Seismic evaluation of existing building structure using United States (ASCE 41-17) and Japanese (JBDPA) standard: Case study office building in Indonesia

. In this study, the target evaluation building is a reinforced concrete structure with 4 stories in Surabaya City Indonesia that was over 35 years old. The method used is the U.S standard; ASCE 41:17 and the Japanese standard; JBDPA. The results using the ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 checklist with a 975 years earthquake return period (BSE-2E) and collapse prevention performance target obtained several evaluation items that received noncompliant (NC) status. Out of the 21 checklist items, 5 items were compliant (C), 7 items were noncompliant (NC), 2 items not applicable (N/A), and 7 items are unknown (U). The results of the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) also produce performance object building is still below the target performance level. The evaluation results using JBDPA show that the seismic index of structure (I S ) at first and second-level screening procedures is less than the seismic demand index of structure (I SO ). The results evaluation of these two methods shows the same results, that the building has a deficiency of strength and ductility, to improve building performance against earthquake loads needs to retrofit.


Introduction
Indonesia, as a country with a high risk of earthquakes, already has seismic building codes for earthquakeresistant structures building design that began in 1970 (PMI 1970) and has been updated several times to the latest in 2019 (SNI 1726:2019) [1][2].However, during this period, Indonesia did not yet have a seismic evaluation of existing building standards.The evaluation of existing buildings that have been carried out so far still refers to seismic design codes, which are irrelevant.In 2021, the National Centre for Earthquake Studies under the Ministry of Public Works and Housing of Indonesia formed a team to compile the seismic evaluation standards with adopt to ASCE 41-17.Still, these standards were not officially issued until this paper was written.In the history of the development of seismic design codes in Indonesia, at least two standards are the primary references.At PMI 1970, Indonesia's seismic design codes adopted Japanese standards, but from 2012 until now, Indonesia consistently referred to U.S. standards, namely ASCE 7 [3].
In this paper, a seismic evaluation is carried out on reinforced concrete structures built in 1987 or over 35 years old in Surabaya City, Indonesia.The seismic evaluation standard used is the U.S. standard; the American Society of Civil Engineers/ASCE 41-17 [4], and the Japanese standard; the Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association/JBDPA English Version 2001 [5].The study objective of this paper is to look at the *Corresponding author: faiz.sulthan@pu.go.id differences in the method of analysis and evaluation results with these two standards in case studies of office buildings in Indonesia.

Object building
The object building of this paper is a reinforced concrete moment frame structure system.When referring to the construction year, use Earthquake Resistant Design Provisions Code for Building 1983 (PPTGIUG 1983) [6].In these standards, when compared with the current Indonesian seismic standard, there is a significant difference in base shear demand.Surabaya City is included in Zone 4 in the 1983 Standard.Zone 4, compared to the 2019 standard, has an increase in base shear of 24% [1].However, this cannot immediately lead to a conclusion that the building being evaluated does not meet the reliability of its structure; many variables need to be considered in the evaluation.
The object building does not have complete technical data, so several tests were conducted to obtain the data.Testing included geometric measurements, rebar scanning, rebound hammer tests, and compressive core drill tests.Drawings of building plans and measurement results can be seen in Fig. 1-5.
The results of the dimensional measurements obtained the plan and geometric dimensions of each structure member.There are two types of columns, three types of beams, and one slab.Inspection of the reinforcement is not only done by rebar scanning but E3S Web of Conferences 429, 05001 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202342905001ICCIM 2023 also by chipping randomly to verify the results of the rebar scanning.The floor system uses a slab with a thickness of 12 mm, and there are retrofits in the slab system using a steel beam with sections 350x175x7x11, indicated by the dashed line in Fig. 4.    The number of core drill samples was taken as 13 cores assuming uniform concrete quality in all structure members.This number refers to the minimum number of samples in both seismic evaluation standards.The minimum number of samples in ASCE 41-17 is six; in JBDPA, there is no minimum number.In addition, a non-destructive test was also carried out with a rebound hammer test at the location of the core drill.This aims to create a correlation curve on the relationship between the rebound number value and the compressive strength of the core concrete because the value of the rebound number can only be used to determine the quality of concrete if a correlation is made with the compressive strength of the core concrete [7][8].The number of rebound number sample points is 32.There is no specific provision for this amount, but the principle is disseminating the collected data to reach all building areas.The results of the rebound number test and compressive core drill test can be seen in Table 1.For the properties of the steel rebar, the reference standards [9] in of construction year were used, using U-39 reinforcing steel grades with a yield strength (fy): 390 MPa and ultimate strength (fu): 450 MPa.Then the concrete strength will be calculated according to the provisions of the evaluation standard used.

