Copyright
Copyright 1999 Structural Engineers Association of California. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
Publishe
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) 555 University Avenue, Suite 126 Sacramento, California 958256510 Telephone: (916) 4273647; Fax: (916) 5680677 Email: seaoc@aol.com; Web address: www.seaint.org The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional association of four regional member organizations (Central California, Northern California, San Diego, and Southern California). SEAOC represents the structural engineering community in California. This document is published in keeping with SEAOCs stated mission: to advance the structural engineering profession; to provide the public with structures of dependable performance through the application of stateoftheart structural engineering principles; to assist the public in obtaining professional structural engineering services; to promote natural hazard mitigation; to provide continuing education and encourage research; to provide structural engineers with the most current information and tools to improve their practice; and to maintain the honor and dignity of the profession.
Editor
Gail Hynes Shea, Albany, California, shea@slip.net
Disclaime
Practice documents produced by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) and/or its member organizations are published as part of our associations educational program. While the information presented in this document is believed to be correct, neither SEAOC nor its member organizations, committees, writers, editors, or individuals who have contributed to this publication make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations included in this publication. The material presented in this publication should not be used for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use.
Table of Contents
Preface .......................................................................... ................................... v Acknowledgments..................................................................... ..................................vi Introduction .......................................................................... ................................... 1 Notation .......................................................................... ................................... 3 Example 1 Earthquake Load Combinations: Strength Design ............................................... 1612.2...................... 7 Example 2 Combinations of Loads .................................... 1612.3.................... 12 Example 3 Seismic Zone 4 NearSource Factor ................ 1629.4.2................. 17 Introduction to Vertical Irregularities ....................................... 1629.5.3................. 20 Example 4 Vertical Irregularity Type 1 ............................. 1629.5.3................. 21 Example 5 Vertical Irregularity Type 2 ............................. 1629.5.3................. 24 Example 6 Vertical Irregularity Type 3 ............................. 1629.5.3................. 26 Example 7 Vertical Irregularity Type 4 ............................. 1629.5.3................. 28 Example 8 Vertical Irregularity Type 5 ............................. 1629.5.3................. 30 Example 9 Vertical Irregularity Type 5 ............................. 1629.5.3................. 32 Introduction to Plan Irregularities ............................................. 1629.5.3................. 36 Example 10 Plan Irregularity Type 1 ................................... 1629.5.3................. 37 Example 11 Plan Irregularity Type 2 ................................... 1629.5.3................. 41 Example 12 Plan Irregularity Type 3 ................................... 1629.5.3................. 43 Example 13 Plan Irregularity Type 4 ................................... 1629.5.3................. 45 Example 14 Plan Irregularity Type 5 ................................... 1629.5.3................. 46 Example 15 Reliability/Redundancy Factor ..................... 1630.1.1................. 47 Example 16 Reliability/Redundancy Factor Applications... 1630.1.1................. 52 Example 17 P Effects......................................................... 1630.1.3................. 56 Example 18 Design Base Shear ........................................... 1630.2.1................. 59 Example 19 Structure Period Using Method A.................... 1630.2.2................. 61 Example 20 Simplified Design Base Shear.......................... 1630.2.3................. 65 Example 21 Combination of Structural Systems: Vertical... 1630.4.2................. 68 Example 22 Combination of Structural Systems: Along Different Axes....................................... 1630.4.3................. 71 Example 23 Combination of Structural Systems: Along the Same Axis ....................................... 1630.4.4................. 73 Example 24 Vertical Distribution of Force .......................... 1630.5.................... 74 Example 25 Horizontal Distribution of Shear...................... 1630.6.................... 76 Example 26 Horizontal Torsional Moments ........................ 1630.7.................... 81
Table of Contents
Preface
This document is the initial volume in the threevolume SEAOC Seismic Design Manual. It has been developed by the Structural Engineers Association of Californi (SEAOC) with funding provided by SEAOC. Its purpose is to provide guidance on the interpretation and use of the seismic requirements in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), published by the International Conference of Building Official (ICBO), and SEAOCs 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (also called the Blue Book). The Seismic Design Manual was developed to fill a void that exists between the Commentary of the Blue Book, which explains the basis for the UBC seismic provisions, and everyday structural engineering design practice. The Seismic Design Manual illustrates how the provisions of the code are used. Volume I: Code Application Examples, provides stepbystep examples of how to use individual code provisions, such as how to compute base shear or building period. Volumes II and III: Building Design Examples, furnish examples of the seismic design of common types of buildings. In Volumes II and III, important aspects of whole buildings are designed to show, calculationbycalculation, how the various seismic requirements of the code are implemented in a realistic design. SEAOC intends to update the Seismic Design Manual with each edition of the building code used in California.
