The Seismic Assessment of

Existing Buildings
Technical Guidelines for Engineering Assessments

Revised Draft – 10 October 2016

Section C5 – Concrete Buildings

New Zealand Society for

Earthquake Engineering
Document Status and Amendments

Version Date Purpose/ Amendment Description

2016_SB 30 June 2016 Draft for Sector Briefings
Revised draft to accompany consultation proposals for
2016_C 10 Oct 2016 the regulations and EPB methodology under the Building
(Earthquake-prone Buildings) Amendment Act 2016

This document is intended to be referenced by the Earthquake Prone Buildings (EPB)

Methodology being developed under the provisions of the Building (Earthquake-prone
Buildings) Amendment Act 2016. It is also intended to be endorsed by MBIE for use as
guidance under section 175 of the Building Act 2004 to the extent that it assists
practitioners and territorial authorities in complying with that Act.

Document Access
This draft document may be downloaded from www.EQ-Assess.org.nz in parts:
1 Part A – Assessment Objectives and Principles
2 Part B – Initial Seismic Assessment
3 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Updates will be notified on the above website.

The document is expected to be published before the Act comes into force, when the
regulations and EPB Methodology associated with the Building (Earthquake-prone
Buildings) Amendment Act 2016 come into force.

Document Management and Key Contact

This document is managed jointly by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and
Employment, the Earthquake Commission, the New Zealand Society for Earthquake
Engineering, the Structural Engineering Society and the New Zealand Geotechnical
Society.

Please use the feedback forms on www.EQ-Assess.org.nz to provide feedback or to

request further information about these draft Guidelines.
Acknowledgements
These Guidelines were prepared during the period 2014 to 2016 with extensive technical input
from the following members of the Project Technical Team:

Project Technical Group Chair Other Contributors

Rob Jury Beca Graeme Beattie BRANZ

Task Group Leaders Dunning Thornton

Alastair Cattanach
Consultants
Jitendra Bothara Miyamoto International
Phil Clayton Beca
Adane
Beca
Gebreyohaness Charles Clifton University of Auckland

Nick Harwood Eliot Sinclair John Hare Holmes Consulting Group

Weng Yuen Kam Beca Jason Ingham University of Auckland

Dave McGuigan MBIE Stuart Palmer Tonkin & Taylor

Stuart Oliver Holmes Consulting Group Lou Robinson Hadley & Robinson

Stefano Pampanin University of Canterbury Craig Stevenson Aurecon

Dmytro Dizhur University of Auckland

Helen Ferner Beca

Justin Coe MBIE

Project Management was provided by Deane McNulty, and editorial support provided by
Ann Cunninghame and Sandy Cole.

Oversight to the development of these Guidelines was provided by a Project Steering Group
comprising:

Dave Brunsdon
Kestrel Group John Hare SESOC
(Chair)

Gavin Alexander NZ Geotechnical Society Quincy Ma NZSEE

Stephen Cody Wellington City Council Richard Smith EQC

Jeff Farrell Whakatane District Council Mike Stannard MBIE

John Gardiner MBIE Frances Sullivan Local Government NZ

Funding for the development of these Guidelines was provided by the Ministry of Business,
Innovation and Employment and the Earthquake Commission.

Red Book Front Sections 20160529

 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Contents

C5. Concrete Buildings ................................................ C5-1

Contents i
Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

The current version of this section has not yet been fully edited and
co-ordinated with other sections of Part C.

Contents ii
Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5. Concrete Buildings

C5.1 General
C5.1.1 Scope and outline of this section
This section provides guidelines for performing a DSA for existing reinforced concrete (RC)
buildings from the material properties to section, component, subassembly, and ultimately
the system level. Unreinforced concrete structures are not addressed.

The overall aim is to provide assessors with:

• an understanding of the underlining issues associated with the seismic response of RC
buildings (including the presence of inherent vulnerabilities or weaknesses), and
• a set of assessment tools based on different levels of complexity (not necessarily
corresponding to different levels of reliability) for the detailed seismic assessment (DSA)
of the behaviour of RC buildings, with particular reference to evaluation of %NBS.

Note:
This section is based on the latest information and knowledge relating to the seismic
behaviour of existing RC buildings which has been developed and gained over the last
15 years at both the national and international level. It also draws on international standards
and guidelines on seismic assessment and strengthening/retrofitting, with the aim of adapting
and integrating best practice to best suit New Zealand conditions.
Increased knowledge in relation to RC buildings has been obtained through extensive
experimental and analytical/numerical investigations, and also through damage observations
and lessons learned following major earthquakes. In particular, there have been two
significant projects relating to New Zealand construction practice:
• the Foundation of Research Science and Technology (FRST) research project ‘Retrofit
Solutions for New Zealand Multi-storey Buildings’ , which was carried out jointly by
the University of Canterbury and University of Auckland from 2004 to 2010, and
• the ‘SAFER Concrete Technology’ Project (2011-2015), funded by the Natural Hazard
Research Platform (NHRP).
These projects have provided very valuable evidence-based information on the expected
seismic performance of concrete buildings designed and constructed according to
New Zealand practice and Building Code provisions. (Refer, for an overview of these
findings, Pampanin 2009 and, for more details, Marriott, 2009; Kam, 2011; Akguzel, 2011;
Genesio, 2011; and Quintana-Gallo, 2014.)
More recently, the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010-2011 has represented a unique
“open-air laboratory” and an important source of information for assessing and evaluating
the actual seismic performance of New Zealand RC buildings of different structural type,
age, construction practice and design details.

Recent experience has highlighted a number of key structural weaknesses and failure
mechanisms, either at an element level or at a global system level. It has not only confirmed

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-1

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

that pre-1970s RC buildings – as expected – have a potentially high inherent seismic

vulnerability, but also that some modern (e.g. post-1980s) RC buildings can be expected to
perform poorly. In some cases, this has led to catastrophic collapses or “near misses”. This
has been a wake-up call as it has identified a “new generation” of potentially vulnerable
buildings that need to be scrutinised with care.

This section attempts to capture these new learnings and provide up to date procedures for
evaluating the vulnerability of existing RC buildings and for determining their seismic
rating. It dedicates specific effort to describing, both qualitatively and quantitatively, key
aspects of the local and global mechanisms and their impact on the building response. This
is to provide practising engineers with a more holistic understanding of the overall building
capacity and expected performance, which is essential when determining the seismic rating
for a building.

Note:
Most RC buildings designed post-1976 can be expected to have a relatively low probability
of collapse under ULS level earthquake shaking.
However, some of these buildings can still have structural weaknesses – even severe
structural weaknesses, such as non-ductile gravity columns with low drift capacity – which
could lead to a progressive and catastrophic collapse in severe earthquakes.

This section covers in turn:

• typical building practices, structural deficiencies and observed behaviour of RC
buildings in earthquakes (refer to Sections C5.2 to C5.3)
• material properties and testing, component capacities and global system capacities (refer
to Sections C5.4 to C5.8), and
• brief comments on improving RC buildings (refer to Section C5.9).

Sections C5.2 to C5.3, referred to above, provide important context for any assessment of
RC buildings and include findings from the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010-11.
An appreciation of the observed behaviour of a building in the context of its age and the
detailing present is considered an essential part of assessing its seismic rating. It is
recommended that assessors become familiar with the material in these sections before
conducting an assessment.

Given their importance in the overall behaviour of a building system, as emphasised by the
lessons learnt in recent earthquakes, RC floor/diaphragms and their interactions with the
main vertical lateral load-resisting systems are covered in some detail in Section C5.5.6.

This material should be read in conjunction with the more general guidance outlined in
Section C2.

Appendices include summaries of:

• evolution of New Zealand design standards, (refer to Appendix C5A)
• historical concrete property requirements, design specifications and strength testing in
New Zealand (refer to Appendix C5BAppendix C5B)
• material test methods for concrete and reinforcing steel (refer to Appendix C5C)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-2

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

• the evolution of steel reinforcing standards in New Zealand, including reference values
for the mechanical properties of the reinforcing steel depending on the age of
construction (refer to Appendix C5D).

Further appendices include guidance for:

• diaphragm grillage modelling (refer to Appendix C5E)
• assessing the deformation capacity of precast concrete floor systems (refer to
Appendix C5F)
• assessing the buckling of vertical reinforcement in shear walls (refer to Appendix C5G).

Note:
The impact of masonry infills on the performance of the primary structural systems is
covered in Section C7. The effects of Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI) in terms of seismic
performance, modifications of demand and development of mixed mechanisms are discussed
in Section C4.

C5.1.2 Useful publications

A short list of key publications follows. A more comprehensive list is provided at the end of
this section and referenced throughout.

ASCE 41-13 (2014). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers
and Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, Virginia, USA
ATC 78-3 (2015). Seismic Evaluation of Older Concrete Frame Buildings for Collapse Potential, Applied
Technology Council (ATC), Redwood City, California, USA
FEMA P-58 (2012). Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Applied Technology Council (ATC),
Redwood City, California, USA
EN 1998-3, Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, in Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting
of Buildings, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Updated in 2005
FEMA-547 (2006). Techniques for the seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings. Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Washington, D.C.
fib (2003). Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Reinforced Concrete Buildings: State-of-the-art report. Bulletin
24, fib Task Group 7.1, International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), Lausanne, Switzerland
JBDPA (2005). Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Guidelines for
Seismic Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, and Technical Manual for Seismic Evaluation and
Seismic Retrofit of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association,
Tokyo, Japan SEE 2006, Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in
Earthquakes, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) Study Group, New Zealand
NIST GCR 10-917-7, (2010). Program Plan for the Development of Collapse Assessment and Mitigation
Strategies for Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings, National Institute of Standards and Technology
NTC (2008). Norme tecniche per le costruzioni, (Code Standard for Constructions), (In Italian), Ministry of
Infrastructure and Transport, MIT, Rome, Italy
Pampanin, S. (2006). Controversial Aspects in Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Structures in Modern Times:
Understanding and Implementing Lessons from Ancient Heritage, Bulletin of NZ Society of Earthquake
Engineering, 39 (2), 120-133
Pampanin, S. (2009). Alternative Performance-Based Retrofit Strategies and Solutions for Existing R.C.
Buildings, Series “Geotechnical, Geological, and Earthquake Engineering, Volume 10” Chapter 13 within the
Book “Seismic Risk Assessment and Retrofitting - with special emphasis on existing low rise structures”-
(Editors: A. Ilki, F. Karadogan, S. Pala and E. Yuksel), Publisher Springer, pp. 267-295

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-3

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.1.3 Notation
Symbol Meaning

𝑎𝑎 Depth of the compression stress block (=𝛽𝛽𝛽𝛽)

𝐴𝐴bb Displacement at the onset of bar buckling

𝐴𝐴g Gross section area of the column

𝐴𝐴r Wall aspect ratio

𝐴𝐴s Area of reinforcement in tension

𝐴𝐴s ’ Area of reinforcement in compression

𝐴𝐴sp Area of spiral or circular hoop bar

𝐴𝐴st Area of transverse reinforcement parallel to the applied shear

𝐴𝐴st Area of transverse reinforcement parallel to the applied shear

𝐴𝐴t Area of the transverse stirrups

𝐴𝐴v Area of transverse shear reinforcement at spacing s

𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴,eff Area of the effective steel of the slab

𝑏𝑏0 Effective width of the spandrel for torsion

𝑏𝑏b Beam width

𝑏𝑏c Column width

𝑏𝑏core Width of column core, measured from centre to centre of the peripheral transverse
reinforcement in the web

𝑏𝑏eff Effective width of the slab

𝑏𝑏j Effective width of the joint

𝑏𝑏w Web width

𝑏𝑏w Width of beam web

𝐶𝐶 Neutral axis depth

𝐶𝐶 Resultant of compression stresses in concrete

𝐶𝐶′ Resultant of compression stresses in compression reinforcement

𝐷𝐷 Section effective depth

𝑑𝑑" Depth of the concrete core of the column measured in the direction of the shear force for
rectangular hoops, and the diameter of the concrete core for spirals or circular hoops

𝑠𝑠 Spacing of transverse shear reinforcement

𝑐𝑐0 Cover to longitudinal bars

𝑐𝑐u Neutral axis depth at ultimate curvature

𝑑𝑑b Average diameter of longitudinal reinforcement

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-4

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Symbol Meaning

𝐸𝐸s Steel elastic modulus

𝑓𝑓 ′c Probable concrete compressive strength

𝑓𝑓 ′cc Probable confined concrete compressive strength

𝑓𝑓st Stress in the steel related to the maximum tensile strain in the first part of the cycle

𝑓𝑓u Probable ultimate strength of the longitudinal reinforcement

𝑓𝑓v Normal stress in the vertical direction

𝑓𝑓y Probable yielding strength of the longitudinal reinforcement

𝑓𝑓y/slab Yielding stress of the slab steel in tension

𝐹𝐹yt Yielding stress of the transverse steel

𝑓𝑓yt Probable yield strength of the transverse reinforcement

𝐻𝐻 Height of the member

ℎb Beam height

ℎc Column height

ℎcr Vertical height of inclined crack

ℎt Height of the transverse beam or spandrel

ℎw Wall height

𝐽𝐽d Internal couple lever arm

𝐾𝐾 Shear stress degradation factor

𝐾𝐾d Neutral axis depth when tension steel reaches the strain at first yield, 𝜀𝜀y

𝑘𝑘j Coefficient for calculating the shear capacity of a joint

𝑘𝑘lp Coefficient related to the plastic hinge calculation

𝑘𝑘wall Shear coefficient related to concrete mechanism

𝑙𝑙b Half of the length of the beam

𝐿𝐿c Shear span, distance of the critical section from the point of contra flexure

𝑙𝑙c Total length of the column

𝑙𝑙cr Horizontal length of inclined crack

𝑙𝑙d Theoretical development length

𝑙𝑙d,prov Provided lap length

𝑙𝑙d,req Required lap length

𝐿𝐿p Plastic hinge length

𝐿𝐿sp Strain penetration length

𝑙𝑙w Wall length

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-5

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Symbol Meaning

𝑀𝑀 Bending moment

𝑀𝑀b Moment in the beam (at the interface with the column)

𝑀𝑀col Equivalent moment in the column (at the level of the top face of the beam)

𝑀𝑀f Residual moment capacity of an element

𝑀𝑀lap Moment capacity of a lap splice

𝑀𝑀n Probable flexural moment capacity of an element

𝑀𝑀p,wall Wall probable flexural strength

𝑁𝑁 Axial load

𝑁𝑁 ∗ Total axial load: gravity plus seismic.

𝑝𝑝t , 𝑝𝑝c Tensile and compressive average principal stresses in the joint panel

𝑆𝑆n Nominal strength capacity

𝑆𝑆o Overstrength capacity

𝑆𝑆prob Probable strength capacity

𝑠𝑠t Spacing in between stirrups in the spandrel

𝑇𝑇 Resultant of tension stresses in tension reinforcement

𝑉𝑉 Shear

𝑉𝑉 Maximum nominal shear stress

𝑉𝑉b Shear force in the beam

𝑉𝑉c Shear resisted by the concrete mechanisms

𝑉𝑉c Shear force in the column

𝑣𝑣c Nominal shear stress carried by concrete mechanism

𝑉𝑉c,wall Shear resisted by the concrete mechanisms

𝑣𝑣ch Nominal horizontal joint shear stress carried by a diagonal compressive strut mechanism
crossing joint

𝑉𝑉jh Average shear stress in the joint panel

𝑉𝑉jh Horizontal joint shear force

𝑉𝑉n Shear resisted as a result of the axial compressive load

𝑉𝑉n,wall Shear resisted as a result of the axial compressive load

𝑉𝑉p Probable shear strength capacity of an element

𝑉𝑉p,wall Wall probable shear strength

𝑉𝑉pjh Probable horizontal joint shear force

𝑉𝑉s Shear resisted by the transverse shear reinforcement

𝑉𝑉s,wall Shear resisted by the horizontal transverse shear reinforcement

𝛼𝛼′ Shear coefficient related to section aspect ratio

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-6

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Symbol Meaning

𝛼𝛼, 𝛽𝛽 Stress block parameters

𝛼𝛼′wall Shear coefficient related to section aspect ratio

𝛽𝛽′ Shear coefficient related to longitudinal reinforcement ratio

𝛽𝛽′wall Shear coefficient related to longitudinal reinforcement ratio

𝛾𝛾 Inclination angle of axial load compressive truss

𝛾𝛾bb 𝑙𝑙w Wall core length

𝛥𝛥p Plastic displacement

𝛥𝛥u Ultimate displacement

𝛥𝛥y Yielding displacement

𝛿𝛿 ∗p Plastic displacement at the onset of bar buckling

𝜀𝜀 +0 Tensile strain in the steel at zero stress

𝜀𝜀 rcm Concrete strain at the onset of bar buckling (reversed actions)

𝜀𝜀 ∗p Steel plastic strain at the onset of bar buckling

𝜀𝜀cu Concrete ultimate compressive strain

𝜀𝜀s Tension steel strain

𝜀𝜀s.cr Steel tensile strain at the onset of bar buckling (cyclic actions)

𝜀𝜀sh Strain at the end of the yielding plateau

𝜀𝜀st Maximum tensile strain in the steel in the first part of the cycle

𝜀𝜀su,b Steel tensile strain at the onset of bar buckling (monotonic actions)

𝜀𝜀su Steel ultimate tensile strain

𝜀𝜀y Strain at first yield of the longitudinal tension reinforcement

𝜃𝜃 Rotation (or drift ratio)

𝜃𝜃cr Average cracking angle

𝜃𝜃p Plastic rotation (or drift ratio)

𝜃𝜃u Ultimate rotation (or drift ratio)

𝜃𝜃y Yielding rotation (or drift ratio)

𝜇𝜇Δ Displacement ductility

𝜇𝜇Δc Displacement ductility capacity

𝜇𝜇Δd Displacement ductility demand

𝜇𝜇ϕ Curvature ductility

𝜌𝜌eff Effective confinement ratio

𝜌𝜌ℓ Longitudinal reinforcement ratio

𝜌𝜌s Volume of transverse reinforcement to volume of concrete core ratio

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-7

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Symbol Meaning

𝜙𝜙 Curvature

𝜙𝜙 ∗u Curvature at the onset of bar buckling

𝜙𝜙p Plastic curvature

𝜙𝜙u Ultimate curvature

𝜙𝜙y First yield curvature

𝛹𝛹1 Coefficient for calculating the development length

𝛹𝛹2 Coefficient for calculating the development length

𝛹𝛹a Coefficient for calculating the development length

𝛹𝛹b Coefficient for calculating the development length

C5.2 Typical Concrete Building Practices in

New Zealand
C5.2.1 General
Construction methods for RC buildings in New Zealand have changed significantly over the
years since their first appearance in the 1920s. The evolution of construction methods
matches the evolution of the relevant codes and standards in line with increasing
understanding of the behaviour of these buildings in earthquakes.

An understanding of the development of seismic design provisions for RC buildings is

relevant for the assessor as it often provides valuable insight into why certain detailing
decisions were made and the possible presence of SSWs (refer to Section C1), particularly
where deformation capacity might be limited.

Developments in the design requirements for RC buildings and the corresponding evolution
of loading standards are summarised in Appendix C5A, along with some pointers on what
to look for in RC buildings of the corresponding eras. An overview of the key historical code
developments is given in this section.

Note:
For a more detailed comparison of New Zealand standards used for seismic design of RC
buildings refer to Fenwick and MacRae, 2009. A summary of the evolution of earthquake
engineering codified requirements in New Zealand has also been provided by Kam and
Pampanin (2002).

C5.2.2 1920s to 1950s: early years of seismic design

The first known New Zealand publication on earthquake design was written by C. Reginald
Ford (Ford, 1926) in 1926, several years before the 7.8 magnitude Napier earthquake of 1931
that changed New Zealand construction practice dramatically. Ford’s description drew
heavily from the state of knowledge and lessons following the San Francisco (1906) and
Kanto, Japan (1923) earthquakes. However, the significant loss of lives and devastation
following the 1931 Napier earthquake (Dewell, 1931) provided the government with the

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-8

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

impetus to legislate building construction in relation to earthquake resistance. A Building

Regulations Committee was set up and reported on a draft earthquake building by-law,
which was presented to the New Zealand Parliament in June 1931 (Cull, 1931). This draft
building by-law was subsequently published by New Zealand standards as the 1935
New Zealand Standard (NZS) Model Building By-Law (NZSS 95:1935, 1935) and the 1939
NZS Code of Building By-Laws (NZSS 95:1939, 1939).

The 1935 by-law (NZSS 95:1935, 1935) was not compulsory and depended on adoption by
local territorial authorities. There were no specific recommendations for the design of
concrete buildings. However, it is interesting to note that 135 degree hooks were already
shown for stirrups in reinforced construction (clause 409 of NZSS 95).

The 1955 revision of the NZS Standard Model Building By-Law (NZSS 95:1955)
introduced changes but lacked significant improvement in terms of seismic structural
detailing. For example, while it gave explicit definitions for deformed bars (which were only
introduced in New Zealand in the mid-1960s) and plain round bars, it only specified 10%
higher allowable bond stresses for deformed bars. The provisions for shear resistance of
concrete elements were tightened and the requirement of 135° anchorage for stirrups was
included. However, no other specific seismic details for reinforced concrete structures were
specified.

C5.2.3 1960s to mid-1970s: advent of structural ductility

The NZS 1900:1964 code (NZS 1900.8-64, 1964, NZS 1900.9-64, 1964) was a significant
evolution from its predecessors. It showed increased understanding of RC seismic design,
and was also based on best international practice and knowledge (ACI318-63, 1963, CEB-
1964, 1964).

This code introduced the concept of structural ductility with the stated assumption of 5-10%
damping for structural ductility 𝜇𝜇 = 4 for RC structures. However, no provision for ductile
RC detailing or modern capacity design considerations (yet to be developed) was included.

Notably, NZS 1900:1964 was still based on the working (allowable) stress concept for
member design while the international trend, in particular for RC design provisions or Model
Codes (fib), was starting to move towards the introduction of limit state design concepts
(ACI318-63, 1963; CEB-1964, 1964).

In 1961, work by Blume, Newmark and Corning (Blume, et al., 1961) had pioneered the
concept of ductile RC buildings and introduced detailing for ductile RC elements. As the
1960s and 1970s progressed, there were significant developments in earthquake engineering
internationally, as summarised in the 1966-1973 Structural Engineers Association of
California (SEAOC) recommendations (SEAOC, 1966; SEAOC, 1973) and the 1971
ACI-318 concrete code (ACI 318-71, 1971). The need for beam-column joint seismic design,
different ductility coefficient for different lateral-resisting systems and ductile RC detailing
were identified in these documents.

However, the 1971 ACI-318 code (ACI 318-71, 1971) did not contain any of the capacity
design provisions which were developed in New Zealand in the late 1960s-1970s (Park and
Paulay, 1975). As a result, without explicit design for lateral-force resistance, for example,
buildings constructed before the NZSS 95:1955 provisions were introduced – or pre-1970s

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-9

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

RC frames more generally – are unlikely to have sufficient lateral strength capacity or
adequate lateral stiffness because of small column dimensions (proportioned primarily for
gravity loads).

In 1969, J.P. Hollings (Hollings, 1969) introduced a step-by-step design procedure to

achieve a beam-hinging inelastic mechanism in RC frames under seismic loading, which
was a precursor of the concept of capacity design. The 1968-1970 Ministry of Work’s Code
of Practice for Design of Public Buildings (Fenwick and MacRae, 2009, Megget, 2006,
MOW-NZ, 1968-1970) adopted many ductile detailing recommendations from the 1966
SEAOC recommendations (SEAOC, 1966) and the 1971 ACI-318 code (ACI 318-71, 1971).

Park and Paulay’s seminal publication of 1975 (Park and Paulay, 1975) outlined many
concepts of modern seismic RC design and detailing, including a rigorous design procedure
of RC frames under the capacity design philosophy and quantification of the ductility
capacity of RC beam, column, wall and joint elements. These innovations were quickly
disseminated in New Zealand engineering practice and building standards (NZS 3101:2006,
2006) from the mid-1970s onwards.

C5.2.4 Mid-1970s onwards: modern seismic design

The introduction of the NZS 4203:1976 loading standard represented a quantum change in
the approach to seismic design. The limit state approach using defined Ultimate Limit State
(ULS) and Serviceability Limit State (SLS) was codified as the preferred design method
over the working stress approach. Ductility was required to be explicitly allowed for (as per
the 1966 SEAOC recommendations). Structures without any ductile detailing were required
to be designed for higher seismic loading.

In the same period, the provisional NZS 3101 concrete standard, published in 1972
(NZS 3101:1970P, 1970) also adopted many parts of the 1971 ACI-318 code (ACI318-71,
1971) and some recommendations from the draft of (Park and Paulay, 1975). It introduced
some detailing of plastic hinge regions with a focus on shear reinforcement, lapping of bars
and column confinement.

However, it was not until the revamp of the New Zealand loading code NZS 4203 in 1976,
the update of the ACI-318 code in 1977 and the various drafts of the 1982 edition of the
NZS 3101 concrete design standard (NZS 3101:1982, 1982) that modern seismic design for
RC buildings was fully codified in New Zealand.

NZS 3101:1982 provided improved requirements in the detailing of plastic hinge regions,
including shear, confinement and anti-buckling reinforcement. Lapped bars were not
permitted at any floor levels in columns where there was a possibility of yielding. Column
ties were required to be anchored by 135 degrees in cover concrete. Improved methods of
determining spacing of transverse reinforcement for seismic columns were provided.
A strong-column weak beam mechanism was explicitly specified in the commentary of this
standard, with requirements to account for overstrength moments including flange effects
from the slab.

NZS 3101:1982 was reviewed and updated in 1995 and 2006 to reflect further knowledge
from research, the revisions of the NZS 4203 loading standard (NZS 4203:1976, 1992) in
1992 and the introduction of the NZS 1170 loading standard (NZS 1170, 2004) in 2004.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-10

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

As an example of key improvements between 1982 and 1995, both in conceptual design and
required details, a potential “loophole” in the 1982 code relating to the design of gravity
columns (now typically referred to as pre-1995 ‘”non-ductile” columns) was removed when
improved provisions were included in NZS 3101:1995 (refer to Section C5.5.3 for more
details).

Note:
The late 1970s through to the 1990s represent a period when the knowledge of seismic
performance of buildings improved significantly. As a result, the development of standards
over this period often lagged behind the published research. In New Zealand the Bulletin of
the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, BNZSEE, published a
number of papers that were the precursor of provisions which ultimately translated into
design requirements. Designers often incorporated these refinements into their designs long
before the provisions were cited in the standards.
For this reason any assumption regarding detailing that are based solely on the date of
design/construction should be approached with care. Non-invasive and/or intrusive
investigations will be required to confirm such assumptions when these are found to be key
to the assessed behaviour of the building.

C5.3 Observed Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete

Buildings in Earthquakes
C5.3.1 General
Extensive experimental and analytical investigations into the seismic vulnerability and
response/performance of RC buildings, together with observations of damage in past
earthquakes (including the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010/11) have highlighted a
series of typical structural deficiencies in RC buildings.

These include:
• inadequate transverse reinforcement for shear and confinement in potential plastic hinge
regions
• insufficient transverse reinforcement in beam-column joint core regions
• insufficient and inadequate detailing of column longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement
• inadequate anchorage detailing in general, for both longitudinal and transverse
reinforcement
• insufficient lap splices of column reinforcement just above the floor or at the foundation
level, or of beam reinforcement in regions where the gravity moments are high
• insufficient shear, anti-buckling and confining/restraining reinforcement in wall systems
• insufficient longitudinal reinforcement ratio in walls, combined with higher than
expected tensile strength in the concrete, leading to single crack opening when compared
to a spread plastic hinge, resulting in failure in tension of the rebars
• inadequate capacity of the foundations to account for overturning moment caused by
lateral loading

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-11

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

• lower quality of materials (concrete and steel) when compared to current practice; in
particular:
- use of low grade plain round (smooth) bars for both longitudinal (until the mid-
1960s) and transverse reinforcement
- low-strength concrete (below 20-25 MPa, and, in extreme cases, below 10 MPa)
• potential brittle failure mechanisms at both local and global level due to interaction with
spandrel beams, masonry infills, façades causing shear failure in columns (due to
short/captive column effects) and/or potential soft-storey mechanisms
• lack of (horizontal and vertical) displacement compatibility considerations between the
lateral load resisting systems (either frames, walls or a combination of these), the floor-
diaphragms and gravity load bearing systems (e.g. non-ductile columns with limited
confinement details and drift capacity)
• inadequate design of diaphragm actions and connection detailing; particularly in the case
of precast concrete floor systems which became common from the 1980s onwards
• inadequate protection against punching shear between columns and flat-slab connections
• plan and vertical irregularity, resulting in unexpected amplification and concentration of
demands on beams, walls and columns
• limited and inadequate consideration of bidirectional loading effect on critical structural
elements (e.g. columns, walls, or beam-column joints), and
• lack of, or inadequate consideration of, capacity design principles. While this is more
typical of pre mid-1970s RC buildings (before the introduction of NZS 4203:1976 and
the capacity design concept itself), it can also arise in later buildings as this concept was
under continuous refinement in further generations of building standards.

It is worth noting that often structural deficiencies are not isolated. Brittle failure
mechanisms can be expected either at local level (e.g. shear failure in the joints, columns or
beams) or global level (e.g. soft storey mechanisms). The presence of multiple structural
deficiencies and lack of an alternative robust load path – i.e. lack of redundancy/robustness
– can trigger progressive collapse with catastrophic consequences, as evident in the
22 February 2011 Christchurch (Lyttleton) earthquake.

Note:
While the deficiencies listed above have been shown to reduce the performance of RC
buildings, noncompliance with current standards is not necessarily an indication of
inadequate performance when compared against the minimum requirements of the Building
Code. The effect of the deficiencies on the building behaviour and therefore its earthquake
rating will depend on their location and criticality and the assessed impact of failure on life
safety.

C5.3.2 Non-ductile columns

Gravity columns are common in structural systems that contain shear walls, seismic frames,
or a combination of both as the lateral load resisting system. These columns are generally
required to support often significant areas of floor, while not being relied upon to contribute
to the strength of the lateral system. In order to perform this function they must remain
capable of carrying axial load while undergoing the required lateral displacements of the
structural system.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-12

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

If these displacements are particularly large and/or the axial loads in the columns are large,
there is the potential for the gravity columns to be a severe structural weakness (SSW) with
potentially catastrophic consequences.

The poor performance of reinforced concrete columns with inadequate detailing, such as
inadequate transverse reinforcement, lap-splices in the plastic hinge region and possibly
longitudinal rebars ‘cranked’ at the end of the lap splices, has been observed in various past
earthquakes (refer to Figure C5.1) and investigated in recent literature (in particular, Boys
et al., 2008; Elwood and Moehle, 2005; and Kam et al., 2011).

(a) Indian Hills Medical (b) Olive View Hospital

Centre (1994 Northridge (1971 San Fernando
earthquake) earthquake)

Figure C5.1: Examples of failure of inadequately reinforced columns in past earthquakes

In addition to older (pre-1970s) details, which were expected to have a number of

deficiencies, a potential loophole in the NZS 3101:1982 design standard was identified for
the detailing of columns designed according to post-1982 and pre-1995 code specifications.

Note:
Experimental tests conducted at the University of Canterbury by Boys et al. in 2008 (and
therefore before the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010/11), which reflected
New Zealand construction and design detailing, highlighted the potentially high
vulnerability of gravity columns with inadequate/poor detailing to sustain lateral
displacements.
These tests comprised both unidirectional and bidirectional loading testing regimes. They
showed the low displacement/drift capacity of such columns, which was exacerbated by a
bidirectional loading regime (more realistically representing the actual response of a building
under a ground motion).
Figure C5.2 presents examples of axial-shear failure of non-ductile gravity columns
simulated in this laboratory testing under unidirectional cyclic loading.
In general, the (limited) experimental tests that were carried out confirmed that the equations
proposed for axial-shear failure of columns according to the Elwood-Moehle model (Elwood
and Moehle, 2005) capture the displacements at which shear-dominated RC columns subject
to unidirectional loading lose their axial load carrying capacity (Boys et al., 2008).

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-13

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

However, in many cases, and particularly when subjecting the column specimens to
bidirectional loading, failure with loss of axial load capacity occurred at very low lateral drift
levels: in the range of 1-1.5%.

Figure C5.2: Performance of poorly detailed and confined gravity columns designed
according to NZS 3101:1982 code provisions (after Boys et al., 2008)

C5.3.3 Damage observations following the Canterbury

earthquakes
C5.3.3.1 General
Tables C5.1 (pre mid-1970s RC buildings) and C5.2 (post mid-1970s RC buildings) provide
a pictorial overview of the main structural deficiencies and observed damage of reinforced
concrete buildings following the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010-2011.

For a more detailed overview of the seismic performance of RC buildings following the
4 September 2010 (Darfield Earthquake) and the 22 February 2011 (Lyttleton earthquake)
events, refer to the NZSEE, 2010, 2011 and EERI/NZSEE 2014 Special Issues dedicated to
the Canterbury Earthquake sequence (e. g. Kam et al., 2010, 2011; Fleischman et al., 2014;
Sritharan et al., 2014 and Bech et al., 2014).

Note:
As the mid-1970s threshold cannot be taken as a rule to define earthquake risk buildings or
earthquake prone buildings, it can be also argued that post mid-1970 concrete buildings are
not expected to suddenly have superior seismic performance. In fact, research carried out
under the FRST-funded ‘Retrofit Solutions’ project in New Zealand has confirmed that
typical weaknesses of pre-1970s buildings were consistently adopted for several years
subsequently (Pampanin et al., 2006-2010; Ingham et al., 2006).
For example, the issue of potentially inadequate transverse reinforcement observed in
columns constructed since the 1960s was not completely addressed with the provisions of
NZS 3101:1982, so that many buildings designed and constructed prior to the 1995 standards
can be expected to have inadequate levels of confinement in their columns (potential SW)
when compared to current standards. When confinement is low, loss of cover concrete
combined with buckling of the longitudinal bars could occur, particularly in the lap-spliced
regions, leading to unexpected failure.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-14

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Moreover, recent focus on displacement incompatibility issues between lateral load resisting
systems (i.e. walls or floors) and floor systems has shown potential SWs. Inadequate
structural details could favour local damage and failure mechanisms due to beam elongation
and vertical displacement incompatibilities (refer to Section C5.5.6).
Irregularities in plan and elevation leading to torsionally-prone response, concentrated
failure mechanisms, and/or ratcheting response have also been found as recurrent issues in
post mid-1970 buildings.
Notwithstanding these comments, modern design philosophies were also being incorporated
in buildings from the late 1960s as discussed in Section C5.2.3.

C5.3.3.2 Non-ductile concrete columns

The Canterbury earthquakes of 4 September 2010 and 22 February 2011 provided dramatic
confirmation of the potentially high vulnerability of non-ductile gravity columns.

Figure C5.3 shows the example of two internal columns belonging to a parking structure
(where the seismic resisting system consisted of steel K-braces in both directions) that was
extensively damaged after the earthquake on 4 September 2010. The loss of axial load
capacity due to lack of lateral drift capacity required immediate and urgent propping.

The Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission (CERC) report into the collapse of the CTV
building in the 22 February 2011 Lyttleton earthquake found that the lack of ductile detailing
in the gravity columns was likely to have been a contributing factor to the collapse of the
building. The CTV building was designed in 1986 and had a six-storey reinforced concrete
‘shear wall protected’ gravity load system.

(a) Damage observed after the (b) Experimental tests carried out years before
Canterbury earthquake on on typical pre-1995 gravity-load columns
4 September 2010 subjected to bidirectional cyclic loading

Figure C5.3: Severe damage with loss of vertical load-bearing capacity in columns with
inadequate transverse reinforcement as part of the “gravity-load systems” due to
displacement compatibility with the lateral load resisting systems
(Kam and Pampanin, 2012)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-15

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5.1: Typical/expected structural deficiencies and observed damage/failure mechanism in pre mid-1970s Canterbury RC buildings
Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage
global structure

Beams Poor confinement details and transverse reinforcement in beams Flexural plastic hinge in beams, often characterised by single
crack opening (refer to photo below) - especially when plain round
bars adopted.
This would lead to higher deformability (fixed end rotation), lower
moment capacity at a given drift demand and possibly excessive
strain demand in the reinfrocing steel bars.
Also due to the poor confinement and transverse reinforcement
details, higher level of demand could lead to premature
compression-shear damage and failure in the plastic hinge region.

Structural drawings of beam reinforcement and confinement details. Often

the stirrups were ‘opened’ with a 90 degree angle instead of the more
modern 135 degrees.

Structural drawings of beam reinforcement and confinement details

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-16

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Inadequate anchorage of beam bars into the joint (refer to Section C5.5.4 – (Refer to Joint section)
Beam-column joints)

Inadequate splice detailing (short development length, 𝐿𝐿d , well below

40 diameters

Photo: Observed lap-splice failure in beams due to limited splice

length
Lapping was probably done at expected point of contraflexure due
to gravity loading, without considering seismic effects.

Photo: Splices: 21” lap for D32 𝐿𝐿d =16 diameters); shear: 3/8” (R10) stirrups
@ 18” centres (457 mm)

Use of plain round (smooth) bars Development of single crack instead of a wider plastic hinge
region. Concentration of strain andstresses in the reinforcing bars
with possible premature failure in tension.
Bond degradation and slip with reduced flexural capacity and
energy dissipation (pinched hysteresis loop).

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-17

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Beam-column Lack or total absence of horizontal and/or vertical transverse reinforcement Shear damage/failure in joint area with potential loss of gravity
joints in the joint panel zone. load bearing capacity in column

Figure:Schematic illustrations of joint traverse reinforcement in pre-1970s

buildings related to column stirrups and design assumptions:
(a)-(b) Joint neglected in design or considered as a construction
joint
(c)-(d)-(e) Joints treated as part of column, therefore quantity of
joint stirrups depended on column stirrup spacing and
beam depth

Figure and Photo: Structural drawing of joint reinforcing details and

observed shear failure of exterior joints. (It is
worth noting that the failure in this case was due
to a combination of lateral loading and vertical
settlement due to failure of a foundation beam.)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-18

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Inadequate anchorage of beam longitudinal bars into the joint

Lack of reliable joint shear transfer mechanism beyond diagonal cracking

Figure: Alternative structural detailing of non-ductile beam-column joint:

(a) 180° hooks (typical of plain round bars)
(b) beam bars bent into the joint with 90° inward bends
(c) beam bars bent out with 90° outwards bends
(d) top beam bars bent in at 90°, bottom bars stop short with no anchorage
hook or bend
(e) top beam bars bent in at 90° bottom bars with hook anchorage
(typically of plain round bars), and
(f) U-shaped bar splice into the joint core.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-19

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Columns Inadequate confinement detailing in the plastic hinge region: Shear failure of the column at the plastic hinge
• not all of the bars of the longitudinal reinforcement are confined with Buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement at the plastic hinge
stirrups
• inadequate spacing for anti-buckling.

Photo: Example of shear failure and bucking of column in plastic

hinge region
Figure: Structural drawings of column confinement details

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-20

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Inadequate lap-splice details Potential for weak-column/strong-beam mechanism due to

Inadequate shear reinforcement significant decrease in the flexural capacity of the plastic
hingePotential shear failure

Figure:Structural drawing showing poor shear reinforcement details and lap

splices

Photo: Shear failure of the columns due to short-column

phenomenon

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-21

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Short (captive) columns effects – effective shortening of the clear shear Shear failure of columns
span of the columns due to presence of masonry or concrete infills, heavy
spandrel beams or stiff non-structural facades

Photo: Short column effect and shear failure due to presence of

masonry infills

Photo:Short column effect due to presence of spandrel elements

(bottom)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-22

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Walls Inadequate longitudinal reinforcement ratio Opening of single crack in the plastic hinge region, with
concentration of strain demand and potential tensile failure of
longitudinal bars

Figure: Structural drawing of a thin and singly reinforced wall

Photo: Tensile failure of longitudinal rebars hidden behind a single

and small (residual) crack

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-23

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Inadequate confinement and shear reinforcement in walls Crushing and buckling failure in the boundary regions

Figure:Structural drawing of confinement and shear reinforcement details in

a wall

Photo: Wall failure due to buckled longitudinal reinforcements

Photo: Combination of buckling, single crack opening and shear

sliding due to inadequate detailing

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-24

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Photo: Crushing of end connection in boundary regions

Inadequate lap-splice detailing

Figure: Structural drawings of reinforcing details at lap-splices

Excessive wall slenderness ratio (wall height-to-thickness ratio) Out-of-plane (lateral) instability Refer to example of associated
observed damage in the following table (related to post mid-1970s
walls)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-25

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Global structure Lack of capacity design: weak-column, strong beam mechanism, soft-storey Severe damages to columns or joints, which can lead to global
prone brittle failure mechanism

Figure: Structural drawings of weak-column, strong beam mechanisms Photos: Severe shear damage and failure in columns

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-26

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Columns Lap-splicing with not sufficient length and confinement. More often away Damage due to the compromised continuity of the element, loss of
from the plastic hinge region. moment-capacity, potential soft-storey mechanism

Figure: Structural drawings showing inadequate lap-splicing

Figure: Structural drawings showing inadequate

lap-splicing

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-27

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Inadequate confinement at the plastic hinge region of columns with high Shear-axial failure of columns
axial load ratio

Photo: Compression-shear failure in columns

Figure: Structural drawings of column confinement details

Inadequate transverse reinforcement in circular columns to resist torsion Torsional cracks

Figure:Structural drawings showing transverse reinforcement details in

circular column Photo: Torsional cracking of column

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-28

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Walls Inadequate confinement in boundary elements as well as core area Crushing, spalling of concrete; bar buckling; out-of-plane failure

Figure: Structural drawings of wall reinforcement and confinement details Photos: Spalling of concrete at wall end, and buckling failure

Figure:Structural drawings of confinement details at wall corner and

boundary element
Photos: Shear failure at ground floor wall

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-29

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5.2: Typical/expected structural deficiencies and observed damage/failure mechanism in post mid-1970s Canterbury RC buildings
Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage
global structure

Floor/diaphragm Beam elongation effects and lack of seating in precast floor Tearing/damage to diaphragm and potential loss of seating
diaphragms

Photos: Damage in the diaphragm due to beam elongation; potential

unseating of floor units.