ASCE 41-17 evaluation
3.1 Evaluation procedure ASCE 41-17 standard provides three tiers of procedures for seismic evaluation and two tiers of procedures for seismic retrofit of an existing building adapted for use in areas of varying levels of seismicity.In this paper, the study objective was just for evaluation, the evaluation process can be seen in Fig. 6.

Tier 1 evaluation
Tier 1 Screening is the first step in carrying out a seismic evaluation of a building.At the beginning of the Tier 1 evaluation, it is necessary to know the performance level, seismic hazard level, and level of seismicity of the building being evaluated.The performance level is determined based on the risk category of the building.The evaluation is then followed by completing a more detailed inspection procedure in the form of a checklist/checklist according to the type and earthquake risk of the building being evaluated.The evaluation process of the Tier 1 Screening examination can be seen in Fig. 7. *It may be beneficial for engineer to perform a tier 1 screening evaluation prior to a tier 3 systematic evaluation even though it is not required.
**The evaluation process may proceed directly to the tier 3 systematic evaluation as an option.

Level of seismicity and structural performance
The object building function is an office building, so it is determined to have risk category II.ASCE 41-17 in the scope of assessment requires (Table 2) that the object building is evaluated for collapse prevention performance for BSE-2E (basic safety earthquake-2 taken as a seismic hazard with a 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years) and does not need to be evaluated for BSE-1E (basic safety earthquake-1 taken as a seismic hazard with a 20% probability of exceedance in 50 years).
Based on Indonesia's seismic hazard maps with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years [10] Surabaya City has SDS = 0.64 and SD1 = 0.57 for (BSE-2N), so it has a high level of seismicity (Table 3).

Basic configuration checklist
This checklist includes an evaluation of general building matters such as structural systems, building configurations and an evaluation of the risk of failure in geological and geotechnical aspects.The results of the basic configuration check are shown in Table 4.

Evaluation Statement
Status Low seismicity Building system -general LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-defined load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation C ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is greater than 0.25% of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 0.5% in moderate seismicity, and 1.5% in high seismicity C MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced independently from the main structure or are anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of the main structure N/A Low seismicity Building system -building configuration WEAK STORY: The sum of the shear strengths of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story in each direction is not less than 80% of the strength in the adjacent story above C SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the seismic-force resisting system in any story is not less than 70% of the seismic-force-resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or less than 80% of the average seismic-force-resisting system stiffness of the three stories above C VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements in the seismic-force-resisting system are continuous to the foundation N/A

Evaluation Statement
Status Low seismicity Building system -building configuration GEOMETRY: There are no changes in the net horizontal dimension of the seismic-forceresisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines C MASS: There is no change in effective mass of more than 50% from one story to the next.Light roofs, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be considered C TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension C Moderate seismicity Geologic site hazard LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building's seismic performance do not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 ft (15.2 m) under the building U SLOPE FAILURE: The building site is located away from potential earthquake-induced slope failures or rockfalls so that it is unaffected by such failures or is capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure U SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site are not anticipated U High seismicity Foundation configuration OVERTURNING: The ratio of the least horizontal dimension of the seismic-forceresisting system at the foundation level to the building height (base/height) is greater than 0.6 Sa

U TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS:
The foundation has ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classified as Site Class A, B, or C U Note: C=Compliant, NC=Noncompliant, N/A= Not Applicable, and U = Unknown The basic configuration screening results show that almost all evaluation items are compliant, except those requiring geotechnical conditions and foundation details.This is because no geological surveys and detailed inspections of the foundation structure were carried out in this study.