Acknowledgements
Authors
The Seismic Design Manual was written by a group of highly qualified structural engineers. These individuals are both California registered structural engineers and SEAOC members. They were selected by a Steering Committee set up by the SEAOC Board of Directors and were chosen for their knowledge and experience with structural engineering practice and seismic design. The Consultants for Volumes I, II and III are Ronald P. Gallagher, Project Manager David A. Hutchinson Jon P. Kiland John W. Lawson Joseph R. Maffei Douglas S. Thompson Theodore C. Zsutty Volume I was written principally by Theodore C. Zsutty and Ronald P. Gallagher. Many useful ideas and helpful suggestions were offered by the other Consultants. Consultant work on Volumes II and III is currently underway.
Steering Committee
Overseeing the development of the Seismic Design Manual and the work of the Consultants was the Project Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was made up of senior members of SEAOC who are both practicing structural engineers and have been active in Association leadership. Members of the Steering Committee attended meetings and took an active role in shaping and reviewing the document. The Steering Committee consisted of John G. Shipp, Chair Robert N. Chittenden Stephen K. Harris Maryann T. Phipps Scott A. Stedman
Acknowledgments
Reviewers
A number of SEAOC members and other structural engineers helped check the examples in this volume. During its development, drafts of the examples were sent to these individuals. Their help was sought in both review of code interpretations as well as detailed checking of the numerical computations. The assistance of the following individuals is gratefully acknowledged Saeed R. Amirazizi Jefferson W. Asher Brent Berensen Donald A. Cushing Vincent DeVita Richard M. Drake Todd W. Erickson Daniel Fisher Kenneth Gebhar Edward R. Haninger Thomas Hunt Mark S. Jokerst Isao M. Kawasaki John W. Lawson Ronald Lugue Robert Lyons Peter Maranian Brian McDonal Rory M. McGruer Brian Montes Manuel Morden Farzad Naeim David A. Napoleon Josh Plummer Mehran Pourzanjani Ian Robertson John G. Shipp Donald R. Strand
Seismology Committee
Close collaboration with the SEAOC Seismology Committee was maintained during the development of the document. The 19971998 and 19981999 Committees reviewed the document and provided many helpful comments and suggestions. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
19981999 19971998
Saif M. Hussain, Chair Tom H. Hale, Past Chair Robert N. Chittenden Stephen K. Harris Douglas Hohbach Y. Henry Huang Saiful Islam Martin W. Johnson Jaiteerth B. Kinha Eric T. Lehmkuhl Simin Naaseh Hassan Sassi, Assistant to the Chair
Tom H. Hale, Chair Ali M. Sadre, Past Chair Robert N. Chittenden Stephen K. Harris Saif M. Hussain Saiful Islam Martin W. Johnson Eric T. Lehmkuhl Roumen V. Mladjov Simin Naaseh Carl B. Schulze Chris V. Tokas Joyce Copelan, Assistant to the Chair
Errata Notification
SEAOC has made a substantial effort to ensure that the information in this document is accurate. In the event that corrections or clarifications are needed, these will be posted on the SEAOC web site at http://www.seaint.org or on the ICBO website at http://ww.icbo.org. SEAOC, at its sole discretion, may or may not issue written errata.