Non-ductile Inadequate structural detailing to provide required ductility Lack of capacity to sustain the imposed displacement-drift compatibly
columns Inadequate confinement and shear reinforcement, poor lap splices, with the 3D response of the system
excessive cover concrete Loss of gravity load bearing capacity at earlier level of interstorey drift
Potential catastrophic collapse of the whole building

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-30

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Photo: Example of details of pre-1995 non-ductile (secondary)

columns. Large cover concrete, inadequate stirrups spacing.

Photos: Shear failure of pre-1995 non-ductile column details

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-31

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Walls Flanged or irregular shaped walls Local lateral instability and concentration of damage in compression
region

Figure:Quasi-symmetric configuration of flanged-walls, yet leading to

asymmetric response and inelastic torsion

Photos: Crushing of well confined boundary regions and lateral

instability

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-32

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Under-designed boundary region, lack of ties in the web, inadequate

design against bidirectional loading, including out-of-plane shear

Figure:Example of actual details (top) of a 1980s shear walls and

equivalent redesign according to latest NZS 3101:2006 design Photo: Out-of-plane shear-buckling failure of shear wall

Global structure Plan irregularity Damage due to torsional effect to components

Figure: Irregular plan

Photos: Torsional cracks on columns

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-33

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Secondary
Core Wall
Non-Ductile

Columns

Coupled Wall

Photo: Complete progressive collapse of the building as a result of a

combination of a number of structural deficiencies including plan
irregularity, non-ducitle columns, weak diaphragm-to-lateral
Figure: Plan irregularity
resisting system connection, etc.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-34

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Vertical irregularity

Figure:Schematic plan of an 11-storey building with plan and vertical

irregularity

Photos: Vertical irregularity resulting in: (a) Severe basement columns

shear-axial failure; (b) Transfer beam damage and repair; (c)
and (d) Ground floor transfer slab and basement wall damage

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-35

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Global structure Vertical irregularity and set backs

Photo: Axial compression failure of ground floor column at the boundary

of the setback. Transverse reinforcement: R6 spirals @ ~300-
Photo: Vertical irregularity: set back 400 mm

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-36

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Photo: Captive column failure at building set-back level

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-37

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Component or Typical deficiency Observed damage

global structure

Global structure Vertical irregularity and set-backs Asymmetric behaviour leading to ratcheting response, concentration of
damage in gravity load-bearing elements; e.g. base wall at the
boundary with the setback and columns under transfer beam

Photo: Axial-shear failure of columns under trasnverse beam due to

Photo: Multi-storey building built mid-1980s with vertical irregularity due ratcheting response
to first floor set-back and number of floors hanged on a
transverse beam.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-38

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.4 Material Properties and Testing

C5.4.1 General
For reinforced concrete structures, key material-related data for the assessment include:
• concrete strength (its probable strain capacity being indirectly derived/assumed)
• steel yield strength, probable tensile strength, probable strain capacity and the expected
variation in its properties.

Information on the mechanical properties of concrete and steel reinforcing can be sourced
from:
• the construction drawings, and/or
• the original design specifications, and/or
• original test reports, and/or
• in-situ testing.

As a starting point, and in the absence of further direct information, default values for the
mechanical properties of the reinforcing steel may be assumed in accordance with the
relevant standards at the time of construction. The following sections provide reference
values and summaries of the evolution of concrete and steel reinforcing material standards.
More details on the historical material properties specifications and design requirements in
New Zealand can be found in Appendix C5C or C5D.

Note:
Proper integration of different sources will be required to improve the level of knowledge
and confidence in structural material properties and, therefore, in the assessment outputs.

Any in-situ testing – whether limited, extensive or comprehensive – should be specifically

targeted to improve confidence in the assessment result; e.g. as part of the evaluation of the
hierarchy of strength between connected elements or within the same element.

The extent of in-situ testing should be based on an assessment of the tangible benefits that
will be obtained. It will not be practical to test all materials and in all location, but the
investigation can be restricted to the elements within the most critical mechanisms.

To address this issue it is considered reasonable to adopt the general material strengths as
outlined below after first making an assessment on general material quality (particularly in
relation to the concrete work). If there is no indication of the targeted (specified) material
strengths in the construction documentation, a suitably scoped investigation program may
be required to determine the concrete and reinforcing steel strengths that were likely to have
been specified and targeted. An example of guidance on the number of in-situ tests needed
to get a statistically meaningful result can be found in Sezen et al., 2011.

Refer to Appendix C5C for a detailed list of alternative destructive and non-destructive
techniques for gathering further information on concrete and reinforcing steel material
properties.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-39

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
For some mechanisms it may be necessary to consider the potential variation in material
strengths so that the hierarchy of strength and sequence of events can be reasonably assessed
and allowed for. Provision has been allowed for some of this variation in element capacity
calculations (e.g. shear). Otherwise, this may need to be specifically accounted for if full
benefit from the formation of a particular local or global mechanism is to be relied on.
Use of probable and overstrength element capacities as outlined in these guidelines is
considered to provide the required level of confidence that a mechanism will be able to
develop with the required hierarchy.

C5.4.2 Concrete
C5.4.2.1 General
Regardless of the information provided on the drawings, the actual properties of concrete
used in the building might vary significantly. This can be due to factors such as:
• construction practice at the time the building was constructed; e.g. poor placement and
compaction, addition of water for workability
• the fact that the concrete may have been subject to less stringent quality control tests on
site, and
• concrete aging.

Appendix C5A summarises the evolution of concrete property requirements and design
specifications in New Zealand. Appendix C5B summarises the tests used for quality control
of concrete as contained in the New Zealand standard for specification for concrete
production, NZS 3104, from 1983 to the present day.

Notwithstanding the potential inherent variability in concrete properties, which will be

impossible to precisely determine (even with extensive investigation), it is intended that a
seismic assessment be based on reasonably established generic concrete properties as
outlined below.

C5.4.2.2 Probable compressive strength of concrete

In the absence of (as well as prior) more information from detailed on-site testing, the
probable compressive strength of concrete, 𝑓𝑓 ′c,prob , may be taken as the nominal 28-day
compressive strength of the concrete specified for construction, 𝑓𝑓 ′c , (lower bound
compressive strength) factored by 1.5 – which accounts for, amongst other factors, the ratio
between probable and fifth-percentile values as well as aging effects .

Table C5.3 presents suggested probable values for the compression strength of concrete
depending on the age and minimum compressive strength specified (lower-bound) at
different periods based on NZS 3101:2006.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-40

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5.3. Default lower-bound concrete compressive strengths, as specified in various

New Zealand concrete standards, and suggested probable compressive strengths

Period Lower-bound compressive strength Suggested f probable compressive

(MPa) strength (MPa)
𝒇𝒇′ 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜 𝒇𝒇′ 𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜
1970-1981 17.2 25

1982-1994 20 30

1995-2005 17.5 25

2006-present 25 35

Note:
The actual compressive strength of old concrete is likely to exceed the specified value as a
result of conservative mix design, aging effect and the coarser cement particles that were
used. Furthermore, probable strength values should be used for assessment, instead of fifth-
percentile values (or lower bound of compression strength) typically adopted for design used
for design.
There is a lack of experimental in situ testing of New Zealand structures, and of buildings in
particular, to allow the strength of aged concrete to be reliably determined.
As an indicative reference only, tests on the concrete of 30-year-old bridges in California
consistently showed compressive strengths approximately twice the specified strength
(Priestley, 1995). Concrete from the columns of the Thorndon overbridge in Wellington had
a measured compressive strength of about 2.3 times the specified value of 27.5 MPa about
30 years after construction (Park, 1996).
Similarly, concrete from collapsed columns of the elevated Hanshin Expressway in Kobe,
Japan after the January 1995 earthquake had a measured compressive strength of about
1.8 times the specified value of 27.5 MPa almost 30 years after construction (Park, 1996),
(Presland, 1999).
Eurocode 2 Part 1, 2004 provides an expression to evaluate the aging factor as a function of
the strength class of cement adopted. The aging factor tends almost asymptotically after
10-20 years to values in the range of 1.2-1.4 depending on the cement strength class.
This limited evidence, at least, would suggest that the use of a factor of 1.5 between the
originally specified concrete strength (lower bound – fifth percentile) and the probable
concrete strength can be considerd a reasonable value.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-41

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.4.3 Reinforcing steel rebars

C5.4.3.1 General
The historical overview below should provide a useful basis for the expected mechanical
characteristics of reinforcing steel if more specific information is not available from the
building’s structural and construction drawings.

However, any reliance on this information should be supported, whenever practicable and
as required, with in-situ investigation and testing on sample specimens to obtain a better
estimation of the reinforcement’s probable yield strength; or at least to confirm the grade of
reinforcement that was used.

C5.4.3.2 History of steel reinforcement in New Zealand

The first New Zealand standard to regulate the mechanical properties of steel bars for
reinforcing concrete is likely to have been NZS 197:1949 (based on BS 785:1938) “Rolled
steel bars and hard drawn steel wire”. This standard only referred to plain round bars.

Before NZS 197:1949 (BS 785:1938), there was apparently no specific national standard to
cover reinforcing steel. However, it can be reasonably assumed that steel reinforcement was
regulated by BS 165:1929, which was the previous version of BS 785:1938 used in
New Zealand from 1949.

Deformed bars were introduced in 1963 with NZSS 1693:1962 “Deformed steel bars of
structural grade for Reinforced Concrete”. A 227 MPa (33,000 psi) yield stress steel bar was
first introduced and then replaced in 1968 (Amendment 1 of NZSS 1693:1962) by a 275 MPa
(40,000 psi yield stress steel bar).

Note:
It can therefore be assumed that plain round bars were used in concrete buildings at least
until the mid-1960s. The required development length for plain round bars can be taken as
not less than twice that for deformed bars specified in NZS 3101 (2006).
Also note that during cyclic loading the bond degradation for plain round bars is more
significant than for deformed bars (Liu and Park, 1998 and 2001; Pampanin et al., 2002).
Hence, old structures reinforced with plain round longitudinal bars will show a greater
reduction in stiffness during cyclic loading. As a reference value, as part of quasi-static cyclic
load tests of beam-column joint subassemblies reinforced by plain round longitudinal bars
at the University of Canterbury, the measured lateral displacements were approximately
twice those of similar assemblies reinforced by deformed longitudinal bars at similar stages
of loading (Liu and Park, 1998 and 2001).
Often plain round bars were terminated with hooks to provide reliable development of the
bars, but this was not always the case.

In 1964 another standard relating to deformed steel bars was issued: NZSS 1879:1964
“Hot rolled deformed bars of HY 60 (High yield 60,000 psi) for Reinforced Concrete”.
This standard introduced a higher yield steel bar with a yield stress of about 414 MPa (60,000
psi). At this stage, there were three standards for steel reinforcing bars: one for plain round
bars (NZS 197) and two for deformed bars (NZSS 1693 and NZSS 1879).

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-42

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
Chapman (1991) reports that site sampling and testing has found the structural grade
reinforcement in New Zealand structures built during the 1930s to 1970s is likely to possess
a lower characteristic yield strength (fifth percentile value) that is 15-20% greater than the
specified value.
Reinforcing steel from the pile caps of the Thorndon overbridge in Wellington constructed
in the 1960s had a measured mean yield strength of 318 MPa with a standard deviation of
19 MPa (Prestland, 1999).

In 1972 the old NZS 197 was replaced by a temporary standard NZS 3423P:1972 “Hot rolled
plain round steel bars of structural grade for reinforced concrete” but this was only valid for
a year. In 1973, all three standards (NZSS 1693:1962, NZSS 1879:1964 and NZS 3423P)
were superseded by NZS 3402P:1973 “Hot rolled steel bars for the reinforcement of
concrete” which regulated both plain round and deformed bars.

Metric units for steel bars were slowly introduced in 1974 and became the only units used
by steel manufacturers from 1976 onwards. Steel grades used at that time were Grade 275
and Grade 380.

In 1989, NZS 3402P was superseded by NZS 3402:1989. This replaced Grades 275 and 380
with new grades, 300 and 430.

Note:
It is common practice to assume a Grade 300 steel for a modern (post-1980s) existing
building. However, as shown in this section and in the table below, the evolution of steel
properties in the past decade has been quite significant. Therefore, confirming this
assumption by reference to the drawings as well as a minimum level of on-site sampling and
testing is recommended.

In 2001, the current version of the standard for reinforcing steel, AS/NZS 4671:2001, was
introduced. Steel grades proposed for New Zealand in this standard are Grade 300E
(Earthquake ductility) and Grade 500E.

Table C5.4 summarises the evolution of these standards, while Tables C5.5 and C5.6 list
available diameters for steel reinforcing bars. Also refer to Appendix C5D for a summary of
the historical evolution of the mechanical properties of steel reinforcing over different time
periods.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-43

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5.4: Evolution of reinforcing steel material standards in New Zealand

1949 1962 1964 1968 1972 1973 1989 2001

NZS 197:1949 (BS 785:1938) NZS 3423P:1972 NZS 3402P: NZS 3402: AS/NZS 4671:
Rolled steel bars and drawn steel Hot rolled plain 1973 1989 2001
wire for concrete reinforcement round steel bars of Hot rolled steel Steel bars for Steel
(Yield stress varied with structural grade for bars for the the reinforce- reinforcing
diameter, minimum value was reinforced concrete reinforcement ment of material
227 MPa, Refer to "Grade" 40,000 psi of concrete concrete Grade 300
Appendix C5D.1) (275 MPa) Grade 275 Grade 300 MPa
MPa MPa Grade 500
NZSS 1693:1962 NZSS 1693:1962 Grade 380 Grade 430 MPa
Deformed steel (Amendment 1:1968) MPa MPa
bars of structural Deformed steel bars of
grade for structural grade for
reinforced reinforced concrete
concrete "Grade" 40000 psi
"Grade" 33000 (275 MPa)
psi (227 MPa)

NZS 1879:1964
Hot rolled deformed bars of HY 60
(High Yield 60,000 psi) for reinforced
concrete
Grade" 60,000 psi (415 MPa)

Table C5.5: Available diameters of steel reinforcement bars – before the mid-1970s
NZS 1693:1962 NZS 1879:1964 NZS 3423P:1972

Bar d Bar d Bar d

designation inch (mm) designation inch (mm) designation inch (mm)

3 3/8 (9.525) 3 3/8 (9.525) 3/8 (9.525)

4 1/2 (12.7) 4 1/2 (12.7) 1/2 (12.7)
5 5/8 (15.875) 5 5/8 (15.875) 5/8 (15.875)
6 3/4 (19.05) 6 3/4 (19.05) 3/4 (19.05)
7 7/8 (22.225) 7 7/8 (22.225) 7/8 (22.225)
8 1.000 (25.4) 8 1.000 (25.4) 1.000 (25.4)
9 1 1/8 (28.575) 9 1 1/8 (28.575) 1 1/8 (28.575)
10 1 1/4 (31. 75) 10 1 1/4 (31. 75) 1 1/4 (31. 75)
11 1 3/8 (34.925) 11 1 3/8 (34.925) 1 3/8 (34.925)
12* 1 1/2*(38.1) 12* 1 1/2*(38.1) 1 1/2(38.1)
2 (50.80)

Note:
* Introduced in 1970

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-44

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5.6: Available diameters of steel reinforcement bars – from the mid-1970s onward
NZ 3402P:1973 NZ 3402P:1973 NZS 3402:1989 AS/NZS 4671:2001
(Stage 1) (Stage 2)
Bar d d Bar d Bar d Bar d
designation (inch) (mm) designation (mm) designation (mm) Designation (mm)

R10 D10 - 10 R10 D10 10 R6 D6 6 R6 D6 6

R13 D13 ½ 12.7 R12 D12 12 R8 D8 8 R10 D10 10
R16 D16 - 16 R16 D16 16 R10 D10 10 R12 D12 12
R20 D20 - 20 R20 D20 20 R12 D12 12 R16 D16 16
R22 D22 7/8 22.23 R24 D24 24 R16 D16 16 R20 D20 20
R25 D25 - 25.4 R28 D28 28 R20 D20 20 R25 D25 25
R28 D28 - 28 R32 D32 32 R24 D24 24 R32 D32 32
R32 D32 - 32 R40 D40 40 R28 D28 28 R40 D40 40
R38 D38 1½ 38.1 R32 D32 32
R40 D40 40

C5.4.3.3 Probable yield strength of reinforcing steel

The probable yield strength of the reinforcing steel may be taken as the mean of the upper
characteristic (95th percentile value) and the lower characteristic (fifth percentile value) yield
strength.

Note:
The ratio between the upper and lower characteristic yield strengths will typically be in the
range of 1.17 to 1.3 depending on source and age. Refer to Appendix C5D.1 for indicative
values. Hence, based on the lower end of the expected range, the probable yield strength of
the reinforcing steel may be taken as 1.08 times the lower characteristic yield strength..

C5.4.4 Cold wire mesh

Steel wire for concrete reinforcement was originally regulated in New Zealand by the first
local steel code NZS 197:1949 (BS 785:1938). The tensile strength limits were between
37 ton/in2 (510 MPa) and 42 ton/in2 (580 MPa). The elongation limit was 7.5 % measured
over a gauge length of 8 times the diameter. This standard remained valid until 1972.

In 1972, NZS 3421:1972 and NZS 3422:1972 replaced the old standard. The first of these
provided specifications for hard drawn steel wire; the second, for welded fabric hard drawn
steel wire. Hard drawn steel wires were normally available in diameters not greater than
0.1 inches (12.7 mm) and not less than 0.08 inches (2.0 mm). The minimum 0.2 percent
proof stress limit was 70,000 lbf/in2 (483 MPa) while the minimum tensile strength was
83,000 lbf/in2 (572 MPa). The mechanical property limits of welded fabric of drawn steel
wires were similar to the ones specified for hard drawn steel wires. A maximum tensile
strength limit was introduced equal to 124,000 lbf/in2 (855 MPa) for diameters up to and
including 0.128 in (3.25 mm) and 112,000 lbf/in2 (772 MPa) for diameters over 0.128 in.

In 1975 NZS 3421:1972 and NZS 3422:1972 were superseded by the metric units versions
NZS 3421:1975 Hard drawn steel wire for concrete reinforcement (metric units) and
NZS 3422:1975 Welded fabric of drawn steel wire for concrete reinforcement (metric units).
The first was applied to plain and deformed wires while the second only to plain ones.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-45

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

The available diameters ranged between 2.5 mm and 8 mm. The mechanical property limits
were similar to those prescribed in the 1972 standards: 485 MPa for minimum 0.2 percent
prof stress; 575 MPa for minimum tensile strength and 855 MPa maximum tensile strength
(for diameters up and including 3.15 mm) and 775 MPa (for diameters over 3.15 mm).

The current AS/NZS 4671:2001 (Steel reinforcing materials) replaced the old
NZS 3421:1975 and NZS 3422:1975. This standard provides specifications for steel
reinforcing bars and mesh. The steel grades are Grade 300E and Grade 500E. The commonly
available mesh diameters are 6 mm, 7 mm, 8 mm and 9 mm for structural mesh and 4 mm
and 5.3 mm for non-structural mesh. The most common mesh pitch size for is 200 by
200 mm for structural mesh and 150 by 150 mm for non-structural mesh.

Table C5.7: Evolution of hard drawn steel wire and mesh for concrete reinforcement
standards in New Zealand
1949 1972 1975 2001

NZS 197:1949 NZS 3421:1972 NZS 3421:1975 AS/NZS 4671:2001

(BS 785:1938) Hard drawn steel wire for Hard drawn steel wire Steel reinforcing
Rolled steel bars and concrete reinforcement for concrete material
hard drawn steel wire for (metric and imperial reinforcement (metric
concrete reinforcement units) units)

NZS 3422:1972 NZS 3422:1975

Welded fabric of drawn Welded fabric of drawn
steel wire for concrete steel wire for concrete
reinforcement (metric reinforcement (metric
units) units)

C5.5 Element Probable Capacities

C5.5.1 General approach
This section sets out the procedure for evaluating the probable strength and deformation
capacities of beams, columns, beam-column joints, walls and diaphragms.

The general approach taken to determine RC probable element capacities is to:

• evaluate the probable flexural strength and deformation capacity
• evaluate the probable shear strength and deformation capacity, and
• determine which mechanism is likely to occur first and at what level of deformation/
displacement/drift.

The following Sections (C5.6, C5.7 and C5.8) describe how to:
• evaluate the hierarchy of strength between connected elements to determine the likely
subassembly and system mechanism, and
• derive the global force-displacement curve associated with the expected mechanism for
frame systems, walls and dual systems.

In order to evaluate the global capacity of the building, the capacities of individual structural
systems should then be combined with those of other systems within the building, which
could be also composed of other materials, in accordance with the guidance provided in
Section C2 to evaluate the global capacity of the building.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-46

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
In many cases, the reinforcement content and details in each element may not be fully
known: for example, because design and construction drawings may not be available or may
be incomplete; or only limited on-site investigation may be possible.
Therefore, this section and associated appendices also provide some historical information
regarding New Zealand standards-based requirements for the various elements to facilitate
a first assessment. Consideration of these can be a useful step before any onsite testing.

C5.5.1.1 Key terms

The following key terms are used in the derivation of probable element capacities outlined
in the following sections.

Nominal capacity
For reinforced concrete the nominal strength capacity, 𝑆𝑆n , is the theoretical strength of a
member section based on established theory, calculated using the section dimensions as
detailed and the lower characteristic reinforcement yield strengths (fifth percentile values)
and the specified nominal compressive strength of the concrete.

The nominal strength capacity gives a lower bound to the strength of the section and is the
value typically used for design.

Similarly, for design, the nominal deformation capacity is determined in accordance with
the concrete design standard NZS 3101:2006.

For assessment, the probable values as defined below shall be used.

Probable capacity
The probable strength capacity, 𝑆𝑆prob ,which is also referred to as expected strength capacity,
is the theoretical strength of a member section based on established theory, calculated using
the section dimensions as detailed and the probable (mean values) material strengths.

The probable or expected deformation capacity is determined as indicated in the following

sections.

Overstrength
The overstrength capacity, 𝑆𝑆o , takes into account factors that may contribute to an increase
in strength such as: higher than specified strengths of the steel and concrete, steel strain
hardening, confinement of concrete, and additional reinforcement placed for construction
and otherwise unaccounted for in calculations.

For beams, the overstrength in flexure, when tension failure is controlling the ULS
behaviour, is mainly due to the steel properties along with the slab flange effect and possibly
the increase in axial load due to beam elongation. For current New Zealand manufactured
reinforcing steel, an upper bound for the yield strength can be taken as the upper
characteristic (95th percentile value).

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-47

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

A further 8% increase in steel stress due to strain hardening should be assumed (e.g. refer to
Andriono and Park, 1986).

Hence, as a first approximation – i.e. as a quick check before more comprehensive

calculations – and indicatively, the ratio of overstrength in flexure to:
• nominal flexural strength, 𝑀𝑀o /𝑀𝑀n , can be taken as 1.25 (for both Grade 300 and
Grade 430 steel) and 1.35 for Grade 500
• probable flexural strength, 𝑀𝑀o /𝑀𝑀prob , can be taken as 1.16.

For columns, while adequate confinement can cause an increase in the concrete compressive
strain and ultimate deformation capacity, the effect on the increase in flexural strength is
limited. For poorly detailed and confined columns this enhancement in flexural strength is
further limited, such that neglecting it would be on the conservative side.

Strength reduction factor

For the purposes of calculating the probable strength capacity no strength reduction factor 𝜙𝜙
should be used for either flexure or shear (i.e. 𝜙𝜙 =1.0). Where considered necessary, a
strength reduction factor to provide a safety margin against shear failure has been included
in the derivation of the shear capacity equations.

Bounds of flexural strength

The lower and upper bounds of flexural strength are important when assessing moment
resisting frames to determine the hierarchy of strength mechanism of post-elastic
deformation. For beams and columns the lower bound of flexural strength can be taken as
the probable strength, and the upper bound as the overstrength.

Note:
In such calculations it is important to account for the variation of axial load due to lateral
sway mechanism (e.g. frame action) and/or due to displacement incompatibility issues (e.g.
vertical restraint from floor during lifting up of wall or horizontal restraint to beams due to
beam elongation effects).

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-48

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.5.2 Beam capacity

C5.5.2.1 History of code-based reinforcement requirements for
beams in New Zealand
If structural and/or construction drawings for the building are not available, it may be useful
to refer to the New Zealand standards of the time. Appendix C5D.2 summarises the structural
detail requirements for beams according to the NZS 3101:2006 standards from 1970
onwards (1970, 1982, 1995 and 2006). More information can be found in Cuevas et al.
(2015).

Figure C5.4 illustrates the evolution of structural design requirements and detailing layout
for beams according to the New Zealand concrete standard from the 1970s onwards.

Figure C5.4: Example of typical beam layouts according to different versions of

NZS 3101:2006 (Cuevas et al., 2015)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-49

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.5.2.2 Probable flexural strength of beams

General

The probable flexural strength of members should be calculated using the probable material
strengths and, with some care, the standard theory for flexural strength (Park and Paulay,
1975).

It is worth recalling that the basic theory for RC section flexural strength (refer to
Figure C5.5) relies upon key assumptions such as:
• plane section remain plane (Hooke 1678, also known as Bernoulli-Navier theory), and
• fully bonded conditions between steel and concrete (i.e. no or negligible bond slip).

b εcu = 0.003 αfc’

a/2 C
d’ εs’
As’ c
a = βc
M D d jd
As
εs fs T

Section Strain Stress Forces

Figure C5.5: Schematic of section analysis for RC flexural theory with assumptions on plane
sections and fully bonded conditions

While these assumptions are generally valid for modern and relatively well designed
members, issues can arise when dealing with older construction detailing; in particular,
inadequate anchorage/development length and/or use of plain round bars.

In these cases, the flexural capacity as well as the probable curvature and ductility capacity
of the beams and columns can be reduced. In turn, this can affect the hierarchy of strength
within a beam-column joint connection/subassembly as discussed in subsequent sections.

Note:
The plastic hinges in the beams normally occur at or near the beam ends in seismically
dominated frames (whilst in gravity-dominated frames these could occur away from the
column interface). Therefore, the longitudinal beam reinforcement is at or near the yield
strength at the column faces.
This can result in high bond stresses along beam bars which pass through an interior joint
core, since a beam bar can be close to yield in compression at one column face and at yield
in tension at the other column face (refer to Figure C5.6). During severe cyclic loading
caused by earthquake actions, bond deterioration may occur in the joint. If the bond
deterioration is significant, the bar tension will penetrate through the joint core, and the bar
tensile force will be anchored in the beam on the far side of the joint.
This means that the compression steel will actually be in tension. As a result, the probable
flexural strength and the probable curvature capacity of the beam will be reduced.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-50

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Hakuto et al. (1999) have analysed doubly reinforced beam sections at the face of columns
of a typical building frame constructed in New Zealand in the late 1950s. The effect of stress
levels in the “compression” reinforcement on the moment capacity of the beam was not
found to be significant. When the bond had deteriorated to the extent that the “compression”
reinforcement was at the yield strength in tension, the decrease in moment capacity was up
to 10% for positive moment and up to 5% for negative moment compared with beams with
perfect bond along the beam bars (Hakuto et al., 1999).
To conclude, based on this evidence and in order to provide a simplified procedure, the effect
of bar slip on flexural strength of beams could be neglected in the assessment.
Similarly, for the first approximation the reduced level of ductility demand can be calculated
by ignoring the compression reinforcement (in case a tension failure mechanism is
expected).
Note that the bond-slip could actually introduce additional sources of deformability,
increasing the deformation demand in the structural system.
The flexural strength of columns within a beam-column joint is similarly affected due to
bond-slip of the longitudinal vertical reinforcement, as discussed in Section C5.5.3.

(a) Forces from beams and columns (b) Crack pattern and bond forces after
acting on the joint diagonal tension cracking initiates in
joint core

Figure C5.6: Shear transfer mechanism in interior beam–column joint subjected to seismic
loading (Paulay and Priestley, 1995 and Hakuto et al., 1999)

In general terms, consideration of the upper and lower bounds of flexural strength of beams
and columns is important when assessing the behaviour of moment resisting frames to
determine the likely hierarchy of strength and global mechanism, and therefore whether
plastic hinging will occur in the beams or columns.

Slab and transverse beam contributions to negative flexural capacity of

beams
When calculating the probable flexural capacity of beams in negative moment regions it is
important to account for the potential “flange-effect” contribution from the slab
reinforcement (refer to Figure C5.7). This is particularly important when cast-in-place floor

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-51

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

slabs (which are integrally built with the beams) are used. However, it should not be
underestimated when precast floors with topping and starter bars are used.

Experimental evidence has also revealed the influence of the transverse beam torsion
resistance on the magnitude of the effective width due to flange effect, 𝑏𝑏eff , in exterior beam-
column joints of cast-in-place two-way frames (Durrani and Zerbe, 1987; Di Franco et al.,
1995).

A higher-than expected strength of the beam could modify the hierarchy of strength in a
beam-column joint, possibly resulting into an increased risk of a column-sway mechanism
when compared to a more desirable beam-sway mechanism.

As a first approximation the slab can be assumed to provide a 50% increase in the beam
negative probable moment capacity and corresponding overstrength capacity, as shown in
Figure C5.7. However, experimental research has shown that the presence of a slab and
transverse beam can increase the negative flexural strength of a beam by up to 1.7 to 2 times
(Durrrani and Zerbe, 1987; Ehsani and Wight, 1985; Di Franco, Shin and La Fave, 2004).

Therefore, it is recommended that the overstrength capacity should be more properly

evaluated in cases where the hierarchy of hinge formation within the mechanism is important
to the assessment result.

In addition to increasing the flexural capacity, the slab reinforcement reduces the ultimate
ductility of curvature of a beam section.

Figure C5.7: (a) Schematic monolithic one-way floor slab with beams (b) T-beam in double-
bending (c) X-sections of T-beam showing different tension and compression zones
(MacGregor, 1997)

Note:
The actual contributions of slab reinforcement to the negative moment flexural strength of a
beam is dependent on: (1) the type of floor system, (2) the boundary conditions of the slab,
(3) the level of imposed deformation on the beam-slab section, (4) the torsional resistance
of transverse beams, if any, and (5) the quality of the anchorage of the reinforcing bars to
develop full tensile strength.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-52

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

In absence of further analysis, the recommendations provided by a new building standard

(such as NZS 3101:2006) to evaluate the width of the slab contributing, with its
reinforcement, to the flexural capacity under negative moments of T and L beams built
integrally with the slab can be taken as a reference.
In poorly detailed beam-column joints where the joint and column are weaker than the beam-
slab section, an effective width of the slab 𝑏𝑏eff = 2.2ℎb (which includes the width of the
beam) can be also used as a reference, based on the experimental research conducted by Kam
et al., 2010.
To account for the torsional effects of a transverse beam, these guidelines recommend an
effective width 𝑏𝑏eff = 𝑏𝑏c + 2ℎt , where 𝑏𝑏c is the width of the column and ℎt is the height of
the transverse beam or spandrel.

C5.5.2.3 Flexural-shear interaction

The moment (or lateral force) curvature (or rotation/displacement) capacity curve of the
element (beam, column, wall) calculated assuming flexural behaviour As discussed above
(refer to Section C5.5.2.2) – i.e. with no shear interaction – can intersect the shear strength
capacity curve including degradation due to ductility demand in the plastic hinge as shown
in Figure C5.8.

This will limit the flexural deformation capacity of the plastic hinge to the value at the point
of intersection and/or make the mechanism shear dominated at that hinge location for larger
plastic hinge deformations.

Figure C5.8: Flexural-shear interaction on a component (beam or column) capacity curve

C5.5.2.4 Probable shear strength of beams

The probable shear strength capacity of beams with rectangular stirrups or hoops can be
taken as:

𝑉𝑉p = 0.85 (𝑉𝑉c + 𝑉𝑉s ) …C5.1

where 𝑉𝑉c and 𝑉𝑉s are the shear contributions provided by the concrete mechanism and steel
shear reinforcement respectively.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-53

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

In more detail:
• the shear contribution from the concrete, 𝑉𝑉c , can be evaluated as:

𝑉𝑉c = 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼�𝑓𝑓 ′c �0.8𝐴𝐴g � …C5.2

where:
𝑀𝑀
1 ≤ 𝛼𝛼 = 3 − 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 ≤ 1.5

𝛽𝛽 = 0.5 + 20𝜌𝜌ℓ ≤ 1

𝛾𝛾 =
shear strength degradation factor in the plastic hinge region
due to ductility demand as defined in Figure C5.9
Ag = 𝑏𝑏w d = gross area of the beam
𝑏𝑏w = width of beam web
𝑑𝑑 = effective depth of beam
𝑓𝑓c′ = probable concrete compressive strength
M/V = ratio of moment to shear at the section
D = total section depth
𝜌𝜌ℓ = longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio, i.e. area of
longitudinal beam tension (only) reinforcement divided by the
cross-sectional area.
• The shear contribution from the steel shear reinforcement, 𝑉𝑉s , is evaluated assuming that
the critical diagonal tension crack is inclined at 45° to the longitudinal axis of the column.
𝐴𝐴v 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑
𝑉𝑉s = …C5.3
𝑠𝑠

where:
𝐴𝐴v = total effective area of hoops and cross ties in the direction of
the shear force at spacing 𝑠𝑠
𝑓𝑓yt = expected yield strength of the transverse reinforcement
𝑑𝑑 = effective depth of the beam.

𝛾𝛾

Figure C5.9: Shear strength degradation factor, 𝜸𝜸 , based on curvature ductility within the
plastic hinge Priestley et al. (2007) - based on test results from Hakuto et al. (1995);
Priestley, (1995) and Priestley et al. (1994)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-54

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
Within the plastic hinge region the probable shear strength of beams degrades as the level of
imposed curvature ductility 𝜙𝜙/𝜙𝜙y increases as shown in Figure C5.9 as proposed by Priestley
(1995) and Priestley et al. (2007).
This shear strength degradation is due to the reduction of the shear contribution by the
concrete mechanisms and depends on the curvature ductility demand.

C5.5.2.5 Probable deformation (curvature and rotation) capacity of

beams

Yield curvature and rotation

The yield curvature of a beam can be evaluated using a section analysis.

For a beam the first yield curvature is given by:

𝜀𝜀y
𝜙𝜙y = 𝑑𝑑−𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 …C5.4

where:
𝜀𝜀y = strain at first yield of the longitudinal tension reinforcement
(= 𝑓𝑓y /𝐸𝐸s )
𝑑𝑑 = effective depth of longitudinal tension reinforcement
𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 = neutral axis depth when tension steel reaches the strain at first yield,
𝜀𝜀y .

In principle, and particularly for multiple layers of reinforcement in beams (and more
commonly for columns), 𝜙𝜙y should be defined using a bilinear approximation (refer to
Figure C5.14).

Priestley and Kowalsky (2000) have shown that the yield curvature can be well
approximated with dimensionless formulae with minimal variations due to the axial load and
reinforcement ratio as follows.

For rectangular-section beams:

2.0 εy
𝜙𝜙y = …C5.5
ℎb

For T-section beams:

1.7εy
𝜙𝜙y = …C5.6
ℎb

where:
ℎb = beam depth

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-55

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Probable ultimate curvature and rotation capacity

The available curvature ductility factor at a plastic hinge is given by 𝜇𝜇φ = 𝜙𝜙u /𝜙𝜙y where 𝜙𝜙u
is the available probable ultimate curvature and 𝜙𝜙y is the yield curvature (determined as
above).

When evaluating the probable ultimate curvature and rotation capacity of a beam a material
strain (limit) needs to be adopted that reflects the level of detailing (confinement) provided.
Table C5.8 provides suggested strain-based values for the evaluation of ULS capacity of
beams and columns.

The key limit states within a moment-curvature or force-displacement curve of a structural

element (i.e. cracking, yielding, spalling and ultimate) are shown in Figure C5.10.

Table C5.8: Concrete and steel strain limits corresponding to ultimate limit state (ULS)
Limit states Ultimate limit state

Concrete 1.4𝜌𝜌s 𝑓𝑓yh 𝜀𝜀su

𝜀𝜀cu = 0.004 + (≤ 0.015)
𝑓𝑓cc
(confined core)

Steel 𝜀𝜀s = 0.06 (≤ 0.6 (𝜀𝜀su )

(a) Member Limit State (b) Structural Limit State

Figure C5.10: Key limit states in a moment-curvature and force-displacement curve

Note:
In general terms, for assessment purposes, the ULS is not assumed to be reached when at the
crushing or spalling in the cover concrete occur, with a valuie of compression strain in the
extreme fiber 𝜀𝜀c = 0.004 (the typical approach used for ULS design of new elements), but
rather when either:
(i) an overall strength reduction of more than 20% occurs or
(ii) the confined concrete-core reaches the confined concrete strain limit or
(iii) the steel reaches much higher level of strain (e.g. 𝜀𝜀s = 0.06).

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-56

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

These potential deformation resources of an existing beam element beyond crushing and
spalling of the cover concrete can be appreciated in the moment-curvature example given in
Figure C5.11.
On the other hand, especially in columns with high axial load ratio, poor confinement
detailing and large cover concrete, the loss of cover concrete (resulting from or combined
with buckling of the longitudinal rebars) can correspond to the onset of full collapse.
This confirms that it is critical to carefully evaluate the expected mechanisms in existing
structural elements designed to older design provisions.

Figure C5.11: Example of a moment-curvature for a flanged (T or L) beam and strain limits at
damage control limit state and ultimate limit state

The available probable ultimate curvature for a beam is given by the lesser of:
εcu
φu = 𝑐𝑐u
…C5.7

and:
ε
φu = 𝑑𝑑−𝑐𝑐
su
…C5.8
u

where:
𝑐𝑐u = neutral axis depth at ULS
εcu = the ultimate concrete compressive strain, at the extreme fiber of the
section or of the confinened core region, depending on the extent of
confinement of the concrete (as defined in Table C5.8 and further
explained below)

εsu = the maximum accepted strain of the reinforcing steel in tension (as
defined in Table C5.8)
𝑑𝑑 = effective depth of longitudinal tension reinforcement

For unconfined concrete εcu = εsp = 0.004 can be assumed (Priestley and Park, 1987).

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-57

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

“Unconfined” conditions are assumed to be present if at least one of the following applies:
• only corner bars restrained against buckling by a bend of transverse reinforcement, or
• hoop stirrup ends not bent back into the core (i.e. 90° hooks), or
• spacing of hoop or stirrup sets in the potential plastic hinge such that:

𝑠𝑠 ≥ 𝑑𝑑/2
or
𝑠𝑠 ≥ 16𝑑𝑑b

where:
𝑑𝑑 = effective depth of beam section
𝑑𝑑b = diameter of longitudinal reinforcement

For confined concrete the ultimate probable concrete strain can be assumed from a
modification (fib, Bulletin 25) of the expression proposed Mander et al. (1988).
1.4𝜌𝜌v 𝑓𝑓yh 𝜀𝜀su
εcu = 0.004 + 𝑓𝑓′cc
≤ 0.015 …C5.9

where:
𝜌𝜌v = volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement
𝑓𝑓yh = yield strength of the transverse reinforcement
𝜀𝜀su = steel strain at maximum stress
𝑓𝑓′cc = compression strength of the confined concrete

The volumetric ratio of transverse reinforcement ratio 𝜌𝜌s may be approximated as:

𝜌𝜌v = 1.5𝐴𝐴v /𝑏𝑏c 𝑠𝑠 …C5.10

where:
𝐴𝐴v = total area of transverse reinforcement in a layer
𝑠𝑠 = spacing of layers of transverse reinforcement
𝑏𝑏c = width of column core, measured from centre to centre of the
peripheral transverse reinforcement in the web

Figure C5.12 (below shows the referred concrete stress-strain model for unconfined and
confined concrete.