Collapse prevention structural checklist
The structural checklist includes a more detailed examination of the reliability of the building superstructure.The object building is a reinforced concrete frame structure that uses types C1 with a collapse prevention performance targets checklist.This evaluation only relied on data from inspections and field tests conducted using stratified random sampling.Some data were lacking due to the limitations of the examination, so several items were evaluated by engineering judgment with the principle of evaluating conservatively.The results of the structural collapse prevention checklist are shown in Table 5.

Evaluation Statement
Status Low seismicity Seismic -force -resisting system REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of moment frames in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2 C COLUMN AXIAL STRESS CHECK: The axial stress caused by unfactored gravity loads in columns subjected to overturning forces because of seismic demands is less than 0.20 f'c.Alternatively, the axial stress caused by overturning forces alone, calculated using the quick check procedure of Equation 2 Several items in the structural checklist results such as pseudo seismic force, column axial stress check, column shear stress check, the shear failure, and strong column-weak beam are then explained in detail by explaining the concepts, calculations, and evaluation results.

Concrete strength
Non-destructive testing is a complement to cored drill data.The analytical approach taken for the nondestructive testing is to correlate the results of the nondestructive testing at certain sample points to the core compressive strength values at that point.For that we need to make a strength correlation curve.Correlation results referring to ACI 228.1R-19 [9] can be seen in Fig. 8. Interpreting the results of the concrete quality test in Table 6 is carried out by calculating the value of the design equivalent concrete compressive strength, ′ , .In this report, the interpretation of the results of the concrete quality test is carried out by calculating ′ , using the Alternate Method (Bartlett and MacGregor, 1995) [11] described in ACI 214.4R-10 [12].In this method, the value of ′ , is calculated based on a lower-bound value of the average core sample strength, (  ̅ )  in a particular building structure.Estimate the lower-bound value of the average compressive strength of concrete in place for the desired confidence level, CL.

Pseudo-Seismic force
Pseudo shear force (V) is calculated based on the Equation 1.
The pseudo shear force formula for evaluation is the same as the base shear Equation for design, but it does not consider ductility modification and important factors.The value of C is the modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to displacements calculated for linear elastic response, in this case C=1.0 is used.The value of Sa is the response spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the building in the direction under consideration.Sa in this case uses the BSE-2E hazard level according to Table 2. Based on Indonesia's earthquake hazard deaggregation map with a 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years [13] Surabaya City has SS = 0.60 and S1 = 0.25.Then the value of W is the effective seismic weight of the building which is calculated by the self-weight of the structure and the superimposed dead load.In this case, effective weight was calculated W = 19699.2kN.The results of the pseudo shear force calculation can be seen in Table 7.
In Equation 2, nf is the number of frames in the direction of loading, hn is the total height of the building, L is the span length of the frame, Acol is the column area on the corner outside, and Ms is the system modification factor, where 2.5 is used in this Equation for collapse prevention (Table 8).

Column Shear Stress
Story shear forces   was calculated by distributing pseudo seismic force V vertically.Furthermore, the value of the average shear stress on the column where nc is the number of columns and nf is the number of frames in the direction of loading.   calculated using Equation 3with Ms is the system modification factor, where 2.0 is used in this Equation for collapse prevention.Value    on each floor must be less than the greater of 0.69 MPa or 1/6 √′ (Table 9).ASCE 41-17 requires that the shear capacity of resistant moment frame members be sufficient to guarantee the achievement of bending moment capacities at the ends of members.If the shear capacity of a component is reached before its bending moment capacity, it will have the potential to experience brittle failure which can result in total collapse.Components that have a lower shear resistance than their bending resistance must be checked for their shear resistance against the demand for shear forces acting according to the combination of acting loads.
In this case, the shear resistance of components is evaluated by sampling members who are estimated to experience the greatest demand.The sample beams are those on grids F, G-2 story-1, and F-2.3 story-1.The calculation results are shown in Table 10.

Strong column-weak beam
The requirements for strong column-weak beams can be met if the moment capacity of the column is greater than 20% of the beam's total moment capacity.In this case, the sample evaluation was taken on the 2-F beamcolumn joint story 1 for X and Y directions.
The moment capacity Mn of the column is affected by how large the axial load.In this calculation, the column Mn is taken by taking the column axial load value from the combination of gravity loads which will produce a conservative Mn.Calculation results can be seen in Table 11.

