ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 100-S39

TECHNICAL PAPER

Evaluation of Effect of August 17, 1999, Marmara Earthquake on Two Tall Reinforced Concrete Chimneys
by Sami A. Kilic and Mete A. Sozen
Two tall reinforced concrete chimneys, Stacks 25F-5 (115 m) and 36F-5 (107.5 m), were subjected to strong ground motion during the August 17, 1999, Marmara earthquake. Stack 25F-5 failed while Stack 36F-5 survived. Both stacks were designed in accordance with ACI 307-69. This study reports the earthquake parameters, the ground motion measured within 3 km of the stacks, and the structural properties of the stacks. Evaluation of the response bounds of the stacks leads to the conclusion that the region of flexural yielding remained at the base of Stack 36F-5 while it was at a level approximately 35 m above base for Stack 25F-5 because it had a large penetration extending from 30 to 35 m. The collapse of Stack 25F-5 was not due to lack of strength caused by design or material deficiencies but was due to the presence of reinforcing-bar splices in the region where flexural yielding occurred.
Keywords: bond; flexural strength; reinforced concrete; shear; splice.

Design moments were modified by the reduction factor specified in ACI 307-691 hx J x = J + ( 1 J ) ---H
3

(2)

INTRODUCTION Two slender reinforced concrete chimneys, both over 100 m in height, at the Tpras refinery near Izmit, Turkey, were subjected to strong ground motion during the August 17, 1999, Marmara earthquake. One of the chimneys, Stack 25F-5, collapsed. The other, Stack 36F-5, survived intact. This study evaluates their performances to conclude that the success of Stack 36F-5 and the cause of failure of Stack 25F-5 can be understood in terms of basic concepts defining dynamic response of reinforced concrete structures. Both stacks were proportioned and detailed in 1978 in accordance with ACI 307-69.1 The specified strengths were 420 MPa (yield stress) for the reinforcement and 25 MPa (0.15 x 0.30 m cylinders) for the concrete. Coupons tested after the 1999 Marmara earthquake confirmed that the reinforcement and concrete strengths complied with the design specifications. In the original design calculations, the assumed Youngs modulus of 30.6 GPa resulted in first mode periods of 1.7 s for both stacks. The base shear was obtained using the expression included in ACI 307-691 0.2 V = ------- W 3 T (1)

where Jx = the moment reduction factor at level x; J = 0.6/ ( 3 T ) ; hx = height to level x; and H = total height. The design base moments were 176 MN-m for Stack 25F-5 and 185 MN-m for Stack 36F-5. The moment-reduction factor J, based on the expectation that responses in different modes might counteract one another, has been eliminated and does not appear in ACI 307-98.2 The use of Eq. (2) to proportion the Tpras stacks reduced the design moments at the base by approximately 50% compared with the values that would have been calculated for the assumed design shear distribution over the height of the stacks. The stacks were proportioned on the basis of working stresses. The base moments calculated in this study in accordance with the dynamic response spectrum analysis method of ACI 307-982 resulted in a 10% increase for Stack 25F-5 and a 15% increase for Stack 36F-5 compared with the original design moments. In addition to a discussion of the properties and behavior of the Stacks 25F-5 and 36F-5, this study provides brief background information on the location of the surface fault associated with the August 1999 event, the damage intensity in the region, the ground conditions at the Tpras site and at a neighboring site YPT where a strong-motion measurement was made, and the strong motion measured at that site. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Two tall and slender reinforced concrete stacks at the same site were subjected to strong ground motion. The failure of one and the survival of the other led to a rare and unintended experiment of great importance for earthquake-resistant design of such structures. The study summarizes the known facts about ground shaking at the site and structural properties of the stacks to document and provide an explanation for the observed events in terms of basic concepts of dynamic response and material behavior.
ACI Structural Journal, V. 100, No. 3, May-June 2003. MS No. 02-138 received April 9, 2002, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright 2003, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the March-April 2004 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2003.

