Evolution of

ACI 562 Code—Part 3

Framework for alternative assessment criteria

by Gene R. Stevens and Keith Kesner

Existing Concrete Structures—Learning Lessons and Advancing Solutions

ACI Committee 562, Evaluation, Repair, and Rehabilitation of Concrete Buildings, strives to advance the practice of
engineering and improve the repair and rehabilitation of existing concrete structures. ACI Subcommittee 562-E,
Education, is dedicated to helping engineers, building officials, contractors, owners, inspectors, and others by conveying
information in more detail than is possible solely through the ACI 562 Code and Commentary. To this end, and in the
hope of improving these documents, members of ACI 562 are providing a series of articles under the main theme,
“Existing Concrete Structures—Learning Lessons and Advancing Solutions.”
Through this series, the committee members explain the rationale behind some of the upcoming changes in the
ACI 562 Code as well as share example problems, ideas, concepts, and the thoughts discussed in ACI 562 Committee
meetings. It is also anticipated the series will help the committee address questions from the engineering and construction
sectors, solicit answers to problems, and review areas of needed research.
The updated Code has been reviewed by the ACI Technical Activities Committee (TAC) and released for public
comments. ACI Committee 562 is now in the process of responding to the public comments.
References to ACI 562-16 in this article are based on the public comment version. The final version is expected to be
published in May 2016.

I
n this article, we continue with our explanations of the the structure was constructed, rather than the current building
ACI 562-16 assessment criteria. The last article defined an code. The question is: When should design of strengthening
“unsafe structural condition” and a “dangerous” building, repairs include considerations for increasing the capacity to the
structure, or portion thereof. Either condition requires current building Code demand (or, is that really necessary)?
strengthening of member(s) in an existing structure to meet The general regulations of the IEBC 2015 do not provide
the regulations of the current building Code. This article specific requirements for addressing either structural concrete
presents the framework within ACI 562-16 that addresses deterioration or faulty concrete construction. The proposed
when the licensed design professional must consider requirements of ACI 562-16 provide a work classification––
strengthening of a deteriorated, faultily constructed, or defining when strengthening is required for a single member
damaged member that has less than substantial structural or more of the existing structure––for existing concrete
damage, and whether strengthening must meet the structures exhibiting less than substantial structural damage,
requirements stated in the original building Code or, deterioration, or faulty concrete construction.
alternatively, the current building Code. Deterioration is defined in ACI Concrete Terminology
To be clear when referencing the original building Code, (CT-13)2 as:
ACI 562-16, Section 1.2.3 states: “(1) physical manifestation of failure of a material (for
“The ‘original building Code’ refers to the general example, cracking, delamination, flaking, pitting, scaling,
building Code applied by the jurisdictional authority to the spalling, and staining) caused by environmental or internal
structure in question at the time the existing structure was autogenous influences on rock and hardened concrete as well
permitted for construction.” as other materials; (2) decomposition of material during either
In Part 2 of this series, we noted that per the International testing or exposure to service.”
Existing Building Code (IEBC) 2015,1 designers are permitted to “Faulty construction” is defined in ACI 562-16 as:
use the requirements of the building code that was in effect when “deficient construction resulting from errors or omissions