Figure C5.12: Concrete stress-strain model for unconfined and confined concrete:
Enhancement of concrete compression strength due to confinement (Mander et al., 1988)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-58

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
The original formulation of the expression for confined concrete presented by Mander et al.
(1988) can predict high levels of confined concrete strain, εcu , depending on the assumed
value for the ultimate steel strain, εsu , of the transverse reinforcement. The modified
expression suggested in fib Bulletin 25 (2003) provides a correction.
However, it is recommended that an upper bound value for the ultimate steel strain
of εsu = 0.06 (i.e. 6%) is assumed and the values of confined concrete strain are limited to
εcu = 0.015 (1.5%) in ordinary situations.
In terms of confined concrete compression strength, 𝑓𝑓 ′cc , versus unconfined concrete
compression strength, 𝑓𝑓′c , the expression presented by Mander et al. (1988) can be used:
𝑓𝑓 ′cc 7.94𝑓𝑓l 𝑓𝑓
= �−1.254 + 2.254�1 + − 2 𝑓𝑓′l � …C5.11
𝑓𝑓′c 𝑓𝑓 ′c c

where 𝑓𝑓l is the lateral confining stress defined as:

𝑓𝑓l = (TBC) …C5.12
In lieu of more accurate analyses, when the section appears poorly confined (which is most
likely to be the case for older construction) it is suggested that the confining effects on the
concrete strength are neglected and 𝑓𝑓 ′cc /𝑓𝑓′c = 1.0 is used instead.
In the presence of good level of transverse reinforcement and confinement action, e.g.
spacing
𝑑𝑑
𝑆𝑆max ≤ � 2
12𝑑𝑑𝑏𝑏
values of 𝑓𝑓 ′cc = 1.2𝑓𝑓′c , may be assumed (Scott et al., 1982; Priestley et al., 1996).

Figure C5.13 provides charts to evaluate the confined strength ratio 𝑓𝑓 ′cc /𝑓𝑓′c as a function of
the lateral confining stress.

Figure C5.13: Enhancement of concrete compression strength due to confinement

(Paulay and Priestley, 1995)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-59

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Evaluation of moment-rotation and force-displacement curves

Once the key points of the moment-curvature of a structural element (beams, columns or
walls) have been evaluated, the corresponding moment-rotation curve can be derived by
integrating the curvature profile (elastic and plastic) along the cantilever scheme and after
defining a plastic hinge length.
The ultimate rotation is defined as the sum of the yielding rotation and plastic rotation:

𝜃𝜃u = 𝜃𝜃y + 𝜃𝜃p Ultimate rotation …C5.13

where:
𝐻𝐻
𝜃𝜃y = 𝜙𝜙y � 2 � Yielding rotation ...C5.14

𝜃𝜃p = 𝜙𝜙p 𝐿𝐿p Plastic rotation …C5.15

The force-displacement response can then be derived (Figure C5.14) by:

𝑀𝑀
𝐹𝐹 = 𝐻𝐻
…C5.16

𝛥𝛥u = 𝛥𝛥y + 𝛥𝛥p Ultimate displacement …C5.17

where:
𝐻𝐻 2
𝛥𝛥y = 𝜙𝜙y Yielding displacement …C5.18
3

𝛥𝛥p = 𝜙𝜙p 𝐿𝐿p 𝐻𝐻 = �𝜙𝜙u −𝜙𝜙p �𝐿𝐿p 𝐻𝐻 Plastic displacement …C5.19

(a) (b)
Figure C5.14: Idealisation of: (a) curvature distribution in a cantilever scheme and (b) force-
displacement curve and its blinear approximation

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-60

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Plastic hinge length, 𝑳𝑳𝐩𝐩

The estimation of the plastic hinge length, 𝐿𝐿p , is a delicate step in the evaluation of the
ultimate rotation and displacement capacity of a member. A number of alternative
formulations are available in literature to predict the plastic hinge length in beams, columns,
walls and bridge piers.

The equivalent plastic hinge length, 𝐿𝐿p , may be approximated (Priestley et al., 2007) as:

𝐿𝐿p = 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘c + 𝐿𝐿sp …C5.20

where:
𝑓𝑓
𝑘𝑘 = 0.2 �𝑓𝑓u − 1� ≤ 0.08 …C5.21
y

𝐿𝐿c = distance of the critical section from the point of contraflexure

𝐿𝐿sp = strain penetration = 0.022𝑓𝑓y 𝑑𝑑b
𝑓𝑓y = probable yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement
𝑑𝑑b = diameter of longitudinal reinforcement
𝑓𝑓u = probable ultimate strength of the longitudinal reinforcement

The first term 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘c represents the spread of plasticity due to tension-shift effects and the
second term 𝐿𝐿sp represents the strain penetration into the supporting member (e.g. beam-
column joint).

Note:
The values presented above for the evaluation of the plastic hinge length are typically based
on experimental results with reference to relatively well detailed plastic hinge regions and
use of deformed bars.
However, when dealing with older construction practice, poorer detailing, low longitudinal
reinforcement ratio (lightly reinforced elements), construction (cold) joints, high tensile
strength of concrete, and possibly plain round bars, experimental tests as well as on-site
observations from the Canterbury earthquake sequence have shown that the plastic hinge
length may not develop to be as long as expected. Instead, it may be concentrated in a very
short region, leading to a single crack opening and concentration of tensile strain demand in
the reinforcement.
Such effects should be accounted for in the evaluation of the plastic hinge length, 𝐿𝐿p ,
assuming much smaller values of the plastic hinge length, and assessing the effects on the
overall behaviour (limited ductility/deformation capacity).

It is recommended that a plastic hinge length equal to 𝐿𝐿p /5 is adopted (with 𝐿𝐿p derived from
the expressions above) in the presence of either:
• plain round bars, or
• low longitudinal reinforcement ratio, i.e. 𝜌𝜌ℓ ≤ �𝑓𝑓′c /�4𝑓𝑓y � l
• inadequately constructed cold joint, e.g. smooth and unroughened interfaces.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-61

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Limited curvature capacity due to lap-splice failure

The strength of lap splices in longitudinal reinforcement in plastic hinge regions will tend
not to degrade during imposed cyclic loading in the post-elastic range.

In general, an available structural ductility factor of greater than 2 is not recommended if lap
splices in deformed longitudinal reinforcement exist in plastic hinge regions; unless these
are heavily confined.

If plain round longitudinal bars are lapped the available structure ductility factor should be
taken as 1.0 (Wallace, 1996).

C5.5.3 Columns
C5.5.3.1 History of code-based reinforcement requirements for
columns in New Zealand
If structural and/or construction drawings for the building are not available, it may be useful
to refer to the New Zealand standards/codes of the time. Appendix C5D compares minimum
design/details requirements for columns (either designed for gravity only or for seismic
loading) in New Zealand according to NZS 3101:1970, 1982, 1995 and 2006. More
information can be found in Niroomandi et al., 2015.

Figures C5.15 and C5.16 illustrate the evolution of structural design requirements and
detailing layout for gravity column and seismic columns respectively according to the
New Zealand concrete standards from the 1970s onwards.

Figure C5.15: Example of typical gravity column layouts according to different New Zealand
concrete standards from the mid-1960s on (Niroomandi et al., 2015)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-62

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5.16: Example of typical column layouts with seismic design according to different
New Zealand concrete standards from the mid-1960s onwards (Niroomandi et al., 2015)

The CERC report (CERC, 2012) highlighted the possibility of concrete columns not assumed
to form part of the primary seismic system (referred to as gravity only columns) being
inadequately detailed to accommodate the displacement demand of the building by the way
in which particular clauses in the concrete structures standard NZS 3101:1982 were
interpreted by designers when classifying these columns as secondary elements.

Note:
The interpretation of clause 3.5.14 of NZS 3101:1982 may have led some designers to
incorrectly classify gravity columns within the general category of secondary structural
elements. NZS 3101:1982 provided three options for the level of ductile detailing that was
to be used in a secondary element; non-seismic provisions, seismic provisions for limited
ductility, and seismic provisions.
Clause 3.5.14 specified which of these provisions should be selected, based on the level of
design displacement at which the column reaches its elastic limit. If the column could be
shown to remain elastic “when the design loads are derived from the imposed deformations,
𝜐𝜐𝜐𝜐, specified in NZS 4203”, the non-seismic provisions could be used. However, the clause
was open to interpretation and in practice it appears it was applied in an inconsistent manner.
Caution should be applied when making any assumptions as to the design approach that may
have been employed in the original design of a building designed to these provisions.
From the mid-1980s it became more common to include the gravity system in the analysis
modelling together with the seismic system. If this had been done there would be a higher
chance that the secondary elements were designed with some attention to imposed
deformations in mind.
In any case, it should be recognised that the imposed deformations in the design codes of the
1980s were much lower than would currently be specified. Furthermore, the deformation
demand estimated from modal analysis approach (most common numerical approach used
at that time) might have been inaccurate and unconservative.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-63

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5.9 provides a comparison between the minimum transverse reinforcement spacing
requirements of the previous standard (NZSS 1900 Chapter 9.3:1964) and the three levels of
ductile detailing available in NZS 3101:1982 and subsequent versions (NZS 3101:1995 and
NZS 3101:2006).

Note:
The primary focus of this table is on columns designed to the non-seismic and limited-ductile
provisions of the 1982 standard. More detailed information on the evolution of seismic
design specifications and requirements for columns in New Zealand from 1970 onwards can
be found in Appendix C5D (Niromaandi et al., 2015).

Table C5.9 Comparison of transverse reinforcement spacing requirements in concrete

structures standards (Stirrat et al., 2014)
Design standard Non-seismic Limited-ductile Ductile spacing
spacing limit spacing limit limit

NZS 1900 Chapter 9.3:1964 For spirally-wound columns, min. of 75mm or 𝑑𝑑c /6

NZS 3101:1982 Min. of ℎ, 𝑏𝑏c , Min. of ℎ, 𝑏𝑏c , Min. of ℎ/5, 𝑏𝑏c /5,
16𝑑𝑑b , 48𝑑𝑑bt 10𝑑𝑑b , 48𝑑𝑑bt 6𝑑𝑑b , 200 mm

NZS 3101:1995 and NZS 3101:2006 Min. of ℎ/3, 𝑏𝑏c /3, Min. of ℎ/4, 𝑏𝑏c /4, Min. of ℎ/4, 𝑏𝑏c /4,
10𝑑𝑑b 10𝑑𝑑b 6𝑑𝑑b

While the requirements for shear, anti-buckling and confinement lead to adequate transverse
reinforcement detailing of the moment resisting frame (MRF) columns in NZS 3101:1982,
the ‘gravity’ columns did not have matching requirements. This is a considerable oversight
as the columns, while not specifically considered to contribute to the lateral force resisting
mechanism, still undergo the same displacement demands as the lateral resisting system.

Note:
Even the 1964 standard and the non-seismic provisions in NZS 3101:1995 and 2006 required
a fairly close spacing of transverse reinforcement sets. This means that columns designed
using the non-seismic or limited-ductile provisions of NZS 3101:1982 are likely to be the
primary concern.
It is also worth noting that the requirements in NZS 3101:1982 were more stringent for
seismic conditions compared to the non-seismic and limited-ductile conditions.
There are also relevant concerns for secondary columns from other eras (pre-1982 and post-
1995). This is even though the investigation by the Department of Building and Housing
(now the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment) following the Canterbury
earthquake sequence was on non-ductile columns in buildings designed to the
NZS 3101:1982 (i.e. between 1982 and 1995).
In addition to low quantities of transverse reinforcement, several other characteristics of a
column can contribute to its vulnerability in an earthquake. The following list provide
indicative-only boundaries for key parameters that may suggest columns are susceptible to
non-ductile behaviour:
• Low or inadequate quantities of transverse reinforcement – spacing (e.g. 𝑠𝑠 > 𝑑𝑑/2)
• High axial load demand (e.g. 𝑃𝑃/𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓 ′c > 0.3)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-64

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

• Low core-to-gross concrete area (e.g. 𝐴𝐴c /𝐴𝐴g < 0.77)

• Detailing – inadequate lap-splice length, lap splice located in potential plastic hinge
zone, poor detailing of transverse reinforcement anchorage (e.g. 90 degree bends),
welded detailing, lack of support to longitudinal bars
• High inelastic inter-storey drift demand (e.g. drift > 1.5%) Location of column – in
location prone to inelastic torsional amplification of displacements; e.g. corner column
or column on opposite face to eccentric shear core.

This list is based on available literature and experience as proposed by (Stirrat et al., 2014).
However, more experimental and numerical investigations are required to gain more
confidence regarding the actual ranges.

C5.5.3.2 Probable flexural strength for columns

In general, the evaluation of the probable flexural strength for a column can follow the
procedure already described for beams; with additional important considerations on the
effects of axial load, due to gravity and seismic loading. These additional considerations are
detailed below.

Assessors should bear in mind that collapse of all or part of a building is fundamentally due
to the loss of gravity load bearing capacity of critical elements, most notably columns.

P-delta effects, bidirectional loading and other secondary effects associated to displacement
compatibility issues and overall 3D response (including inelastic torsion) should be carefully
considered when assessing the demand (both deformations and actions) and the capacity of
columns.

Note:
This section pays particular attention to non-ductile columns, designed before
NZS 3101:1995, which can potentially have inadequate detailing to sustain moderate to high
levels of drift.

Development length, anchorage details and lap splices can represent potential issues in
buildings designed to earlier standards. In older frames, column lap-splice connections can
often be found immediately above the floor level, where the potential location of moment
reversal plastic hinges cannot be precluded.

If the lap length is sufficient to develop yield (e.g. approx. 20𝑑𝑑b for deformed bars) then the
probable flexural strength capacity can be attained. For lesser lap lengths, post-elastic
deformations quickly degrade the bond strength capacity and within one inelastic cyclic of
loading the lap splice may be assumed to have failed.

When the lap splice fails in bond, it does not generally lead to a catastrophic failure of the
element as the column is still able to transfer moment due to the presence of the eccentric
compression stress block that arises as a result of the axial load in the column. However the
hierarchy of strength at that floor level can change from a weak-beam to a weak-column
mechanism, potentially leading to a soft-storey.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-65

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

On the other hand, premature lap-splice failure can protect from more brittle mechanism.
It is thus recommended to use full flexural capacity (without reduction due to lap spice
failure) when assessing shear behaviour.

The moment capacity of a lap splice �𝑀𝑀lap � may be determined as an intermediate value
between the probable flexural strength assuming no deterioration, 𝑀𝑀n , capacity and a
residual flexural capacity, (𝑀𝑀f ):
𝜃𝜃p
𝑀𝑀lap = 𝑀𝑀n − 0.025 (𝑀𝑀n − 𝑀𝑀f ) …C5.22

where:
𝑀𝑀f ≤ 𝑀𝑀lap ≤ 𝑀𝑀n
𝜃𝜃p = plastic rotation demand on the connection
𝑙𝑙d,prov
𝑀𝑀n
𝑀𝑀f = max � 𝑙𝑙d …C5.23
0.5𝑁𝑁(𝐷𝐷 − 𝑎𝑎)

where:
𝑙𝑙d,prov = provided lap length
𝑙𝑙d = theoretical development length
𝑁𝑁 = axial load
𝐷𝐷 = the overall width of the member
𝑎𝑎 = depth of the compression stress block.

Note:
At a first step, and on a conservative level, the plastic rotation demand on the column, 𝜃𝜃p ,
can be taken as the one calculated for a pure flexural failure mechanism.
Similarly, the axial load force on the column can be estimated assuming a beam sway
mechanism which would lead to the highest variation of the axial load.
In terms of reference values for the development length, 𝑙𝑙d , the NZS 3101:2006
recommendations for basic calculation for 𝑙𝑙d in tension and compression can be adopted for
deformed bars. For plain round bars it is recommended to take 𝑙𝑙d,req as twice the
specification for 𝑙𝑙d in NZS 3101:2006.
More detailed information on bond capacity and development length of plain round bars can
be found in (Fabbrocino et al., 2002).
In general, the refined calculations for 𝑙𝑙d in NZS 3101:2006 are not applicable to older
construction practice; in particular, to pre-1970s columns with inadequate confinement
transverse reinforcement. The following adjustments are suggested.
The basic development length in tension is given by:
0.5𝛹𝛹a 𝑓𝑓y
𝑙𝑙d = 𝑑𝑑b …C5.24
�𝑓𝑓 ′c

where 𝛹𝛹a =1.3 for beam top reinforcement with at least 300 mm concrete underneath the
bars and 1.0 for all other cases. 𝑓𝑓 ′c in Equation C5.24 is limited to 70 MPa.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-66

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

The basic development length in compression is given by:

0.22𝑓𝑓y
𝑙𝑙d = 𝑑𝑑b > 0.04𝑓𝑓y 𝑑𝑑b > 200𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 …C5.25
�𝑓𝑓 ′c

In terms of the development length of bars with hook anchorage (as in anchorage of beam
longitudinal reinforcements into the beam-column joint), NZS 3101:2006 provides a
different 𝑙𝑙d equation:
𝑓𝑓y 𝑑𝑑b
𝑙𝑙d = 0.24𝛹𝛹𝑏𝑏 𝛹𝛹1 𝛹𝛹2 > 8𝑑𝑑b …C5.26
�𝑓𝑓 ′c

where:
𝛹𝛹b = 𝐴𝐴s,req /𝐴𝐴s,prov in the column,
𝛹𝛹1 = 0.7 for 32mm 𝑑𝑑b or smaller with side concrete cover ≥60 mm and
hook end cover ≥40 mm, and
𝛹𝛹2 = 1.0 for other cases, and
𝛹𝛹2 = 0.8 for well confined splice (with stirrups spacing < 6𝑑𝑑b ) and
𝛹𝛹2 = 1.0 for other cases.
𝐴𝐴s,req , 𝐴𝐴s,prov are the area of flexural reinforcements required and provided,
respectively.

C5.5.3.3 Probable shear strength capacity of columns

The probable shear strength capacity of columns outside the plastic hinge region can be taken
as:

𝑉𝑉p = 0.85(𝑉𝑉c +𝑉𝑉s + 𝑉𝑉n ) …C5.27

where 𝑉𝑉c , 𝑉𝑉s and 𝑉𝑉n are the shear contributions provided by the concrete mechanism, steel
shear reinforcement and the axial compressive load 𝑁𝑁 (shown in some figures as 𝑃𝑃)
respectively.

In more detail:
• the shear contribution from the concrete, 𝑉𝑉c , can be evaluated as:

𝑉𝑉c = 𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼𝛼�𝑓𝑓′c �0.8𝐴𝐴g � …C5.28

where:
𝑀𝑀
1 ≤ 𝛼𝛼 = 3 − 𝑉𝑉𝑉𝑉 ≤ 1.5

𝛽𝛽 = 0.5 + 20𝜌𝜌l ≤ 1
𝛾𝛾 = shear strength degradation factor (refer to Figure C5.17)
𝐴𝐴g = gross area of the column
𝑀𝑀/𝑉𝑉 = ratio of moment to shear at the section
𝐷𝐷 = total section depth or the column diameter as appropriate
𝜌𝜌l = area of longitudinal column reinforcement divided by the
column cross-sectional area.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-67

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

• The shear contribution from the steel shear reinforcement, 𝑉𝑉s , is evaluated assuming that
the critical diagonal tension crack is inclined at 30° to the longitudinal axis of the column.

For rectangular hoops:

𝐴𝐴v 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑"
𝑉𝑉s = cot30º …C5.29
𝑠𝑠

and for spirals or circular hoops:

𝜋𝜋 𝐴𝐴sp 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑"
𝑉𝑉s = 2
cot30º …C5.30
𝑠𝑠

where:
𝐴𝐴v = total effective area of hoops and cross ties in the direction of
the shear force at spacing 𝑠𝑠
𝐴𝐴sp = area of spiral or circular hoop bar
𝑓𝑓yt = expected yield strength of the transverse reinforcement
𝑑𝑑" = depth of the concrete core of the column measured in the
direction of the shear force for rectangular hoops and the
diameter of the concrete core for spirals or circular hoops.

• The shear resisted as a result of the axial compressive load 𝑁𝑁 ∗ on the column is given
by:

𝑉𝑉n = 𝑁𝑁 ∗ tan 𝛼𝛼 …C5.31

where 𝛼𝛼 is:
- for a cantilever column, the angle between the longitudinal axis of the column
and the straight line between the centroid of the column section at the top and the
centroid of the concrete compression force of the column section at the base (refer to
Figure C5.17a)
- for a column in double curvature, the angle between the longitudinal axis of the
column and the straight line between the centroids of the concrete compressive forces
of the column section at the top and bottom of the column (refer to Figure C5.17b).

Reversed Bending Single Bending Curvature Ductility

(a)Contribution of axial force to (b) Shear strength degradation factor, 𝜸𝜸,

shear strength based on curvature ductility

Figure C5.17: Column shear strength assessment based on Priestley et al. (1994, 1995, 2007)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-68

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
As mentioned earlier in the case of beams, the degradation of the shear strength in a plastic
hinge regions is affected by the ductility demand and cyclic loading.

Figure C5.17 shows proposals for the degradation of the nominal shear stress carried by the
concrete, 𝛾𝛾 [when using MPa Units], as a function of the imposed ductility factor 𝜙𝜙/𝜙𝜙y , as
proposed for columns by Priestley et al. (1994, 2007).

C5.5.3.4 Internal hierarchy of strength and sequence of mechanisms

in a column
Once the various failure mechanisms for a column have been evaluated, including flexural,
shear, lap-splice failure and bar buckling, the (force-based) hierarchy of strength and
expected sequence of events can be visualised within an M-N interaction diagram or
performance-domain (Pampanin et al., 2002) in order to account for the variation of axial
load during the frame sway mechanism.

As an example of the M-N interaction diagram for a column with poor detailing Figure C5.18
shows:
• conventional tensile and compressive flexural failures
• shear capacity/failure and shear degradation at various ductility levels (𝜇𝜇 = 2 and 𝜇𝜇 = 4)
• lap-splice failure of the column longitudinal reinforcement.

60
Column M-N As-built
55 Column M-N lap-splice (ASCE-41)
Column M-N lap-splice (residual)
50 Column Shear (duct<2)
Column Shear (duct=4)
45
Column Moment, M(kNm)

Axial Load Demand

40
35
30 Column Lap Splice
25 Column Lap Splice
20 Lap-splice Residual
15 Lap-splice Residual
Column Hierarchy of
10 Strength (M-N Space)
5 S-O1
0
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
Axial Load, N (kN)

Figure C5.18: Internal hierarchy of strength of column failure modes within an M-N
interaction diagram (Kam, 2011)

Such force-based hierarchy of strength and sequence of event information should be

integrated with the information on the rotation ordisplacementcapacities associated with
each mechanism, as discussed in the following Section C5.6.

Ultimately, by combining the flexural capacity curve with the shear degradation capacity
curve, an overall force-displacement capacity curve for the column can be derived and will
highlight the occurrence of the various mechanisms at different curvature/rotation/
displacement (and therefore the interstorey drift) level, as shown in Figure C5.19.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-69

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Shear failure

Fu
Lateral force
Fy

Flexure
Shear
Bi-liniear approx.
∆y ∆u Bar buckling

Displacement

Figure C5.19: Example of the combined flexural-shear mechanisms within a force-

displacement capacity curve for a column (Stirrat et al., 2014)

C5.5.3.5 Deformation (curvature, rotation and displacement/drift)

capacities of columns

Plastic rotation and displacement/drift capacity due to flexural mechanism

The procedure outlined in Section C5.5.2.5 to evaluate the rotation capacity of a plastic hinge
for beams also applies, with minor changes, to plastic hinges forming at column bases, or in
column sidesway mechanisms. However, the approximation for the volumetric ratio of
transverse reinforcement, 𝜌𝜌s , in Equation C5.10 should be replaced by a first principles
approach. In fact, it will often be found that columns in older reinforced concrete frames have
only nominal transverse reinforcement so must be considered to be unconfined.

Together with reduced plastic hinge length as a consequence of reduced member height
compared with beam length, and reduced ultimate curvature as a consequence of axial
compression, column plastic rotation capacity will generally be less than the values estimated
for beams. Values less than 𝜃𝜃p = 0.01 radians will be common for unconfined situations and
𝜃𝜃p = 0.015 for confined situations. The ultimate (ULS) rotation capacity will be given by the
sum of the elastic and plastic contributions.

It is worth remembering that the axial load level critically affects the ultimate curvature and
thus the ultimate rotation capacity of a column. A proper estimation of the expected level of
axial load due to gravity loads and the variation due to the application of lateral seismic loads
should be carried out. More details are provided in the following sections on beam-column
joints, hierarchy of strength and determination of the ‘seismic’ axial load contribution from a
frame sway mechanism.

In fact, from a rotation capacity point of view the critical column will be the one with highest
axial compression, while from a moment capacity point of view the critical column will be the
one with the lowest axial load.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-70

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
Moment-curvature analyses will show that, while the yield curvature is not greatly affected
by axial load level (particularly when yield curvature is expressed in terms of equivalent
elasto-plastic response), the ultimate curvature and hence plastic rotation capacity is strongly
dependent on axial load.
This is illustrated in Figure C5.20, where a poorly confined (transverse reinforcement
D10@400, 2 legs only) end column of a frame with nominal axial load of 𝑃𝑃 = 0.2𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g is
subjected to seismic axial force variations of 𝑃𝑃𝐸𝐸 = ± 0.2𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g . The yield curvatures differ by
less than 10% from the mean, while the ultimate curvatures at 𝑃𝑃 = 0 and 𝑃𝑃 = 0.4𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g are
61% and 263% of the value at 𝑃𝑃 = 0.2𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g .

Figure C5.20: Moment-curvature response of a column with poor confinement

Displacement/drift capacity due to flexure-shear failure mechanism

Exceeding the shear capacity of RC columns in a flexure-shear mode does not necessarily
imply loss of axial load carrying capacity. In such a mixed mode, when shear capacity is
exceeded, axial load can still be supported by the longitudinal reinforcing bars and force
transfer through shear friction.

When a column behaviour is characterised by a flexural-shear behaviour with shear strength

reduction due to ductility demand, the ultimate displacement capacity can be estimated as
the point at which the probable shear strength degradation curve intersects the probable
flexural strength curve.

The displacement of a column at the point that the shear capacity is reached, ∆s , can be
roughly estimated from (Elwood and Moehle, 2005). In the context of these guidelines, ∆s ,
is to be considered as the probable drift/displacement based limit associated with the
evaluation of %NBS:

𝑣𝑣 𝑃𝑃
∆s= 𝐿𝐿c �0.03 + 4𝜌𝜌s − 0.024 − 0.025 𝐴𝐴 ′ � ≥ 0.01𝐿𝐿c …C5.32
�𝑓𝑓 ′c g 𝑓𝑓 c

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-71

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Details-dependent drift levels are calculated for the yielding of the section, shear failure and
post shear-failure loss of axial load carrying capacity.

Note:
Shear mechanisms, particularly the post-peak displacement behaviour of columns dominated
by shear failure mechanisms, is a complex area of research that is still under development.
Different models have been proposed (e.g. Elwood and Moehle, 2005; Yoshimura, 2008),
which can provide a significant scatter in terms of predicted values.
Given the dramatic impact that shear failure of columns in particular can have, as this can
lead to loss of gravity bearing capacity, it is recommended that the assessment of their
ultimate capacity is treated with care and that specific remedial (retrofit) interventions are
considered to eliminate such potentially severe critical structural weaknesses (CSWs).

Displacement/drift capacity due to bar buckling

The ultimate capacity of a flexure-governed non-ductile column could be limited by
longitudinal bar buckling before the initiation of concrete crushing.

The expression proposed by Berry & Eberhard (2005) can be employed to estimate the lateral
displacement ∆u at which buckling of the longitudinal bars of this type of column is initiated.
𝐿𝐿c�
𝑑𝑑b 𝑃𝑃
∆u = 0.0325𝐿𝐿c �1 + 𝑘𝑘e_bb 𝜌𝜌𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 � �1 − 𝐴𝐴 � �1 + 10𝐷𝐷2� …C5.33
𝐷𝐷 g 𝑓𝑓 ′ c

where:
𝑘𝑘e_bb = 0 for columns with 𝑠𝑠𝑑𝑑b ≥ 6𝑑𝑑b
𝑘𝑘e_bb = 40 and 150 for rectangular columns and spiral-reinforced columns,
respectively.

Note:
It is worth noting that the original expression proposed by Berry & Eberhard (2005) was
calibrated on the drift ratio (∆u /𝐿𝐿c ) obtained from experimental results. The dispersion of
such expressions, when applied directly to derive displacement, is quite high and should be
treated with care.

C5.5.3.6 Non-ductile “gravity” columns

The capacity of non-ductile “gravity” columns, which are described in Section C5.3, should
be assessed in the same manner as that recommended above for columns forming part of the
lateral load resisting system.

However, given their critical role of gravity-load-carry capacity and the lack of adequate
detailing which could lead to brittle failure mechanisms, special care should be taken when
assessing their capacity and performance. This acknowledges the higher level of uncertainty
in the prediction of displacement/drift capacity associated with shear failure, particularly
when bidirectional loading is considered.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-72

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.5.4 Beam-column joints

C5.5.4.1 History of code-based reinforcement requirements for
beam-column joints
If structural and/or construction drawings for the building are not available it may be useful
to refer to the requirements of the New Zealand standards of the time. Appendix C5D
summarises the minimum design requirements for beam-column joint reinforcement and
details according to NZS 3101:1970, 1982, 1995 and 2006. More information can be found
in Cuevas et al. (2015).

Figure C5.21 illustrates the evolution of structural design requirements and detailing layout
for beams according to these standards.

Figure C5.21: Example of typical beam-column joint layouts according to different

New Zealand standards (Cuevas et al., 2015)

C5.5.4.2 Typical deficiencies in beam-column joint design and

detailing
Older RC buildings can be characterised by a number of different construction practices and
structural detailing for beam-column connections. Typical inadequacies can be related to
the:
• lack or absence of horizontal and/or vertical transverse reinforcement
• non-ductile anchorage of beam longitudinal bars into the joint, and
• lack of reliable joint shear transfer mechanism beyond diagonal cracking.

The primary deficiency of older beam-column joints, particularly before the 1970s, was the
inadequate joint shear reinforcement. In fact, in older construction practice beam-column
joints were treated either as construction joints or as part of the columns. Consequently, these
beam-column joints would have no, or very few, joint stirrups.

As demonstrated in laboratory testing (Hakuto et al., 2000; Pampanin et al., 2002-2003) and
post-earthquake observations, different types of damage or failure modes are expected to
occur in beam-column joints depending on the:
• typology (i.e. exterior or interior joints, with or without transverse beams) and

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-73

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

• structural details; i.e.:

- lack or insufficient transverse reinforcement in the joint
- type of reinforcement, i.e. plain round or deformed
- alternative bar anchorage solutions; i.e. bent in, bent out, end-hooked, or a
combination of these.

Figure C5.22 illustrates possible damage mechanisms of exterior tee-joints with no or

minimal transverse reinforcement in the joint regions and alternative beam anchorage
details.

Alternative damage mechanisms for exterior tee-joints are shown in Figure C5.22:
• beam bars bent inside the joint region – (a) and (b)
• beam bars bent outside the joint region – (c), and
• plain round beam bars with end-hooks: “concrete wedge” mechanism – (d).

All of these solutions have been used in New Zealand.

(a) Beam bars bent (b) Beam bars (c) Beam bars (d) Plain round
in – cover bent in – loss of bent away from beam bars with end-
cracking at back joint integrity the joint hooks: concrete
to joint wedge mechanism

Figure C5.22: Alternative damage mechanisms expected in exterior joints depending on the
structural detailing: (a) and (b) beam bars bent inside the joint region; (c) beam bars bent
outside the joint region; (d) plain round beam bars with end-hooks

Note:
Referring to the basic strut-and-tie theory for beam-column joints (Park and Paulay, 1975;
Paulay and Priestley, 1995) shown earlier in Figure C5.6, it is expected that exterior joints
of older construction practice (i.e. with poor or no transverse reinforcement in the joints and
poor anchorage detailing of the beam bars) are usually more vulnerable than interior beam-
column joints.
After diagonal cracking, the shear transfer mechanism in a joint with no or very limited shear
reinforcement must essentially rely on a compression diagonal strut. This mechanism can be
maintained up to a certain level of compression stress in an interior beam-column joint.
However, when dealing with exterior beam-column joints the strut efficiency is critically
related to the anchorage solution adopted for the longitudinal beam reinforcement.
When the beam bars are bent into the joint (refer to Figure C5.22(a) and (b)) they can provide
a limited resistance against the horizontal expansion of the joint. This is until the hook opens

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-74

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

under the combined action of the diagonal strut and the pulling tension force in the beam
reinforcement, which then leads to a rapid joint degradation. When the beam bars are bent
away from the joint (refer to Figure C5.22(c)), as is more typical of older construction
practice in New Zealand, no effective node point is provided for the development of an
efficient compression strut mechanism unless a significant amount of transverse column
hoops is placed immediately above the joint core. In this case, rapid joint strength
degradation after joint diagonal cracking is expected.
Arguably, the worst scenario is provided by the solution shown in Figure C5.22(d), which is
more common in pre-1970s buildings and consists of plain round bars with end-hook
anchorage. The combination of an inefficient diagonal strut action and a concentrated
compression force (punching action) at the end-hook anchorage due to slippage of the
longitudinal beam bars can lead to the expulsion of a ‘concrete wedge’ and rapid loss of
vertical load capacity.

C5.5.4.3 Probable shear strength of beam-column joints

Joints without any shear reinforcement

For interior and exterior beam-column joints without shear reinforcement, as typical of
pre-1970s buildings, the probable horizontal joint shear force that can be resisted is:

𝑉𝑉pjh = 0.85𝑣𝑣ch 𝑏𝑏j ℎ

𝑁𝑁 ∗
= 0.85𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓 ′c ��1 + � 𝑏𝑏j ℎ ≤ 1.92�𝑓𝑓 ′c 𝑏𝑏j ℎ …C5.34
𝐴𝐴g 𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓′c

where:
𝑣𝑣ch = nominal horizontal joint shear stress carried by a diagonal
compressive strut mechanism crossing the joint
𝑏𝑏j = effective width of the joint (being normally the column width as per
NZS 3101:2006)
ℎ = depth of column.

The following values for 𝑘𝑘 should be used:

• for interior joints, 𝑘𝑘 = 0.8 (note that compression failure rather than tensile failure would
govern in an interior beam-column joint)
• for exterior joints with beam longitudinal (deformed) bars anchored by bending the
hooks into the joint core, 𝑘𝑘 = 0.4
• for exterior joints with beam longitudinal (deformed) bars anchored by bending the
hooks away from the joint core (into the columns above and below), 𝑘𝑘 = 0.3
• for exterior joints with beam longitudinal (plain round) bars anchored with end hooks,
𝑘𝑘 = 0.2.

Note:
These recommended values for k are based on experimental testing from Hakuto et al.,
1995-2000 (mostly focusing on deformed bars with no variation of axial load) and Pampanin
et al., 2000-2010 (mostly focusing on plain round bars and variation of axial load).

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-75

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

𝑣𝑣ch indicates the estimated maximum nominal horizontal joint core shear stress, calculated
the conventional way, resisted by beam-column joints in tests without joint shear
reinforcement and without axial load.
∗
𝑁𝑁
The term indicating the influence of axial load, ��1 + 𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓′ � was obtained by assuming that
𝑐𝑐

the diagonal (principal) tensile strength, 𝑝𝑝t , of the concrete was 𝑝𝑝t = 𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓 ′c and using Mohr’s
circle to calculate the horizontal shear stress required to induce this diagonal (principal)
tensile stress when the vertical compressive stress is 𝑁𝑁 ∗ /𝐴𝐴g [Hakuto et al (2000), Pampanin
et al., (2002)].
A strength reduction factor of 0.85 has been included in Equation C5.34 to account for the
higher uncertainty (and impact) of a shear failure mechanism when compared to a flexural
one.
In fact, it has been demonstrated (Priestley, 1997; Pampanin, 2002) that principal tensile and
compression stresses, 𝑝𝑝t and 𝑝𝑝c , are more appropriate indicators of joint damage than the
nominal shear stress 𝜈𝜈jh , as they can take the variation of axial load into account.
Principal tensile stresses, 𝑝𝑝t , would tend to govern the failure mechanism of exterior beam-
column joints (tensile cracking), while principal compression stresses, 𝑝𝑝c , would tend to
govern interior beam-column joints where higher levels of axial load are expected and the
damage/failure mechanism is more correlated to the degradation of the diagonal compression
strut.
Figure C5.23 shows strength degradation curves 𝑝𝑝t versus 𝛾𝛾 (shear deformation) as well as
𝑝𝑝t versus drift presented in literature and based on extensive experimental tests.

Figure C5.23: Strength degradation curves for exterior joints (Pampanin et al., 2002)

Indicative level of damage limit states for exterior beam column joints with no shear
reinforcement, expressed in terms of shear deformation, 𝛾𝛾 [rad], and interstorey drift, 𝜃𝜃, are
reported in Table C5.10. For the scope of this document and assessment procedure, the
critical damage limit state can be considered as the ultimate limit state for the joints, to be
used for the evaluation of the %NBS of the building.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-76

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

In the case of interior joints, given the possibility to develop a joint shear transfer mechanism
via diagonal compression strut the limit states values of Table C5.10 can be increased by
approximately 50%.

Table C5.10: Suggested limit states for exterior joints with no shear reinforcement (modified
after Magenes and Pampanin, 2004)
Limit states Extensive damage Critical damage Incipient collapse
(corresponding to
ULS)

Shear deformation, 𝛾𝛾 [rad] 0.005 ≤ 𝛾𝛾 < 0.01 0.01 ≤ 𝛾𝛾 < 0.015 𝛾𝛾 ≥ 0.015
Drift, 𝜃𝜃 [%] 0.8% ≤ 𝜃𝜃 < 1.2% 1.2% ≤ 𝜃𝜃 < 1.8% 𝜃𝜃 ≥ 0.02

Note:
The limit states proposed above are based on experimental and numerical investigations on
beam-column joint subassemblies and frame systems.
It is worth noting that the interstorey drift corresponding to a specific damage level in the
joint panel zone would depend on the elastic and plastic contribution of beams and column
and thus would need to be checked on a case-by-case basis.

Joints with some shear reinforcement

For interior and exterior beam-column joints with some shear reinforcement (stirrups), the
probable horizontal joint shear force that can be resisted is:

𝑉𝑉pjh = 0.85𝑣𝑣jh 𝑏𝑏j ℎ …C5.35

For joints with interior stirrups the joint shear stress can be computed, based on similar
considerations on Mohr’s Circle approach, as:

𝑣𝑣jh = 0.85 𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓 ′c �1 + 𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓 ′c (𝑓𝑓v + 𝑓𝑓h ) + 𝑓𝑓v 𝑓𝑓h for exterior joints …C5.36

𝑣𝑣jh = 0.85 𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓 ′c �1 + 𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓 ′c (𝑓𝑓v + 𝑓𝑓h ) + 𝑓𝑓v 𝑓𝑓h for interior joints …C5.37

where:
𝑁𝑁
𝑓𝑓v = 𝐴𝐴g
is the axial load stress on the joint
𝐴𝐴st 𝑓𝑓sy
𝑓𝑓h = represents horizontal confinement effects due to the stirrups in
𝑏𝑏j ℎb
the joint and is calculated as the maximum tension stress that the
stirrups can develop at yield.

Note:
The expression above is used in Eurocode 8 to determine the required amount of stirrups in
a joint.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-77

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

For 𝑓𝑓h = 0 (and after substituting the definition of principal tensile stress, 𝑝𝑝t , as a function
of nominal shear stress, 𝑣𝑣jh and the axial load stress 𝑓𝑓v ) the general equation for joints with
shear reinforcement converge to the equation for joints with no shear reinforcement.
Taking a rigorous approach, the joint capacity would be evaluated considering both principal
tensile and compression stresses approach. However, in practical terms and considering that
exterior joints are mostly governed by tensile cracking failure and interior joints by
compression (crushing) failure, the expression presented above (based on principal tensile
stress 𝑝𝑝t = 𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓 ′c) can be used for exterior joints.
For interior joints a similar expression based on principal compression stresses is obtained
by replacing 𝑝𝑝t = 𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓 ′c with 𝑝𝑝c = 𝑘𝑘c 𝑓𝑓 ′c and assuming 𝑘𝑘 = 0.6 for critical damage level.

C5.5.4.4 Procedure for evaluating the equivalent “moment” capacity

of a joint, 𝑴𝑴𝐣𝐣
In order to compare the hierarchy of strength and determine the expected sequence of events
within beam–column joint subassemblies (refer to Section C5.6.1 for full development) the
joint shear capacity needs to be expressed as a function of a comparable parameter to the
capacity of beams and columns.

As a benchmark parameter, it is suggested to take the equivalent moment in the column

(based on equilibrium considerations) corresponding to the selected limit states, e.g. first
cracking, extensive damage/peak capacity in the joint.