where V = base design shear; T = calculated period, s; and W = total weight. The total weights used in design were 27.4 and 30.5 MN for Stacks 25F-5 and 36F-5, respectively. The design base shear for both stacks was 17% of total weight. The distribution of the lateral force was determined assuming 15% of the total design lateral force to be applied at the top of the stack and the remainder to vary linearly with height above the base. ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003

357

ACI member Sami A. Kilic is a visiting scholar at Purdue University School of Civil Engineering, West Lafayette, Ind. He received his MS from the University of California at Berkeley and completed his doctoral studies at Stanford University, Calif., in 1997. ACI Honorary Member Mete A. Sozen is the Kettelhut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering at Purdue University. He received his PhD in civil engineering from the University of Illinois-Urbana. His research interests include the response of reinforced/prestressed concrete structures to static and dynamic loads.

Fig. 3SPT results of boring near Stack 25F-5 at Tpras refinery.

Fig. 1Observed damage in MMI intensity for August 17, 1999, Marmara earthquake (after Reference 5).

Fig. 4SPT results of boring near YPT station at Petkim plant. refinery is founded on alluvium. The Petkim plant is founded on geological debris deposits. The data from a boring sample, T2, listing SPT blow counts and the constituents of the soil profile to a depth of 20 m, obtained in the immediate vicinity of the two stacks, are reported in Fig. 3. The underlying soil consists of gravel and clay, with the exception of silty fine sand at depths of 6 to 7 m. The SPT blow count values are the lowest in the silty sand layer but still above 20. The count increases rapidly to above 50 for depths below 10 m. The data in Fig. 3 confirm the presence of firm alluvium at the site of the two stacks. The triaxial test results of samples from T2 yielded a relatively high undrained cohesion factor cU of 0.28 MPa at a depth of 16 m. Figure 4 shows the SPT blow count distribution and the soil profile to a 15 m depth obtained from Boring 27, near the YPT site. Stiff sandy clay deposits are indicated to a depth of 10 m. The blow count was above 40 at 2 m and remained above 40 to a depth of 12 m. Data from Borings T2 and 27 show the YPT and stack sites to have different subgrades but provide no evidence to suggest that the frequency contents of the ground motions at the two sites would be critically different because of changes in soil stiffness. The three components of the YPT record, obtained in the basement of a three-story building located within 2 km of the stacks, are plotted in Fig. 5 to 7, including linear acceleration and displacement response spectra calculated for a damping factor of 2% of critical. ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003

Fig. 2Geological map of Yarimca region. The earthquake and site The August 17, 1999, event struck the Izmit Bay region, a densely industrialized zone, at 3:02 a.m. local time. It was rated to have a moment magnitude (Mw) of 7.4.3 The trajectory of the surface fault trace is shown ideally in Fig. 1. The locations of the Tpras refinery and of the strong-motion instrument YPT4 are also shown in the figure. The Tpras site was at a distance of approximately 19 km to the instrumental epicenter (shown southeast of the town of Glck) and within 2.5 km of the fault trace. The slip along the southern bank of the Izmit Bay reached a maximum of 4 m near the town of Glck.3 Figure 1 also shows the distribution of the observed damage in the region in terms of the Modified Mercalli Intensity of observed damage in an earthquake (MMI).5 Both the Tpras refinery and the adjoining Petkim petrochemical facility, where the ground-motion record (YPT) was obtained, are in the Yarimca region, which is underlain by rock formations from the Pliocene (Fig. 2). The Tpras 358

Fig. 5North-south acceleration record at YPT station (Reference 4) and linear acceleration/displacement responses calculated for damping factor of 2% of critical.

Fig. 7Up-down acceleration record measured at YPT station (Reference 4) and linear acceleration/displacement responses calculated for damping factor of 2% of critical.