Summary of tier 1 structural checklist
From the 21 structural checklist evaluation statement, 5 items are included in the compliant (C), 7 items are noncompliant (NC), 2 items are not applicable (N/A), and 7 items are unknown (U).Evaluation items that are noncompliant are column axial stress, column shear stress, captive column, shear failure, strong columnweak beam, column-tie spacing, and stirrup spacing.Meanwhile, unknown items are items that require detailed reinforcement data, especially on foundation joints, this cannot be known due to the limitations of the tool for detecting reinforcement (rebar scanning).

Tier 3 evaluation
Referring to the ASCE 41-17 evaluation process, if noncompliant items are found in the Tier 1 checklist, there is an option to proceed with evaluation directly to Tier 3. Then in this study, this step was taken.At Tier 3, structural system analysis is carried out with acceptance criteria based on basic performance objectives for existing buildings (BPOE), namely for risk category II is life safety for BSE-1E and collapse prevention for BSE-2E.ASCE 41-17 sections 6.2.3 regarding data collection requires that the choice of procedure be in accordance with the level of knowledge of the data collection, in the case of this study, the data level is determined at the usual level because drawing surveys and material testing have been carried out.Then the building plan is symmetrical and has no horizontal and vertical irregularities, so for the analytical procedure chosen to use nonlinear static procedure (NSP).
The NSP concept is to calculate the target displacement value which will then be evaluated against the component acceptance criteria.The method for calculating targeted displacement can use Equation 4or the FEMA 440 demand spectrum method.
In Equation 4, Sa is response spectrum acceleration at the effective fundamental period, g is acceleration of gravity, C0 is modification factor to relate spectral displacement, C1 is modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic, C2 is modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteresis shape, cyclic stiffness degradation, and strength deterioration on the maximum displacement, and Te is effective fundamental period.
Furthermore, NSP is carried out with a foundation modeling assumed to be fixed at the structure's base, then defining the nonlinear material properties and modeling parameters and acceptance criteria of the components like Fig. 9 referring to Table 10.7 for beams and 10.8 for columns in ASCE 41-17.Fig. 9. Acceptance criteria illustration.

Nonlinear static procedure (NSP) BSE-1E
The calculation results using Equation 4 with a response spectrum acceleration of 20% probability of being exceeded in 50 years (SS = 0.30 and S1 = 0.15) obtained the target displacement for each direction   =254.497mm and   =256.267mm.Based on the target displacement value, the acceptance criteria structure was analyzed by deformation when target displacement occurred.
The results of NSP BSE-1E in the X direction show that the maximum deformation of the structure is 170,352 mm.There are three columns in the CP category (Fig. 10), so the structure could not continue its deformation.It means that the structure is already at the CP level for the X direction before reaching the displacement target.For the results of NSP BSE-1E in the Y direction, the structure can reach the target displacement and the condition of the structural elements is still within the IO range.Based on these results, the BSE-1E seismic hazard target with the life safety performance level target was not met, because in the X direction, a column structure is included in the CP category.

Nonlinear static procedure (NSP) BSE-2E
The results of calculations using Equation 4with response spectrum acceleration 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years (SS = 0.60 and S1 = 0.25) obtained target displacement for each direction   =358.815mm and   =368.117.
The results of NSP BSE-2E in the X direction are the same as BSE-1E.The maximum deformation of the structure is 170,352 mm.The structure's condition cannot be deformed until it reaches the target displacement (Fig. 11).For the results of NSP BSE-2E in the Y direction, the structure can achieve the target displacement, and the condition of the structural elements is included in the CP category.Based on these results, the BSE-2E seismic hazard target with the collapse prevention target was not met because the structure was assumed to have experienced a total collapse in the X direction.