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | APRIL 2016 63

in design or improper construction causing displacement of R4.3.2 should be considered in the selection of an applicable
supporting portions of the structure or resulting in deficient assessment criteria.
materials, geometry, size or location of concrete members, “Beyond using the current building Code, the assessment
reinforcement or connections.” criteria should address if the demand or capacity of the
We note that most damage resulting from earthquakes; high original structure or member is significantly inconsistent with
winds; gravity loads including dead, live, snow, water, and current standards and results in unacceptable structural safety. An
ice; lateral earth pressures; self-straining loads; and increase in load intensity, added loads, change in load factors,
displacements such as foundation settlement can be classified strength-reduction factors or load combinations, modification of
as less than substantial structural damage. Therefore, this analytical procedures, or changes in the determined capacity
assessment group is used more often than any other group. between the original and current building codes (such as a change
Sections 4.5.1 and 4.5.2 of ACI 562-16 are used to from ASD to strength design) or the benefits received versus the
supplement the IEBC 2015. Using Rcn to denote the current costs incurred should lead the licensed design professional to
in-place nominal capacity, Section 4.5.1 and Commentary question the applicability of using the original building Code for
Section R4.5.1 state: assessment of an existing structure. Engineering principles used
“4.5.1 If a structure has damage less than substantial to determine acceptable structural safety are to use either a
structural damage, deterioration, or contains faulty probabilistic evaluation of loads and capacities to show adequate
construction, and there is a reason to question the capacity of structural reliability indexes or an evaluation procedure using
the structure, it shall be assessed by checking the demand- demand-capacity ratios that is derived from the basic engineering
capacity ratio using the original building Code demand (Uo) principles as presented in current standards. 
with nominal loads, factored load combinations, and “An assessment criterion for a structure that has damage
capacities of the original building Code to determine if it less than substantial structural damage, deterioration, or faulty
exceeds 1.0, as shown in Eq. (4.5.1). construction excluding seismic forces that is based on the
demand-capacity ratios of IEBC is the following:
Uo/ϕRcn > 1.0 (4.5.1) “(a) If the current building Code demand (Uc) exceeds
the original building Code demand (Uo* ) increased by 5
“In Eq. (4.5.1), strength-reduction factors (ϕ) of original percent (Uc > 1.05Uo* ) , check the demand-capacity ratio
building Code shall be used. If the demand-capacity ratio exceeds using the current building Code demand (Uc) to
1.0, then that member or system strength shall be restored using determine if it exceeds 1.1, as shown in Eq. (R4.5.2a).
the original building Code. If the demand-capacity ratio does not
exceed 1.0, then strengthening is not required. Uc /ϕRcn > 1.1 (R4.5.2a)
“Repairs shall be permitted that restore a member or
system to the capacity of the original building Code based on “If the demand-capacity ratio exceeds 1.1, then that
material properties of the original construction.” system or member should be strengthened using the
“R4.5.1 Most existing concrete structures with damage less current building Code demand. If the demand-capacity
than substantial structural damage, deterioration, or containing ratio does not exceed 1.1, then no strengthening is
faulty construction, will provide acceptable safety if restored required.
to the strength of the original building Code. “(b) If the current building Code demand (Uc) does not
“The demand-capacity ratio limit of 1.0 as provided in exceed the original building Code demand (Uo* )
this section allows strengthening that restores the structural increased by 5 percent (Uc < 1.05Uo* ), check the demand-
reliability of the existing structure to the level prior to capacity ratio using the original building Code demand
damage and deterioration, or as intended in the original (Uo* ) to determine if it exceeds 1.05, as shown in
building Code. Eq. (R4.5.2b).
“Historical performance is often an acceptable indicator of
adequate safety if the structure has been subjected to known loads. Uo* /ϕRcn > 1.05 (R4.5.2b)
“If the capacity of the structure is not in question, such as
indicated by the commentary provisions of R1.7.1, assessment “If the demand-capacity ratio exceeds 1.05, then that
checks are not required.” system or member strength should be restored using the
Section 4.5.2 and Commentary Section R4.5.2 state: original building Code demand. If the demand-capacity
“4.5.2 Alternative assessment criteria for deterioration, ratio does not exceed 1.05, then strengthening is not
faulty construction, or damage less than substantial structural required.
damage shall be permitted. The selected alternative “Strength-reduction factors (ϕ) of Sections 5.3 or 5.4
assessment criterion shall substantiate acceptable structural apply in Eq. (R4.5.2a) and (R4.5.2b). If the original
safety using engineering principles for existing structures.” building Code demand is used, the repair design should
“R4.5.2 An alternative assessment criterion may use the be supplemented for existing members or systems by
current building Code and ASCE/SEI 41. The references of this Code.