Fig. 6East-west acceleration record measured at YPT station (Reference 4) and linear acceleration/displacement responses calculated for damping factor of 2% of critical. The YPT site was at a distance of approximately 5 km to the trace of a strike-slip fault rupture associated with a Mw = 7.4 event. The maximum ground acceleration measured, approximately G/3, is less than expected on the basis of past experience for similar conditions.6 Nevertheless, the magnitudes of the acceleration response spectra are not inconsistent with the observed MMI-IX rating. The damage potential of the YPT ground motion is also confirmed by the maximum ground velocity that exceeded 1 m/s in the east-west direction. It is of interest to note that, at a period of 2 s, the displacement response exceeded 0.35 m (2% damping) in both horizontal directions and kept on increasing with increase in period to over 1 m at 4 s. Despite the moderate peak acceleration observed, the measured ground motion would be expected to impart a considerable amount of energy to a surface structure. All three measured components (Fig. 5 to 7) show strong (PGA approximately G/3) ground motion to 20 s, a quiet period from 20 to approximately 40 s, followed by another period of increased shaking (PGA approximately G/6). A brief study was made to investigate whether the second set of shocks would enhance the spectral values of the first set of shocks. Designating the two strong-motion periods as ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003

Fig. 8Comparison of velocity spectra for entire eastwest component of YPT record with velocity spectra of two segments. Segments I and II, linear velocity response spectra were calculated (2% damping) for three cases: 1) for the entire record; 2) for Segment I; and 3) for Segment II as shown in Fig. 8. As would be expected, the response spectrum was fully defined by the response to Segment I. In terms of linear response, there is no reason to expect a demand enhancement as a result of Segment II. Segment II may have influenced structures already critically damaged by Segment I, but it is not likely to have increased the damage in others. 359

Fig. 9Structural and foundation details for Stack 25F-5.

Fig. 11Structural and foundation details for Stack 36F-5. The pile cap, still in use for the reconstructed stack, has a maximum thickness of 3 m and a minimum thickness at the edge of 2 m. The piles extend 10 m below the bottom of the pile cap. Those in the outer two rings are battered to have an inclination of 1/5. The piles were rated at 500 kN (axial) and 20 kN (shear). Stack 36F-5Stack 36F-5 survived the August 1999 earthquake. Figure 11 shows its vertical section and foundation plan. The height of the stack above the pile cap is 107.5 m. The outer diameter of the shell varies from 10 m at base to 7.20 m at top. The shell thickness decreases linearly from 0.52 at the base to 0.2 m at the top. There are two penetrations in the stack. The first penetration is between elevations of 21 and 24 m. The angle that the penetration subtends is approximately 14 degrees (Fig. 10(b)). The second penetration is between elevations of 28 and 32 m with a subtended angle of approximately 23 degrees. Both penetrations are oriented in the east-west direction. Two steel ducts rest at the lower edge of the penetrations (Fig. 12(a)). Stack 36F-5 is supported by 317 driven reinforced concrete piles arranged in 9 rings (Fig. 11). The pile cap thickness varies from 2 to 3 m. The piles extend 10 m below the bottom of the pile cap. Those in the two outer rings are battered to have an inclination of 1/5. The pile capacities are the same as those for Stack 25F-5. ReinforcementVertical reinforcement was cut from deformed bars with a specified yield stress of 420 MPa. Bar diameter ranged from 26 mm at the bottom to 16 mm at the top of the stack. The bar diameter was reduced from 26 to 24 mm for both stacks at elevations above 35 m. The design documents show 417 bars at the base of Stack 25F-5 and 541 bars at the base of Stack 36F-5. The reinforcement at the upper part of the penetration (elevation 35 m) of Stack 25F-5 comprises 303 bars. The vertical bars were spliced at sections approximately 1.5 m from one another. Only 1/3 of the total number of bars was spliced at any section. Transverse hoops were provided at 0.25 m using 14 to 10 mm bars cut reportedly from lower-strength plain stock. Two 26 mm bars obtained from Stack 25F-5 were tested after the stack failed. The strengths were measured to be 530 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003