In Table C5.11 and Figure C5.24 below the nominal shear force 𝑉𝑉jh is expressed as a function
of the moment in the column, leading to the expression of 𝑀𝑀col as the equivalent moment in
the column corresponding to a given event or damage in the joint panel zone.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-78

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5.11: Step-by-step procedure to express the joint capacity as a function of

equivalent column moment 𝑴𝑴𝐣𝐣 or 𝑴𝑴𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜𝐜
Horizontal shear force
acting on the joint core
𝑉𝑉jh = 𝑇𝑇 − 𝑉𝑉c …C5.38

Equilibrium of the external

action
𝑉𝑉c 𝑙𝑙c = 𝑉𝑉b 𝑙𝑙b …C5.39

Rearrange to get 𝑉𝑉b 𝑉𝑉c 𝑙𝑙c

𝑉𝑉b = …C5.40
𝑙𝑙b

Moment acting at the face ℎc

of the joint core 𝑀𝑀b = 𝑉𝑉b �𝑙𝑙b − � = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 …C5.41
2

Rearrange to get 𝑇𝑇 ℎ ℎ
𝑀𝑀b 𝑉𝑉b �𝑙𝑙b − c � 𝑉𝑉c 𝑙𝑙c �𝑙𝑙b − c �
2 2
𝑇𝑇 = = = …C5.42
𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 𝑙𝑙b 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗

Substitute into the 1st ℎ

𝑉𝑉c 𝑙𝑙c �𝑙𝑙b − c � 𝑙𝑙c ℎc
2
equation 𝑉𝑉jh = 𝑇𝑇 − 𝑉𝑉c = − 𝑉𝑉c = 𝑉𝑉c �𝑙𝑙 �𝑙𝑙b − � − 1� …C5.43
𝑙𝑙b 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 b 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 2

Rearrange to get 𝑉𝑉c 𝑉𝑉𝑗𝑗ℎ

𝑉𝑉c = 𝑙𝑙c ℎ
…C5.44
� �𝑙𝑙 − c �−1�
𝑙𝑙b 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 b 2

Joint capacity in terms of 𝑙𝑙 −ℎ 𝑉𝑉jh 𝑙𝑙 −ℎ

the column moment 𝑀𝑀col = 𝑉𝑉c � c 2 b � = 𝑙𝑙c ℎ
� c 2 b� …C5.45
� �𝑙𝑙 − c �−1�
𝑙𝑙b 𝑗𝑗𝑗𝑗 b 2

Assume 𝑗𝑗 = 0.9𝑑𝑑 and 𝜈𝜈jh (1000) 2𝑙𝑙′ 𝑙𝑙 −1.8𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑙b

𝐴𝐴e = 𝑏𝑏j × ℎc 𝑀𝑀col = 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎 𝜙𝜙 = 0.9𝑑𝑑𝑙𝑙b c𝐴𝐴 …C5.46
𝜙𝜙 b e (𝑙𝑙c −ℎb )

Nominal horizontal shear jh 𝑉𝑉

stress at the mid-depth of 𝜈𝜈jh = 𝑏𝑏 ×ℎ …C5.47
j c
the joint core

Effective width of the joint

𝑏𝑏j = min(𝑏𝑏c , 𝑏𝑏w + 0.5ℎc ) 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑏𝑏c ≥ 𝑏𝑏w …C5.48

𝑏𝑏j = min(𝑏𝑏w , 𝑏𝑏c + 0.5ℎc ) 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑏𝑏c ≤ 𝑏𝑏w …C5.49

Principal tensile and 𝑓𝑓v

compressive stresses 𝑝𝑝t = 𝑝𝑝c = − ± 𝑅𝑅 …C5.50
2

Substitute 𝑅𝑅 = 2
𝑓𝑓v 𝑓𝑓
2
��𝑓𝑓v � + 𝜈𝜈jh 2 from Mohr’s 𝑝𝑝t = − + �� 2v � + 𝜈𝜈jh 2 …C5.51
2 2
Circle Theory

Rearrange to get horizontal

shear 𝜈𝜈jh = �𝑝𝑝t 2 + 𝑝𝑝t 𝑓𝑓v …C5.52

Substitute into the joint �𝑝𝑝t 2 +𝑝𝑝t 𝑓𝑓v (1000)

capacity equation 𝑀𝑀col = 𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘𝑘 …C5.53
𝜙𝜙

Principal tensile stress

𝑝𝑝t = 𝑘𝑘�𝑓𝑓c′ …C5.54

Stress due to axial load 𝑁𝑁v

𝑓𝑓v = …C5.55
𝐴𝐴e

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-79

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

(a)

(b)

(c)
Figure C5.24: (a) Free-body diagram of a beam-column joint subassembly; (b) Mohr’s circle
theory applied to calculate joint shear and principal tensile/compression stresses;
(c) Moment, shear and stresses at joint region (modified after Pampanin et al., 2003;
Akguzel and Pampanin, 2010; Tasligedik et al., 2015)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-80

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

For an interior joint the same procedure can be followed by:

• introducing the contribution from the compression steel, 𝐶𝐶′𝑠𝑠, of the other beam in the
first equation in Table C5.11:

𝑉𝑉jh = 𝑇𝑇 + 𝐶𝐶′𝑠𝑠 − 𝑉𝑉c …C5.56

• assuming 𝑀𝑀b = 𝑀𝑀c for interior beam-column joints, instead of 𝑀𝑀b = 2𝑀𝑀c for exterior
joints, and
• checking that 𝑙𝑙b ’ and 𝑙𝑙b are to be taken as the beam clear span and full span respectively,
consistent with an interior beam-column joint.

Note:
This procedure is intended to be a simple analytical approach to determine the hierarchy of
strength and the global mechanism as part of a SLaMA method. The full procedure to
evaluate the hierarchy of strength and sequence of events for a beam-column joint
subassembly is presented in Section C5.6.1.
The example provided assumes a point of contraflexure at mid-height of the column, which
might in fact vary during the sway mechanism; in particular when yielding columns or joint
shear damage and failure occur at one level requiring redistribution and due to the dynamic
effects.
Refer to Section C2 for more information on the limitations of alternative analysis methods.

C5.5.4.5 Effects of bidirectional cyclic loading on joint capacity

The effects of bidirectional loading can significantly affect the response of poorly detailed
beam-column joints and modify the hierarchy of strength and sequence of events of the
subassembly – and thus possibly the overall global response of the frame.

Conceptually, the shear (or equivalent moment) strength reduction due to bidirectional
loading is similar to that expected in a column (both in flexure and shear) when subjected to
bidirectional loading (refer to Figure C5.25).

Figure C5.25: Conceptual moment-axial load (𝑴𝑴𝐲𝐲 − 𝑴𝑴𝐳𝐳 − 𝑷𝑷) or shear-axial load (𝑽𝑽𝐲𝐲 − 𝑽𝑽𝐳𝐳 − 𝑷𝑷)
interaction surface for a reinforced concrete element (including beam-column joint)
subjected to bi-axial loading

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-81

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

In the absence of more detailed study or evidence, a reduction of 30% on the joint shear
(strength) capacity within the subassembly hierarchy of strength should be considered under
bidirectional loading. Also, it is suggested that the lower bounds of the deformation limit
states indicated in Table C5.10 are adopted to account for the effect of bidirectional loading.

Note:
Most of the available studies available on the seismic assessment and retrofit of existing
poorly detailed frame buildings have concentrated on the two-dimensional response, thus
subjecting the specimen or subassemblies to unidirectional cyclic loading testing protocols.
Even when the 3D response under combined bidirectional loading has been taken into
account in experimental testing, the focus has been typically on interior (fully or partially
confined) joints.
As part of a more extensive research programme on seismic retrofit solutions for
New Zealand RC buildings, the effects of bidirectional loading – which is more
representative of the actual seismic response of a building structure – on the assessment and
design of the retrofit intervention have been investigated (Akguzel and Pampanin, 2010).
These results confirmed that the bidirectional cyclic loading can significantly affect the
response of poorly detailed beam-column joints (with a reduction of the lateral load capacity
of the whole subassembly of approximately 30%).
Figures C5.26 and C5.27 show an example of the observed damage and a comparison of the
subassemblies’ hysteresis loops.
In both 2D and 3D specimens a shear hinge mechanism developed in the joint region,
providing the main source of the observed inelastic deformation and behaviour.
However, the 3D specimen exhibited a more complex three-dimensional concrete wedge
mechanism (Figure C5.26(b)), well in line with the damage observed in recent earthquake
events. A critical level of joint damage and a more rapid strength degradation were observed
when compared to the 2D equivalent (Figure C5.26(a)), in spite of the partial confinement
effects provided by the orthogonal beam.
In presence of bidirectional loading it is thus recommended to account for a reduction of
both strength and deformation capacities in the joints.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-82

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

(a) (b)

Figure C5.26: Damage observation from laboratory testing in the as-built exterior beam-
column joint specimens 2D and 3D subjected to uni- and bidirectional loading respectively
(after Pampanin, 2009; Akguzel and Pampanin, 2010)

(a) (b)

Figure C5.27: Experimental hysteresis and envelope curves for two exterior 2D and 3D
exterior joint subassemblies subjected to unidirectional and bidirectional loading regime
respectively (after Akguzel and Pampanin, 2010)

Note:
Overlooking the effects of bidirectional loading on the local and global response and the
performance of an RC structure can significantly impair the efficiency of a retrofit
intervention.
As for the variation of axial load, a controversial outcome could be that an (inappropriately)
selected retrofit intervention would actually lead to a global failure mechanism (i.e. due to
the formation of a soft storey) which may not have occurred in the as-built (pre-retrofit)
configuration.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-83

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.5.5 Structural walls

C5.5.5.1 History of code-based reinforcement requirements for walls
If structural and/or construction drawings for the building are not available it may be useful
to refer to requirements of the New Zealand standards of the time. Refer to Appendix C5D.5
for a comparison of minimum design and detail requirements for walls according to
NZS 1900:1964 and NZS 3101:1970, 1982, 1995, 2006. More information can be found in
Dashti et al., 2015.

Figure C5.28 illustrates an example of the evolution of structural design requirements and
detailing layout for shear walls according to these standards.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-84

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5.28: Example of typical reinforcement layouts for shear walls designed according
to different New Zealand concrete standards from mid-1960s on (Dashti et al., 2015)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-85

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.5.5.2 Failure mechanisms for shear walls

Depending on the geometric and mechanical characteristics (reinforcing details and layout)
and on the demand (unidirectional or bidirectional, level of axial load and moment/shear),
structural (shear) walls can develop alternative and complex mechanisms as demonstrated
in extensive experimental testing in structural laboratories as well as by damage observed
following major earthquakes.

Figure C5.29 gives an overview of the most commonly expected and analysed failure
mechanisms in shear walls under unidirectional loading (Paulay, 1981).

In addition to the most desirable flexural yielding of the longitudinal reinforcement in the
plastic hinge region (b), alternative failure modes such as diagonal tension (c) or diagonal
compression due to shear, instability of thin walled sections or buckling of the main
compression reinforcement (refer to Appendix C5G), sliding-shear along the construction
joints (d) and shear or bond failure along lapped splices or anchorage can occur and should
be assessed.

Poor or inadequate detailing can lead to a severe and sudden strength degradation; potentially
at relatively low levels of lateral displacement/drift demand.

(a) Wall (b) Flexure (c) Diagonal (d) Sliding (e) Hinge
actions tension shear sliding

Figure C5.29: Various failure modes of cantilevered shear walls (Paulay, 1981)

Note:
Concrete walls in buildings constructed before the importance of the ductile capacity was
recognised will typically have low levels of shear and confinement reinforcing.
Anti-buckling and confinement stirrups and ties were not required before NZS 3101:1982.
Compression zone ductile detailing was introduced at that time, with specific requirements
to limit the extreme fibre compressive strain or provide boundary confining stirrups.
Furthermore, pre-1970s concrete walls were typically constructed as infill panels in between
concrete columns and perforated with multiple openings. Typical pre-1970s walls (for low
to mid-rise buildings) were 6” to 8” thick (approx. 150-200 mm) and lightly reinforced with
3/8” or ¼” bars at 8” to 12” centres (approx. 200-300 mm). However, the increase in flexural
capacity of the wall including the longitudinal reinforcement of the boundary columns may
result in increased shear demands and a brittle shear-dominated inelastic mechanism.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-86

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

The major Chile earthquake of 2010 and the Canterbury earthquake sequence of 2010-2011
provided real examples of most, if not all, of the ‘traditional’ mechanisms referred to earlier
(NZSEE 2010-2011 and EERI/NZSEE 2015 Special Issues).

In addition, a number of alternative failure mechanisms have been highlighted as shown in

previous sections. These include:
• out-of-plane instability of doubly reinforced, well confined and not necessarily “thin”
(as typically considered) walls
• diagonal compression-shear failure of walls due to interaction (displacement
compatibility) with the floor system during the uplifting
• out-of-plane shear/sliding failure at lap-splice level, in part due to bidirectional loading
effects, and
• flexural tension failure of singly reinforced walls with low-reinforcement ratio.

The key parameters controlling the behaviour and alternative mechanisms of walls are both
geometrical and mechanical:
• element shear span ratio (𝑉𝑉/𝑀𝑀), i.e. squat vs. tall
• section aspect ratio (𝐿𝐿w /𝑡𝑡w )
• slenderness ratio (𝐻𝐻/𝑡𝑡w )
• longitudinal reinforcement ratio in the boundary elements and in the core (𝜌𝜌l )
• transverse reinforcement and confinement details in the boundary regions, and
• axial load ratio (𝑁𝑁/𝑓𝑓’c 𝐴𝐴c ).

Note:
Following observations of the relatively poor performance of existing walls in the aftermath
of the Chile and Canterbury earthquakes, there is an ongoing and internationally coordinated
research effort under the name of “Wall International Institute”. The purpose of this research,
which is based on experimental, numerical and analytical investigations, is to improve the
understanding of shear wall building behaviour (at local, member and global system level)
in order to refine current provisions both for new design and the assessment of existing walls
(Wallace et al., 2016).
The methods described in these guidelines (either in the core text and in the appendices) are
based on the latest knowledge and will be updated as new research evidence becomes
available in the near future.

C5.5.5.3 Probable flexural strength of walls

General approach

In general terms, the evaluation of the probable flexural strength for a shear wall at the
critical sections can follow the procedure described earlier for columns, with some additional
considerations for alternative failure mechanisms. These are highlighted below.

As outlined for columns, the actual axial load demand due to gravity loads and seismic action
should be accounted for.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-87

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

The probable flexural strength, 𝑀𝑀wp , of each wall should be determined based on the
effective vertical reinforcement at the base and the gravity loads. The neutral axis depth to
wall length ratio, 𝑐𝑐/𝑙𝑙w , which is derived as a by-product of this calculation, is used
subsequently when checking the curvature ductility capacity of each wall section.

Note:
As a first approximation, a traditional section analysis can be carried out. This should take
into account the distributed reinforcement and assume a linear strain profile based on “plane
sections remaining plane” assumption and a full bond condition between the steel rebars and
the concrete.
However, it has recently been shown that depending on the structural detailing and key
mechanical/geometrical parameters such an assumption of linear strain profile might not be
valid; particularly for post yield behaviour. Strain and stress concentrations (both tension
and compression) can thus occur and develop not only along the section depth but also across
the thickness, leading to more complex out-of plane or localised failure mechanisms as
outlined in Appendix C5G. More information can be found in Dashti et al., 2015.

Lap-splice connection failure and bond slip

In older shear walls, lap splice often occurs within the plastic hinge regions and can develop
for a significant length (e.g. one full storey or more) depending on the full wall height and
section depth. The wall capacity should be checked not only at the base of the wall but also
at the top of the lap splice. If necessary, an appropriate reduction in moment capacity should
be accounted for.

The methodology detailed in Section C5.3.3.2 for columns can be used to assess lap splice
performance in walls. In the absence of a more detailed analysis, the equations provided in
Section C5.5.3 for columns can be used as indicative values.

Buckling of vertical reinforcement

Buckling of reinforcing bars in RC elements is a complex phenomenon and, although the
seismic codes contain general detailing requirements to postpone or avoid this, there is
currently limited information for assessing existing buildings. Appendix C5G discusses
buckling in more detail and recommends an assessment approach.

C5.5.5.4 Probable shear strength of walls

General approach
The probable shear strength of the plastic region at the base of a wall, 𝑉𝑉wall,p, can be assessed
using a similar approach to that adopted for the columns with some modifications:

𝑉𝑉wall,P = 0.85 (𝑉𝑉c + 𝑉𝑉s + 𝑉𝑉N ) …C5.57

The shear strength equation calculates the capacity as the sum of three components:

𝑉𝑉c = concrete shear-resisting mechanism

𝑉𝑉s = horizontal reinforcement truss shear-resisting mechanism
𝑉𝑉N = axial load component.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-88

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

In more detail:
• the concrete shear resisting mechanism, 𝑉𝑉c , can be calculated as:

𝑉𝑉C = 𝛼𝛼P . 𝛽𝛽. 𝛾𝛾P �𝑓𝑓 ′c . �0.8𝐴𝐴g � …C5.58

𝑀𝑀
𝛼𝛼P = 3 − 𝑉𝑉𝑙𝑙 ≥ 1.0 …C5.59
w

𝛽𝛽 = 0.5 + 20𝜌𝜌g ≤ 1.0 …C5.60

Figure C5.30 shows the degradation of the shear resisting contribution of concrete as a
function of displacement ductility.
0.35

0.3

γ p-factor (MPa units)

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Displacement Ductility

(a) Reverse bending (b) single bending (c) Shear degradation factor

Figure C5.30: (a) and (b) Axial load contribution 𝑽𝑽𝐏𝐏 (or 𝑽𝑽𝐍𝐍 ) for walls; (c) Shear strength
degradation factor, 𝜸𝜸𝐏𝐏 as a function of displacement ductility

• The shear contribution of the effective horizontal reinforcements, 𝑉𝑉s , is evaluated as

follows:
𝐴𝐴v 𝑓𝑓yh ℎcr
𝑉𝑉s = …C5.61
s

𝑙𝑙′
ℎcr = tan 𝜃𝜃 ≤ ℎw …C5.62
cr

𝑙𝑙 ′ = 𝑙𝑙w − 𝑐𝑐 − 𝑐𝑐0 …C5.63

𝑀𝑀
𝜃𝜃cr = 45 − 7.5 �𝑉𝑉.𝑙𝑙 � ≥ 30° …C5.64
w

• The axial load contribution to shear resistance, 𝑉𝑉N , or is given by:

For a cantilever shear wall:

𝑙𝑙w −𝑐𝑐
𝑉𝑉N = 2ℎw
𝑃𝑃 …C5.65

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-89

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

For a shear wall in double curvature:

𝑙𝑙w −𝑐𝑐
𝑉𝑉N = ℎw
𝑃𝑃 …C5.66

where:
𝜌𝜌g = the ratio of total longitudinal reinforcement over the gross cross-
sectional area of the member
𝐴𝐴g = gross area of section
𝐴𝐴v = horizontal shear reinforcement
𝑓𝑓yh = yield strength of transverse reinforcement
𝑠𝑠 = centre-to-centre spacing of shear reinforcement along member
ℎw = wall height
𝑐𝑐 = the depth of the compression zone
𝑐𝑐0 = the cover to the longitudinal bars
𝑙𝑙w = wall length

Note:
The formulation of shear capacity for walls herein reported has been proposed by Krolicki
et al. (2011) and is based on the modified UCSD (University of California, San Diego) shear
model proposed by Kowalsky and Priestley (2000) and updated by Priestley et al. (2007),
also adopted in Section C5.5.3.3 for the evaluation of the shear capacity of columns.

C5.5.5.5 Deformation (curvature, rotation and displacement/drift)

capacities of shear walls

Yield curvature
The yield curvature of RC shear walls can be calculated following the proposed formulation
by Priestley et al. (2007), in the same way as outlined in previous sections for beams and
columns.

For rectangular shear walls:

2εy
φy = 𝑙𝑙𝑤𝑤
...C5.67

For flanged shear walls:

1.5εy
φy = 𝑙𝑙𝑤𝑤
…C5.68

where:

𝑙𝑙w = wall length

Ultimate curvature
In general terms, the evaluation of ultimate curvature for shear can be carried out in a similar
manner to that presented for columns. Special care should be taken in relation to the
particular mechanisms of wall elements.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-90

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
The main hypothesis of ‘plane sections remain plane’, i.e. linear strain profile along the wall
section length, 𝑙𝑙w , might not be valid at ULS due to higher concentration of strains in both
tension and compression area. Therefore, a traditional section analysis approach may lead to
unconservative results and overestimate the curvature/rotation/displacement demand of
walls.
However, while acknowledging the limitations of section analysis, it can still be a valuable
approach to determine an upper bound of the deformation capacity of an existing wall under
an ideal flexurally dominated behaviour.
Interaction with shear (either before or after yielding), local bar buckling or out-of-plane
(lateral global) instability can lead to premature failure or achievement of ULS. More
information on these failure mechanisms are described in the following sections and in
Appendix C5G.

Plastic hinge length, 𝑳𝑳𝐏𝐏

As suggested by Priestley et al. (2007), the plastic hinge length of shear walls is more likely
to be influenced by tension shift effects than is the case with beams or columns.

Therefore, when compared to the expression for plastic hinge length in beams and columns,
an additional term in the plastic hinge equation should be included as a function of the wall
length as follows:

𝐿𝐿P = 𝑘𝑘. 𝐿𝐿C + 0.1𝑙𝑙w + 𝐿𝐿SP ...C5.69

𝑓𝑓
𝑘𝑘 = 0.2 �𝑓𝑓u − 1� ≤ 0.08 ...C5.70
y

𝐿𝐿SP = 0.022𝑓𝑓y 𝑑𝑑b ...C5.71

where:
𝐿𝐿C = distance from the critical section to the point of the contraflexure
𝑙𝑙w = wall length

Note:
As noted in Section C5.5.3 for columns, the values presented above are typically based on
experimental results with reference to relatively well detailed plastic hinge regions and use
of deformed bars.
However, as observed following the Canterbury earthquake sequence (Kam, Pampanin and
Elwood, 2011; Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand (SESOC) 2011; Sritharan &
al., 2014), when dealing with older construction practice, and in the specific case of walls,
with:
• low longitudinal reinforcement ratio – i.e. lightly reinforced walls
• construction (cold) joints
• high tensile strength of concrete, and, possibly
• plain round bars,

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-91

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

the plastic hinge length may be concentrated in a very short region with mostly a single main
flexural crack, as opposed to distributed cracking over a length. This concentration of tensile
inelastic strain demand in the reinforcement resulted in premature fracture of vertical
reinforcement.
In fact, while primary cracks occur as a result of the global flexural action on the wall, if low
vertical reinforcement ratio is provided the tension force generated by the reinforcing steel
– and thus the tensile stress generated in the surrounding concrete – may be insufficient to
develop secondary flexural cracks.
Recent studies suggests that even recent design provisions (including NZS 3101:2006 with
a specified minimum reinforcement ratio of 𝜌𝜌n ≥ �𝑓𝑓 ′c /�4𝑓𝑓y �) may not be sufficient to
ensure distributed cracking in the ductile plastic hinge regions, thus potentially resulting in
premature bar fracture, and lower-than expected drift capacities (Henry, 2013).
More specifically, not only the total reinforcement ratio along the full section but also the
amount (or lack of) longitudinal reinforcement concentrated in the boundary region can
facilitate the formation (or impairment) of secondary cracks.
As part of the assessment procedure, such effects should be accounted for in the evaluation
of the plastic hinge 𝐿𝐿p .
A simple and practical approach would be to assume much smaller values of the plastic hinge
length, as 𝐿𝐿p /5, and evaluate its effects on the overall behaviour (limited ductility/
deformation capacity).
Also note that large crack openings at the wall base can cause additional problems such as
large axial elongations, wall sliding, out-of-plane wall instability.

It is recommended that a plastic hinge length equal to 𝐿𝐿p /5 is adopted (with 𝐿𝐿p derived from
the expressions above) in the presence of either:
• plain round bars, or
• low longitudinal reinforcement ratio, i.e. 𝜌𝜌ℓ ≤ �𝑓𝑓′c /�4𝑓𝑓y �, or
• inadequately constructed cold joint , e.g. smooth and unroughened interfaces.

C5.5.5.6 Out-of-plane (lateral) instability

Out-of-plane (or lateral) instability is currently identified as one of the common failure
modes of slender rectangular RC walls. This ‘global’ mode of failure, which involves a large
portion of a wall element as opposite to the ‘local’ bar buckling phenomenon where a single
rebar is affected, was previously observed in experimental studies of rectangular walls.
However, it was not considered as a major failure pattern until the recent earthquakes in
Chile (2010) and Christchurch (2011). Appendix C5G provides an overview of the issue and
a description of current knowledge on the topic.

C5.5.5.7 Simplified capacity curves for single shear walls

Depending on the failure mode mechanism, force-displacement capacity curves can be
derived.

Figures C5.31 and )Shear-Out-of-plane instability (e) Flexure-Out-of-plane instability

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-92

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5.32 illustrate the qualitative capacity curves for walls depending on different
failure mechanisms as illustrated by Krolicki et al., 2011.

Figure C5.33 presents the flow chart for an assessment procedure for walls as developed and
proposed by Krolicki et al., 2011, in line with the component and mechanism based approach
adopted throughout these guidelines.

Figure C5.31: Combined force-displacement response considering shear capacity envelope

and out-of-plane instability limit (Krolicki et al., 2011)

(a) Flexural response (b) Flexural-shear failure (c) Pre-emptive shear failure

(d) Shear-Out-of-plane instability (e) Flexure-Out-of-plane instability

Figure C5.32: Failure mode categories of reinforced concrete walls (Krolicki et al., 2011)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-93

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5.33: Evaluation of wall failure mode (Krolicki et al., 2011)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-94

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.5.6 Concrete floor diaphragms

C5.5.6.1 General
For most concrete diaphragms the in-plane deformations associated with diaphragm actions
will be negligible. Therefore, the assumption of rigid diaphragm behaviour might generally
be satisfactory.

One notable exception to this is that stiffness of transfer diaphragms should typically be
included explicitly in the analysis (e.g. in the common situation of a suspended ground floor
above a basement). In the case of transfer diaphragms, assuming a rigid diaphragm may lead
to potentially unrealistically large diaphragm forces.

Note:
When assessing buildings it is important to recognise that there is an inherent difference
between the performance and integrity of precast flooring systems and traditional cast-in-
situ concrete floors. Precast floors with cast-in-situ concrete topping are not as robust or
tolerant to racking movements under earthquake actions as cast-in-situ floors. These will
require additional assessment to determine that adequate performance can be achieved.

C5.5.6.2 Diaphragm analysis

Design actions on concrete diaphragms should be determined using a strut and tie analysis.

For buildings that are essentially rectangular, have a relatively uniform distribution of
vertical lateral force resisting systems across the plan of the building, and have no significant
change of plan with height, simple, hand-drawn strut and tie solutions can be used (refer to
Figure C5.34).

Figure C5.34: Example of a hand-drawn strut and tie solution for simple building
(Holmes, 2015)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-95

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

However, buildings with significant asymmetry in the location of lateral force resisting
elements (distribution across the building plan, termination up the height of the building,
varying stiffness and/or strength between vertical elements) may require a more
sophisticated analysis.

For these types of structures, a grillage method can be used to obtain diaphragm design
actions (Holmes, 2015). The key steps for this method are as follows and are also shown in
Figures C5.35 and C5.36. Further details of the diaphragm grillage modelling methodology
are provided in Appendix C5E.

Step 1
Determine the geometric properties of the diaphragm elements (i.e. topping thickness, beam
sizes, etc) from available structural drawings and site measurements.

Step 2
Identify areas of potential diaphragm damage which may limit diaphragm load paths (i.e.
floor separation due to beam elongation etc) (refer to Section C5.5.6.3 below).

Step 3
Calculate probable capacities of diaphragm collector, tie and strut elements using available
structural drawings and site investigation data (refer Section C5.5.6.4).

Step 4
Determine grillage section properties and complete the grillage model.

Next, for each principal direction of earthquake loading to be considered complete the
following steps.

Step 5
Calculate building overstrength factor, φob , and overstrength diaphragm inertia forces using
the pseudo-Equivalent Static Analysis (pESA) procedure detailed in Section C2.

Step 6
Determine ‘floor – forces’, 𝐹𝐹Di , from the pESA and apply these to the nodes in the grillage
model associated with vertical lateral load resisting elements.

Step 7
Determine vertical element out-of-plane floor forces ‘floor – forces’, 𝐹𝐹OPi , from the pESA
and apply these to the nodes in the grillage model.

Step 8
Run the grillage model analysis to determine the seismic demands on the diaphragm
elements.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-96

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Step 9
Check the capacity of the diaphragm elements against the seismic demands.

Step 10
If the diaphragm has enough capacity to resist the seismic demands, go to Step 12.
Otherwise, if the seismic demands on selected diaphragm elements exceed their capacity,
redistribution can be used to utilise other load paths which may exist.

Step 11
Re-check the capacity of the diaphragm elements against the redistributed building seismic
demands. If, after redistribution, the diaphragm does not have adequate capacity to resist the
seismic demands then reduce the diaphragm inertia forces and return to Step 6. If the
diaphragm has adequate capacity to resist the redistributed seismic demands proceed to
Step 12.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-97

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Calculate geometric properties

STEP 1
of diaphragm elements

Identify of areas of localised

STEP 2 diaphragm damage which may
limit diaphragm load paths

Determine probable capacities

STEP 3 of diaphragm collector, tie and
strut elements

Determine grillage section

STEP 4
properties

For each principal direction;

Calculate building overstrength

STEP 5 factor, φ ob, and overstrength
diaphragm inertia forces, Fos,i

Determine floor compatibility

STEP 6
forces, FD,i.

Determine vertical element out-

STEP 7
of-plane floor forces, FOP,i

Determine force demands on

STEP 8
diaphragm elements

Has the strength

STEP 9 of diaphragm N
elements been
exceeded?

Y
Reduce diaphragm
inertia forces Redistribute diaphragm forces
STEP 10
below Fos,i away from yielding elements

Has the strength

STEP 11 of diaphragm
Y
elements been
exceeded?

STEP 12 Refer Figure C5.39

Figure C5.35: Summary of diaphragm assessment procedure – Steps 1 to 11

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-98

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

STEP 12 From Figure C5.38

Calculate drift capacity of

STEP 13
diaphragm components

Calculate interstorey drift

STEP 14
demands from NZS 1170.5

Determine %NBS for diaphragm

STEP 15
drift capacity

Is %NBS for diaphragm

STEP 16 strength > %NBS for N
diaphragm drift
capacity

%NBS for drift capacity governs %NBS for strength governs

STEP 18
diaphragm capacity diaphragm capacity

Figure C5.36: Summary of diaphragm assessment procedure – Steps 12 to 17

Step 12
Determine %NBS for the diaphragm in terms of strength (refer to Section C5.5.6.4). If the
capacity of the diaphragm is greater than the seismic demands calculated using the building
overstrength factor, 𝜙𝜙ob , the diaphragm can be taken as 100%NBS. If the diaphragm
demands were reduced below the building overstrength demands in Step 11, the %NBS for
each diaphragm element should be determined as follows:
0.9𝑅𝑅prob
%𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = 100 𝐾𝐾 …C5.72
d 𝑅𝑅E,µ=1.25

where:
𝑅𝑅prob = probable capacity of diaphragm element calculated in Step 3
𝑅𝑅E,µ=1.25 = diaphragm element demand calculated using the pESA
procedure detailed in Section C2, with the base shear
𝑉𝑉E calculated from Section 6.2 of NZS 1170.5:2004 using
µ = 1.25 and 𝑆𝑆p = 0.9
𝐾𝐾d = demand-side multiplier such that 𝐾𝐾d = 1.5 for diaphragm
collector elements and 𝐾𝐾d = 1.0 for all other ties and struts.

Redistribution between diaphragm elements is permitted. The %NBS for the diaphragm in
terms of strength is the minimum of the %NBS values assessed for each individual
diaphragm element.
Note:
A higher demand side multiplier of 1.5 is applicable to collector elements recognising that
these elements are force controlled, and typically have low redundancy and a high
consequence of failure. The demand side multiplier of 1.5 is intended to provide a margin of
resilience.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-99

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Step 13
Calculate inter-storey drift capacity, 𝜃𝜃SC , of diaphragm components. This includes assessing
the precast concrete floor units for loss of support and assessing the seismic capacity of the
units themselves (refer to Section C5.5.6.3).

Step 14
Calculate inter-storey drift demands, 𝜃𝜃SD , in accordance with Section C2 of these guidelines.
Section C5.5.6.5 below provides additional guidance on how the NZS 1170.5:2004
structural performance factor, 𝑆𝑆p , should be applied.

Step 15
Determine %NBS for the diaphragm in terms of inter-storey drift. The %NBS for each
diaphragm element should be determined as follows:
𝜃𝜃SC
%𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 = 100 𝐾𝐾 …C5.73
d 𝜃𝜃SD

where:
𝜃𝜃SC = inter-storey drift capacity of diaphragm component
𝜃𝜃SD = inter-storey drift demand on diaphragm component
𝐾𝐾d = demand-side multiplier such that 𝐾𝐾d = 1.5 for precast concrete
diaphragm elements and their support, and 𝐾𝐾d = 1.0 for in situ
concrete diaphragm elements.

The %NBS for the diaphragm in terms of inter-storey drift is the minimum of the %NBS
values assessed for each individual diaphragm element.

Step 16
Check if the %NBS for the diaphragm in terms of strength calculated in Step 12 is greater
than the %NBS for the diaphragm in terms of inter-storey drift calculated in Step 15.

Step 17
The %NBS for the diaphragm is the minimum of the two %NBS values considered in Step 16.

C5.5.6.3 Diaphragm damage due to deformation compatibility

Deformation demands of the primary lateral force resisting systems can cause damage to the
diaphragm structure (as a result of beam elongation or incompatible relative displacements
between the floor and adjacent beams, walls or steel braced frames). Figure C5.37 illustrates
an example of diaphragm damage due to beam elongation.

The assessment of inter-storey drift capacity of diaphragms consisting of precast concrete

components needs to consider the following:
• loss of support of precast floor units, and
• failure of precast floor units due to seismic actions, including the consideration of
incompatible displacements.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-100

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5.37: Observed separation between floor and supporting beam due to beam
elongation in 2011 Canterbury earthquakes (Des Bull)

Appendix C5F provides an assessment procedure for precast floors with cast-in-situ concrete
topping.

Note:
Precast floors with cast-in-situ concrete topping are not as robust or tolerant to racking
movements as traditional cast-in-situ concrete floors. Failure of a precast floor unit in the
upper level of a building is likely to result in progressive collapse of all floors below that
level. Therefore, additional assessment is recommended to ensure that adequate performance
can be achieved during an earthquake.

C5.5.6.4 Assessment of diaphragm capacities

The capacity of diaphragm strut and tie elements can be calculated in accordance with
Appendix A of NZS 3101:2006 (SNZ, 2006) using probable material strengths and a
strength reduction factor, 𝜙𝜙, equal to 1.0. Reduction factors 𝛽𝛽n and 𝛽𝛽s should be taken as
specified in NZS 3101:2006.

C5.5.6.5 Inter-storey drift demands on diaphragm components

Inter-storey drift demands on diaphragm components can be determined in accordance with
one of the applicable analysis methods detailed in Section C2 except as modified below
(Fenwick et al., 2010):
• When calculating member elongations the structural performance factor, 𝑆𝑆p , adopted for
the primary lateral resisting system can be used to determine the plastic hinge rotations.
• When assessing brittle failure modes of precast concrete components (i.e. web-splitting
of hollow core floor units, loss of support, etc) the peak displacements determined from
the analysis of the primary lateral load resisting system should be increased by 1/𝑆𝑆p ,
where the value of 𝑆𝑆p is that used in the analysis of the primary lateral load resisting
system.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-101

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.6 Global Capacity of Moment Resisting Concrete

Frame Buildings
C5.6.1 Evaluation of the hierarchy of strength and sequence of
events for a beam-column joint subassembly
Once the flexural and shear capacity of the components are evaluated, the hierarchy of
strength and expected sequence of events within a beam-column joint can be carried out by
comparing capacity and demand curves within an M-N (moment-axial load) performance
domain.

Figure C5.38 illustrates an example of the M-N performance domain adopted to predict the
sequence of events and the level of damage in the joint panel zone of a 2D exterior beam-
column joint subassembly. According to such a procedure, the capacities of beams, columns
and joints need to be evaluated in terms of a common parameter. This is recommended to be
the equivalent moment in the column, based on equilibrium considerations corresponding to
the selected limit state (e.g. cracking/“yielding” or peak capacity in the joint versus yielding
of beams and columns).

The order and “distance” of the events (e.g. beam hinging, joint shear, column hinging) can
also strongly depend on the axial load demand. If a constant axial load was assumed, as is
often done for simplicity, an erroneous sequence of events might be predicted leading to the
potential implementation of an incorrect retrofit strategy .

Note:
In the case of the exterior joint shown as an example in Figure C5.38, a shear hinge
mechanism with extensive damage of the joint before any hinging of beams or columns was
expected and predicted, using a proper demand curve (refer to the table in Figure C5.38) and
later confirmed by the experimental tests.
However, as anticipated, the order and “distance” of the events strongly depend on the
assumption on the axial load demand curve.
If a constant axial load curve is used (in this case 𝑁𝑁 = -100 kN as shown in Figure C5.38),
as is often selected in experimental tests and analytical assessment methodology, only a
relatively small increase in the joint strengthening would appear necessary for the retrofit
intervention.
However, in reality such a strengthening solution would lead to the formation of a column
hinging before any beam hinging. This would possibly result in the development of a soft-
storey mechanism in spite of the (generally quite expensive and invasive) retrofit
intervention already implemented.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-102

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Specimen T1 (as-built)
Type of Lateral force
N° Event
lateral force [kN]
Joint cracking and deterioration
1 -10.94
starting p t = 0.19 f c'
Open joint 2 Beam yielding -16.59
F<0
3 Upper column yielding -20.50
4 Lower column yielding -22.75
5 Joint failure 9.37

Close joint 6 Lower column yielding 13.50

F>0 7 Upper column yielding 14.50

8 Beam yielding 16.59

Figure C5.38: Example of evaluation of hierarchy of strengths and sequence of events:

moment-axial load, M-N, performance domain for an exterior beam-column joint
in as-built configuration, (after Pampanin et al., 2007)

Note:
Figure C5.39 and Table C5.12 show further examples of hierarchy of strength evaluation
within an M-N interaction diagram for interior and exterior beam-column joints belonging
to the Red Book Case Study Building (Brundson and Bull, XXXX).
The case study building consist of a 10 storey reinforced concrete building, designed
according to NZS 3101:1995 with moment-resisting frames in both directions.
The results of the hierarchy of strength evaluation for one exterior and one interior beam
column joints, belonging to the 5th floor, are herein shown on the left-hand and right-hand
side of Figure C5.39 and Table C5.12. More details can be found in Tasligedik et al. 2016.

Figure C5.39: Evaluation of hierarchy of strengths and sequence of events:

Moment-Axial Load, M-N, Performance-Domain for an exterior beam-column joint
in as-built configuration (after Taslidedik et al., 2014, 2015)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-103

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5.12: Sequence of events evaluated for the beam-column joints of Figure C5.39
External RC beam-column joints Internal RC beam-column joints
Member Failure Member Failure

Beams (-1 & +1) Flexural hinging Beams (-1 & +1) Flexural hinging

Joint on tension side (-2) Shear failure Column on tension side (-2) Flexural hinging

Column on tension side (-3) Flexural hinging Column on compression side Flexural hinging
(+2)

Joint on compression side (+2) Shear failure Joint on tension side (-3) Shear failure

Column on compression side Flexural hinging Joint on compression side (+3) Shear failure
(+3)

C5.6.2 Effect of varying axial load on joint capacity

The capacity of a beam-column joint, particularly when characterised by poor detailing and
lack of transverse reinforcement as typically found in older buildings, is strongly affected
by the variation of the axial load. This was anticipated above when introducing principal
stresses instead of nominal shear stress as a more realistic damage indicator.

Therefore, appropriate demand curves for beam-column joint systems should account for the
variation of axial load due to the lateral sway mechanism, for either opening and closing of
the joint (Figure C5.40). Otherwise, incorrect and non-conservative assessment of the
sequence of events can result and lead to inadequate – and not necessarily conservative –
design of any retrofit intervention.

(a) Laterally loaded frame (b) Hierarchy of strength and sequence of events
for two types of exterior joints
Figure C5.40: Variation of axial load due to frame sway mechanism and its effects on the
hierarchy of strength of beam-column joint subassemblies

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-104

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
Most of the experimental cyclic tests on joint subassemblies (as well as column-to-
foundation connections) ar carried out, for simplicity, under a constant axial load regime in
the column/joint.
While this simplified testing procedure is not expected to have a substantial effect on the
behaviour of well-designed specimens, in the case of poorly detailed subassemblies the
effect on damage level and mechanisms could be significant.
In general, the axial load on a column can be expressed as:
𝑁𝑁 = 𝑁𝑁g ∓ …C5.74
where:
𝑁𝑁g = the axial load due to gravity load
𝐹𝐹 = the lateral force (base shear capacity)
𝛼𝛼 depends on the global geometry of the building (height and
total bay length, 𝐿𝐿, as shown in Figure C5.41)
Such variation of axial load due to the seismic action can be substantial for exterior beam-
column joints. It can be 30-50% or higher, with further increase when considering
bidirectional loading.
On the other hand, as a first approximation (especially if there are only two or three bays)
the variation of axial load in interior beam-column joints can either be neglected or assumed
to be in the order of 10-20%.