JBDPA evaluation
There are three level screening procedures in this standard.The first level screening procedure are intended to determine lateral strength of building and is roughly evaluated by calculate the shear strength of vertical structure component such as columns and walls with their cross-sectional area.The second level screening procedure is applied to buildings where deficiencies are found in the first level evolution method.In this method, the beam is assumed to be rigid and not collapse before the vertical members.The third level screening is a more detailed evaluation by considering the beam capacity in the evaluation.The JBDP evaluation process can be seen in Fig. 12.
To judge the structure building requires retrofitting or not, all screening levels using concept that the seismic index of structure (Is) must be greater than the seismic demand index of structure (Iso) (Equation 5).
≥   (5) In this paper, the analysis was carried out using a first and second-level screening procedure.Where the seismic index of structure is calculated from the basic seismic index of structure (E0), irregularity index (SD), and time index (T) as in Equation 6.In JBDPA, the seismic demand index of structure (ISO) is calculated from Es, which has a value of 0.8 for 1 st level screening, and 0.6 for 2 nd and 3 rd level screening, zone index Z, ground index G, and usage index U as in Equation 7.
Indonesian seismic codes do not use the concept of zone index.To determine the value of this zone index, one can use the Equation to calculate the base shear coefficient between the Indonesian seismic codes in Equation 8 and the Japanese seismic codes in Equation 9.
The value of SDS is the design spectral acceleration of the short period 2/3 MCER, R is the response modification value which in the case of object building is ordinary reinforced concrete moment frames so that the value is R=3, and the value I is the importance factor for office buildings is 1.0.For the Japanese seismic codes, the Z value is the zoning factor or zone index, Rt is the design spectral factor which in the case of this building is 1.0, Ai is the lateral shear distribution factor which is 1.0 for base shear, and C0 is the standard shear factor which the value is used 0.2 for the moderate earthquake.If CS equals Ci then the Equation for calculating the value of Z is like Equation 10.

𝑍 =
0 (10) In other references, the seismic demand index is the value of the seismic acceleration acting on the building structure.This is based the concept that seismic demand is an acceleration of earthquakes received by building structures [13].In the JBDPA or Building Japan Law, the seismic hazard return period used is 500 years, different from Indonesia which uses 2475 years for design (BSE-2N) while 225 years (BSE-1E) and 975 years (BSE-2E) for evaluation.When comparing the calculated value of the base shear coefficient for the maximum earthquake that occurred, the spectral acceleration value using 2/3 MCER (design) has the same value as the spectral acceleration value with a return period of 500 years [14], so Iso equal to SDS for object cases this building where the four-storey building has a natural period below Ts (SD1/SDS).
The results of the two methods for calculating the value of the seismic demand index above show that if calculate the zone index first using Equation 10, the value of ISO = 0.85 for the first screening and ISO = 0.64 for the second screening.As for the method using the concept of Iso concept same as the accelerated spectral design, ISO = 0.64 was obtained for the first and second screening.These results were obtained based on the BSE-2N spectral acceleration value for Surabaya City as in section 3.2.1 with SDS = 0.64 and SD1 = 0.57.For the conservative evaluation, in this case use ISO = 0.85 for the first screening and ISO = 0.64 for the second screening.
The seismic index of structure E0, the basic concept is obtained by multiplying the ductility index F and the strength index C.For the first screening, the value of E0 choose greater than Equations 11-12, and for the second screening choose greater than Equations 13-14.
To calculate the strength index, the average compressive strength of core drill concrete is used in Table 1 without using the rebound number data and its correlation, to obtain a concrete quality of 10.97 MPa.The evaluation results shown in Table 12-13.The first and second-level screening evaluation results show that the building structure requires retrofit because the seismic index of structure is lower than the seismic demand index value.