Fig. 10Sections for Stack 25F-5 and Stack 36F-5. Stack properties Stack 25F-5Stack 25F-5 collapsed during the August 1999 earthquake. The vertical section and foundation plan of the stack are shown in Fig. 9. The stack was 115 m high above the top of the pile cap. The outer diameter of the shell ranged from 10.3 at base to 6.6 m at top. The corresponding variation of the shell thickness was 0.45 to 0.2 m, the latter dimension being the minimum shell thickness recommended in ACI 307-69. A defining feature of Stack 25F-5 was the main penetration that extended from 30.6 m above the pile cap to 35.6 m. The angle that the penetration subtended in the horizontal plane was approximately 50 degrees (Fig. 10(a)). The penetration was oriented toward the northwest. A steel duct rested at the lower edge of the penetration. According to the Tpras staff and the construction documents, the connection between the duct and the stack was not to transmit force. Stack 25F-5 was supported by 284 driven reinforced concrete piles arranged in seven rings as indicated in Fig. 9. 360

(a) (a)

(b) Fig. 12(a) Photograph taken after collapse of 115 m Stack 25F-5. 107.5 m Stack 36F-5 that stands nearby with smaller penetrations suffered minor damage; and (b) close-ups of Stack 26F-5 showing staggered break at penetration. and 560 MPa. The yield stress could not be determined from the data available. The diagonal deformations (Turkish Standard 7087) were specified to have a height not less than 5% and not more than 10% of bar diameter. The minimum distance between diagonal deformations was specified not to exceed 0.7 times bar diameter. Specified concrete cover was 50 mm. Inspection of the stacks after August 17, 1999, revealed that there were deviations from the specified cover in the as-built structures. ConcreteAfter the earthquake and the fire, seven 0.15 mdiameter cylindrical cores with lengths not less than 0.2 m were taken from the shell of Stack 25F-5 and tested. Measured compressive strengths were 28.3, 29.5, 31.4, 33.4, 34.5, 38.2, and 42.5 MPa (with a mean of 34 MPa). In the calculations for this paper, the compressive concrete strength for the concrete (0.15 x 0.30 m cylinder strength) in the stack was assumed to be 29 MPa. LinerBoth stacks had liners comprising high-density concrete bricks with a facing of insulation material. The liners (Fig. 9 and 11) were supported by corbels at a vertical spacing of approximately 11 m. Their main effect on the stack structure was an increase in mass of approximately 1/7. ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003 (b) Fig. 13(a) View of remains of Stack 25F-5 and nearby Heater 25F-5 that was damaged by collapse; and (b) relative positions of Stack 25F-5 and Heater 25F-2. Behavior of Stacks 25F-5 and 36F-5 Stack 36F-5 survived the August 17, 1999, earthquake without apparent structural damage while segments of Stack 25F-5 fell on top of a heater unit to start one of the two fire events experienced at the site. The state of Stack 25F-5 after the earthquake and the fire is shown in Fig. 12(a) and (b). The photograph in Fig. 12(a) was taken looking south. A close-up view of the stack looking in the south direction is shown in the photograph on the left in Fig. 12(b). The photograph on the right in Fig. 12(b) was taken looking approximately southeast. The photograph in Fig. 13(a), taken looking east, shows the heater unit on which the top portion of the stack fell. The sketch in Fig. 13(b) shows the relative positions of Stack 25F-5 and the heater unit. The pile cap survived the event with no measurable permanent set. It is seen in Fig. 12(b) that the break in Stack 25F-5 occurred at the penetration at a height of approximately 30 m. Neither inspection of the structure after the fire nor the photographs provided categorical evidence about the mode of failure. The shape of the broken edge of the shell at the level of the penetration suggests a fracture dominated by tension. There were no convincing signs of a failure that might have been 361