64 APRIL 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

 “In this assessment criterion, the current building Code professional define reliability indexes—this is not practical
strength design demand (Uc) combines current building for most repair projects and is beyond the general working
Code nominal gravity loads (dead, live, and snow) and knowledge of most practicing professionals. Hence,
lateral wind loads excluding earthquake loads using the Criterion B, the simple demand-capacity ratio with an
factored load combinations of ASCE/SEI 7. The original overload limit of 10%, is provided.
building Code strength design demand (Uo* ) combines While the 1979 edition of the Uniform Building Code9
original building Code nominal gravity loads (dead, live, required additions, alternations, or repairs to conform to
and snow) and lateral wind loads excluding earthquake regulations for a new building or structure, an existing
loads using the factored load combinations of ASCE/SEI 7. building or structure did not have to comply with all
Consideration should be given as to if it may be requirements of that Code edition. More recent codes for
appropriate to include ASCE/SEI 41 seismic provisions, existing buildings, including Sections 707 and 807 of
redistribution of loads, reduced live loads, measured IEBC 2015, comprise a limiting demand-capacity ratio of
displacements (listing, leaning, and tilting), second- 1.05 as the prompt for an increase in load or decrease in
order effects, and other loads specific to the structure, capacity for resisting gravity loads. For lateral loads, the
such as drifting snow, lateral earth pressures, self- limiting demand-capacity ratio has typically been
straining loads, ice, and floods. increased to 1.1. If the current building Code specifies a
“The use of structure-specific data is acceptable, if demand that is 5% greater than the demand specified in
substantiated by the licensed design professional. For the original building code, structural engineers are
these assessment criteria, the demand-capacity ratio generally of the opinion that the structural reliability of
provisions of Part 1 may be used in the assessment the existing building is to be assessed using the current
regardless of whether the current building code demand building code for safety limits. Note that the simple
does or does not exceed the original building code demand-capacity ratios of Section R4.5.2 exclude seismic
demand increased by 5 percent.” forces. This avoids the complexities of deformation-
Section 4.5.1 provides the specific details for compliance controlled actions, which require a higher order of
of an existing concrete structure with the IEBC 2015, Section evaluation and analysis.
404.4 using strength design (load and resistance factor The proposed assessment criterion (a) in Commentary
design). Commentary Section R4.5.2 makes use of references Section R4.5.2 would prompt strengthening to the current
of Section R4.3.2,3-7 which are the framework of structural building Code in cases where Uc /ϕRcn > 1.1 and Uc > 1.05Uo*
reliability used for design. References 4 through 7 provide the when using the factored load combinations of ASCE/SEI 7-10
criteria to ensure consistent levels of safety and performance, for the current and original nominal loads. This assessment
which have been in current building code regulations since provision uses the current building Code demand and may be
about 1982. applied whether the current building Code demand does or
does not exceed the original building Code demand increased
Assessment Criteria by 5%.
When is restoration to the original building code When is the current building Code demand (Uc) greater
strength structurally inadequate or below public than the original building Code demand (Uo* ) increased by 5%
expectations for safety? Do the strength regulations of the (Uc > 1.05Uo* )? This may occur when the nominal loads of the
original building code provide acceptable or prudent original building Code were erroneous or if they have been
resistance against failure? These questions were asked in determined to be lower than necessary for structural safety
the ‘60s, ‘70s, and ‘80s, and the answers resulted in the and modified. These circumstances are rare for live loads, but
development of the current building code criteria for new may develop when snow loads or drifting snow loads are
building design using probability-based load factors and considered.
load combinations, strength-reduction factors, and The second part of the assessment criterion is when the
reliability indexes. Building on these concepts, ACI 562-16 current building code demand is equal to or less than the
proposes three alternatives for assessment criteria: original building code demand increased by 5% (Uc <
A. Current building code and ASCE/SEI 41-138; 1.05Uo* ), using the load combinations of ASCE/SEI 7-10.
B. Ratio of the demand of the current building code to This condition of assessment criterion (b) is much more
the in-place capacity limited to 1.1 without common than condition (a). The prompt to repair existing
strengthening; or members or systems by restoration to the capacity of the
C. Justification based on probability theory and original building Code demand is when the current in-place
acceptable reliability indexes. capacity factored by the applicable strength-reduction factor
Criterion A may be economically infeasible and and increased 5% is less than the demand of the original
impractical. Criterion B provides a 10% overload factor building Code. Equation (R4.5.2b), Uo* /ϕRcn > 1.05, uses
and has been used for many years. Implementation of factored load combinations of ASCE/SEI 7-10 and strength-
Criterion C would require that the licensed design reduction factors of ACI 562-16, Section 5.3 or 5.4, which is