2 2 𝐻𝐻 2 𝐻𝐻
𝐹𝐹 � 𝐻𝐻� = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 ⇒ 𝑅𝑅 = 𝐹𝐹 ∴ 𝑁𝑁 = 𝑁𝑁g ± 𝐹𝐹
3 3 𝐿𝐿 �
3 𝐿𝐿
𝛼𝛼
Figure C5.41: Example of evaluation of variation of axial load in a frame

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-105

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.6.3 Upper and lower bounds of base shear capacity and

force-displacement curves
C5.6.3.1 General
Once the hierarchy of strength and sequence of events of all the beam-column joint
subassemblies within a frame have been evaluated, the global mechanism of the frame can
be analysed.

In general, as shown in Table C5.13, upper and lower bounds of the lateral load capacity (i.e.
base shear or overturning moment) will be given by a soft-storey mechanism and a beam
sway mechanism respectively. Any mixed sidesway mechanisms, including possible shear
hinging in the joint, would provide an in-between capacity curve.

Note:
The overall Overturning Moment (OTM) in a frame is given by the sum of the moments at
the column bases and the contribution of the axial load variation in the columns “collected”
from the shear contribution of the beam. Therefore, each mixed mechanism can be evaluated
by estimating the moment in each beam resulting from the equilibrium of the subassembly,
as follows:
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 = ∑𝑖𝑖 𝑀𝑀coli + �∑𝑥𝑥 𝑉𝑉end beam,x �𝐿𝐿 …C5.75

Table C5.13: Upper and lower bounds of frame capacity due to column and beam sway
mechanisms, and in-between capacity due to mixed sway mechanism
Upper bound Lower bound In between

Beam sidesway mechanism Column sidesway Mixed sidesway mechanism

mechanism

𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂, 1 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂, 2 = � 𝑀𝑀coli 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂

i
= � 𝑀𝑀coli + �� 𝑉𝑉end beam,n � 𝐿𝐿 = � 𝑀𝑀coli + �� 𝑉𝑉 ∗ end beam,x � 𝐿𝐿
i n
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 i x
𝑉𝑉b,2 =
𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂 𝐻𝐻eff,col sidesway 𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂
𝑉𝑉b,1 = 𝑉𝑉b,3 =
𝐻𝐻eff,beam sidesway 𝐻𝐻eff,mixed sidesway

Note:

� 𝑀𝑀coli = sum of base column moments

i
� 𝑉𝑉end beam,n = sum of end beam shears for all n levels
n
𝐿𝐿 = frame full span

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-106

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.6.3.2 Beam sidesway mechanism

𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂, 1 = 𝑉𝑉b,1 ∗ 𝐻𝐻eff = ∑i 𝑀𝑀coli + �∑n 𝑉𝑉end beam,n �𝐿𝐿 …C5.76

where:
Vend beam = the additional column axial load due to the beam shear (evaluated as
corresponding to maximum flexural capacity).

This provides an upper bound of the lateral load resistance capacity.

C5.6.3.3 Column sway mechanism

𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂, 2 = ∑i 𝑀𝑀coli= Vb,2 * 0.5ℎ

where:

∑i 𝑀𝑀coli = Sum of Moment of the columns at the base

0.5h = point of contraflexure of one floor …C5.77

This provides a lower bound of the lateral load resistance capacity.

C5.6.3.4 Mixed mechanism

𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂𝑂, 3 = 𝑉𝑉b,3 ∗ 𝐻𝐻eff = ∑i 𝑀𝑀coli + �∑x 𝑉𝑉 ∗ end beam,x �𝐿𝐿 …C5.78

where:
V*end beam is determined from the minimum value (expressed as equivalent beam
moment) between the beam flexural capacities, joint equivalent moments,
column flexural capacities, and column shear capacities, depending on strength
hierarchy at local level.

This base shear value, corredponding to a mixed mechanism, 𝑉𝑉b,3 , should be in between the
upper and lower bound determined from a beam sway, 𝑉𝑉b,1 , and a column sway, 𝑉𝑉b,2 ,
mechanisms, respectively.

When combining the information on yielding and ultimate (limit states) drift displacement
of the frame corresponding to the most critical mechanism, the global force-displacement
curve of this frame can be evaluate as shown in Figure C5.42.

The structure’s performance can thus be assessed against any given level of earthquake
intensity, using an Acceleration Displacement Response Spectrum (ADRS) approach as
described in Section C2.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-107

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5.42: Lateral load capacity versus displacement for different global mechanisms

C5.7 Global Capacity of Wall Buildings

C5.7.1 General
The assessment of the overall behaviour of a building’s structural system in which seismic
resistance has been assigned to reinforced concrete structural walls will probably be less
elaborate than that for frame systems.

In the presence of robust walls, the contribution to seismic resistance of other elements with
a primary role of supporting gravity loads may often be, at a first stage, neglected. The
detailing of such frame components only needs checking to satisfy any displacement
compatibility issues with the overall 3D response (including torsion) of the building system.

In such cases, it is important to check the displacement-drift capacity of non-ductile columns

for displacement demand higher than that corresponding to the ULS displacement capacity
of the main wall-lateral resisting system (refer to Section C1 for details of this Critical
Structural Weakness).

The presence of alternative load paths and overall redundancy characteristics should be
checked in order to avoid progressive and catastrophic collapse, as observed in the CTV
building after the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-108

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
If the contribution of such frame systems to seismic capacity is judged to be more significant
or the system needs to rely on their seismic contribution to satisfy seismic performance
criteria, the building should be treated as a dual frame-wall building and assessed as outlined
in Section C5.8.

C5.7.2 Evaluation approach

The first step is to evaluate the total force-displacement capacity curve of the wall system in
each orthogonal direction (i.e. assuming 2D response) as the sum in parallel of all walls
contributing in that direction. This is shown in Figure C5.44 with reference to the layout of
a wall system shown in Figure C5.43.

-0.1A

Figure C5.43: (Elastically calculated) torsional effects in a walled building

𝑈𝑈 = 𝛥𝛥

Figure C5.44: Bilinear idealisation of ductile element and system response for a wall
building shown in Figure C5.43

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-109

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5.44 shows the global capacity curve and the individual contribution of each wall
system.

The relationship between ductilities developed in walls withdifferent dimensions and that of
the wall system as a whole can be appreciated.

As the wall with greatest length will yield first, it is likely that, assuming a flexurally
dominated behaviour, the associated displacement capacity of such walls will govern the
overall displacement capacity of the system. However, other brittle mechanisms can occur
first on individual walls and should be carefully checked.

This procedure is based on the use of a simplified analytical approach where the two
orthogonal directions are, at a first stage, considered to be decoupled.

This approximation is more appropriate when deadling with rectangular walls and acceptable
as a first step, when considering C-shape or T-shape walls with poor connection details in
the corner/regions.

When good connection between web and flange are present in T- or C-shaped walls, the
actual behaviour of the walls in both longitudinal and trasverse directions should be
evaluated.

In any case, the 3D response effects should then be also accounted for. These include, for
example:
• slab coupling effects between walls oriented orthogonally but close to each other, and
• possible response amplifications to the displacement/ductility demand due to inelastic
torsional effects (refer to Section C2 for details of procedures to account for inelastic
torsional effects).

C5.8 Global Capacity of Dual Frame-Wall Concrete

Buildings
C5.8.1 General
In dual systems, elements resisting lateral forces in a given direction of the building may
have significantly different behaviour characteristics. Mechanisms associated with their
ductile response may also be very different. Typical examples are buildings where lateral
forces in different parallel vertical planes are resisted by either ductile frames or ductile
walls. Walls forming a service core over the full height of the building are common. They
may be assigned to resist a major part of the lateral forces, while primarily gravity load
carrying frames may also be required to provide a significant fraction of the required seismic
strength.

Irrespective of whether elastic or post-yield behaviour is considered, displacement

compatibility requirements (Paulay and Priestley, 1992) over the full height of the building
need to be considered. The presence of a rigid diaphragm, with an ability to transfer
significant in-plane dynamically induced floor forces to the different vertical elements, is a
prerequisite. Therefore, the examination of diaphragm-wall connections is particularly
important (refer to Section C5.5.6 for more details).

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-110

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5.45: Deformation of frame-wall system (Paulay and Priestley, 1992)

During the ductile dynamic response of such dual systems, very different displacement
ductility demands may arise for each of the two types of individual lateral resisting system.
One purpose of the assessment procedure is to identify the element with the smallest
displacement capacity. Wall elements, often representing significant fractions of the
probable lateral strength of the system, are typical examples. They control the displacement
capacity of the system.

Major advantages of such dual systems are that displacement ductilities imposed on frames
are generally very moderate, and that dynamic displacement demands are not sensitive to
modal effects, as in the case of frame systems. Moreover, in comparison with frame (-only)
or wall(-only) systems, dual systems provide superior drift control. Provided that potential
plastic hinges are detailed for moderate curvature ductility demands, column sway
mechanisms in any storey of the frames are acceptable.

The assessment procedure outlined is applicable to any combination of walls and frames,
provided that no gross vertical irregularities, such as discontinuities in walls, exist. It is based
on displacement-focused or displacement-based treatment of ductile reinforced concrete
systems introduced in Paulay and Restrepo (1998); Paulay (2000, 2001b and 2002) and on a
redefinition of strength-dependent component stiffness (Paulay, 2001a).

Note:
For more recent information on displacement-based design for dual systems that can be used
for the assessment procedure Sullivan et al., 2012.

This enables the same assessment procedure to be carried out for strength and displacement-
based performance criteria. The displacement ductility capacity of a dual system needs to be
made dependent on the displacement capacity of its critical element.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-111

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5.8.2 Derivation of global force-displacement capacity curve

C5.8.2.1 Assessment approach
As the walls are expected to govern the behaviour of the dual system, both in terms of
strength and stiffness, it is recommended to start the assessment of a dual system from the
assessment of the wall system(s).

In fact, because the wall remain essentially elastic above the plastic region at the base during
ductile system response, their deformations will control that of the overall system. Moreover,
in general, the displacement capacity of the walls, rather than that of the frames, should be
expected to control the performance limit state.

Hence, wall displacement capacity should be estimated and compared with the
corresponding displacement ductility demands generated in the frames.

C5.8.2.2 Step by step procedure

Step 1 Estimate the post-elastic mechanism of walls and their

contribution to lateral force resistance
The nonlinear mechanism of the walls of a dual system is expected to comprise plastic hinges
at the base of each wall. A detailed study of the wall capacity along the height, as outlined
in Section C5.5.5, is required to verify this.

Based on the procedure presented in this section for single cantilever walls, moment-
curvature analyses of the wall cross-sections can be computed at each level accounting for
the axial load variation and change in longitudinal and transverse reinforcements. The wall
flexural strength should be checked against the shear strength to detect premature shear
failure along the wall height. This failure is likely to govern the behaviour of walls more
than columns.

As shown by the dash/dot line in Figure C5.46, the moment capacity gradually reduces along
the height as a consequence of the reduced axial load and longitudinal reinforcement amount.

(a) Structure (b) Moment profiles (c) Displacement profiles

Figure C5.46: Displacement response of a wall structure (Priestley et al., 2007)

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-112

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Assuming a typical first-mode distribution of lateral forces (i.e. inverted triangular),

determine the distribution of the bending moment up the wall height corresponding to the
wall-base flexural strength (the solid line in Figure C5.46(b)).

Determine the extent of the wall region over which the shear stress is such that diagonal
cracking is to be expected. Over this region, tension shift effects resulting from diagonal
cracking will increase the apparent moment. This influence can be reasonably represented
by shifting the moment profile over the affected region up by a distance equal to half the
wall length, 𝑙𝑙w /2 (dashed line in Figure C5.46(b)).

The critical section of the wall can be identified comparing the capacity and demand moment
envelope (dash/dot and dashed line in Figure C5.46(b)). If the capacity exceeds the demand
at all the levels above the base, such as in the example in Figure C5.46(b), the inelastic
response can be assumed as concentrated at the base only. Otherwise, plastic hinging is
expected at the level where the demand is higher than the capacity.

Characterise the push-over curve of the single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system assuming,

in first instance, a cantilever wall scheme with 𝐻𝐻 = 𝐻𝐻eff .

Based on the probable strength of the examined sections of all walls of the system, quantify
the total overturning moment that can be carried by these walls, 𝑀𝑀w,b (subsequently referred
to as the wall element).

With this evaluation of the overturning moment capacity of the wall element, 𝑀𝑀w,b , (refer to
Figure C5.48(a)), its probable base shear strength can be estimated from:

∑ 𝑉𝑉wp = 𝑀𝑀w,b /𝐻𝐻eff …C5.79

The effective height of the wall element, 𝐻𝐻eff , is given by the approximate position of
its point of contraflexure Figure C5.48a. As a first approximation it can be assumed that
𝐻𝐻eff = 0.67𝐻𝐻w .

When a more slender wall element is used, its probable base strength will be smaller and the
point of zero wall moment will be at a lower level, resulting in 𝐻𝐻eff < 0.67𝐻𝐻w .

While the storey shear strength provided by the frames can be evaluated with a relatively
high degree of precision, the likely shear demand on the walls is less certain. This is because
walls are significantly more sensitive to differences between estimated and real seismic
demands.

Therefore, comparisons of probable wall storey shear strength should be conducted with
caution as these are largely dependent on the horizontal shear reinforcement which has been
provided.

The displacement capacity at the yielding and ultimate limit state conditions can be
computed according to Section C5.5.5.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-113

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Step 2 Establish the post-elastic mechanism of frames and their

contribution to lateral force resistance
Following the procedure outlined in Section C5.5 the probable strength of beams, column
and joints are evaluated as well as the hierarchy of strength of column/beam/joint and the
overall probable mechanism.

The contribution of the frame members at each floor can therefore be computed imposing
the drift corresponding to the yielding and ultimate limit satte in the wall on the the weaker
frame, as illustrated in Figure C5.47.

This allows the computation of the distribution of bending moment, shear and axial load on
the frames and the corresponding actions transmitted to the wall.

To obtain a more refined assessment of the wall behaviour and failure mode, the shear and
flexural strength previously calculated in Step 1 can be now compared with a more refined
estimation of the shear and bending moment demand determined accounting for the
contribution of the frames at each floor.

(a) (b)

Figure C5.47: Contribution of frame and wall to the global force-displacement

capacity curve

Note:
Figures C5.47 and C5.48 illustrate the procedure described at Step 2, with a kinematically
admissible sway mechanism. Plastic hinges introduce a total moment of ∑ 𝑀𝑀pi to the four
(equivalent) columns at the level of the beams. This is proportional to the storey shear force,
𝑉𝑉pi . Note that the overturning moments transmitted from storeys above by means of axial
forces in the columns are not shown here.
These figures also illustrate the stepwise estimation of the contribution to total probable
overturning moment capacity and storey shear force of both the frames and the walls.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-114

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

(a) Normalised overturning (b) Normalised storey (c) Displacement

moments (𝑴𝑴/𝒉𝒉𝒉𝒉𝐛𝐛 ) shears (𝑽𝑽𝐬𝐬/ 𝑽𝑽𝐛𝐛 ) profiles

Figure C5.48: Stepwise estimation of the contribution of a frame and a wall element to
probable lateral strength and corresponding displacements of a dual system

Step 3: Determine the stiffness and displacement capacity of dual systems

Once the strength contribution of frame members at specific levels of drift has been assessed,
the base shear contribution of the frame, wall and resultant dual system can be computed by
dividing the total overturning moment by the effective height, 𝐻𝐻eff , as suggested in the
previous Step 1. In the case of dual systems, the effective height of the frame can be assumed
to be equal to the effective height of the wall.

Alternatively, and more practically, the base shear of the dual system can be obtained by:
• summing directly (in parallel, thus assuming equal displacement) the pushover curves of
the SDOFs of the wall and the frames, or
• estimating the OTM of the dual system considering the contribution of wall and frame
elements (refer to Figure C5.47b).

Note:
Figure C5.47(b) presents the overall simplified (bilinear modelling) force-displacement
capacity curve of the dual system, summarising the procedure discussed in Step 3 and is
similar to that shown in Figure C2.9 of Section. 2.5.11 on Mixed Ductility Systems. Note
that this figure represents the expected behaviour of the schematic dual system shown in
Figure C5.46 (i.e. a dual system comprising of a central wall and beams coupling to two
external columns) as specific assumptions were made to illustrate the simple details of these
calculations.

As Figure C5.48(b) shows, an approximately equal contribution (50-50) to the probable base
shear strength of the dual system, 𝑉𝑉dual,p , was found to be provided by the wall and the frame
elements.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-115

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

The relative nominal yield displacements at level 𝐻𝐻e , were found to be:
• ∆wy = 1.00 displacement units for the wall element, and
• ∆fy = 1.72 displacement units for the frame element.

Therefore, the normalised stiffness of the wall and frame elements are, respectively:

𝑘𝑘w = 𝑉𝑉wp /∆wy = 0.5/1.0 = 0.5 …C5.80

𝑘𝑘f = 𝑉𝑉fp /∆fy 0.5/1.72 = 0.29 …C5.81

Hence the relative nominal yield displacement of the dual system is:

∆y = 𝑉𝑉dual,p /(𝐾𝐾w + 𝐾𝐾f ) = 1.00/(0.5 + 0.29) = 1.27 displacement units

The bilinear idealisation of the force-displacement curve for frame, wall and dual system
behaviour, shown in Figure C5.48(b), confirms these quantities.

C5.9 Improving the Seismic Performance of Concrete

Buildings
Alternative seismic retrofit and strengthening solutions for concrete buildings have been
studied and adopted in practical applications ranging from conventional techniques (e.g.
using braces, walls, jacketing or infills) to more recent approaches including base isolation,
supplemental damping devices or involving advanced materials such as fibre reinforced
polymers (FRPs) and shape memory alloys (SMAs). Refer to international guidelines such
as fib, (2003), EC8-part 3 (2003) FEMA 547 (XX); ASCE-41-13 (2014).

Most of these retrofit techniques have evolved into viable upgrades. However, issues of cost,
invasiveness, architectural aesthetics, heritage protection and practical implementation still
remain the most challenging aspects of any intervention.

Based on lessons learned from recent major earthquakes and on extensive experimental and
analytical data, it is increasingly evident that major – and sometimes controversial – issues
can arise in, for example:
• deciding whether the retrofit is actually needed and, if so, in what proportions and to
what extent
• assessing and predicting the expected seismic response pre- and post-intervention by
relying upon alternative analytical/numerical tools and methods
• evaluating the effects of the presence of infills, partitions or general “non-structural”
elements on the seismic response of the overall structure, which is more typically and
improperly evaluated considering only the “skeleton”
• deciding, counter-intuitively, to “weaken” one or more structural components in order to
“strengthen” the whole structure
• adopting a selective upgrading to independently modify strength, stiffness or ductility
capacity

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-116

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

• relying upon the deformation capacity of an under-designed member to comply with the
displacement compatibility issues imposed by the overall structure, and/or
• defining a desired or acceptable level of damage that the retrofit structure should sustain
after a given seismic event: i.e. targeting a specific performance level after the retrofit.

Regardless of what technical solution is adopted, the efficiency of a retrofit strategy on a

reinforced concrete building depends strongly on a proper assessment of the internal
hierarchy of strength as well as on the expected sequence of events and damage/failure
mechanisms within:
• a frame system (i.e. shear damage and failure in the joint region, flexural hinging or shear
failure in beam and column elements, or
• a wall system (i.e. sliding, flexural or shear failure, lateral instability etc), or
• a combination of these (dual system).

Following a conceptually similar procedure included in these guidelines, and in particular

the SLaMA method, the overall lateral force vs. displacement curve of the building system
can be computed before and after alternative retrofit interventions and the performance point
of the structure under different earthquake intensity computed, including the new level of
%NBS achievable when improving the behaviour of individual elements.

This approach allows to gain a direct appreciation of the incremental benefits achievable
when implementing specific retrofit interventions or combination of them.

The retrofit strategy can follow a selective intervention, i.e. strength-only, ductility-only,
stiffness-only, as well as selective weakening, or a combination of the above.

An overview of alternative performance-based retrofit strategies and technical solutions for

Reinforced Concrete buildings, developed and/or refined in the past decade few years as part
of the multi-year research project “Retrofti Solutions for NZ multi-storey Buildings”, funded
by the FRST (Foundation of Research Science and Technology from 2004-2010) can be
found in Pampanin, 2009. Pampanin et al., 2010).

References
ACI 318-63 (1963). Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI318-63). American Concrete Inst.
(ACI), Detroit, MI.
ACI 318-71 (1971). Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI318-71). American Concrete Inst.
(ACI), Detroit, MI.
Akguzel, U. (2011). Seismic performance of FRP retrofitted exterior RC beam-column joints under varying axial
load and bidirectional loading, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering, University
of Canterbury, 2011.
Akguzel, U. and Pampanin S. (2010). Effects of variation of axial load and bidirectional loading on seismic
performance of GFRP retrofitted reinforced concrete exterior beam-column joints. ASCE J of Composite Constr.
Jan-Feb 2010; 14(1):94-104.
Andriono, T. and Park, R. (1986). Seismic Design Considerations of the Properties of New Zealand
Manufactured Steel Reinforcing Bars. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering
Vol 19(3): 213-246.
ASCE 41-13 (2014). Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineer
and Structural Engineering Institute, Reston, Virginia, USA.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-117

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

ATC 40 (1996). Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Vol 1 & 2 Applied Technology Council.
BC-CP114:1957 (1957). The structural use of concrete in buildings. British Standard (BSi), London, UK.
Bech, D., Cordova, P., Tremayne, B., Tam, K., Weaver, B., Wetzel, N., Parker, W., Oliver, L. and Fisher, J.
(2014). Common structural deficiencies identified in Canterbury buildings and observed versus predicted
performance. Earthquake Spectra, Journal of Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp.
277-306. 2014.
Berry, M.P. and Eberhard, M.O. (2005). Practical performance model for bar buckling. Journal of Structural
Engineering, ASCE.
Boys, A., Bull, D. K. and Pampanin, S. (2008). Seismic Performance Assessment of Inadequately Detailed
Reinforced Concrete Columns. New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE) Conference.
Wairakei: New Zealand
Blume, J.A., Newmark, N.M. and Corning, L. (1961). Design of multistorey reinforced concrete buildings for
earthquake motions. Portland Cement Association, Chicago, IL.
BS165-1929 (1929). Hard Drawn Steel Wire for Concrete Reinforcement. British Standards Institution, London,
UK.
BS785-1938 (1938). Rolled steel bars and hard drawn steel wire for concrete reinforcement. British Standards
Institution, London, UK.
Carr, A.J. (2005). RUAUMOKO Users Guide. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
CEB-1964 (1964). Recommendations for an international code of practice for reinforced concrete. American
Concrete Inst. (ACI) & Cement and Concrete Assoc. (CCA), London, UK.
CEN (2004). European Standard EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General
rules and rules for buildings. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels
CERC (2012) Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission websites. Canterbury Earthquake Royal Commission
(CERC) website. Available at: http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz.
Chai, Y.H. and Elayer, D.T. (1999). Lateral stability of reinforced concrete columns under axial reversed cyclic
tension and compression. ACI Structural Journal 96:5, 780-789.
Chapman, H.E. (1991). Seismic retrofitting of highway bridges. Bulletin of New Zealand National Society for
Earthquake Engineering 24(2): 186–201.
Cheung, P.C., Paulay, T. and Park, R. (1991). Mechanisms of slab contributions in beam - column sub
assemblages. Design of Beam - Column Joints for Seismic Resistance. Special Publication SP-123 American
Concrete Institute; 259-289.
Cuevas et al., 2015 Details/History of beams (Residual capacity report?)
Cull, J.E.L. (Chairman) (1931). Report of the Building Regulations Committee. Report to New Zealand House
of Representatives, H-21.
Dashti, F., Dhakal, R., Pampanin, S., (2015a), Comparative In-Plane Pushover Response of a Typical RC
Rectangular Wall Designed by Different standards, Earthquakes and Structures 7(5); 667-689. .
http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.5.667
Dashti, F., Dhakal, R.P. and Pampanin, S. (2015b). Development of out-of-plane instability in rectangular RC
structural walls. Rotorua, New Zealand: 2015 New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual
Conference (NZSEE).
Dashti, F., Dhakal, R., Pampanin, S., (2016), Simulation of Out-of-Plane Instability in Rectangular RC Structural
Walls Subject To In-Plane Loading, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, under publication
Di Franco, M.A., Mitchell, D. and Paultre, P. (1995). Role of spandrel beams on response of slab beam-column
connections. ASCE J of Struct Eng. 121(3):408-419.
Durrani, A.J. and Zerbe, H.E. (1987). Seismic resistance of R/C exterior connections with floor slab. ACI
Structural Journal. 113(8):1850-1864.
Ehsani, M.R. and Wight, J. (1985). Effect of transverse beams and slab on behaviour of reinforced concrete
beam-to-column connections. ACI Structural Journal. Mar-Apr 195; 82(2):188-195.
Elwood, K. and Moehle, J.P. (2005). Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light transverse
reinforcement. Earthquake Spectra, February 2005, Vol 21, No. 1, pages 71-89.
Elwood, K. and Moehle, J.P. (2005). Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns. ACI Structural Journal.
102:578-587.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-118

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Fabbrocino, G., Verderama, G.M., Manfredi, G. and Cosenza, E. (2002). Experimental behaviour of smooth
bars anchorages in existing RC buildings. Proc. of 1st fib Congress, Osaka, Japan, p. 259-268.
Fabbrocino, G., Verderame, G.M. and Manfredi, G. (2002). Experimental behaviour of straight and hooked
smooth bars anchorage in existing r.c. buildings, Proc. of 12th European Conf on Earthquake Eng, Elsevier,
London, UK.
FEMA 440 (2005). Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
Fenwick. R. and MacRae, G.A. (2009). Comparison of New Zealand Standards used for seismic design of
concrete buildings. Bull of New Zealand Soc of Earthquake Eng. Sept 2009; 42(3):187-203.
Fenwick, R.C., Bull, D.K. and Gardiner, D. (2010). Assessment of hollow-core floors seismic performance,
Research Report 2010-02, Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury.
http://hdl.handle.net/10092/4211
Fleischman, R, Restrepo, J. I., Pampanin, S. Maffei, J.R., Seeber, K., Zahn, F.A., (2014) Damage Evaluations
of Precast Concrete Structures in the 2010-2011 New Zealand Earthquakes, Earthquake Spectra, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Special Issue, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1193/031213EQS068M,
Vol.30, No. 1, pp. 277-306
Ford, C.R. (1926). Earthquakes and building constructions. Whitcombe and Tombs Ltd, Auckland, NZ.
Gardiner, D.R., Bull, D.K. & Carr, A. (2008). Investigation of the Magnitude of Inertial and Transfer Forces in
Floor Diaphragms during Seismic Shaking, in Proceedings, the 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Beijing, China, 2008.
Gardiner, D.R. (2011). Design Recommendations and Methods for Reinforced Concrete Floor Diaphragms
Subjected to Seismic Forces, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering, University of
Canterbury, 2011.
Genesio, G. 2012 Seismic assessment of RC exterior beam-column joints and retrofit with haunches using post-
installed anchors, MD thesis, Institut für Werkstoffe im Bauwesen der Universität Stuttgart, 2012.
Hakuto, S., Park, R. and Tanaka, H. (1995). Retrofitting of Reinforced Concrete Moment Resisting Frames.
Research Report 95–4, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Hakuto, S., Park, R. and Tanaka, H. (1999). Effect of deterioration of bond of beam bars passing through interior
beam-column joints on flexural strength and ductility. Structural Journal of American Concrete Institute 96(5):
858–64, September–October.
Hakuto, S., Park, R. and Tanaka, H. (2000). Seismic load tests on interior and exterior beam-column joints with
substandard reinforcing details. Structural Journal of American Concrete Institute 97(1): 11–25, January–
February.
Hamann (1953)
Henry, R.S. (2013). Assessment of minimum vertical reinforcement limits for RC walls. Bullettin of the
New Zealand society for earthquake engineering, Vol. 46, No. 2, June 2013.
Hollings, J.P. (1969). Reinforced concrete seismic design. Bull of New Zealand Soc. of Earthquake Eng.
2(3):217-250.
Holmes. (2005). Practice Note 8.1 Modelling Diaphragm Force Distributions – Simple Grillage Method, Holmes
Consulting Group, Christchurch, New Zealand, Unpublished.
Holmes. (2015)
Hrennikoff, A. (1941). Solution of Problems of Elasticity by the Framework Method, Journal of Applied
Mechanics, December 1941, 7 pp.
Kam, W. (2011), Selective Weakening and post-tensioning for the seismic retrofit of non-ductile RC frames, PhD
Thesis, Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering, University of Canterbury, 2011.
Kam, W.Y., Pampanin, S., Dhakal, R.P., Gavin, H. and Roeder, C.W. (2010). Seismic performance of reinforced
concrete buildings in the September 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquakes. Bull of New Zealand Soc of
Earthquake Eng. Dec 2010; 43(4):340-350.
Kam, W.Y., Pampanin, S. and Elwood, K. (2011). Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in the
22 February Christchurch (Lyttelton) Earthquake. Bulletin of the NZSEE, 44(4), P239-278.
Kam, W.Y. and Pampanin, S. (2011). General Building Performance in the Christchurch CBD: a contextual
report (prepared for the Department of Building and Housing (DBH)) as part of the Technical Investigations into
the Performance of Buildings in the Christchurch CBD in the 22 February Christchurch Aftershock. University of
Canterbury: Christchurch.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-119

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Kam, W.Y. and Pampanin, S. (2012). Revisiting Performance-Based Seismic Design in the Aftermath of the
Christchurch 2010-2011 Earthquakes: raising the bar to meet societal expectations. Lisbon, Portugal: 15th
World Congress on Earthquake Engineering (15WCEE).
Kowalsky, M.J. and Priestley, M.J.N. (2000). Improved analytical model for shear strength of circular reinforced
concrete in seismic regions. ACI Structural Journal. May-June 2000; 97(3):388-396.
Krolicki, J., Maffei, J. and Calvi, G.M. (2011). Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Walls Subjected to Cyclic
Loading. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 15:S1, 30-71..
Liu, A. and Park, R. (1998). Seismic load tests on two interior beam-column joints reinforced by plain round bars
designed to pre-1970s seismic codes. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 31(3):
164–76.
Liu, A. and Park, R. (2001). Seismic behaviour and retrofit of pre-1970s as-built exterior beam-column joints
reinforced by plain round bars. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 34(1): 68–81.
MacGregor, G.J. (1997). Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, 3rd Edition. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1988). Observed stress-strain behaviour of confined concrete.
Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers 114(8): 1827–49.
Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1988). Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete.
Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers 114(8): 1804–26.
Magenes, G. and Pampanin, S. (2004). Seismic response of gravity-load design frames with masonry infills.
Proc. of 13th World Conf on Earthquake Eng, Vancouver, Canada. Paper No. 4004.
Marriott, D. (2009). The development of high performance post-tensioned rocking systems for the seismic
design of structures, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering, University of
Canterbury, 2009.
Megget, L.M. (2006). From brittle to ductile: 75 years of seismic design in New Zealand. Proc. of NZSEE 2006
Conf, NZSEE, Napier, NZ, p. 15.Keynote Address.
MOW-NZ (1968). Manual of draughting practice: civil engineering. Ministry of Works, Wellington, NZ.
MOW-NZ (1970). PW81/10/1: Code of Practice, Design of Public Buildings. Office of Chief Structural Engineer,
Ministry of Works, Wellington, NZ.
Niroomandi, A., Pampanin, S. and Dhakal, R. (2015). The History of Design Guidelines and Details of Reinforced
Concrete Column in New Zealand. Proceeding of the NZSEE15, Rotorua, New Zealand.
NZSS 95:1935 (1935). New Zealand Standard model buildings by-laws. NZSS 95:1935. New Zealand
Standards Inst., Wellington, NZ.
NZSS 95:1939 (1939). New Zealand Standard code of buildings by-laws. NZSS 95:1939. New Zealand
Standards Inst., Wellington, NZ.
NZSS 95:1955 (1955). New Zealand Standard - Model Building By-Laws: Part IV and V. NZSS 95:1955.
New Zealand Standard Inst., Wellington, NZ.
NZS 197:1949 (1949). Rolled steel bars and hard drawn steel wire. NZS 197:1949. Standards Assoc. of New
Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
NZS 1170.5:2004 (2004). Structural design actions. NZS 1170.5:2004. Standards New Zealand, Wellington,
NZ.
NZS 1693:1962 (1962). Deformed Steel Bars of Structural Grade for Reinforced Concrete. NZS 1693:1962.
Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington.
NZS 1879:1964 (1964) Hot Rolled Steel Bars of HY60 Grade (60,000 psi) for Reinforced Concrete.
NZS 1879:1964. Standards Association of New Zealand, Wellington.
NZS 1900.8-64 (1964). Model building bylaw: Chapter 8: Basic Design Loads and Commentary. NZS 1900.
Standards Assoc. of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
NZS 3101:1970P (1970). Code of practice for the design of concrete structures. NZS 3101:1970 (Provisional).
Standards Assoc. of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
NZS 3101:1982 (1982). Code of practice for the design of concrete structures. NZS 3101:1982. Standards
Assoc. of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
NZS 3101:1995 (1995). Concrete Structures Standard. NZS 3101:1995, Volume 1 Code of Practice and
Volume 2 Commentary. Standards New Zealand, Wellington.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-120

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

NZS 3101:2006 (2006). Concrete structures standard. NZS 3101:2006. Standards New Zealand, Wellington,
NZ.
NZS 3402P:1973 (1973). Hot Rolled Steel Bars for the Reinforcement of Concrete. NZS 3402P:1973. Standards
Association of New Zealand, Wellington.
NZS 3402:1989 (1989). Steel Bars for the Reinforcement of Concrete. NZS 3402:1989. Standards
New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
NZS 3423P:1972 (1972). Hot rolled plain round steel bars of structural grade for reinforced concrete.
NZS 3423P:1972. Standards Assoc. of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
NZS 4203:1976 (1976). Code of practice for general structural design and design loading for buildings.
NZS 4203:1976. Standards Assoc. of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
NZS 4203:1984 (1984). General structural design and design loadings for buildings. NZS 4203:1984. Standards
Assoc. of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
NZS 4203:1990 (1990). Code of Practice for the Design of Masonry Structures. NZS 4230:1990. Standards
Assoc. of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
NZS 4203:1992 (1992). General structural design and design loadings for buildings. NZS 4203:1992. Standards
Assoc. of New Zealand, Wellington, NZ.
NZS 4671:2001 (1989). Steel reinforcing materials. NZS 4671:2001. Standards New Zealand, Wellington,
New Zealand.
Pampanin, S., Calvi, G.M. and Moratti, M. (2002). Seismic behaviour of RC beam-column joints designed for
gravity loads. Proc. of 12th European Conf on Earthquake Eng, London, UK. Paper 726.
Pampanin, S., Magenes, G. and Carr, A. (2003). Modelling of shear hinge mechanism in poorly detailed RC
beam-column joints. Proc FIB Symp Concrete Structures in Seismic Regions, Federation International bu Beton,
Athens, Paper no. 171.
Pampanin, S. (2006). Controversial aspects in seismic assessment and retrofit of structures in modern times:
Understanding and implementing lessons from ancient heritage. Bull of New Zealand Soc of Earthquake Eng.
39(2):120-133.
Pampanin, S. (2009). Alternative performance-based retrofit strategies and solutions for existing RC buildings.
Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Eng. vol. 10. In: Ilki A, Karadogan F, Pala S, Yuksel E, editors.
Seismic Risk Assessment and Retrofitting With Special Emphasis on Existing Low Rise Structures. Springer,
Netherlands; p. 267-295.
Pampanin, S., (2010). Retrofit Solutions for pre-1970 R.C. Buildings: an Overview of Latest Research
Development in New Zealand, European Conference in Earthqaukae Engineering, Ohrid, Macedonia,
Pampanin, S., Kam, W.Y., Akguzel, U., Tasligedik, A.S. and Quintana-Gallo, P. (2012). Seismic Performance
of Reinforced Concrete Buildings in the Christchurch Central Business District (Natural Hazard Platform
Recovery Project). University of Canterbury: Christchurch.
Park, R. and Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced Concrete Structures. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Park, R. (1992). Seismic Assessment and Retrofit of Concrete Structures: United States and New Zealand
Developments. Proceedings of Technical Conference of New Zealand Concrete Society, Wairakei,
New Zealand, pp 18–25.
Park, R., et al. (1995). The Hyogo Ken Nanbu Earthquake (The Great Hanshin Earthquake) of 17 January 1995.
Report of the NZNSEE Reconnaissance Team. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake
Engineering 28(1): 1–98.
Park, R. (1996). A static force-based procedure for the seismic assessment of existing reinforced concrete
moment resisting frames. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering 30(3):213-
226.
Paulay, T., Zanza, T.M. and Scarpas, A. (1981). Lapped splice in bridge piers and in columns or earthquake
resisting reinforced concrete frames. UC Research Report 81-6. Dept. of Civil Eng., Uni. of Canterbury,
Christchurch, NZ.
Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992). Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Paulay, T. (1993). Simplicity and Confidence in Seismic Design. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Paulay, T. and Restrepo, J. I. (1998). Displacement and ductility compatibility in buildings with mixed structural
systems. Journal of the Structural Engineering Society, New Zealand. 11(1): 7-12.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-121

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Paulay, T. (2000). Principles of displacement compatibility. Journal of the Structural Engineering Society,
New Zealand. 13(2):14-21.
Paulay, T. (2001a). A re-definition of the stiffness of reinforced concrete elements and its implications in seismic
design. Structural Engineering International 11(1): 36-41.
Paulay, T. (2001b). Seismic response of structural walls: Recent developments. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering. 28: 922-937.
Paulay, T. (2002). An estimation of displacement limits for ductile systems. Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics 31:583-599.
Pekcan, G., Mander, J.B. and Chen, S.S. (1999). Fundamental considerations for the design of non-linear
viscous dampers. Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics 28, 1405-1425.
Presland, R.A. (1999). Seismic performance of retrofitted reinforced concrete bridge piers, PhD Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1987). Strength and ductility of concrete bridge columns under seismic loading.
Structural Journal of American Concrete Institute 84(1): 61–76.
Priestley, M.J.N. (1988). Brief Comments on the Elastic Flexibility of Reinforced Concrete Frames and
Significance in Seismic Design. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. 31 (4):2 246-
259.
Priestley, M.J.N. (1988). Brief comments on elastic flexibility of reinforced concrete frames and significance in
seismic design. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. 31(4): 246-259.
Priestley, M.J.N., Verma, R. and Xiao, Y. (1994). Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns. Journal
of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers 120(8): 2310–29.
Priestley, M.J.N. (1995). Displacement-based seismic assessment of existing reinforced concrete buildings.
Proc. of Pacific Conf on Earthquake Eng, Melbourne, Australia, p.225-244.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F. and Calvi, G.M. (1996). Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
Priestley, M.J.N. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2000). Direct displacement-based seismic design of concrete buildings.
Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering 33(4): 421–443, December.
Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007). Displacement-based seismic design of structures.
IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Quintana-Gallo, P. (2014). The nonlinear dynamics involved in the seismic assessment and retrofit of
reinforcement concrete buildings, PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Natural Resource Engineering,
University of Canterbury, 2014.
Rodriguez, M. and Park, R. (1991). Repair and strengthening of reinforced concrete buildings for earthquake
resistance. Earthquake Spectra 7(3): 439–59.
Scott, B.D., Park, R. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1982). Stress-strain behaviour of concrete confined by overlapping
hoops at low and high strain rates. Journal of the American Concrete Institute Proceedings 79(1): 13–27.
SEAOC (1966). Recommended lateral force requirements. Structural Engineers Association of California
(SEAOC), Sacramento, CA.
SEAOC (1973). Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. Structural Engineers Association
of California (SEAOC), Sacramento, CA.
SESOC (2011). Practice note: Design of conventional structural systems following the Canterbury earthquakes:
submission by Structural Engineering Society of New Zealand, NZ.
Sezen, H., Hookham, C., Elwood, K., Moore, M., and Bartlett, M. (2011). Core Testing Requirements for Seismic
Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Structures, Concrete International, American Concrete Institute,
November 2011.
Shibata, A. and Sozen, M. (1976). Substitute structure method for seismic design in reinforced concrete. Journal
of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers. 102(1).
Shin, M. and LaFave, J. (2004). Reinforced concrete edge beam– column–slab connections subjected to
earthquake loading. Magazine of Concrete Research 56(5): 273–291.
Sritharan, S., Beyer, K., Henry, R.S., Chai, Y.H. Kowalsky, M. and Bull, D. (2014). Understanding poor seismic
performance of concrete walls and design implications. Earthquake Spectra, 30(1), 307-334.
Stirrat, A.T., Gebreyohaness, A.S., Jury, R.D. and Kam, W.Y. (2014). Seismic performance assessment of non-
ductile columns. 2014 NZSEE Conference, Beca Ltd, New Zealand.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-122

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Sullivan, T.J., Priestley, M.J.N. and Calvi, G.M. (2012). A Model Code for the Displacement-Based Seismic
Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia.
Tasligedik, A.S., Kam, W.Y., Akguzel, U. and Pampanin, S. (2016). Calculation of Strength Hierarchy at
Reinforced Concrete Beam Column Joints: from Experimental Studies into Structural Engineering Applications,
Jounral of Earthquake Engineering,under review.
Tasligedik, A.S., Pampanin, S. and Palermo, A. (2015). Low-damage Seismic Solutions for non-structural
drywall partitions. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 13(4): 1029-1050.
Voon, K.C., Ingham, J.M., Experimental in-plane shear strength investigation of reinforced concrete masonry
walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 132(3), pages 400-408.
Wallace, J.L. (1996). Behaviour of Beam Lap Splices Under Seismic Loading. Master of Engineering Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
Wallace, J.L., Segura, C.L., Arteta, C.A. and Moehle, J.P. (2016). Deformation capacity of thin reinforced
concrete shear walls. Proceedings of Technical Conference of New Zealand Concrete Society, Christchurch,
New Zealand.
Yoshimura, M. (2008). Formulation of post-peak behaviour of old reinforced concrete columns until collapse.
14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 12-17 October 2008. Beijing, China.