Fig. 14Variation of flexural resistance along height for Stack 25F-5 and Stack 36F-5. initiated by combined shear and bending. The failure mode appeared to be one initiated by flexural tension. The tensile fracture could have occurred as a result of fracture of the reinforcing bars or malfunctioning of the splices. One speculation that may be made is that tears visible at different heights approximately 1.5 m from one another point to the splices as the initiator of the collapse. Possible failure mechanisms The upper bound to the lateral forces on a stack, a slender reinforced concrete element, is determined by flexural yielding at a section. In an element with varying distributions of resisting moment and demand along its height, it is necessary to know both to locate the section at which yielding is likely to be initiated. Figure 14 shows the calculated resisting-moment distributions over the heights of Stacks 25F-5 and 36F-5. Resisting moments were calculated at 5 m intervals, except for a 10 m interval at the base, assuming strain to be linear over the cross section. The neutral axis was assumed perpendicular to the axis of the penetration. The compressive stress-strain relationship for the concrete was based on the Hognestad8 curve with the following properties: Youngs modulus = 23 GPa; maximum stress = 29 MPa; and limiting strain in compression = 0.004. Tensile strength of the concrete was ignored. At any section, only the adequately developed bars were considered to be effective. The effect of additional reinforcement added by the designers at the levels of the perforations was included. The moment plotted is the lower at each section. Axial load at each section was determined using the reported dimensions of the shell and the brick liner. Calculations were made using a spreadsheet-based algorithm.9 In Fig. 14, it is seen that the penetration in Stack 25F-5 introduced a strong change in the moment resistance at levels between 30 and 35 m. Decrease in the moment resistance around the penetration depends on both the longitudinal reinforcement and the net concrete area. For Stack 36F-5, the changes in moment resistance introduced by the penetrations are small. The stacks are estimated to have base shear strengths of approximately W/6 assuming Mode-1 shape and yielding at the penetration. The ground motion at the Tpras site is likely to have been more demanding than that at YPT. It is plausible 362

Fig. 15Mode shapes for Stack 25F-5. that both stacks would have developed nonlinear response in flexure during the August 17, 1999, event. During strong motion, the moment-demand variation over the height of a stack is a complex function of the changing characteristics of the ground motion and the changing stiffness of the shell (with time as well as with height) because of cracking and yielding. To achieve an exact determination is unlikely no matter how detailed the analysis. Approximations to the probable distribution of maximum moment, however, are expected to provide the necessary information to understand the behavior of the two stacks. Three different assumptions were made about the vertical distributions of horizontal response accelerations to result in three distributions of moment demand: 1. Horizontal response accelerations vary linearly with height above base. The corresponding mode shape is shown by the linear mode in Fig. 15(a). This static approach was used to obtain a perspective of the feasibility of using a minimumknowledge procedure to understand stack behavior; 2. Horizontal response accelerations vary in proportion to the first mode of vibration of the stack. Mode shapes were determined on the basis of three-dimensional linear modeling of the stacks considering the effect of the penetrations. The first, second, and third mode periods calculated for the cited Youngs modulus and gross section (varying over the height) were 2.0, 0.43, and 0.19 s for Stack 25F-5 and 1.6, 0.36, and 0.16 s for Stack 36F-5. Three-dimensional analysis results for the mode shapes of Stack 25F-5 along the axis of penetration are shown in Fig. 15(a) and (b) (Note: A two-dimensional solution ignoring the effect of the penetrations on stiffness, but recognizing the changes in mass, resulted in virtually identical periods and mode shapes.); and 3. Horizontal accelerations vary in proportion to the square root of the sum of the squares for the first three modes. In reference to an idealized response spectrum for YPT (Fig. 5 and 6), the spectral acceleration ordinates corresponding to Mode 2 were assumed to be twice as high as those corresponding to Modes 1 and 3. The shapes of the moment distributions based on all three assumptions were comparable for both stacks as shown in Fig. 16. Comparison of the demand and resistance curves for Stack 36F-5 indicates that flexural yielding was likely to have occurred at the base. While for Stack 25F-5, the critical section is at the penetration. ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003