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | APRIL 2016 65

drastically different from Eq. (4.5.1) and the assessment •• Required nominal capacity for design, R = U /ϕ(318), for
n c
criteria of Section 4.5.1. various values of the strength-reduction factors of ACI
The second part of the assessment of criterion (b) in 318-1411 that are used for different members;
commentary Section R4.5.2 has another limit as shown in the •• Ratio of service or nominal load demand to nominal
following. When the current building Code demand is less capacity for design, Us/Rn; and
than or equal to the original building Code demand increased •• Calculated or expected standard deviation (σ) at the β value
by 5% (Uc > 1.05Uo* ) , repairs for restoration strengthening are used to determine the strength-reduction factor ϕ(318) of
not necessary if the demand-capacity ratio using the original ACI 318-14
building Code demand increased by 5% is less than or equal
to 1.10.

Uc /ϕRcn < 1.05Uo* /ϕRcn < 1.10 The variation in the standard deviations for a type of
member as suggested by Table 1 is overestimated based on the
This assessment criterion is an additional complexity that assumption of a constant reliability index and the
has not been proposed in the ACI 562-16 Commentary. approximations within the calculations. Strength-reduction
However, it results in the same reliability indexes as shown in factors of ACI 318-14 are the same as for ACI 562-16,
the proposed Eq. (R4.5.2a) and (R4.5.2b). The licensed design Section 5.3. The factors are for tension––ϕ(318) = 0.9,
professional is permitted to use this restoration limit and other columns without spiral reinforcement––ϕ(318) = 0.65, and
restoration limits derived by interpolations of 1.05 < 1.05Uo* / shear and columns with spiral reinforcement––ϕ(318) = 0.75.
ϕRcn < 1.10 when Uc < 1.05Uo* . When the member material properties and geometries have
The criteria of Commentary Section R4.5.2 incorporate a been determined, ACI 562-16 permits the use of strength-
10% overload. This 10% overload appears in the IEBC when reduction factors ϕ(5.4) from Section 5.4. These strength-
assessing additions or alternations for lateral loads and has reduction factors and those of ACI 318-14 are associated with
been in use for the last 10 years. ACI Committee 562 also acceptable reliabilities of the Risk Category II in Table C.1.3
considered potential uncertainties inherent in the engineering of ASCE 7-10 and are as follows:
assessment process in the determination of demand and •• When the failure mode is not sudden and does not lead to
capacity values. wide-spread progression of damage (β = 3.0), which is
The formula for reliability index is repeated from Part 2 of ductile concrete behavior, such as slabs or beams where
this series ϕ(318) is 0.9 and ϕ(5.4) = 1.0. Here, β is consistent with
the failure mode for Risk Category II in ASCE 7-10,
Table C.1.3.1a.
•• When the failure mode is not sudden but can lead to
where β is the reliability index; Um is the median value of widespread progression of damage (β = 3.5)3, which is
required resistance (demand); Rm is the median value of the failure mode expected from columns with spiral
resistance (capacity); VR is the coefficient of variation for reinforcement where ϕ(318) is 0.75 and ϕ(5.4) = 0.9.
capacity; VU is the coefficient of variation for demand; and •• When the failure mode is sudden but does not lead to
≈ standard deviation (σ) of the logarithm of demand- widespread progression of damage (β = 3.5), which is the
capacity ratio (σ represents the uncertainties of both U and failure mode expected for shear where ϕ(318) is 0.75 and
R). ϕ(5.4) = 0.8. Here, the β value is the same as is used with
Both load and resistance are reasonably expected to be the shear mode of failure (3.5). This is not directly
lognormal distributions. Figure 1 shows the normal presented in ASCE 7-10, Table C.1.3.1a.
distribution10 for the assumed lognormal demand-capacity •• When the failure mode is sudden and results in widespread
ratio in an existing concrete structure. progression of damage (β = 4.0), which is the failure mode
In Fig. 1, PF is the probability that the existing capacity expected from columns without spiral reinforcement where
will be exceeded during the recurrence interval of the Code ϕ(318) is 0.65 and ϕ(5.4) = 0.8.
specified load and is equal to the area under the curve when As a baseline for calculating standard deviations for
the [–ln(Us/Rcn)] term is less than zero. The reliability index the demand-capacity ratio using the current in-place
is the number of standard deviations (σ) from zero to the capacity (Rcn), Table 2 uses the strength-reduction factors
mean value. Here, Us is the nominal load demand using the of Section 5.4 of ACI 562-16 and sets the existing
current building Code and Rcn is the current in-place capacity equal to the current building Code demand using
nominal capacity or strength. the factored load combinations for strength design of
For varying ratios of dead load to live load (D/L), Table 1 ASCE 7-10 (U c). The current in-place capacity (Rcn)
shows: without strengthening repair is set equal to the current
•• Nominal or service load demand, Us = D + L, when D = 1.0; building Code demand (Uc) divided by the strength-
•• Factored load combination, Uc = 1.2D + 1.6L, when D = 1.0; reduction factor ϕ(5.4)