Introduction
Volume I of the SEAOC Seismic Design Manual: Code Application Examples deals with interpretation and use of the seismic provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). The Seismic Design Manual is intended to help the reader understand and correctly use the UBC seismic provisions and to provide clear, concise, and graphic guidance on the application of specific provisions of the code. It primaril addresses the major seismic provisions of Chapter 16 of the UBC, with interpretation of specific provisions and examples highlighting their proper application. Volume I presents 55 examples that illustrate the application of specific seismic provisions of the UBC. Each example is a separate problem, or group of problems, and deals primarily with a single code provision. Each example begins with a description of the problem to be solved and a statement of given information. The problem is solved through the normal sequence of steps, each of which are illustrated in full. Appropriate code references for each step are identified in the righthand margin of the page. The complete Seismic Design Manual will have three volumes. Volumes II and III will provide a series of seismic design examples for buildings illustrating the seismic design of key parts of common building types such as a large threestory wood frame building, a tiltup warehouse, a braced steel frame building, and a concrete shear wal building. While the Seismic Design Manual is based on the 1997 UBC, there are some provision of SEAOCs 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Provisions and Commentary (Blue Book) that are applicable. When differences between the UBC and Blue Book are significant, these are brought to the attention of the reader. The Seismic Design Manual is applicable in regions of moderate and high seismicity (e.g., Zones 3 and 4), including California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. It is intended for use by practicing structural engineers and structural designers, building departments, other plan review agencies, and structural engineering students.
The various code application examples of Volume I are organized in numerical order by 1997 UBC section number. To find an example for a particular provision of the code, look at the upper, outer corner of each page, or in the table of contents. Generally, the UBC notation is used throughout. Some other notation is also defined in the following pages, or in the examples. Reference to UBC sections and formulas is abbreviated. For example, 1997 UBC Section 1630.2.2 is given as 1630.2.2 with 1997 UBC being understood. Formula (322) is designated Equation (322) or just (322) in the righthand margins. Throughout the document, reference to specific code provisions and equations (the UBC calls the latter formulas) is given in the righthand margin under the category Code Reference. Similarly, the phrase Table 16O is understood to be 1997 UBC Table 16O. Generally, the examples are presented in the following format. First, there is a statement of the example to be solved, including given information, diagrams, and sketches. This is followed by the Calculations and Discussion section, which provides the solution to the example and appropriate discussion to assist the reader. Finally, many of the examples have a third section designated Commentary. In this latter section, comments and discussion on the example and related material are made. Commentary is intended to provide a better understanding of the example and/or to offer guidance to the reader on use of the information generated in the example. In general, the Volume I examples focus entirely on use of specific provisions of the code. No design is illustrated. Design examples are given in Volumes II and III. The Seismic Design Manual is based on the 1997 UBC, unless otherwise indicated. Occasionally, reference is made to other codes and standards (e.g., ACI 31895 or 1997 NDS). When this is done, these documents are clearly identified.
Notation
The following notations are used in this document. These are generally consistent with that used in the UBC. However, some additional notations have also been added. AB = ground floor area of structure in square feet to include area covered by all overhangs and projections. the combined effective area, in square feet, of the shear walls in the first story of the structure. the minimum crosssectional area in any horizontal plane in the first story, in square feet of a shear wall. the torsional amplification factor at Leve x. numerical coefficient specified in 1632 and set forth in Table 16O of UBC. seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16Q of UBC. numerical coefficient given in 1630.2.2 of U BC. seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16R of UBC. dead load on a structural element. the length, in feet, of a shear wall in the first story in the direction parallel to the applied forces. = earthquake loads set forth in 1630.1 of UBC.
Ac
Ae
Ax ap
= =
Ca Ct Cv D De
= = = = =
design seismic force applied to Leve i, n or x, respectively. design seismic force on a part of the structure. design seismic force on a diaphragm. that portion of the base shear, V, considered concentrated at the top of the structure in addition to Fn. axial stress.
Fa
Notation
Fy fc fi fm fp fy g
= = = = = = =
specified yield strength of structural steel. specified compressive strength of concrete. lateral force at Level i for use in Formula (3010) of UBC. specified compressive strength of masonry. equivalent uniform load. specified yield strength of reinforcing steel acceleration due to gravity. height in feet above the base to Leve i, n or x, respectively. importance factor given in Table 16K of UBC. importance factor specified in Table 16K of UBC. live load on a structural element. level of the structure referred to by the subscript i. i = 1 designates the first level above the base. that level that is uppermost in the main portion of the structure. that level that is under design consideration. x = 1 designates the first level above the base. nearsource factor used in the determination of Ca in Seismic Zone 4 related to both the proximity of the building or structure to known faults with magnitudes and slip rates as set forth in Tables 16S and 16U of UBC. nearsource factor used in the determination of Cv in Seismic Zone 4 related to both the proximity of the building or structure to known faults with magnitudes and slip rates as set forth in Tables 16T and 16U of UBC. numerical coefficient representative of the inherent overstrength and global ductility capacity of lateralforceresisting systems, as set forth in Table 16N or 16P of UBC.