C5: Concrete Buildings C5-123

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Appendix C5A: Key Milestones in the Evolution of

New Zealand Concrete Design
Standards, and Historical Concrete
Property Requirements and Design
Specifications in New Zealand
Table C5A.1: Summary of key milestones in the evolution of New Zealand concrete design
standards (modified after Fenwick and MacRae, 2011)
Period Loading Concrete Major changes
Standard Standard

Pre- 1935 Model No seismic While there were no specific seismic requirements,
1957 Bylaws provisions 135 degree hooks were already shown for stirrups in RC
construction (clause 409).
Maximum spacing of stirrups was 2/3 of the internal lever
arm (clause 616). Development of plain round
longitudinal bars was often by 180 degree hooks.

1957- NZSS 95 - Pt UK concrete Section properties of members were permitted to be

1964 IV Basic Loads Code of Practice, based on gross sections, transformed un-cracked
to be used and CP114:1957 sections, or transformed cracked sections (Fenwick and
methods of (No seismic MacRae, 2009).
application provisions) and
(1955) NZSS 95, Pt V
(1939)

1964- NZSS 1900 Design and Essentially, no seismic details were specified. It is likely
1968/71 Basic Design Construction, that reinforcement was inadequately anchored for
Loads Concrete, seismic actions, particularly in columns. Plain round bars
Chapter 8 Chapter 9.3, were used extensively during this period.
(1964) 1964 (No
seismic
provisions)

1968/71 Ministry of Ministry of Works Ultimate Limit State (ULS)/Limit State Design (LSD)
-1982 Works Code of Code of Practice: recommended.
Practice: 1968 1968 Detailing requirements introduced for (i) beam-column
joints; (ii) column confinement.
Capacity design introduced between beams and
columns (though no allowance for beam over-strength
due to slab reinforcement contribution).

NZ4203:1976 ACI 318:1971 or Ultimate Strength Design used

provisional NZ Strength Reduction Factors of 0.9 for beams, 0.75 for
Concrete confined columns and 0.7 for unconfined columns.
Standard,
NZS 3101:1970 Member stiffness for seismic analysis recommended as
75% gross section stiffness.
Provisions for detailing potential plastic hinge regions
introduced:
• some shear reinforcement to resist the gravity
induced shear and the shear corresponding to flexural
strength in the potential plastic hinge region
• lapping of bars in specified potential plastic hinge
regions not permitted
• some column confinement required where axial load
ratio bigger than 40% 𝑁𝑁b (balanced condition).

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-1

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Period Loading Concrete Major changes

Standard Standard
Capacity design required to ensure sum of column
strengths greater than the sum of beam strengths (with
no minimum ratio).

1982- NZS 4203:1984 NZS 3101:1982 Modifications to strength reduction factors: 0.9 for flexure
1995 in beams and confined columns; 0.7 for unconfined
column with axial load higher than 0.1𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓 ′c ; and 0.9 for
zero axial load (clause 4.3.1)
Member stiffness 0.5 times the gross section stiffness for
beams and 1.0 for columns (clause C3.5.5.1)
Detailing
• Confinement of all potential column plastic hinges
required, depending on the maximum design axial
load level in the column due to the gravity and
earthquake actions (clause 6.5.4.3). It was greater
than in the previous standards.
• lapped bars not permitted at floor levels in columns
where there was a possibility of yielding
• shear reinforcement requirements in plastic hinge
zones more conservative
• specific anti-buckling bars in potential plastic hinge
regions
• joint shear reinforcement development requirements
and reinforcing increased
• column ties anchored by 135 degrees in cover
concrete
• beam bars in external joints likely to be bent away
from the joint core
• columns not designed for earthquake with 𝜙𝜙=0.7 were
permitted to have 6 mm reinforcement at spacing no
greater than (i) the minimum column cross sectional
dimension, (ii) 16 times the longitudinal diameter.
Capacity design
Capacity design requirements
• Over-strength moments in beams were taken as 1.25
or 1.4 times the ideal flexural strength of beams with
grade 275 and 380 steel respectively
(clause C3.5.1.3).
• Design for a Strong Column Weak-Beam frame
mechanism was specified in the commentary (refer to
NZS 3101:1982, Appendix C3A). This encouraged
potential primary plastic regions to be in the beams,
except at the column bases. To obtain the column
design actions for flexure, shear and axial force, this
included considering:
– the maximum beam over-strength moments that
could be applied to a joint which affected the
corresponding static column demands
– changes in distribution of column moments due to
higher elastic and inelastic mode behaviour, with
a dynamic magnification factor
– bi-axial moments on columns which were part of
two orthogonal frames, and
– effects of beams yielding simultaneously over the
frame.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-2

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Period Loading Concrete Major changes

Standard Standard
The required minimum ratio of the sum of the nominal
column flexural strengths to the sum of the nominal
beam flexural strengths at beam-column joint centreline
in one way frames ranged from 1.6 to 2.4. In many cases
the minimum ratios were exceeded as the flexural
strengths of the column changed between the top and
bottom of the joint zone; and for practical purposes the
same longitudinal reinforcement was used in the column
on each side of the joint zone.
This method of designing columns for seismic actions
was adopted into NZS 3101:1995 and retained with
minor modifications in NZS 3101:2006.
An effective width of floor slab (usually 2 to 4 times the
depth of the slab measured from the column faces) was
assumed to contribute to beam overstrength
(clause 6.5.3.2 (e)), which was smaller than that in later
standards.
Diaphragm Design (refer to Section 10.5.6).
Floors are designed for the smaller of the maximum
forces that could be resisted by the lateral force system,
or for the forces from the “parts and portions” section of
the loadings standard.
Nominal requirements were given for reinforcement to tie
the floor into the building and for the use of precast
flooring elements.

1995- NZS 4203:1992 NZS 3101:1995 Ultimate Strength Design used.

2006 Building Classifications (4.4.1) are:
• elastically responding
• limited ductile, and
• ductile.
Strength reduction factor
The strength reduction factor for flexure in beams and
flexure and axial load in columns was 0.85. (The option
of using a nominally unconfined column with a strength
reduction factor of 0.7 was removed – clause 3.4.2.2.)
The maximum ductility was set as 6 for concrete
structures. This overrode the larger values permitted by
NZS 4203:1992.
Member stiffness
Recommended section stiffness for seismic analysis was
0.4 times the gross section stiffness for rectangular
beams and 0.35 for T and L beams. For columns the
value varied from 0.4I g for an axial tension of ratio
(𝑁𝑁 ∗ /(𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓 ′c )) of -0.05, 0.6I g at a ratio of 0.8, with
interpolation for intermediate axial load ratios
(clause C3.4.3.3).
Bay elongation effects (i.e. elongation of plastic hinges in
the beams pushing the columns apart).
Requirements for the minimum length of support ledges
for precast floor components to minimise the possibility
of units supported on small ledges and/or on cover
concrete (clause 4.3.6.4).
Effective width of slab to contribute to beam moment
flexural strength was increased and assumed to be the
same in both loading directions (clause 8.5.3.3).

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-3

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Period Loading Concrete Major changes

Standard Standard
Effective anchorage of slab reinforcement required
(clause 4.3.6.6).
Considerations were made for increase in shear force in
the first storey columns and the formation of a plastic
hinge forming in the columns adjacent to the first level
beams (although these are not likely to govern) (Fenwick
and MacRae, 2009).

Details
Confinement of columns increased for columns with a
high axial load (refer to Section 7.5)
Confinement for gravity columns, which were not
designed to resist seismic actions, was required
(clause 8.4.7). Here, among other requirements, the
spacing of transverse steel is no greater than (i) one third
the minimum column cross sectional dimension, (ii) 10
times the longitudinal bar diameter.
Beam-column joint reinforcement requirements revised
and reduced compared with the 1982 edition
(clause 11.3.7)
Minimum seating lengths for precast floor components
after reasonable allowance for construction tolerances
were set as the larger of 1/180 of the clear span or
50 mm for solid slabs or hollow-core units and 75 mm for
ribbed members (clause 4.3.6.4)
Stairs consider the seating lengths of NZS 4203:1992
(clause 4.4.13.2)

2006- NZS 1170.5: NZD3101:2006 Building classifications

2004
For consistency with NZS 1170.5:2004 three
classifications were defined for buildings. These relate to
the value of the structural ductility factor used to
determine the seismic design actions. They are:
• nominally ductile, using a design ductility of 1.25,
• limited ductile, and
• ductile buildings.
Three classifications of potential plastic regions were
defined. Each of these have different detailing
requirements and inelastic capacities (clause 2.6.1.3).
They are:
• nominally ductile plastic regions
• limited ductile plastic regions, and
• ductile plastic regions.
There is no direct connection between the type of plastic
region and classification of a building.
• Design of brittle elements is excluded from this
standard.
• Values for structural ductility factor of less than 1.25
are not given.
• 𝑆𝑆p values given in NZS 1170.5:2004 were replaced by
0.9 for a structural ductility factor, 𝜇𝜇, of 1.25, and 0.7
for a structural ductility factor of 3 or more, with linear
interpolation between these limits (clause 2.6.2.2).

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-4

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Period Loading Concrete Major changes

Standard Standard
Materials
Welded wire fabric, with a strain capacity less than 10%,
is permitted only in situations where it will not yield in
ULS shaking or when, if it does yield or rupture, the
integrity of the structure is not affected (clause 5.3.2.7).
Member stiffness
Minor revisions were made to the section stiffness where
a high grade reinforcement was used (clause C6.9.1).
Capacity design (clause 2.6.5)
Contribution of prestressed floor components to
overstrength of beams is considered (clause 9.4.1.6.2).
The difference in effective widths of floor slabs
contributing to nominal negative moment flexural
strength of beams and to over-strength of beams is
considered (clauses 9.4.1.6.1 and 9.4.1.6.2).
Two methods are permitted for assessing capacity
design actions in columns:
• The first method is based on the one contained in
NZS 3101:1995 Appendix A with modifications to
consider bi-axial actions more directly and to allow
for the effects of elongation of beams on plastic hinge
locations. In this method, each column above the
primary plastic hinge located at its base of the
column is proportioned and detailed with the aim of
minimising inelastic deformation that may occur
(Method A in Appendix D, clause D3.2 in the
NZS 3101:2006).
• The second method permits a limited number of
potential plastic hinges in the columns provided the
remaining columns have sufficient nominal strength
to ensure that the storey column sway shear strength
exceeds the storey beam sway shear strength in
each storey by a nominated margin. The beam-sway
storey shear strength is calculated assuming over-
strength actions are sustained in all the potential
plastic regions associated with the storey being
considered (refer to Appendix D, clause D3.3 in the
NZS 3101:2006). This method has more restrictions
on the lap positions of longitudinal bars and requiring
more confinement reinforcement than the first
method.
The significance of elongation of plastic hinges in beams
on the actions in columns is recognised. In particular,
elongation can cause plastic hinges, which are not
identified in standard analyses, to form in columns
immediately above or below the first elevated level. This
can increase the shear forces induced in the columns.
However, as the requirement for confinement
reinforcement is generally more critical than shear
reinforcement this is unlikely to be critical for the shear
strength of these columns (refer to 10.4.7.1.2, B8.4,
C2.6.1.3.3, C5.3.2, C10.4.6.6, C10.4.7.2.1 in the
NZS 3101:2006).
In calculating overstrength actions in beams, allowance
needs to be made for the possible material strengths and
the increase in stress that may be sustained due to strain
hardening. Strain levels are much higher in over-strength
conditions than in normal ultimate strength design
conditions. As strain levels increase the width of floor

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-5

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Period Loading Concrete Major changes

Standard Standard
slab that acts with a beam increases. Consequently a
greater width of slab needs to be assumed to contribute
to overstrength than to design strength. This effect is
recognised in the NZS 3101:2006 (clauses 9.4.1.6.1 and
9.4.1.6.2) but it was not recognised in earlier standards.
Precast prestressed floor units in a floor slab, which span
past potential plastic hinges in a beam, can make a very
significant difference to the over-strength capacity of
plastic hinges. A method of assessing the strength due
to this source is given in the Standard (clause 9.4.1.6.2).
Strength design
Primary plastic hinges detailed in terms of likely ultimate
limit state inelastic demands. These demands are written
in terms section curvature for a specified plastic hinge
length, which is similar to specifying a plastic rotation
(refer to clause 2.6.1).
Serviceability limit state with earthquake
New requirements for fully ductile (but not nominal or
limited ductile structures) (clause 2.6.3.1).
The structural ductility that can be used in the ultimate
limit state (ULS) is limited to 6 for buildings of normal
importance; and in some cases a lower value is required
(clause 2.6.1.2d).
For the serviceability limit state a structural ductility factor
of 1 is required for SLS1, but a value of 2 may be used
for SLS2 (clause 2.6.2.3.1). However, SLS2 is only
applied to buildings of high importance (NZS 1170:2004,
clause 5, 2.1.4).
Clause 2.6.3.1 requires either that:
• the serviceability design strength is equal to, or
exceeds, the serviceability design actions, or
• analysis shows that crack widths and deflections
remaining after a serviceability limit state earthquake
are acceptable considering the effect of inelastic
deformation caused by moment redistribution and
other shake down effects associated with repeated
inelastic displacements during an earthquake.
Strength requirements for the serviceability limit state are
related to the average strength of structural sections.
This is taken as the nominal strength with a strength
reduction factor of 1.1 (clause 2.6.3.2) to correspond to
average material strengths.
Diaphragm Design
Similar material to NZS 3101:1995
Strut and tie analysis required for forces induced in the
diaphragms associated with the ultimate limit-state, or
with actions associated with overstrength in potential
plastic regions (clause 13.3.3)
Floors containing precast prestressed units have special
requirements (NZS 3101: 2006 plus Amendment 2)
relating to (Fenwick and MacRae, 2009):
• limiting the possibility of the floors falling off supports
(clause 18.7.4)
• limiting the possibility of brittle failure by:
– requiring for low friction bearing strips with
hollow-core units (clause 18.7.4)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-6

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Period Loading Concrete Major changes

Standard Standard
– requiring a thin linking slab between a precast
unit and a parallel structural element, such as a
beam or wall, which may deflect in a vertical
direction relative to the precast unit. This is
required to prevent the load transfer between
the structural elements causing the precast
units to fail (clause 18.6.7.2)
– specifying requirements for shear strength of
precast units in zones where over-strength
actions can cause tensile stresses to be
induced on the top surface of the precast units.
In this situation the shear strength is reduced to
a value comparable with a non-prestressed
beam of the same dimensions
(clause 19.3.11.2.4)
– specifying the position where reinforcement
connecting the precast unit to the supporting
structure is cut off or reduced is based on the
capacity of the floor to sustain the negative
moments and axial tension. These may be
induced in the floor when over-strength actions
act at the supports and vertical ground motion
induces negative moments in the floor
(clause 19.4.3.6)
– cautioned against supporting precast units on
structural elements that may deform and induce
torsional moments as these may lead to
torsional failure of the floor unit. This situation
can be critical for hollow-core flooring
(clause C19.4.3.6).

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-7

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5A.2: Comparison of concrete property requirements and design specifications from
four generations of New Zealand standards post-1970
Code
Standard
(1)
NZS 3101:1982 NZS 3101: 1995 NZS 3101: 2006
NZS 3101:1970
Concrete
Property
Specified 𝑓𝑓′c = 17.2 MPa, 20 MPa < 𝑓𝑓′c < 17.5 MPa < 𝑓𝑓′c < 100 25 MPa ≤ 𝑓𝑓′c < 100 MPa
compressive 20.7 MPa, 27.6 55 MPa MPa 25 MPa ≤ 𝑓𝑓′c < 75 MPa
strength MPa, 34.5 MPa (for ductile elements and
(MPa) elements of limited
ductility)

Modulus of For normal weight • 𝑓𝑓r =0.6 λ �𝑓𝑓′c (for the

rupture concrete: purpose of calculation
(MPa) 𝑓𝑓r =0.8 �𝑓𝑓′c deflections)
For lightweight 𝜆𝜆 = 0.85 (normal
concrete: weight sand,
lightweight coarse
• where 𝑓𝑓ct is aggregate)
specified and the
concrete mix 𝜆𝜆 = 0.75 (lightweight
designed in sand, lightweight
accordance with coarse aggregate)
NZS 3152: 𝜆𝜆 = 1.0 ( concrete with
𝑓𝑓r =0.8 ×1.8 𝑓𝑓ct ( the no lightweight
value of 1.8 𝑓𝑓ct aggregates)
shall not exceed 𝑓𝑓r =1.12 𝑓𝑓ct (when the
�𝑓𝑓′𝑐𝑐 ) indirect tensile
• where 𝑓𝑓ct is not strength of concrete,
specified, 𝑓𝑓r shall 𝑓𝑓ct , specified and
be multiplied by lightweight concrete is
used, but no more
0.75 (for all-light- than 0.6 λ �𝑓𝑓′𝑐𝑐 )
weight concrete)
• from testing
0.85 (for sand-light-
weight concrete) – modulus of rupture
test (AS 1012:
Part 11); or
– indirect tensile
strength test
(AS 1012:Part 10)
Direct (0.36 �𝑓𝑓′c ) or (0.54 ×
tensile indirect tensile strength
strength obtained from Brazil test
(MPa) according to
AS 1012:Part 10)
Elastic E = 0.043 w1.5 �𝑓𝑓′c E = 0.043 w1.5 E = (3320 Testing of plain concrete
Modulus (for 1450 < w(2) < �𝑓𝑓′c (for 1400 < 𝜌𝜌 1.5
�𝑓𝑓′c +6900)� � (for E=
2300
2500 kg/m3) w < 2500 kg/m3) 1400 < ρ < 2500 𝜌𝜌 1.5
(3320�𝑓𝑓′c +6900)�2300 �
E=4700 �𝑓𝑓′c (for kg/m3) (for 1400 < 𝜌𝜌 < 2500
normal weight E=(3320 �𝑓𝑓′c +6900) kg/m3)
concrete) (for normal weight E = (3320 �𝑓𝑓′c+6900) (for
concrete) normal weight concrete)
E ≥ value corresponding
to (𝑓𝑓′c +10) MPa (when
strain induced action are
critical)
Note: For the
serviceability limit state,
this value may be used in
lieu of above expression.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-8

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Poisson 0.2 0.2 (for normal density

ratio concrete)
Shall be determined (for
lightweight concrete)

Coefficient 12 × 10-6 For concrete of an

of thermal aggregate type:
expansion
• Greywacke
(/°C)
(9.5 -11 × 10-6)
• Phonolite
(10.0 -11.0 × 10-6)
• Basalt
(9.0 -10.0 × 10-6)
• Andesite
(7.0 - 9.0 × 10-6)
The coefficient of thermal
expansion may be taken
as 12 × 10-6/°C or
determined from suitable
test data for other
aggregate types.
For self-compacting
concrete these values
shall be increased by
15%.

Shrinkage The design unrestrained

shrinkage strain may be
determined by testing to
AS 1012 Part 13, or
appropriate published
values.

Creep The creep coefficient

used for design may be
determined by testing to
AS 1012 Part 16, or to
ASTM C512, or assessed
from appropriate
published values.

Stress-strain • Assumed to be of
curves curvilinear form
defined by recognised
simplified equations; or
• Determined from
suitable test data.

Applicable 1800 to 2800

density
range
(kg/m3)

Note:
1. Formulas have been converted to metric units.
2. w: weight of concrete.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-9

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Appendix C5B: Historical Requirements for

Concrete Strength Testing in
New Zealand
Table C5B.1: Concrete strength tests for proof of control
Code
Standard
NZS 3104:1983 NZS 3104:1991 NZS 3104:2003
Control
Tests
Number of test 3 specimens made from Same as Same as NZS 3104:1983
specimens one sample of concrete NZS 3104:1983
2 specimens when the
number of tests > 20 and
the 28-day compressive
testing mean has a
within-test coefficient of
variation of the test
series of less than 4%.

Frequency of • Ready-mixed concrete: Same as • Ready-mixed concrete:

testing NZS 3104:1983
– 1/75 m3 (up to – Same as NZS 3104:1983
15,000 m3 per
– At least 10 tests per
annum), with an
month (6 tests per month
additional test for
in the case of plants
every 250 m3 above
producing less than 9000
15,000 m3
m3 per annum)
– At least 120 tests
• Site-mixed concrete:
per annum
– Same as NZS 3104:1983
• Site-mixed concrete:
– 1 sample (each
day/75 m3)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-11

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Appendix C5C: Material Test Methods

C5C.1 Concrete
Table C5C.1: Overview of destructive, semi-destructive and non-destructive tests for
investigating concrete material properties (De Pra, Bianchi and Pampanin, 2015; Malek
et al., 2015)
Method Capability/Use Advantages Disadvantages

DESTRUCTIVE TESTS

Compressive test Strength of concrete Direct evaluation of Disturbance of the sample,

concrete strength from so excessive damage to
compressive tests on obtain a representative core
cylindrical specimens of concrete
Previous test with pacometer
necessary to individuate the
regions without bars
SEMI-DESTRUCTIVE TESTS

Pull-out In-place estimation of In-place strength of Pull-out device must be

the compressive and concrete can be quickly inserted in a hole drilled in
tensile strengths measured the hardened concrete
Only a limited depth of
material can be tested

Pull-off/tear-off Direct tension test In situ tensile strength Sensitivity to rate of loading
of concrete
Determining bond
strength between
existing concrete and
repair material

Penetration probe Estimation of The equipment is easy Minimum edge distance and
(Windsor probe) compressive strength, to use (not requiring member thickness are
uniformity and quality of surface preparation) requested
concrete The results are not Not precise prediction of
Measuring the relative subject to surface strength for concrete older
rate of strength conditions and moisture than 5 years and where
development of concrete content surface is affected by
at early ages carbonation or cracking
NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTS

Visual tests The first step in Quick evaluation of No detailed information

investigating concrete damage
material

Rebound hammer Measuring surface The assessment of the Results can only suggest the
hardness of concrete to surface layer strength hardness of surface layer
estimate compressive
strength

Concrete Measuring the ability of Inexpensive, simple Not reliable at high moisture
electrical the concrete to conduct and many contents
Durability test

resistivity the corrosion current measurements can be

made rapidly

Permeability To evaluate the transfer Useful method to Thickness limitation

properties of concrete evaluate the risk of Age, temperature dependent
(porosity) leaching, corrosion and
freezing Sufficient lateral sealing

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-12

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Method Capability/Use Advantages Disadvantages

Fiberscope To check the condition Direct visual inspection Semi destructive as the
of cavities, and of inaccessible parts of probe holes usually must be
honeycombing in an element drilled
reinforced concrete Needs additional fibre to
Voids detection along carry light from an external
grouted post-stressed source inspected
tendons

Ultrasonic Evaluation of concrete Excellent for The measure can be

pulse strength and quality determining the quality distorted by the presence of
velocity Identification of internal and uniformity of lesions in the concrete
damage and location of concrete; especially for The test requires smooth
reinforcement rapid survey of large surfaces for a good adhesion
areas and thick of the probes
members
Stress-Wave propagation methods

No information about the

depth of suspected flaw

Ultrasonic Quality control and Access to only one face Limited member thickness
echo integrity of concrete is needed
method Internal discontinuities
and their sizes can be
estimated

Impact echo Defects within concrete Access to only one face The ability of instrument is
method element such as is needed limited to less than 2 m
delamination, voids, thickness
honeycombing

Spectral Determining the stiffness Capability of Complex signal processing

analysis of profile of a pavement determining the elastic
surface Depth of deteriorated properties of layered
waves concrete systems such as
pavement and
interlayered concrete

Gamma Location of internal Simple to operate X-ray equipment is bulky and

radiography cracks, voids and Applicable to a variety expensive
variations in density of of materials Difficult to identify cracks
concrete perpendicular to radiation
beam

Backscatter Determining in-place Access only to surface The accuracy of this method
Nuclear methods

radiometry density of fresh or of test object is lower than direct

hardened concrete Since this method’s transmission
measurements are Measurements are
affected by the top 40 influenced by near surface
to 100 mm, best for material and are sensitive to
assessing surface zone chemical composition
of concrete element

CT scanning Concrete imaging 3D crack/damage Sophisticated software for

monitoring analysis
Not in situ application
Access to CT scanner
needed

Infrared Detecting delamination, Permanent records can Expensive technique

thermography heat loss and moisture be made Reference standards are
movement through Tests can be done needed
concrete elements; without direct access to
especially for flat Very sensitive to thermal
surface by means of interference from other heat
surfaces infrared cameras sources

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-13

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Method Capability/Use Advantages Disadvantages

The depth and thickness of
subsurface anomaly cannot
be measured

Ground penetrating Identification of location Can survey large areas Results must be correlated to
radar of reinforcement, depth rapidly test results on samples
of cover, location of obtained
voids and cracks Low level signals from
Determination of in situ targets as depth increases
density and moisture
content

Acoustic emission Real time monitoring of A few transducers are Passive technique, could be
concrete degradation enough to locate used when the structure is
growth and structural defects over large under loading
performance areas
Detecting the initiation
and growth of cracks in
concrete under stress

Ultrasonic Uses high frequency Thickness Significant efforts and user

tomography (MIRA) (greater than 20,000 Hz) measurement, expertise are required for
sound waves to reinforcement location, measurement and data
characterise the and distress evaluation interpretation of large scale
properties of materials or application
detect their defects

Petrography Forensic investigation of Microscopic Laboratory facilities as well

concrete examination of as highly experienced
Determining the concrete samples personnel are needed to
composition and interpret the result
identifying the source of
the materials
Determination of w/c
Determining the depth of
fire damage

Sclerometric Determination of Determination of a The instrument must be in

method compressive strength sclerometric index the horizontal direction or
connected to the reliability of results is
compressive strength reduced
Empirical formulas, based on
probabilistic methods, are
used to obtain the concrete
strength
The preparation of the test
surface is laborious and
expensive

SonReb method Determination of The concomitant use of Risk of regression on a small

compressive strength sclerometric and statistically representative
ultrasonic methods can sample
reduce mistakes due to
the influence of
humidity and aging of
concrete

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-14

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5C.2 Reinforcing Steel

Table C5C.2: Destructive and non-destructive tests for investigating reinforcing steel
material properties (De Pra, Bianchi and Pampanin, 2015)
Method Capability/Use Advantages Disadvantages

DESTRUCTIVE TESTS

Tensile test Steel strength (yield Direct evaluation of The test is limited to areas
strength, tensile steel strength that are easily accessible
strength and elongation The interpretation of the
on 5 diameters gauge results is subjective and
length) depends on the operator`s
experience
NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTS

Hardness stress Evaluation of hardness Low cost A previous survey with

with Leeb method and tensile strength The device is portable, pacometer is required to
so particularly useful in identify the regions with less
difficult operative cover
conditions

Penetrating liquids Deterioration of steel Simple to apply The surface must be cleaned
before the test to remove all
extraneous substances
Not applicable on too porous
surfaces

Measure of Evaluation of potential Possibility to measure The electrode must be

potential corrosion corrosion the potential corrosion dampened 12 hours before
of reinforcement of the bars the test
A previous survey with a
pacometer is required to
individuate the presence of
bars

Survey with Identification of bars Identification of the The device is sensitive to the
pacometer (cover, bar free areas without bars in presence of the
interface, spacing of order to identify where ferromagnetic material
stirrups, diameters of it is possible to carry The method is slow and
bars) out concrete tests laborious

Georadar Determination of Possible to have Calibration of the

dimensions and depth of information on instrumentation is required
foundations foundations before the data acquisition,
investigating two directions

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-15

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Appendix C5D: History of New Zealand

Reinforcement Requirements

C5D.1 Mechanical Properties of Steel Reinforcing Bars

Table C5D.1: Mechanical properties of steel reinforcement bars – pre-1960s
Standard
Steel NZS 197:1949 (BS 785:1938)
Property
Type of steel Plain round bar
Mild steel (MS)
Medium tensile (MT)
High tensile (HT)

Yielding stress Bar size (diameter) MS MT HT

Up to 1 inch Not Specified 19.5 tsi 23.0 tsi

(≈270 MPa) (≈317 MPa)

Over 1 to 1½ inch 18.5 tsi 22.0 tsi

(≈255 MPa) (≈303 MPa)

Over 1½ to 2 inch 17.5 tsi 21.0 tsi

(≈241 MPa) (≈290 MPa)

Over 2 to 2½ inch 16.5 tsi 20.0 tsi

(≈227 MPa) (≈275 MPa)

Over 2½ to 3 inch 16.5 tsi 19.0 tsi

(≈227 MPa) (≈262 MPa)

Tensile strength ≥ 28 tsi ≥ 33 tsi ≥ 37 tsi

(≈ 386 MPa) (≈ 455 MPa) (≈ 510 MPa)

≤ 33 tsi ≤ 38 tsi ≤ 43 tsi

(≈ 455 MPa) (≈ 524 MPa) (≈ 593 MPa)

Elongation at Up to 1 inch ≥ 20(1) ≥ 18(1) ≥ 18(1)

fracture (%)
Over 1 to 1½ inch ≥ 16(1) ≥ 14(1) ≥ 14(1)

Under ⅜ inch ≥ 24(2) ≥ 22(2) ≥ 22(2)

Note:
psi = pounds per square inch
tsi = tons per square inch
1. Measured on a minimum 8 diameters gauge length.
2. Measured on a minimum 4 diameters gauge length.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-16

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5D.2: Mechanical properties of steel reinforcement bars – 1960s to mid-1970s

Standard
Steel Code
NZS 197:1949 (BS 785:1938)
Property

Type of steel Plain round bar

Mild steel (MS)
Medium tensile (MT)
High tensile (HT)

Yielding stress Bar size (diameter) MS MT HT

Up to 1 inch Not Specified 19.5 tsi 23.0 tsi

(≈270 MPa) (≈317 MPa)

Over 1 to 1½ inch 18.5 tsi 22.0 tsi

(≈255 MPa) (≈303 MPa)

Over 1½ to 2 inch 17.5 tsi 21.0 tsi

(≈241 MPa) (≈290 MPa)

Over 2 to 2½ inch 16.5 tsi 20.0 tsi

(≈227 MPa) (≈275 MPa)

Over 2½ to 3 inch 16.5 tsi 19.0 tsi

(≈227 MPa) (≈262 MPa)

Tensile strength ≥ 28 tsi ≥ 33 tsi ≥ 37 tsi

(≈ 386 MPa) (≈ 455 MPa) (≈ 510 MPa)

≤ 33 tsi ≤ 38 tsi ≤ 43 tsi

(≈ 455 MPa) (≈ 524 MPa) (≈ 593 MPa)

Elongation at Up to 1 inch ≥ 20(1) ≥ 18(1) ≥ 18(1)

fracture (%)
Over 1 to 1½ inch ≥ 16(1) ≥ 14(1) ≥ 14(1)

Under ⅜ inch ≥ 24(2) ≥ 22(2) ≥ 22(2)

Note:
psi = pounds per square inch
tsi = tons per square inch
1. Measured on a minimum 8 diameters gauge length.
2. Measured on a minimum 4 diameters gauge length.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-17

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5D.3: Mechanical properties of steel reinforcement bars –1970s onwards

Standard
Steel NZ 3402P:1973 NZS 3402:1989 AS/NZS 4671:2001
Property

Type of steel Grade Grade Grade 300 Grade 430 Grade 300 Grade 500
275 380

Yielding stress (MPa) 275 380

• Lower bound ≥ 275(min) (300(k)) ≥ 410(min) (430(k)) ≥ 300(k) ≥ 500(k)
• Upper bound ≤ 380 (max) (k)
(355 ) ≤ 520 (max) (k)
(500 ) ≤ 380 (k)
≤ 600(k)

Tensile Strength ≥ 380 ≥ 570* Not specified Not specified

(MPa)
≤ 520

Ratio 𝑅𝑅m /𝑅𝑅e (𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇/𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌) Not specified 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑅𝑅m 𝑅𝑅m
1.15 ≤ ≤ 1.50 1.15 ≤ ≤ 1.40 1.15 ≤ 1.15 ≤
𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌 𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌 𝑅𝑅e 𝑅𝑅e
≤ 1.50 ≤ 1.40

Elongation at Not specified Not specified ≥ 15 ≥ 10

maximum force 𝐴𝐴gt
(%)

Elongation at fracture ≥ 20(1) ≥ 12(1) ≥ 20(1) ≥ 12(1) Not specified

(%)

Note:
* But not less than 1.2 times the actual yield stress
1. Measured on a minimum 4 diameters gauge length.
𝑘𝑘 characteristic value
𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 = tensile strength
𝑌𝑌𝑌𝑌 = yield stress
𝑅𝑅m = value of maximum tensile strength (determined from a single tensile test in accordance with AS 1391)
𝑅𝑅e = value of the yield stress or 0.2% proof stress (determined from a single tensile test in accordance with AS 1391)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-18

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5D.2 Beam Reinforcement and Detailing

Table C5D.4: Evolution of standard-based details requirements for beams
Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982 NZS 3101P:1970

Lateral support spacing 50𝑏𝑏w 50𝑏𝑏w 50𝑏𝑏w

(for earthquake)

𝜌𝜌max 𝜌𝜌max = 0.75𝜌𝜌bal 𝜌𝜌max = 0.75𝜌𝜌bal 𝜌𝜌max = 0.75𝜌𝜌bal 𝜌𝜌max = 0.75𝜌𝜌bal

(for USD)

𝜌𝜌min �𝑓𝑓′c 1.4 �𝑓𝑓′c 1.4 1.4 200

𝜌𝜌min = ≥ 𝜌𝜌min = ≥ 𝜌𝜌min = 𝜌𝜌min =
4𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y 4𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y

𝜌𝜌min (alternatively) 4 4 4 4
𝜌𝜌min = 𝜌𝜌reqd 𝜌𝜌min = 𝜌𝜌reqd 𝜌𝜌min = 𝜌𝜌reqd 𝜌𝜌min = 𝜌𝜌reqd
3 3 3 3
(for gravity only)

Maximum 𝑑𝑑b in internal beam- 𝑑𝑑b �𝑓𝑓′c

column joints (for nominally = 4𝛼𝛼𝑓𝑓
ℎc 𝑓𝑓y
ductile structures)
𝛼𝛼f = 0.85 (two-way)
𝛼𝛼f = 1.00 (one-way)

Minimum requirements for 5mm in diameter 6mm in diameter (for

transverse reinforcement 𝑓𝑓yt ≤ 500𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 earthquake)

Maximum nominal shear stress 𝑣𝑣n ≤ 0.2𝑓𝑓 ′ c or 8𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 0.2𝑓𝑓′c 𝑣𝑣n ≤ 0.2𝑓𝑓 ′ c or 6𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑣𝑣n ≤ 5�𝑓𝑓′c
𝑣𝑣n ≤ �1.1�𝑓𝑓′c
𝑣𝑣n ≤ 8.5�𝑓𝑓′c (USD)
9𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
Spacing limits for shear 0.5𝑑𝑑 , 𝑏𝑏w 0.5𝑑𝑑 0.5𝑑𝑑 0.75𝑑𝑑
𝑆𝑆max ≤ � 𝑆𝑆max ≤ � 𝑆𝑆max ≤ �
reinforcement 𝑆𝑆max ≤ � 500 𝑚𝑚m 600 𝑚𝑚m 600 𝑚𝑚m 450 𝑚𝑚m
16𝑑𝑑b

(0.5𝑑𝑑 and 500 𝑚𝑚m reduced by (0.5𝑑𝑑 and 500 𝑚𝑚m reduced by (0.5𝑑𝑑 and 500 𝑚𝑚m reduced by (𝑆𝑆max ≤ 0.25𝑑𝑑 if 𝑣𝑣n ≥ 3�𝑓𝑓 ′ c , or
half if 𝑣𝑣s ≥ 0.33�𝑓𝑓′c) half if 𝑣𝑣s ≥ 0.07𝑓𝑓′c ) half if 𝑣𝑣s ≥ 0.07𝑓𝑓′c ) 𝑣𝑣n ≥ 5.1�𝑓𝑓 ′ c for USD)

Minimum area of shear 1 𝑏𝑏w 𝑠𝑠 𝑏𝑏w 𝑠𝑠 𝑏𝑏w 𝑠𝑠 𝐴𝐴v = 0.0015𝑏𝑏w 𝑠𝑠

𝐴𝐴v = �𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴v = 0.35 𝐴𝐴v = 0.35
reinforcement 16 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓yt

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-19

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982 NZS 3101P:1970

Dimension of beams (for 𝐿𝐿n 𝐿𝐿n 𝐿𝐿n

≤ 25 ≤ 25 ≤ 25
earthquake) 𝑏𝑏w 𝑏𝑏w 𝑏𝑏w

𝐿𝐿n ℎ 𝐿𝐿n ℎ 𝐿𝐿n ℎ

2 ≤ 100
𝑏𝑏w 2 ≤ 100
𝑏𝑏w 2 ≤ 100
𝑏𝑏w

𝑏𝑏w ≥ 200 𝑚𝑚m 𝑏𝑏w ≥ 200 𝑚𝑚m 𝑏𝑏w ≥ 200 𝑚𝑚m

𝜌𝜌max (for earthquake, within 𝑓𝑓′c + 10 𝑓𝑓′c + 10 𝑓𝑓 ′

𝜌𝜌max = ≤ 0.025 𝜌𝜌max = ≤ 0.025 1 + 0.17 � c − 3�
plastic hinge region) 6𝑓𝑓y 6𝑓𝑓y 7
𝜌𝜌max =
100
𝜌𝜌′ 7
�1 + � ≤
𝜌𝜌 𝑓𝑓y

𝜌𝜌min (for earthquake, within 𝐴𝐴′s > 0.5𝐴𝐴s for ductile plastic 𝐴𝐴′s > 0.5𝐴𝐴s 𝐴𝐴′s > 0.5𝐴𝐴s
plastic hinge region) regions.
𝐴𝐴′s > 0.38𝐴𝐴s for limited ductile
plastic regions.
�𝑓𝑓′c 1.4
�𝑓𝑓′c 𝜌𝜌min =
𝜌𝜌min = 𝜌𝜌min = 𝑓𝑓y
4𝑓𝑓y 4𝑓𝑓y

Maximum longitudinal beam bar 𝑑𝑑b �𝑓𝑓′c

diameter to column depth (for ≤ 3.3𝛼𝛼f 𝛼𝛼d
ℎc 1.25𝑓𝑓y
earthquake)
𝑓𝑓′c ≤ 70𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝛼𝛼d = 1.00 (ductile)
𝛼𝛼d = 1.20 (limited ductile)

Minimum area of shear 1 𝑏𝑏w 𝑠𝑠

𝐴𝐴v = �𝑓𝑓′c
reinforcement (for earthquake) 12 𝑓𝑓y𝑡𝑡

Spacing limits for shear 12𝑑𝑑b 16𝑑𝑑b 𝑏𝑏w

𝑆𝑆max = � 𝑆𝑆max = �
reinforcement (for earthquake) 𝑑𝑑 ⁄2 𝑏𝑏w 𝑆𝑆max ≤ �48𝑑𝑑v
16𝑑𝑑b

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-20

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982 NZS 3101P:1970

Minimum area of shear ∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠 ∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠 ∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠

reinforcement in plastic hinge 𝐴𝐴te = 𝐴𝐴te = 𝐴𝐴te =
96𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 96𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 160𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b
regions (for earthquake)

Spacing limits for shear 6𝑑𝑑 6𝑑𝑑 6𝑑𝑑

𝑆𝑆max = � b (ductile) 𝑆𝑆max = � b 𝑆𝑆max = � b
reinforcement in plastic hinge 𝑑𝑑 ⁄4 𝑑𝑑 ⁄4 𝑑𝑑 ⁄4
regions (for earthquake) 10𝑑𝑑b
𝑆𝑆max = � (limited ductile)
𝑑𝑑 ⁄4