66 APRIL 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

Rcn = Uc/ϕ(5.4)

For the same load data as in Table 1,

Table 2 shows:
•• Required current in-place nominal
capacity for assessment, Rcn =
Uc/ϕ(5.4), using load data and
varying values of the strength-
reduction factors of ACI 562-16,
Section 5.4;
•• Ratio of nominal or service load
demand to current in-place nominal
capacity, Us/Rcn; and
•• Calculated baseline standard
deviation (σ) at the beta value used
to determine the strength-reduction
factors ϕ(5.4) of ACI 562-16,
Section 5.4.
Comparing the standard deviation Fig. 1: Normal distribution showing the definition of reliability index β
values of Tables 1 and 2 shows they
decrease when the member geometry
and material properties are known as in Table 2. These and 2.75 to 2.9 for shear. With the demand-capacity ratio limit
baseline standard deviations are used with the equations of as a simple prompt for repairs as proposed for ACI 562-16,
ACI 562-16, Section 4.5.2, to determine the reliability index Section R4.5.2, the structural reliability indexes vary with the
as shown in Table 3.
Using Eq. (R4.5.2a) and (R4.5.2b), which in Table 3 are
the same, we show for the varying load data and strength-
reduction factors of ACI 562-16, Section 5.4, the following:
•• Prompting point for strengthening, Rcn = Uc/1.1ϕ(5.4);
•• Nominal or service load demand to nominal capacity ratios
(Us/Rcn); and
•• Reliability index (β) for the varying strength-reduction
factors used for tension, columns with spirals, columns
without spirals, and shear, respectively.
Changing the demand-capacity ratio of Eq. (R4.5.2a)
from 1.1 to 1.15 and to 1.2 reduces the reliability index
from 1.69 to 1.08 and to 0.50 for tension; from 3.14 to 2.74
and to 2.35 for columns with spirals; from 2.75 to 2.39 and
to 2.06 for columns without spirals; and from 2.47 to 1.99
and to 1.53 for shear. Table 4 shows an estimate of the
probability in percent that the capacity will be exceeded in
50 years for a given structural reliability index. The
committee found that the 10% overload provided the A flip-book version of the entire current
rational limit as the alternative assessment criteria when
issue of CI is available to ACI members by log-
striving to answer the question: “For members with
ging in at www.concreteinternational.com.
deterioration, faulty construction, or damage less than
substantial structural damage conditions, when should
design of strengthening repairs include considerations for Click "view the flipbook" on the magazine's
increasing the capacity to the current building Code home page.
demand (or is that really necessary)?”
For varying ratios of dead load to live load, this review of
structural reliability indexes using the demand-capacity ratios
of 1.1, shows that the acceptable structural reliability indexes
vary from about 1.7 to 2.15 for tension, 2.5 to 2.75 for
columns with spirals, 3.15 to 3.3 for columns without spirals,

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | APRIL 2016 67

Table 1:
Standard deviations of the demand-capacity ratio for new construction (ACI 318-14)
Load data ACI 318-14 provisions for design
ϕ(318) = 0.65, columns without ϕ(318) = 0.75, shear and
ϕ(318) = 0.9, tension spirals columns with spirals

