) Configuration of component connections, size, embed­
ment depth, type of anchors, thickness of connector mate­
rial, anchorage and interconnection of embedments, and the
presence of bracing or stiffening components
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
7
COMMENTARY
C2.2.1.1 General-Other material properties and condi-
tions of interest for concrete components include:
a) Tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of concrete
b) Ductility, toughness, and fatigue properties of concrete
c) Carbon equivalent present in the steel reinforcement
d) Presence of any degradation such as corrosion or dete­
rioration of bond between concrete and reinforcement
The extent of effort made to determine these properties
depends on availability of accurate, updated construction
documents and drawings; construction quality and type;
accessibility; and material conditions. The analysis method
selected-for example, linear static procedure (LSP) or
nonlinear static procedure (NSP)-might also influence the
testing scope. Concrete tensile strength and modulus of elas­
ticity can be estimated based on the compressive strength
and may not warrant the damage associated with any extra
coring required.
The sample size and removal practices followed are refer­
enced in FEMA 274, C6.3.2.3 and C6.3.2.4. ACI 228. 1 R
provides guidance on methods to estimate the in-place
strength of concrete in existing structures, whereas ACI
2 14.4R provides guidance on coring in existing structures
and interpretation of core compressive strength test results.
Generally, mechanical properties for both concrete and steel
reinforcement can be established from combined core and
specimen sampling at similar locations, followed by labora­
tory testing. Core drilling should minimize damage to the
existing steel reinforcement.
C2.2.2 Component properties-Component properties are
required to properly characterize building performance in
seismic analysis. The starting point for assessing component
properties and condition is retrieval of available construc­
tion documents. A preliminary review should identify
primary gravity and seismic-force-resisting elements and
systems and their critical components and connections. If
there are no drawings of the building, the licensed design
professional should perform a thorough investigation of the
cCiC'iJ
8 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

c) Modifications to components or overall configuration building to identify these elements, systems, and compo­
of the structure nents as described in 2.3.
d) Most recent physical condition of components and
connections, and the extent of any deterioration
e) Deformations beyond those expected because of gravity
loads, such as those caused by settlement or past earthquake
events
f) Presence of other conditions that influence building perfor­
mance, such as nonstructural components that can interact with
structural components during earthquake excitation

2.2.3 Test meth ods to quantifY material properties

2.2.3.1 General-Destructive and nondestructive test

methods used to obtain in-place mechanical properties
of materials identified in 2.2 . 1 and component properties
identified in 2.2.2 are specified in this section. Samples of
concrete, reinforcement, and connector steel shall be exam­
ined for physical condition, as specified in 2.3.2.
When determining material properties with the removal
and testing of samples for laboratory analysis, sampling shall
take place in primary gravity and seismic-force-resisting
components in regions with the least stress.
Where 2.2.4.2. 1 does not apply and the coefficient of varia­
tion is greater than 20 percent, the expected concrete strength
shall not exceed the mean less one standard deviation.

2.2.3.2 Sampling-For concrete material testing, the
sampling program shall include the removal of standard cores.
Core drilling shall be preceded by nondestructive location of
the steel reinforcement, and core holes shall be located to
avoid damage to or drilling through the steel reinforcement.
Core holes shall be filled with concrete or grout of comparable
strength having nonshrinkage properties. If nonprestressed
steel reinforcement is tested, sampling shall include removal
of local bar segments and installation of replacement spliced
material to maintain continuity of the reinforcing bar for
transfer of bar force unless an analysis confirms that replace­
ment of the original components is not required.
Removal of core samples and performance of laboratory
destructive testing shall be permitted to determine existing
concrete strength properties. Removal of core samples shall
use the procedures included in ASTM C42/C42M. Testing
shall follow the procedures contained in ASTM C42/C42M,
ASTM C39/C39M, and ASTM C496/C496M. Core strength
shall be converted to in-place concrete compressive strength
by an approved procedure.
Removal of bar or tendon samples and performance of
laboratory destructive testing shall be permitted to determine
existing steel reinforcement strength properties. The tensile
yield and ultimate strengths for reinforcing and prestressing
steels shall follow the procedures included in ASTM A370.
Reinforcement samples that are slightly damaged during
removal are permitted to be machined to a round bar as long
as the tested area is at least 70 percent of the gross area of
the original bar. Prestressing materials shall meet the supple-
C2.2.3.2 Sampling-ACI 2 14.4R and FEMA 274
provide further guidance on correlating concrete core
strength to in-place strength and provide references for
various test methods that can be used to estimate material
properties. Chemical composition can be determined from
retrieved samples to assess the condition of the concrete.
Section C6.3.3.2 of FEMA 274-97 provides references for
these tests.
When concrete cores are taken, care should be taken when
patching the holes. For example, a core through the thickness
of a slab should have positive anchorage by roughening the
surface and possibly dowels for anchorage. For that case, the
holes should be filled with concrete or grout and the engineer
should provide direction for filling the hole so that the added
concrete or grout bonds to the substrate.
The steel reinforcement system used in the construction
of a specific building is usually of uniform grade and similar
strength. One grade of reinforcement is occasionally used
for small-diameter bars, such as those used for stirrups and
hoops, and another grade for large-diameter bars, such as
those used for longitudinal reinforcement. In some cases,
different concrete design strengths or classes are used.
Historical research and industry documents contain insight
on material mechanical properties used in different construc­
tion eras (2.2.5). This information can be used with labora­
tory and field test data to gain confidence in in-place strength
properties. Undamaged steel reinforcement can be reduced
to a smooth bar if the samples meet the requirements of
ASTM A370, excluding the limitations of Annex 9. This

(ciCIJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 9

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

mental requirements in ASTM A4 1 6/A41 6M, ASTM A42 1 / type of reinforcement would occur in a situation where only
A42 1 M, or ASTM A722/A722M, depending on material a limited length of bar can be removed for testing.
type. Properties of connector steels shall be permitted to be
determined by wet and dry chemical composition tests, and
direct tensile and compressive strength tests as specified by
ASTM A370. Where strength, construction quality, or both,
of anchors or embedded connectors are required to be deter­
mined, in-place testing shall satisfy the provisions of ASTM
E488/E488M.

2.2.4 Minimum number of tests-Materials testing is not
required if material properties are available from original
construction documents that include material test records or
reports. Material test records or reports shall be representa­
tive of all critical components of the building structure.
Based on 6.2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, data collection from mate­
rial tests is classified as either comprehensive or usual. The
minimum number of tests for usual data collection is speci­
fied in 2.2.4. 1 . The minimum number of tests necessary to
quantify properties by in-place testing for comprehensive
data collection is specified in 2.2.4.2. If the existing gravity­
load-resisting system or seismic-force-resisting system is
replaced during the retrofit process, material testing is only
required to quantify properties of existing materials at new
connection points.
C2.2.4 Minimum number of tests-To quantify in-place
properties accurately, it is essential that a minimum number
of tests be conducted on primary components of the seismic­
force-resisting system. The minimum number of tests is
dictated by the availability of original construction data,
structural system type used, desired accuracy, quality and
condition of in-place materials, level of seismicity, and target
performance level. Accessibility to the structural system can
influence the testing program scope. The focus of testing
should be on primary seismic-force-resisting components
and specific properties for analysis. Test quantities provided
in this section are minimal; the licensed design professional
should determine whether further testing is needed to eval­
uate as-built conditions.
Testing is generally not required on components other
than those of the seismic-force-resisting system.
The licensed design professional and subcontracted
testing agency should carefully examine test results to verify
that suitable sampling and testing procedures were followed
and appropriate values for the analysis were selected from
the data.

2.2.4.1 Usual data collection-The minimum number of

tests to determine concrete and steel reinforcement mate­
rial properties for usual data collection shall be based on the
following criteria:
a) If the specified design strength of the concrete is
known, at least one core shall be taken from samples of each
different concrete strength used in the construction of the
building, with a minimum of three cores taken for the entire
building.
b) If the specified design strength of the concrete is not
known, at least one core shall be taken from each type of
seismic-force-resisting component, with a minimum of six
cores taken for the entire building.
c) If the specified design strength of the steel reinforce­
ment is known, nominal or specified material properties
shall be permitted without additional testing.
d) If the specified design strength ofthe steel reinforcement
is not known, at least two strength test coupons of steel rein­
forcement shall be removed from the building for testing.
e) Cast-in-place or post-installed anchors shall be clas­
sified in groups of similar type, size, geometry, and struc­
tural use. In groups of anchors used for out-of-plane wall
anchorage and in groups of anchors whose failure in tension
or shear would cause the structure not to meet the selected

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

10 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

performance obj ective, 5 percent of the anchors with a

minimum of three anchors of each anchor group shall be
tested in-place in tension to establish an available strength,
construction quality, or both. The test load shall be speci­
fied by the licensed design professional and shall be based
on the anticipated demand or strength in accordance with
available construction information. If the test load is used
as the basis for anchor strength calculation, the available
anchor strength shall not be taken greater than two-thirds of
the test load. Testing of the anchors to failure is not required
and a test load lower than the expected failure load shall be
permitted. If the test load is not achieved in one or more
anchors tested in a group, anchors in that group shall be
tested under a tensile load smaller than that specified for the
preceding tests. Otherwise, the strength of the tested anchor
group shall be ignored. Testing in accordance with 2.2.4.2.5
shall be permitted to determine the available strength based
on a statistical distribution of the test results.

2.2.4.2 Comprehensive data collection

2.2.4.2.1 Coefficient of variation-Unless specified other­

wise, a minimum of three tests shall be conducted to deter­
mine any property. If the coefficient of variation exceeds 20
percent, additional tests shall be performed until the coef­
ficient of variation is equal to or less than 20 percent. If
additional testing does not reduce the coefficient of varia­
tion below 20 percent, a knowledge factor reduction per 4.4
shall be used. In determining coefficient of variation, cores
shall be grouped by grades of concrete and element type.
The number of tests in a single component shall be limited to
prevent compromising the integrity of the component.

2.2.4.2.2 Concrete materials-For each concrete element
type of the seismic-force-resisting system, as well as
secondary systems for which failure could result in a collapse
hazard, a minimum of three core samples shall be taken
and subj ected to compression tests. A minimum of six total
tests shall be performed on a building for concrete strength
determination, subject to the limitations of this section. If
varying concrete classes or grades were used in the building
construction, a minimum of three samples and tests shall be
performed for each class and grade. The modulus of elas­
ticity and tensile strength shall be permitted to be estimated
from the compressive strength testing data. Samples shall be
taken from components, distributed throughout the building,
that are critical to the structural behavior of the building.
Tests shall be performed on samples from components
that are identified as damaged or degraded to quantify their
condition. Test results from areas of degradation shall be
compared with strength values specified in the construction
documents. If test values less than the specified strength
in the construction documents are found, further strength
testing shall be performed to determine the cause or identify
the degree of damage or degradation.
C2.2.4.2.2 Concrete materia/s-AC! 2 1 4.4R provides
guidance on coring in existing structures and interpreta­
tion of core compressive strength test results. If a structure
was constructed in phases or if construction documents for
different parts of the structure were issued at separate times,
the licensed design professional, to determine sampling size,
should consider the concrete in each construction phase
or in each set of construction documents a different type.
Section 6.4.3 of ACI 562M- 1 6 provides a method to calcu­
late an equivalent specified concrete strength, fc', based on
statistical analysis of compression strength test results from
core samples. ASTM E l 78 provides guidance on consider­
ation of outliers in a set of core samples. Equation (6.4.3) of
ACI 562M-1 6 defines the equivalent specified compressive
strength of concrete as a function of the number of tests, the
coefficient of variation ofthe samples, and a factor to account
for the number of samples. Section 6.4.3 of ACI 562M- 1 6
permits the engineer to select the number of samples used
to evaluate concrete compressive strength but imposes a
penalty to the results to account for the uncertainty associ­
ated with the number of samples.
Equation (6.4.3) of ACI 562M- 1 6 was derived with the
objective of calculating the 1 3 percent fractile of the in-place

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
The minimum number of tests to determine compressive
strength of each concrete element type shall conform to one
of the following criteria:
a) For concrete elements for which the specified design
strength is known and test results are not available, a
minimum of three core tests shall be conducted for each
floor level, 300 m3 of concrete, or 930 m2 of surface area,
whichever requires the most frequent testing.
b) For concrete elements for which the specified design
strength is unknown and test results are not available, a
minimum of six core tests shall be conducted for each floor
level, 300 m3 of concrete, or 930 m2 of surface area, which­
ever requires the most frequent testing. Where the results
indicate that different classes of concrete were used, the
degree of testing shall be increased to confirm class use.
c) Alternately, for concrete elements for which the design
strength is known or unknown, and test results are not avail­
able, it is permitted to determine the lower-bound compres­
sive strength based on core sample testing and applying the
provisions in 6.4.3 of ACI 562M- 1 6. If the lower-bound
compressive strength is determined in this manner, the
expected compressive strength shall be determined as the
lower-bound compressive strength value obtained from ACI
562M- 1 6, Eq. (6.4.3) plus one standard deviation of the
strength of the core samples. When following the provisions
in 6.4.3 of ACI 562M- 1 6, the minimum number of samples
per element type shall be four. The sample locations shall be:
a) Distributed to quantify element material properties
throughout the height of the building
b) Distributed to quantify element material properties in
locations critical to the structural system being investigated
Quantification of concrete strength via ultrasonics or other
nondestructive test methods shall not be substituted for core
sampling and laboratory testing.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
11
COMMENTARY
concrete compressive strength, which some studies have
shown to be approximately equal to the specified compres­
sive strength of concrete,.fc' (Bartlett and MacGregor 1 996).
The first term in Eq. (6.4.3) ofACI 5 62M- 1 6 represents the
effect of sample size on the uncertainty of the mean in-place
strength, where the coefficient kc is obtained from a student's
t distribution with n- 1 degrees of freedom and a 90 percent
confidence level. The second term in Eq. (6.4.3) of ACI
5 62M- 1 6 represents the uncertainty attributable to correction
factors relating cylinder strength to specified compressive
strength, which were assumed to have a normal distribution,
also estimated with a 90 percent confidence level. The study
by Bartlett and MacGregor ( 1996) showed that the specified
compressive strength.fc', corresponds approximately to the
1 3 percent fractile of the 28-day in-place strength in walls
and columns, and approximately the 23 percent fractile
of the 28-day in-place compressive strength in beams and
slabs. The former was considered to be a more appropriate
measure of specified compressive strength.fc' than the latter
because the nominal strength of columns is more sensitive
to concrete compressive strength than the strength of beams
and slabs (ACI 2 14.4R).
In 2.2 . 1 .2, it is stated that nominal material properties
or properties specified in construction documents shall be
taken as lower-bound material properties unless otherwise
specified. The method to estimate of the specified concrete
compressive strength fc' in 6.4.3 of ACI 562M- 1 6 was
adopted in this standard to obtain the lower-bound compres­
sive strength consistent with the provisions in 2.2 . 1 .2.
ACI 2 1 4.4R provides guidance on coring in existing struc­
tures and interpretation of core compressive strength test
results. The minimum of four samples was adopted based on
the recommendations in ACI 2 14.4R. The following equa­
tion is provided in ACI 2 1 4.4R.
[2COVpopulation )2
nsamples = (C 1 )
population
e
where nsamples represents the minimum number o f samples;
CO Vpapulation represents the estimated coefficient of variation
of the population; and epapulation represents the predetermined
maximum error expressed as a percentage of the population
average. For a total of four samples, the previous equation
dictates that the maximum error is equal to the estimate of
the coefficient of variation of the population. Bartlett and
MacGregor (1995) report that for many batches of cast-in­
place concrete, and samples obtained from many members,
the coefficient of variation was approximately 1 3 percent. If
the maximum error is equal to the coefficient of variation, a
maximum error of 1 3 percent corresponds to approximately
1 . 1 3 standard deviations, which is considered adequate for
an estimate of lower-bound material properties.
Users of the document are cautioned that, for coeffi­
cients of variation between 13 and 20 percent, the minimum
number of samples needed to limit the error below one
CaCiJ
12 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

standard deviation according to the recommendations in ACI

214.4R is higher than four. For example, for a coefficient
of variation of 20 percent, a minimum of seven samples is
recommended to limit the error to one standard deviation. If
the maximum error is reduced to 10 percent, the minimum
number of samples recommended is significantly higher. For
a coefficient of variation of l 5 .87 percent (one standard devia­
tion away from the mean) and a maximum error of 1 0 percent,
the minimum number of samples recommended is 1 1 , and for
a coefficient of variation of 20 percent and a maximum error
of 10 percent, the minimum number of samples recommended
is 1 6. If the coefficient of variation exceeds 20 percent, the
requirements in 2.2.4.2 . 1 are satisfied.
Ultrasonics and nondestructive test methods should not be
substituted for core sampling and laboratory testing as they
do not yield accurate strength values directly. These methods
should only be used for confirmation and comparison. Guid­
ance for nondestructive test methods is provided in ACI
228.2R.

2.2.4.2.3 Nonprestressed reinforcing and connector steels­

Tests shall be conducted to determine both yield and ulti­
mate strengths of reinforcing and connector steel. Connector
steel is defined as additional structural steel or miscellaneous
metal used to secure precast and other concrete shapes to
the building structure. A minimum of three tensile tests shall
be conducted on nonprestressed steel reinforcement samples
from a building for strength determination, subject to the
following supplemental conditions:
a) If original construction documents defining properties
exist, then at least three strength coupons shall be removed
from random locations from each element or component
type and tested.
b) If original construction documents defining properties
are unavailable, but the approximate date of construction is
known and a common material grade is confirmed, at least
three strength coupons shall be removed from random loca­
tions from each element or component type for every three
floors of the building.
c) If the construction date is unknown, at least six strength
coupons for every three floors shall be performed.
Refer to 2.2.3.2 for replacement of sampled material.

2.2.4.2.4 Prestressing ste e l Sampling prestressing steel

-

tendons for laboratory testing shall only be performed on

prestressed components that are part of the seismic-force­
resisting system. Prestressed components in diaphragms
shall be permitted to be excluded.
Tendon or prestress removal shall be avoided if possible.
Any sampling of prestressing steel tendons for laboratory
testing shall be done with extreme care. It shall be permitted
to determine material properties without tendon or prestress
removal by careful sampling of either the tendon grip or
the extension beyond the anchorage, if sufficient length is
available.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
All sampled prestressed steel shall be replaced with new,
fully connected, and stressed material and anchorage hard­
ware, unless an analysis confirms that replacement of orig­
inal components is not required.
2.2.4.2.5 Cast-in-place or post-installed anchors-Cast-in­
place or post-installed anchors shall be classified in groups in
accordance with 2.2.4. 1 . In groups of anchors used for out-of­
plane wall anchorage and in groups of anchors whose failure
in tension or shear would cause the structure not to meet the
selected performance objective, 10 percent of the anchors
with a minimum of six anchors of each anchor group shall
be tested in-place in tension to establish an available strength,
construction quality, or both. Testing of the anchors to failure
is not required. The test load shall be specified by the licensed
design professional and shall be based on the anticipated
demand or strength in accordance with available construction
information. If the test load is used as the basis for anchor
strength calculation, the available anchor strength shall not
be taken greater than two-thirds the test load. Testing of the
anchors to failure is not required and a test load lower than the
expected failure load shall be permitted.
2.2.5 Default properties-Default material properties to
determine component strengths shall be permitted to be used
in conjunction with the linear analysis procedures of ASCE
4 1 - 1 7 Chapter 7.
Default lower-bound concrete compressive strengths are
specified in Table 2. Default expected concrete compressive
strengths shall be determined by multiplying lower-bound
values by an appropriate factor selected from Table 1 , unless
another factor is justified by test data. The appropriate default
compressive strength, lower-bound strength, or expected
strength as specified in ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 7.5 . 1 .3, shall be used
to establish other strength and performance characteristics
for the concrete as needed in the structural analysis.
Default lower-bound values for steel reinforcement are
specified for various ASTM specifications and periods in
Tables 3 and 4. Default expected strength values for steel
reinforcement shall be determined by multiplying lower­
bound values by an appropriate factor selected from Table 1 ,
unless another factor is justified by test data. Where default
values are assumed for existing steel reinforcement, welding
or mechanical coupling of new reinforcement to the existing
steel reinforcement shall not be permitted.
The default lower-bound yield strength for steel connector
material shall be taken as 1 86 MPa The default expected
yield strength for steel connector material shall be deter-
Table 2-Defau lt lower-bound compressive strength of structural concrete, M Pa
Time frame Footings Beams
1 900 to 1 9 1 9 7 to 1 7 1 4 to 2 1
1 920 to 1 949 10 to 2 1 1 4 to 2 1
1 950 to 1 969 17 to 2 1 2 1 to 28
1 970 to present 2 1 to 28 21 to 35
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
13
COMMENTARY
C2.2.4.2.5 Cast-in-place or post-installed anchors-To
estimate ultimate strength of the anchors in accordance with
3 .6, the frequency of the test should be increased to at least
25 percent of the anchors and the test load should be at least
the nominal design strength in accordance with Chapter
1 7 of ACI 3 1 8M- 1 4. In-place anchor testing performed in
accordance with 2.2.4.2.5 provides the minimum available
tensile strength of a single anchor, which is likely governed
by pullout or bond strength in tension. Other failure modes
and parameters that affect the strength of the anchors, such
as proximity to edges, group effect, presence of cracks, or
eccentricity of applied loads, should be considered in accor­
dance with Chapter 1 7 of ACI 3 1 8M- 14.
C2.2.5 Defaultp roperties-Default values provided in this
standard are generally conservative. Whereas the strength
of steel reinforcement can be fairly consistent throughout
a building, the strength of concrete in a building could be
highly variable, given variability in concrete mixtures and
sensitivity to water-cement ratio (w/c) and curing practices.
A conservative assumption based on the field observation
of the concrete compressive strength in the given range is
recommended unless a higher strength is substantiated by
construction documents, test reports, or material testing.
For the capacity of an element in question, the lower value
within the range can be conservative. It can be appropriate to
use the maximum value in a given range where determining
the force-controlled actions on other components.
Until approximately 1 920, a variety of proprietary steel
reinforcements was used. Yield strengths are likely to be in
the range of 230 to 380 MPa, but higher values are possible
and actual yield and tensile strengths can exceed minimum
values. Once commonly used to designate steel reinforce­
ment grade, the terms "structural", "intermediate", and
"hard" became obsolete in 1 968. Plain and twisted square
bars were occasionally used between 1 900 and 1 949. Factors
to convert default steel reinforcement strength to expected
strength include consideration of material overstrength and
strain hardening.
Slabs Columns Walls
1 0 to 2 1 1 0 to 2 1 7 to 7
1 4 to 2 1 1 4 to 28 1 4 to 21
21 to 28 21 to 40 1 7 to 28
2 1 to 35 2 1 to 70 21 to 35
14 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Tab le 3-Default lower-bound tensile and yield properties of reinforcing steel for various periods
Structural' Intermediate' Hard'
Grade 420 450 485 520
230 280 350

Minimum yield, MPa 230 280 350 420 450 485 520

Year Minimum tensile, MPa 380 485 550 620 520 550 690

1 9 1 1 to 1 959 X X X X

1 959 to 1 966 X X X X X X X

1 966 to 1 972 X X X X X

1 972 to 1 974 X X X X X

1 974 to 1 987 X X X X X

1 987 to present X X X X X X

'The terms "structural", "intermediate", and "hard" became obsolete in 1 968.

Notes: An entry of x indicates that the grade was available in those years.

Tab le 4-Default lower-bound tensile and yield properties of reinforcing steel for various ASTM
specifications and periods
Structural' Intermediate' Hard'
ASTM grade
230 280 350 420 450 485 520

Minimum yield, MPa 230 280 350 420 450 485 520

Minimum tensile, MPa 380 485 550 620 520 550 690

ASTM
designation t Steel type Year range

A l 5 (withdrawn) Billet 1 9 1 1 to 1 966 X X X

A l 6 (withdrawn) Rail! 1 9 1 3 to 1 966 X

A61 (withdrawn) Rail! 1 963 to 1 966 X

A l 60 (withdrawn) Axle 1 93 6 to 1 964 X X X

A l 60 (withdrawn) Axle 1 965 to 1 966 X X X X

A l 85 WWR 1 93 6 to present X

A408 (withdrawn) Billet 1 957 to 1 966 X X X

A43 1 Billet 1 959 to 1 966 X

A432 (withdrawn) Billet 1 959 to 1 966 X

A497 WWR 1 964 to present X

A6 1 5/A6 1 5M
Billet 1 968 to 1 972 X X X
(2003c)

A6 1 5/A6 1 5 M
Billet 1 974 to 1 986 X X
(2003c)

A6 1 5/A6 1 5 M
Billet 1 987 to present X X X
(2003c)

A6 1 6§ (withdrawn) Rail! 1 968 to 1 999 X X

A6 1 7 (withdrawn) Axle 1 968 to 1 999 X X

A996 Rail, Axle 2000 to present X X X

A706/A706M' Low-alloy 1 9 74 to present X

A955 Stainless 1 996 to present X X X

Note: An entry ofx indicates that the grade was available in those years.
'The terms "structural", "intermediate", and "hard" became obsolete in 1 968.
tASTM steel is marked with the letter W.
lRail bars are marked with the letter R.
!Bars marked s! (ASTM A6 1 6 [withdrawn]) have supplementary requirements for bend tests.
'ASTM A706/A706M has a minimum tensile strength of 550 MPa, but not less than 1 .25 times the actual yield strength.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 15

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

mined by multiplying lower-bound values by an appropriate

factor selected from Table 1 , unless another value is justified
by test data.
The default lower-bound yield strength for cast-in-place or
post-installed anchor material shall be taken as 1 86 MPa unless
another value is justified by test data. Component actions
on the connections shall be considered as force-controlled
actions and default expected yield strength shall not be used.
The use of default values for prestressing steel in
prestressed concrete construction shall not be permitted.

2.3-Condition assessment C2.3-Cond ition assessment

2.3. 1 General-A condition assessment of the ex1stmg C2.3.1 General-The condition assessment also affords
building and site conditions shall be performed as specified an opportunity to review other conditions that can influence
in this section. concrete elements and systems and overall building perfor­
The condition assessment shall include the following: mance. Of particular importance is the identification of other
a) Examination of the physical condition of primary and elements and components that can contribute to or impair the
secondary components, and the presence of any degradation performance of the concrete system in question, including
shall be noted infills, neighboring buildings, and equipment attachments.
b) Verification of the presence and configuration of compo­ Limitations posed by existing coverings, wall and ceiling
nents and their connections, and the continuity of load paths space, infills, and other conditions shall also be defined such
between components, elements, and systems that prudent retrofit measures can be planned.
c) A review and documentation of other conditions,
including neighboring party walls and buildings, presence
of nonstructural components and mass, and prior remodeling
d) Collection of information needed to select a knowledge
factor in accordance with 4.4
e) Confirmation of component orientation, plumbness,
and physical dimensions

2.3.2 Scope and procedures-The scope of the condition

assessment shall include critical structural components as
described in the following subsections.

2.3.2.1 Visual condition assessment-Direct visual inspec­ C2.3.2.1 Visual condition assessment-Further guidance
tion of accessible and representative primary components can be found in ACI 20 1 . 1R, which provides a system for
and connections shall be performed to: reporting the condition of concrete in service.
a) Identify configuration issues
b) Determine if degradation is present
c) Establish continuity of load paths
d) Establish the need for other test methods to quantify the
presence and degree of degradation
e) Measure dimensions of existing construction to compare
with available design information and reveal any permanent
deformations
A visual building inspection shall include visible
portions of foundations, seismic-force-resisting members,
diaphragms (slabs), and connections. As a minimum, a
representative sampling of at least 20 percent of the compo­
nents and connections shall be visually inspected at each
floor level. If significant damage or degradation is found, the
assessment sample of all similar-type critical components
in the building shall be increased to 40 percent or more, as
necessary, to accurately assess the performance of compo­
nents and connections with degradation.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

16 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

If coverings or other obstructions exist, partial visual

inspection through the obstruction shall be permitted to be
performed using drilled holes and a fiberscope.

2.3.2.2 Comprehensive condition assessment-Exposure

is defined as local minimized removal of cover concrete
and other materials to inspect reinforcing system details. All
damaged concrete cover shall be replaced after inspection.
The following criteria shall be used for assessing primary
connections in the building for comprehensive data collection:
a) If detailed design drawings exist, exposure of at least
three different primary connections shall occur, with the
connection sample including different types of connections
(for example, beam-column, column-foundation, beam­
diaphragm, and diaphragm-wall). If no deviations from the
drawings exist or if the deviations from the drawings are
consistently similar, it shall be permitted to consider the
sample as being representative of installed conditions. If
inconsistent deviations are noted, then at least 25 percent of
the specific connection type shall be inspected to identify the
extent of deviation.
b) In the absence of detailed design drawings, at least
three connections of each primary connection type shall be
exposed for inspection. If common detailing among the three
connections is observed, it shall be permitted to consider this
condition representative of installed conditions. If variations
are observed among like connections, additional connec­
tions shall be inspected until an accurate understanding of
building construction is gained.

2.3.2.3 Additional testing-If additional destructive and
nondestructive testing is required to determine the degree
of damage or presence of deterioration, or to understand
the internal condition and quality of concrete, test methods
approved by the licensed design professional shall be used.
C2.3.2.3 Additional testing-The physical condition
of components and connectors affects their performance.
The need to accurately identify the physical condition
can dictate the need for certain additional destructive and
nondestructive test methods. Such methods can be used to
determine the degree of damage or presence of deteriora­
tion and to improve understanding of the internal condition
and concrete quality. Further guidelines and procedures
for destructive and nondestructive tests that can be used in
the condition assessment are provided in ACI 228. 1 R, ACI
228.2R, FEMA 274, and FEMA 306.
The nondestructive examination (NDE) methods having
the greatest use and applicability to condition assessment are
listed in the following:
a) Surface NDE methods include infrared thermography,
delamination sounding, surface hardness measurement, and
crack mapping. These methods can be used to find surface
degradation in components such as service-induced cracks,
corrosion, and construction defects.
b) Volumetric NDE methods, including radiography and
ultrasonics, can be used to identify the presence of internal
discontinuities and loss of section. Impact-echo ultrasonics
is often used and is a well-understood technology.
c) Online monitoring using acoustic emissions, strain
gauges, in-place static or dynamic load tests, and ambient
vibration tests can be used to assess structural condition

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 17

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

and performance. Monitoring is used to determine if active

degradation or deformations are occurring, whereas nonde­
structive load testing provides direct insight on load-carrying
capacity.
d) Electromagnetic methods using a pachometer or radi­
ography can be used to locate, size, or perform an initial
assessment of steel reinforcement. Further assessment of
suspected corrosion activity should use electrical half-cell
potential and resistivity measurements.
e) Lift-off testing (assuming original design and installa­
tion data are available), or another nondestructive method
such as the coring stress relief specified in SEI/ASCE 1 1 ,
can be used where absolutely essential to determine the level
of prestress remaining in an unbonded prestressed system.

2.3.3 Basis for mathematical building model Results

-

of the condition assessment shall be used to quantify the

following items needed to create the mathematical building
model:
a) Component section properties and dimensions
b) Component configuration and the presence of any
eccentricities or permanent deformation
c) Connection configuration and the presence of any
eccentricities
d) Presence and effect of alterations to the structural
system since original construction
e) Interaction of nonstructural components and their
involvement in seismic force resistance
All deviations between available construction records and
as-built conditions obtained from visual inspection shall be
accounted for in the structural analysis.
Unless concrete cracking, reinforcement corrosion, or
other mechanisms of degradation are observed in the condi­
tion assessment as the cause for damage or reduced capacity,
the cross-sectional area and other sectional properties shall
be assumed to be those from the design drawings after
adjustment for as-built conditions. If some sectional mate­
rial loss has occurred, the loss shall be quantified by direct
measurement and sectional properties reduced accordingly
using the principles of structural mechanics.

2.4-Knowledge factor
A knowledge factor K for computation of concrete compo­
nent acceptance criteria shall be selected in accordance with
ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 6.2.4, with additional requirements specific to
concrete components. A knowledge factor K equal to 0.75
shall be used if any of the following criteria are met:
a) Components are found to be damaged or deteriorated
during assessment, and further testing is not performed to
quantify their condition or justify the use of higher values of K
b) Mechanical properties have a coefficient of variation
exceeding 20 percent
c) Components contain archaic or proprietary material and
the condition is uncertain

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

18 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS F O R SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)
STANDARD
CHAPTER 3-GEN ERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND
R EQUIREMENTS
3.1 -Modeling and design
3.1 . 1 General-Seismic retrofit of a concrete building
involves the design of new components connected to the
existing structure, seismic upgrading of existing compo­
nents, or both. New components shall comply with ACI
3 1 8M, except as otherwise indicated in this standard.
Original and retrofitted components of an existing building
are not expected to satisfy provisions of ACI 3 1 8M but shall
be assessed using the provisions of this standard. Brittle or
low-ductility failure modes shall be identified as a part of the
seismic evaluation.
Evaluation of demands and capacities ofreinforced concrete
components shall include consideration of locations along
the length where seismic force and gravity loads produce
maximum effects; where changes in cross section or reinforce­
ment result in reduced strength; and where abrupt changes in
cross section or reinforcement, including splices, can produce
stress concentrations that result in premature failure.
3.1.2 St!ffness-Component stiffnesses shall be calculated
considering shear, flexure, axial behavior, and reinforcement
slip deformations. Stress state of the component, cracking
extent caused by volumetric changes from temperature
and shrinkage, deformation levels under gravity loads, and
seismic forces shall be considered. Gravity load effects
considered for effective stiffnesses of components shall be
determined using ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 Eq. (7-3).
3.1 .2.1 Linear procedures-Where design actions are
determined using the linear procedures of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7
Chapter 7 , component effective stiffnesses shall correspond
to the secant value to the yield point ofthe component. Alter­
nate stiffnesses shall be permitted where it is demonstrated
by analysis to be appropriate for the design loading. Alterna­
tively, effective stiffness values in Table 5 shall be permitted.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
C OMMENTARY
C3.1 -Modeling and design
C3. 1 . 1 General-Brittle or low-ductility failure modes
typically include behavior in direct or nearly direct compres­
sion; shear in slender components and in-component connec­
tions; torsion in slender components; and reinforcement
development, splicing, and anchorage. The stresses, forces,
and moments acting to cause these failure modes should be
determined from a limit-state analysis, considering probable
resistances at locations of nonlinear action.
C3. 1 .2 St!ffness-For columns with low axial loads (below
approximately O. lAJc'), deformations caused by bar slip can
account for as much as 50 percent of the total deformations
at yield. Further guidance regarding calculation of the effec­
tive stiffness of reinforced concrete columns that include the
effects of flexure, shear, and bar slip can be found in Elwood
and Eberhard (2009).
Flexure-controlled wall stiffness can vary from approxi­
mately 0 . 1 5EcElg to 0.5EcElg, depending on wall reinforce­
ment and axial load. A method for calculating wall stiffness,
which provides compatibility with fiber section analysis, is
offered in C7.2.2.
C3. 1.2.1 Linear procedures-The effective flexural
rigidity values in Table 5 for beams and columns account
for the additional flexibility from reinforcement slip within
the beam-column joint or foundation before yielding. The
values specified for columns were determined based on a
database of 221 rectangular reinforced concrete column
tests with axial loads less than 0.67AJc and shear span­
'
depth ratios greater than 1 .4. Measured effective stiffnesses
from the laboratory test data suggest that the effective flex­
ural rigidity for low axial loads could be approximated as
0.2Elg; however, considering the scatter in the effective flex­
ural rigidity and to avoid underestimating the shear demand
on columns with low axial loads, 0.3Elg is recommended in
Table 5 (Elwood et a!. 2007). In addition to axial load, the
shear span-depth ratio of the column influences the effec­
tive flexural rigidity. A more refined estimate of the effec­
tive flexural rigidity can be determined by calculating the
displacement at yield caused by flexure, slip, and shear
(Elwood and Eberhard 2009).
The modeling recommendations for beam-column joints
(6.2.2. 1) do not include the influence of reinforcement slip.
 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 19

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

Table 5-Effective stiffness values

Component Flexural rigidity Shear rigidity Axial rigidity

Beams-nonprestressed' 0.3Ec£fg 0.4Ec£Aw -

Beams-prestressed' EcEfg 0.4Ec�w -

Columns with compression caused by design gravity loads 2 0.5A,fc'1 0.7Ec£fg 0.4Ec�w EcEAg

EcEAg (compression)
Columns with compression caused by design gravity loads :S O . IA,fc' or with tension! 0.3Ec£fg 0.4£c£Aw
E,A, (tension)

Beam-column j oints Refer to 4.2.2. 1 EcEAg

Flat slabs-nonprestressed Refer to 4.4.2 0.4Ec£Ag -

Flat slabs-prestressed Refer to 4.4.2 0.4Ec£A8 -

EcEAg (compression)
Walls-cracked+ 0.35Ec£fg 0.4£c£Aw
E,A, (tension)

'For T-beams, lg can be taken as twice the value of lg of the web alone. Otherwise, lg shall be based on the effective width as defined in 3 . 1 .3.
I For
columns with axial compression falling between the limits provided, flexural rigidity shall be determined by linear interpolation. If interpolation is not performed, the more
conservative effective stiffnesses shall be used. An imposed axial load Nuc is permitted to be used for stiffness evaluations.
+Refer to 7.2.2.