hi, hn,hx = I Ip L = = =
Level i =
Level n =
Level x =
Na
Nv
Notation
a ratio used in determining . See 1630.1 of UBC. = soil profile types as set forth in Table 16J of UBC.
elastic fundamental period of vibration, in seconds, of the structure in the direction under consideration. the total design lateral force or shear at the base given by Formula (305), (306), (307) or (3011) of UBC. the design story shear in Story x. the total seismic dead load defined in 1620.1.1 of UBC. that portion of W located at or assigned to Level i or x, respectively. the weight of an element of component. the weight of the diaphragm and the element tributary thereto at Level x, including applicable portions of other loads defined in 1630.1.1 of UBC. seismic zone factor as given in Table 16I of UBC. Maximum inelastic response displacement, which is the tota drift or total story drift that occurs when the structure is subjected to the Design Basis Ground Motion, including estimated elastic and inelastic contributions to the total deformation defined in 1630.9 of UBC. Design level response displacement, which is the total drift or total story drift that occurs when the structure is subjected to the design seismic forces. horizontal displacement at Level i relative to the base due to applied lateral forces, f, for use in Formula (3010) of UBC. capacityreduction or strengthreduction factor. Redundancy/reliability factor given by Formula (303) of UBC. Seismic force amplification factor, which is required to account for structural overstrength and set forth in Table 16N of UBC.
V Vx W
= = =
wi, wx =
Wp wpx
= =
Z M
= =
i o
= = =
1612.2
! "#
#
$%&'&
This example demonstrates the application of the strength design load combinations that involve the seismic load E given in 1630.1.1. This will be done for the momentresisting frame structure shown below:
B C
Beam AB and Column CD are elements of the special momentresisting frame. Structural analysis has provided the following individual beam moments at A, and the column axial loads and moments at C due to dead load, office building live load, and lateral seismic forces.
Dead Load D Beam Moment at A Column CD Axial Load Column Moment at C 100 kipft 90 kips 40 kipft Live Load L 50 kipft 40 kips 20 kipft Lateral Seismic Load Eh 120 kipft 110 kips 160 kipft
Strength design moment at beam end A. Strength design axial load and moment at column top C.
1612.2
Code Reference
To determine strength design moments for design, the earthquake component E must be combined with the dead and live load components D and L . This process is illustrated below.
Determine earthquake load E: The earthquake load E consists of two components as shown below in Equation (301). E h is due to horizontal forces, and E v is due to vertical forces.
E = E h + E v
1630.1.1
(301)
The moment due to vertical earthquake forces is calculated as E v = 0.5C a ID = 0.5 (0.44 )(1.0)(100 ) = 22 k  ft The moment due to horizontal earthquake forces is given as E h = 120 k  ft Therefore E = E h + E v = 1.1(120) + 22 = 154 k  ft 1630.1.1
Apply earthquake load combinations: The basic load combinations for strength design (or LRFD) are given in 1612.2.1. For this example, the applicable equations are: 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L
0.9 D 1.0 E
1612.2.1
(125) (126)
Using Equation (125) and Equation (126), the strength design moment at A for combined dead, live, and seismic forces are determined. M A = 1.2 M D + 1.0 M E + f 1 M L = 1.2 (100) + 1.0 (154 ) + 0.5 (50) = 299 k  ft M A = 0.9 M D 1.0M E = 0.9 (100) 1.0 (154 ) = 244 k  ft or 64 k  ft M A = 299 k  ft or 64 k  ft
1612.2
Specific material requirements: There are different requirements for concrete (and masonry) frames than for steel as follows. Structural Steel: Section 2210 specifies use of the load combinations of 1612.2.1 as given above without modification. Reinforced Concrete: Section 1909.2.3 specifies use of the load combinations of 1612.2.1, where Exception 2 requires the factor load combinations of Equation (125) and Equation (126) to be multiplied by 1.1 for concrete and masonry elements. ( Note: At the time of publication, April 1999, the 1.1 factor is under consideration for change to 1.0.) Therefore, for a reinforced concrete frame, the combinations are: 1.1 (1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L ) = 1.32 D + 1.1E + 1.1 f 1 L 1.1 (0.9 D 1.0E ) = 0.99 D 1.1E M A = 1.1 (299 k  ft ) = 328.9 k  ft M A = 1.1 (244 k  ft or 64 k  ft ) = 268.4 k  ft or 70.4 k  ft M A = 328.9 k  ft or 70.4 k  ft for a concrete frame. (125) (126)