At D = Rn =
1.0, Us = Uc = Uc/ σ at Rn = σ at Rn = σ at
D/L D+L 1.2D+1.6L ϕ(318)* Us/Rn β = 3.0 Uc/ ϕ(318) Us/Rn β = 4.0 Uc/ ϕ(318) Us/Rn β = 3.5
0.5 3.000 4.400 4.889 0.614 0.163 6.769 0.443 0.203 5.867 0.511 0.192
1 2.000 2.800 3.111 0.643 0.147 4.308 0.464 0.192 3.733 0.536 0.178
4 1.250 1.600 1.778 0.703 0.117 2.462 0.508 0.169 2.133 0.586 0.153
8 1.125 1.400 1.556 0.723 0.108 2.154 0.522 01.62 1.867 0.603 0.145
L = 0.0 1.00 1.40 1.556 0.643 0.147 2.154 0.464 0.192 1.867 0.536 0.178
*
When using ACI 318 for design, the nominal capacity times strength-reduction factor of ACI 318 will be greater than or equal to the factored load
combination demand using the current building Code. Set the capacity Ru equal to factored load combination demand Uc divided by strength-reduction
factor φ(318)

Table 2:
Baseline standard deviations for demand-capacity ratio for existing structures
Load data Baseline calculations using ACI 562-16, Section 5.4, strength-reduction values
ϕ(5.4) = 0.9, columns ϕ(5.4) = 0.8, columns
ϕ(5.4) = 1.0, tension with spirals without spirals ϕ(5.4) = 0.8, shear

At
D = 1, Uc = Rcn = Baseline Rcn = Baseline Rcn = Baseline Rcn = Baseline
Us = 1.2D+ U c/ σ at U c/ σ at U c/ σ at Uc/ σ at
D/L D+L 1.6L ϕ(5.4) Us/Rcn β = 3.0 ϕ(5.4) Us/Rcn β = 3.5 ϕ(5.4) Us/Rcn β = 4.0 ϕ(5.4) Us/Rcn β = 3.5
0.5 3.0 4.4 4.40 0.682 0.128 4.89 0.614 0.140 5.50 0.545 0.152 5.50 0.545 0.173
1 2.0 2.8 2.80 0.714 0.112 3.11 0.643 0.0126 3.50 0.571 0.140 3.50 0.571 0.160
4 1.25 1.6 1.60 0.781 0.082 1.78 0.703 0.101 2.00 0.625 0.118 2.00 0.625 0.134
8 1.125 1.4 1.40 0.804 0.073 1.56 0.723 0.091 1.75 0643 0.110 1.75 0643 0.126
L=0 1.0 1.4 1.40 0.714 0.112 1.56 0.643 0.126 1.75 0.571 0.140 1.75 0.571 0.160

Table 3:
Reliability index for alternative assessment criteria of existing structures
For Eq. (R4.5.2a) and (R4.5.2b) of the alternative assessment criteria of ACI 562-16, Section R4.5.2,
Load data Eq. (R4.5.2a), Uc/ϕRcn = 1.1 and Eq. (R4.5.2b) when Uc = 1.1Uo, Uo/ϕRcn = Uc/1.1ϕRcn = 1.0
ϕ(5.4) = 0.9, columns with ϕ(5.4) = 0.8, columns
At ϕ(5.4) = 1.0, tension spirals without spirals ϕ(5.4) = 0.8, shear
D = 1, Uc = Rcn = Rcn = Rcn = Rcn =
Us = 1.2D+ Uc/ Uc/ Uc/ Uc/
D/L D+L 1.6L 1.1ϕ(5.4) Us/Rcn β 1.1ϕ(5.4) Us/Rcn β 1.1ϕ(5.4) Us/Rcn β 1.1ϕ(5.4) Us/Rcn β
0.5 3.0 4.4 4.00 0.750 2.25 4.44 0.675 2.82 5.00 0.600 3.37 5.00 0.600 2.95
1 2.0 2.8 2.55 0.786 2.15 2.83 0.707 2.75 3.18 0.629 3.32 3.18 0.629 2.90
4 1.25 1.6 1.46 0.859 1.84 1.62 0.773 2.55 1.82 0.688 3.19 1.82 0.688 2.79
8 1.125 1.4 1.27 0.884 1.69 1.41 0.796 2.47 1.59 0.707 3.14 1.59 0.707 2.75
L=0 1.0 1.4 1.27 0.786 2.15 1.41 0.707 2.75 1.59 0.629 3.32 1.59 0.629 2.90