Flexural yielding at a section does not necessarily lead to collapse unless the structure is extremely flexible or unless there is a detail failure that is brittle. Even if it is assumed that the ground motion at the site was twice as demanding as that at of YPT, it is difficult to justify a maximum nonlinear drift ratio exceeding 2% for Stack 25F-5, a limit that the slender reinforced concrete structure could sustain if flexural yielding had dominated the response. The probability of Stack 25F-5 failing in flexure is low enough to be discarded. This conclusion is also supported by the satisfactory behavior of Stack 36F-5. There had to be a condition leading to brittle response in Stack 25F-5. A common cause of brittle failure in reinforced concrete is shear. Assuming the development of the maximum resisting moment at the critical section, the unit shear stresses (SRSS) are calculated as 1/8fc (0.70 MPa) and 1/10fc (0.50 MPa) at the penetration and at the base of Stack 25F-5, respectively. The corresponding unit shear stresses for Stack 36F-5 are 1/10fc and 1/9fc (0.56 MPa) at the penetration and at the base. Even if it is assumed that these stresses could be 25% higher because of strain hardening in the longitudinal reinforcement, it is not plausible to conclude that shear was the critical effect. This inference is corroborated by the lack of inclined cracks in the surviving stack. Another possible cause of brittleness is splice failure. The lap lengths of (40 bar diameter + 300 mm) correspond to a unit bond stress of 0.4fc (2.2 MPa) to develop the specified yield stress in 26 mm reinforcing bars used at the level of the penetration. If the stress in the reinforcement was higher by 25%, the unit bond stress would be 0.5fc (2.7 MPa). For static loading with appropriate cover or confinement, a nominal unit bond stress of 0.5fc 10,11 would suggest a low probability of splice failure. On the other hand, for loading reversals with inadequate cover and no confinement, the calculated nominal bond stress would signal a high probability of failure. The splices, with a mean lap length of 3 m (115 bar diameter), at the bases of the two stacks were less likely to fail. The mean unit bond stress in the splices at the base to develop 1.25 times the yield stress in the reinforcement was 0.2fc (1.1 MPa) for both stacks. The most plausible conclusion is that the large penetration in Stack 25F-5 attracted the critical section for flexural yielding to a region where the lap splices could not maintain continuity under stress reversals in the nonlinear range of response, lending to brittle failure of the stack. Stack 36F-5, for which the critical section remained at the base where the splices were not vulnerable, survived the earthquake. CONCLUSIONS The studies summarized in this paper lead to the conclusion that the collapse, during the August 17, 1999, Marmara earthquake, of a 115 m-high reinforced concrete stack (Stack 25F-5 in Fig. 12(a)) in the Tpras refinery (Fig. 2) was caused by brittle failure of the reinforcing bar splices in the region of flexural yielding. The region of the flexural yielding was attracted to a height approximately 30 m above the base because of the presence of a large penetration. Stack 36F-5, located in the immediate vicinity of Stack 25F-5 and of comparable height but with two small penetrations instead of one large one, survived the earthquake with no apparent structural damage. The region of potential yielding remained at the base. ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003

Fig. 16Flexural demand versus resistance along heights of Stack 25F-5 and Stack 36F-5. The studies indicate that the section vulnerable to yielding can be determined readily by a comparison of the moment demand and resistance distributions over the height of the stack and that the moment demand calculated using a very simple model (linear mode shape) was sufficient to identify the critical section at which flexural yielding would occur. It is also important to note that the collapse of Stack 25F-5 is attributed not to lack of strength but to detailing of the reinforcement that produced a brittle failure. The observed behavior of Stack 25F-5 confirms that whenever there is a credible probability of flexural yielding in a major reinforced concrete element without collateral sources of resistance, lap splicing should be avoided unless there is adequate confinement. The lap length required to develop the tensile strength of a reinforcing bar of a given size is sensitive to the tensile strength of the concrete and factors controlling confinement such as thickness and quality of concrete cover, transverse pressure, as well as amount and stiffness/strength of transverse reinforcement, if any. The information available on static strength of lap splice is limited and indicates, as would be expected, the probability of considerable scatter. Under stress reversals into the nonlinear range of response, information on behavior of lap splices in a stack is fragmentary at best. Recognizing these factors, Chapter 21 of ACI 318-9912 contains clauses (21.3.2.3, 21.4.3) that advise strongly against the use of lap splices in regions of potential flexural yield reversals. It is proper that design recommendations for reinforced concrete stacks should also contain such cautions especially because there is no second line of defense in a stack if the splices in the longitudinal reinforcement fail. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Fuat Hisarciklilar and Bulent Tuncer of the Tpras Petroleum Refineries Corporation for their generosity in providing the required data. Appreciation is due to Naci Endem and Tamer Tunca13 of Endem Insaat Ltd. for providing the design documents for the stacks. The first author is deeply indebted to the support provided by the Bogazici University Research Fund through contract 98A402. At Purdue University, the work was supported by Grant CMS-0085270 of the National Science Foundation. Kandilli Observatory, the Earthquake Research Institute, and the Earthquake Research Department of the General Directorate of Disaster Affairs, Turkish Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, are also acknowledged for their immediate release of data related to the August 17, 1999, event. Special