Conclusion
The results using the ASCE 41-17 Tier 1 checklist with a 975 year earthquake return period (BSE-2E) and collapse prevention performance target obtained several evaluation items that received noncompliant (NC) status, out of the 21 checklist items, 5 items were compliant (C), 7 items were noncompliant (NC), 2 items not applicable (N/A), and 7 items are unknown (U).The items that were noncompliant status are on the column axial stress check, column shear stress, captive columns, shear failure, strong column-weak beam, column-tie spacing, and stirrup spacing.The results of the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) also produce performance object building is still below the target performance level which means that the planned building needs to be retrofitted to meet the performance level.The evaluation results using Japanese standards JBDPA shows that the seismic index of structure (IS) at the first and second level screening procedure is less than the seismic demand index of structure (ISO), meaning the building must be retrofitted.
The evaluation of these two methods shows the same results, that the building has a deficiency of strength and ductility.To improve building performance against earthquake loads needs to be retrofitted.The difference is that the evaluation in ASCE 41-17 is based on a detailed checklist and the level of building performance.For JBDPA the concept is simpler and is based on fulfilling structural capacity against seismic demand.For the purposes of seismic evaluation of structures in a short time and with simple calculations, JBDPA is an option, where the results of the evaluation also tend to be conservative, but for detailed evaluation purposes and related to an examination of deficiencies down to the member scale, ASCE 41-17 can be an option.
The first screening on JBDPA has a similar concept to the column shear stress check item on ASCE-41 Tier 1, where the concept is to calculate the lateral capacity of the building structure against seismic demand.This check item is very important when evaluating the structure.When it is known that the capacity lateral structure is insufficient, this shows that the strength of the building structure needs to be improved.
, is less than 0.30 f'c NC Connections CONCRETE COLUMNS: All concrete columns are doweled into the foundation with a minimum of four bars U Moderate seismicity Seismic -force -resisting system REDUNDANCY: The number of bays of moment frames in each line is greater than or equal to 2 C INTERFERING WALLS: All concrete and masonry infill walls placed in moment frames are isolated from structural elements U COLUMN SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the concrete columns, calculated using the quick check procedure of Equation 3, is less than the greater of 0.69 MPa or 2 √′ C FLAT SLAB FRAMES: The seismic-forceresisting system is not a frame consisting of columns and a flat slab or plate without beams.C High seismicity Seismic -force -resisting system PRESTRESSED FRAME ELEMENTS: The seismic-force-resisting frames do not include any prestressed or post-tensioned elements where the average prestress exceeds the lesser of 4.83 MPa or f'c/6 at potential hinge locations.N/A CAPTIVE COLUMNS: There are no columns at a level with height/depth ratios less than 50% of the nominal height/depth ratio of the typical columns at that level NC NO SHEAR FAILURES: The shear capacity of frame members is able to develop the moment capacity at the ends of the members NC STRONG COLUMN-WEAK BEAM: The sum of the moment capacity of the columns is 20% greater than that of the beams at frame joints NC BEAM BARS: At least two longitudinal top and two longitudinal bottom bars extend continuously throughout the length of each frame beam.At least 25% of the longitudinal bars provided at the joints for either positive or negative moment are continuous throughout the length of the members C COLUMN-BAR SPLICES: All column-bar lap splice lengths are greater than 35db and are enclosed by ties spaced at or less than 8db.Alternatively, column bars are spliced with mechanical couplers with a capacity of at least 1.25 times the nominal yield strength of the spliced bar U Table 5 (continued).Collapse prevention structural checklist result.Evaluation Statement Status BEAM-BAR SPLICES: The lap splices or mechanical couplers for longitudinal beam reinforcing are not located within lb/4 of the joints and are not located in the vicinity of potential plastic hinge locations U COLUMN-TIE SPACING: Frame columns have ties spaced at or less than d/4 throughout their length and at or less than 8db at all potential plastic hinge locations NC STIRRUP SPACING: All beams have stirrups spaced at or less than d/2 throughout their length.At potential plastic hinge locations, stirrups are spaced at or less than the minimum of 8db or d/4 NC JOINT TRANSVERSE REINFORCING: Beam-column joints have ties spaced at or less than 8db U DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY: Secondary components have the shear capacity to develop the flexural strength of the components U FLAT SLABS: Flat slabs or plates not part of the seismic-force-resisting system have continuous bottom steel through the column joints N/A DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level floors and do not have expansion joints C UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS: Pile caps have top reinforcement, and piles are anchored to the pile caps U Note: C=Compliant, NC=Noncompliant, N/A= Not Applicable, and U = Unknown

Table 1 .
Result of rebound and compressive core drill test.

Table 4 .
Basic configuration checklist result.

Table 7 .
The pseudo shear force calculation.

Table 8 .
Column axial stress calculation result.

Table 9 .
Column shear stress calculation result.

Table 10 .
Column shear stress calculation result.

Table 11 .
Strong column-weak beam calculation result.