When the effective stiffness values for beams and columns

from Table 5 are used in combination with the modeling
recommendations for beam-column joints, the overall stiff­
ness is in close agreement with results from beam-column
subassembly tests (Elwood et a!. 2007).
The effect of reinforcement slip can be accounted for by
including rotational springs at the ends ofthe beam or column
elements (Saatcioglu et a!. 1 992). If this modeling option is
selected, the effective flexural rigidity of the column element
should reflect only the flexibility from flexural deformations.
(a)Deformation In this case, for axial loads less than 0.3Ag(;,', the effective
flexural rigidity can be estimated as 0.5EcEig, with linear
interpolation to the value given in Table 5 for axial loads
greater than 0.5Ag(;,'.
Because of low bond stress between concrete and plain
reinforcement without deformations, components with plain
longitudinal reinforcement and axial loads less than 0.5Ag(;,'
can have lower effective flexural rigidity values than in
Table 5 .

(b)Deformation ratio

Ll
h
(c) Tri-linear response - Deformation ratio

Fig. I-Generalizedforce-deformation relation for concrete

elements or components.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
20 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)
STANDARD
3.1.2.2 Nonlinear procedures-Where design actions are
determined using the nonlinear procedures of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7
Chapter 7 , component load-deformation response shall be
represented by nonlinear load-deformation relations. Linear
relations shall be permitted where nonlinear response does
not occur in the component. The nonlinear load-deformation
relation shall be based on experimental evidence or taken
from quantities specified in Chapters 4 through 1 2. For the
nonlinear static procedure (NSP), the generalized load­
deformation relation shown in Fig. 1 or other curves defining
behavior under monotonically increasing deformation shall
be permitted. For the nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP),
load-deformation relations shall define behavior under
monotonically increasing lateral deformation and under
multiple reversed deformation cycles as specified in 3 .2. 1 .
The generalized load-deformation relation shown in Fig.
1 shall be described by linear response from A (unloaded
component) to an effective yield B, then a linear response
at reduced stiffness from Point B to C, then sudden reduc­
tion in seismic force resistance to Point D, then response at
reduced resistance to E, and final loss of resistance there­
after. The slope from Point A to B shall be determined
according to 3 . 1 .2. 1 . The slope from Point B to C, ignoring
effects of gravity loads acting through lateral displacements,
shall be taken between 0 and 10 percent of the initial slope,
unless an alternate slope is justified by experiment or anal­
ysis. Point C shall have an ordinate equal to the strength of
the component and an abscissa equal to the deformation at
which significant strength degradation begins. Representa­
tion of the load-deformation relation by Points A, B, and C
only (rather than all Points A through E) shall be permitted if
the calculated response does not exceed Point C. Numerical
values for the points identified in Fig. 1 shall be as specified
in 3 .2.2.2 for beams, columns, and joints; 3 . 3 .2.2 for post­
tensioned beams; 3 .4.2.2 for slab-column connections; and
7.2.2 for shear walls, wall segments, and coupling beams.
Other load-deformation relations shall be permitted if justi­
fied by experimental evidence or analysis.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
C OMMENTARY
C3.1.2.2 Nonlinear procedures-Typically, the response
shown in Fig. 1 is associated with flexural response or tension
response. In this case, the resistance at QIQy 1 .0 is the yield
=
value, and subsequent strain hardening is accommodated by
hardening in the load-deformation relation as the member is
deformed toward the expected strength. Where the response
shown in Fig. 1 is associated with compression, the resistance
at QIQy 1 .0 typically is the value where concrete begins
=
to spall, and strain hardening in well-confined sections can
be associated with strain hardening of the longitudinal rein­
forcement and an increase in strength from the confinement
of concrete. Where the response shown in Fig. 1 is associ­
ated with shear, the resistance at QIQy 1 .0 typically is the
=
value at which the design shear strength is reached and, typi­
cally, no strain hardening follows.
The deformations used for the load-deformation relation
of Fig. 1 should be defined in one of two ways, as follows:
a) Deformation, or Type 1: In this curve, deformations are
expressed directly using terms such as strain, curvature, rota­
tion, or elongation. The parameters a11e and b11e refer to defor­
mation portions that occur after yield, or plastic deformation.
The parameter C11e is the reduced resistance after the sudden
reduction from C to D. Parameters a11e, b11e, and C11e are defined
numerically in various tables in this standard. Alternatively,
parameters a11e, b11e, and C11e can be determined directly by
analytical procedures justified by experimental evidence.
b) Deformation ratio, or Type II: In this curve, deforma­
tions are expressed in terms such as shear angle and tangen­
tial drift ratio. The parameters d11e and e11e refer to total defor­
mations measured from the origin. Parameters C11e, d11e, and
e11e are defined numerically in various tables in this standard.
Alternatively, parameters C11e, d11e, and e11e can be determined
directly by analytical procedures justified by experimental
evidence.
Provisions for determining alternative modeling parame­
ters and acceptance criteria based on experimental evidence
are given in ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 7.6.
Displacement demands determined from nonlinear
dynamic analysis are sensitive to the rate of strength degra­
dation included in the structural model. Unless there is
experimental evidence of sudden strength loss for a partic­
ular component under consideration, the use of a model
with a sudden strength loss from Point C to D in Fig. 1 can
result in overestimation of the drift demands for a structural
system and individual components. A more realistic model
for many concrete components would have a linear degrada­
tion in resistance from Point C to E.
Strength loss that occurs within a single cycle can result
in dynamic instability of the structure, whereas strength loss
that occurs between cycles is unlikely to cause such insta­
bility. Figure 1 does not distinguish between these types
of strength degradation and may not accurately predict the
displacement demands if the two forms of strength degrada­
tion are not properly considered.
 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 21

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

3.1.3 Flanged construction-In beams conststmg of a

web and flange that act integrally, the combined stiffness
and strength for flexural and axial loading shall be calculated
considering a width of effective flange on each side of the
web equal to the smallest of:
I . The provided flange width
2. Eight times the flange thickness
3. Half the distance to the next web
4. One-fifth of the beam span length
Where the flange is in compression, the concrete and rein­
forcement within the effective width shall be considered
effective in resisting flexure and axial load. Where the flange
is in tension, longitudinal reinforcement within the effective
width ofthe flange and developed beyond the critical section
shall be considered fully effective for resisting flexural and
axial loads. The portion of the flange extending beyond the
width of the web shall be assumed ineffective in resisting
shear.
In walls, effective flange width should be computed using
Chapter 1 8 ofACI 3 1 8M- 1 4.

3.2-Strength and deformabil ity C3.2-Strength and deformabil ity

3.2.1 Genera l-Actions in a structure shall be classified
as being either deformation-controlled or force-controlled.
Deformation-controlled actions are defined by the designa­
tion of linear and nonlinear acceptance criteria in Tables 7
through 1 0 and 1 3 through 22. Where linear and nonlinear
acceptance criteria are not specified in the tables, actions
shall be taken as force-controlled unless component testing
is performed in accordance with ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 7.6. Strengths
for deformation-controlled and force-controlled actions
shall be calculated in accordance with 3 .2.2 and 3 .2.3,
respectively.
Components shall be classified as having low, moderate,
or high ductility demands, according to 3 .2.4.
Where strength and deformation capacities are derived
from test data, the tests shall be representative of proportions,
details, and stress levels for the component and comply with
7.6. 1 ofASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
The strength and deformation capacities of concrete
members shall correspond to values resulting from a loading
protocol involving three fully reversed cycles to the design
deformation level, in addition to similar cycles to lesser
deformation levels, unless a larger or smaller number of
deformation cycles is determined considering earthquake
duration and dynamic properties of the structure.
C3.2.1 General-In this standard, actions are classified
as either deformation-controlled or force-controlled. Actions
are considered deformation-controlled where the component
behavior is well documented by test results. Where linear or
nonlinear acceptance criteria are tabulated in this standard, the
committee has judged the action to be deformation-controlled,
and expected material properties should be used. Where such
acceptance criteria are not specified, the action should be
assumed force-controlled, thereby requiring the use of lower­
bound material properties, or the licensed design professional
can opt to perform testing to validate the classification of
deformation-controlled. ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 7.6, provides guid­
ance on procedures to be followed during testing, and ASCE
4 1 - 1 7, 7.5 . 1 .2 provides a methodology based on the test data
to distinguish force-controlled from deformation-controlled
actions. Further guidance on the testing of moment-frame
components can be found in ACI 374. 1 .
In some cases, including short-period buildings and those
subjected to a long-duration design earthquake, a building
can be expected to be subjected to additional cycles to the
design deformation levels beyond the three cycles recom­
mended in 3 .2. 1 . The increased number of cycles can lead
to reductions in resistance and deformation capacity. The
effects on strength and deformation capacity of additional
deformation cycles should be considered in design.

3.2.2 Deformation-controlled actions-Strengths used C3.2.2 Deformation-controlled actions-Expected yield

for deformation-controlled actions shall be taken as equal strength of steel reinforcement, as specified in 2.2. 1 .2,
to expected strengths QcE obtained experimentally or includes material overstrength considerations.
calculated using accepted principles of mechanics. Unless
specified in this standard, other procedures specified in ACI
3 1 8M to calculate strengths shall be permitted, except that
the strength reduction factor <!> shall be taken equal to unity.
Deformation capacities for acceptance of deformation-

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

22 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

controlled actions calculated by nonlinear procedures shall

be as specified in Chapters 4 through 12 ofthis standard. For
components constructed of lightweight concrete, QCE shall
be modified in accordance with ACI 3 1 8M procedures for
lightweight concrete.

3.2.3 Force-controlled actions Strengths used for force­

-

controlled actions shall be taken as lower-bound strengths

QCL, obtained experimentally or calculated using established
principles of mechanics. Lower-bound strength is defined as
the mean less one standard deviation of resistance expected
over the range of deformations and loading cycles to which
the concrete component is likely to be subjected. Where
calculations are used to define lower-bound strengths,
lower-bound estimates of material properties shall be used.
Unless other procedures are specified in this standard, proce­
dures specified in ACI 3 1 8M to calculate strengths shall be
permitted, except that the strength reduction factor � shall be
taken equal to unity. For components constructed of light­
weight concrete, QcL shall be modified in accordance with
ACI 3 1 8M procedures for lightweight concrete.

3.2.4 Component ductility demand classification­

Table 6 provides classification of component ductility
demands as low, moderate, or high based on the maximum
value of the demand-capacity ratio (DCR) defined in ASCE
4 1 - 1 7, 7.3 . 1 . 1 , for linear procedures or the calculated
displacement ductility for nonlinear procedures.

Table 6-Component ductil ity demand

classification
Maximum value of demand capacity
ratio (DCR) or displacement ductility Descriptor

Less than 2 Low ductility demand

2 to 4 Moderate ductility demand

Greater than 4 High ductility demand

3.3-Fiexure and axial loads C3.3-Fiexure and axial loads

Flexural strength of members with and without axial
loads shall be calculated according to ACI 3 1 8M or by other
demonstrated rational methods, such as sectional analysis
using appropriate concrete and steel constitutive models.
Deformation capacity of members with and without axial
loads shall be calculated considering shear, flexure, and rein­
forcement slip deformations, or based on acceptance criteria
given in this standard. Strengths and deformation capacities
of components with monolithic flanges shall be calculated
considering concrete and developed longitudinal reinforce­
ment within the effective flange width, as defined in 3 . 1 .3 .
Strength and deformation capacities shall b e determined
based on the available development of longitudinal rein­
forcement. Where longitudinal reinforcement has embed­
ment or development length that is insufficient for rein­
forcement strength development, flexural strength shall be
Laboratory tests indicate that flexural deformability can
be reduced as coexisting shear forces increase. As flex­
ural ductility demands increase, shear capacity decreases,
which can result in a shear failure before theoretical flexural
deformation capacities are reached. Use caution where flex­
ural deformation capacities are determined by calculation.
FEMA 306 and ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 5 .2 are resources for guidance
on the interaction between shear and flexure.
The combined strength under uniaxial or biaxial bending
with axial load is difficult to generalize in a closed-form
solution, given the range of column section geometries
encountered. For a particular class of rectangular column
sections, closed-form solutions based on section capacities
about the principal axes have been developed that provide
excellent agreement when compared to a more generalized
analysis (Hsu 1988; Furlong et a!. 2004). A circular envelope
provides a poor prediction of the strength for all but circular

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
calculated based on limiting stress capacity of the embedded
bar as defined in 3.5.
Where flexural deformation capacities are calculated from
basic principles of mechanics, reductions in deformation
capacity caused by applied shear shall be considered. Where
using analytical models for flexural deformability that do not
directly account for the effect of shear on deformation capacity
and if the design shear equals or exceeds 0.5 .JJ: Aw, MPa,
the design flexural deformation capacity shall not exceed 80
percent of the value calculated using the analytical model.
For concrete columns or walls under combined axial load
and biaxial bending, the combined strength shall be evalu­
ated considering biaxial bending. When using linear proce­
dures, the axial load PuF or PuD shall be calculated as a force­
controlled action or deformation-controlled action per ASCE
4 1 - 1 7, 7.5.2. The design moments MuD should be calculated
about each of two orthogonal axes. Combined strength shall
be based on principles of mechanics with applied bending
moments calculated as MuDxfCmxK) and MuD/(myK) about
the x- and y-axes, respectively. Acceptance shall be based
on the applied bending moments lying within the expected
strength envelope calculated at an axial load level of Pup if
the member is in compression, or Pud[(minimum of mx and
my)K] if the member is in tension.
3.3. 1 Usable strain limits-For deformation- and force-
controlled actions in elements without confining transverse
reinforcement, the maximum usable strain at the extreme
concrete compression fiber used to calculate the moment and
axial strength shall not exceed:
a) 0.002 for members in nearly pure compression
b) 0.005 for other members
Larger values of maximum usable strain in the extreme
compression fiber shall be allowed where substantiated by
experimental evidence.
For deformation- and force-controlled actions in elements
with confined concrete, the maximum usable strain at the
extreme concrete compression fiber used to calculate
moment and axial strength shall be based on experimental
evidence and consider limitations posed by transverse rein­
forcement fracture, longitudinal reinforcement buckling, and
degradation of component resistance at large deformation
levels. In the case of force-controlled actions in elements
with confined concrete, it shall be permitted to adopt usable
strain limits for unconfined concrete.
For deformation-controlled actions, the maximum
compressive strains in the longitudinal reinforcement used
to calculate the moment and axial strength shall not exceed
0.02, and maximum tensile strains in longitudinal reinforce­
ment shall not exceed 0.05. Monotonic coupon test results
shall not be used to determine reinforcement strain limits.
If experimental evidence is used to determine strain limits
for reinforcement, the effects of low-cycle fatigue and trans­
verse reinforcement spacing and size shall be included in
testing procedures.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
23
COMMENTARY
columns. For general sections, the strength envelope should
be developed based on principles of mechanics.
When flexural strength of an axially loaded member needs
to be calculated in the linear procedure, compressive load
level should be considered as a force-controlled action due
to its nonductile nature whereas tensile load level should be
considered as a deformation-controlled action because the
tensile strength and stiffness of the member are based on
steel reinforcement contribution only. The m-factor for the
flexural behavior can be conservatively used to estimate the
deformation-controlled action due to the tension.
C3.3.1 Usable strain limits-Early research on the stress­
strain behavior of unconfined concrete (Hognestad 1 952) has
shown that the stress-strain behavior of concrete is different
in members subjected to flexure than in members subjected
to nearly pure compression. Concrete subjected to concentric
compression exhibits crushing shortly after the maximum
stress is reached at strains of approximately 0.00 1 5 to
0.0020 (Hognestad 1952), whereas crushing in the extreme
compression fiber of members subjected to flexure and axial
load is observed at higher strains, ranging between 0.003 to
0.005 (Hognestad 1 952). The maximum usable strain limits
established in this section are intended to caution engineers
when using stress-strain relationships for concrete to calcu­
late moment and axial strengths. In members subjected to
nearly pure compression, redistribution of stresses within
the compression zone after the strain in the concrete exceeds
the strain corresponding to peak stress (0.00 1 5 to 0.0020
for unconfined concrete) (Hognestad 1 952) is not possible
because most of the concrete in the cross section will be on
the descending branch of the stress-strain curve for concrete.
Usable strain limits specified in this section do not
preclude engineers from using the provisions in 22.2 of ACI
3 1 8M- 1 4. Section 22.2.2. 1 of ACI 3 1 8M- 14 stipulates that
to calculate the moment and axial strength of reinforced
concrete members, the maximum usable strain in the extreme
compression fiber of reinforced concrete shall be assumed
to be 0.003. This usable strain is within the limit of 0.005
specified in 3 . 3 . 1 herein. In the case of members subjected
to nearly pure compression, provisions in 22.4.2 of ACI
3 1 8M- 1 4 establish that the design axial strength of columns
with unconfined concrete shall not exceed 80 percent of
cCiC'iJ
24 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

the nominal axial strength. According to the commentary

of 22.4.2. 1 of ACI 3 1 8M- 1 4, the reduced nominal axial
strength corresponds to a minimum eccentricity of 5 percent
of the column depth. The usable strain limit of 0.002 speci­
fied in 3 . 3 . 1 herein is intended to prevent overestimating the
flexural strength of columns with very small eccentricities,
so the provisions in 22.4.2. 1 ofACI 3 1 8M- 1 4 can be used in
place of calculating the axial and moment strength based on
stress-strain models for concrete.
While provisions in 2 1 .2.2 of ACI 3 1 8M- 14 establish
that, for tension-controlled members, the strain in the rein­
forcement at failure shall be at least 0.005, there is no upper
limit in the code for the usable strain in the reinforcement
of beams and columns. Although an upper limit in the strain
at failure of beams and columns is implied in the provi­
sions for minimum reinforcement in 9.6 and 1 0.6 of ACI
3 1 8M- 1 4, those limits are not intended for members that will
be subjected to deformation cycles in the nonlinear range
of response. The reinforcement tensile strain limit in 5.3 . 1
herein is based on consideration of the effects of material
properties and low-cycle fatigue. Low-cycle fatigue is influ­
enced by spacing and size of transverse reinforcement and
strain history. Using extrapolated monotonic test results to
develop tensile strains greater than those specified above
is not recommended. Caltrans (2006) recommends an ulti­
mate tensile strain of 0.09 for No. 32 bars and smaller, and
0.06 for No. 36 bars and larger, for ASTM A706/A706M
420 MPa reinforcing bars. A lower bound is selected herein
considering the variability in materials and details typically
found in existing structures.
Refer to Brown and Kunnath (2004) for incorporating the
effects of low-cycle fatigue and transverse reinforcement for
determining strain limits based on testing.

3.4-Shear and torsion C3.4-Shear and torsion

Strengths in shear and torsion shall be calculated according The reduction in the effectiveness of transverse reinforce­
to ACI 3 1 8M, except as modified in this standard. ment in this section accounts for the limited number of ties
Within yielding regions of components with moderate or expected to cross an inclined crack when ties are provided
high ductility demands, shear and torsional strength shall be at large spacing. Furthermore, reduction in the effective­
calculated according to procedures for ductile components, ness of the transverse reinforcement is needed because the
such as the provisions in Chapter 1 8 of ACI 3 1 8M. Within widely spaced ties may not be fully developed both above
yielding regions of components with low ductility demands and below the crack. For tie spacing equal to the effective
per Table 6 and outside yielding regions for all ductility depth of the member, it is possible to develop an inclined
demands, procedures for effective elastic response, such crack that does not cross any ties and, hence, the contribu­
as the provisions in Chapter 22 of ACI 3 1 8M-14, shall be tion of the transverse reinforcement should be ignored.
permitted to calculate the design shear strength.
Unless otherwise noted, where the longitudinal spacing of
transverse reinforcement exceeds half the component effec­
tive depth measured in the direction of shear, transverse rein­
forcement shall be assumed to have reduced effectiveness in
resisting shear or torsion by a factor of 2( 1 - s/d). Where
the longitudinal spacing of transverse reinforcement exceeds
the component effective depth measured in the direction of
shear, transverse reinforcement shall be assumed ineffective
in resisting shear or torsion. For beams and columns, lap­
spliced transverse reinforcement shall be assumed not more

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
than 50 percent effective in regions of moderate ductility
demand and ineffective in regions of high ductility demand,
and applies in addition to the effectiveness factor due to
spacing.
Shear friction strength shall be calculated according to
ACI 3 1 8M, considering the expected axial load from gravity
and earthquake effects. Where retrofit involves the addition
of concrete requiring overhead work with dry pack, the shear
friction coefficient � shall be taken equal to 70 percent of the
value specified by ACI 3 1 8M.
3.5-Development and splices of reinforcement
Development of straight bars, hooked bars, and lap-spliced
bars shall be calculated according to the provisions of ACI
3 1 8M, with the following modifications:
a) Deformed straight, hooked, and lap-spliced bars
satisfying the development requirements of Chapter 25 of
ACI 3 1 8M-14 using expected material properties shall be
deemed capable of developing their yield strength, except as
adjusted in the following:
i. The development of lapped straight bars in tension
without consideration of lap splice classifications is
permitted to be used as the required lap splice length.
ii. For columns, where deformed straight and lap-spliced
bars pass through regions where inelastic deformations and
damage are expected, the bar length within those regions
shall be considered effective for anchorage only until
inelastic deformations occur. In such cases, the develop­
ment length obtained using ACI 3 1 8M procedures shall be
compared with a degraded available development length
eb.dep as defined in (b) in the following.
b) Where existing deformed straight bars, hooked bars,
and lap-spliced bars do not meet the development require­
ments of (a), the capacity of existing reinforcement shall be
calculated as follows
( )2/3
�:
Is = [ .25 fyL ::;; fyLIE ( I a)
If the maximum applied bar stress is larger thanfs given in
Eq. ( 1 a), members shall be deemed controlled by inadequate
development or splicing.
For columns where deformed straight and lap-spliced
longitudinal bars pass through regions where inelastic defor­
mations and damage are expected, the bar length within
those regions shall be considered effective for anchorage
only until inelastic deformations occur. In such cases, ifis
= J;eu£ from Eq. ( l a), the degraded reinforcement capacity
!s-deg accounting for the loss of anchorage in the damaged
region shall be evaluated using a degraded available devel­
opment length (eb.deg). eb.deg shall be evaluated by subtracting
from eb a distance of 2/3d from the point of maximum flex­
ural demand in any direction damage is anticipated within
the column.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
25
COMMENTARY
C3.5-Development and spl ices of reinforcement
Development requirements in accordance with Chapter
25 of ACI 3 1 8M-1 4 are applicable to development of bars
in all components. Chapter 1 8 of ACI 3 1 8M- 1 4 provides
development requirements that are intended only for use
in yielding components of reinforced concrete moment
frames that comply with the cover and confinement provi­
sions of Chapter 1 8 of ACI 3 1 8M- 1 4. Chapter 25 of ACI
3 1 8M- 1 4 permits reductions in lengths if minimum cover
and confinement are present in an existing component. For
additional information on development and lap splices, refer
to ACI 408R, and for hooked anchorage, refer to Sperry et
al. (2005).
Equation (1a), which is a modified version of the model
presented by Cho and Pincheira (2006), reflects the intent
of ACI 3 1 8M development and splice equations to develop
1 .25 times the nominal bar strength, referred to in this stan­
dard as the expected yield strength. The nonlinear relation
between developed stress and development length reflects
the effect of increasing slip and, hence, reduced unit bond
strength, for longer development lengths. Refer to Elwood
et al. (2007) for more details.
Bond strength can be significantly curtailed in damaged
regions within plastic hinges (Sokoli and Ghannoum 20 1 6;
Ichinose 1995). The length where bond capacity is curtailed
during inelastic deformations is recommended to be two­
thirds of the section effective depth d (Sokoli and Ghan­
noum 201 6). If fs, evaluated using Eq. ( 1 a), equals J;eu£,
then bond failure is not expected prior to inelastic hinging
and the bar under consideration can be expected to resist
the full yield stressJ;eu£· However,fs should be re-evaluated
using a degraded effective anchorage length eb.deg using Eq.
(1 b), which is reduced by the bar length within the region
expected to be damaged. Iffs.Jeg remains equal toJ;eu£, even
after the anchorage length is reduced, then no anchorage
failure is expected even during inelastic deformations. If,
however, fs-deg becomes smaller than J;eu£ when the avail­
able anchorage length is reduced, then anchorage failure is
expected, but only after inelastic deformations occur. In such
cases, the limiting stress in longitudinal bars will beJ;eu£ but
the modeling parameters in Tables 8 and 9 for columns with
inadequate development or splicing should be used.
For buildings constructed before 1 950, the bond strength
developed between steel reinforcement and concrete can be
less than present-day strength. Present equations for devel-
cCiC'iJ
26 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Table 7-Modeling parameters and numerical acceptance criteria for non l i near procedures: reinforced
concrete beams
Modeling parameters
. Acceptance criteria·

Plastic roations angle, rad

Residual
Plastic rotations angle, rad strength ratio Performance level

Conditions a b c 10 LS CP

Condition i. beams controlled by flexure!

p - p' v
Pbt1t
Transverse
reinforcementl
... ..[l;;
b d §

�0.0 c �0.25 0.025 0.05 0.2 0.0 1 0 0.025 0.05

�0.0 c 2:0.5 0.02 0.04 0.2 0.005 0.02 0.04

2:0.5 c �0.25 0.02 0.03 0.2 0.005 0.02 0.03

2:0.5 c 2:0.5 0.0 1 5 0.02 0.2 0.005 0.0 1 5 0.02

�0.0 NC �0.25 0.02 0.03 0.2 0.005 0.02 0.03

�0.0 NC 2:0.5 0.01 0.0 1 5 0.2 0.00 1 5 0.01 0.0 1 5

2:0.5 NC �0.25 0.01 0.0 1 5 0.2 0.005 0.01 0.0 1 5

2:0.5 NC 2:0.5 0.005 0.0 1 0.2 0.00 1 5 0.005 0.01

Condition ii. beams controlled by shear!

Stirrup spacing � d/2 0.0030 0.02 0.2 0.00 1 5 0.01 0.02

Stirrup spacing > d/2 0.0030 0.0 1 0.2 0.00 1 5 0.005 0.01

Condition iii. beams controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the span!

Stirrup spacing � d/2 0.0030 0.02 0.0 0.00 1 5 0.01 0.02

Stirrup spacing > d/2 0.0030 0.01 0.0 0.00 1 5 0.005 0.01

Condition iv. beams controlled b y inadequate embedment into beam-co1umn jointl

0.0 1 5 0.03 0.2 0.0 1 0.02 0.03

'Values between those listed in the table shall be determined by linear interpolation.
twhere more than one of Conditions i, ii, iii, and iv occur for a given component, use the minimum appropriate numerical value from the table.
:c and NC are abbreviations for conforming and nonconforming transverse reinforcement, respectively. Transverse reinforcement is conforming if, within the flexural plastic hinge
region, hoops are spaced at :S d/3 , and if, for components of moderate and high ductility demand, the strength provided by the hoops ( V,) is at least three-fourths of the design shear.
Otherwise, the transverse reinforcement is considered nonconforming.
§ V is the shear force from NSP or NDP.
Note:fc£ in M Pa.

( )2/3 opment and splices of reinforcement account for mechanical

fs = 1 .25 ;:eg
R. fyeL :s; fyeu E ( 1 b) bond from deformations present in deformed bars as well
as chemical bond. The length required to develop plain bars
is much greater than for deformed bars and more sensitive
In cases where .fs f/uE from Eq. ( l a) but the maximum
= to cracking in concrete. Testing and assessment procedures
applied longitudinal bar stress is larger than ls-deg given in for tensile lap splices and development length for plain steel
Eq. ( 1 b), columns shall be deemed controlled by inadequate reinforcement are found in Concrete Reinforcing Steel Insti­
development or splicing and the capacity of the existing tute ( 1 98 1 ).
reinforcement taken as.J;eu£·
c) For inadequate development or splicing of straight bars
in beams and columns: for nonlinear procedures, it shall be
permitted to assume that the reinforcement retains the calcu­
lated maximum stress evaluated using Eq. ( l a) up to the
deformation levels defined by a11e in Tables 7 through 9; for
linear procedures, the calculated maximum stress evaluated
using Eq. ( 1 a) shall be used for strength calculations. For
members other than beams and columns controlled by inad-

(ciCIJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 27

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

Table 8-Model ing parameters and nu merical acceptance criteria for nonli near procedures: reinforced
concrete col umns other than circular with spiral reinforcement or seismic hoops as defined in ACI 318M
Modeling parameters Acceptance criteria

Plastic rotation angle, rad

Performance level
Plastic rotation angles a,e and b,r, rad
Residual strength ratio c,e 10 LS CP

Columns not controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the clear height'

a,, =
( 0.042 - 0.043 Nuo, + 0.63 p, - 0.023 Vy£ J � 0.0
Agjc£ VCo/0£

For -
Nw,
--

Agfc£
::; 0.5 l b,1
=
5 + __ N_
0.5
I J:'
UD_ _ ____sg_
0.8AJ;£ p, /,.,£
0.01 � a,,
t

0 . 1 5a,e S 0.005 0.5 b }

, 0.7b,e!

cn1 =
N _ � 0.0
0.24 - 0.4 ____\!Q_
Agfc�

Columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the clear height§

(I
J
p,J;.,£ � 0.0 II
a,, = S Pef e£ $ 0.025
y

b,1 =
( Nuo + 1 2 ,
0.0 1 2 - 0.085 � p
gh£
rO.O � a,1 #
0.0 0. 5 b
, e 0.7b,e

::; 0.06

c,e = O. I 5 + 36p, S 0.4

'p, shall not be taken greater than 0.0 1 75 in any case nor greater than 0.0075 when ties are not adequately anchored in the core. Equations in the table are not valid for columns with
p1 smaller than 0.0005. V,E!Vco/O£ shall not be taken less than 0.2. Nuo shall be the maximum compressive axial load accounting for the effects of lateral forces as described in Eq.
(7-34) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Alternatively, it shall be permitted to evaluate Nuo based on a limit-state analysis.
shall be reduced linearly for Nud(AJ',£) > 0.5 from its value at Nud(A,j',£)
1b,, = 0.5 to zero at Nud(AJ',E) = 0.7 but shall not be smaller than a,,.

Wud(A,j',£) shall not be taken smaller than 0. 1 .

iColumns are considered t o b e controlled b y inadequate development o r splices where the calculated steel stress at the splice exceeds the steel stress specified b y Eq. ( I a) o r ( I b).
Modeling parameter for columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing shall never exceed those of columns not controlled by inadequate development or splicing.
11a,1 for columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing shall be taken as zero if the splice region is not crossed by at least two tie groups over its length.
'p, shall not be taken greater than 0.0075.

equate development or splicing and hooked anchorage, the

developed stress shall be assumed to degrade from 1 .0fs, at a
ductility demand or DCR equal to 1 .0, to 0.2fs at a ductility
demand or DCR equal to 2.0.
d) The strength of deformed straight, discontinuous bars
embedded in concrete sections or beam-column joints, with
clear cover over the embedded bar not less than 3db, shall be
calculated according to Eq. (2)

17
lrs = - fl. e < r
- lyLJ E
(MPa) (2)
db

where fs is less than;;,LIE and the calculated stress in the bar

caused by design loads equals or exceeds fs, the maximum
developed stress shall be assumed to degrade from 1 .0fs, at a

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

28 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Table 9-Modeling parameters and numerical acceptance criteria for non l i near procedures: reinforced
concrete circular columns with spiral reinforcement or seismic hoops as defined in ACI 318M
Modeling parameters Acceptance criteria

Plastic rotation angle, rad

Plastic rotation angles a,r and b,,, rad
Performance level
Residual strength ratio c,,
10 LS CP

Columns not controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the clear height'

a,1 =
( 0.06 - 0.06 y£ ) � 0.0
:gfuoc£, + 1 .3p, - 0.037 :ColO£

For - -
N""
Agfc£
-, ::;;
l
0.5 b,, =

5 + -
0.65
N_
-u.o_ _ /,'
I ___s£
0.8AJ:r p, J;.,£
0.01 � a,1
t

0. 15a,e :S 0.005 0.5b,el 0.7b,}

c,, = 0.24 - 0.4 :gf' � 0.0

c
£

Columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the clear height§

(I )
p, J; ,£ � 0.0 II
a,, =

,
8 p J;.1£ ::;; 0.025

b,1 =
( Nuo
0.0 1 2 - 0.085 � + 1 2 p, � a..,
ro.o #
0.0 0.5b,e 0.7b,e

J,£
$ 0.06

c,e = 0. 1 5 + 36p, :S 0.4

'p, shall not be taken greater than 0.0 1 75 in any case nor greater than 0.0075 when ties are not adequately anchored in the core. Equations in the table are not valid for columns with
p, smaller than 0.0005. V,.£/VcoJOE shall not be taken less than 0.2.