363

thanks are due Piotr Noakowski of the Dsseldorf Office of Failure Analysis Associates for the data provided about the properties of the refractory brick used in the liners of both stacks. Thanks are owed to the following colleagues who improved the manuscript by their constructive criticism: G. Fernandez (University of Illinois at Urbana), L. Garcia (Los Andes University, Bogota), P. Gulkan (Middle East Technical University, Ankara), S. Otani (University of Tokyo), and S. L. Wood (University of Texas at Austin).

fc G H hx J Jx MMI Mw PGA T V W

NOTATION
= = = = = = = = = = = = concrete compressive strength acceleration of gravity total height of structure height to level x moment reduction factor moment reduction factor at level x Modified Mercalli Intensity of observed damage in earthquake moment magnitude of earthquake peak ground acceleration calculated period of structure base design shear total weight

REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 307, Specification for the Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307-69), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1969, 22 pp. 2. ACI Committee 307, Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Chimneys (ACI 307-98) and Commentary (307R-98), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1998, 17 pp. 3. United States Geological Survey, Implications for Earthquake Risk

Reduction in the United States from the Marmara, Turkey, Earthquake of August 17, 1999, Circular 1193, Reston, Va., 2000, 65 pp. 4. Safak, E., and Erdik, M., Recorded Main Shock and Aftershock Motions, Earthquake Spectra, Supplement A to V. 16, Dec. 2000, pp. 97-112. 5. Ozmen, B., Damage Due to August 17, 1999, Izmit Bay Earthquake, Report TDV/DR-010-53,Turkish Earthquake Research Department of the General Directorate of Disaster Affairs, Istanbul, Turkey, June 2000, 132 pp. 6. Somerville, P. G., Magnitude Scaling of the Near Fault Rupture Directivity Pulse, Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Quantitative Prediction of Strong-Motion and the Physics of Earthquake Sources, Tsukuba, Japan, Oct. 2000, pp. 63-78. 7. Turkish Standards Institute, Steel Bars for Concrete, Standard No. TS 708, Ankara, Turkey, Mar. 1996, 23 pp. 8. Hognestad, E., A Study of Combined Bending and Axial Load in Reinforced Concrete Members, Bulletin 399, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, Ill., June 1951, 128 pp. 9. Pujol, S., FLECHA: Spreadsheet Program for Construction Interaction Diagrams of Reinforced Concrete Sections, School of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind., 1999, 246 pp. 10. Abrams, D. A., Tests of Bond Between Concrete and Steel, Bulletin 71, University of Illinois Engineering Experiment Station, Urbana, Ill., Dec. 1913, 240 pp. 11. Orangun, C. O.; Jirsa, J. O.; and Breen, J. E., A Reevaluation of Test Data on Development Length and Splices, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 74, No. 3, Mar. 1977, pp. 114-122. 12. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-99) and Commentary (318R-99), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1999, 391 pp. 13. Tunca, T., Experience of the Marmara and Bolu Earthquakes in Turkey, 1999, CICIND Report, CICIND (International Committee on Industrial Chimneys), V. 16, No. 2, Sept. 2000, pp. 14-21.

364

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2003