Maximum nominal shear stress 0.16𝑓𝑓′c

(for earthquake) 𝑣𝑣n ≤ �
0.85�𝑓𝑓′c

Note:
NZS 3101P:1970 units of [psi]
USD: Ultimate Strength Design

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-21

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5D.3 Column Reinforcement and Detailing

Table C5D.5: Evolution of standards-based details requirements for columns (Niroomandi et al., 2015)
Requirement NZS 3101: 2006 NZS 3101: 1995 NZS 3101: 1982 NZS 3103: 1970 NZSS 1900 (1964)

Strength reduction 0.85 0.85 0.9 for conforming transverse 0.75 for spirally -
factor (𝜙𝜙) 0.7 for others reinforced
0.7 for tied

𝑓𝑓𝑐𝑐′ 25 − 100 MPa - - - -

For DPRs5 and LDPRs6:
25 − 70 MPa

𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦 < 500 MPa - - - -

𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 < 500 MPa for shear < 500 MPa for shear < 400 MPa < 414 MPa -
< 800 MPa for confinement < 800 MPa for confinement

Maximum axial 0.85𝜙𝜙𝑁𝑁n,max1 0.85𝜙𝜙𝑁𝑁n,max1 0.85𝜙𝜙𝑁𝑁n,max1 for conforming, 𝑃𝑃018 For tied columns:
compressive load otherwise 0.8𝜙𝜙𝑁𝑁n,max1 𝑃𝑃 = 𝑐𝑐𝐴𝐴c + 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
For DPRs and LDPRs: For DPRs: For DPRs: For spirally columns:
0.7𝜙𝜙𝑁𝑁n,max1 0.7𝜙𝜙𝑁𝑁n,max1 Min of (0.7𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g and 𝑃𝑃 = 𝑐𝑐𝐴𝐴k
0.7𝜙𝜙𝑁𝑁n,max1 ) = 𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 + 2𝑡𝑡b 𝐴𝐴b

Dimension of column For DPRs and LDPRs: For DPRs: For DPRs: 25.4 mm for circular -
𝑏𝑏𝑤𝑤 ≥ 𝐿𝐿n ⁄25 𝑏𝑏w ≥ 𝐿𝐿n ⁄25 bw ≥ 𝐿𝐿n ⁄25 20.32 for rectangular
or 𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔 > 413 mm2
𝑏𝑏w ≥ �𝐿𝐿n ℎ⁄100 𝑏𝑏w ≥ �𝐿𝐿n ℎ⁄100 𝑏𝑏w ≥ �𝐿𝐿n ℎ⁄100

Extend of ductile For DPRs and LDPRs: For DPRs: For DPRs: - -
detailing length, 𝑙𝑙𝑦𝑦 , for 𝑙𝑙y = ℎ for 𝑁𝑁0∗ ≤ 0.25𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g 𝑙𝑙y = ℎ for 𝑁𝑁0∗ ≤ 0.25𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g 13
𝑙𝑙y = ℎ for 𝑃𝑃e ≤ 0.3𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g
detailing purposes
𝑙𝑙y = 2ℎ for 0.25𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g < 𝑙𝑙y = 2ℎ for 0.25𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g < 𝑁𝑁0∗ ≤ 𝑙𝑙y = 1.5ℎ for
𝑁𝑁0∗ ≤ 0.5𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g 0.5𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g
𝑃𝑃e > 0.3𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g
𝑙𝑙y = 3ℎ for 𝑁𝑁0∗ 2 > 0.5𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g 𝑙𝑙y = 3ℎ for 𝑁𝑁0∗ 2 > 0.5𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g

Minimum longitudinal 0.008𝐴𝐴g 0.008𝐴𝐴g 0.008𝐴𝐴g 0.01 0.008

reinforcement ratio

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-22

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101: 2006 NZS 3101: 1995 NZS 3101: 1982 NZS 3103: 1970 NZSS 1900 (1964)

Maximum longitudinal 0.08𝐴𝐴g 0.08𝐴𝐴g 0.08𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔 0.08 0.08

reinforcement ratio
For DPRs and LDPRs: For DPRs: For DPRs:
18 𝐴𝐴g ⁄𝑓𝑓y 18 𝐴𝐴g ⁄𝑓𝑓y 0.06𝐴𝐴g for Grade 275
0.045𝐴𝐴g for Grade 380

Maximum longitudinal 0.08𝐴𝐴g 0.08𝐴𝐴g For DPRs: 0.12 -

reinforcement ratio at 0.08𝐴𝐴g for Grade 275
For DPRs and LDPRs: For DPRs:
splices
24 𝐴𝐴g ⁄𝑓𝑓y 24 𝐴𝐴g ⁄𝑓𝑓y 0.06𝐴𝐴g for Grade 380

Minimum number of 8 bars, but may be reduced 6 6 bars in a circular arrangement 6 bars in a circular Same as nominally Same as nominally
longitudinal bars or 4 if clear spacing is less 4 bars in a rectangular arrangement ductile (1995) ductile (1995)
than 150 mm and 𝑁𝑁 ∗ ≤ arrangement 4 bars in a rectangular
0.1𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g arrangement

Maximum spacing Circular columns, larger of Larger of one third of column 200 mm - -
between longitudinal one quarter of a diameter or dimension in direction of
bars requiring restraint 200 mm spacing or 200 mm for
Rectangular, larger of one Rectangular column
third of column dimension in
direction of spacing or
200 mm, spacing can be
increased in centre of column
when ℎ⁄𝑏𝑏 > 20

For DPRs and LDPRs: For DPRs:

Larger of one-quarter of the Larger of one-quarter of the
column dimension (or column dimension (or diameter)
diameter) in direction of in direction of spacing or
spacing or 200 mm 200 mm
In protected plastic hinge
regions and outside plastic
hinge regions same as
nominally ductile

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-23

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101: 2006 NZS 3101: 1995 NZS 3101: 1982 NZS 3103: 1970 NZSS 1900 (1964)

Maximum longitudinal For DPRs and LDPRs: - - 12.7 mm (minimum) 50.8 mm (maximum)
column bar diameter 12.7 mm (minimum)
𝑑𝑑b �𝑓𝑓c′
≤ 3.2
ℎb 𝑓𝑓y
Bar diameter can be
increased by 25% when
plastic hinges are not
expected to develop in
column end zones and need
not be met when bars remain
in tension or compression
over the length of the joint

Minimum diameter for Rectangular hoops and ties - Rectangular hoops and ties 6.35 mm 6.35 mm > 𝑑𝑑b /3
transverse 5 mm for 𝑑𝑑b < 20 6 mm for 𝑑𝑑b < 20
reinforcement (outside
of the potential plastic 10 mm for 20 ≤ 𝑑𝑑b < 32 10 mm for 20 ≤ 𝑑𝑑b < 32
hinge region) 12 mm for 𝑑𝑑b > 32 12 mm for 𝑑𝑑b > 32
Spiral or hoops of circular Spiral or hoops of circular
shape, 5 mm shape, 6 mm

Maximum vertical Smaller of ℎmin⁄3 or 10𝑑𝑑b Smaller of ℎmin⁄3 or 10𝑑𝑑b If using 𝜙𝜙 = 0.9 smaller of For Spirally columns, For Spirally columns,
spacing of ties (outside ℎmin⁄5 or 16 𝑑𝑑b 𝑑𝑑c /6 max {1 in. and 3𝑑𝑑s },
of the potential plastic If using 𝜙𝜙 = 0.7 smaller of For tied columns, min {3 in and 𝑑𝑑c /6
hinge region)
ℎmin , 16𝑑𝑑b or 48 𝑑𝑑s min{ℎmin , 16𝑑𝑑b and and also 𝜌𝜌s >
48 𝑑𝑑s } 0.004𝐴𝐴g }

For DPRs: For DPRs: For tied columns, min

It shouldn’t be lower than 70% Smaller of 2ℎmin⁄5 , 12𝑑𝑑b or {12𝑑𝑑b , 1 in. and
of the ones within the plastic 400 mm 2ℎmin /3}
hinge region

Anti-buckling Rectangular hoops and ties Rectangular hoops and ties - - -

reinforcement (outside ∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠 ∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠
of the potential plastic 𝐴𝐴te = 𝐴𝐴te =
hinge region) 135𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 135𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-24

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101: 2006 NZS 3101: 1995 NZS 3101: 1982 NZS 3103: 1970 NZSS 1900 (1964)

Spirals or hoops of circular Spirals or hoops of circular

shape shape
𝐴𝐴st 𝑓𝑓y 1 𝐴𝐴st 𝑓𝑓y 1
𝜌𝜌s = 𝜌𝜌s =
155𝑑𝑑" 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑𝑏𝑏 155𝑑𝑑" 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑𝑏𝑏

Confinement Rectangular hoops and ties Rectangular hoops and ties If using 𝜑𝜑=0.9 then for Spirals shape -
reinforcement (outside 3 9 Rectangular hoops and ties 𝜌𝜌s 12
𝐴𝐴sh 𝐴𝐴sh
of the potential plastic
𝐴𝐴sh11
hinge region)
Spirals or hoops of circular Spirals or hoops of circular Spirals or hoops of circular
shape shape shape
𝜌𝜌s 4 𝜌𝜌s10 𝜌𝜌s12

Minimum shear 1 𝑏𝑏w 𝑆𝑆 - - - -

𝐴𝐴v = �𝑓𝑓 ′
reinforcement (outside 16 c 𝑓𝑓yt
of the potential plastic
hinge region) For DPRs and LDPRs:
1 𝑏𝑏w 𝑆𝑆
𝐴𝐴v = �𝑓𝑓 ′
12 c 𝑓𝑓yt

Maximum shear force 𝑉𝑉n ≤ 0.2𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑏𝑏w 𝑑𝑑, 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 8 𝑏𝑏w 𝑑𝑑 - - - -

(outside of the potential
plastic hinge region)

Minimum diameter for Same as outside plastic - - Same as outside -

transverse hinge region plastic hinge region
reinforcement (within
potential plastic hinge
region)

Maximum vertical For DPRs: For DPRs: For DPRs: Same as outside -
spacing of ties (within Smallest of ℎmin⁄4 or 6 𝑑𝑑b Smallest of ℎmin⁄4 or 6 𝑑𝑑b Smaller of ℎ⁄5, diameter, /5 plastic hinge region
potential plastic hinge
region) For LDPRs: 6𝑑𝑑b or 200 𝑚𝑚m
Smallest of ℎmin⁄4 or 10 𝑑𝑑b

Anti-buckling For DPRs and LDPRs: For DPRs: - - -

reinforcement (within

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-25

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101: 2006 NZS 3101: 1995 NZS 3101: 1982 NZS 3103: 1970 NZSS 1900 (1964)

potential plastic hinge For rectangular hoops and For rectangular hoops and ties
region) ties
∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑆𝑆h ∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑆𝑆h
𝐴𝐴te = 𝐴𝐴te =
96𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 96𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b
For spirals or hoops of For spirals or hoops of circular
circular shape shape
𝐴𝐴st 𝑓𝑓y 1 𝐴𝐴st 𝑓𝑓y 1
𝜌𝜌s = 𝜌𝜌s =
110𝑑𝑑" 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 110𝑑𝑑" 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑

Confinement For DPRs and LDPRs: For DPRs: For DPRs: Same as outside -
reinforcement (within Rectangular hoops and ties Rectangular hoops and ties Spirals or hoops of circular plastic hinge region
potential plastic hinge shape
region)
for DPRs, 𝐴𝐴sh 7 for DPRs, 𝐴𝐴sh 7 ρs114 or 𝜌𝜌s215
for LDPRs, 0.7 𝐴𝐴sh 7 for LDPRs, 0.7 𝐴𝐴sh 7
Spirals or hoops of circular Spirals or hoops of circular Rectangular hoops and ties
shape shape
𝐴𝐴sh116 or 𝐴𝐴sh217
8 8
for DPRs, 𝜌𝜌s for DPRs, 𝜌𝜌s
for LDPRs, 0.7 𝜌𝜌s 8 for LDPRs, 0.7 𝜌𝜌s 8

Minimum shear Same as outside plastic - - - -

reinforcement (within hinge region
potential plastic hinge
region)

Maximum shear force Same as outside plastic - - - -

(within potential plastic hinge region
hinge region)

Note:
1. 𝑁𝑁n,max = 𝛼𝛼1 𝑓𝑓c′ �𝐴𝐴g − 𝐴𝐴st � + 𝑓𝑓y 𝐴𝐴st
2. 𝑁𝑁0∗ = 0.7𝜙𝜙𝑁𝑁n,max
(1−𝜌𝜌t 𝑚𝑚)𝑆𝑆h ℎ" 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑁𝑁∗
3. 𝐴𝐴sh = − 0.0065𝑆𝑆h ℎ" (𝑁𝑁 ∗ = design axial load at ultimate limit state)
3.3 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g
(1−𝜌𝜌t 𝑚𝑚) 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑁𝑁 ∗
4. 𝜌𝜌s = − 0.0084 (𝑁𝑁 ∗ = design axial load at ultimate limit state)
2.4 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g

5. DPR = Ductile Potential Plastic Region

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-26

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101: 2006 NZS 3101: 1995 NZS 3101: 1982 NZS 3103: 1970 NZSS 1900 (1964)

6. LDPR = Limited Ductile Potential Plastic Region

(1.3−𝜌𝜌t 𝑚𝑚)𝑆𝑆h ℎ" 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑁𝑁0∗
7. 𝐴𝐴sh = − 0.006𝑆𝑆h ℎ"
3.3 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g
(1.3−𝜌𝜌t 𝑚𝑚) 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑁𝑁0∗
8. 𝜌𝜌s = − 0.0084
2.4 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g

(1−𝜌𝜌t 𝑚𝑚)𝑆𝑆h ℎ" 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑁𝑁∗

9. 𝐴𝐴sh = − 0.0065𝑆𝑆h ℎ" �𝑁𝑁 ∗ = 0.85𝜙𝜙𝛼𝛼1 𝑓𝑓c′ (𝐴𝐴g − 𝐴𝐴st � + 𝑓𝑓y 𝐴𝐴st )
3.3 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g
(1−𝜌𝜌t 𝑚𝑚) 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑁𝑁 ∗
10. 𝜌𝜌s = − 0.0084 �𝑁𝑁 ∗ = 0.85𝜙𝜙𝛼𝛼1 𝑓𝑓c′ (𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔 − 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 � + 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 )
2.4 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g
𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓c′
11. 𝐴𝐴sh = 0.3𝑆𝑆h ℎ" � − 1�
𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yh
𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓c′
12. 𝜌𝜌s = 0.45 � − 1�
𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yh

13. 𝑃𝑃e = Maximum design axial load in compression at a given eccentricity

𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑃𝑃e
14. 𝜌𝜌s1 = 0.45 � − 1� �0.5 + 0.125 �
𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yh 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g

𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑃𝑃e
15. 𝜌𝜌s2 = 0.12 �0.5 + 0.125 �
𝑓𝑓yh 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g

𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑃𝑃e

16. 𝐴𝐴sh = 0.3𝑆𝑆h ℎ" � − 1� �0.5 + 1.25 �
𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yh 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g

𝑓𝑓c′ 𝑃𝑃e
17. 𝐴𝐴sh = 0.12𝑆𝑆h ℎ" �0.5 + 1.25 �
𝑓𝑓yh 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g

18. 𝑃𝑃0 = 𝜙𝜙�0.85𝑓𝑓c′ �𝐴𝐴g − 𝐴𝐴st � + 𝐴𝐴st 𝑓𝑓y �

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-27

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5D.4 Beam-Column Joint Reinforcement and Detailing

Table C5D.6: Evolution of standards-based beam-column joints design/details requirements (Cuevas et al., 2015)
Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982

Maximum horizontal 0.20𝑓𝑓′c 𝑣𝑣jh ≤ 0.25𝑓𝑓′c

𝑣𝑣jh ≤ �
shear stress 10MPa

Minimum horizontal For spirals or circular hoops: For spirals or circular hoops: For spirals or circular hoops:
transverse confinement (1 − 𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚) 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑁𝑁 ∗ (1 − 𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚) 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑁𝑁 ∗ 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c
reinforcement 𝜌𝜌s = − 0.0084 𝜌𝜌s = − 0.0084 𝜌𝜌s = 0.45 � − 1�
2.4 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g 2.4 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yh
𝐴𝐴st 𝑓𝑓y 1 𝐴𝐴st 𝑓𝑓y 1
𝜌𝜌s = 𝜌𝜌s =
155𝑑𝑑" 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 155𝑑𝑑" 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b
For rectangular hoop and tie reinforcement: For rectangular hoop and tie reinforcement: For rectangular hoop and tie reinforcement:
(1 − 𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚)𝑠𝑠h ℎ" 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑁𝑁 ∗ (1 − 𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚)𝑠𝑠h ℎ" 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑁𝑁 ∗ 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c
𝐴𝐴sh = − 0.0065𝑠𝑠h ℎ" 𝐴𝐴sh = − 0.0065𝑠𝑠h ℎ" 𝐴𝐴sh = 0.3𝑠𝑠h ℎ" � − 1�
3.3 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g 3.3 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yh
∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠h ∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠h where 𝑓𝑓yh ≤ 500𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
𝐴𝐴te = 𝐴𝐴te =
135𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 135𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b
𝐴𝐴g 𝐴𝐴g
� ≤ 1.50 � ≤ 1.20
With � 𝐴𝐴c With � 𝐴𝐴c
𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚 ≤ 0.40 𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚 ≤ 0.40

(reduce by half when joints connecting beams (reduce by half when joints connecting beams at
at all four column faces) all four column faces)

Spacing limits (𝐷𝐷, 𝑏𝑏, ℎ)� (𝐷𝐷, 𝑏𝑏, ℎ)� (𝐷𝐷, 𝑏𝑏, ℎ)�
3 3 5
𝑆𝑆max = � 10𝑑𝑑b 𝑆𝑆max = � 10𝑑𝑑b 𝑆𝑆max = � 10𝑑𝑑b
200 𝑚𝑚m 200 𝑚𝑚m 200 𝑚𝑚m

Design yield strength (for 𝑓𝑓yh ≤ 500MPa 𝑓𝑓yh ≤ 500MPa

earthquake)
𝑓𝑓yv ≤ 500MPa 𝑓𝑓yv ≤ 500MPa

Maximum horizontal 0.20𝑓𝑓′c 𝑣𝑣jh ≤ 0.20𝑓𝑓′c 𝑣𝑣jh ≤ 1.5�𝑓𝑓′c

𝑣𝑣jh ≤ �
shear stress (for 10MPa
earthquake)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-28

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982

Minimum horizontal joint For spirals or circular hoops: For spirals or circular hoops: For spirals and circular hoops, the greater of:
reinforcement (for (1.3−𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚) 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑁𝑁∗ (1.3−𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚) 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑁𝑁 ∗ 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑃𝑃e
earthquake) 𝜌𝜌s = − 0.0084 (*) 𝜌𝜌s = 0.70 � − 0.0084� 𝜌𝜌s = 0.45 � − 1� �0.5 + 1.25 �
2.4 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g 2.4 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g
𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yh 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g
𝐴𝐴st 𝑓𝑓y 1 𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦 1
𝜌𝜌s = 𝜌𝜌𝑠𝑠 = 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑃𝑃e
110𝑑𝑑" 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 110𝑑𝑑" 𝑓𝑓𝑦𝑦𝑦𝑦 𝑑𝑑𝑏𝑏 𝜌𝜌s = 0.12 �0.5 + 1.25 �
𝑓𝑓yh 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g

For rectangular hoop and tie reinforcement: For rectangular hoop and tie reinforcement: For rectangular hoop and tie reinforcement,
the greater of:
(1.3−𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚)𝑠𝑠h ℎ" 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑁𝑁∗ (1.3−𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚)𝑠𝑠h ℎ" 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑁𝑁∗ 𝐴𝐴g 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑃𝑃e
𝐴𝐴sh = − 0.006𝑠𝑠h ℎ" (*) 𝐴𝐴sh = 0.70 � − 0.006𝑠𝑠h ℎ"� 𝐴𝐴sh = 0.3𝑠𝑠h ℎ" � − 1� �0.5 + 1.25 �
3.3 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g 3.3 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g
𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yh 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g
∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠h ∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠h
𝐴𝐴te = 𝐴𝐴te = 𝑓𝑓′c 𝑃𝑃e
96𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 96𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 𝐴𝐴sh = 0.12𝑠𝑠h ℎ" �0.5 + 1.25 �
𝑓𝑓yh 𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓′c 𝐴𝐴g
𝐴𝐴g 𝐴𝐴g
�𝐴𝐴 ≤ 1.50 �𝐴𝐴 ≤ 1.20
With � c With � c
𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚 ≤ 0.40 𝑝𝑝t 𝑚𝑚 ≤ 0.40
(*) 70% reduction for limited ductile (*) 70% reduction not allowed at the joint of the
columns of the first storey

Spacing limits (for (𝐷𝐷, 𝑏𝑏, ℎ)� (𝐷𝐷, 𝑏𝑏, ℎ)� (𝐷𝐷, 𝑏𝑏, ℎ)�
earthquake) 4 4 5
𝑆𝑆max = � 6𝑑𝑑b (ductile) 𝑆𝑆max = � 6𝑑𝑑b 𝑆𝑆𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = � 6𝑑𝑑b
200 𝑚𝑚m 200 𝑚𝑚m 200 𝑚𝑚m
(𝐷𝐷, 𝑏𝑏, ℎ)�
4
𝑆𝑆max = � 10𝑑𝑑b (limited ductile)
200 𝑚𝑚m

Spacing limits for vertical (𝐷𝐷, ℎ, 𝑏𝑏� (𝐷𝐷, ℎ, 𝑏𝑏� 𝑆𝑆max = 200 𝑚𝑚m
reinforcement (for ductile 𝑆𝑆max = � 4 𝑆𝑆𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 = � 4
members adjacent to the 200 𝑚𝑚m 200 𝑚𝑚m
joint) (at least one intermediate bar in each side of (at least one intermediate bar in each side of the (at least one intermediate bar in each side of
the column in that plane) column in that plane) the column in that plane)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-29

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982

Maximum diameter of 𝑑𝑑b �𝑓𝑓′c

longitudinal beam bars ≤ 3.3𝛼𝛼f 𝛼𝛼d
ℎc 1.25𝑓𝑓y
passing through joints (for
ductile members adjacent 𝑓𝑓′c ≤ 70𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀
to the joint) 𝛼𝛼d = 1.00 (ductile)
𝛼𝛼d = 1.20 (limited ductile)

Maximum diameter of 𝑑𝑑b �𝑓𝑓′c

≤ 3.2 (1)
column bars passing ℎb 𝑓𝑓y
through joints (for ductile 𝑑𝑑b �𝑓𝑓′c
members adjacent to the ≤ 4.0 (2)
ℎb 𝑓𝑓y
joint)
For columns designed by Method B or by
Method A (and the joint is below the mid-height
of the second storey)
For columns designed by Method A and the
joint is above the mid-height of the second
storey

Note:
NZS 3101P:1970, clause 1.2.6 states that “…The reinforcing spiral shall extend from the floor level in any storey or from the top of the footing to the level of the lowest horizontal reinforcement
in the slab, drop panel, or beam above.” Therefore, no spiral, hoop or tie is required in the beam-column joint.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-30

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5D.5 Wall Reinforcement and Detailing

Table C5D.7 summarises the evolution of the New Zealand standards-based design/details requirements for walls, while Table C5D.8 provides a
key to the notation used throughout the various Standards.

Table C5D.7: Evolution of standards-based design/details requirements for walls

Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982 NZS 3101P:1970 NZS 1900:1964
(bylaw)

Minimum 100 mm 100 mm for the uppermost 150 mm for the uppermost 4m of wall 6 in. 5 in.
thickness-general 4m of wall height and for height and for each successive 7.5 m
each successive 7.5 m downward (or fraction thereof), shall
downward (or fraction be increased by 25 mm
thereof), shall be increased
by 25 mm

Limitations on the If 𝑁𝑁 ∗ > 0.2𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g If 𝑁𝑁 ∗ > 0.2𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g 𝐿𝐿n 𝐿𝐿n 𝐿𝐿n
≤ 10 ≤ 35 ≤ 24
height to thickness 𝐾𝐾e 𝐿𝐿n 𝐿𝐿n 𝑡𝑡 t t
ratio ≤ 30 ≤ 25 UNLESS: 𝐿𝐿n : the distance 𝐿𝐿n : the distance
𝑡𝑡 𝑡𝑡
between lateral between lateral
𝐿𝐿n : the clear vertical distance 1- the neutral axis depth for the
design loading ≤ 4𝑏𝑏 or 0.3𝑙𝑙w supports (Horizontal supports
between floors or other
or Vertical) (Horizontal or
effective horizontal lines of 2- Any part of the wall within a Vertical)
lateral support distance of 3𝑏𝑏 from the inside of a
continuous line of lateral support
provided by a flange or cross wall

Singly reinforced No limitations No limitations No limitations No limitations

𝑘𝑘ft 𝐿𝐿n 𝐿𝐿n /𝐿𝐿w
walls ≤ 12�
t 𝜆𝜆
Limitations on the
height to thickness where:
ratio to prevent
𝑁𝑁 ∗ ≤ 0.015𝑓𝑓c′ 𝐴𝐴g
flexural torsional
buckling of in- 𝐿𝐿n
and ≤ 75
𝑡𝑡
plane loaded walls
𝑘𝑘ft 𝐿𝐿n
and ≤ 65
𝑡𝑡

Doubly reinforced 𝑘𝑘e 𝐿𝐿n 𝛼𝛼m No requirements No requirements No requirements No requirements

≥
walls 𝑡𝑡
𝑁𝑁 ∗
�𝑓𝑓 ′ 𝐴𝐴
c g

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-31

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982 NZS 3101P:1970 NZS 1900:1964
(bylaw)
Moment
magnification
required when:

Minimum 𝛼𝛼r 𝑘𝑘m 𝛽𝛽(𝐴𝐴r + 2)Lw 𝑘𝑘m (𝜇𝜇 + 2)(𝐴𝐴r + 2)Lw No requirements No requirements No requirements
thickness for 𝑏𝑏m = 𝑏𝑏m =
1700�𝜉𝜉 1700�𝜉𝜉
prevention of
instability within 𝛽𝛽 = 7 (𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷)
plastic hinge 𝛽𝛽 = 5 (𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿)
region

Ductile detailing 𝑀𝑀 ℎw ℎw No requirements No requirements

max{𝐿𝐿w , 0.17 } max{𝐿𝐿w , } max{𝐿𝐿w , }
length -special 𝑉𝑉 6 6
shear stress Measured from the 1st Measured from the 1st Measured from the 1st flexural
limitations flexural yielding section flexural yielding section yielding section
Need not be greater than 2𝐿𝐿w Need not be greater than 2𝐿𝐿w Need not be greater than 2𝐿𝐿w

Limitation on the 𝜌𝜌l ≤ 0.01 𝑏𝑏 ≤ 200 mm 𝑏𝑏 ≤ 200 mm or if the design shear Earth retaining walls: 𝑡𝑡 < 10 in.
use of singly 𝑏𝑏 ≤ 200 mm 𝜇𝜇 ≤ 4 stress 𝑏𝑏 < 10 in.
reinforced walls ≤ 0.3�𝑓𝑓c′
Other walls:
𝑏𝑏 < 9 in.

Minimum �𝑓𝑓c′ 0.7 0.7 9000 0.0025 (mild steel)

𝜌𝜌n = 𝜌𝜌l = 𝜌𝜌l = % ≥ 0.18%
longitudinal 4𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y 0.0018
reinforcement (high tensile steel)
ratio Note: 𝑓𝑓y in units of
[psi]

Maximum 16 16 16 No requirements No requirements

longitudinal 𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y
reinforcement
ratio (𝜌𝜌𝑙𝑙 )

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-32

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982 NZS 3101P:1970 NZS 1900:1964
(bylaw)

Maximum spacing Min {𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿/3, 3𝑡𝑡, or 450 mm} Min {2.5𝑏𝑏, 450 mm} Min{2.5𝑏𝑏, 450 mm} Min{2.5𝑏𝑏, 18in. 2.5𝑏𝑏
of longitudinal (457 mm)}
reinforcement

Anti-buckling Where: Where: Hoop or tie sets No requirements No requirements

reinforcement 2 Spacing
(Outside of the ⎧ DPR ⎫
⎪ 𝑓𝑓y ⎪ 2 least lateral dimension
potential plastic 𝜌𝜌l > 𝜌𝜌l > ≤ min � 16db �
hinge region) ⎨ 3 LDPR⎬ 𝑓𝑓y
48𝑑𝑑transverse bar
⎪𝑓𝑓 ⎪
⎩y ⎭
𝑑𝑑tie > 𝑑𝑑b /4 𝑑𝑑tie > 𝑑𝑑b /4
Spacing < 12db Spacing < 12𝑑𝑑b

Anti-buckling Where: Where: Where: No requirements No requirements

reinforcement 2 2 2
(Within the ⎧ 𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ⎫ 𝜌𝜌l > ρl >
⎪ 𝑓𝑓y ⎪ 𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y
potential plastic 𝜌𝜌l >
hinge region) 3
⎨ 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 ⎬
⎪𝑓𝑓 ⎪
⎩y ⎭
∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠 ∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y s ∑ 𝐴𝐴b 𝑓𝑓y 𝑠𝑠
𝐴𝐴te = 𝐴𝐴te = 𝐴𝐴te =
96𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 96𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑b 96𝑓𝑓yt 100
6𝑑𝑑b (𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷) Spacing ≤ 6𝑑𝑑b Spacing ≤ 6𝑑𝑑b
Spacing ≤ � �
10𝑑𝑑b (𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿)

Confinement Where neutral axis depth Where neutral axis depth Where neutral axis depth No requirements No requirements
reinforcement 0.1𝜙𝜙ow 𝐿𝐿w 0.3𝜙𝜙o 0.1𝜙𝜙o 𝑆𝑆𝑙𝑙w
> 𝑐𝑐c = > 𝑐𝑐c = � � 𝐿𝐿w
λ 𝜇𝜇 or
> 𝑐𝑐c = � 8.6𝜙𝜙o 𝑆𝑆𝑙𝑙w �
λ = 1.0 (DPR) ℎw
(4−0.7𝑆𝑆)�17+ �
λ = 2.0 (LDPR) 𝑙𝑙w

𝐴𝐴∗g 𝑓𝑓c′ c 𝐴𝐴sh =

𝐴𝐴sh = 𝛼𝛼𝑠𝑠h ℎ′′ � 𝐴𝐴sh = A∗ f′ c
𝐴𝐴∗c 𝑓𝑓yh Lw 𝜇𝜇 𝐴𝐴∗g 𝑓𝑓c′ c ⎧0.3𝑠𝑠h ℎ′′ � g − 1� c �0.5 + 0.9
� + 0.1� 𝑠𝑠h ℎ′′ ∗ � ⎪ A∗c fyh Lw
− 0.07� 40 𝐴𝐴c 𝑓𝑓yh Lw max
⎨ fc′ c
− 0.07� ⎪ 0.12𝑠𝑠h h′′ �0.5 + 0.9 �
𝛼𝛼 = 0.25 (DPR) ⎩ fyh Lw
𝛼𝛼 = 0.175 (LDPR)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-33

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982 NZS 3101P:1970 NZS 1900:1964
(bylaw)

Maximum spacing DPR: Min {6𝑑𝑑b , 0.5𝑡𝑡, 150 mm} Min {6𝑑𝑑b , 0.5𝑡𝑡, 150 mm} No requirements No requirements
of confinement min {6𝑑𝑑b , 0.5𝑡𝑡}
reinforcement
LDPR:
min {10𝑑𝑑b , 𝑡𝑡}

Minimum 𝑐𝑐 − 0.7𝑐𝑐c 𝑐𝑐 − 0.7𝑐𝑐c 0.5𝑐𝑐 No requirements No requirements

Max � � Max � �
confinement 0.5𝑐𝑐 0.5𝑐𝑐
length 𝑐𝑐: neutral axis depth 𝑐𝑐: neutral axis depth

Maximum nominal 𝑣𝑣n ≤ 0.2𝑓𝑓 ′ c or 8MPa 0.2𝑓𝑓′c 𝑣𝑣n ≤ 0.2𝑓𝑓 ′ c or 6MPa 𝑣𝑣u 𝑓𝑓c
shear stress 𝑣𝑣n ≤ �1.1�𝑓𝑓′c 𝐻𝐻 𝑣𝑣 =
≤ (0.8 + 4.6 )𝜙𝜙�𝑓𝑓′c ℎ2
D 1+
9MPa 49𝑡𝑡 2
𝑣𝑣u ≤ 5.4𝜙𝜙�𝑓𝑓′c
for 𝐻𝐻/𝐷𝐷 < 1
𝑣𝑣u ≤ 10𝜙𝜙�𝑓𝑓′c
for 𝐻𝐻/𝐷𝐷 > 2
𝜙𝜙 = 0.85

Concrete shear 𝑉𝑉c ⎧ ⎫ ⎧ ⎫ The shear stress No requirements

0.2�𝑓𝑓 ′ c 0.2�𝑓𝑓 ′ c
strength 0.17�f ′ c Acv ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ carried by the
(simplified) 𝑣𝑣c = min ∗ 𝑣𝑣c = min concrete shall not
= min � N∗ � ⎨0.2 � 𝑓𝑓 ′ + N �⎬ ⎨0.2 � 𝑓𝑓 ′ + 𝑃𝑃𝑢𝑢 �⎬
0.17 ��𝑓𝑓 ′ c + � Acv ⎪ � c � c exceed:
Ag ⎩ Ag ⎪
⎭
⎪
⎩ Ag ⎪ ⎭ 𝐻𝐻
𝑣𝑣c = �3.7 − � 2𝜙𝜙�𝑓𝑓c′
𝐷𝐷
𝑣𝑣c ≤ 5.4𝜙𝜙�𝑓𝑓′c
for 𝐻𝐻/𝐷𝐷 < 1
𝑣𝑣c ≤ 2𝜙𝜙�𝑓𝑓′c
for 𝐻𝐻/𝐷𝐷 > 2.7
𝜙𝜙 = 0.85

Shear 𝑠𝑠2 (𝑣𝑣n − 𝑣𝑣c )𝑏𝑏w 𝑠𝑠2 (𝑣𝑣n − 𝑣𝑣c )𝑏𝑏w 𝑠𝑠2 𝑉𝑉u′ 𝑠𝑠 No requirements
𝐴𝐴v = 𝑉𝑉s 𝐴𝐴v = 𝐴𝐴v = 𝐴𝐴v =
reinforcement 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑑𝑑 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓yh 𝐻𝐻
𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓y 𝑑𝑑 � − 1�
𝐷𝐷

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-34

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982 NZS 3101P:1970 NZS 1900:1964
(bylaw)

Minimum shear 0.7 𝑏𝑏w 𝑠𝑠2 0.7 𝑏𝑏w 𝑠𝑠2 0.7 𝑏𝑏w 𝑠𝑠2 𝑉𝑉u′ 𝑠𝑠 0.0025
𝐴𝐴v = 𝐴𝐴v = 𝐴𝐴v = 𝐴𝐴v = or
𝜙𝜙𝑓𝑓y 𝑑𝑑
reinforcement 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓yh (mild steel)
9000
Ratio (%): ≥ 0.0018
𝑓𝑓y
(high tensile steel)
0.18

Maximum spacing 𝐿𝐿w 𝐿𝐿w 𝐿𝐿w 2.5𝑡𝑡, 18in 2.5𝑡𝑡

Min � , 3𝑡𝑡, or 450 mm� Min � , 3𝑡𝑡, or 450 mm� Min � , 3𝑡𝑡, or 450 mm�
of shear 5 5 5 (457mm)
reinforcement

Vertical 0.7 0.7 0.7 No requirements No requirements

𝜌𝜌n ≥ 𝜌𝜌n ≥ 𝜌𝜌n ≥
reinforcement 𝑓𝑓yn 𝑓𝑓yn 𝑓𝑓yn
𝐿𝐿w 𝐿𝐿w 𝐿𝐿w
Spacing ≤ min{ , 3𝑡𝑡, Spacing ≤ min{ , 3𝑡𝑡, Spacing ≤ min{ , 3𝑡𝑡,
3 3 3
450 mm} 450 mm} 450 mm}

Maximum shear 𝑁𝑁 ∗ 𝑉𝑉c shall not be taken larger 𝑉𝑉c shall not be taken larger than: No requirements No requirements
𝑉𝑉c = �0.27𝜆𝜆�𝑓𝑓c′ + � 𝑏𝑏 𝑑𝑑
strength provided 4𝐴𝐴g w than:
by the concrete in 𝑃𝑃e
≥ 0.0 𝑁𝑁 ∗ 𝑣𝑣c = 0.6�
ductile detailing
𝑣𝑣c = 0.6� 𝐴𝐴g
length 𝜆𝜆 = 0.25𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 𝐴𝐴g
𝜆𝜆 = 0.5𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿
Total nominal shear stress Total nominal shear stress shall not
shall not exceed: exceed:
𝜙𝜙ow 𝑣𝑣n = (0.3𝜙𝜙o 𝑆𝑆 + 0.16)�𝑓𝑓c′
𝑣𝑣n = � + 0.15� �𝑓𝑓c′
𝜇𝜇
𝑆𝑆: structural type factor as defined by
NZS 4203

Splicing of flexural One-third (DPR) and one-half One-third of reinforcement One-third of reinforcement can be One-half of No requirements
tension (LDPR) of reinforcement can can be spliced where yielding spliced where yielding can occur reinforcement can be
reinforcement be spliced where yielding can can occur spliced where
occur yielding can occur

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-35

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Requirement NZS 3101:2006 NZS 3101:1995 NZS 3101:1982 NZS 3101P:1970 NZS 1900:1964
(bylaw)

Maximum No requirements No requirements No requirements ℎ 3 Direct loading:

compressive �1 − � � � 0.2𝑓𝑓c′
35𝑑𝑑 𝑘𝑘𝑓𝑓cu
stress in concrete
𝑘𝑘
𝑝𝑝 ℎ
ℎ: distance between = − 0.007
supports 5 𝑡𝑡
+ 0.2
𝑑𝑑: thickness of wall
𝑓𝑓cu : minimum
crushing strength
𝑃𝑃: total
percentage of
vertical
reinforcement
0.25 ≤ 𝑝𝑝 ≤ 0.5
ℎ
≥ 10
𝑡𝑡
Seismic bending +
direct stress:
1.25𝑘𝑘

Maximum stress No requirements No requirements No requirements No requirements 15000 psi for mild
in the tensile steel steel
20000 psi for the
special types of
reinforcement
covered by the
First Schedule
hereto

Note:
NZS 3101P:1970 units of [psi]

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-36

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Table C5D.8: Notation used in New Zealand standards for walls

Notation NZS NZS NZS NZS NZS
3101:2006 3101:1995 3101:1982 3101P:1970* 1900:1964
(bylaw)

Design axial load at the ultimate

𝑁𝑁 ∗ 𝑁𝑁 ∗ 𝑃𝑃u N/A N/A
limit state

The clear vertical distance

between floors or other effective
𝐿𝐿n 𝐿𝐿n 𝐿𝐿n h h
horizontal lines of lateral support,
or clear span

Wall thickness 𝑡𝑡, 𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 𝑏𝑏 𝑑𝑑, 𝑏𝑏 t

Effective length factor for Euler

𝑘𝑘e N/A N/A N/A N/A
buckling

Effective length factor for flexural

𝑘𝑘ft N/A N/A N/A N/A
torsional buckling

Horizontal length of wall 𝐿𝐿w 𝐿𝐿w 𝑙𝑙w D N/A

Thickness of boundary region of

wall at potential plastic hinge 𝑏𝑏m 𝑏𝑏m N/A N/A N/A
region

Total height of wall from base to

ℎw ℎw ℎw H N/A
top

Aspect ratio of wall (ℎw /𝐿𝐿w ) 𝐴𝐴r 𝐴𝐴r N/A N/A N/A

Yield strength of non-prestressed

𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y 𝑓𝑓y N/A
reinforcement

Yield strength of transverse

𝑓𝑓yh 𝑓𝑓yh 𝑓𝑓yh N/A N/A
reinforcement

Yield strength of shear

𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓yt 𝑓𝑓yh 𝑓𝑓y N/A
reinforcement

Ratio of vertical (longitudinal) wall

reinforcement area to gross 𝐴𝐴t
𝜌𝜌n = N/A N/A N/A N/A
concrete area of horizontal 𝐴𝐴g
section

The ratio of vertical wall 𝐴𝐴s 𝐴𝐴s 𝐴𝐴s

reinforcement area to unit area of 𝜌𝜌l = 𝜌𝜌l = 𝜌𝜌l = N/A N/A
𝑡𝑡𝑠𝑠v 𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠v 𝑏𝑏𝑠𝑠v
horizontal gross concrete section

Diameter of longitudinal bar 𝑑𝑑b 𝑑𝑑b 𝑑𝑑b N/A N/A

Centre-to-centre spacing of shear

𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑠 N/A N/A
reinforcement along member

Computed distance of neutral axis

from the compression edge of the 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐 N/A N/A
wall section

A limiting depth for calculation of

the special transverse 𝑐𝑐c 𝑐𝑐c 𝑐𝑐c N/A N/A
reinforcement

Overstrength factor 𝜙𝜙ow 𝜙𝜙o 𝜙𝜙o N/A N/A

Area of concrete core 𝐴𝐴c ∗ 𝐴𝐴c ∗ 𝐴𝐴c ∗ N/A N/A

Gross area of concrete section 𝐴𝐴g ∗ 𝐴𝐴g ∗ 𝐴𝐴g ∗ N/A N/A

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-37

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Notation NZS NZS NZS NZS NZS

3101:2006 3101:1995 3101:1982 3101P:1970* 1900:1964
(bylaw)

Dimension of concrete core of

rectangular section measured
perpendicular to the direction of ℎ’’ ℎ’’ ℎ’’ N/A N/A
the hoop bars to outside of
peripheral hoop

Centre-to-centre spacing of hoop

𝑠𝑠h 𝑠𝑠h 𝑠𝑠h N/A N/A
sets

Structural type factor ---- ---- 𝑆𝑆 N/A N/A

Displacement ductility capacity

N/A 𝜇𝜇 N/A N/A N/A
relied on in the design

Area used to calculate shear area 𝐴𝐴cv N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total nominal shear strength 𝑉𝑉n 𝑉𝑉n 𝑉𝑉n N/A N/A

Design shear force 𝑉𝑉 ∗ 𝑉𝑉 ∗ 𝑉𝑉u 𝑉𝑉u N/A

Concrete shear strength 𝑉𝑉c N/A N/A N/A N/A

Nominal shear strength provided

𝑉𝑉s N/A N/A N/A N/A
by shear reinforcement

Shear stress provided by

𝑣𝑣c 𝑣𝑣c 𝑣𝑣c 𝑣𝑣c N/A
concrete

Centre-to-centre spacing of
𝑠𝑠2 𝑠𝑠2 𝑠𝑠2 𝑠𝑠 N/A
horizontal shear reinforcement

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-38

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Appendix C5E: Diaphragm Grillage Modelling

Methodology

C5E.1 Assessment Approach

For buildings that are essentially rectangular with relatively uniform distribution of vertical
lateral force resisting systems across the plan of the building, and no significant change of
plan with height, simple, hand-drawn strut and tie solutions can be used.