Nuo shall be the maximum compressive axial load accounting for the effects of lateral forces as described in Eq. (7-34) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Alternatively, it shall be permitted to evaluate
Nuo based on a limit-state analysis.
lb.,, shall be reduced linearly for Nuof(AJ',E) > 0.5 from its value at Nuof(AJ',,) = 0.5 to zero at Nuof(AJ',,) = 0.7 but shall not be smaller than a,1
INuof(A,j',E) shall not be taken smaller than 0. 1 .
!Columns are considered to be controlled by inadequate development or splices where the calculated steel stress at the splice exceeds the steel stress specified by Eq. ( I a) or ( I b).
Modeling parameter for columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing shall never exceed those of columns not controlled by inadequate development or splicing.
11a,1 for columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing shall be taken as zero if the splice region is not crossed by at least two tie groups over its length.
'p, shall not be taken greater than 0.0075.

ductility demand or DCR equal to 1 .0, to 0.2/s at a ductility

demand or DCR equal to 2.0. In beams with bottom bar
embedment length into beam-column joints less than the
requirements of ACI 3 1 8M, flexural strength shall be calcu­
lated considering the stress limitation of Eq. (2).
e) For plain straight, hooked, and lap-spliced bars, devel­
opment and splice lengths shall be taken as twice the values
determined in accordance with ACI 3 1 8M, unless other
lengths are justified by approved tests.
f) Doweled bars added in seismic retrofit shall be assumed
to develop yield stress where all the following conditions
are satisfied:
i. Drilled holes for dowel bars are cleaned
ii. Embedment length le is not less than 1 Odb
iii. Minimum dowel bar spacing is not less than 4le and
minimum edge distance is not less than 2le

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
Design values for dowel bars not satisfying these condi­
tions shall be verified by test data. Field samples shall be
obtained to ensure that design strengths are developed in
accordance with Chapter 3 .
g) Square reinforcing bars in a building should b e classi­
fied as either twisted or straight. The developed strength of
twisted square bars shall be as specified for deformed bars
in this section, using an effective diameter calculated based
on the area of the square bar. Straight square bars shall be
considered plain bars, and the developed strength shall be as
specified for plain bars in this section.
3.6-Con nections to existing concrete
Connections used to connect two or more components
shall be classified according to their anchoring systems as
cast-in-place or as post-installed and shall be evaluated and
designed according to Chapter 1 7 of ACI 3 1 8M- 14 as modi­
tied in this section. The properties of the existing anchors
and connection systems obtained in accordance with 2.2
herein shall be considered in the evaluation. These provi­
sions do not apply to connections in plastic hinge zones.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
29
COMMENTARY
C3.6-Connections to existing concrete
Chapter 1 7 of ACI 3 1 8M- 14 accounts for the influence
of cracking on the load capacity of connectors; however,
cracking and spalling expected in plastic hinge zones is
likely to be more severe than the level of damage for which
Chapter 1 7 is applicable. ACI 3 5 5 .2 and ACI 355 .4M
describe simulated seismic tests that can be used for qualifi­
cation of post-installed anchors. Such tests do not simulate
the conditions expected in plastic hinge zones.
The 2006 version of ASCE 41 required the load capacity
of anchors placed in areas where cracking is expected to be
reduced by a factor of 0.5. This provision was included in
FEMA 273 for both cast-in-place and post-installed anchors,
before the introduction of ACI 3 1 8M-02 Appendix D.
Because cracking is now accounted for in ACI 3 1 8M, the
0.5 factor is not required in 3 .6 of this standard.
Capacities of existing anchors should be evaluated based on
the obtained properties in accordance with 2.2, and Chapter
1 7 of ACI 3 1 8M-14. If the anchors are not tested to failure
but to a load based on the force-controlled action determined
by the engineer for the seismic hazard under consideration,
the procedure in Chapter 1 7 of ACI 3 1 8M- 14 can be used to
calculate available strength based on the test results and the
geometry of anchors measured or assumed by the engineer.
To evaluate the capacity of existing cast-in-place and
post-installed anchors using ACI 3 1 8M- 14 Chapter 17, it
is necessary to know the geometry of the anchor (that is,
embedment, edge distance, spacing, and anchor diameter)
and material properties. Edge distance, spacing, and anchor
diameter can be established from construction documents or
by visual inspection. Unless known from construction docu­
ments, embedment and material properties of the anchor are
more difficult to determine. Where failure of the anchor is
not critical to meeting the target performance level, embed­
ment of post-installed anchors can be assumed equal to the
minimum embedment required by manufacturer's speci­
fications for the anchor type in question. For cast-in-place
anchors, embedment can be taken as less than or equal to the
minimum embedment from the original design code for an
embedded bolt of the same diameter. It is recommended that
where the consequence of failure of an anchor is critical to
satisfying the target performance level, anchor embedment
not known from construction documents is determined by
nondestructive testing (for example, ultrasonic testing).
cCiC'iJ
30 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)
STANDARD
3.6.1 Cast-in-place anchors and connection systems-All
component actions on cast-in-place anchors and connection
systems shall be considered force-controlled. Lower-bound
strength of the anchors and connections shall be nominal
strength as specified in Chapter 1 7 of ACI 3 1 8M- 1 4 for
the connections of structural components. The amplifica­
tion factor to account for the seismic overstrength, n0, shall
be taken equal to unity for the connections of structural
components.
A strength reduction factor <1> and amplification factor no
shall be used for the connections ofnonstructural components.
3.6.2 Post-installed anchors-All component actions on
post-installed anchor connection systems shall be considered
force-controlled. The lower-bound capacity of post-installed
anchors shall be nominal strength, as specified in Chapter
1 7 of ACI 3 1 8M-14, or mean less one standard deviation
of ultimate values published in approved test reports for
the connections of structural components. The amplifica­
tion factor to account for the seismic overstrength, n0, shall
be taken equal to unity for the connections of structural
components.
A strength reduction factor <1> and amplification factor
n0 shall be used for the connections of nonstructural
components.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
C OMMENTARY
Lower-bound properties for steel connector materials
and concrete strength based on default values, construction
documents, or test values can be assumed for anchor strength
calculations. It is noted that direct testing of anchors can
provide greater certainty and can provide higher capacities.
Judgment should be exercised in the use of default lower­
bound material properties because doing so may not yield a
conservative estimate of anchor capacity in cases where the
steel strength is determined to govern the anchor capacity,
and additional requirements ofACI 3 1 8M- 1 4 Chapter 1 7 for
ductile behavior are waived as a result.
Not all manufacturers of post-installed anchors publish
information on the mean and the standard deviation ofthe ulti­
mate anchor capacity. Older testing for existing post-installed
anchors is often reported at allowable stress design levels and
may not comply with the requirements of Chapter 1 7 of ACI
3 1 8M- 1 4 for simulated seismic tests. Care and judgment
should be used in determining pullout strength for anchors,
particularly those that are critical to satisfying the target
performance level. Where necessary, in-place strengths of
anchors can be obtained or verified by static testing of repre­
sentative anchors. ACI 355 .2 and ACI 355.4M can be used
for guidance on testing.
Proper installation of post-installed anchors is critical to
their performance and should be verified in all cases.
C3.6.1 Cast-in-place anchors and connection systems­
The strength reduction factor <1> in ACI 3 1 8M is taken equal
to unity for the lower-bound connection strength of struc­
tural components, but the requirements in 1 7 .2.3 of ACI
3 1 8M- 1 4 need to be satisfied, including the reduction of the
strength due to cracked concrete and cyclic loading. The
component actions on the anchors and connection systems
for structural components are considered as force-controlled
actions according to 7.5.2 and 7.5.3 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, so
further amplification of the seismic demand is not necessary.
However, the seismic demand on nonstructural compo­
nents in Chapter 13 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 is based on that in ASCE
7. A strength reduction factor <1> and amplification factor no
should be consistent with the demand.
C3.6.2 Post-installed anchors-The strength reduction
factor <1> in ACI 3 1 8M is taken equal to unity for the lower­
bound connection strength of structural components, but the
requirements in 1 7.2.3 of ACI 3 1 8M- 14 need to be satis­
fied, including the reduction of the strength due to cracked
concrete and cyclic loading. The component actions on post­
installed anchors for structural components are considered
force-controlled actions according to 7.5.2 and 7.5.3 of
ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, so further amplification of the seismic demand
is not necessary.
However, the seismic demand on nonstructural compo­
nents in Chapter 1 3 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 is based on that in ASCE
7. Strength reduction factor <I> and amplification factor no
should be consistent with the demand.
 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 31

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

3.7-Retrofit measures
Seismic retrofit measures for concrete buildings shall
meet the requirements of this section and other provisions
of this standard.
Retrofit measures shall include replacement or retrofit of
the component or modification of the structure so that the
component is no longer deficient for the selected perfor­
mance objective. If component replacement is selected, the
new component shall be designed in accordance with this
standard and detailed and constructed in compliance with
the applicable building code.
Retrofit measures shall be evaluated to ensure that the
completed retrofit achieves the selected performance objec­
tive. The effects of retrofit on stiffness, strength, and deform­
ability shall be taken into account in an analytical model of
the rehabilitated structure. The compatibility of new and
existing components shall be checked at displacements
consistent with the selected performance level.
Connections required between existing and new compo­
nents shall satisfy the requirements of 3 .6 and other require­
ments of this standard.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

32 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

CHAPTER 4-CONCRETE MOMENT FRAMES

4.1 -Types of concrete moment frames

Concrete moment frames are defined as elements
composed primarily of horizontal frame components, such
as beams, slabs, or both; vertical frame components, such
as columns; and joints connecting horizontal and vertical
frame components. To resist seismic forces, these elements
act alone or in conjunction with shear walls, braced frames,
or other elements.
Frames that are cast monolithically, including monolithic
concrete frames created by the addition of new material,
are addressed in this chapter. Frames addressed include
reinforced concrete beam-column moment frames, post­
tensioned concrete beam-column moment frames, and slab­
column moment frames.
The frame classifications in 4. 1 . 1 through 4. 1 .3 include
existing construction, new construction, existing construc­
tion that has been retrofitted, frames intended as part of the
seismic-force-resisting system, and frames not intended as
part of the seismic-force-resisting system in the original
design.

4.1.1 Reiriforced concrete beam-column momentframes­

Reinforced concrete beam-column moment frames,
addressed in 4.2, are defined by the following conditions:
a) Frame components are beams with or without slabs,
columns, and their connections.
b) Frames are of monolithic construction that provide for
moment and shear transfer between beams and columns.
c) Primary reinforcement in components contributing to
seismic-force resistance is nonprestressed.

4.1.2 Post-tensioned concrete beam-column moment

frames Post-tensioned concrete beam-column moment
-

frames, addressed in 4.3, are defined by the following

conditions:
a) Frame components are beams (with or without slabs),
columns, and their connections.
b) Frames are of monolithic construction that provide for
moment and shear transfer between beams and columns.
c) Primary reinforcement in beams contributing to seismic
force resistance includes post-tensioned reinforcement with
or without nonprestressed reinforcement.

4.1.3 Slab-column moment frames Slab-column moment

-

frames, addressed in 2.4, are defined by the following

conditions:
a) Frame components are slabs with or without beams in
the transverse direction, columns, and their connections.
b) Frames are of monolithic construction that provide for
moment and shear transfer between slabs and columns.
c) Primary reinforcement in slabs contributing to seismic
force resistance includes nonprestressed reinforcement,
prestressed reinforcement, or both.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 33

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

4.2-Reinforced concrete beam-col umn moment C4.2-Rei nforced concrete beam-column moment
frames frames
4.2. 1 General-The analytical model for a beam-column C4.2.1 General-Nonstructural components should be
frame element shall represent strength, stiffness, and defor­ included in the analytical model if such elements contribute
mation capacity ofbeams, columns, beam-columnjoints, and significantly to building stiffness, modify dynamic prop­
other components of the frame, including connections with erties, or have significant impact on the behavior of adja­
other elements. Potential failure in flexure, shear, and rein­ cent structural elements. Section 7.2.3.3 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7
forcement development at any section along the component suggests that nonstructural components should b e included
length shall be considered. Interaction with other elements, if their lateral stiffness exceeds 10 percent of the total initial
including nonstructural components, shall be included. lateral stiffness of a story. Partial infill walls and staircases
Analytical models representing a beam-column frame are examples of nonstructural elements that can alter the
using line elements with properties concentrated at compo­ behavior of adjacent concrete structural elements.
nent centerlines shall be permitted. Where beam and column
centerlines do not intersect, the eccentricity effects between
frame centerlines shall be considered. Where the centerline
of the narrower component falls within the middle one-third
of the adjacent frame component measured transverse to the
framing direction, this eccentricity need not be considered.
Where larger eccentricities occur, the effect shall be repre­
sented either by reductions in effective stiffness, strength, and
deformation capacity or by direct modeling of the eccentricity.
The beam-column joint in monolithic construction is the
zone having horizontal dimensions equal to the column
cross-sectional dimensions and vertical dimension equal to
the beam depth. A wider joint is acceptable where the beam
is wider than the column. The beam-column joint shall be
modeled according to 4.2.2 or as justified by experimental
evidence. The model of the connection between columns
and foundation shall be selected based on details of the
column-foundation connection and rigidity of the founda­
tion-soil system.
Action of the slab as a diaphragm interconnecting vertical
components shall be considered. Action of the slab as a
composite beam flange shall be considered in developing
stiffness, strength, and deformation capacities of the beam
component model per 3 . 1 .3 .
Inelastic action shall be restricted to those components
and actions listed in Tables 7 through 9, except where it is
demonstrated by experimental evidence and analysis that
other inelastic action is acceptable for the selected perfor­
mance level. Acceptance criteria are specified in 4.2.4.

4.2.2 Stiffness of reinforced concrete beam-column C4.2.2 Stiffness of reiriforced concrete beam-column
momentframes momentframes

4.2.2.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-Beams
shall be modeled considering flexural and shear stiffnesses,
including the effect of the slab acting as a flange in mono­
lithic construction according to the provisions in 3 . 1 .3 .
Columns shall b e modeled considering flexural, shear, and
axial stiffnesses. Refer to 3 . 1 .2 to compute the effective stiff­
nesses. Where joint stiffness is not modeled explicitly, it
shall be permitted to be modeled implicitly by adjusting a
centerline model (Fig. 2):
a) For 'L.Mco!EI''f£fi18 > 1 .2, column offsets are rigid and
beam offsets are not.
C4.2.2. 1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-Various
approaches to explicitly model beam-column joints are
available in El-Metwally and Chen (1 988), Ghobarah and
Biddah ( 1 999), Shin and LaFave (2004), Mitra and Lowes
(2007), and Lin and Restrepo (2002). For simplicity of
implementation in commercial structural analysis software
and agreement with calibration studies performed in the
development of this standard, this section defines an implicit
beam-column j oint modeling technique using centerline
models with semi-rigid joint offsets. Figure 2 shows an
example of an explicit joint model and illustrates the implicit

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org cCiC'iJ

34 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

a) Example of explicit b) Offsets for implicit

joint model joint model

Fig. 2-Beam-column joint modeling (hatched portions indicate rigid element).

b) For IJv!co!El'i)18£ < 0.8, beam offsets are rigid and
column offsets are not.
c) For 0.8 :S IJv!co!£/IJvf8£ :S 1 .2, half of the beam and
column offsets are considered rigid.
Mco!£ shall be calculated considering axial force from the
gravity loads specified in Eq. (7-3) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Because
this modeling approach accounts only for joint shear flex­
ibility, stiffness values used for the beams and columns shall
include the flexibility resulting from bar slip.
joint modeling approach. In the implicit joint model, only a
portion of the beam, column, or both, within the geometric
joint region is defined as rigid. In typical commercial soft­
ware packages, this portion can range from 0, in which case
the model is a true centerline model, to 1 .0, where the entire
joint region is rigid. Further commentary is provided in
C3. 1 .2 . 1 , and background material is provided in Elwood et
a!. (2007) and Birely et a!. (2009).

4.2.2.2 Nonlinear static procedure-Nonlinear load­
deformation relations shall comply with 3 . 1 .2. Nonlinear
modeling parameters for beams, columns, and beam-column
joints are provided in Tables 7, 8, 9, and 12.
Beams and columns shall be modeled using concentrated
or distributed plastic hinge models. Other models whose
behavior represents the behavior of reinforced concrete
beam and column components subjected to seismic loading
shall be permitted. The beam and column model shall be
capable of representing inelastic response along the compo­
nent length, except where it is shown by equilibrium that
yielding is restricted to the component ends. Where nonlinear
response is expected in a mode other than flexure, the model
shall be established to represent such effects.
Monotonic load-deformation relations shall be estab­
lished according to the generalized load-deformation rela­
tion shown in Fig. 1 , with the exception that different rela­
tions shall be permitted where verified by experiments. The
overall load-deformation relation shall be established so that
maximum resistance is consistent with the strength specifi­
cations of 3.2 and 4.2.3.
For beams and columns, the generalized deformation in
Fig. 1 is plastic hinge rotation. For beam-column joints, the
generalized deformation is shear strain. Values of the gener-
C4.2.2.2 Nonlinear static procedure-The modeling
parameters and acceptance criteria specified in Tables 8 and 9
reflect results from research on reinforced concrete columns
and an updated database of columns tests that includes 3 1 9
rectangular and 1 7 1 circular column tests without lap splices
(Ghannoum et a!. 20 1 5a,b), and a database of 39 rectangular
columns containing lap splices (Ghannoum 20 1 7). Most
circular columns in the database contained spiral reinforce­
ment. Separate tables are given for rectangular columns
(Table 8) and spirally reinforced circular columns (Table 9).
For circular columns reinforced with ties not conforming
to ACI 3 1 8M seismic hoop designation, Table 8 should be
used. The three parameters that are used in Tables 8 and 9
to calculate modeling parameters and acceptance criteria
for columns not controlled by inadequate development
or splicing are: axial load ratio, transverse reinforcement
ratio, and ratio of shear demand at flexural yielding to
shear capacity ( Vy£/ Vco!o£). For columns controlled by
inadequate development or splicing, the same modeling
parameters were introduced for rectangular and circular
columns in Tables 8 and 9 and are related to: axial load ratio,
transverse reinforcement ratio, and the ratio of transverse
reinforcement to longitudinal reinforcement strength.

(ciCIJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 35

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

Table C1 -Range of values of nonlinear modeling parameters for concrete col umns
Columns other than circular with spiral Circular columns with spiral
reinforcement or seismic hoops reinforcement or seismic hoops

Nud(AJ'c£) p, 1/,£/V,E a"e' rad b"'' rad* a"r' rad b"'' rad*

0 0.0005 0.2 0.038 0.090 0.053 0. 1 20

0 0.0005 1 .5 0.008 0.090 0.005 0. 1 20

0 0 . 0 1 75 0.2 0.048 0.090 0.075 0. 1 20

0 0.0 1 75 1 .5 0.0 1 9 0.090 0.027 0. 1 20

0.7 0.0005 0.2 0.008 0.008 0.0 1 1 0.0 1 1

0.7 0.0005 1 .5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.7 0 . 0 1 75 0.2 0.0 1 8 0.0 1 8 0.033 0.033

0.7 0 . 0 1 75 1 .5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

'b,, values obtained by takingf',Eif·,£ � 0.067.

Table C2-M ultipl iers for concrete col umn modeling parameters to ach ieve specific probabil ities of
exceedance
Multiplier to achieve probability of exceedance
Modeling
parameter 40 percent 25 percent 10 percent

Columns not controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the clear height

Reinforced concrete columns other than circular with spiral Gnt 0.80 0.62 0.47

reinforcement or seismic hoops as defined in ACI 3 1 8M 0.80 0.70 0.5

bne

Reinforced concrete circular columns with spiral reinforce- Gnt 0.70 0.57 0.42

ment or seismic hoops as defined in ACI 3 1 8M NA' NA' NA'

bne
Columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the clear height

ane 0.62 0.5 0.33

All columns
bne NA' NA' NA'

'Multipliers not available due to limited test data.

alized deformation at Points B, C, and D shall be derived
from experiments or rational analyses and shall take into
account the interactions among flexure, axial load, and shear.
Acceptance criteria in Tables 8 and 9 were selected as
1 5 percent of the a11e values for immediate occupancy, 50
percent of the b,e values for life safety, and 70 percent of the
b, e values for collapse prevention. The fractions of b,e values
were selected based on Table C2 to achieve low probabili-
ties of axial failure for columns satisfying the acceptance
criteria. These probabilities were 1 0 percent and 25 percent
for life safety and collapse prevention, respectively.
Note that the probabilities of exceedance in Table C l
correspond to the probability of failure for a column given
a plastic rotation demand equal to the modeling parameter
scaled by the appropriate multiplier in Table C2.
Most laboratory tests ignore some factors that can influ-
ence the drift capacity, such as loading history and bidi-
rectional loading. The probabilities of exceedance in Table
C2 can therefore be larger if these factors are considered.
Databases used to assess the model conservatism consist of
rectangular and circular columns subjected to unidirectional
lateral forces applied parallel to either one of the column
The modeling parameters in Tables 8 and 9 define the
plastic rotations according to Fig. l (a). As shown in Fig.
1 (a), modeling parameter a11 e provides the plastic rotation at
significant loss of lateral force capacity. For the purposes of
determining a11e values based on test data, it was assumed
that this point represented a 20 percent or greater reduction
in the lateral force resistance from the measured peak shear
capacity. For columns expected to experience flexural fail-
ures ( Vy£/Vcoto£ :S 0.6), such loss of lateral load resistance
can be caused by concrete crushing, bar buckling, and
other flexural damage mechanisms. For columns expected
to experience shear failures, either before or after flexural
yielding ( Vy£/Vcoto£ > 0.6), loss of lateral load resistance is
commonly caused by severe diagonal cracking indicative
of shear damage. For columns with inadequate anchorage
or splicing, loss of lateral load resistance is caused by bond
splitting failures that gradually unload the longitudinal bars.
Consistent with 7 .5. 1 .2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, modeling parameter
bn1 provides an estimate of the plastic rotation at the loss of
gravity load support, that is, axial load failure.
Modeling parameters given in Tables 8 and 9 represent
median estimates of parameters extracted from columns in

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org cCiC'iJ

36 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Table 1 0(a)-Numerical acceptance criteria for linear procedures: reinforced concrete columns other than
circular with spiral reinforcement or seismic hoops as defined in ACI 318M
m-factors
.
Performance level

( NUD )
Component type

Primary Secondary

AJ,� p, V,.dVco/0£ 10 LS CP LS CP

Columns not controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the clear height!

2:0.2
�0. 1 2:0.0 1 75 1 .7 3 .4 4.2 6.8 8.9
<0.6

2:0.2
2:0.7 2:0.0 1 75 1 .2 1 .4 1 .7 1 .4 1 .7
<0.6

2:0.2
�0. 1 �0.0005 1 .5 2.6 3.2 2.6 3 .2
<0.6

2:0.2
2:0.7 �0.0005 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0
<0.6

2:0.6
�0. 1 2:0.0 1 75 1 .5 2.7 3.3 6.8 8.9
< 1 .0

2:0.6
2:0.7 2:0.0 1 75 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0
< 1 .0

2:0.6
�0. 1 �0.0005 1 .3 1 .9 2.3 1 .9 2.3
< 1 .0

2:0.6
2:0.7 �0.0005 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0
< 1 .0

�0. 1 2:0.0 1 75 2: 1 .0 1 .3 1 .8 2.2 6.8 8.9

2:0.7 2:0.0 1 75 2: 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

�0. 1 �0.0005 2: 1 .0 1.1 1 .0 1.1 1 .7 2.1

2:0.7 �0.0005 2: 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

Columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the clear height!

�0. 1 2:0.0075 1 .0 1 .7 2.0 5.3 6.8

2:0.7 2:0.0075 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 2.8 3.5

�0. 1 �0.0005 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .4 1 .6

2:0.7 �0.0005 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

'Values between those listed in the table shall be determined by linear interpolation.
!Columns are considered to be controlled by inadequate development or splicing where the calculated steel stress at the splice exceeds the steel stress specified by Eq. ( I a) or (I b).
Acceptance criteria for columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing shall never exceed those of columns not controlled by inadequate development or splicing.

principal axes. Actual columns have configurations and load­
ings that differ from those used in the databases. Note that
bidirectional loading on comer columns and long duration
seismic motions is expected to result in lower deformation
capacities (Matamoros et a!. 2008; Henkhaus 20 1 0; Woods
and Matamoros 2010; Simpson and Matamoros 201 2; Ghan­
noum and Matamoros 201 4). Test data have shown that the
drift ratio at axial failure of columns subjected to biaxial
loading, a large number of cycles per drift ratio, or both, can be
lower than that of column with loading histories consisting of
uniaxial loading with three cycles per drift ratio. Limited data
exist, however, to assess the degree of reduction anticipated.
The acceptance criteria for linear procedures in Tables
1 0(a) and 1 0(b) were determined based on the modeling
parameters for nonlinear procedures in Tables 8 and 9 in
accordance with ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 7.6.
the database (Ghannoum et a!. 201 5a,b). For columns with
longitudinal bars that are adequately anchored or spliced,
equations for modeling parameter ane were obtained from
a weighted regression analysis of the data (Ghannoum and
Matamoros 2014). An upper bound on the transverse rein­
forcement ratio p, of 0.0 1 75 was selected because few
columns in the database contained a ratio exceeding that limit,
as well as to limit the maximum deformation capacity of
highly confined columns. Equations for modeling parameters
cannot be used for columns with a transverse reinforcement
ratio below 0.0005, as they are not intended for unreinforced
columns. For columns with ties not adequately anchored into
the core, an upper bound on the transverse reinforcement ratio
of 0.0075 was selected to limit their contribution to deforma­
tion capacity. A lower limit on T),EI VcotOE of 0.2 is prescribed

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 37

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

Table 1 0(b)-Numerical acceptance criteria for l i near procedures: reinforced concrete circular columns
with spiral reinforcement or seismic hoops as defi ned in ACI 318M
m-factors*

Performance level

( NUD )
Component type

Primary Secondary

Aj;� p, VydVco!OE 10 LS CP LS CP

Columns not controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the clear height!

2:0.2
::SO. I 2:0.0 1 75 1 .7 4.8 6.2 8.9 1 1 .6
<0.6

2:0.2
2:0.7 2:0.0 1 75 1 .4 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.6
<0.6

2:0.2
::SO. I :::;0.0005 1 .6 3.2 4.0 3.2 4.0
<0.6

2:0.2
2:0.7 :::;0 .0005 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0
<0.6

2:0.6
::SO. I 2:0.0 1 75 1 .7 3.7 4.7 8.9 1 1 .6
< 1 .0

2:0.6
2:0.7 2:0.0 1 75 1.1 1 .0 1.1 1 .0 1.1
< 1 .0

2:0.6
::SO. I :::;0.0005 1 .4 2.1 2.5 2.3 2.8
< 1 .0

2:0.6
2:0.7 :::;0.0005 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0
< 1 .0

::SO. I 2:0.0 1 75 2: 1 .0 1 .4 2.3 2.9 8.9 1 1 .6

2:0.7 2:0.0 1 75 2: 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

::SO. I :::;0 .0005 2: 1 .0 1 .0 0.8 0.8 2.3 2.8

2:0.7 :::;0 .0005 2:1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

Columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the clear height!

::SO. I 2:0.0075 1 .0 1 .7 2.0 5.3 6.8

2:0.7 2:0.0075 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 2.8 3.5

::SO. I :::;0 .0005 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .4 1 .6

2:0.7 :::;0.0005 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0 1 .0

'Values between those listed in the table shall be determined by linear interpolation.
!Columns are considered to be controlled by inadequate development or splicing where the calculated steel stress at the splice exceeds the steel stress specified by Eq. (I a) or (I b).
Acceptance criteria for columns controlled by inadequate development or splicing shall never exceed those of columns not controlled by inadequate development or splicing.

The licensed design professional is referred to the
following reports for further guidance regarding determina­
tion of modeling parameters and acceptance criteria for rein­
forced concrete columns : Lynn et al. ( 1 996), Panagiotakos
and Fardis (200 1 ), Sezen (2002), Fardis and Biskinis (2003),
Biskinis et al. (2004), Elwood and Moehle (2004, 2005a,b),
Berry and Eberhard (2005), Henkhaus (20 1 0), Matamoros
et al. (2008), Woods and Matamoros (20 1 0), and Ghannoum
and Matamoros (20 14).
because few columns in the database have lower values of
TjE/ VcatoE·
Due to the scarcity of collapse tests, equations for
modeling parameter bne were obtained from a behavioral
model adapted from Elwood and Moehle (2005b) (Ghan­
noum and Matamoros 20 14). Recent test data from columns
tested to axial failure (Matamoros et al. 2008; Woods and
Matamoros 2010; Henkhaus 20 10; Simpson and Matam­
oros 20 12) show that the drift ratio at axial failure for
columns with various configurations and loading histories
is estimated adequately using the failure model proposed by
Elwood and Moehle (2005b). The set of columns evaluated
included slender and short columns, as well as shear-critical
columns and columns failing in shear after flexural yielding.
Table C1 presents the practical range of modeling param-

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

38 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

eters for concrete columns evaluated using the equations in

Tables 8 and 9.
The tabulated relations for modeling parameters were
evaluated using the data from laboratory tests (Ghannoum
and Matamoros 20 1 4). The error ratio was defined as the
modeling parameters evaluated from tables divided by the
experimental modeling parameter values for the column
tests. The error ratios were found to follow lognormal prob­
ability distributions for all modeling parameters (Ghan­
noum and Matamoros 2014). Fitted lognormal distributions
were used to produce multipliers for the tabulated modeling
parameter relations to achieve specific probabilities of
exceedance (Table C2).

4.2.2.3 Nonlinear dynamic procedure-For nonlinear

dynamic procedure (NDP), the complete hysteretic behavior
of each component shall be modeled using properties veri­
fied by experimental evidence. The use of the generalized
load-deformation relation described by Fig. I to represent
the envelope relation for the analysis shall be permitted.
Refer to 4.2.2.2 for the application of parameters for
columns in Tables 8 and 9. Unloading and reloading proper­
ties shall represent significant stiffness and strength degrada­
tion characteristics.

4.2.3 Strength of reinforced concrete beam-column

-
moment frames Component strengths shall be computed
according to the general requirements of 3.2, as modified in
this section.
The maximum component strength shall be determined
considering potential failure in flexure, axial load, shear,
torsion, bar development, and other actions at all points
along the length of the component, under the actions of
design gravity load and seismic force combinations.

4.2.3.1 Columns-For columns, the shear strength Veal C4.2.3.1 Columns-The use of shear strength equations
shall be permitted to be calculated using Eq. (3). and material properties to calculate the shear strength Vcato£
in this standard is illustrated in Fig. C l .

(A, d)
fytLIE
Ucot
s (3)
(MPa)
where k11e = 1 .0 in regions where displacement ductility
demand is less than or equal to 2, 0.7 in regions where
displacement ductility demand is greater than or equal to 6,
and varies linearly for displacement ductility between 2 and
6; A is 0. 75 for lightweight aggregate concrete and 1 .0 for
normalweight aggregate concrete; Nua is the axial compres­
sion force calculated using Eq. (7-3) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 (set
to zero for tension force); Mu01 Vu0d is the largest ratio of
moment to shear times effective depth for the column under
design loadings evaluated using Eq. (7-34) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7,
but shall not be taken greater than 4 or less than 2; and acat
As discussed in C3.3, experimental evidence indicates the
possibility that flexural deformability can be reduced as coex­
isting shear forces increase. As flexural ductility demands
increase, shear capacity decreases, which can result in a shear
failure before theoretical flexural deformation capacities are
reached. Caution should be exercised when flexural deforma­
tion capacities are determined by calculation.
Equation (3) illustrates the reduction in column shear
capacity with increasing nonlinear deformations and provides
an estimate of the mean observed shear strength for 5 1 rectan­
gular reinforced concrete columns subjected to unidirectional
lateral forces parallel to one face of the column (Sezen and
Moehle 2004). The coefficient of variation for the ratio of
measured to calculated shear strength is 0. 1 5.
For a column experiencing flexural yielding before shear
failure ( Tj£ < Vc010E), displacement ductility demand is
defined as the ratio of maximum displacement demand to
yield displacement. The yield displacement is the lateral

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 39

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

U se of Col u m n S h ear Stre n gth E q u ations

C a l c u l ating
M P a nd AC [ C a l c u l ating S hear Strength

Force Controlled Deformation Control led Action

I
Action

I
• t t
Expected Material Lower Bound
Expected Material Properties
Properties Material Properties

l
Compliant with Non Compliant with
Chapter 1 8 of AC I C hapter 1 8 of AC I
�
3 1 8 -14 3 1 8M - 1 4

-� !
ACI 3 1 8M- 1 4 o r ACI 3 1 8M- 1 4 or AC I 3 1 8M- 1 4 or
ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 Eq. 3
ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 Eq. 3 ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 Eq. 3 ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 Eq. 3

Fig. CJ-Use of column shear strength equations.

= 1 .0 for s/d � 0.75, 0.0 for s/d ?:. 1 .0, and varies linearly for
sld between 0.75 and 1 .0.
Alternative formulations for column strength that consider
effects of reversed cyclic inelastic deformations and that are
verified by experimental evidence shall be permitted.
For columns satisfying the detailing and proportioning
requirements of ACI 3 1 8M- 14 Chapter 1 8, and for which
shear is classified as a deformation-controlled action, as
well as for columns in which shear is classified as a force­
controlled action, it shall be permitted to use the shear
strength equations in Chapter 1 8 ofACI 3 1 8M-14.
displacement of the column, determined using the effective
rigidities from Table 5, at a shear demand resulting in flexural
yielding of the plastic hinges, Vy£. The maximum displacement
demand for the column can be estimated as the maximum
interstory displacement demand. Alternatively, the interstory
displacement demand can be refined by accounting for the
interstory displacements caused by rigid-body rotations at the
base and top of the column. Further discussion on displace­
ment ductility demand is found in Sezen and Moehle (2004).
Equation (3) should not be used to determine displacement
ductility (Elwood and Moehle 2005a).
The licensed design professional is referred to PEER/
EERI (2006) for a comparison of test data with several
column shear strength equations.

4.2.3.2 Beam-column joints For beam-column joints,

-

the nominal cross-sectional area A1 shall be defined by a

joint depth equal to the column dimension in the direction
of framing and a joint width equal to the smallest of the
following:
a) The column width
b) The beam width plus the joint depth
c) Twice the smaller perpendicular distance from the
longitudinal axis of the beam to the column side
Design forces shall be calculated based on development of
flexural plastic hinges in adjacent frame members, including
effective slab width, but need not exceed values calculated
from design gravity and earthquake load combinations. Joint
shear strength V1 shall be calculated using the general proce­
dures of ACI 3 1 8M, as modified by Eq. (4)

V1 = 0.083 'Ay �fc�1E AJ (MPa) (4)

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

40 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Table 1 1 -Values of y for joint strength calculation

Value of y

Condition i: Interior joints! Condition ii: other joints

Transverse Interior joint with Interior joint without Exterior joint with Exterior joint without Knee joint with or without
reinforcement* transverse beams transverse beams transverse beams transverse beams transverse beams

c 20 15 15 12 8

NC 12 10 8 6 4

•c and NC arc abbreviations for conforming and nonconforming transverse reinforcement. Joint transverse reinforcement is conforming if hoops are spaced at � hj2 within the joint.
Otherwise, the transverse reinforcement is considered nonconforming.
!For classification of joints. refer to Fig. 3 .

a) Interior joint with b) Interior joint without

transverse beams transverse beams

�
/ 7'
/ / I
/ / )
/ / /

/ 1
/
/ /
f. -( /
I I / )
L.. ..Y

c) Exterior joint with d) Exterior joint without e) Knee joint with or without
transverse beams transverse beams transverse beams
Fig. 3-Joint classification (for response in the plane of the page).

where A. is 0.75 for lightweight aggregate concrete and 1 .0

for normalweight aggregate concrete; A1 is the effective hori­
zontal joint area with dimensions as defined previously; and
y is defined in Table 1 1 .