1630.1.1 (301)
where
E v = 0.5C a ID = 0.22 D
1630.1.1
For axial load E = E h + E v = 1.1 (110 kips ) + 0.22 (90 kips ) = 140.8 kips For moment E = E h + E v = 1.1 (160k  ft ) + 0.22 (40k  ft ) = 184.8 k  ft
1612.2
Apply earthquake load combinations: 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L 0.9 D 1.0 E Design axial force PC at point C is calculated as PC = 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L = 1.2 (90) + 1.0 (140.8) + 0.5 (40) = 268.8 kips PC = 0.9 D 1.0 E = 0.9 (90 ) 1.0 (140.8) = 221.8 and 59.8 kips PC = 268.8 kips compression, or 59.8 kips tension Design moment M C at point C is calculated as
M C = 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f1L = 1.2 (40 k  ft ) + 1.0 (184.8 k  ft ) + 0.5 (20 k  ft ) = 242.8 k  ft M C = 0.9 D 1.0 E = 0.9 (40 k  ft ) 1.0(184.8 k  ft ) = 220.8 k  ft or 148.8 k  ft M C = 242.8 kft or 148.8 kft Note that the column section capacity must be designed for the interaction of PC = 268.8 kips compression and M C = 242.8 kft (for dead, live and earthquake), and the interaction of PC = 59.8 kips tension and M C = 148.8 kft (for dead and earthquake).
Specific material requirements Structural Steel: Section 2210 specifies the use of the load combinations of 1612.2.1 as given above without modification. Reinforced Concrete: The axial force PC and the moment M C must be multiplied by 1.1 per 1612.2.1.
1630.1.1
Commentary
Use of strength design requires consideration of vertical seismic load E v . When allowable stress design is used, the vertical seismic load E v is not required under 1630.1.1.
1612.2
The incorporation of E v in the load combinations for strength design has the effect of increasing the load factor on the dead load action D. For example, consider the load combination of Equation (125) 1.2 D + 1.0 E + ( f 1 L + f 2 S ) where E = E h + E v and E v = 0.5C a ID this becomes 1.2 D + 1.0 (0.5C a ID + E h ) + ( f 1 L + f 2 S ) (125)
f2S)
Thus, the total factor on D is 1.2 + 0.22 = 1.42 For the allowable stress design load combinations of 1612.3, E v may be taken as zero. When these combinations are converted to an equivalent strength design basis, the resulting factor on dead load D is comparable to (1.2 + 0.5C a I ) in 1612.2. For example, consider the following: The basic load combinations of 1612.3.1, without increase in allowable stresses, have a 1.70 factor on D (using the procedure permitted in 1630.8.2.1 for conversion to design strength). The alternate basic load combinations of 1612.3.2 with a permitted onethird 1.70 = 1.28 factor on D. increase in allowable stress has a 1.33
1612.3
$%&'(
The code requires the use of allowable stress design for the design of wood members and their fastenings (see 2301 and 2305). Section 1612.3 permits two different combinations of load methods. These are: 1. Allowable stress design (ASD) of 1612.3.1 2. Alternate allowable stress design of 1612.3.2 This example illustrates the application of each of these methods. This is done for the plywood shear wall shown below. The wall is a bearing wall in a light wood framed building. The following information is given:
Gravity loads
Zone 4 I = 1.0 = 1.0 Ca = 0.40 V E = 4.0 kips (seismic force determined from 1630.2)
Gravity loads: Dead w D = 0.3 klf (tributary dead load, including weight of wall) Live w L = 0 (roof load supported by other elements)
VE
Plywood shear wall
h = 9'
Holddown Nailing
L = 10'
Determine the required design loads for shear capacity q and holddown capacity T for the following load combinations:
1612.3
Code Reference
1612.3.1
The governing load combinations for basic allowable stress design are Equations (129), (1210) and (1211). These are used without the usua onethird stress increase except as permitted by 1809.2 for soil pressure. For wood design, however, the allowable stresses for shorttime loads due to wind or earthquake may be used. D+ E 1.4 E 1.4 E 1.4
(129)
0.9 D
(1210)
(1211) (301)
E = Eh + Ev = (1.0) Eh + O = Eh
Note that under the provisions of 1630.1.1, E v is taken as zero for ASD. Dead and live load are not involved when checking shear, and both the governing Equations (1210) and (1211) reduce to 1.0 E . In this example, E reduces to E h . For checking tension (holddown capacity), Equation (1210) governs. Whenever compression is checked, then Equations (129) and (1211) must be checked.