68 APRIL 2016 | Ci | www.concreteinternational.com

Table 4: 7. Ellingwood, B.R., and Ang, A.H.-S., “A Probabilistic Study of
Probability of failure (Pf) in 50 years for select reliability Safety Criteria for Design,” SRS-387, University of Illinois at Urbana-
indexes (β) Champaign, Champaign, IL, 1972, 195 pp.
β Pf, % 8. “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE/SEI
4.0 0.0032 41-13),” American Society for Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2014, 35 pp.
9. “Uniform Building Code,” 1979 Edition, International Conference
3.5 0.023
of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1979, 734 pp.
3.0 0.135 10. “Manual of Steel Construction: Load and Resistance Factor
3.15 0.082 Design,” first edition, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago,
2.75 0.30 IL, 1986, 400 pp.
2.5 0.62 11. ACI Committee 318, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary (ACI 318R-14),” American
1.7 4.45
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2014, 519 pp.

dead to live load ratio and could be interpolated for Selected for reader interest by the editors.
additional ratios of current to original building Code
demand. To address these complexities and others, special
assessment provisions are permitted. When existing
members or portions of systems are deteriorated, have faulty
construction, or have damaged less than substantial
structural damage, the proposed alternative assessment ACI member Gene R. Stevens is a
criteria provisions of Section 4.5.2 permit substantiated Principal with J.R. Harris & Company,
structural safety using probability theory and judgment to Denver, CO. He is Chair of ACI Subcom-
determine strengthening assessment criteria. The intent is to mittee 562-A, General, and the Structural
give the licensed design professional control in maintaining Engineers Association of Colorado Existing
structural reliability within limits while minimizing repair Structures Committee. He specializes in
costs. The licensed design professional is cautioned to use the analysis and design of structures for
assessment criteria of the commentary or include a structural seismic effects; evaluation of distress in
reliability analysis in any alternative assessment and not to existing structures; and design of repairs
and upgrades for distressed, damaged, or under-strength
simply depend on their own judgment. If the proposed
structures. He is a member of ACI Committee 562, Evaluation,
strengthening limits of the assessment criterion (demand-
Repair, and Rehabilitation of Concrete Buildings, and Joint
capacity ratio provisions) are exceeded, the structural
ACI-ASCE Committee 352, Joints and Connections in Monolithic
reliability analysis should limit the reliability indexes to
Concrete Structures. Stevens received his BS in civil engineering
about 2.0 for tension controlled reinforcement in members,
from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign,
2.75 for columns with spirals, 3.25 for columns without IL, and his MS in civil engineering from the University of California,
spirals, and 2.85 for shear in members. Berkeley, Berkeley, CA. He is a licensed professional engineer in
several states and a licensed structural engineer in California.
References
1. “2015 IEBC Code and Commentary,” International Code Council,
Keith Kesner, FACI, is a Project Manager
Washington, DC, 2015.
with CVM Professional, King of Prussia, PA.
2. “ACI Concrete Terminology (ACI CT-13),” American Concrete
He specializes in the evaluation and
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013, 74 pp.
rehabilitation of existing structures and is the
3. “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures
Chair of ACI Committee 562, Evaluation,
(ASCE/SEI 7-10),” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA,
Repair, and Rehabilitation of Concrete
2010, 608 pp. Buildings. He also serves on ACI Commit-
4. Galambos, T.V.; Ellingwood, B.R.; MacGregor, J.G.; and Cornell, tees 228, Nondestructive Testing of
C.A., “Probability Based Load Criteria: Assessment of Current Design Concrete; 364, Rehabilitation; and ACI
Practice,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 108, No. 5, May Subcommittee C601-F, Nondestructive Testing Technician. He was a
1982, pp. 959-977. co-recipient of the 1998 ACI Construction Practice Award and
5. Galambos, T.V.; Ellingwood, B.R; MacGregor, J.G.; and Cornell, received the 2005 ACI Young Member Award. Kesner received his
C.A., “Probability Based Load Criteria: Load Factors and Load Combi- BS from the University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, and his MS and
nations,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 108, No. 5, May PhD from Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. He is a licensed civil
1982, pp. 978-997. engineer in several states and a licensed structural engineer in
6. “ANSI A58.1-1982: Design Loads for Buildings and Other Struc- Hawaii, Illinois, and Massachusetts.
tures,” American National Standards Institute, New York, NY, 1982, 103 pp.

www.concreteinternational.com | Ci | APRIL 2016 69