4.2.4 Acceptance criteria for reinforced concrete beam­

column moment frames

4.2.4.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-All actions

shall be classified as being either deformation-controlled or
force-controlled, as defined in 3.2. 1 .
Design actions on components shall be determined based
on Chapter 7 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Where the calculated demand­
to-capacity ratio values exceed unity, the following design
actions shall be determined using the limit analysis princi­
ples in Chapter 7 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 :

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 41

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

a) Moments, shears, torsions, and development and

splice actions corresponding to development of component
strength in beams and columns
b) Joint shears corresponding to strength development in
adjacent beams and columns
c) Axial load in columns and joints, considering likely
plastic action in components above the story in which the
columns or joints are located
Design actions shall be compared with strengths in accor­
dance with 5.5.2.2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, with the m-factors
selected from Tables 10, 1 3, and 14 for columns, beams, and
beam-column joints, respectively. Components satisfying
Eq. (7-36) or (7-37) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, as applicable, shall
comply with the performance criteria.
Where the average demand-to-capacity ratio for columns
at a story exceeds the average value for beams at the same
level and exceeds the greater of 1 .0 and m/2 for all columns
at all levels, the level shall be defined as a weak story
element. For weak story elements, one of the following shall
be satisfied:
a) The check of average demand-to-capacity ratio values
at the level shall be repeated, considering all primary and
secondary components at the level with a weak story element
at the level. If the average demand-to-capacity ratio values
for vertical components exceeds the average value for hori­
zontal components at the level and exceeds 2.0, the structure
shall be reanalyzed using a nonlinear procedure or retrofitted
to eliminate this deficiency.
b) The structure shall be reanalyzed using either the NSP
or the NDP of Chapter 7 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
c) The structure shall be retrofitted to eliminate the weak
story element condition.

4.2.4.2 Nonlinear static and dynamic procedures-Calcu­ C4.2.4.2 Nonlinear static and dynamic procedures­
lated component actions shall satisfy the requirements of Refer to C4.2.2.2 and C4.2.3 . 1 for discussion ofTables 8 and
7.4.3.2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Where the generalized deforma­ 9, and acceptance criteria for reinforced concrete columns.
tion is taken as rotation in the flexural plastic hinge zone
in beams and columns, the plastic hinge rotation capacities
shall be defined by Tables 7 through 9. Where the gener­
alized deformation is shear distortion of the beam-column
joint, shear angle capacities are defined by Table 1 2. Where
inelastic action is indicated for a component or action not
listed in Tables 7 through 9 and 12, the performance shall
be deemed unacceptable. Alternative approaches or values
shall be permitted where justified by experimental evidence
and analysis.

4.2.5 Retrofit measures for reinforced concrete beam­ C4.2.5 Retrofit measures for reinforced concrete beam­
column momentframes Seismic retrofit measures for rein­
- column moment frames Chapter 1 2 of FEMA 547 provides
-

forced concrete beam-column moment frames shall meet the
requirements of 3. 7 and other provisions of this standard and
ASCE 4 1 .
detailed descriptions of effective retrofit measures for use with
concrete moment frames, including considerations such as
constructability, disruption for building occupants, and costs.
Retrofit measures that can be effective in rehabilitating
reinforced concrete beam-column moment frames are the
following:

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

42 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Table 1 2-Modeling parameters and nu merical acceptance criteria for non l i near procedures: reinforced
concrete beam-column joints
.
Modeling parameters Acceptance criteria·

Plastic rotations angle, rad

Residual
Plastic rotations angle, rad strength ratio Performance level

Conditions a b c 10 LS CP

Condition i . Interior joints (Note: for classification of joints, refer to Fig. 3)

p t v§
Transverse
-- -

AJ;� VJ
reinforcement!

:SO. ! c ::0 1 . 2 0.0 1 5 0.03 0.2 0.0 0.02 0.03

:;SO. I c �1.5 0.0 1 5 0.03 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 5 0.02

�0.4 c ::0 1 . 2 0.0 1 5 0.025 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 5 0.025

�0.4 c �1.5 0.0 1 5 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 5 0.02

:;SO. I NC ::0 1 . 2 0.005 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 5 0.02

:;SO. I NC �1.5 0.005 0.0 1 5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 5

�0.4 NC ::0 1 . 2 0.005 0.0 1 5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 5

�0.4 NC �1.5 0.005 0.0 1 5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 5

Condition ii. Other joints (Note: for classification for joints, refer to Fig. 3)

t
p v§
Transverse
-- -

Ag J;� VJ
reinforcement!

:::;0 . 1 c ::0 1 .2 0.0 1 0.02 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 5 0.02

:;SO. I c �1.5 0.0 1 0.0 1 5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 5

�0.4 c ::0 1 .2 0.0 1 0.02 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 5 0.02

�0.4 c �1.5 0.0 1 0.0 1 5 0.2 0.0 0.0 1 0.0 1 5

:;SO. I NC ::0 1 . 2 0.005 0.0 1 0.2 0.0 0.0075 0.01

::00. 1 NC � 1 .5 0.005 0.0 1 0.2 0.0 0.0075 0.01

�0.4 NC ::0 1 . 2 0.0 0.0075 0.0 0.0 0.005 0.0075

�0.4 NC �1.5 0.0 0.0075 0.0 0.0 0.005 0.0075

'Values between those listed in the table shall be determined by linear interpolation.
tP is the design axial force on the column above the joint calculated using limit-state analysis procedures in accordance with 4.2.4, and A is the gross cross-sectional area of the joint.
g
tc and NC are abbreviations for conforming and nonconforming transverse reinforcement, respectively. Joint transverse reinforcement is conforming if hoops are spaced at :::; hj2
within the joint. Otherwise, the transverse reinforcement is considered nonconforming.
§ V is the shear force from NSP or NDP, and V1 is the shear strength for the joint. The shear strength shall be calculated according to 4.2.3.

a) Jacketing existing beams, columns, or j oints with

new reinforced concrete, steel, or fiber-reinforced polymer
wrap overlays. Where reinforced concrete jackets are used,
the design should provide detailing to enhance ductility.
Component strength should not exceed any limiting strength
of connections with adjacent components. Jackets should
be designed to provide increased connection strength and
improved continuity between adj acent components (FEMA
547-07, 12.4.4, 1 2.4.5, and 12.4.6).
b) Post-tensioning existing beams, columns, or joints
using external post-tensioning reinforcement. Post-tensioned
reinforcement should be unbonded within a distance equal
to twice the effective depth from sections where inelastic
action is expected. Anchorages should be located away from

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 43

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

regions where inelastic action is anticipated and should be

designed with consideration of possible force variations
from seismic forces.
c) Modifying the element by selective material removal
from the existing element. Examples include: i) where
nonstructural components interact with the frame, elimi­
nating this interference by removing or separating the
nonstructural component from the frame; ii) weakening
from concrete removal or severing longitudinal reinforce­
ment to change the response from a nonductile to a more
ductile mode-for example, weakening beams to promote
formation of a strong-column, weak-beam system; and iii)
segmenting walls to change stiffness and strength.
d) Improving deficient existing reinforcement details.
Removal of cover concrete to modify existing reinforce­
ment details should avoid damage to core concrete and the
bond between existing reinforcement and core concrete.
New cover concrete should be designed and constructed to
achieve fully composite action with the existing materials
(FEMA 547-07, 1 2.4.4, 1 2.4.5, and 1 2.4.6).
e) Changing the building system to reduce demands on
the existing elements. Examples include addition of supple­
mentary seismic-force-resisting elements, such as walls or
buttresses, seismic isolation, and mass reduction (FEMA
547-07 Chapter 24).
t) Changing the frame element to a shear wall, infilled
frame, or braced frame element by adding new material.
Connections between new and existing materials should
be designed to transfer the anticipated forces based on the
design load combinations. Where the existing concrete frame
columns and beams act as boundary components and collec­
tors for the new shear wall or braced frame, these should be
checked for adequacy, considering strength, reinforcement
development, and deformability. Diaphragms, including ties
and collectors, should be evaluated and if necessary, reha­
bilitated to ensure a complete load path to the new shear wall
or braced frame element (FEMA 547-07, 1 2.4. 1 and 1 2.4.2).

4.3-Post-tensioned concrete beam-column C4.3-Post-tensioned concrete beam-column

moment frames moment frames
4.3.1 General-The analytical model for a post-tensioned
concrete beam-column frame element shall be established
as specified in 4.2. 1 for reinforced concrete beam-column
moment frames. In addition to potential failure modes
described in 4.2. 1 , the analysis model shall consider poten­
tial failure of tendon anchorages.
The analysis procedures described in Chapter 7 of ASCE
4 1 - 1 7 apply to frames with post-tensioned beams satisfying
the following conditions:
a) The average prestress J;,c calculated for an area equal
to the product of the shortest and the perpendicular cross­
sectional dimensions of the beam does not exceed the greater
of 5 MPa or f�d 12 at locations of nonlinear action.
b) Prestressing tendons do not provide more than one­
fourth of the strength at the joint face for both positive and
negative moments.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

44 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

c) Anchorages for tendons are demonstrated to have

performed satisfactorily for seismic forces in compliance
with ACI 3 1 8M requirements. These anchorages shall occur
outside hinging areas or joints, except in existing components
where experimental evidence demonstrates that the connec­
tion meets the performance objectives under design loadings.
Alternative procedures shall be used where these condi­
tions are not satisfied.

4.3.2 Stiffness of post-tensioned concrete beam-column

momentframes

4.3.2.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-Beams

shall be modeled considering flexural and shear stiffnesses,
including the effect of the slab acting as a flange in mono­
lithic and composite construction. Columns shall be modeled
considering flexural, shear, and axial stiffnesses. Refer to
3 . 1 .2 for effective stiffness computations. Refer to 4.2.2. 1
for modeling of joint stiffness.

4.3.2.2 Nonlinear static procedure-Nonlinear load­

deformation relations shall comply with 5 . 1 .2 and reinforced
concrete frame requirements of 4.2.2.2.
Values of the generalized deformation at Points B, C,
and D in Fig. 1 shall be derived either from experiments
or from approved rational analyses, considering the inter­
actions among flexure, axial load, and shear. Alternatively,
where the generalized deformation is taken as rotation in the
flexural plastic hinge zone and the three conditions of 4.3 . 1
are satisfied, beam plastic hinge rotation capacities shall be
permitted to be as defined in Table 7. Columns and joints
shall be modeled as described in 4.2.2.

4.3.2.3 Nonlinear dynamic procedure-For the NDP, the

complete hysteretic behavior of each component shall be
modeled using properties verified by experimental evidence.
Figure 1 shall be taken to represent the envelope relation for
the analysis. Unloading and reloading properties shall repre­
sent significant stiffness and strength degradation character­
istics as influenced by prestressing.

4.3.3 Strength of post-tensioned concrete beam-column

-
moment frames Component strengths shall be computed
according to the general requirements of 3 .2 and additional
requirements of 4.2.3. Effects of prestressing on strength
shall be considered.
For deformation-controlled actions, prestress shall be
assumed effective to determine the maximum actions that
can be developed in association with nonlinear response
of the frame. For force-controlled actions, the effects on
strength of prestress loss shall be considered as a design
condition, where such losses are possible under design load
combinations including inelastic deformation reversals.

4.3.4 Acceptance criteria for post-tensioned concrete beam­

-
column moment frames Acceptance criteria for post-

(ciCIJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 45

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

Table 1 3-Numerical acceptance criteria for l inear procedures-reinforced concrete beams

.
m-factors

Performance level

Component type

Primary Secondary

Conditions 10 LS CP LS CP

Condition i : Beams controlled by flexure!

§
p - p' v
Transverse
Pbt'' bwd JJ:;
reinforcement!

�0.0 c �0.25 3 6 7 6 10

�0.0 c �0.5 2 3 4 3 5

�0. 5 c �0.25 2 3 4 3 5

�0. 5 c �0.5 2 2 3 2 4

�0.0 NC �0.25 2 3 4 3 5

�0.0 NC �0.5 1 .25 2 3 2 4

�0.5 NC �0.25 2 3 3 3 4

�0.5 NC �0.5 1 .25 2 2 2 3

Condition ii: Beams controlled by sheart

Stirrup spacing � d/2 1 .25 1 .5 1 .75 3 4

Stirrup spacing > d/2 1 .25 1 .5 1 .75 2 3

Condition iii: Beams controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the spant

Stirrup spacing � d/2 1 .25 1 .5 1 .75 3 4

Stirrup spacing > d/2 1 .25 1.5 1 .75 2 3

Condition iv: Beams controlled by inadequate embedment into beam-column joint!

2 2 3 3 4

'Values between those listed in the table shall be determined by linear interpolation.
twhere more than one of Conditions i, ii, iii, and iv occurs for a given component, use the minimum appropriate numerical value from the table.
!C and NC are abbreviations for conforming and nonconforming transverse reinforcement. Transverse reinforcement is conforming if, within the flexural plastic hinge region, hoops
are spaced at less than or equal to d/3 and if, for components of moderate and high ductility demand, the strength provided by the hoops ( V,) is at least three-fourths of the design
shear. Otherwise, the transverse reinforcement is considered nonconforming.
§ V is the shear force calculated using limit-state analysis procedures in accordance with 4.2.4. 1 .
Note: fc£' in MPa.

tensioned concrete beam-column moment frames shall

follow the criteria for reinforced concrete beam-column
frames specified in 4.2.4.
Modeling parameters and acceptance criteria shall be
based on Tables 7 through 10, 1 3 , and 14.

4.3.5 Retrofit measures for post-tensioned concrete beam­ C4.3.5 Retrofit measures for post-tensioned concrete
column moment frames Seismic retrofit measures for post­
- beam-column momentframes Retrofit measures described
-

tensioned concrete beam-column moment frames shall meet in C4.2.5 for reinforced concrete beam-column moment
the requirements of 3 .7 and other provisions of this standard frames can be effective in retrofit of post-tensioned concrete
and ASCE 41 . beam-column moment frames. Further retrofit measures can
be found in FEMA 54 7.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

46 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Table 1 4-Numerical acceptance criteria for linear procedures-reinforced concrete beam-column joints
.
m-factors

Performance level

Component type

Primary Secondary

Conditions 10 LS CP LS CP

Condition i : Interior joints (for classification ofjoints, refer to Fig. 3)

t
p v§
Transverse
-- -

Aj;� reinforcement!
VJ

:SO. I c ::01 .2 I I I 3 4

:SO. I c 2: 1 .5 I I I 2 3

2:0.4 c ::0 1 .2 I I I 3 4

2:0.4 c 2: 1 .5 I I I 2 3

:SO. I NC ::01 .2 I I I 2 3

:SO. I NC 2: 1 .5 I I I 2 3

2:0.4 NC ::01 .2 I I I 2 3

2:0.4 NC 2: 1 .5 I I I 2 3

Condition ii: Other joints (for classification of joints, refer to Fig. 3)

p t
-- v§
Transverse -

AJ;£ reinforcement!
VJ

:;SO. I c ::0 1 .2 I I I 3 4

:SO. I c 2: 1 .5 I I I 2 3

2:0.4 c :::; 1 .2 I I I 3 4

2:0.4 c 2: 1 .5 I I I 2 3

:SO. I NC ::0 1 .2 I I I 2 3

:SO. I NC 2: 1 .5 I I I 2 3

2:0.4 NC ::0 1 .2 I I I 1 .5 2

2:0.4 NC 2: 1 .5 I I I 1 .5 2

'Values between those listed in the table shall be determined by linear interpolation.
tp is the design axial force on the column above the joint calculated using limit-state analysis procedures in accordance with 4.2.4. Ag is the gross cross-sectional area of the joint.
l V is the shear force and V1 is the shear strength for the joint. The design shear force and shear strength shall be calculated according to 4.2.4. 1 and 4.2.3, respectively.
§C and NC are abbreviations for conforming and nonconforming transverse reinforcement, respectively. Transverse reinforcement is conforming if hoops are spaced at less than or
equal to hj2 within the joint. Otherwise, the transverse reinforcement is considered nonconforming.

4.4-Siab-column moment frames C4.4-Siab-column moment frames

4.4. 1 General-The analytical model for a slab-column
frame element shall represent strength, stiffness, and defor­
mation capacity of slabs, columns, slab-column connections,
and other components of the frame. The connection between
the columns and foundation shall be modeled based on the
details of the column-foundation connection and rigidity
of the foundation-soil system. Potential failure in flexure,
shear, shear-moment transfer (punching shear), and rein­
forcement development at any section along the component
length shall be considered. The effects of changes in cross
section, slab openings, and interaction with structural and
nonstructural components shall be considered.
C4.4.1 General-The stiffness of a slab-column frame is
highly dependent on the ratio of the column cross section
dimensions (c1 and c2) to the slab plan dimensions (£1 and £2).
Approaches for modeling slab-column frame systems
differ primarily in how slab stiffness is incorporated in the
analytical model.
a) Effective beam width model: Slab element width
is reduced to adjust the elastic stiffness to more closely
match measured values (Pecknold 1 975). Column behavior
and slab-column moment and shear transfer are modeled
separately.
b) Equivalent frame model: Shear and flexure in the slab
beyond the width of the column are assumed to be trans-

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
An analytical model ofthe slab-column frame based on any
of the following approaches shall be permitted to be used:
a) Effective beam width model: Columns and slabs are
represented by line elements rigidly interconnected at the
slab-column connection, where the slab width included in
the model is adjusted to account for flexibility of the slab­
column connection.
b) Equivalent frame model: Columns and slabs are
represented by line elements, and stiffness of column or slab
elements is adjusted to account for flexibility of the slab­
column connection.
c) Finite element model: Columns are represented by line
elements and the slab by plate-bending elements.
4.4.2 Stiffness ofslab-column momentframes
4.4.2.1 Linear static and dynamicprocedures-Slabs shall be
modeled considering flexural, shear, and torsional (in the slab
adjacent to the column) stiffnesses. Columns shall be modeled
considering flexural, shear, and axial stiffnesses. Slab-column
connections shall be modeled as stiff or rigid components.
Although effective component stiffnesses shall be determined
according to the general principles of 3 . 1 .2, adjustments shall
be permitted based on experimental evidence.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
47
COMMENTARY
ferred to the column through torsional elements perpendic­
ular to the slab span direction (Vanderbilt and Corley 1 983).
Flexibility of the torsional elements reduces the elastic stiff­
ness of the overall frame. Although it is possible to model
them separately, torsional elements are typically lumped
with columns or the slab to produce a frame with equivalent
stiffness (Chapter 8 ofACI 3 1 8M- 1 4).
c) Finite element model: The slab distortion is modeled
explicitly using finite elements.
Each approach is considered acceptable for analytical
modeling of slab-column frames. Research has shown that
the effective beam approach tends to overestimate lateral
stiffness, whereas the equivalent frame approach tends
to underestimate lateral stiffness of slab-column systems
responding in the elastic range (Hwang and Moehle 2000).
For either approach, the elastic stiffness should be reduced
further to account for cracking in slab-column systems
responding in the inelastic range (Luo et a!. 1 994; Hwang
and Moehle 2000; Dovich and Wight 2005).
C4.4.2 Stiffness ofslab-column momentframes
C4.4.2.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-
a) Effective beam width model: Allen and Darvall ( 1 977)
provide tables of effective width coefficients for different
combinations of plate aspect ratios ( £H2) and column width­
to-slab span ratios (c 1 /£1 or c2/£1). Research indicates that the
effective width of exterior bays should be less than the effec­
tive width of interior bays because of the higher flexibility of
one-sided slab-column connections at the frame end. Hwang
and Moehle (2000) provide equations for effective width
that show the relationship between exterior and interior bays
is approximately one-half.
Equation (C2) can be used instead of tables from Allen
and Darvall ( 1977).
For interior bays: beff = 2c1 + £ 1/3 (C2a)
For exterior bays: bejj = C J + e!/6 (C2b)
where beff is the effective slab width.
To account for cracking from temperature, shrinkage, or
nonlinear response, slab stiffness determined using gross
section properties based on the aforementioned guidance
should be reduced by an effective stiffness factor �eff· There
is general agreement that �eff= 1/3 is appropriate for nonpre­
stressed slabs (Vanderbilt and Corley 1 983). Somewhat
higher, yet conservative, values can be obtained using Eq.
(C3) from Hwang and Moehle (2000)
(C3)
For prestressed post-tensioned slabs, it is generally agreed
that higher values of �eff are appropriate (�eff = 1 /2) because
of reduced cracking caused by prestressing (Kang and
Wallace 2005).
48 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Table 1 5-Modeling parameters and nu merical acceptance criteria for non l i near procedures: two-way
slabs and slab-column
.
Modeling parameters Acceptance criteria·

Plastic rotation angle, rad

Performance level
Residual
Plastic rotation angle, rad strength ratio Secondary

Conditions a b c 10 LS CP

Condition i : reinforced concrete slab-column connections!

v :
__§_
Continuity
vo reinforcement§

0 Yes 0.035 0.05 0.2 0.0 1 0.035 0.05

0.2 Yes 0.03 0.04 0.2 0.0 1 0.03 0.04

0.4 Yes 0.02 0.03 0.2 0 0.02 0.03

�0.6 Yes 0 0.02 0 0 0 0.02

0 No 0.025 0.025 0 0.0 1 0.02 0.025

0.2 No 0.02 0.02 0 0.0 1 0.0 1 5 0.02

0.4 No 0.0 1 0.01 0 0 0.008 0.0 1

0.6 No 0 0 0 0 0 0

>0.6 No 0 0 0 _ II _ II _jJ

Condition ii: Post-tensioned slab-column connections!

v :
__§_
Continuity
vo reinforcement§

0 Yes 0.035 0.05 0.4 0.0 1 0.035 0.05

0.6 Yes 0.005 0.03 0.2 0 0.025 0.03

>0.6 Yes 0 0.02 0.2 0 0.0 1 5 0.02

0 No 0.025 0.025 0 0.0 1 0.02 0.025

0.6 No 0 0 0 0 0 0

>0.6 No 0 0 0 _ II _ II _jJ

Condition iii: slabs controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the spant

0 0.02 0 0 0.0 1 0.02

Condition iv: slabs controlled by inadequate embedment into slab-column joint!

O.D l 5 0.03 0.2 0.0 1 0.02 0.03

'Values between those listed in the table shall be determined by linear interpolation.
twhere more than one of Conditions i, ii, iii, and iv occur for a given component, use the minimum appropriate numerical value from the table.
l Vg is the gravity shear acting on the slab critical section as defined by ACI 3 1 8M, and V., is the direct punching shear strength as defined by ACI 3 1 8M.
§ "Yes" shall be used where the area of effectively continuous main bottom bars passing through the column cage in each direction is greater than or equal to 0.5 V,!(<!>};). Where the
slab is post-tensioned, "Yes" shall be used where at least one of the post-tensioning tendons in each direction passes through the column cage. Otherwise, "No" shall be used.
§Action shall be treated as force-controlled.

b) Equivalent frame model: Column, slab-beam, and

torsional connection element properties for the equivalent
frame model are defined in Chapter 8 of ACI 3 1 8M- 14. To
account for cracking caused by temperature, shrinkage, or
nonlinear response, the stiffness of the torsional connection
element based on gross section properties defined in ACI
3 1 8M should be multiplied by a factor of 1 13 .

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
4.4.2.2 Nonlinear static procedure-Nonlinear load­
deformation relations shall comply with the requirements
of 3 . 1 .2. Nonlinear modeling parameters for slab-column
connections are provided in Table 1 5 .
Nonlinear static models shall be capable of representing
inelastic response along the component length, except where
it is shown by equilibrium that yielding is restricted to the
component ends.
Idealized load-deformation relations shall be modeled
using the generalized relation shown in Fig. 1 . The overall
load-deformation relation shall be established so that the
maximum resistance is consistent with the strength speci­
fications of 3 .2 and 4.4.3. For columns, the generalized
deformation shown in Fig. 1 is flexural plastic hinge rotation
with parameters as defined in Table 8 and 9. For slabs and slab­
column connections, the generalized deformation shown in
Fig. 1 is plastic rotation with parameters as defined in Table 15 .
Different relations shall be permitted where verified by experi­
mentally obtained cyclic response relations of slab-column
subassemblies.
4.4.2.3 Nonlinear dynamic procedure-The requirements
of 3 .2 and 4.2.2.3 for reinforced concrete beam-column
moment frames shall apply to slab-column moment frames.
4.4.3 Strength of slab-column moment frames Compo­ -
nent strengths shall be computed according to the general
requirements of 4.2, as modified in this section. For columns,
evaluation of shear strength according to 4.2.3 shall be
permitted to be used.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
49
COMMENTARY
C4.4.2.2 Nonlinear static procedure-The values
provided in Table 1 5 are used to assess punching failures
at slab-column connections. Elwood et al. (2007) provide
a comparison of the modeling parameters in Table 1 5 and
test data summarized by Kang and Wallace (2006). Lateral
drift ratio is typically reported for test data; therefore, plastic
rotations were derived from the test data assuming column
deformations were negligible and yield rotations of O.Ol and
0.0 1 5 radians for reinforced concrete and post-tensioned
slabs, respectively. The larger rotation value for post­
tensioned connections reflects the larger span-to-slab thick­
ness ratios common for this type of construction. Continuity
reinforcement for reinforced concrete connections is based
on ACI 3 52R.
Plastic rotation values are approximately mean and
mean-minus-one standard deviation values for connections
with and without continuity reinforcement, respectively.
Mean-minus-one standard deviation values give total (yield
plus plastic) rotation values that are close to the maximum
drift values allowed by ACI 3 1 8M- 1 4, 1 8. 14.5. 1 , without
the use of slab shear reinforcement. Few data exist for rein­
forced concrete connections subjected to gravity shear ratios
greater than 0.6 and for post-tensioned connections subjected
to reverse cyclic loading. The residual strength capacity for
post-tensioned connections is based on test results reported
by Qaisrani ( 1 993). Although relatively few tests have been
reported for edge connections, the limited data available
suggest that the relationship between rotation and gravity
shear ratio for exterior connections is similar to the trend for
interior connections.
Modeling of slab-column connections is commonly
accomplished using beam elements to represent the slab and
a rigid-plastic torsional member to represent moment and
shear transfer at the connection between slab and column
(Fig. C2) (Elwood et al. 2007). If the punching capacity of
the slab-column connection is insufficient to develop the
nominal capacity for the developed slab flexural reinforce­
ment provided within the column strip, then all yielding is
assumed to occur in the torsional element using the modeling
parameters provided in Table 1 5 . For strong connections
where yielding of slab reinforcement within the column strip
is expected, plastic rotations should be modeled only within
the beam elements framing into the torsional element using
the plastic rotation modeling parameters provided in Table
1 5 to define the plastic hinges at the beam ends.
C4.4.3 Strength ofslab-column momentframes Alterna­-
tive expressions for calculating moment transfer strength of
interior and exterior slab-column connections can be found
in Luo et al. (1 994), and detailed modeling recommenda­
tions for reinforced and post-tensioned concrete slab-column
50 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

The flexural strength of a slab to resist moment caused by

Elastic column
lateral deformations shall be calculated as Msecs£ - MguD.cs-
Slab-column connections shall be investigated for poten­
tial failure in shear and moment transfer, considering the
combined action of flexure, shear, and torsion acting in the Slab-beam plastic hinge
slab at the connection with the column.
For interior connections without transverse beams and Elastic slab beam

exterior connections with moment about an axis perpendic­

ular to the slab edge, the shear and moment transfer strength,
or the torsional element strength, shall be permitted to be
calculated as the minimum of: 8
a) Strength calculated considering eccentricity of shear
on a slab-critical section because of combined shear and
Plastic hinges for slab beams Elastic relation for slab beam
moment in accordance with ACI 3 1 8M. or for torsional element or column
b) Moment transfer strength equal to Lfi1seEl'fr, where
'Slab-beams and columns only connected by rigid-plastic torsional connection element.
Lfi1se£ is the sum of positive and negative flexural strengths
of a section of slab between lines that are two-and-one-half Fig. C2-Modeling of slab-column connection.
slab or drop panel thicknesses outside opposite faces of
the column or capital; and Yr is the fraction of the moment frames, as well as comparisons with shake table tests, can be
resisted by flexure per ACI 3 1 8M. found in Kang et a!. (2009).
For moment about an axis parallel to slab edge at exte­
rior connections without transverse beams, where the shear
on the slab critical section caused by gravity loads does not
exceed 0.75 VcPun£ or the shear at a corner support does not
exceed 0.5 VcPun£, the moment transfer strength shall be
permitted to be taken as equal to the flexural strength of a
section of slab between lines that are a distance c1 outside
opposite faces of the column or capital.

4.4.4 Acceptance criteria for slab-column moment frames

4.4.4.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-Compo­

nent actions shall be classified as being deformation­
controlled or force-controlled, as defined in 3.2. 1 . In
primary components, deformation-controlled actions shall
be restricted to flexure in slabs and columns, and shear and
moment transfer in slab-column connections. In secondary
components, deformation-controlled actions are permitted
in shear and reinforcement development (Table 1 6). All
other actions shall be classified as force-controlled.
Design actions on components shall be determined as
prescribed in Chapter 7 ofASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Where the calculated
DCR values exceed unity, the following design actions shall
be determined using limit analysis principles as prescribed
in Chapter 7 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 :
a) Moments, shears, torsions, and development and splice
actions corresponding to the development of component
strength in slabs and columns
b) Axial load in columns, considering likely plastic action
in components above the level in question
Design actions shall be compared with strengths in accor­
dance with 5.5 .2.2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, and m-factors for slab­
column frame components should be selected from Tables 9
and 1 6.
Where the average DCRs for columns at a level exceed
the average value for slabs at the same level and exceed

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 51

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

Table 1 6-Numerical acceptance criteria for l inear procedures: two-way slabs and slab-column
.
m-factors

Performance level

Component type

Primary Secondary

Conditions 10 LS CP LS CP

Condition i : reinforced concrete slab-column connections!

v t
...JL Continuity
vo
reinforcement!

0 Yes 2 2.75 3.5 3.5 4.5

0.2 Yes 1 .5 2.5 3 3 3.75

0.4 Yes I 2 2.25 2.25 3

�0.6 Yes I I I I 2.25

0 No 2 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.75

0.2 No 1.5 2 2 2 2.25

0.4 No I 1 .5 1 .5 1 .5 1 .75

0.6 No I I I I I

>0.6 No _ II _ II _ II _ jl _ II

Condition ii: post-tensioned slab-column connections!

v t
...JL Continuity
vo
reinforcement!

0 Yes 1 .5 2 2.5 2.5 3.25

0.6 Yes 1 1 1 2 2.25

>0.6 Yes 1 I 1 1 .5 1 .75

0 No 1 .25 1 .75 1 .75 1 .75 2

0.6 No I I I I I

>0.6 No _ II _ II _ II _ jl _ II

Condition iii: slabs controlled by inadequate development or splicing along the spant

_ II _ II _ II 3 4

Condition iv: slabs controlled by inadequate embedment into slab-column joint!

2 2 3 3 4
"Values between those listed in the table shall be determined by linear interpolation.
twhcrc more than one of conditions i, ii, iii, and iv occur for a given component, use the minimum appropriate numerical value from the table.
l Vg is the gravity shear acting on the slab critical section as defined by ACI 3 1 8M, and V, is the direct punching shear strength as defined by ACI 3 1 8M.
§"Yes" shall be used where the area of effectively continuous main bottom bars passing through the column cage in each direction is greater than or equal to O.S V/(<1>};). Where the
slab is post-tensioned, "Yes" shall be used where at least one of the posttensioning tendons in each direction passes through the column cage. Otherwise, "No" shall be used.
IIAction shall be treated as force-controlled.

the greater of 1 .0 and m/2, the element shall be defined as a

weak story element and shall be evaluated by the procedure
for weak story elements in 4.2.4. 1 .

4.4.4.2 Nonlinear static and dynamic procedures­
Inelastic response shall be restricted to actions in Tables 8
and 1 5 , except where it is demonstrated by experimental
evidence and analysis that other inelastic actions are accept-
C4.4.4.2 Nonlinear static and dynamic procedures­
Section C4.4.2.2 has a discussion ofTable 1 5 and acceptance
criteria for reinforced concrete slab-column connections.
Section C4.2.2.2 has a discussion of Table 8 and acceptance
criteria for reinforced concrete columns.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

52 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

able for the selected performance levels. Other actions shall

be defined as force-controlled.
Calculated component actions shall satisfy the require­
ments of 5 .5.3.2 of ASCE 4 1 - 17. Maximum permissible
inelastic deformations shall be taken from Tables 8 and
1 5. Alternative values shall be permitted where justified by
experimental evidence and analysis.

4.4.5 Retrofit measures for slab-column momentframes­ C4.4.5 Retrofit measures for slab-column moment
Seismic retrofit measures for slab-column moment frames fram es Retrofit measures described in C4.2.5 for rein­
-

shall meet the requirements of 3 . 7 and other provisions of forced concrete beam-column moment frames can also be
this standard. effective in rehabilitating reinforced concrete slab-column
moment frames. Further retrofit measures are found in
FEMA 547.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 53

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

CHAPTER 5-PRECAST CONCRETE FRAM ES

5.1-Types of precast concrete frames C5. 1 -Types of precast concrete frames

Precast concrete frames shall be defined as those elements
constructed from individually made beams and columns
assembled to resist externally applied loads through frame
action. These systems shall include those that are consid­
ered in design to resist seismic forces and those that are
considered in design as secondary elements that do not resist
seismic forces but must resist the effects of deformations
resulting from seismic forces.

5.1.1 Precast concrete frames expected to resist seismic C5.1.1 Precast concrete frames expected to resist seismic
forces Frames of this classification are assembled using
- forces-These systems are recognized and accepted by
either wet or dry joints (connections are made by bolting, FEMA P-750 and are based on ACI 3 1 8M, which speci­
welding, post-tensioning, or other similar means) in a way fies safety and serviceability levels expected from precast
that results in significant seismic force resistance in the frame concrete frame construction. In the referenced documents,
element. Frames of this classification resist seismic forces precast frames are not classified by the method of construc­
either acting alone or acting in conjunction with shear walls, tion (wet or dry j oints), but by the expected behavior
braced frames, or other seismic-force-resisting elements. resulting from the detailing used. In addition to recognizing
varying levels of ductile performance as a result of overall
frame detailing, ACI 3 1 8M- 14, 1 8.9.2. 1 , 1 8 .9.2.2, and
1 8 .9.2.3, acknowledge three types of unit-to-unit connec­
tions that can result in the highest level of performance.
Such connections are either strong or ductile, as defined in
4.2, 1 8.9.2 . 1 , 1 8 .9.2.2, and 1 8.9.2.3 ofACI 3 1 8M- 1 4 or have
demonstrated acceptable performance where tested in accor­
dance with ACI 374. 1 .
5.1.2 Precast concrete frames not expected to resist
seismic forces directly-Frames of this classification shall
be assembled using dry joints in a way that does not result
in significant seismic force resistance in the frame element.
Other structural elements or systems such as shear walls,
braced frames, or moment frames provide the entire seismic
force resistance, with the precast concrete frame system
deforming in a manner that is compatible with the structure
as a whole.