However, buildings with significant asymmetry in the location of lateral force resisting
elements (distribution across the building plan, termination up the height of the building,
varying stiffness and/or strength between vertical elements) may require a more
sophisticated analysis. For these types of structures, a grillage method can be used to obtain
diaphragm design actions. Details of a simple grillage method appropriate for design office
use are given below (Holmes, 2015).

C5E.2 Grillage Section Properties

Grillage members are typically modelled as concrete elements, without reinforcement
modelled, in an elastic analysis program. Figure C5E.1 illustrates a grillage model developed
for a complicated podium diaphragm.

Figure C5E.1: Example of a grillage model for podium diaphragm (Holmes, 2015)

The recommended dimensions of the grillage elements for the modelling of a flat plate are
based on work completed by Hrennikoff (1941), as shown in Figure C5E.2. This solution is
based on a square grillage (with diagonal members). Rectangular grillages can also be used;
the dimensions of the grillage beams will vary from those given for the square grillage
solution (Hrennikoff, 1941).

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-39

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5E.2: Grillage beam dimensions for the square grillage (Hrennikoff, 1941)

Floors can be assumed to be uncracked for the purposes of diaphragm assessments. Given
that diaphragms typically contain low quantities of longitudinal reinforcing steel and
considering transformed section effects, it is not considered necessary to include longitudinal
reinforcement when determining grillage section properties. An exception to this is the
determination of the section properties for collector elements.

It is recommended that the effective stiffness of collector elements is based on the

transformed section of the concrete plus:
• the bars reinforcing the collector element, or
• the structural steel beam acting in a collector.

Typically, when a collector is stretched and the strain in the steel approaches the yield strain,
there will be significant cracking of the concrete that contributes to the collector. The
effective stiffness of the collector, in tension, will reduce. However, for the typical steel
contents of collector elements this reduction in stiffness is relatively small.

Note:
The collector is also typically required to resist compression forces due to the cyclic nature
of seismic loading. Therefore, for modelling the collector element it is generally satisfactory
to use either the transformed section of concrete and steel or the steel without the concrete.
The combined concrete and steel option is stiffer than the steel-only option, so will attract
more force.

C5E.3 Effective Width of Grillage Members

The recommended effective grillage member widths for orthogonal and diagonal members
are as follows (Hrennikoff, 1941):
• Orthogonal members:
- width A = 0.75 x grid spacing
- carries both tension and compression forces
• Diagonal members:
- width B = 0.53 x grid spacing
- carries compression forces only.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-40

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5E.4 Effective Thickness of Grillage Members

The recommended thickness of the grillage beams depends on the floor construction as
follows:
• Hollow-core and Tee units:
- parallel to the units: average thickness (per metre width) to match the combined areas
of the topping plus unit
- perpendicular to the units: the average thickness (per metre width) of the combined
areas of the topping and the top flange of the units
• Rib and timber in-fill:
- parallel to the ribs: average thickness (per metre width) of combined areas of the
topping and ribs
- perpendicular to the ribs: average thickness (per metre width) of the topping only
• In situ slabs and flat slabs:
- combined thickness of the topping and units (if present) parallel and transverse to the
units (if present)
• Steel profile composite floors:
- parallel to the webs: average of cross-section flange and web
- transverse to the webs: thickness of the flange
• Spaced hollow-core units with in situ slabs:
- following the concepts above, the designer should rationalise the effective thickness,
parallel and perpendicular to the units.

C5E.5 Spacing of Grillage Members

It is recommended that a grillage beam spacing of 1.0 m is typically adequate to produce
reasonable distribution of forces (Gardiner, 2011). It is advisable to try larger and smaller
grid spacings to determine if the model is sufficiently refined.

In general terms, the point of sufficient refinement for the grid spacing is when the actions
reported in the beams of the grillage change very little from the previous trial.

In order to get a desirable, higher resolution of forces, grillage spacings should be reduced
while maintaining the square format (divide the main square grillage into sets of smaller
squares) for the following situations:
• Around the nodes where vertical structures (e.g. beams, columns, walls and eccentrically
braced frames (EBFs)) would be connected to the floor plate. This applies to vertical
elements, both on the perimeter of the floor as well as within the interior of the floor:
- internal frames
- frames, walls or EBFs, etc. next to floor penetrations (typically stairs, escalators and
lifts)
• Around floor penetrations (typically stairs, escalators and lifts)
• At re-entrant corners in the floor plate

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-41

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

• For collectors, smaller sets of square grillages may be used either side of a collector (a
grillage member with properties relevant to the collector performance). If a collector is
relatively wide (say, greater than half the typical grillage spacing) consider modelling
the collector as a small grillage/truss along the length of a collector, with the smaller set
of squares either side of this.

C5E.6 Supports, Nodes and Restraint Conditions

The grillage is set up as a framework of struts. The junctions of the strut grillage framework
are called “nodes”. Floor inertia loads will typically be applied to all of the nodes of the
grillage. Each vertical structural element will be associated with one or more nodes in the
grillage as follows:
• Columns – typically a single node
• Walls – typically a number of nodes along the length of the wall.

The vertical translational degree of freedom of nodes which coincide with vertical structural
elements (i.e. columns or wall elements) should be fixed. The horizontal translational
degrees of freedom of these nodes should be left unrestrained. The reasons for this are as
follows:
• Forces going in to or out of the nodes associated with the vertical elements are in
equilibrium with the inertia and transfer or deformation compatibility forces within the
floor plate.
• If the horizontal degree of freedom was fixed, the loads applied to these nodes would go
directly to the support point and would not participate in the force distribution of the
floor plate.
• Transfer or deformation compatibility forces are internal forces and must balance at the
vertical supports and across the floor plate.

Note:
If all of the horizontal degrees of freedom are left unrestrained in a computer analysis model
the analysis will not run. Therefore, it is recommended that two nodes are fixed; with both
horizontal degrees of freedom fixed at one node and with fixity only in the direction of the
applied inertia at the second node (i.e. free to move in the perpendicular direction).

C5E.7 Loss of Load Paths due to Diaphragm Damage

Modify the grillage to account for anticipated diaphragm damage. For example, where floor
to beam separation similar to that illustrated in Figure C5E.3 is anticipated due to beam
elongation, the diagonal strut in the grillage should be removed recognising that the
compression struts may not be able to traverse the damaged area (refer also to Figure C5E.3).

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-42

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5E.3: Recommended grillage modelling at corner columns when frame elongation
is anticipated (Holmes, 2015)

C5E.8 Application of Inertia Forces Introduced into the

Grillage Model
Inertia of the floor, determined from pseudo-Equivalent Static Analysis (pESA) (refer to
Section C2), is distributed over the framework of grillage elements, at the nodes of the
orthogonal members of the grillage and in accordance to the tributary mass at each node:
• Tributary mass attributed to each node will include the seismic mass of the floor and any
of the vertical structures attached to that node or nodes of the floor (i.e. walls, columns,
beams, braces etc.).
• As a result of the “weighted” distribution of inertia associated with the appropriate mass
attributed to each node, the distribution of inertia will not be uniform across the floor.
There are concentrations of mass at frame lines, for example (beams, columns and
cladding), and a more even distribution of inertia over the floor areas.
• Note that no inertia is placed where the diagonal member cross, because there is no node
where the diagonal members pass. The diagonal members run between the nodes of the
orthogonal grillage.

Inertia forces, applied to the structure, will be balanced by the forces at the supports/nodes
of the floor plate. Other “internal” forces that balance the remaining portion of the forces at
supports/nodes arise from deformation compatibility between the vertical structural systems
being constrained to similar lateral displaced shapes. The largest of these compatibility
forces are traditionally called “transfer” forces. Deformation compatibility forces occur in
all buildings on all floors to varying degrees. All forces, applied and internal, must be in
equilibrium.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-43

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5E.9 Application of “Floor Forces”

Forces entering or leaving the floor where the floor is connected to the vertical lateral force
resisting structures have been called “floor forces”, 𝐹𝐹Di . Floor forces can be determined from
the results of the pESA (refer to Section C2) and, as illustrated in Figure C5, are equal to the
difference in shears in vertical lateral load resisting elements above and below the diaphragm
being assessed.

Figure C5: Floor forces, 𝑭𝑭𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃 , determined from pESA (Holmes, 2015)

It is important that members of the vertical lateral force resisting systems in the pESA
analysis model have in-plane and out-of-plane stiffness and that the analysis model has been
enabled to report both major and minor axis actions of vertical elements.

Outputs for such elements should report actions in the X and Y directions. Therefore, for a
given direction of earthquake attack, at each node there will be forces to be applied in the X
and Y directions (refer to Figure C5E.5). Care is required to ensure that sign conventions
(i.e. input and output of actions) are maintained.

Figure C5E.5: Floor forces 𝑭𝑭𝐃𝐃𝐃𝐃 in both X and Y directions at nodes connected to vertical
elements – for one direction of earthquake attack (Holmes, 2015)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-44

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5E.10 Out-of-Plane Push and Pull of Vertical Elements

Vertical elements (i.e. walls, columns, braced frames) are pushed out of plane at some stage
during a seismic event. Depending on the magnitude of the inter-storey drift demands, these
elements may yield, exhibiting a permanent displacement out-of-plane. On reversal of the
direction of seismic displacement, the element will need to be pulled back the other way
(into the building). This action will subject the diaphragm to out-of-plane floor forces, 𝐹𝐹OP,i ,
which can be significant.

Consideration is required of when and where the push or pull forces develop. One side of a
building has columns being pushed out of the building, while the other side is pulling the
columns back in to the building.

A recommended methodology for assessing the out-of-plane forces, 𝐹𝐹OP,i , is as follows:

• Determine the out-of-plane displacement profile for a column, etc. from the pESA.
• Using a linear elastic analysis program impose this displacement profile on the element.
• Determine the out-of-plane bending moment at the base of the element. If the
displacement is sufficient to yield the base of the element then scale the moments
determined by the linear elastic analysis to the overstrength of the element base.
• Determine the shear force distribution for this overstrength moment.

At each floor level, the difference in this shear force distribution is to be added to the pESA
model, which is then re-run and the out-of-plane forces, 𝐹𝐹OP,i , determined accordingly (i.e.
taking the difference in out-of-plane shear in the vertical elements above and below the
diaphragm being assessed).

C5E.11 Redistribution of Diaphragm Loads

It is probable that the reinforcing steel in the diaphragm may be insufficient to resist the
tensions determined from the pESA.

One method to account for floor regions that may have yielding and to allow for a
redistribution (plastic) of forces within the diaphragm is to adjust the section properties of
the yielding members. Accordingly, adjust the stiffness of the yielding members until the
yield forces are the outputs from the elastic pESA.

For each load case, it may take a couple of iterations to stabilise the redistribution of forces
within the diaphragm.

For those situations when connections between the vertical lateral load resisting elements
and the diaphragm are grossly overloaded (i.e. if very limited connectivity is provided) both
the global building model (i.e. the analysis model used to assess the capacity of the vertical
lateral load resisting elements) and the pESA analysis model may need to be adjusted so the
affected vertical lateral load resisting elements are disconnected from the diaphragm.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-45

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Appendix C5F: Deformation Capacity of Precast

Concrete Floor Systems

C5F.1 General
Deformation demands of the primary lateral force resisting systems can cause damage to the
diaphragm structure (as a result of beam elongation or incompatible relative displacements
between the floor and adjacent beams, walls or steel braced frames). Figures C5F.1 and
C5F.2 illustrate two common examples of incompatible deformations between primary
structure and a floor system.

Note:
The material in this section has largely been sourced from the University of Canterbury
Research Report 2010-02 by Fenwick et al. (2010).

Figure C5F.1: Incompatible displacements between precast floor units and beams
(Fenwick et al., 2010)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-46

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5F.2: Incompatible displacements between precast floor units and braced bay
(Fenwick et al., 2010)

When present, precast concrete floor units effectively reinforce blocks of a diaphragm and
concentrate any movement into cracks, which open up at the weak section between the floor
and supporting structural elements. Where beams may form plastic hinges in a major
earthquake, elongation within the plastic hinges can create wide cracks by pushing apart the
beams or other structural components supporting the precast floor units. This can lead to the
formation of wide cracks around the perimeter of bays of floor slabs containing prestressed
precast units (refer to Figures C5F.3 and C5F.4).

Compression forces (struts) and tension forces (ties) may not be able to traverse damaged
areas of floor. When assessing diaphragms, due allowance needs to be made for the loss of
load paths, anticipating localised damage within the diaphragm.

Tests have shown that a wide crack does not develop where a linking slab is located between
the first precast unit and a column in a perimeter frame – provided it does not have a
transverse beam framing into it and the column is tied into the floor with reinforcement that
can sustain the tension force given in NZS 3101:2006, clause 10.3.6 (Lindsay, 2004). Refer
to Figure C5F.3(c).

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-47

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5F.2 Extent of Diaphragm Cracking

Figures C5F.3 and C5F.5(a) show the locations of wide cracks, which may limit strut and tie
action in a floor. The length of these cracks round a perimeter frame (lines 1 and A in Figure
C5F.5(a)) depends on the relative strength of the perimeter beams in lateral bending to the
strength of reinforcement tying the floor into the beams. A method of assessing the lengths
of these cracks is presented below.

Figure C5F.3: Separation crack between floor and supporting beam due to frame elongation
(Fenwick et al., 2010)

Figure C5F.4: Observed separation between floor and supporting beam due to frame
elongation in 2011 Canterbury earthquakes (Des Bull)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-48

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

A wide crack is assumed to be one where the reinforcement tying the floor to a beam, or
other structural element, has been yielded. In these zones shear transfer by conventional strut
and tie type action is likely to be negligible.

(a) Plan on part of a floor showing areas where shear can be transferred to perimeter frames

(b) Effective zone for reinforcement (c) Intermediate column acts as node for strut and
acting near a column tie forces to transfer shear to frame

Figure C5F.5: Location of cracks and strut and tie forces in a diaphragm
(Fenwick et al., 2010)

The extent of cracking along an intermediate beam, such as the beam on line C in
Figure C5F.5 depends on the relative magnitudes of inelastic deformation sustained in the
perimeter frame (such as the frame on line 1) and an adjacent intermediate frame (such as
frame on line 3 in Figure C5F.5(a)). Where the intermediate frame is flexible compared to
the perimeter frame, extensive inelastic deformation together with the associated elongation
may occur in the perimeter frame with no appreciable inelastic deformation in the
intermediate frame.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-49

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5F.3 Method for Assessing Crack Length

The length over which a wide crack may develop between a perimeter beam and an adjacent
floor slab can be assessed from the lateral flexural strengths of the beam and the continuity
reinforcement tying the floor to the beam. Figure C5F.6 shows the separation of a corner
column due to elongation in beams framing into the column.

(a) Plan on floor showing separation of (b) Plan of length of wide crack
beams from floor

Figure C5F.6: Separation between floor and supporting beam (Fenwick et al., 2010)

The beams are displaced laterally, opening up a wide crack at the interface between the floor
slab and beam such that the strain in the reinforcement tying the beam to the floor is in excess
of the yield strain. The length of the wide crack is determined by the lateral strength of the
beam. If the floor slab is assumed to provide restraint to torsion the critical length, 𝐿𝐿crack , is
given by:

2𝑀𝑀o
𝐿𝐿crack = � …C5F.1
𝐹𝐹

where:
𝑀𝑀o = flexural overstrength of beam about the vertical axis
𝐹𝐹 = yield force of continuity reinforcing per unit length

When calculating the flexural overstrength of the beam, 𝑀𝑀o , the effects of strain hardening
and axial load should be included. The axial load can be taken equal to the tension force
carried by outstanding portion of the effective flange, i.e. the contribution of slab
reinforcement to overstrength of plastic hinge region, as defined in NZS 3101:2006,
clause 9.4.1.6.2.

Note that when the equation is applied to an intermediate column, where the precast floor
units span past potential plastic hinges (such as column B on line 1 in Figure C5F.5) the
axial load can be high and this can make a very considerable contribution to the flexural
strength. In the calculation of 𝑀𝑀o it should be assumed that the floor slab provides torsional
restraint to the beam as this gives a conservative assessment both of the flexural strength and
of the length of the wide crack.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-50

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

C5F.4 Inter-storey Drift Capacity of Diaphragm

Components

C5F.4.1 General
The assessment of inter-storey drift capacity of diaphragms containing precast concrete
components needs to consider the following:
• loss of support of precast floor units, and
• failure of precast floor units due to seismic actions, including the consideration of
incompatible displacements.

C5F.4.2 Loss of support

Overview
There are two key aspects to consider when assessing precast concrete floor units for loss of
support:
• loss of support due to spalling of concrete near the front face of the support ledge and
near the back of the precast floor unit, together with the movement of precast floor unit
relative to the supporting beam, and
• loss of support due to failure of an unreinforced, or inadequately reinforced, supporting
ledge Figure C5F.7(b). This may occur due to structural actions in the supporting
elements, prying action of the precast floor unit on the support ledge, and the
development of bond cracks associated with longitudinal beam reinforcing Figure C5F.8.

(a) Support ledge tied (b) Hollowcore supported

into beam on cover concrete

Figure C5F.7: Support on concrete ledge tied into the supporting element or on cover
concrete (Fenwick et al., 2010)

(a) Bond cracks (b) Prying action

Figure C5F.8: Bond cracks and tensile stresses due to prying action of precast floor units
(Fenwick et al., 2010)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-51

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Loss of support does need not to be considered for a precast hollow-core floor unit if two
cells at the end of the unit have been broken out and filled with reinforced concrete such that
the yield force of the reinforcement exceeds twice the maximum shear force sustained by
the unit. In addition, this reinforcement must be adequately anchored to sustain the yield
force both in the hollow core cells and in the supporting beam.

When assessing loss of support due to spalling and relative movement the methodology in
Section C2 should be followed. When assessing the adequacy of existing seating widths for
loss of the support the following needs to be considered:
• inadequate allowance for construction tolerance
• movement of precast floor unit units relative to the ledge providing support due to
elongation and rotation of support beams
• spalling of concrete from the front face of support ledge and back face of the precast
floor unit
• creep, shrinkage and thermal movement of the floor, and
• crushing of concrete resisting the support reaction due to bearing failure.

Allowances for each of these actions are detailed below.

Inadequate allowance for construction tolerance

In general, precast units have been constructed on the short side to reduce problems in
placing the units on supporting beams. In an assessment, ideally the construction tolerance
should be measured. Where these measurements are not available it is recommended that a
construction tolerance of 20 mm is assumed. This gives an initial contact length between the
precast floor unit and support ledge of the dimensioned length of the support ledge minus
20 mm.

Relative movement of floor unit due to elongation and rotation

Elongation of plastic hinges can push beams supporting precast floor units apart and reduce
the contact length between the precast units and support ledge. However, as elongation is
related to the mid-depth of the beam containing the plastic hinge it is also necessary to allow
for further movement between precast units and support ledge due to rotation of the
supporting beam (i.e. geometric elongation) as illustrated in Figure C5F.9.

Figure C5F.9: Displacement at support of precast unit due to elongation and rotation of
support beam (Fenwick et al., 2010)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-52

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Displacement of structural members due to frame elongation can be calculated using the
following procedure, which is based on experimental measurements. Experimental testing
on structures with hollow-core floor units (Fenwick, et al., 1981; Mathews, 2004;
MacPherson, 2005; Lindsay, 2004) has demonstrated that frame elongation is partially
restrained by precast concrete floor units when they span parallel to the beams.
Figure C5F.10 illustrates three plastic hinge elongation types.

Figure C5F.10: Part plan of floor showing plastic hinge elongation types U, R1 and R2
(Fenwick et al., 2010)

For type U and R1 plastic hinges little restraint is provided by the floor slab and the
elongation at mid-depth of the beam, ∆L , can be calculated as:
𝜙𝜙
∆L = 0.0014ℎb 𝜙𝜙u ≤ 0.037ℎb …C5F.2
y

where:
ℎb = beam depth
𝜙𝜙y = beam first yield curvature as defined in Section C5.5.2.5
𝜙𝜙u = ultimate curvature demand on beam determined using plastic hinge
lengths specified in Section C5.5.2.5.

For type R2 plastic hinges where there is a transverse beam framing into the column the
elongation at mid-depth of the beam, ∆L , can be calculated in accordance with
Equation C5F.3 where the terms are as defined above:
𝜙𝜙
∆L = 0.0007ℎb 𝜙𝜙u ≤ 0.02ℎb …C5F.3
y

Equations C5F.4 and C5F.5 are applicable to reinforced concrete beams that are sustaining
inelastic deformations. Some recoverable frame elongation can still be expected at yield.
Pending further study, a value in the order of 0.5% beam depth is considered appropriate for
assessing the performance of nominally ductile frames.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-53

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Geometric elongation associated with movement between precast units and support ledge
due to rotation of the supporting beam can be calculated as:
ℎ
∆g = � 2b − ℎL � 𝜃𝜃 …C5F.4

where:
ℎb = beam depth
ℎL = ledge height (i.e. vertical distance between top of beam and height
at which precast floor unit is supported)
𝜃𝜃 = beam rotation.

Total movement of precast floor unit units relative to the ledge providing support due to
elongation and rotation of support beams, ∆rot , is calculated as:

∆rot = ∆L + ∆g …C5F.5

where:
∆L and ∆g are as defined above.

Spalling at support
Spalling of unarmoured concrete occurs from the front of the support ledge and the back
face of the hollow core units, reducing the contact length available to support the precast
units. Tests have indicated that the loss in seating length due to spalling and prying action of
precast units increases with the contact length between the unit and support ledge. Assessed
loss due to spalling, ∆spall , is given by:

∆spall = 0.5𝐿𝐿s ≤ 35 𝑚𝑚𝑚𝑚 C5F.6

where:
𝐿𝐿s is the initial contact length between precast unit and support ledge.

Where a low friction bearing strip has been used the value given by Equation C5F.6 can be
reduced by multiplying it by 0.75.

Spalling does not need to be consider if both the unit and the ledge are armoured.

Creep, shrinkage and thermal actions

Shortening of a precast floor unit due to creep, shrinkage and/or thermal strains may occur
at either or both of the supports. Once a crack has been initiated at one end it is possible that
all the movement in the span will occur at that end. Hence, two limiting cases should be
considered: all the movement occurs at the end, or no movement occurs at the end.

Opening up a crack due to creep and shrinkage movement reduces the shear transfer that can
develop across the crack. This reduces the potential prying action of the hollow core unit on
the beam. In this situation the reduction in prying action can either reduce or eliminate the
spalling that occurs from the back face of the hollow core unit.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-54

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
In recognition of this action, the calculated movement due to creep, shrinkage and thermal
strain is not added to the loss of length due to spalling. The greater loss in contact length due
to spalling or to creep, shrinkage and thermal strain is assumed to apply.

For practical purposes it is recommended that the loss in support length due to creep,
shrinkage and thermal strain may be taken as 0.6 mm per metre of length of the precast unit.

Bearing failure
Sufficient contact length should remain between each hollow core unit and the supporting
ledge, after allowance has been made for the loss of supporting length identified above, to
prevent crushing of concrete due to this reaction.

The critical reaction is likely to arise due to gravity loading plus the additional reaction
induced by vertical seismic movement of the ground. The required bearing area can be
calculated from the allowable bearing stress in NZS 3101: 2006, clause 16.3.

C5F.4.3 Failure of precast floor units

When assessing the capacity of a precast floor unit the following potential failure modes
need to be considered:
• positive moment failure near support
• negative moment failure near support
• shear failure in negative moment zones
• incompatible displacements between precast floor units and other structural elements,
and
• torsional failure of precast floor units.

Consideration of vertical seismic loading, calculated using Section 8 of NZS 1170.5:2004,

should be included. Detailed guidance on how to assess the above failure modes for floors
with precast concrete hollow-core units is provided in the University of Canterbury Research
Report 2010-02 by Fenwick et al. (2010). Similar principles can be used to assess the
performance of other types of precast concrete floor units.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-55

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Appendix C5G: Buckling of Vertical Reinforcement

and Out-of-Plane Instability in Shear
Walls
This appendix (a) outlines a possible approach to assessing buckling of reinforcing bars in
RC elements with emphasis on shear walls and (b) provides background information on the
out-of-plane instability of shear walls.

C5G.1.1 Buckling of Vertical Reinforcement

Please note that although there has been a significant amount of research into this
phenomenon (Mander et al., 1984; Mau and El-Mabsout, 1989; Mau, 1990; Pantazopoulou,
1998; Rodriguez el al., 1999; Bae et al., 2005; Urmson and Mander, 2011; Rodriguez et al.
2013), guidance for assessing existing buildings is currently limited.

In particular, the effect of the cycles (reflected in the dependence of the critical strain at the
onset of buckling (𝜀𝜀s,cr ) on the maximum tensile strain experienced by the bar before the
cycle reversal takes place (𝜀𝜀st ) has not been incorporated in design or assessment codes or
standards.

Note:
An illustration of this phenomenon and a possible definition of the buckling critical strain is
shown in Figure C5G.1 with reference to a schematic strain profile in the critical section and
to the stress-strain hysteresis loop of a bar located close to the extreme fibre of the wall
section. Four stress-strain states (1-4) are described.
The maximum tensile strain reached in the first part of the cycle is identified as point 1
(𝜀𝜀s = 𝜀𝜀st , 𝑓𝑓s = 𝑓𝑓st ). Two strain levels are used for the same point, representing large and
moderate initial elongations of the steel: 𝜀𝜀st = 4.0% and 𝜀𝜀st = 2.5%, respectively. If the failure
is not reached at this point and the strain reversal occurs, the steel follows the descending
branch of the hysteresis loop from point 1 to the zero stresses point 2 (𝜀𝜀s = 𝜀𝜀0+ , 𝑓𝑓s = 0).
The strain associated with point 2, 𝜀𝜀0+ , can be estimated using Equation C5G.1 where 𝑓𝑓st is
the stress in the steel at maximum elongation (point 1) and 𝐸𝐸s is the modulus of elasticity of
the steel. In the non-trivial case, where the steel has entered the inelastic range in tension,
𝑓𝑓st can be conservatively taken as 𝑓𝑓y . As a result, Equation C5G.1 becomes Equation C5G.2

𝜀𝜀0+ = 𝜀𝜀st − 𝑓𝑓st ⁄𝐸𝐸s ...C5G.1

𝜀𝜀0+ = 𝜀𝜀st − 𝜀𝜀y ...C5G.2

From point 2 towards point 3, the zero strain point (𝜀𝜀s = 0, fs < 0), the bar is subjected to
compression stresses, but it remains under tensile strains. If point 3 can be reached (i.e. the
bar does not buckle beforehand), the bar can withstand increasing compression strains until
point 4 is reached; the point where the onset of buckling occurs (Rodriguez et al., 1999,
2013). The horizontal distance between points 2 and 4, 𝜀𝜀𝑝𝑝∗ , can be calculated with
Equation C5G.3 (Rodriguez et al., 2013), as a function of the restraining ratio 𝑠𝑠v /𝑑𝑑b . If the

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-56

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

critical buckling strain, 𝜀𝜀s,cr , is defined with reference to the zero strain axis, it can be
calculated with Equation C5G.4 .

11−(5⁄4)(𝑠𝑠v /𝑑𝑑b )
𝜀𝜀p∗ = ...C5G.3
100

𝜀𝜀s,cr = 𝜀𝜀st − 𝜀𝜀y − 𝜀𝜀p∗ ...C5G.4

Consider, as an example, the damage developed at the free end of the walls W1 and W2
presented in Figure C5G.1. These walls were part of two buildings constructed in
Christchurch and were damaged during the 22 February 2011 earthquake.
In Figure C5G.1(d), it can be observed that the spacing of the confinement hoops used in
W1 was large (about 300 mm), and the restraining ratio was of the order of 𝑠𝑠v /𝑑𝑑b . = 17, as
the vertical bar had a diameter 𝑑𝑑b = 18 mm. However, for such a large restraining ratio the
formula proposed by Rodriguez et al. (2013) is no longer valid and buckling will inevitably
occur before the zero strain point can be reached. That point is represented by point 5.
As shown in the same figure, in W2 the confinement hoops were spaced at a much smaller
distance, preventing the vertical bar from buckling and effectively confining the concrete.

Strain profile Steel hysteresis loop εst , fst

1
εst = 4.0% 1 εst - ε0 ≈ fst/Es
+
sv/db = 8 → εp* = 0.0100 (W1)
sv/db = 5 → εp* = 0.0475 (W2) 2
Closing Zero stress
crack
direction 2
εst = 2.5% Zero
1
strain
2 εs,crW2 < 0
5 (W1) 4 (W2)
4 5 (W1)
3 (W2) εs,cr W1 ε0+
εcm = 0.1% to 0.3%
εp*
(a) (b)

(c) (d)
W1 W2

Wall 1 (W1) Wall 2 (W2) (e) (f)

Figure C5G.1: Buckling critical strain definition (Quintana-Galo et al. 2016)

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-57

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

A strain limit for buckling to be used in monotonic moment-curvature analysis can be

established in two ways.
• The first approach is to use the maximum strain associated to the ultimate curvature, 𝜀𝜀sm
to obtain 𝜀𝜀s,cr, such that 𝜀𝜀st = 𝜀𝜀sm in Equation C5G.5. The strain 𝜀𝜀s,cr should be compared
with the maximum compression strain in the inverse direction of the moment. If the
section is symmetric in geometry and reinforcement, 𝜀𝜀s,cr, can be compared with the
maximum compression strain in the concrete at 𝜀𝜀cu or 𝜀𝜀cu,c as corresponds, which is the
strain that governs in most of the cases. If the maximum strain of the steel 𝜀𝜀sm controls,
as occurs in members with large flanges acting in tension, there is no need to check for
buckling as the reversal cannot occur. For large values of 𝜀𝜀sm smaller, but close to 6%,
𝜀𝜀s,cr takes positive values, indicating that buckling will occur while the bar experiences
tensile strains (point 5 in Figure C5G.1).
• The second approach is to set the ultimate strain of the concrete as 𝜀𝜀cm = 𝜀𝜀cu or 𝜀𝜀cu,c as
corresponds, and calculate the maximum tensile strain 𝜀𝜀st = 𝜀𝜀su,b , which is the
maximum tensile strain that a bar can develop such that buckling of that bar under
reversed bending actions occurs at the same time than crushing of the concrete. Setting
𝜀𝜀s,cr = −𝜀𝜀cm , and 𝜀𝜀st = 𝜀𝜀su,b in Equation C5G.5:
r
𝜀𝜀su,b = −𝜀𝜀cm + 𝜀𝜀y + 𝜀𝜀p∗ ...C5G.5

The superscript r is used to indicate that this concrete strain corresponds to the cross-
section under reversed actions.

Note:
The ultimate curvature of structural members at buckling limit strain can be calculated using
Equation X.X with 𝜀𝜀sm = 𝜀𝜀su,b calculated with Equation XX.
As a general rule, if the spacing of confinement stirrups is greater than 7𝑑𝑑b , as is typical of
older construction practice, buckling is likely to control the capacity of the member, as the
reinforcement bar after buckling does not follow a stable stress-strain path in compression
(Mau, 1990).
Typical stress-strain curves for different values of 𝑠𝑠v /𝑑𝑑b (6.5, 10 15) are presented in
Figure C5G.2 (Mau and El-Mabsout, 1989). Figure C5G.3 shows the maximum
compression normalised stress and the lateral displacement of the bar for different
restraining ratios.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-58

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Figure C5G.2: Stress-strain curves of a steel bar in compression for 𝒔𝒔𝐯𝐯 /𝒅𝒅𝐛𝐛 = 6.5, 10 and 15
(Mau and El-Mabsout, 1989)

(a) (b)

Figure C5G.3: (a) normalised peak load (relative to buckling stress) and critical restraining
ratio 𝒔𝒔𝐯𝐯 /𝒅𝒅𝐛𝐛 = 7, (b) lateral displacement of the bar for different restraining ratios 𝒔𝒔𝐯𝐯 /𝒅𝒅𝐛𝐛
(Mau, 1990)

Note:
An indicative limit of the buckling strain limit in the steel rebars can be taken as the
maximum tension strain in the steel that, given the 𝑠𝑠/𝑑𝑑b ratio, will produce buckling at a
compression strain equal to the maximum (ultimate) strain of the concrete.
As an example, for 𝑠𝑠/𝑑𝑑b = 6, 𝜀𝜀y = 0.25%, and assuming a well confined concrete 𝜀𝜀cu= 1%,
the maximum strain in the steel governing the buckling would be about 3%.
Considering that older construction details are likely to be worse than the assumed value of
𝑠𝑠/𝑑𝑑b = 6 and 𝜀𝜀cu = 1% this would suggest that 𝜀𝜀su = 3% represents a simplistic upper limit to
be adopted to account for buckling effects in section analysis. This is instead of 𝜀𝜀su = 6%
assumed in Table XX considering a flexural-dominated and ideal behaviour.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-59

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Based on Equation XX, the ultimate curvature at the onset of buckling, 𝝓𝝓∗𝐮𝐮 , and the
corresponding plastic displacement, 𝛿𝛿𝑝𝑝∗ , can be estimated using Equations C5G.6 and C5G.7
respectively.
∗
𝜀𝜀p
𝜙𝜙u∗ = 𝛾𝛾𝑙𝑙 ...C5G.6
w

𝛿𝛿p∗ = 𝐿𝐿p �𝜙𝜙u∗ − 𝜙𝜙y ��ℎw − 0.5𝐿𝐿p � ...C5G.7

where:
𝛾𝛾𝑙𝑙w is shown in Figure C5G.4.

Figure C5G.4: Definition of 𝜸𝜸𝒍𝒍𝐰𝐰 according to Rodriguez et al. (2013)

C5G.1.2 Out-of-plane Instability

Out-of-plane (or lateral) instability is currently identified as one of the common failure
modes of slender rectangular RC walls. This ‘global’ mode of failure, which involves a large
portion of a wall element as opposite to the ‘local’ bar buckling phenomenon where a single
rebar is affected, was previously observed in experimental studies of rectangular walls.
However, it was not considered as a major failure pattern until the recent earthquakes in
Chile (2010) and Christchurch (2011).

Note:
Following the Canterbury earthquake sequence extensive numerical and experimental
investigations are being carried out to scrutinise the effect of key parameters assumed to be
influential in the formation of out-of-plane instability, such as residual strain and peak tensile
strain at previous cycle, wall slenderness ratio, wall length, axial load ratio and cumulative
inelastic cycles experienced during the earthquake.
The final aim is to develop recommendations consistent with the approach followed in this
document and integrate this failure mode within the derivation of the force-displacement
capacity curve of the assessed wall.
For more detailed information and preliminary results refer to Dashti et al. (2015, 2016).

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-60

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

Note:
Paulay and Priestley (1993) made recommendations for the prediction of the onset of out-
of-plane instability based on the observed response in tests of rectangular structural walls
and theoretical considerations of fundamental structural behaviour.
Because of very limited available experimental evidence, engineering judgement was relied
on extensively. It was concluded that properties for inelastic buckling are more affected by
wall length than by unsupported height and the major source of the instability was postulated
to be the tensile strain previously experienced by the rebar rather than the maximum
compression strain.
Chai and Elayer (1999) studied the out-of-plane instability of ductile RC walls by idealising
the end-region of the wall as an axially loaded reinforced concrete column, as shown in
Figure C5G.5. They conducted an experimental study to examine the out-of-plane instability
of several reinforced concrete columns that were designed to represent the end-regions of a
ductile planar reinforced concrete wall under large amplitude reversed cyclic tension and
compression.

(a) Opening of cracks under (b) Closing of cracks under

tension cycle compression cycle

Figure C5G.5: Idealisation of reinforced concrete wall in end regions: (a) opening of cracks
under tension cycle; and (b) closing of cracks under compression cycle
(Chai and Elayer, 1999)

Note
Based on this study, the critical influence of the maximum tensile strain on the lateral
instability of slender rectangular walls was confirmed and the basic behaviour of the
wall end-regions under an axial tension and compression cycle was described by axial
strain versus out-of-plane displacement and axial strain versus axial force plots, as shown in
Figure C5G.6. Also, based on a kinematic relation between the axial strain and the out-of-
plane displacement, and the axial force versus the axial strain response, a model was
developed for the prediction of the maximum tensile strain. Points (a) to (f) display different
stages of the idealised column response and are briefly described in Table C5G.1.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-61

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

(a) nominal axial strain versus (b) nominal axial strain versus axial force
out-of-plane displacement

Figure C5G.6: Axial reversed cyclic response of reinforced concrete slender wall
(Chai and Elayer, 1999)

Table C5G.1 Behaviour of wall end-region under the loading cycle shown in Figure C5G.6
Loading Unloading Reloading
Path o-a a-b b-c c-d d-e d-f

Large Elastic Reloading in Compression Closure of An excessive

tensile strain compression on yielding in the cracks at point crack opening
strain recovery the cracked second layer of d and decrease where
mainly in concrete column the of out-of-plane subsequent
reinforcing accompanied by reinforcement, displacement compression
steel an out-of-plane and a rapid and increase of would not result
displacement; increase in the out-of-plane in the closure of
yielding of the out-of-plane displacement the cracks but a
reinforcement displacement after significant continued
closer to the compressive increase in the
applied axial strain is out-of-plane
force resulting in developed in displacement
a reduced the and eventual
transverse compressed buckling of the
stiffness of the concrete column
column and an
increased out-of-
plane
displacement

As can be seen in Figure C5G.6 and Table C5G.1, the idealised column was assumed
to consist of the loading stage where a large tensile strain was applied to the specimen
(Path o-a), the unloading branch (Path a-b) corresponding to elastic strain recovery mainly
in reinforcement steel and the reloading in compression which can be either Path b-c-d-e or
Path b-c-d-f.
During Path b-c, when the axial compression is small, the compressive force in the column
is resisted entirely by the reinforcement alone as the cracks are not closed, and a small out-
of-plane displacement would occur due to inherent eccentricity of the axial force. The
increase in axial compression would lead to yielding of the reinforcement closer to the

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-62

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62
 Part C – Detailed Seismic Assessment

applied axial force resulting in a reduced transverse stiffness of the column and an increased
out-of-plane displacement.
Path c-d corresponds to compression yielding in the second layer of the reinforcement due
to further increase in the axial compression which could rapidly increase the out-of-plane
displacement. Response of the idealised column after Point d depends on the initial tensile
strain. If the initial tensile strain is not excessive, the cracks could close at Point d resulting
in decrease of out-of-plane displacement (Path d-e). The crack closure would cause
significant compressive strain to develop in the compressed concrete accompanied by
increase of out-of-plane displacement. In case of excessive crack opening, the following
compression would not be able to close the cracks before the increase in the out-of-plane
displacement results in eventual buckling of the column.

C5: Concrete Buildings Appendix C5-63

Draft Version 2016_C – 10/10/2016 NZ1-9503830-62 0.62