5.2-Precast concrete frames expected to resist C5.2-Precast concrete frames expected to resist
seismic forces seism ic forces
5.2.1 General-The analytical model for a frame element
of this classification shall represent strength, stiffness, and
deformation capacity of beams, columns, beam-column
joints, and other components of the frame. Potential failure
in flexure, shear, and reinforcement development at any
section along the component length shall be considered.
Interaction with other components, including nonstructural
components, shall be included. All other considerations of
4.2 . 1 shall be taken into account. In addition, the effects of
shortening caused by creep, and other effects of prestressing
and post-tensioning on member behavior, shall be evaluated.
Where dry joints are used in assembling the precast system,
consideration shall be given to the effect of those joints on
overall behavior. Where connections yield under the speci­
fied seismic forces, the analysis model shall take this effect
into account.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

54 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

5.2.2 Stiffness ofprecast concreteframes expected to resist

-
seismic forces Stiffness for analysis shall be as defined in
4.2.2. The effects of prestressing shall be considered where
computing the effective stiffness values using Table 5 . Flex­
ibilities associated with connections shall be included in the
analytical model.

5.2.3 Strength ofprecast concreteframes expected to resist

seismic forces-Component strength shall be computed
according to the requirements of 4.2.3, with the additional
requirement that the following effects be included in the
analysis:
a) Effects of prestressing that are present, including but not
limited to reduction in rotation capacity, secondary stresses
induced, and amount of effective prestress force remaining
b) Effects of construction sequence, including the possi­
bility of construction of the moment connections occurring
after portions of the structure are subjected to dead loads
c) Effects of restraint caused by interaction with intercon­
nected wall or brace components
d) Effects of connection strength, considered in accor­
dance with 3 . 6

5.2.4 Acceptance criteria for precast concrete frames

-
expected to resist seismic forces Acceptance criteria for
precast concrete frames expected to resist seismic forces
shall be as specified in 4.2.4, except that the factors defined
in 5.2.3 shall also be considered. Connections shall comply
with the requirements of 3.6.

5.2.5 Retrofit measures for precast concrete frames
-
expected to resist seismic forces Seismic retrofit measures
for precast concrete frames shall meet the requirements of
3. 7 and other provisions of this standard and ASCE 4 1 .
C5.2.5 Retrofit measures for precast concrete frames
expected to resist seismic forces-The retrofit measures
described in C4.2.5 for reinforced concrete beam-column
moment frames can also be effective in retrofitting precast
concrete moment frames. When installing new components
or materials to the existing system, existing prestressing
strands should be protected.

5.3-Precast concrete frames not expected to C5.3-Precast concrete frames not expected to
resist seismic forces directly resist seismic forces directly
5.3.1 General-The analytical model for precast concrete
frames that are not expected to resist seismic forces directly
shall comply with the requirements of 5 .2. 1 and shall include
the effects of deformations that are calculated to occur under
the specified seismic loadings.

5.3.2 Stiffness of precast concrete frames not expected
to resist seismic forces directly-The analytical model
shall include realistic lateral stiffness of these frames to
evaluate the effects of deformations under seismic forces.
If the lateral stiffness is ignored in the analytical model, the
effects of calculated building drift on these frames shall be
evaluated separately. The analytical model shall consider
the negative effects of connection stiffness on component
response where that stiffness results in actions that can cause
component failure.
C5.3.2 Stiffness ofprecast concrete frames not expected
to resist seismic forces directly-The stiffness used in
the analysis should consider possible resistance that can
develop under lateral deformation. In some cases, it may
be appropriate to assume zero lateral stiffness. The North­
ridge earthquake graphically demonstrated that there are few
instances where the precast column can be considered to be
completely pinned top and bottom and, as a consequence,
not resist any shear from building drift. Several parking

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 55

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

structures collapsed as a result of this lack of fixity. Conser­

vative assumptions should be made.

5.3.3 Strength of precast concrete frames not expected

to resist seismic forces directly-Component strength shall
be computed according to the requirements of 5.2.3. All
components shall have sufficient strength and ductility to
transmit induced forces from one member to another and to
the designated seismic-force-resisting system.

5.3.4 Acceptance criteria for precast concrete frames

not expected to resist seismic forces directly-Acceptance
criteria for components in precast concrete frames not
expected to resist seismic forces directly shall be as specified
in 5.2.4. All moments, shear forces, and axial loads induced
through the deformation of the structural system shall be
checked using appropriate criteria in the referenced section.

5.3.5 Retrofit measures for precast concrete frames not
expected to resist seismic forces directly-Seismic retrofit
measures for precast moment frames shall meet the require­
ments of 3.7 and other provisions herein.
C5.3.5 Retrofit measures for precast concrete frames
not expected to resist seismic forces directly-The retrofit
measures described in C4.2.5 for reinforced concrete beam­
column moment frames can also be effective in retrofitting
precast concrete frames not expected to resist seismic forces
directly. When installing new components or materials to
the existing system, existing prestressing strands should be
protected.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

56 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

CHAPTER 6-CONCRETE FRAMES WITH IN FILLS

6. 1 -Types of concrete frames with infills C6.1 -Types of concrete frames with infills
Concrete frames with infills consist of complete gravity-load­
canying concrete frames infilled with masoruy or concrete,
constructed in such a way that the infill and the concrete frame
interact when subjected to gravity and seismic forces.
Infills are considered to be isolated from the surrounding
frame when the minimum gap requirements specified in
1 1 .4. 1 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 are satisfied. If all infills in a frame
are isolated, the frame shall be analyzed as an isolated frame
according to provisions given in Chapters 6, 7, and 1 1 , and
the isolated infill panels shall be analyzed according to the
requirements of Chapter 1 1 of ASCE 4 1 - 17.

6.1 . 1 Types offrames-The provisions of Chapter 6 shall

apply to concrete frames, as defined in Chapters 4, 5, and 9,
which interact with infills.

6.1.2 Masonry infills-The provisions of Chapter 4 shall

apply to masonry infills, as defined in Chapter 1 1 of ASCE
4 1 - 1 7, which interact with concrete frames.

6.1.3 Concrete infills-The provisions of Chapter 6 shall
apply to concrete infills that interact with concrete frames,
where the infills were constructed to fill the space within the
bay of a complete gravity frame without special provision
for continuity from story to story. The concrete of the infill
shall be evaluated separately from the concrete of the frame.
C6.1.3 Concrete infills-The construction of concrete­
infilled frames is similar to that of masonry-infilled frames,
except that the infill is of concrete instead ofmasonry units. In
older existing buildings, concrete infill commonly contains
nominal reinforcement, which often does not extend into the
surrounding frame elements. The concrete used in the infill
is often lower quality than that used in the frame elements
and should be evaluated separately from investigations of
the frame concrete.

6.2-Concrete frames with masonry infills C6.2-Concrete frames with masonry infills
6.2.1 General-The analytical model for a concrete C6.2.1 General-The licensed design professional is
frame with masoruy infills shall represent strength, stiff­ referred to FEMA 274 and FEMA 306 for additional infor­
ness, and deformation capacity of beams, slabs, columns, mation regarding the behavior of masoruy infills.
beam-column joints, masonry infills, and all connections
and components of the element. Potential failure in flexure,
shear, anchorage, reinforcement development, or crushing at
any section shall be considered. Interaction with nonstruc­
tural components shall be included.
For a concrete frame with masonry infill resisting seismic
forces within its plane, modeling of the response using a
linear elastic model shall be permitted, provided that the
infill does not crack when subjected to design seismic forces.
If the infill does not crack when subjected to design seismic
forces, modeling the assemblage of frame and infill as a
homogeneous medium shall be permitted.
For a concrete frame with masonry infills that cracks
when subjected to design seismic forces, modeling of the
response using a diagonally braced frame model, in which
the columns act as vertical chords, the beams act as hori­
zontal ties, and the infill acts as an equivalent compression
strut, shall be permitted. Requirements for the equivalent

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 57

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

compression strut analogy shall be as specified in Chapter

1 1 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
Frame components shall be evaluated for forces imparted
to them through interaction of the frame with the infill, as
specified in Chapter 1 1 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. In frames with
full-height masonry infills, the evaluation shall include the
effect of strut compression forces applied to the column and
beam, eccentric from the beam-column joint. In frames with
partial-height masonry infills, the evaluation shall include
the reduced effective length of the columns above the infilled
portion of the bay.

6.2.2 Stiffness ofconcrete frames with masonry infills

6.2.2.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-In frames

having infills in some bays and no infill in other bays, the
restraint of the infill shall be represented as described in 6.2. 1 .
Bays without infills shall b e modeled as frames as specified in
appropriate portions of Chapters 4, 5, and 9. Where infills are
discontinuous over the height, the effects of the discontinuity
on overall building performance shall be evaluated. Effective
stiffnesses shall be in accordance with 3 . 1 .2.

6.2.2.2 Nonlinear static procedure Nonlinear load­

-

deformation relations for use in analysis by the NSP shall

follow the requirements of 3 . 1 .2.2. Modeling beams and
columns using nonlinear truss elements shall be permitted
in infilled portions of the frame. Beams and columns in non­
infilled portions of the frame shall be modeled using the
relevant specifications of Chapters 4, 5, and 9. The model
shall be capable of representing inelastic response along the
component lengths.
Monotonic load-deformation relations shall be according
to the generalized relation shown in Fig. 1 , except different
relations shall be permitted where verified by tests. Numer­
ical quantities in Fig. 1 shall be derived from tests or by
analytical procedures, as specified in Chapter 7 of ASCE
4 1 - 1 7, and shall take into account the interaction between
frame and infill components. Alternatively, the following
procedure shall be permitted for monolithic reinforced
concrete frames:
a) For beams and columns in bays without infills, where
the generalized deformation is taken as rotation in the flex­
ural plastic hinge zone, the plastic hinge rotation capacities
shall be as defined by Tables 7 and 8.
b) For masonry infills, the generalized deformations and
control points shall be as defined in Chapter 1 1 of ASCE
4 1 - 1 7.
c) For beams and columns in bays with infills, where the
generalized deformation is taken as elongation or compres­
sion displacement of the beams or columns, the tension and
compression strain capacities shall be as specified in Table 1 7 .

6.2.2.3 Nonlinear dynamic procedure-Nonlinear load­

deformation relations for use in analysis by NDP shall
model the complete hysteretic behavior of each component

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

58 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Table 1 7-Modeling parameters and nu merical acceptance criteria for non l i near procedures-rei nforced
concrete infilled frames
Modeling parameters
. Acceptance criteria

Total strain
Residual
Total strain strength ratio Performance level

Conditions d e c 10 LS CP

i: Columns modeled as compression chordst

Columns confined along entire length! 0.02 0.04 0.4 0.003 0.03 0.04

All other cases 0.003 0.01 0.2 0.002 0.0 1 0.01

ii: Columns modeled as tension chords!

Columns with well-confined splices or no splices 0.05 0.05 0.0 0.0 1 0.04 0.05

All other cases § 0.03 0.2 - 0.02 0.03

'Interpolation shall not be permitted.

l]f load reversals result in both Conditions i and ii applying to a single column, both conditions shall be checked.
!A column shall be permitted to be considered confined along its entire length where the quantity of hoops along the entire story height including the joint is equal to three-fourths of
that required by ACI 3 1 8M for boundary components of concrete shear walls. The maximum longitudinal spacing of sets of hoops shall not exceed either h/3 or 8db.
§Potential for splice failure shall be evaluated directly to determine the modeling and acceptance criteria. For these cases, refer to the generalized procedure of6.3.2.

using properties verified by tests. Unloading and reloading

properties shall represent stiffness and strength degradation
characteristics.

6.2.3 Strength of concrete frames with masonry in/ills­

Strengths of reinforced concrete components shall be
calculated according to the general requirements of 3 .2, as
modified by other provisions of this standard. Strengths of
masonry infills shall be calculated according to the require­
ments of Chapter 1 1 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Strength calculations
shall consider the following:
a) Limitations imposed by beams, columns, and joints in
noninfilled portions of frames
b) Tensile and compressive capacity of columns acting as
boundary components of infilled frames
c) Local forces applied from the infill to the frame
d) Strength of the infill
e) Connections with adjacent components

6.2.4 Acceptance criteria for concrete frames with

masonry irifi.lls

6.2.4.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-All compo­

nent actions shall be classified as either deformation-controlled
or force-controlled, as defined in 7.5 . 1 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. In
primary components, deformation-controlled actions shall
be restricted to flexure and axial actions in beams, slabs, and
columns, and lateral deformations in masonry infill panels. In
secondary components, deformation-controlled actions shall
be restricted to those actions identified for the isolated frame
in Chapters 4, 5, and 9, as appropriate, and for the masonry
infill in 1 1 .4 ofASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
Design actions shall be determined as prescribed in
Chapter 7 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Where calculated DCR values

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 59

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

Table 1 8-Numerical acceptance criteria for linear procedures-reinforced concrete infil led frames
.
m-factors

Performance level

Component type

Primary Secondary

Conditions 10 LS CP LS CP

i : Columns modeled as compression chords!

Columns confined along entire lengthl I 3 4 4 5

All other cases I I I I I

ii: Columns modeled as tension chords!

Columns with well-confined splices or no splices 3 4 5 5 6

All other cases I 2 2 3 4

·Interpolation shall not be permitted.

l]fload reversals result in both Conditions i and ii applying to a single column, both conditions shall be checked.
lA column is permitted to be considered confined along its entire length where the quantity of hoops along the entire story height. including the joint, is equal to three-fourths of that
required by ACI 3 1 8M for boundary components of concrete shear walls. The maximum longitudinal spacing of sets of hoops shall not exceed either h/3 or 8d,.

exceed unity, the following design actions shall be deter­

mined using limit analysis principles as prescribed in
Chapter 7 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7: 1) moments, shears, torsions, and
development and splice actions corresponding to develop­
ment of component strength in beams, columns, or masonry
infills; and 2) column axial load corresponding to develop­
ment of the flexural capacity of the infilled frame acting as
a cantilever wall.
Design actions shall be compared with strengths in accor­
dance with 7.5.2.2 ofASCE 4 1 - 17.
Values ofm-factors shall be as specified in 1 1 .4.2.4 ofASCE
4 1 - 1 7 for masonry infills; applicable portions of Chapters 4, 5,
and 9 for concrete frames; and Table 1 8 for columns modeled
as tension and compression chords. Those components that
have design actions less than strengths shall be assumed to
satisfy the performance criteria for those components.

6.2.4.2 Nonlinear static and dynamic procedures-In

the design model, inelastic response shall be restricted to
those components and actions that are permitted for isolated
frames as specified in Chapters 4, 5, and 9, and for masonry
infills as specified in 1 1 .4 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
Calculated component actions shall satisfy the require­
ments of 7.5.3.2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 and shall not exceed the
numerical values listed in Table 17; the relevant tables for
isolated frames given in Chapters 4, 5, and 9; and the rele­
vant tables for masonry infills given in Chapter 1 1 of ASCE
4 1 - 1 7. Component actions not listed in Tables 7, 8, and 1 0
shall b e treated a s force-controlled. Alternative approaches
or values shall be permitted where justified by experimental
evidence and analysis.

6.2.5 Retrofit measures for concrete frames with masonry C6.2.5 Retrofit measures for concrete frames with
infills Seismic retrofit measures for concrete frames with
- masonry infills-The retrofit measures described in relevant
masonry infills shall meet the requirements of 3 .7 and other commentary of Chapters 4, 5 , and 9 for isolated frames,
provisions herein. and retrofit measures described in relevant commentary of

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org cCiC'iJ

60 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

1 1 .4 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 for masonry infills, can also be effec­

tive in retrofitting concrete frames with masonry infills. The
licensed design professional is referred to FEMA 308 for
further information in this regard. In addition, the following
retrofit measures can be effective in rehabilitating concrete
frames with infills:
a) Post-tensioning existing beams, columns, or joints
using external post-tensioned reinforcement. Vertical post­
tensioning can be effective in increasing tensile capacity of
columns acting as boundary zones. Anchorages should be
located away from regions where inelastic action is antici­
pated and should be designed considering possible force
variations caused by seismic forces.
b) Modification of the element by selective material
removal from the existing element. Either the infill should
be completely removed from the frame or gaps should be
provided between the frame and the infill. In the latter case,
the gap requirements of Chapter 1 1 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 should
be satisfied and adequate measures must be taken to guar­
antee the out-of-plane stability of the infill.
c) Changing the building system to reduce the demands on
the existing element. Examples include the addition of supple­
mentary seismic-force-resisting elements such as walls, steel
braces, or buttresses; seismic isolation; and mass reduction.

6.3-Concrete frames with concrete infills C6.3-Concrete frames with concrete infills
6.3.1 General-The analytical model for a concrete
frame with concrete infills shall represent the strength, stiff­
ness, and deformation capacity of beams, slabs, columns,
beam-column joints, concrete infills, and all connections
and components of the elements. Potential failure in flexure,
shear, anchorage, reinforcement development, or crushing at
any section shall be considered. Interaction with nonstruc­
tural components shall be included.
The analytical model shall be established considering the
relative stiffness and strength of the frame and the infill, as
well as the level of deformations and associated damage.
For low deformation levels, and for cases where the frame
is relatively flexible, the infilled frame shall be permitted to
be modeled as a shear wall, with openings modeled where
they occur. In other cases, the frame-infill system shall be
permitted to be modeled using a braced-frame analogy such as
that described for concrete frames with masonry infills in 6.2.
Frame components shall be evaluated for forces imparted to
them through interaction of the frame with the infill as speci­
fied in Chapter 1 1 of ASCE 41-17. In frames with full-height
infills, the evaluation shall include the effect of strut compres­
sion forces applied to the column and beam eccentric from
the beam-column joint. In frames with partial-height infills,
the evaluation shall include the reduced effective length of the
columns above the infilled portion of the bay.
In frames with infills in only some bays, the restraint of
the infill shall be represented as described in this section.
Bays without infills shall be modeled as frames as specified
in appropriate portions of Chapters 4, 5, and 9. Where infills
create a discontinuous wall over the height, the effects of

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 61

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

the discontinuity on overall building performance shall be

evaluated.

6.3.2 Stiffness ofconcrete frames with concrete infills

6.3.2.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-Effective

stiffnesses shall be calculated according to the principles of
3 . 1 .2 . 1 and the procedure of 6.2.2. 1 .

6.3.2.2 Nonlinear static procedure-Nonlinear load­

deformation relations for use in analysis by NSP shall follow
the requirements of 3 . 1 .2.2.
Monotonic load-deformation relations shall be according
to the generalized relation shown in Fig. 1 , except that
different relations shall be permitted where verified by tests.
Numerical quantities in Fig. 1 shall be derived from tests or
by analysis procedures specified in 7.6 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 and
shall take into account the interactions between frame and
infill components. Alternatively, the procedure of 4.2.2.2
shall be permitted for the development ofnonlinear modeling
parameters for concrete frames with concrete infills.

6.3.2.3 Nonlinear dynamic procedure-Nonlinear load­

deformation relations for use in analysis by NDP shall
model the complete hysteretic behavior of each component
using properties verified by tests. Unloading and reloading
properties shall represent stiffness and strength degradation
characteristics.

6.3.3 Strength of concrete frames with concrete irifills­

Strengths of reinforced concrete components shall be
calculated according to the general requirements of 4.2, as
modified by other specifications of this chapter. Strength
calculations shall consider the following:
a) Limitations imposed by beams, columns, and joints in
unfilled portions of frames
b) Tensile and compressive capacity of columns acting as
boundary components of infilled frames
c) Local forces applied from the infill to the frame
d) Strength of the infill
e) Connections with adjacent components
Strengths of existing concrete infills shall be determined
considering shear strength of the infill panel. For this calcu­
lation, procedures specified in 7.2.3 shall be used for calcu­
lation of the shear strength of a wall segment.
Where the frame and concrete infill are assumed to act
as a monolithic wall, flexural strength shall be based on
continuity of vertical reinforcement in both the columns
acting as boundary components and the infill wall, including
anchorage of the infill reinforcement in the boundary frame.

6.3.4 Acceptance criteria for concrete frames with

concrete irifills-The acceptance criteria for concrete frames
with concrete infills shall comply with relevant acceptance
criteria of 6.2.4, Chapter 7, and Chapter 8.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

62 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

6.3.5 Retrofit measures for concrete frames with concrete C6.3.5 Retrofit measuresfor concreteframes with concrete
inills Seismic retrofit measures for concrete frames with
f - infills Retrofit measures described in C6.2.5 for concrete
-

concrete infills shall meet the requirements of 3 . 7 and other
provisions of this standard and AS CE 4 1 .
frames with masonry infills can also be effective in reha­
bilitating concrete frames with concrete infills. In addition,
application of shotcrete to the face of an existing wall to
increase the thickness and shear strength can be effective.
For this purpose, the face of the existing wall should be
roughened, a mat of steel reinforcement should be doweled
into the existing structure, and shotcrete should be applied
to the desired thickness. The licensed design professional
is referred to FEMA 308 for further information regarding
retrofit of concrete frames with concrete inti!!.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 63

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

CHAPTER 7-CONCRETE STRUCTURAL WALLS

7.1 -Types of concrete structural walls and
associated components
The provisions of Chapter 7 shall apply to all reinforced
concrete structural walls in all types of structural systems
that incorporate reinforced concrete structural walls. These
types include isolated structural walls, structural walls used
in wall-frame systems, coupled structural walls, and discon­
tinuous structural walls. Structural walls shall be permitted
to be considered as solid walls if they have openings that do
not significantly influence the strength or inelastic behavior
of the wall. Perforated structural walls shall be defined as
walls that have a regular pattern of openings in both hori­
zontal and vertical directions that creates a series of wall pier
(vertical wall segment) and deep beam components (hori­
zontal wall segment).
Coupling beams shall comply with provisions of 7.2 and
shall be exempted from the provisions for beams covered in
Chapter 4.
C7.1 -Types of concrete structural walls and
associated components
Concrete structural walls are planar vertical elements or
combinations of interconnected planar elements that serve as
lateral-load-resisting elements in concrete structures. Struc­
tural walls (or wall segments) shall be considered slender if
their aspect ratio (h,jfw [height/length]) is greater than 3.0
and shall be considered short or squat if their aspect ratio is
less than 1 .5 . Slender walls are normally controlled by flex­
ural behavior; short walls are normally controlled by shear
behavior. The response of walls with intermediate aspect
ratios is influenced by both flexure and shear.
Identification of component types in concrete structural
wall elements depends, to some degree, on the relative
strengths ofthe wall segments based on expected or measured
material properties. Vertical segments are often termed "wall
piers", whereas horizontal segments can be called "coupling
beams" or "spandrels". The licensed design professional is
referred to FEMA 3 06 for additional information regarding
the behavior of concrete wall components. Selected infor­
mation from FEMA 306 has been reproduced in Table C3
and Fig. C3 to clarify wall component identification.

7.1 . 1 Monolithic reinforced concrete structural walls and
wall segments-Monolithic reinforced concrete structural
walls shall consist of vertical cast-in-place elements, either
uncoupled or coupled, in open or closed shapes. These walls
shall have relatively continuous cross sections and rein­
forcement and shall provide both vertical and lateral force
resistance, in contrast with infilled walls defined in 6. 1 .3 .
Structural walls or wall segments with axial loads greater
than 0.3 5P0 shall not be considered effective in resisting
seismic forces. For the purpose of determining effectiveness
of structural walls or wall segments, the use of axial loads
based on a limit state analysis shall be permitted.
C7.1.1 Monolithic reinforced concrete structural walls
and wall segments-The wall reinforcement is normally
continuous in both the horizontal and vertical directions,
and bars are typically lap-spliced for tension continuity. The
reinforcement mesh can also contain horizontal ties around
vertical bars that are concentrated either near the vertical
edges of a wall with constant thickness or in boundary
members formed at the wall edges. The amount and spacing
of these ties is important for determining how well the
concrete at the wall edge is confined and, thus, for deter­
mining the lateral deformation capacity of the wall.
In general, slender reinforced concrete structural walls
are governed by flexure and tend to form a plastic flexural
hinge near the base of the wall under severe lateral loading.
The ductility of the wall is a function of the percentage of
longitudinal reinforcement concentrated near the bound-

Table C3-Reinforced concrete shear wall component types

Component type per FEMA 306 Description ASCE 41 designation

Stronger than beam or spandrel components that can frame into it so that nonlinear behavior
Isolated wall or stronger (and damage) is generally concentrated at the base, with a flexural plastic hinge or shear
RC I Monolithic reinforced
wall pier failure. Includes isolated (cantilever) walls. If the component has a major setback or cutoff
of reinforcement above the base, this section should be also checked for nonlinear behavior. concrete wall or vertical
wall segment
Weaker than the spandrels to which it connects; characterized by flexural hinging top and
RC2 Weaker wall pier
bottom or shear failure.

Weaker spandrel or Weaker than the wall piers to which it connects; characterized by hinging at each end, shear
RC3
coupling beam failure, or sliding shear failure. Horizontal wall segment

Should not suffer damage because it is stronger than attached wall piers. If this component or coupling beam
RC4 Stronger spandrel
is damaged, it should probably be reclassified as RC3.

RC5 Pier-spandrel panel zone Typically not a critical area in RC walls. Wall segment

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

64 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Wall component types

.---::0=---->
(see Table C6-1 )

CJ
DD \ D

DD D

CJCJ D

Slender wall Squat wall Strongly coupled

perforated wall

(a) Cantilever Wall Mechanisms

RC3

Strong pier I Weak pier / Weakly coupled

weak spandrel strong spandrel perforated wall

(b) Pier I Spandrel Mechanisms

pq
_ _ _ pq _ _ _ _

(c) Mixed Mechanisms

Fig. C3-Identification ofcomponent types in concrete shear wall elements (FEMA 3 6).

aries of the wall, level of axial load, amount of lateral shear

required to cause flexural yielding, thickness, reinforcement
used in the web portion of the shear wall, and transverse
reinforcement in the boundary elements, including the ratio
of the transverse reinforcement spacing to the diameter of
the longitudinal reinforcing bars. In general, higher axial
load stresses and higher shear stresses reduce the flexural
ductility and energy-absorbing capability of the wall. Short
or squat structural walls are normally governed by shear.
These walls normally have a limited ability to deform beyond
the elastic range and continue to resist seismic forces. Thus,
these walls are typically analyzed either as displacement-

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
7.1.2 Reinforced concrete columns supporting discon­
tinuous structural walls-Reinforced concrete columns
supporting discontinuous structural walls shall be analyzed
in accordance with the requirements of 4.2.
7.1.3 Reinforced concrete coupling beams-Reinforced
concrete coupling beams used to link two shear walls
together shall be evaluated and rehabilitated to comply with
the requirements of7.2.
7.2-Rei nforced concrete structural walls, wal l
segments, and cou pling beams
7.2.1 General-The analytical model for a structural wall
element shall represent the stiffness, strength, and deforma­
tion capacity of the wall. Potential failure in flexure, shear,
and reinforcement development at any point in the wall
shall be considered. Interaction with other structural and
nonstructural components shall be included.
Slender structural walls and wall segments shall be
permitted to be modeled as equivalent beam-column
elements that include both flexural and shear deforma­
tions. The flexural strength of beam-column elements shall
include the interaction of axial load and bending, and shall
be calculated based on expected material properties. The
rigid connection zone at beam connections to this equivalent
beam-column element shall represent the distance from the
wall centroid to the edge of the wall. Unsymmetrical wall
sections shall be modeled with the different bending capaci­
ties for the two loading directions.
A beam element that incorporates both bending and shear
deformations shall be used to model coupling beams. The
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
65
COMMENTARY
controlled components with low ductility capacities or as
force-controlled components.
C7.1.2 Reinforced concrete columns supporting discon­
tinuous structural walls-In structural wall buildings, it is
not uncommon to find that some walls are terminated either
to create commercial space in the first story or to create
parking spaces in the basement. In such cases, the walls
are commonly supported by columns. Such designs are not
recommended in seismic zones because very large demands
can be placed on these columns during earthquake loading.
In older buildings, such columns often have standard longi­
tudinal and transverse reinforcement; the behavior of such
columns during past earthquakes indicates that tightly
spaced closed ties with well-anchored 1 35-degree hooks are
required for the building to survive severe seismic forces.
C7.1.3 Reinforced concrete coupling beams-Coupled
walls are generally much stiffer and stronger than they would
be if they acted independently. Coupling beams typically
have a small span-depth ratio, and their inelastic behavior
is normally affected by the high shear forces acting in these
components. Coupling beams in most older reinforced
concrete buildings commonly have conventional reinforce­
ment that consists of longitudinal flexural steel and trans­
verse steel for shear. In some more modern buildings, or in
buildings where coupled structural walls are used for seismic
retrofit, the coupling beams can use diagonal reinforcement
as the primary reinforcement for both flexure and shear. The
inelastic behavior of coupling beams that use diagonal rein­
forcement has been shown experimentally to be much better
with respect to retention of strength, stiffness, and energy
dissipation capacity than the observed behavior of coupling
beams with nonprestressed reinforcement.
C7.2-Reinforced concrete structural walls, wall
segments, and coupling beams
C7.2.1 General-For rectangular structural walls, wall
segments with h,j£\V :S 2.5 and flanged wall sections with
h,/EIV :S 3 .5, either a modified beam-column analogy or a
multiple-node, multiple-spring approach should be used.
Because structural walls usually respond in single curvature
over a story height, one multiple-spring element per story
can be used for modeling walls. Wall segments should be
modeled with either the beam-column element or with a
multiple-spring model with two elements over the length of
the wall segment.
Coupling beams that have diagonal reinforcement satis­
fying ACI 3 1 8M requirements commonly have a stable
hysteretic response under large load reversals. Therefore,
these members could adequately be modeled with beam
elements used for typical frame analyses.
66 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)
STANDARD
inelastic response shall account for the loss of shear strength
and stiffness during reversed cyclic loading to large defor­
mations. For coupling beams that have diagonal reinforce­
ment satisfying ACI 3 1 8M requirements, a beam element
representing flexure only shall be permitted. The diaphragm
action of concrete slabs that interconnect shear walls and
frame columns shall be represented in the model.
7 .2.2 Stiffness ofreinforced concrete structural walls, wall
segments, and coupling beams-The effective stiffness of all
the elements discussed in Chapter 9 shall be defined based
on the material properties, component dimensions, rein­
forcement quantities, boundary conditions, and current state
of the member with respect to cracking and stress levels.
Alternatively, use of values for effective stiffness given in
Table 5 shall be permitted.
For coupling beams, the effective stiffness values given in
Table 5 for nonprestressed beams shall be used unless alter­
native stiffnesses are determined by more detailed analysis.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
C OMMENTARY
C7.2.2 Stiffness of reinforced concrete structural walls,
wall segments, and coupling beams-Element stiffness
recommendations for flexure-controlled structural walls are
intended to provide a secant-to-yield stiffness, neglecting the
effect of wall stiffness properties prior to flexural cracking on
the calculated response. When significant flexural cracking is
expected to occur, the initial wall stiffness is not considered
to have a significant effect on calculated nonlinear deforma­
tions because demands generally exceed the cracking load
during the first significant cycle of dynamic loading. In cases
where little to no cracking is expected to occur, the licensed
design professional can use iterative analytical techniques to
obtain a more accurate approximation of the wall stiffness.
To calculate the effective stiffness to yield of flexure­
controlled walls, the 20 1 3 version of ASCE 4 1 recom­
mended using a reduction factor for the gross moment of
inertia of 0.5 times Ig. However, experimental studies of
slender walls pushed to yield-level drifts have shown lower
stiffness reduction factors, in the range of 0. 1 5 to 0.25 times
the gross moment of inertia (PEER 20 1 0; Panagiotou and
Restrepo 2007; Priestley et al. 2007). An important limi­
tation of this type of approach is that the calculated effec­
tive wall stiffness is independent of parameters such as the
vertical reinforcement ratio and axial load.
For a given concrete cross section, studies have shown that
yield curvature is not sensitive to reinforcing ratio and axial
loads (Wallace and Moehle 1992). Equations that rely on the
yield curvature to calculate the effective stiffness (Priestley and
Kowalski 1998) have been shown to provide estimates of effec­
tive stiffness that are in reasonable agreement with experimen­
tally measured values when axial loads and reinforcement ratios
are relatively low. For the case where Nuci(AJ�E) :S 0. 1 5 and Pe
:S 0.0 1 , the effective yield curvature tPy£ can be approximated
for planar concrete walls as
2fye
<j>yE
= fEE (C4)
w s
For flexural deformations without the effect of bond slip,
the effective flexural rigidity (EI)eff can be calculated in
accordance with Eq. (C5)
(C5)
where My£ is evaluated using an applied axial load NUG·
STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 67

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

Alternatively, moment-curvature analysis can be used,

and a more general relationship for wall flexural rigidity can
be derived

(C6)

where AfJyE is evaluated using an applied axial load Nuc·

Where inadequate anchorage or splices are present, the
calculated moment strength used to evaluate wall flexural
rigidity should be based on the reduced reinforcement
capacity in accordance with 3 . 5 .
When bond slip is expected at the interface between the
structural wall and the anchoring supporting element, the
additional flexibility at the interface should be accounted
for. A rigid-body rotation associated with bond slip of the
longitudinal reinforcing bars within the foundation occurs at
the wall-to-foundation interface, which adds to wall defor­
mations. Where this type of behavior is anticipated, the
additional flexibility can be accounted for either implicitly
by reducing the wall effective flexural rigidity or explicitly
by introducing a flexible rotational spring. There are several
methodologies available for approximating bond slip.
For continuous walls, an acceptable approach for capturing
the effects of bond slip is to modify the effective flexural
rigidity of the wall in the story directly above the interface
as follows

(EJ)
eff =
Mfy£
<j>
fy£
[-h_l-l
hi + £ s
(C7)
p

h1
Equation (C7) assumes a constant yield curvature profile
over the first-floor height and compares well against shake
table testing from multi-story building prototypes. With this
method, the flexibility associated with bar slip is lumped

h1
within the story above the interface, and only the moment

h� ,
of inertia over the height is modified for bond slip. Above
the height Eq. (C6) can be used to estimate wall flexural
rigidity using yield moments and curvatures at wall hinges
or using the expected maximum moments and associated
curvatures at the levels considered.
The strain penetration depth fsp in this equation is meant
to approximate the length over which flexural longitudinal
bar strains penetrate into the foundation system and can be
approximated as follows for the purpose of approximating
bar slip. Equation (C5) was derived assuming an average
bond stress of l .O 'ifc ' (MPa), which was shown to be an
appropriate estimate of average bar stresses into the founda­
tion under earthquake excitations (Ghannoum and Moehle
2012). Other equations and methodologies have been
proposed to account for strain penetration and deformations
from bar slip (Priestley et al. 2007).

(CS)

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

68 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)
STANDARD
7.2.2.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-Structural
walls and associated components shall be modeled consid­
ering axial, flexural, and shear stiffness. For closed and open
wall shapes, such as box, T, L, I, and C sections, the effective
tension or compression flange widths shall be as specified in
3 . 1 .3 . The calculated stiffnesses to be used in analysis shall
be in accordance with the requirements of 3 . 1 .2.
Joints between structural walls and frame elements shall
be modeled as stiff components or rigid components, as
appropriate.
7.2.2.2 Nonlinear static procedure-Nonlinear load­
deformation relations for use in analysis by nonlinear static
and dynamic procedures shall comply with the requirements
of 3 . 1 .2.
Monotonic load-deformation relationships for analytical
models that represent structural walls, wall segments, and
coupling beams shall be in accordance with the generalized
relation shown in Fig. 1 .
For structural walls and wall segments that have inelastic
behavior under lateral loading that is governed by flexure,
the following approach shall be permitted. The load-defor­
mation relationship in Fig. 1 shall be used with the x-axis of
Fig. 1 taken as the rotation over the plastic hinging region at
the end of the member shown in Fig. 4. The hinge rotation at
Point B in Fig. 1 corresponds to the yield point 6y and shall
be calculated in accordance with Eq. (5)
( )
M lateral strength degradation point are based on limited test
e __y_E_ £ (5)
-
- p
y£ (EJ)ef!
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
C OMMENTARY
For plane bars, lsp can be taken as twice the value obtained
from Eq. (C8). As an alternative to modifying the flexural
rigidity to account for bar slip, a rotational spring can be
used to explicitly capture slip, where the spring stiffness is
defined as
2Mfy£
KR =
-­
(C9)
<jlfy£ £ sp
In place of �fy£ and Af;y£, �y£ and My£ can be used in Eq.
(C7) through (C9) to account for bar slip effects.
Approximate closed-form methods can be used to calcu­
late My£ for the purpose of estimating the effective flexural
rigidity of planar walls, as shown in Eq. (C 1 0) (Cardenas
et a!. 1 973). Equation (C 1 0) was simplified to approximate
the effects of the neutral axis depth and should be used only
when reinforcing ratios and axial demands are relatively low
(Eq. (C4)).
(C 1 0)
(EJ)eff should be in the range of 0. 1 5Ec£Ig and 0.5Ec£Ig
when Eq. (C4) to (C 1 0) are used for cracked walls.
C7.2.2.2 Nonlinear static procedure-The recommended
backbone shape and parameters provided for concrete struc­
tural walls differs from the general backbone description in
Chapter 7 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. For walls with shear span-depth
ratios less than 2.5, the load-deformation relationship in
Fig. 1 (c) provides a better representation of the behavior
than that in Fig. 1 (b). The reason is that in walls with low
shear span-depth ratios, the deformations related to shear
are not negligible compared with the deformations related
to flexure. The proposed relationship is based on a model in
which the total deflection is calculated as the sum of contri­
butions of components related to flexure, shear, and slip
of the reinforcement. The drift ratio and shear force corre­
sponding to inclined cracking in Fig. 1 (c) were obtained by
simplifying expressions for principal stresses for a limiting
concrete tensile strength of approximately 0.33 'ifc ' (Sozen
and Moehle 1 993). Definition of the yield point and the
data (Hidalgo et a!. 2002), as summarized in PEER/EERI
(2006). Note that variables F, g, and f in Fig. 1 (c) are not
 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 69

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

where ep is the assumed plastic hinge length. the same as those used in Chapter 7 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Further
For analytical models of shear walls, the value of lp shall discussion on the development of this backbone model is
be set equal to the lesser of 0.5 times the effective flexural provided in Elwood et a!. (2007).
depth of the member and one story height of the member.
For analytical models of wall segments, as defined in 9. 1 ,
the value of eP shall be set equal to the lesser of 0.5 times the
effective flexural depth of the member and 50 percent of the
element length.
Values for the variables aile, bile, and clle required to define
the location of Points C, D, and E in Fig. 1 (a) shall be as
specified in Table 1 9 .
For structural walls and wall segments whose inelastic
response is controlled by shear, the following approach shall
be permitted. The load-deformation relationship in Fig. 1 (c)
shall be used, with the x-axis of Fig. 1 (c) taken as the lateral
drift ratio. Alternatively, the load-deformation relationship
in Fig. 1 (b) shall be permitted, with the x-axis of Fig. 1 (b)
taken as the lateral drift ratio. For structural walls, this drift
shall be the story drift, as shown in Fig. 5. For wall segments,
Fig. 5 shall represent the member drift.
For coupling beams, the following approach shall be
permitted. The load-deformation relationship in Fig. 1 (b)
shall be used, with the x-axis of Fig. 1 (b) taken as the chord
rotation as defined in Fig. 6.
Values for the variables dlle elle,flle, glle, and clle required to
,

find Points B, C, D, E, and F in Fig. 1 (b) or 1 (c) shall be as

specified in Table 20 for the appropriate members. Linear
interpolation between tabulated values shall be used if the
member under analysis has conditions that are between the
limits given in the tables.

7.2.2.3 Nonlinear dynamic procedure-For the nonlinear

dynamic procedure (NDP), the complete hysteretic behavior
of each component shall be modeled using properties veri­
fied by experimental evidence. Use of the generalized
load-deformation relation shown in Fig. 1 to represent the
envelope relation for the analysis shall be permitted. The
unloading and reloading stiffnesses and strengths, and

(}

Fig. 4-Plastic hinge rotation in shear wall where flexure

dominates inelastic response.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
70 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Table 1 9-Modeling parameters and nu merical acceptance criteria for non l i near procedures: reinforced
concrete shear walls and associated components controlled by flexure
Acceptable plastic hinge rotation',
Residual
rad
Plastic hinge rotation, strength
rad ratio Performance level

Conditions a b c 10 LS CP

i: Shear walls and wall segments

(A, - A;)JyE + P v
Confined
Vwf� t,l.,.fl:: boundaryt

::SO. I ::::0 .33 Yes 0.0 1 5 0.020 0.75 0.005 0.0 1 5 0.020

::SO. I �0.5 Yes 0.0 1 0 0 .0 1 5 0.40 0.004 0.0 1 0 0.0 1 5

�0.25 ::::0 .33 Yes 0.009 0 .0 1 2 0.60 0.003 0.009 0.0 1 2

�0.25 �0.5 Yes 0.005 0 .0 1 0 0.30 0.00 1 5 0.005 0.0 1 0

::SO. I ::::0 .33 No 0.008 0 .0 1 5 0.60 0.002 0.008 0.0 1 5

::SO. I �0.5 No 0.006 0.0 1 0 0.30 0.002 0.006 0.0 1 0

�0.25 ::;:0.33 No 0.003 0.005 0.25 0.001 0.003 0.005

�0.25 �0.5 No 0.002 0.004 0.20 0.001 0.002 0.004

ii: Shear wall coupling beams!

v
Longitudinal reinforcement and transverse reinforcement§ 0.050
t,l.,.fl::
Conventional longitudinal reinforcement with conforming ::::0 .25 0.025 0.040 0.75 0.0 1 0 0.025 0.050

transverse reinforcement 0.020 0.035 0.50 0.005 0.020 0.040

�0.5

Conventional longitudinal reinforcement with noncon- ::;:0.25 0.020 0.025 0.50 0.006 0.020 0.035

forming transverse reinforcement 0.0 1 0 0.050 0.25 0.005 0.0 1 0 0.025

�0.5

Diagonal reinforcement NA 0.030 0.050 0.80 0.006 0.030 0.050

'Linear interpolation between values listed in the table shall be permitted.

tA boundary element shall be considered confined where transverse reinforcement exceeds 75 percent of the requirements given in ACI 3 1 8M and spacing oftransverse reinforcement
does not exceed 8db. It shall be permitted to take modeling parameters and acceptance criteria as 80 percent of confined values where boundary elements have at least 50 percent of
the requirements given in ACI 3 1 8M and spacing of transverse reinforcement does not exceed 8db. Otherwise, boundary elements shall be considered not confined.
Iforcoupling beams spanning less than 2400 mm, with bottom reinforcement continuous into the supporting walls, acceptance criteria values shall be pem1itted to be doubled for
LS and CP performance.
§Conventional longitudinal reinforcement consists of top and bottom steel parallel to the longitudinal axis of the coupling beam. Conforming transverse reinforcement consists of: a)
closed stirrups overthe entire length ofthe coupling beam at a spacing less than or equal to d/3; and b) strength of closed stirrups V, � 3/4 of required shear strength ofthe coupling beam.

Fig. 5-Story drift in shear wall where shear dominates

inelastic response.

any pinching of the load-versus-rotation hysteresis loops,

shall reflect the behavior experimentally observed for wall
elements similar to the one under investigation.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 71

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

7.2.3 Strength ofreinforced concrete structural walls, wall C7.2.3 Strength of reinforced concrete structural walls,
segments, and coupling beams-Component strengths shall wall segments, and coupling beams-Data presented by
be computed according to the general requirements of 3.2, Wood ( 1 990) indicate that wall strength is insensitive to the
with the additional requirements of this section. Strength quantity of transverse reinforcement where it drops below a
shall be determined considering the potential for failure in steel ratio of 0.00 1 5 .
flexure, shear, or development under combined gravity and The need for confinement reinforcement in wall boundary
lateral load. elements can be evaluated by the method recommended
by Wallace (1 994, 1995) for determining maximum lateral
Chord rotation: deformations in the wall and the resulting maximum
0 = A. compression strains in the wall boundary.
L
Strength calculations based on ACI 3 1 8M, excluding
Chapter 14, assume a maximum spacing of wall reinforce­
.
..
ment. No data are available to justify performance for walls
··

that do not meet the maximum spacing requirements. If plain

··
·
· concrete is encountered in an existing building, Chapter 1 4
· ·· ·· . . . . .
. .
·

·· . . .. . .
.
o f ACI 3 1 8M- 14 can b e used to derive capacities, and 9.6
··
...
..
ofASCE 4 1 - 1 7 can be used to develop acceptance criteria.
Chapter 1 8 of ACI 3 1 8M- 14 requires that at least two
..
·· .
· . ..
·
..
curtains of reinforcement be used in a wall if V., exceeds
L
..I 0 . 1 7Mcv'ifc ' or if the aspect ratio is greater than or equal to
2.0. Experimental results by Hidalgo et a!. (2002) show that,
Fig. 6-Chord rotation for shear wall coupling beams.
for relatively thin walls, there is no significant difference

Table 20-Modeling parameters and numerical acceptance criteria for non linear procedures: rei nforced
concrete shear walls and associated components controlled by shear
Acceptable total drift (%) or chord
rotation, rad"
Total drift ratio (% ), or chord
Performance level
rotation, rad" Strength ratio

Conditions d e g c f 10 LS CP

i: Shear walls and wall segments!

(A, - A;)Jy£ + p
� 0.05 1 .0 2.0 0.4 0.20 0.6 0.40 1 .5 2.0
t,,.C ,J;,�
(A, - A;)J,.c + p
> 0.05 0.75 1 .0 0.4 0.0 0.6 0.40 0.75 1 .0
1,/,J,�
ii: Shear wall coupling beams!

Longitudinal reinforcement and v

transverse reinforcement! t"C ,fj;;
Conventional longitudinal ::;0.25 0.02 0.030 0.60 0.006 0.020 0.030
reinforcement with conforming
transverse reinforcement �0.5 0.0 1 6 0.024 0.30 0.005 0.0 1 6 0.024

Conventional longitudinal ::;0.25 0.0 1 2 0.025 0.40 0.006 0.0 1 0 0.020

reinforcement with nonconforming
transverse reinforcement �0.5 0.008 0.0 1 4 0.20 0.004 0.007 0.012

"For shear walls and wall segments, use drift; for coupling beams, use chord rotation; refer to Fig. 5 and 6.
I Fo r shear walls and wall segments where inelastic behavior i s governed b y shear, the axial load on the member must be less than o r equal t o O. I SA,j;'; otherwise, the member must
be treated as a force-controlled component.
lFor coupling beams spanning less than 2400 mm, with bottom reinforcement continuous into the supporting walls, acceptance criteria values shall be permitted to be doubled for
LS and CP performance.
!Conventional longitudinal reinforcement consists oftop and bottom steel parallel to the longitudinal axis of the coupling beam. Conforming transverse reinforcement consists of: (a)
closed stirrups over the entire length of the coupling beam at a spacing less than or equal to d/3; and (b) strength of closed stirrups V, � 3/4 of required shear strength of the coupling
beam.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

72 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

The flexural strength of structural walls or wall segments, between the strength of walls with one or two curtains of
My, shall be determined using the fundamental principles web reinforcement (Elwood et a!. 2007).
given in Chapter 22 of ACI 3 1 8M-14. For calculation of flex­
ural strength, as represented by Point B in Fig. l (a), the effec­
tive compression and tension flange widths defined in 7.2.2
shall be used, except that the first limit shall be changed to
one-tenth of the wall height. Where calculating the maximum
inelastic flexural strength of the wall, MP,., as represented by
Point C in Fig. 1 (a), the effects from strain hardening shall be
accounted for by substitutingJ;e£ with 1 .25J;eE· For all moment
strength calculations, the yield strength of the longitudinal
reinforcement shall be taken as lower bound or expected
material properties as applicable to deformation-controlled or
force-controlled actions, respectively. For all moment strength
calculations, the axial load acting on the wall shall include
gravity loads, as defined in 7.2.2 ofASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
The nominal shear strength of a structural wall or wall
segment shall be determined based on the principles and
equations given in Chapter 1 8 of ACI 3 1 8M- 1 4, except
that the restriction on spacing, reinforcement ratio, and
the number of curtains of reinforcement shall not apply to
existing walls. There shall be no difference between the
yield and nominal shear strengths, as represented by Points
B and C in Fig. I .
Where an existing shear wall or wall segment has a trans­
verse reinforcement percentage p1 less than 0.00 1 5 or where
the cracking moment strength exceeds the yield strength, the
wall shall be considered force-controlled.
Splice lengths for primary longitudinal reinforcement shall be
evaluated using the procedures given in 3.5. Reduced flexural
strengths shall be evaluated at locations where splices govern
the usable stress in the reinforcement. The need for confinement
reinforcement in boundary elements shall be evaluated by the
procedure in ACI 3 1 8M or other approved procedure.
The nominal flexural and shear strengths of coupling beams
shall be evaluated using the principles and equations contained
in Chapter 1 8 of ACI 3 1 8M- 14. The expected strength of
longitudinal or diagonal reinforcement shall be used.

7.2.4 Acceptance criteria for reiriforced concrete struc­

tural walls, wall segments, and coupling beams

7.2.4.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-Structural C7.2.4.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-For
walls, wall segments, and coupling beams shall be classi­ shear-controlled coupling beams, ductility is a function of
fied as either deformation- or force-controlled, as defined the shear in the member as determined by the expected shear
in 5 .5 . 1 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. In these components, deformation­ capacity of the member. In accordance with 3 .2, expected
controlled actions shall be restricted to flexure or shear. All strengths are calculated using the procedures specified in
other actions shall be treated as force-controlled. ACI 3 1 8M. For coupling beams, the concrete contribution
The flexural strength of a structural wall or wall segment to shear strength is nearly always zero.
shall be used to determine the maximum shear force in struc­
tural walls and wall segments. For cantilever structural walls,
the shear force shall be equal to the magnitude of the lateral
force required to develop the nominal flexural strength at the
base ofthe wall, assuming that the lateral force is distributed
uniformly over the height of the wall. For wall segments, the
shear force shall be equal to the shear corresponding to the

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 73

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

development of the positive and negative nominal moment

strengths at opposite ends of the wall segment.
Design actions (flexure, shear, axial, or force transfer at
reinforcing bar anchorages and splices) on components shall
be determined as prescribed in Chapter 7 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
Where determining the appropriate value for the design
actions, proper consideration shall be given to gravity loads
and to the maximum forces that can be transmitted consid­
ering nonlinear action in adjacent components. Design actions
shall be compared with strengths in accordance with 7.5 .2.2 of
ASCE 4 1 -1 7. Tables 21 and 22 specify m-factors for use in Eq.
(7-36) of ASCE 41-17. Alternate m-factors shall be permitted
where justified by experimental evidence and analysis.

Table 21-Numerical acceptance criteria for l i near procedures: reinforced concrete shear walls and
associated components controlled by flexure
m-factors

Performance level

Component type

Primary Secondary

Conditions 10 LS CP LS CP

i : Shear walls and wall segments•

(A, - A;)JyE + p t v :
Confined
V,.J;� tj,..,fl:; boundary§

:00. 1 :00.33 Yes 2 4 6 6 8

:00. 1 �0.5 Yes 2 3 4 4 6

�.25 :00.33 Yes 1 .5 3 4 4 6

�.25 �0.5 Yes 1 .25 2 2.5 2.5 4

:00. 1 :00.33 No 2 2.5 4 4 6

:00. 1 �0.5 No 1 .5 2 2.5 2.5 4

�.25 :00.33 No 1 .25 1.5 2 2 3

�.25 �0.5 No 1 .25 1.5 1 . 75 1 .75 2

ii: Shear wall coupling beamsll

:
Longitudinal reinforcement and transverse v
reinforcement• t,l,.-J]:;

Conventional longitudinal reinforcement with :00.25 2 4 6 6 9

conforming transverse reinforcement 1 .5 4 4

�0. 5 3 7

Conventional longitudinal reinforcement with :00.25 1 .5 3.5 5 5 8

nonconforming transverse reinforcement 1 .2 1.8 2.5 2.5 4

�0.5

Diagonal reinforcement NA 2 5 7 7 10

•Linear interpolation between values listed in the table shall be pennitted.

tP is the design axial force in the member. Alternatively, use of axial loads determined based on a limit state analysis shall be permitted.
l V is the shear force calculated using limit-state analysis procedures in accordance with 7.2.4.
§A boundary element shall be considered confined where transverse reinforcement exceeds 7 5 percent o fthe requirements given i n ACI 3 1 8M and spacing o ftransverse reinforcement
does not exceed 8d,. It shall be permitted to take modeling parameters and acceptance criteria as 80 percent of confined values where boundary elements have at least 50 percent of
the requirements given in ACI 3 1 8M and spacing of transverse reinforcement does not exceed Sd,. Otherwise, boundary elements shall be considered not confined.
llfor secondary coupling beams spanning less than 2400 mm, with bottom reinforcement continuous into the supporting walls, secondary values shall be permitted to be doubled.
'Conventional longitudinal reinforcement consists of top and bottom steel parallel to the longitudinal axis of the coupling beam. Conforming transverse reinforcement consists of: a)
closed stirrups over the entire length of the coupling beam at a spacing less than or equal to d/3 ; and b) strength of closed stirrups V, � 3/4 of required shear strength of the coupling
beam.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

74 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Table 22-Numerical acceptance criteria for l inear procedures: reinforced concrete shear walls and
associated components controlled by shear
m-factors

Performance level

Component type

Primary Secondary

Conditions 10 LS CP LS CP

i: Shear walls and wall segments'

(A, - A:)Jy£ + p
< 0.05 2 2.5 3 4.5 6
1,/-.J:£

(A, - A:)f,.£ + p
> 0.05 1.5 2 3 3 4
1,/- ,J:£

i i : Shear wall coupling beams!

Longitudinal reinforcement and transverse v §

reinforcement' 1,/.., J]:;
Conventional longitudinal reinforcement with ::;0.25 1.5 3 4 4 6

conforming transverse reinforcement 1.2 2 2.5 2.5 3.5

20.5

Conventional longitudinal reinforcement with ::;0.25 1.5 2.5 3 3 4

nonconforming transverse reinforcement 1.2 1 .2 1 .5 1 .5 2.5

20.5

'The shear shall be considered to be a force-controlled action for shear walls and wall segments where inelastic behavior is governed by shear and the design axial load is greater
than 0. 1 5Ag};'. It shall be permitted to calculate the axial load based on a limit state analysis.
1For secondary coupling beams spanning less than 2400 mm, with bottom reinforcement continuous into the supporting walls, secondary values shall be permitted to be doubled.
!Conventional longitudinal reinforcement consists of top and bottom steel parallel to the longitudinal axis of the coupling beam. Conforming transverse reinforcement consists
of: a) closed stirrups over the entire length of the coupling beam at a spacing less than or equal to d/3; and b) strength of closed stirrups V, 2 3/4 of required shear strength of the
coupling beam.
§ V is the shear force calculated using limit-state analysis procedures in accordance with 7.2.4. I .

7.2.4.2 Nonlinear static and dynamic procedures-In the

design model, inelastic response shall be restricted to those
components and actions listed in Tables 1 9 and 20, except
where it is demonstrated that other inelastic actions are justi­
fied for the selected performance levels. For members expe­
riencing inelastic behavior, the magnitude of other actions
(forces, moments, or torque) in the member shall correspond
to the magnitude of the action causing inelastic behavior.
The magnitude of these other actions shall be shown to be
below their nominal capacities.
Components experiencing inelastic response shall satisfy
the requirements of7 .5 .3 .2 ofASCE 4 1 - 1 7, and the maximum
plastic hinge rotations, drifts, or chord rotation angles shall not
exceed the values given in Tables 1 9 and 20 for the selected
performance level. Linear interpolation between tabulated
values shall be used if the member under analysis has condi­
tions that are between the limits given in the tables.

7 .2.5 Retrofit measures for reinforced concrete structural
walls, wall segments, and coupling beams-Seismic retrofit
measures for reinforced concrete structural walls, wall
segments, coupling beams, and columns supporting discon­
tinuous structural walls shall meet the requirements of 3.7
and other provisions herein.
C7.2.5 Retrofit measures for reinforced concrete shear
walls, wall segments, and coupling beams-The following
measures can be effective in retrofitting reinforced struc­
tural walls, wall segments, coupling beams, and reinforced
concrete columns supporting discontinuous structural walls:

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 75

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

a) Addition of wall boundary elements: Addition of

boundary elements can be an effective measure in strength­
ening walls or wall segments that have insufficient flexural
strength. These members can be either cast-in-place rein­
forced concrete components or steel sections. In both cases,
proper connections should be made between the existing
wall and the added components. The shear demand and
shear capacity of the retrofitted wall should be reevaluated.
b) Addition of confinement j ackets at wall boundaries:
Increasing the confinement at the wall boundaries by the
addition of a steel or reinforced concrete jacket can be an
effective measure in improving the flexural deformation
capacity of a structural wall. For both types of jackets, the
longitudinal steel should not be continuous from story to
story unless the jacket is also being used to increase the flex­
ural capacity. The minimum thickness for a concrete jacket
should be 75 mm. Carbon fiber wrap should be permitted for
improving the confinement of concrete in compression.
c) Reduction of flexural strength: Reduction in the flex­
ural capacity of a structural wall to change the governing
failure mode from shear to flexure can be an effective retrofit
measure. It can be accomplished by saw-cutting a specified
number of longitudinal bars near the edges of the wall.
d) Increased shear strength of wall: Increasing the shear
strength of the web of a structural wall by casting additional
reinforced concrete adjacent to the wall web can be an effec­
tive retrofit measure. The new concrete should be at least
1 00 mm thick and should contain horizontal and vertical
reinforcement. The new concrete should be properly bonded
to the existing web of the structural wall. The use of carbon
fiber sheets, epoxied to the concrete surface, should also be
permitted to increase the shear capacity of a shear wall.
e) Confinement j ackets to improve deformation
capacity of coupling beams and columns supporting
discontinuous structural walls: The use of confinement
j ackets described previously as a retrofit measure for wall
boundaries, and in Chapter 2 for frame elements, can also be
effective in increasing both the shear capacity and the defor­
mation capacity of coupling beams and columns supporting
discontinuous structural walls.
f) Infilling between columns supporting discontinuous
structural walls: Where a discontinuous structural wall is
supported on columns that lack either sufficient strength
or deformation capacity to satisfy design criteria, making
the wall continuous by infilling the opening between these
columns can be an effective retrofit measure. The infill
and existing columns should be designed to satisfy all the
requirements for new wall construction, including any
strengthening of the existing columns required by adding a
concrete or steel jacket for strength and increased confine­
ment. The opening below a discontinuous structural wall
should also be permitted to be infilled with steel bracing.
The bracing members should be sized to satisfy all design
requirements, and the columns should be strengthened with
a steel or a reinforced concrete j acket.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

76 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

All the aforementioned retrofit measures require an evalu­

ation of the wall foundation, diaphragms, and connections
between existing structural elements and any elements
added for retrofit purposes.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 77

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

CHAPTER 8-PR ECAST CONCRETE

STRUCTURAL WALLS

8.1 -Types of precast structural walls C8. 1 -Types of precast structural walls
Precast concrete structural walls shall consist of story­
high or half-story-high precast wall segments that are made
continuous through the use of either mechanical connec­
tors or reinforcement splicing techniques with or without a
cast-in-place connection strip. Connections between precast
segments shall be permitted along both the horizontal and
vertical edges of a wall segment.
The following types of precast structural walls are
addressed in Chapter 8:
a) Effectively monolithic construction, defined as construc­
tion in which the reinforcement connections are made to be
stronger than the adjacent precast panels so that the lateral
load response of the precast wall system is comparable to
that for monolithic structural walls
b) Jointed construction, defined as construction in which
inelastic action is permitted to occur at the connections
between precast panels
c) Tilt-up construction, defined as a special technique
for precast wall construction where there are vertical joints
between adjacent panels and horizontal joints at the founda­
tion level, and where the roof or floor diaphragm connects
with the tilt-up panel
8.1.1 Effectively monolithic construction-For this type of C8.1.1 Effectively monolithic construction-When the
precast wall, the connections between precast wall elements precast structural wall is subjected to lateral loading, any
are designed and detailed to be stronger than the panels yielding and inelastic behavior should take place in the panel
they connect. Precast structural walls and wall segments of elements away from the connections. If the reinforcement
effectively monolithic construction shall be evaluated by the detailing in the panel is similar to that for cast-in-place struc­
criteria defined in Chapter 7. tural walls, then the inelastic response of a precast structural
wall should be similar to that for a cast-in-place wall.
Modern building codes permit the use ofprecast structural
wall construction in high seismic zones if it satisfies the
criteria for cast-in-place structural wall construction.

8.1.2 Jointed construction-Precast structural walls and
wall segments of jointed construction shall be evaluated by
the criteria defined in 8.2.
C8.1.2 Jointed construction-For most older structures
that contain precast structural walls, and for some modern
construction, inelastic activity can be expected in the connec­
tions between precast wall panels during severe lateral
loading. Because joints between precast walls in older build­
ings have often exhibited brittle behavior during inelastic
load reversals, jointed construction was not permitted in
high seismic zones. Therefore, where evaluating older build­
ings that contain precast walls that are likely to respond as
j ointed construction, the permissible ductilities and rotation
capacities provided in the following, which are less than
those given in Chapter 7, should be reduced.
For some modern structures, precast structural walls have
been constructed with special connectors that are detailed
to exhibit ductile response and energy absorption character­
istics. Many of these connectors are proprietary, and only
limited experimental evidence concerning their inelastic
behavior is available. Although this type of construction is
clearly safer than j ointed construction in older buildings,

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org cCiC'iJ

78 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

the experimental evidence is not sufficient to permit the use

of the same ductility and rotation capacities given for cast­
in-place construction. Thus, the permissible values given in
Chapter 5 should be reduced.
Section 9.6 of FEMA 450 provides testing criteria that can
be used to validate design values consistent with the highest
performance of monolithic structural wall construction.

8.1.3 Tilt-up construction-Structural walls and wall
segments of tilt-up type of precast walls shall be evaluated
by the criteria defined in 8.2.
C8.1.3 Tilt-up construction-Tilt-up construction should
be considered a special case of jointed construction. The
walls for most buildings constructed by the tilt-up method
are longer than their height. Shear would usually govern
their in-plane design, except where there are significant
openings in the wall panels-for example, door openings
at loading dock areas of warehouses. The major concern
for most tilt-up construction is the connection between the
tilt-up wall and the roof diaphragm. That connection should
be analyzed carefully to be sure the diaphragm forces can be
transmitted safely to the precast wall system.

8.2-Precast concrete structural walls and wall C8.2-Precast concrete structural walls and wall
segments segments
8.2.1 General-The analytical model for a precast
concrete structural wall or wall segment shall represent the
stiffness, strength, and deformation capacity of the overall
member, as well as the connections and joints between any
precast panel components that compose the wall. Potential
failure in flexure, shear, and reinforcement development at
any point in the wall panels or connections shall be consid­
ered. Interaction with other structural and nonstructural
components shall be included.
Modeling of precast concrete structural walls and wall
segments within the precast panels as equivalent frame
elements that include both flexural and shear deforma­
tions shall be permitted. The rigid-connection zone at beam
connections to these equivalent frame elements shall repre­
sent the distance from the wall centroid to the edge of the
wall or wall segment. The different bending capacities for
the two loading directions of unsymmetrical precast wall
sections shall be modeled.
For precast structural walls and wall segments where shear
deformations have a more significant effect on behavior than
flexural deformation, a multiple spring model shall be used.
The diaphragm action of concrete slabs connecting precast
structural walls and frame columns shall be represented in
the model.

8.2.2 Stiffness of precast concrete structural walls and

wall segments-The modeling assumptions defined in 7 .2.2
for monolithic concrete structural walls and wall segments
shall also be used for precast concrete walls. In addition, the
analytical model shall model the axial, shear, and rotational
deformations of the connections between the precast compo­
nents that compose the wall by either softening the model
used to represent the precast panels or by adding spring
elements between panels.

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 79

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

8.2.2.1 Linear static and dynamicprocedures-The modeling

procedures given in 7 .2.2 . 1 , combined with a procedure for
including connection deformations as noted previously, shall
be used.

8.2.2.2 Nonlinear static procedure Nonlinear load­

-

deformation relations shall comply with the requirements

of 3 . 1 .2. The monotonic load-deformation relationships for
analytical models that represent precast structural walls and
wall segments within precast panels shall be in accordance
with the generalized relation shown in Fig. I , except that
alternative approaches shall be permitted where verified by
experiments. Where the relations are according to Fig. 1 , the
following approach shall be permitted.
Values for plastic hinge rotations or drifts at Points B, C,
and E in Fig. 1 for the two general shapes shall be as defined
in the following. The strength levels at Points B and C
shall correspond to the yield strength and expected flexural
strength or lower-bound flexural strength, as is appropriate
in accordance with 7.2.3 . The residual strength for the Line
Segment D-E shall be as defined in the following.
For precast structural walls and wall segments whose
inelastic behavior under lateral loading is governed by
flexure, the general load-deformation relationship shall
be defined as in Fig. 1 (a). For these members, the x-axis
of Fig. ! (a) shall be taken as the rotation over the plastic
hinging region at the end of the member, as shown in Fig.
2. If the requirements for effectively monolithic construc­
tion are satisfied, the value of the hinge rotation at Point B
shall correspond to the yield rotation 8y and shall be calcu­
lated by Eq. (5). The same expression shall also be used
for wall segments within a precast panel if flexure controls
the inelastic response of the segment. If the precast wall
is of jointed construction and flexure governs the inelastic
response of the member, then the value of 8y shall be
increased to account for rotation in the joints between
panels or between the panel and the foundation.
For precast structural walls and wall segments whose
inelastic behavior under lateral loading is governed by shear,
the general load-deformation relationship shall be defined
as in Fig. 1 (b). For these members, the x-axis of Fig. 1 (b)
shall be taken as the story drift for structural walls and as the
element drift for wall segments, as shown in Fig. 3 .
For effectively monolithic construction, the values for
the variables a11e, h11e, and C11e, required to define the loca­
tion of Points C, D, and E in Fig. ! (a), shall be as specified
in Table 1 9. For construction classified as jointed construc­
tion, the values of a11e, h11e, and C11e specified in Table 19 shall
be reduced to 50 percent of the given values, unless experi­
mental evidence is available to justify higher values. In no
case, however, shall values larger than those specified in
Table 1 9 be used.
For effectively monolithic construction, values for the
variables d11e, e11e, and C11e, required to find the Points C, D,
and E in Fig. 1 (b), shall be as specified in Table 20 for the
appropriate member conditions. For construction classi-

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

80 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

fied as jointed construction, the values of d e, e11e, and Cne

11

specified in Table 20 shall be reduced to 50 percent of the

specified values unless experimental evidence is available to
justify higher values. In no case, however, shall values larger
than those specified in Table 20 be used.
For Tables 19 and 20, linear interpolation between tabu­
lated values shall be permitted if the member under analysis
has conditions that are between the limits given in the tables.

8.2.2.3 Nonlinear dynamic procedure-Nonlinear load­

deformation relations for use in analysis by NDP shall model
the complete hysteretic behavior of each component using
properties verified by experimental evidence. The general­
ized relation shown in Fig. 1 shall be taken to represent the
envelope for the analysis. The unloading and reloading stiff­
nesses and strengths, and any pinching of the load-versus­
rotation hysteresis loops, shall reflect the behavior experi­
mentally observed for wall elements similar to the one under
investigation.

8.2.3 Strength of precast concrete structural walls and C8.2.3 Strength ofprecast concrete structural walls and
wall segments-The strength of precast concrete structural wall segments-In older construction, attention should
walls and wall segments within the panels shall be computed be given to the technique used for splicing reinforcement
according to the general requirement of3 .2, except as modified extending from adjacent panels into the connection. These
herein. For effectively monolithic construction, the strength connections can be insufficient and often can govern the
calculation procedures given in 7.2.3 shall be followed. strength of the precast shear wall system.
For jointed construction, calculations of axial, shear, and
flexural strength of the connections between panels shall be
based on fundamental principles of structural mechanics.
Expected yield strength for steel reinforcement of connec­
tion hardware used in the connections shall be used where
calculating the axial and flexural strength of the connec­
tion region. The unmodified specified yield strength of the
reinforcement and connection hardware shall be used where
calculating the shear strength of the connection region.
For all precast concrete structural walls ofjointed construc­
tion, no difference shall be taken between the computed yield
and nominal strengths in flexure and shear. The values for
strength represented by the Points B and C in Fig. 1 shall be
computed following the procedures given in Section 7.2.3 .

8.2.4 Acceptance criteria for precast concrete struc­ C8.2.4 Acceptance criteriafor precast concrete structural
tural walls and wall segments-The acceptance criteria for walls and wall segments-The procedures outlined in 9.6 of
precast concrete structural walls shall be as per 8.2.4. 1 or FEMA 450-04 can be used to establish acceptance criteria
8 .2.4.2 or by other approved methods. for precast structural walls.

8.2.4.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-For

precast wall construction that is effectively monolithic and
for wall segments within a precast panel, the acceptance
criteria defined in 7.2.4. 1 shall be followed. For precast
wall construction defined as jointed construction, the accep­
tance criteria procedure given in 7 .2.4. 1 shall be followed;
however, the m-factors specified in Tables 21 and 22 shall be
reduced by 50 percent, unless experimental evidence justi­
fies the use of a larger value. An m-factor need not be taken

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 81

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

as less than 1 .0 and in no case shall be taken as larger than

the values specified in these tables.

8.2.4.2 Nonlinear static and dynamic procedures­

Inelastic response shall be restricted to those structural walls
(and wall segments) and actions listed in Tables 1 9 and 20,
except where it is demonstrated by experimental evidence
and analysis that other inelastic action is acceptable for the
selected performance levels. For components experiencing
inelastic behavior, the magnitude of the other actions (forces,
moments, or torques) in the component shall correspond to
the magnitude of the action causing the inelastic behavior.
The magnitude of these other actions shall be shown to be
below their nominal capacities.
For precast walls that are effectively monolithic and wall
segments within a precast panel, the maximum plastic hinge
rotation angles or drifts during inelastic response shall
not exceed the values specified in Tables 1 9 and 20. For
precast walls of jointed construction, the maximum plastic
hinge rotation angles or drifts during inelastic response
shall not exceed one-half of the values specified in Tables
19 and 20 unless experimental evidence justifies a higher
value. However, in no case shall deformation values larger
than those specified in these tables be used for jointed type
construction. Alternative approaches or values shall be
permitted where justified by experimental evidence and
analysis.

8.2.5 Retrofit measuresfor precast concrete structural walls
and wall segments-Seismic retrofit measures for precast
concrete structural walls and wall segments shall meet the
requirements of 3.7 and other provisions of this standard.
C8.2.5 Retrofit measures for precast concrete structural
walls and wall segments-Precast concrete structural wall
systems can suffer from some of the same deficiencies as cast­
in-place walls. These deficiencies include inadequate flexural
capacity, inadequate shear capacity with respect to flexural
capacity, lack of confinement at wall boundary elements, and
inadequate splice lengths for longitudinal reinforcement in
wall boundaries. A few deficiencies unique to precast wall
construction are inadequate connections between panels, to
the foundation, and to floor or roof diaphragms.
The retrofit measures described in Section 7.2.5 can be
effective in retrofitting precast concrete structural walls. In
addition, the following retrofit measures can be effective:
a) Enhancement of connections between adjacent or
intersecting precast wall panels: Mechanical connectors
such as steel shapes and various types of drilled-in anchors,
or cast-in-place strengthening methods, or a combina­
tion of the two, can be effective in strengthening connec­
tions between precast panels. Cast-in-place strengthening
methods can include exposing the steel reinforcement at the
edges of adjacent panels, adding vertical and transverse (tie)
reinforcement, and placing new concrete.
b) Enhancement of connections between precast wall
panels and foundations: Increasing the shear capacity of
the wall panel-to-foundation connection by using supple­
mental mechanical connectors or by using a cast-in-place
overlay with new dowels into the foundation can be an effec­
tive retrofit measure. Increasing the overturning moment

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org cCiC'iJ

82 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

capacity of the panel-to-foundation connection by using

drilled-in dowels within a new cast-in-place connection at the
edges of the panel can also be an effective retrofit measure.
Adding connections to adjacent panels can also be an effec­
tive retrofit measure in eliminating some of the forces trans­
mitted through the panel-to-foundation connection.
c) Enhancement of connections between precast wall
panels and floor or roof diaphragms: Strengthening
these connections by using either supplemental mechan­
ical devices or cast-in-place connectors can be an effective
retrofit measure. Both in-plane shear and out-of-plane forces
should be considered where strengthening these connections.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 83

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

CHAPTER 9-CONCRETE BRACED FRAMES

9.1 -Types of concrete-braced frames

Reinforced concrete-braced frames shall be defined as
those frames with monolithic, nonprestressed, reinforced
concrete beams, columns, and diagonal braces that are coin­
cident at beam-column joints and that resist seismic forces
primarily through truss action.
Where masonry infills are present in concrete-braced
frames, requirements for masonry-infilled frames specified
in Chapter 4 shall also apply.

9.2-General
The analytical model for a reinforced concrete-braced
frame shall represent the strength, stiffness, and deforma­
tion capacity of beams, columns, braces, and all connections
and components of the frame. Potential failure in tension,
compression (including instability), flexure, shear, anchorage,
and reinforcement development at any section along the
component length shall be considered. Interaction with other
structural and nonstructural components shall be included.
The use of analytical models that represent the framing
with line elements with properties concentrated at compo­
nent centerlines shall be permitted. Analytical models shall
also comply with the requirements specified in 4.2. 1 .
In frames that have braces only in some bays, the restraint
of the brace shall be represented in the analytical model
as specified previously, and the nonbraced bays shall be
modeled as frames in compliance with the applicable provi­
sions in other sections of this standard. Where braces create
a vertically discontinuous frame, the effects of the disconti­
nuity on overall building performance shall be considered.
Inelastic deformations in primary components shall be
restricted to flexure and axial load in beams, columns, and
braces. Other inelastic deformations shall be permitted in
secondary components.

9.3-Stiffness of concrete braced frames

9.3.1 Linear static and dynamic procedures-Modeling of
beams, columns, and braces in braced portions of the frame
considering only axial tension and compression flexibilities
shall be permitted. Nonbraced portions of frames shall be
modeled according to procedures described in Chapters 4, 5 ,
and 9 of this standard for frames. Effective stiffnesses shall
be according to 3 . 1 .2.

9.3.2 Nonlinear static procedure-Nonlinear load-defor­

mation relations shall comply with the requirements of 3 . 1 .2 .
Beams, columns, and braces i n braced portions shall be
modeled using nonlinear truss components or other models
whose behavior has been demonstrated to adequately repre­
sent behavior of concrete components dominated by axial
tension and compression loading. Models for beams and
columns in nonbraced portions shall comply with require­
ments for frames specified in 4.2.2.2. The model shall be

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

84 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

capable of representing inelastic response along the compo­

nent lengths, as well as within connections.
Monotonic load-deformation relations shall be according
to the generalized load-deformation relation shown in Fig.
1 , except that different relations are permitted where verified
by experiments. The overall load-deformation relation shall
be established so that the maximum resistance is consistent
with the strength specifications of 3.2 and 4.2.3 . Numerical
quantities in Fig. 1 shall be derived from tests, rational anal­
yses, or criteria of 6.2.2.2, with braces modeled as columns
in accordance with Table 1 7 .

9.3.3 Nonlinear dynamic procedure-Nonlinear load­

deformation relations for use in analysis by NDP shall model
the complete hysteretic behavior of each component using
properties verified by experimental evidence. Unloading and
reloading properties shall represent stiffness and strength
degradation characteristics.

9.4-Strength of concrete-braced frames

Component strengths shall be computed according to the
general requirements of 3.2 and the additional requirements
of 4.2.3 . The possibility of instability of braces in compres­
sion shall be considered.

9.5-Acceptance criteria for concrete-braced

frames
9.5.1 Linear static and dynamic procedure-All actions
shall be classified as being either deformation-controlled
or force-controlled, as defined in 7.5 . 1 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. In
primary components, deformation-controlled actions shall be
restricted to flexure and axial actions in beams and columns
as well as axial actions in braces. In secondary components,
deformation-controlled actions shall be restricted to those
actions identified for the braced or isolated frame in this
standard.
Calculated component actions shall satisfy the require­
ments of 7.5 .2.2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. The m-factors for concrete
frames shall be as specified in other applicable sections of
this standard, and m-factors for beams, columns, and braces
modeled as tension and compression components shall be
as specified for columns in Table 1 8 . The m-factors shall
be reduced to half the values in that table but need not be
less than 1 .0 where component buckling is a consideration.
Alternate approaches or values shall be permitted where
justified by experimental evidence and analysis.

9.5.2 Nonlinear static and dynamic procedures-Calcu­

lated component actions shall satisfy the requirements of
7.5.2.2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 and shall not exceed the numerical
values listed in Table 1 7 or the relevant tables for isolated
frames specified in other sections herein. Where inelastic
action is indicated for a component or action not listed in
these tables, the performance shall be deemed unacceptable.
Alternate approaches or values shall be permitted where
justified by experimental evidence and analysis.

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 85

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

9.6-Retrofit measu res for concrete-braced frames
Seismic retrofit measures for concrete-braced frame
components shall meet the requirements of 3 . 7 and other
provisions of this standard.
C9.6-Retrofit measures for concrete-braced frames
Retrofit measures that can be effective in retrofitted
concrete braced frames include the general approaches listed
for other concrete elements in this standard and ASCE 4 1 ,
plus other approaches based on rational principles.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

86 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

CHAPTER 1 0-CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE

DIAPH RAGMS

1 0 . 1 -Components of cast-in-place concrete C10.1 -Components of cast-i n-place concrete

d iaphragms d iaphragms
Cast-in-place concrete diaphragms transmit inertial
forces within a structure to vertical seismic-force-resisting
elements. Concrete diaphragm systems shall be made
up of slabs, struts, collectors, and chords. Alternatively,
diaphragm action is permitted to be provided by a struc­
tural truss in the horizontal plane. Diaphragms consisting of
structural concrete topping on metal deck shall comply with
the requirements of 9. 8.2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7.

10.1.1 Slabs-Slabs shall consist of cast-in-place concrete

systems that, in addition to supporting gravity loads, transmit
inertial loads developed within the structure from one vertical
seismic-force-resisting element to another and provide out­
of-plane bracing to other portions of the building.

10.1.2 Struts and collectors-Collectors are components

that serve to transmit the inertial forces within the diaphragm
to elements of the seismic-force-resisting system. Struts are
components of a structural diaphragm used to provide conti­
nuity around an opening in the diaphragm. Struts and collec­
tors shall be monolithic with the slab, occurring either within
the slab thickness or being thicker than the slab.

10.1.3 Diaphragm chords-Diaphragm chords are compo­
nents along diaphragm or opening edges with concentrated
longitudinal and, in some cases, added transverse reinforce­
ment, acting primarily to resist tension and compression
forces generated by bending in the diaphragm. Exterior
walls shall be permitted to serve as chords, provided there
is adequate strength to transfer shear between the slab and
the wall.
C 10.L3 Diaphragm chords-When evaluating an existing
building, special care should be taken to evaluate the condi­
tion of the lap splices. Where the splices are not confined
by closely spaced transverse reinforcement, splice failure
is possible if stress levels reach critical values. In retrofit
construction, new lap splices should be confined by closely
spaced transverse reinforcement.

1 0.2-Analysis, modeling, and acceptance criteria
for cast-in-place concrete diaphragms
-
1 0.2.1 General The analytical model for a diaphragm
shall represent the strength, stiffness, and deformation
capacity of each component and the diaphragm as a whole.
Potential failure in flexure, shear, buckling, and bond or
anchorage of reinforcement shall be considered.
Modeling of the diaphragm as a continuous or simple span
horizontal beam supported by elements of varying stiffness
shall be permitted. The beam shall be modeled as rigid, stiff,
or flexible considering the deformation characteristics of the
actual system.
C10.2-Analysis, modeling, and acceptance criteria
for cast-in-place concrete d iaphragms
C10.2.1 General-Computer models are often based on
the assumption that diaphragms are rigid for motion in the
plane of the diaphragm. Due to their thickness, most cast­
in-place diaphragms would be considered rigid in the plane
of the diaphragm. Thin concrete slabs cast over metal decks
might be considered rigid or flexible for motion in the plane
of the diaphragm depending on the length-to-width ratio of
the diaphragm.

1 0.2.2 Stiffness of cast-in-place concrete diaphragms­ f

Diaphragm stiffness shall be modeled according to 1 0.2. 1
and shall be determined using a linear elastic model and
gross section properties. The modulus of elasticity used shall
be that of the concrete as specified in ACI 3 1 8M. Where the
length-to-width ratio of the diaphragm exceeds 2.0 (where
C10.2.2 Stifness ofcast-in-place concrete diaphragms­
The concern is for relatively flexible vertical members
that can be displaced by the diaphragm and for relatively
stiff vertical members that can be overloaded by the same
diaphragm displacement.

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 87

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

the length is the distance between vertical elements), the

effects of diaphragm flexibility shall be considered where
assigning lateral forces to the resisting vertical elements.

10.2.3 Strength of cast-in-place concrete diaphragms­

Strength of cast-in-place concrete diaphragm components
shall comply with the requirements of 3.2 as modified in this
section.
The maximum component strength shall be determined
considering potential failure in flexure, axial load, shear,
torsion, bond, anchorage, and other actions at all points in
the component under the actions of design gravity and lateral
load combinations. The shear strength shall be calculated as
specified in ACI 3 1 8M. Strut, collector, and chord strengths
shall be as determined for frame components in 4.2.3 .

10.2.4 Acceptance criteria for cast-in-place concrete

diaphragms-Diaphragm shear and flexure shall be consid­
ered deformation-controlled. Acceptance criteria for slab
component actions shall be as specified for shear walls in
7.2.4, with m-factors taken according to similar components
in Tables 2 1 and 22 for use in Eq. (7-36) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
Acceptance criteria for struts, chords, and collectors shall
be as specified for frame components in 4.2.4. Connections
shall be considered force-controlled.

1 0.3-Retrofit measures for cast-in-place concrete C10.3-Retrofit measures for cast-in-place

diaphragms
Seismic retrofit measures for cast-in-place concrete
diaphragms shall meet the requirements of 3.7 and other
provisions herein and ASCE 4 1 .
concrete diaphragms
Two general alternatives that can be effective in retrofitting
cast-in-place concrete diaphragms include the following:
either improve the strength and ductility or reduce the
demand in accordance with FEMA 1 72. Providing additional
reinforcement and encasement can be an effective measure
to strengthen or improve individual components. Increasing
the diaphragm thickness can also be effective, but the added
weight can overload the footings and increase the seismic
loads. Lowering seismic demand by providing additional
seismic-force-resisting elements, introducing additional
damping, or isolating the base of the structure can also be
effective retrofit measures.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

88 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)
STANDARD
CHAPTER 1 1 -PR ECAST CONCRETE
DIAPH RAGMS
1 1.1 -Components of precast concrete
d iaphragms
Precast concrete diaphragms are elements made up of
primarily precast components with or without topping that
transmit shear forces from within a structure to vertical
seismic-force-resisting elements.
Precast concrete diaphragms shall be classified as topped
or untopped. A topped diaphragm shall be defined as one that
includes a reinforced structural concrete topping slab poured
over the completed precast horizontal system. An untapped
diaphragm shall be defined as one constructed of precast
components without a structural cast-in-place topping.
1 1.2-Analysis, model ing, and acceptance criteria
for precast concrete diaphragms
Analysis and modeling of precast concrete diaphragms
shall conform to 1 0.2.2, with the added requirement that the
analysis and modeling shall account for the segmental nature
of the individual components.
Component strengths shall be determined in accordance
with 1 0.2.3 . Welded connection strength shall be based on
rational procedures, and connections shall be assumed to
have little ductility capacity unless test data verify higher
ductility values. Precast concrete diaphragms with rein­
forced concrete topping slabs shall be considered deforma­
tion-controlled in shear and flexure. m-factors shall be taken
as 1 .0, 1 .25, and 1 .5 for IO, LS, and CP performance levels,
respectively. Untopped precast concrete diaphragms shall be
considered force-controlled.
1 1.3-Retrofit measures for precast concrete
d iaphragms
Seismic retrofit measures for precast concrete diaphragms
shall meet the requirements of 3 . 7 and other provisions of
this standard.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
C OMMENTARY
C11.1 -Components of precast concrete
d iaphragms
Chapter 1 1 provides a general overview of concrete
diaphragms. Components of precast concrete diaphragms
are similar in nature and function to those of cast-in-place
diaphragms with a few critical differences. One difference is
that precast diaphragms do not possess the inherent unity of
cast-in-place monolithic construction. Additionally, precast
components can be highly stressed because of prestressed
forces. These forces cause long-term shrinkage and creep,
which shorten the component over time. This shortening
tends to fracture connections that restrain the component.
Most floor systems have a topping system, but some
hollow-core floor systems do not. The topping slab generally
bonds to the top of the precast components, but it can have
an inadequate thickness at the center of the span or can be
inadequately reinforced to effectively resist seismic forces.
Also, extensive cracking of joints can be present along the
panel j oints. Shear transfer at the edges of precast concrete
diaphragms is especially critical.
Some precast roof systems are constructed as untapped
systems. Untapped precast concrete diaphragms have been
limited to areas of lower seismic hazard by recent versions
of ASCE 7. This limitation has been imposed because of the
brittleness of connections and lack of test data concerning
the various precast systems. Special consideration shall be
given to diaphragm chords in precast construction.
C11.2-Analysis, model ing, and acceptance
criteria for precast concrete d iaphragms
Welded connection strength can be determined using PCI
MNL 1 20. A discussion of design provisions for untapped
precast diaphragms can be found in the appendix to Chapter
9 of FEMA 368.
The appendix to Chapter 9 of FEMA 450 provides
discussion of the behavior of untapped precast diaphragms
and outlines a design approach that can be used for such
diaphragms to satisfy the requirements of this standard.
C11.3-Retrofit measures for precast concrete
d iaphragms
Section 1 0.3 provides guidance for retrofit measures for
concrete diaphragms in general. Special care should be
taken to overcome the segmental nature of precast concrete
diaphragms and to avoid damaging prestressing strands
when adding connections.
 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 89

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

CHAPTER 1 2-CONCR ETE FOUNDATIONS

1 2.1-Types of concrete foundations C12.1-Types of concrete foundations

Foundations shall be defined as those components of
a building that serve to transmit loads from the vertical
structural subsystems, such as columns and walls, to the
supporting soil or rock. Concrete foundations for buildings
shall be classified as either shallow or deep foundations
as defined in Chapter 8 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Requirements of
Chapter 12 shall apply to shallow foundations that include
spread or isolated footing, strip or line footing, combina­
tion footing, and concrete mat footing and to deep founda­
tions that include pile foundations and cast-in-place piers.
Concrete grade beams shall be permitted in both shallow and
deep foundation systems and shall comply with the require­
ments of Chapter 1 2 .

12.1.1 Shallow concrete foundations-Existing spread

footings, strip footings, and combination footings are rein­
forced or unreinforced. Vertical loads are transmitted by
these footings to the soil by direct bearing; seismic forces are
transmitted by a combination of friction between the bottom
of the footing and the soil, and passive pressure of the soil on
the vertical face of the footing.
Concrete mat footings are reinforced to resist the flexural
and shear stresses resulting from the superimposed concen­
trated and line structural loads and the distributed resisting
soil pressure under the footing. Seismic forces are resisted
by friction between the soil and the bottom of the footing
and by passive pressure developed against foundation walls
that are part of the system.

12.1.2 Deep concretefoundations

12.1.2.1 Driven concrete pile foundations-Concrete pile C12.1.2.1 Driven concrete pile foundations-In poor
foundations shall be composed of a reinforced concrete pile soils, or soils subject to liquefaction, bending of the piles
cap supported on driven piles. The piles shall be concrete can be the only dependable resistance to seismic forces.
(with or without prestressing), steel shapes, steel pipes, or
composite (concrete in a driven steel shell). Vertical loads
are transmitted to the piles by the pile cap. Pile foundation
resistance to vertical loads shall be calculated based on the
direct bearing of the pile tip in the soil, the skin friction or
cohesion of the soil on the surface area of the pile, or based
on a combination of these mechanisms. Seismic force resis­
tance shall be calculated based on passive pressure of the
soil on the vertical face of the pile cap, in combination with
interaction of the piles in bending and passive soil pressure
on the pile surface.

12.1.2.2 Cast-in-place concrete pile foundations-Cast­
in-place concrete pile foundations shall consist of reinforced
concrete placed in a drilled or excavated shaft. Cast-in-place
pile foundation resistance to vertical and seismic forces shall
be calculated in the same manner as that of driven pile foun­
dations specified in 1 2. 1 .2. 1 .
C12.1.2.2 Cast-in-place concrete pile foundations­
Segmented steel cylindrical liners are available to form the
shaft in weak soils and allow the liner to be removed as the
concrete is placed. Various slurry mixtures are often used to
protect the drilled shaft from caving soils. The slurry is then
displaced as the concrete is placed by the tremie method.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

90 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

1 2.2-Analysis of existing concrete foundations C12.2-Analysis of existing concrete foundations

For concrete buildings, it is permitted to consider compo­ Engineering judgment should be practiced when modeling
nents fixed against rotation and translation at the top of the the effects of the foundation elements. The determination of
foundation ifthe connections between components and foun­ the appropriate boundary condition to be used can often be
dations, the foundations, and supporting soil are shown to be quickly performed by comparing the relative strengths and
capable of resisting the induced forces and the foundation is stiffness of the superstructure component with the founda­
rotationally stiff relative to the component stiffness. Where tion element. For example, the base of a column can typi­
components or foundations are not designed to resist flexural cally be modeled as fixed when it connects to a mat or pile
moments, or the connections between components and foun­ foundation; similarly, the ends of a concrete shear wall
dations are not capable of resisting the induced moments, it can typically be modeled as pinned when connecting to
is permitted to model the components with pinned ends at shallow foundations. The engineer is permitted to use simple
the top of the foundation. In such cases, the component base boundary conditions (that is, fixed or pinned) when they can
shall be evaluated for the ability to accommodate the neces­ be justified. A more rigorous approach is required when
sary end rotation of the component. The effects of base stiff­ a simple approach cannot be justified. In place of a more
ness of components shall be taken into account at the point rigorous analysis approach, the engineer may also consider
of maximum displacement of the superstructure. bounding the analysis by using both a fixed boundary condi­
If fixed or pinned boundary conditions cannot be justified, tion analysis approach and a pinned boundary condition
a more rigorous analysis procedure shall be used. Appro­ analysis approach.
priate vertical, lateral, and rotational soil springs shall be
incorporated in the analytical model as described in 8.4 of
ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. The spring characteristics shall be as specified
in Chapter 8 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Rigorous analysis of structures
with deep foundations in soft soils shall be based on special
soil-pile interaction studies to determine the probable loca­
tion of the point of fixity in the foundation and the resulting
distribution of forces and displacements in the superstruc­
ture. In these analyses, the appropriate representation of the
connection of the pile to the pile cap shall be included in the
model. Piles with less than 1 5 0 mm of embedment without
any dowels into the pile cap shall be modeled as being
pinned to the cap. Unless the pile and pile cap connection
detail is identified as otherwise from the available construc­
tion documents, the pinned connection shall be used in the
analytical model.
Where the foundations are included in the analytical
model, the responses of the foundation components shall be
considered. The reactions of structural components attached
at the foundation (axial loads, shears, and moments) shall be
used to evaluate the individual components of the founda­
tion system.

1 2.3-Evaluation of existing condition

Allowable soil capacities (subgrade modulus, bearing pres­
sure, and passive pressure) and foundation displacements
for the selected performance level shall be as prescribed in
Chapter 8 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7 or as established with project­
specific data. All components of existing foundation systems
and all new material, components, or components required
for retrofit shall be evaluated as force-controlled actions.
However, the capacity of the foundation components need
not exceed 1 .25 times the capacity of the supported vertical
structural component or element (column or wall).

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17)
S TANDARD
1 2.4-Retrofit measu res for concrete foundations
Seismic retrofit measures for concrete foundations shall
meet the requirements of 3.7 and other provisions of this
standard.
American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org
91
COMMENTARY
C12.4-Retrofit measures for concrete foundations
The measures described in this section can be effective in
retrofitting existing shallow and deep foundations.
For shallow concrete foundations:
a) Enlarging the existing footing by lateral addi­
tions: Enlarging the existing footing can be an effective
retrofit measure. The enlarged footing can be considered
to resist subsequent actions produced by the design loads,
as long as adequate shear and moment transfer capacity are
provided across the joint between the existing footing and
the additions.
b) Underpinning the footing: Underpinning an existing
footing involves the removal of unsuitable soil underneath,
coupled with replacement using concrete, soil cement, suit­
able soil, or other material. Underpinning should be staged in
small increments to prevent endangering the stability of the
structure. This technique can be used to enlarge an existing
footing or to extend it to a more competent soil stratum.
c) Providing tension tie-downs: Tension ties (soil and
rock anchors, prestressed and unstressed) can be drilled and
grouted into competent soils and anchored in the existing
footing to resist uplift. Increased soil-bearing pressures
produced by the ties should be checked against the accep­
tance criteria for the selected performance level specified in
Chapter 8 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7. Piles or drilled piers can also be
effective in providing tension tie-downs of existing footings.
d) Increasing effective depth of footing: This method
involves pouring new concrete to increase shear and moment
capacity of the existing footing. The new concrete should be
adequately doweled or otherwise connected so that it is inte­
gral with the existing footing. New horizontal reinforcement
should be provided, if required, to resist increased moments.
e) Increasing the effective depth of a concrete mat foun­
dation with a reinforced concrete overlay: This method
involves pouring an integral topping slab over the existing
mat to increase shear and moment capacity.
f) Providing pile supports for concrete footings or mat
foundations: Adding new piles can be effective in providing
support for existing concrete footing or mat foundations,
provided that the pile locations and spacing are designed to
avoid overstressing the existing foundations.
g) Changing the building structure to reduce the
demand on the existing elements: This method involves
removing mass or height of the building or adding other
materials or components (such as energy-dissipation
devices) to reduce the load transfer at the base level. New
shear walls or braces can be provided to reduce the demand
on existing foundations.
h) Adding new grade beams: This approach involves
the addition of grade beams to tie existing footings together
where poor soil exists, to provide fixity to column bases, and
to distribute seismic forces between individual footings, pile
caps, or foundation walls.
i) Improving existing soil: This approach involves
grouting techniques to improve existing soil.
For deep foundations:
92 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

a) Providing additional piles or piers: Providing addi­

tional piles or piers can be effective, provided that extension
and additional reinforcement of existing pile caps follow
guidance provided for retrofit measures of shallow founda­
tions provided previously.
b) Increasing the effective depth of the pile cap: New
concrete and reinforcement added to the top of the pile cap
can be effective in increasing its shear and moment capacity,
provided that the interface is designed to transfer actions
between the existing and new materials.
c) Improving soil adjacent to the existing pile cap: Soil
improvement adjacent to existing pile caps can be effective
if undertaken in accordance with guidance provided in 8.3
ofASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
d) Increasing passive pressure bearing area of pile cap:
The addition of new reinforced concrete extensions to the
existing pile cap can be effective in increasing the vertical
foundation bearing area and load resistance.
e) Changing the building system to reduce the demands
on the existing elements: New lateral-load-resisting
elements can be effective in reducing demand.
f) Adding batter piles or piers: Adding batter piles or
piers to existing pile or pier foundations can be effective in
resisting seismic forces. It should be noted that batter piles
have performed poorly in recent earthquakes where liquefi­
able soils were present. This problem is especially important
to consider around wharf structures and in areas that have a
high water table. Addition of batter piles to foundations in
areas of such seismic hazards should be in accordance with
requirements in 8 .4 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
g) Increasing tension tie capacity from pile or pier to
superstructure: Added reinforcement should satisfy the
requirements of Chapter 3 .

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 93

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

CHAPTER 1 3-NOTATION AND DEFINITIONS

1 3.1 -Notation
Acv = gross area of concrete section bounded by web
thickness and length of section in the direction
of shear force considered in the case of walls,
and gross area of concrete section in the case of
diaphragms, not to exceed the thickness times the
width of the diaphragm, mm2
Ag gross area of column, mm2
A1 effective cross-sectional area of a beam-column
joint, in a plane parallel to the plane of reinforce­
ment generating shear in the joint, mm2
As area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement, mm2
Ase total area oflongitudinal reinforcement in a section,
mm2
As' area of compression reinforcement, mm2
Av area of shear reinforcement, mm2
Aw area of the web cross section, = bwd, mm2
a11e parameter used to measure deformation capacity in
component load-deformation curves, Fig. I ; same
as a in ASCE 4 1
b section width, mm
bne parameter used to measure deformation capacity in
component load-deformation curves, Fig. 1 ; same
as b in ASCE 4 1
beff effective width of slab when using an effective
beam width model, mm
bw web width, mm
C11e parameter used to measure residual strength; same
as c in ASCE 4 1
c1 size ofrectangular or equivalent rectangular column,
capital, or bracket measured in the direction of the
span for which moments are being determined, mm
c2 size of rectangular or equivalent rectangular
column, capital, or bracket measured in perpendic­
ular to the direction of the span for which moments
are being determined, mm
DCR= demand-capacity ratio, computed in accordance
with Eq. (7- 1 6) in ASCE 4 1 - 1 7
d distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid
of tension reinforcement, mm; it shall be permitted
to assume that d 0. 8h, where h is the dimension
=

of the column in the direction of shear, mm

db nominal diameter of reinforcing bar, mm
de column core depth measured out-to-out of ties, mm
d11e parameter used to measure deformation capacity,
Fig. 1 ; same as d in ASCE 4 1
E Young's modulus of elasticity, MPa
EcE modulus of elasticity of concrete; evaluated using
expected material properties, MPa
(EI)efF effective flexural rigidity of a section, N.mm2
Es modulus of elasticity of reinforcement, MPa
e11e = parameter used to measure deformation capacity,
Fig. 1 ; same as e in ASCE 4 1

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

94 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

effective prestressing force of a prestressing tendon,

mm2
parameter used to measure deformation capacity,
Fig. 1 ; same asfin ASCE 4 1
specified compressive strength of concrete, MPa
expected compressive strength of concrete, MPa
lower-bound compressive strength of concrete,
MPa
!cuE' = lower-bound or expected concrete comprehensive
strength, as applicable to force-controlled or defor­
mation-controlled actions, respectively, MPa
average compressive stress in concrete caused by
effective prestress force only, after allowance for
all prestress losses, MPa
maximum stress that can be developed in anchored
or spliced reinforcement, Eq. ( I a), MPa
/s-deg = maximum stress that can be developed in anchored
or spliced reinforcement after inelastic deforma­
tions or damage reduce the effective anchorage
length to eb-deg, MPa, Eq. (1 b), MPa
specified yield strength for nonprestressed rein­
forcement, MPa
expected yield strength of steel reinforcement, MPa
lower-bound yield strength of steel reinforcement,
MPa
huE = lower-bound or expected yield strength of rein­
forcement, as applicable to force-controlled or
deformation-controlled actions, respectively, MPa
he specified yield strength of longitudinal steel rein­
forcement, MPa
lower-bound yield strength of longitudinal steel
reinforcement, MPa
hn = lower-bound yield strength of longitudinal steel
reinforcement, MPa
lower-bound or expected yield strength of longi­
tudinal reinforcement, as applicable to force­
controlled or deformation-controlled actions,
respectively, MPa
specified yield strength of transverse reinforce­
ment, MPa
expected yield strength of transverse reinforce­
ment, MPa
lower-bound yield strength of transverse reinforce­
ment, MPa
lower-bound or expected yield strength oftransverse
reinforcement, as applicable to force-controlled or
deformation-controlled actions, respectively, MPa
gne parameter used to measure deformation capacity,
Fig. 1 ; same as g in ASCE 4 1
h height o f member along which deformations are
measured, mm
overall thickness of member, mm
structural wall height, mm
effective height over which bond slip is distributed,
taken as the clear height of the wall at the story
directly above the anchorage interface, mm

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 95

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

he gross cross-sectional dimension of column core

measured in the direction of joint shear, mm
I moment of inertia, mm4
Ig moment of inertia of gross concrete or masonry
section about centroidal axis, neglecting reinforce­
ment, mm4
KR stiffness of rotational spring used to explicitly
capture bar slip, N.mm/rad
k11e coefficient used for calculation of column shear
strength based on displacement ductility, Eq. (3).
k11e = 1 .0 in regions where displacement ductility
demand is less than or equal to 2, 0.7 in regions
where displacement ductility demand is greater
than or equal to 6, and varies linearly for displace­
ment ductility between 2 and 6
L length of member along which deformations are
assumed to occur, mm
£1 length of slab span in a slab-column in the direction
of seismic forces, mm
£2 length of slab span in a slab-column in the direction
perpendicular to the seismic forces, mm
lb available length of straight development, lap splice,
or standard hook, Eq. ( l a), mm
lb.deg= adjusted available straight development, or lap
splice length for column bars passing through
regions where inelastic deformations and damage
are expected, Eq. ( 1 b), mm. lb.deg shall be evaluated
by subtracting from lb a distance of 2!3d from the
point of maximum flexural demand in any direc­
tion damage is anticipated within the column; with
d calculated in the direction of the largest cross­
sectional dimension., mm
£" required length of development for a straight bar,
splice, or hook, evaluated in accordance with ACI
3 1 8M; Eq. ( l a) and ( lb) of this document, mm
le length of embedment of reinforcement, Eq. (2),
mm
lp Length of plastic hinge used for calculation of
inelastic deformation capacity, Eq. (5), mm
lw = length of entire wall or a segment of wall consid­
ered in the direction of shear force, mm
Ms£ = moment strength at beam section; evaluated using
expected material properties
Mcoe� moment strength at column section; evaluated
using expected material properties, N.mm
MfY£= moment at section at first yield, defined as the
moment at which the yield strain of the steel rein­
forcement is first reached in tension, or a concrete
strain of 0.002 is reached in compression; evalu­
ated using expected material properties, N.mm
Msecs£ = moment strength of the slab column strip; evalu­
ated using expected material properties, N.mm
Mse� positive or negative flexural strengths of a section
of slab between lines that are two-and-one-half slab
or drop panel thicknesses outside opposite faces of
the column or capital, N.mm

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

96 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Muo= member design moment evaluated based on Eq.

(7-34) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, N.mm
Muo.cs =moment caused by gravity loads acting on the
slab column strip; to be calculated according to
the procedures of ACI 3 1 8M for the gravity loads
specified in 7 .2.2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, N.mm
Muox= design bending moment about the x-axis for axial
load PuF, N.mm
Muoy= design bending moment about the y-axis for axial
load PuF, N.mm
My£ = moment strength at section; evaluated per ACI
3 1 8M without strength reduction factors and using
expected material properties, or using Eq. (C l O),
N.mm
m component demand modification factor to account
for expected ductility associated with this action at
the selected structural performance level
mX = value of m for bending about the x-axis of a member
my = value of m for bending about the y-axis of a member
Nuo = member design axial force evaluated based on Eq.
(7-34) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, N
Nua = member design axial force evaluated based on Eq.
(7-3) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7; set to zero for tension force
in Eq. (3), N
number of prestressed strands
nominal axial load strength at zero eccentricity, N
lower-bound of vertical compressive strength for
wall or wall pier, N
PC£ = expected gravity compressive force applied to a
wall or pier component stress, N
PeL = lower-bound axial strength of a column, wall, or
wall pier, N
Puo = deformation-controlled axial force evaluated per
ASCE 4 1 - 17, 7.5.2, N
PuF = force-controlled axial force evaluated per ASCE
4 1 -1 7 , 7.5 .2, N
Q generalized force in a component, Fig. 1
Qc£ = expected strength of a deformation controlled
action of an element at the deformation level under
consideration
lower-bound estimate of the strength of a force­
controlled action of an element at the deformation
level under consideration
Quo = deformation-controlled action caused by gravity
loads and earthquake forces
force-controlled action caused by gravity loads and
earthquake forces
yield strength of a component, Fig. 1
substitute yield strength
s spacing of transverse reinforcement, Eq. (3) and
(C l ), mm
fw thickness of wall web, mm
v shear force at section concurrent with moment M, N
Vcot = shear strength of concrete columns, Eq. (3); evalu­
ated using lower-bound or expected material prop-

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 97

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

erties as applicable to force-controlled or deforma­

tion-controlled actions, respectively, N
Vco10= shear strength of concrete columns at a displace­
ment ductility demand not exceeding 2.0, Eq . (3);
evaluated using lower-bound or expected mate­
rial properties as applicable to force-controlled or
deformation-controlled actions, respectively, N
Vo c !ot= shear strength of concrete columns at a displace­
ment ductility demand not exceeding 2.0, Eq . (3);
evaluated using expected material properties, N
VcPun£ = punching shear strength provided by the concrete
as defined in ACI 3 1 8M ; evaluated using expected
material properties, N
V1 beam-column joint shear strength calculated using
the general procedures of ACI 3 1 8M, as modified
by Eq. (4), N
v.
s
= shear strength provided by shear reinforcement, N
Vuo = member design shear force evaluated based on Eq.
(7-34) of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, N
shear demand resulting in flexural yielding of the
plastic hinges; evaluated using a longitudinal steel
stress of/ye£, N
shear at yield in the direction under consideration,
N/m
Uco/ = dimensionless parameter for evaluating the effec­
tiveness of transverse reinforcement in resisting
shear forces in Eq . (3); ac01 1 .0 for sld :S 0.75, 0.0
=

for sld 2: 1 .0, and varies linearly for sld between

0.75 and 1 .0
�eff effective stiffness factor for cracked section of a
slab modeled using an effective beam width model,
Eq. (C3)
L'1 calculated deflection of diaphragm, wall, or bracing
element; or generalized deformation, Fig. 1
� strength reduction factor
�fy£ = curvature at section at first yield, defined as the
curvature at which the yield strain of the steel rein­
forcement is first reached in tension, or a concrete
strain of 0.002 is reached in compression; evalu­
ated using expected material properties, rad/mm
�y£ curvature in the effective bilinear moment-curva­
ture relationship associated with My£; evaluated
using expected material properties, rad/mm
y coefficient for calculation of joint shear strength,
Eq. (4)
y1 fraction of unbalanced moment transferred by
flexure at slab-column connections
K knowledge factor used to reduce component
strength based on the level of knowledge obtained
for individual components during data collection
A correction factor related to unit weight of concrete,
Eq. (3) and (4)
ll coefficient of shear friction
8 generalized deformation, radians, Fig. 1
eb angle between lower edge of compressive strut and
beam, rad

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

98 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Elc angle between lower edge of compressive strut and

column, rad
Ely£ yield rotation, radians, Eq. (5); evaluated using
expected material properties
p ratio of nonprestressed tension reinforcement to
effective section area = A/bd
' ratio of nonprestressed compression reinforcement
p
" volumetric ratio of horizontal confinement rein­
p
forcement in a joint
Pbae = reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain
conditions
Pe Ratio of area of distributed longitudinal reinforce­
ment to gross concrete area perpendicular to that
reinforcement
p, ratio of area of distributed transverse reinforcement
to gross concrete area perpendicular to that rein­
forcement = A/(bs)
Pv vertical reinforcement ratio in a wall or wall pier
Pw ratio of As to bwd

1 3.2-Definitions
acceptance criteria-limiting values of properties, such
as drift, strength demand, and inelastic deformation, used
to determine the acceptability of a component at a given
performance level.
action-an internal moment, shear, torque, axial force,
deformation, displacement, or rotation corresponding to
a displacement caused by a structural degree of freedom;
designated as force- or deformation-controlled.
aspect ratio-ratio of full height to length for concrete
and masonry shear walls; ratio of span to depth for hori­
zontal diaphragms.
assembly-two or more interconnected components.
beam-a structural member whose primary function is to
carry loads transverse to its longitudinal axis.
boundary component-a structural component at the
boundary of a shear wall or a diaphragm or at an edge of
an opening in a shear wall or a diaphragm that possesses
tensile or compressive strength to transfer lateral forces to
the seismic-force-resisting system.
braced frame--a vertical seismic-force-resisting element
consisting of vertical, horizontal, and diagonal components
joined by concentric or eccentric connections.
building performance level-a limiting damage state for
a building, considering structural and nonstructural compo­
nents, used in the definition of performance objectives.
capacity-the permissible strength or deformation for a
component action.
chord-see diaphragm chord.
closed stirrups or ties-transverse reinforcement defined
in ACI 3 1 8M consisting of standard stirrups or ties with
hooks having a bend angle of at least 90 degrees, and lap
splices in a pattern that encloses longitudinal reinforcement.
collector-see diaphragm collector.
column (or beam) j acketing-a retrofit method in which
a concrete column or beam is encased in a steel, concrete, or

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 99

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

FRP (fiber-reinforced polymer) jacket to strengthen or repair

the member by confining the concrete.
component-a part of an architectural, mechanical, elec­
trical, or structural system of a building.
concrete masonry-masonry constructed with solid or
hollow units made of concrete; can be ungrouted or grouted.
connection-a link that transmits actions from one
component or element to another component or element,
categorized by type of action (moment, shear, or axial).
connectors-nails, screws, lags, bolts, split rings, shear
plates, headed studs, and welds used to link components to
other components.
coupling beam-a component that ties or couples adja­
cent shear walls acting in the same plane.
critical action-the component action that reaches its
elastic limit at the lowest level oflateral deflection or loading
of the structure.
crosstie-a component that spans the width of the
diaphragm and delivers out-of-plane wall forces over the full
depth of the diaphragm.
deep foundation-driven piles made of steel, concrete,
or wood, cast-in-place concrete piers, or drilled shafts of
concrete.
deformability-the ratio of the ultimate deformation to
the limit deformation.
deformation-controlled action-an action that has an
associated deformation that is allowed to exceed the yield
value of the element being evaluated. the extent of permis­
sible deformation beyond yield is based on component
modification factors (m-factors).
deformation-sensitive component-a component that is
sensitive to deformation imposed by the drift or deforma­
tion of the structure, including deflection or deformation of
diaphragms.
demand-the amount of force or deformation imposed on
an element or component.
design earthquake-a user-specified earthquake for the
evaluation or retrofit of a building that has ground-shaking
criteria described in Chapter 2 of ASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
design resistance (force or moment, as appropriate)­
resistance provided by a member or connection; the product
of adjusted resistance, the resistance factor, and the time­
effect factor.
diaphragm-a horizontal (or nearly horizontal) structural
element, such as a floor or roof system, used to transfer iner­
tial lateral forces to vertical elements of the seismic-force­
resisting system.
diaphragm chord-a boundary component perpendic­
ular to the applied force that is provided to resist tension or
compression caused by the diaphragm moment.
diaphragm collector-a component parallel to the
applied force that transfers lateral forces from the diaphragm
of the structure to vertical elements of the seismic-force­
resisting system.
diaphragm ratio-see aspect ratio.
diaphragm strut-see diaphragm tie.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

100 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

diaphragm tie-a component parallel to the applied load

that is provided to transfer wall anchorage or diaphragm
inertial forces within the diaphragm; also called diaphragm
strut; see crosstie, for case where diaphragm tie spans the
entire diaphragm width.
drift-horizontal deflection at the top of the story relative
to the bottom of the story.
edge distance-the distance from the edge of the member
to the center of the nearest fastener.
effective stiffness-the value of the lateral force in the
building, or an element thereof, divided by the corresponding
lateral displacement.
element-an assembly of structural components that
act together in resisting forces, including gravity frames,
moment-resisting frames, braced frames, shear walls, and
diaphragms.
evaluation-an approved process or methodology of
evaluating a building for a selected performance objective.
expected material property-the mean value of the
material property from material tests; as defined in ASCE
4 1 - 1 7, 7.5.1 .4.
expected strength-the mean value of resistance of a
component at the deformation level anticipated for a popula­
tion of similar components, including consideration of the
variability in material strength as well as strain-hardening
and plastic section development; evaluated using expected
material properties as defined in ASCE 4 1 - 17, 7.5 . 1 .4.
flexible diaphragm-a diaphragm with horizontal defor­
mation along its length twice or more than twice the average
story drift.
force-controlled action-an action that is not allowed to
exceed the nominal strength of the element being evaluated.
foundation system-an assembly of structural compo­
nents, located at the soil-structure interface, that transfers
loads from the superstructure into the supporting soil.
hoops-transverse reinforcement defined in 25.7.4 of
ACI 3 1 8M consisting of closed ties with 1 35-degree hooks
embedded into the core and no lap splices.
in-plane wall-see shear wall.
infill-a panel ofmasonry placed within a steel or concrete
frame. Panels separated from the surrounding frame by a gap
are termed "isolated infills". Panels that are in full contact
with a frame around its full perimeter are termed "shear
infills".
joint-an area where ends, surfaces, or edges of two
or more components are attached; categorized by type of
fastener or weld used and method of force transfer.
knee joint-a joint that in the direction of framing has
one column and one beam.
level of seismicity-a degree of expected seismic hazard.
For this standard, levels are categorized as very low, low,
moderate, or high, based on mapped acceleration values and
site amplification factors, as defined in 2.5 (Table 2-5) of
ASCE 4 1 - 1 7.
licensed design professional-All references in this stan­
dard to the licensed design professional shall be understood

(ciCiJ American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 101

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

to mean the person who is licensed and responsible for, and

in charge of, the inspection, evaluation, structural design, or
retrofit design.
lightweight concrete--structural concrete that has an
air-dry unit weight not exceeding 1 800 kg/m3.
linear dynamic procedure (LDP)-a response-spec­
trum-based modal analysis procedure defined in ASCE 4 1 ,
the use of which is required where the distribution of lateral
forces is expected to depart from that assumed for the linear
static procedure.
linear static procedure (LSP)-a lateral force analysis
procedure defined in ASCE 4 1 , using a pseudo-lateral force.
This procedure is used for buildings for which the linear
dynamic procedure is not required.
load path-a path through which seismic forces are
delivered from the point at which inertial forces are gener­
ated in the structure to the foundation and, ultimately, the
supporting soil.
lower-bound material property-the mean value of the
material property from material tests minus one standard
deviation; as defined in ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 7.5 . 1 .4.
lower-bound strength-the mean-minus-one standard
deviation of the governing strength for a population of
similar components; evaluated using lower-bound material
properties as defined in ASCE 4 1 - 1 7, 7.5 . 1 .4.
masonry-the assemblage of masonry units, mortar, and
possibly grout or reinforcement; classified with respect to the
type of masonry unit, including clay-unit masonry, concrete
masonry, or hollow-clay tile masonry.
moment frame (MF)-a frame capable of resisting hori­
zontal forces caused by the members (beams, columns, and
slabs) and joints resisting forces primarily by flexure.
nominal strength-the capacity of a structure or compo­
nent to resist the effects of loads, as determined by: 1 )
computations using specified material strengths and dimen­
sions, and formulas derived from accepted principles of
structural mechanics; or 2) field tests or laboratory tests of
scaled models, allowing for modeling effects and differences
between laboratory and field conditions.
nonstructural component-an architectural, mechan­
ical, or electrical component of a building that is perma­
nently installed in, or is an integral part of, a building system.
overturning-behavior that results when the moment
produced at the base of vertical seismic-force-resisting
elements is larger than the resistance provided by the
building weight and the foundation resistance to uplift.
perforated wall or perforated infill panel-a wall or
panel not meeting the requirements for a solid wall or infill
panel.
performance objective--one or more pairings of a
selected seismic hazard level with both an acceptable or
desired structural performance level and an acceptable or
desired nonstructural performance level.
pier-vertical portion of a wall between two horizontally
adj acent openings or by an opening and an edge; piers resist

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

102 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

axial stresses from gravity forces and bending moments

from combined gravity and lateral forces.
primary component-an element that is required to resist
the seismic forces and accommodate seismic deformations
for the structure to achieve the selected performance level.
required member resistance (or required strength)­
action on a component or connection, determined by struc­
tural analysis, resulting from the factored loads and the crit­
ical load combinations.
resistance-the capacity of a structure, component, or
connection to resist the effects of loads.
retrofit-improving the seismic performance of structural
or nonstructural components of a building.
retrofit measures-modifications to existing compo­
nents, or installation of new components, that correct defi­
ciencies identified in a seismic evaluation as part of a scheme
to rehabilitate a building to achieve a selected performance
objective.
retrofit method-one or more procedures for improving
the seismic performance of existing buildings.
retrofit strategy-a technical approach for developing
rehabilitation measures for a building to improve seismic
performance.
rigid diaphragm-a diaphragm with horizontal deforma­
tion along its length less than half the average story drift.
secondary component-an element that accommodates
seismic deformations but is not required to resist the seismic
forces it can attract for the structure to achieve the selected
performance level.
seismic-force-resisting system-those elements of the
structure that provide its basic strength and stiffness to resist
seismic forces.
shallow foundation-isolated or continuous spread foot­
ings or mats.
shear wall-a wall that resists lateral forces applied
parallel with its plane; also known as an in-plane wall.
solid wall or solid infill panel-a wall or infill panel with
openings not exceeding 5 percent of the wall surface area.
The maximum length or height of an opening in a solid wall
must not exceed 1 0 percent of the wall width or story height.
Openings in a solid wall or infill panel must be located within
the middle 50 percent of a wall length and story height and
must not be contiguous with adjacent openings.
stiff diaphragm-a diaphragm that is neither flexible nor
rigid.
story-the portion of a structure between the tops of two
successive finished floor surfaces and, for the topmost story,
from the top of the floor finish to the top of the roof structural
element.
strength-the maximum axial force, shear force, or
moment that can be resisted by a component.
strong-column, weak-beam-a connection where the
total moment capacity of the columns in any moment frame
joint is greater than the total moment capacity of the beams,
ensuring inelastic action in the beams.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 103

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

structural component-a component of a building

that provides gravity- or lateral-load resistance as part of
a continuous load path to the foundation, including beams,
columns, slabs, braces, walls, wall piers, coupling beams,
and connections; designated as primary or secondary.
structural performance level a limiting struc­
-

tural damage state; used in the definition of performance

objectives.
structural system-an assemblage of structural compo­
nents that are joined together to provide regular interaction
or interdependence.
subassembly-a portion of an assembly.
superstructure-the portion of the structure above the
foundation or isolation system.
tie-see diaphragm tie.
wall pier vertical portion of a wall between two hori­
-

zontally adjacent openings or an opening and an edge.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

104 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

R EFERENCES
ACI committee documents and documents published by
other organizations that are cited in the commentary are
listed by document number, year of publication, and full
title, followed by authored documents listed alphabetically.

American Concrete Institute

ACI 20 1 . 1 R-08-Guide for Conducting a Visual Inspec­
tion of Concrete in Service
ACI 2 1 4.4R- 10(1 6)-Guide for Obtaining Cores and
Interpreting Compressive Strength Results
ACI 228 . 1 R-03-In-Place Methods to Estimate Concrete
Strength
ACI 228.2R- 1 3-Report on Nondestructive Test Methods
for Evaluation of Concrete in Structures
ACI 3 1 8M-02-Building Code Requirements for Struc­
tural Concrete and Commentary
ACI 3 1 8M- 14-Building Code Requirements for Struc­
tural Concrete and Commentary
ACI 3 52R-02( 1 0)-Recommendations for Design of
Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced
Concrete Structures
ACI 355 .2-07-Qualification of Post-Installed Mechan­
ical Anchors in Concrete and Commentary
ACI 355.4M- 1 1-Qualification of Post-Installed Adhe­
sive Anchors in Concrete and Commentary
ACI 364 . 1 R-07-Guide for Evaluation of Concrete Struc­
tures before Rehabilitation
ACI 374. 1 -05(1 4)-Acceptance Criteria for Moment
Frames Based on Structural Testing and Commentary
ACI 408R-03(1 2)-Bond and Development of Straight
Reinforcing Bars in Tension
ACI 437R-03-Strength Evaluation of Existing Concrete
Buildings
ACI 562M- 16-Code Requirements for Assessment,
Repair, and Rehabilitation of Existing Concrete Structures
and Commentary

American Institute ofSteel Construction

AISC 3 60- 1 0-Specification for Structural Steel Buildings

American Society of Civil Engineers

ASCE 7- 1 0-Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures
ASCE 4 1 -06-Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings
ASCE 4 1 - 1 3-Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings
ASCE 4 1 - 1 7-Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing
Buildings
SEI/ASCE 1 1 -99-Standard Guideline for Structural
Condition Assessment of Existing Buildings

ASTM International
ASTM A370- 1 7-Standard Test Methods and Definitions
for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 105

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

ASTM A41 6/A4 1 6M- 1 7-Standard Specification for

Steel Strand, Uncoated Seven-Wire for Prestressed Concrete
ASTM A42 1 /A42 1M-1 5-Standard Specification for
Uncoated Stress-Relieved Steel Wire for Prestressed
Concrete
ASTM A706/A706M- 1 6-Standard Specification for
Deformed and Plain Low-Alloy Steel Bars for Concrete
Reinforcement
ASTM A722/A722M- 1 5-Standard Specification for
High-Strength Steel Bars for Prestressed Concrete
ASTM C39/C39M- 17-Standard Test Method for
Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
ASTM C42/C42M- 1 6-Standard Test Method for
Obtaining and Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of
Concrete
ASTM C496/C496M- 1 1-Standard Test Method for Split­
ting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
ASTM E 1 78-1 6a-Standard Practice for Dealing with
Outlying Observations
ASTM E488/E488M- 1 5-Standard Test Methods for
Strength of Anchors in Concrete Elements

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEMA 1 72-92-NEHRP Handbook of Techniques for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings
FEMA 273-97-NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings
FEMA 274-97-NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines
for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
FEMA 306-98-Evaluation of Earthquake-Damaged
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings- Basic Procedures
Manual
FEMA 307-98-Evaluation of Earthquake-Damaged
Concrete and Masonry Wall Buildings- Technical
Resources
FEMA 308-98-Repair of Earthquake Damaged Concrete
and Masonry Wall Buildings
FEMA 368-0 1-NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Struc­
tures (2000 edition)
FEMA 450-04--NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Struc­
tures (2004 edition)
FEMA 547-07-Techniques for the Seismic Rehabilita­
tion of Existing Buildings
FEMA P-750- 1 0-NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures
(2009 edition)

Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute

PCI MNL 120- 1 0-PCI Design Handbook: Precast and
Prestressed Concrete, Seventh Edition

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

106 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Authored references
Allen, F., and Darvall, P., 1 977, "Lateral Load Equivalent
Frame," A CI Journal Proceedings, V. 74, No. 7, July, pp.
294-299.
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., 1 995, "Equivalent
Specified Concrete Strength from Core Test Data," Concrete
International, V. 1 7, No. 3, Mar. 1 995, pp. 52-58.
Bartlett, F. M., and MacGregor, J. G., 1 996, "Statis­
tical Analysis of the Compressive Strength of Concrete
in Structures," A CI Materials Journal, V. 93, No. 2, Mar.­
Apr. pp. 1 5 8- 1 68 .
Berry, M . , and Eberhard, M . , 2005, "Practical Perfor­
mance Model for Bar Buckling," Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 1 3 1 , No. 7, pp. 1 060- 1 070. doi: 1 0 . 1 06 1/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2005) 1 3 1 :7(1 060)
Birely, A.; Lowes, L. N.; and Lehman, D. E., 2009,
"A Practical Model for Beam-Column and Connection
Behavior in Reinforced Concrete Frames," Proceedings of
the ATC-SEI Conference on Improving the Seismic Perfor­
mance ofExisting Buildings and Other Structures, San Fran­
cisco, CA.
Biskinis, D. E.; Roupakias, G. K.; and Fardis, M. N., 2004,
"Degradation of Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete
Members with Inelastic Cyclic Displacements," A CI Struc­
tural Journal, V. 1 0 1 , No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 773-783.
Brown, J., and Kunnath, S. K., 2004, "Low Cycle Fatigue
Failure of Reinforcing Steel Bars," A CI Materials Journal,
V. 1 0 1 , No. 6, Nov.-Dec. pp. 457-466.
Caltrans, 2006, "Seismic Design Criteria," California
Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA.
Cardenas, A. E.; Hanson, J. M.; Corley, W. G.; and
Hognestad, E., 1 973, "Design Provisions for Shear Walls,"
A CI Journal Proceedings, V. 70, No. 3, Mar., pp. 22 1 -230.
Cho, J.-Y., and Pincheira, J. A., 2006, "Inelastic Analysis
of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Short Lap Splices
Subjected to Reversed Cyclic Loads," A CI Structural
Journal, V. 103, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 280-290.
Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, 1 98 1 , Evaluation of
Reinforcing Steel Systems in Old Reinforced Concrete Struc­
tures, CRSI, Schaumburg, IL, 16 pp.
Dovich, L. M., and Wight, J. K., 2005, "Effective Slab
Width Model for Seismic Analysis ofFlat Slab Frames," A CI
Structural Journal, V. 1 02, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 868-875.
El-Metwally, S. E., and Chen, W. F., 1 988, "Moment­
Rotation Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column
Connections," A CI Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 4, Nov.­
Dec., pp. 3 84-394.
Elwood, K. J., and Eberhard, M. 0., 2009, "Effective
Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns," A CI Structural
Journal, V. 1 06, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 476-484.
Elwood, K. J.; Matamoros, A.; Wallace, J. W. ; Lehman,
D. E.; Heintz, J. A.; Mitchell, A. D.; Moore, M. A.; Valley,
M. T. ; Lowes, L.; Comartin, C.; and Moehle, J. P., 2007,
"Update ofASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions," Earthquake
Spectra, V. 23, No. 3, pp. 493-523. doi: 1 0. 1 1 93/1 .27577 1 4

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 107

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P., 2004, "Evaluation of

Existing Reinforced Concrete Columns," Proceedings of the
Thirteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, British Columbia.
Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P., 2005a, "Drift Capacity of
Reinforced Concrete Columns with Light Transverse Rein­
forcement," Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Oakland, California, V. 2 1 , No. 1 , pp.
7 1 -89.
Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P. , 2005b, "Axial Capacity
Model for Shear-Damaged Columns," A CJ Structural
Journal, V. 1 02, No. 4, pp. 578-587.
Fardis, M. N., and Biskinis, D. E., 2003, "Deformation
Capacity of RC Members, as Controlled by Flexure or
Shear," Otani Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 5 1 1 -530.
Furlong, R. W. ; Hsu, C. T. T. ; and Mirza, S. A., 2004,
"Analysis and Design of Concrete Columns for Biaxial
Bending-Overview," ACJ Structural Journal, V. 1 0 1 , No.
3, May-June, pp. 4 1 3-423 .
Ghannoum, W.; Sivaramakrishnan, B.; Pujol, S.; Catlin,
A. C.; Fernando, S.; Yoosuf, N.; and Wang, Y., 20 1 5a,
"NEES : ACI 369 Rectangular Column Database," https:!/
datacenterhub.org/resources/25 5 (accessed Sept. 1 1 , 20 1 7).
Ghannoum, W.; Sivaramakrishnan, B.; Puj ol, S.; Catlin, A.
C.; Fernando, S.; Yoosuf, N.; and Wang, Y. , 20 1 5b, "NEES :
ACI 369 Circular Column Database," https://datacenterhub.
org/resources/254 (accessed Sept. 1 1 , 20 1 7).
Ghannoum, W. M., 20 17, "Updates to Modeling Param­
eters and Acceptance Criteria for Non-Ductile and Splice­
Deficient Concrete Columns," 1 6th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile, pp. 1 - 12 .
Ghannoum, W. M., and Matamoros, A . B., 20 14,
"Nonlinear Modeling Parameters and Acceptance Criteria
for Concrete Columns," Seismic Assessment of Existing
Reinforced Concrete Buildings, SP-297, K. J. Elwood, J.
Dragovich, and I. Kim, eds., American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 1-24.
Ghannoum, W. M., and Moehle, J. P., 2012, "Dynamic
Collapse Analysis of a Concrete Frame Sustaining Column
Axial Failures," A CI Structural Journal, V. 1 09, No. 3, May­
June, pp. 403-4 1 2.
Ghobarah, A., and Biddah, A., 1 999, "Dynamic Analysis
of Reinforced Concrete Frames Including Joint Shear Defor­
mation," Engineering Structures, V. 2 1 , No. 1 1 , pp. 97 1 -987.
doi: 1 0 . 1 0 1 6/S0 1 4 1 -0296(98)00052-2
Henkhaus, K., 20 1 0, "Axial Failure of Vulnerable Rein­
forced Concrete Columns Damaged by Shear Reversals,"
PhD dissertation, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN.
Hidalgo, P. A.; Ledezma, C. A.; and Jordan, R., 2002,
"Seismic Behavior of Squat Reinforced Concrete Shear
Walls," Earthquake Spectra, V. 1 8, No. 2, 2002, pp. 287-308.
doi: 1 0 . 1 1 93/ 1 . 149035 3
Hognestad, E ., 1952, "Fundamental Concepts i n Ulti­
mate Load Design of Reinforced Concrete Members," A CJ
Journal Proceedings, V. 49, No. 1 0, pp. 809-830.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

108 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Hsu, C. T. T., 1 988, "Analysis and Design of Square and

Rectangular Columns by Equation of Failure Surface," A CI
Structural Journal, V. 85, No. 2, Apr.-May, pp. 1 67-1 79.
Hwang, S.-J., and Moehle, J. P., 2000, "Models for Later­
ally Load Slab-Column Frames," A CI Structural Journal, V.
97, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 345-353.
Ichinose, T., 1 995, "Splitting Bond Failure of Columns
under Seismic Action," ACI Structural Journal, V. 92, No.
5, Sept.-Oct., pp. 535-542.
Kang, T. H.-K., and Wallace, J. W., 2005, "Dynamic
Responses of Flat Plate Systems with Shear Reinforce­
ment," ACI Structural Journal, V. 1 02, No. 5, Sept.-Oct.,
pp. 763-773 .
Kang, T. H.-K., and Wallace, J. W., 2006, "Punching of
Reinforced and Post-Tensioned Concrete Slab-Column
Connections," A CI Structural Journal, V. 1 04, No. 4, July­
Aug., pp. 53 1 -540.
Kang, T. H.-K.; Wallace, J. W. ; and Elwood, K. J., 2009,
"Nonlinear Modeling of Flat-Plate Systems," Journal of
Structural Engineering, V. 1 3 5 , No. 2, pp. 1 47-158. doi:
1 0. 1 06 1 /(ASCE)0733-9445(2009) 1 35 :2(147)
Lin, C. M., and Restrepo, J. I., 2002, "Seismic Behaviour
and Design of Reinforced Concrete Interior Beam-Column
Joints," Bulletin of the New Zealand Societyfor Earthquake
Engineering, V. 35, No. 2, pp. 108-128.
Luo, Y. H.; Durrani, A. J.; and Conte, J. P., 1 994, "Equivalent
Frame Analysis of Flat Plate Buildings for Seismic Loading,"
Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 1 20, No. 7, pp. 2 1 37-
2 1 55 . doi: 1 0. 1 06 1 /(ASCE)0733-9445(1 994) 1 20:7(2 1 37)
Lynn, A. C.; Moehle, J. P.; Mahin, S. A.; and Holmes,
W. T., 1 996, "Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced
Concrete Building Columns," Earthquake Spectra, V. 1 2,
No. 4, pp. 7 1 5 -739. doi: 1 0 . 1 193/1 . 1 585907
Matamoros, A. B.; Matchulat, L.; and Woods, C., 2008,
"Axial Load Failure of Shear Critical Columns Subj ected
to High Levels of Axial Load," 1 4th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China.
Mitra, N., and Lowes, L. N., 2007, "Evaluation, Cali­
bration and Verification of a Reinforced Concrete
Beam-Column Joint Model," Journal of Structural
Engineering, V. 1 3 3, No. 1 , pp. 1 05- 1 20. doi: 1 0 . 1 06 1/
(ASCE)0733-9445(2007) 1 3 3 : 1 (1 05)
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER),
201 0, "Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic
Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings," 72- 1 , PEER/ATC,
Applied Technology Council (ATC), Oct., 242 pp.
Panagiotakos, T. B., and Fardis, M. N., 2001 , "Deforma­
tion of Reinforced Concrete Members at Yielding and Ulti­
mate," A CI Structural Journal, V. 98, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp.
1 35- 1 48.
Panagiotou, M., and Restrepo, J. I., 2007, "Design and
Computational Model for the UCSD 7 -Story Structural Wall
Building Slice," SSRP 07-09 Rep., Department of Structural
Engineering, University of California, La Jolla, CA.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1 M-17) 109

S TANDARD COMMENTARY

Pecknold, D. A., 1 975, "Slab Effective Width for Equiva­

lent Frame Analysis," A CI Journal Proceedings, V. 72, No.
4, Apr., pp. 294-299.
PEERIEERI, 2006, "New Information on Seismic Perfor­
mance of Concrete Buildings," Pacific Earthquake Engi­
neering Research Center/Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, seminar video download, EERI.org.
Priestley, M. J. N.; Calvi, G. M.; and Kowalsky, M. J.,
2007, "Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures,"
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 771 pp.
Priestley, M. J. N., and Kowalski, M. J., 1 998, "Aspects of
Drift and Ductility Capacity of Cantilever Structural Walls"
Bulletin, NZNSEE 3 1 , 2 pp.
Qaisrani, A.-N., 1993, "Interior Post-Tensioned Flat­
Plate Connections Subjected to Vertical and Biaxial Lateral
Loading," PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 284 pp.
Saatcioglu, M.; Alsiwat, J. M.; and Ozcebe, G., 1 992,
"Hysteretic Behavior of Anchorage Slip in RIC Members,"
Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 1 1 8, No. 9, pp. 2439-
2458 . doi: 1 0 . 1 061/(ASCE)0733-9445( 1 992) 1 1 8: 9(2439)
Sezen, H., 2002, "Seismic Response and Modeling of
Lightly Reinforced Concrete Building Columns," PhD
dissertation, Department of Civil and Environmental Engi­
neering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Sezen, H., and Moehle, J. P., 2004, "Shear Strength Model
for Lightly Reinforced Concrete Columns," Journal of
Structural Engineering, V. 1 30, No. 1 1 , pp. 1 692- 1 703 . doi:
1 0 . 1 06 1/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004) 1 30: 1 1 ( 1 692)
Shin, M., and LaFave, J. M., 2004, "Modeling of Cyclic
Joint Shear Deformation Contribution in RC Beam-Column
Connections to Overall Frame Behavior," Structural Engi­
neering and Mechanics, V. 1 8, No. 5, pp. 645-669. doi:
1 0 . 1 2989/sem.2004 . 1 8 .5 .645
Simpson, B., and Matamoros, A., 20 1 2, "Criteria for
Evaluating the Effect of Displacement History and Span­
to-Depth Ratio on the Risk of Collapse of RIC Columns,"
Proceedings of the 15th World Coriference on Earthquake
Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, 8 pp.
Sokoli, D., and Ghannoum, W. M., 20 1 6, "High-Strength
Reinforcement in Columns under High Shear Stresses," A CI
Structural Journal, V. 1 1 3, No. 3, May-June, pp. 605-6 14.
doi: 1 0 . 1 43 59/5 1 688203
Sozen, M. A., and Moehle, J. P., 1 993, "Stiffness of rein­
forced Concrete Walls Resisting In-Plane Shear," Electric
Power Research Institute, Research Project 3094-0 1 .
Sperry, J.; Al-Yasso, S . ; Searle, N.; DeRubeis, M.;
Darwin, D.; O'Reilly, M .; Matamoros, A.; Feldman, L.;
Lepage, A.; Lequesne, R. ; andAjaam, A., 2005, "Anchorage
of High-Strength Reinforcing Bars with Standard Hooks,"
Structural Engineering and Engineering Materials SM
Report No. 1 1 1 , University of Kansas Center for Research,
Inc., Lawrence, KS.
Vanderbilt, M . D., and Corley, W. G., 1 983, "Frame
Analysis of Concrete Buildings," Concrete International,
V. 5, No. 1 2, Dec., pp. 3 3-43 .

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

110 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF EXISTING CONCRETE BUILDINGS (ACI 369.1M-17)

STANDARD C OMMENTARY

Wallace, J. W., 1 994, "New Methodology for Seismic

Design of RC Shear Walls," Journal of Structural Engi­
neering, V. 1 20, No. 3 , pp. 863-884. doi: 10. 1 06 1/
(ASCE)0733-9445( 1 994) 1 20:3(863)
Wallace, J. W. , 1 995, "Seismic Design ofRC Shear Walls;
Part I: New Code Format," Journal of Structural Engi­
neering, V. 1 2 1 , No. 1 , pp. 75-87.
Wallace, J. W. , and Moehle, J. P., 1 992, "Ductility and
Detailing Requirements of Bearing Wall Buildings," Journal
of Structural Engineering, V. 1 1 8, No. 6, 1 992, pp. 1 625-
1 644. doi: 1 0. 1 06 1 /(ASCE)0733-9445(1 992) 1 1 8:6( 1 625)
Wire Reinforcement Institute, 2009, "Historical Data
on Wire, Triangular Wire Fabric/Mesh and Welded Wire
Concrete Reinforcement (WWR)," TF 101-09, Wire Rein­
forcement Institute, Hartford, CT.
Wood, S. L., 1 990, "Shear Strength of Low-Rise Rein­
forced Concrete Walls," A C1 Structural Journal, V. 87, No. 1 ,
Jan.-Feb., pp. 99- 1 07.
Woods, C., and Matamoros, A., 20 1 0, "Effect of Longitu­
dinal Reinforcement Ratio on the Failure Mechanism of RIC
Columns Most Vulnerable to Collapse," 9th US National
and 1Oth Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Toronto, ON, Canada, July.

American Concrete Institute Copyrighted Material-www.concrete.org

 ®
•

OCI
 ®
•

OCI
 American Concrete Institute
Always advancing

As ACI begins its second century of advancing concrete knowledge, its original chartered purpose
remains "to provide a comradeship in finding the best ways to do concrete work of all kinds and in
spreading knowledge." In keeping with this purpose, ACI supports the following activities:

Technical committees that produce consensus reports, guides, specifications, and codes.

Spring and fall conventions to facilitate the work of its committees.

Educational seminars that disseminate reliable information on concrete.

Certification programs for personnel employed within the concrete industry.

Student programs such as scholarships, internships, and competitions.

Sponsoring and co-sponsoring international conferences and symposia.

Formal coordination with several international concrete related societies.

Periodicals: the ACI Structural Journal, Materials Journal, and Concrete International.

Benefits of membership include a subscription to Concrete International and to an ACI Journal. ACI
members receive discounts of up to 40% on all ACI products and services, including documents, seminars
and convention registration fees.

As a member of ACI, you join thousands of practitioners and professionals worldwide who share
a commitment to maintain the highest industry standards for concrete technology, construction,
and practices. In addition, ACI chapters provide opportunities for interaction of professionals and
practitioners at a local level.

American Concrete Institute

38800 Country Club Drive
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
Phone: +1.248.848.3700
Fax: +1.248.848.3701
www. concrete.org
American Concrete Institute
Always advancing

38800 Country C l u b Drive

Farmington H i l l s , Ml 48331 USA
+1 . 248.848.3700
www.con crete.org

The A m e r i c a n C o n c rete I n stitute (AC I ) is a l e a d i n g a utho rity a n d resou rce

worldwide for the deve l o p m e nt a n d d i stri bution of c o n s e n s u s-based

sta n d a rd s a n d tec h n i c a l reso u rces, ed ucati o n a l pro g r a m s , and certifi cati o n s

for i n d ivid u a l s a n d o rga n i zati o n s i nvo lved i n c o n c rete d es i g n , c o n st r u ct i o n ,

a n d materia l s , w h o s h a re a co m m itment to p u rs u i n g the best u s e o f c o n crete.

I n d ivi d u a l s i nterested in the a ctivities of ACI a re e n c o u ra g e d to explore the

ACI website fo r m e m b e rs h i p o p p o rtu n ities, c o m m ittee activities, and a wide

va ri ety of c o n crete reso u rces. As a vo l u nteer m e m be r-d riven o rg a n izati o n ,

A C I i nvites p a rt n e rs h i p s a n d w e l c o m e s a l l con crete p rofess i o n a l s w h o w i s h to

be p a rt of a res pecte d , c o n n ecte d , soc i a l g ro u p t h at p rovides a n op portu n ity

for p rofessi o n a l g rowth, n etwo r k i n g a n d e nj oy m e nt.

g ���mii ii WlUlll