Required unit shear capacity q. Base shear and the resulting element seismic forces determined under 1630.2 are on a strength design basis. For allowable stress design, these must be divided by 1.4 as indicated above in Equations (129), (1210) and (1211). Thus E V E 4,000 = h = e = V ASD = = 2,857 lbs 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 The unit shear is q= V ASD 2,857 = = 286 plf L 10
This unit shear is used to determine the plywood thickness and nailing requirements from Table 23I1. Footnote 1 of that Table states that the allowable shear values are for shorttime loads due to wind or earthquake.
1612.3
Required holddown capacity T. Taking moments about point O at the right edge of wall and using V E = 2,875 lbs , the value of the holddown force TE due to horizontal seismic forces is computed 9.58T E = 9V E TE = 9V 9 2.857 = 2.68 kips = 9.58 9.58
Using Equation (1210) the effect of dead load and seismic forces are combined to determine the required ASD holddown capacity. In this example D= 1 (w D )(10 ) = 1 (0.3)(10 ) = 1.5 kips 2 2 E = 0.9 D TE = 0.9 (1.5) 2.68 = 1.33 kips tension 1.4
T = 0.9 D
(1210)
This value is used for the selection of the premanufactured holddown elements. Manufacturers catalogs commonly list holddown sizes with their 1.33 allowable capacity values. Here the 1.33 value represents the allowed Load Duration factor, C D , given in Table 2.3.2 of 2316.2 for resisting seismic loads. This is not considered a stress increase (although it has the same effect). Therefore, the 1.33 allowable capacity values may be used to select the appropriate holddown element.
1612.3.2
Under this method of load combination, the customary onethird increase in allowable stresses is allowed. However, Item 5 of 2316.2 states that the onethird increase shall not be used concurrently with the load duration factor C D . The governing load combinations, in the absence of snow load, are the following: D+L+ E 1.4
(1213)
0.9 D
E 1.4
(12161) (301)
where E = E h + E v = (1.0) E h + O = E h
Note: Equation (12161) is a May 1998 errata for the first printing of the code.
1612.3
Required unit shear capacity q. E V E 4,000 = h = e = V ASD = = 2,857 lbs 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 q= V ASD 2,856 = = 286 plf L 10
This value may be used directly to select the plywood thickness and nailing requirements from Table 23I1. This method recognizes that Table 23I1 already includes a 1.33 allowable stress increase for seismic loading, and the onethird increase cannot be used again with the tabulated values.
Required holddown capacity T. Taking moments about point O at the right edge of wall for only seismic forces 9.58T E = 9V E TE = 9 (2.857 kips ) = 2.68 kips 9.58
The dead load effect on the holddown is onehalf the dead load. Thus, D= 1 (w D )(10 ) = 1 (0.3)(10 ) = 1.5 kips 2 2
The governing tension is determined from Equation (12161) T = 0.9 D E = 0.9 D TE = 0.9 (1.5) 2.68 = 1.33 kips tension 1.4
(1210)
This value may be used directly, without modification, to select the 1.33 allowable capacity of the holddown elements. Note that the 1.33 allowable value can be considered either as the onethird increase permitted by 1612.3.1, or the use of a loadduration factor of C D = 1.33 .
1612.3
Commentary
For wood design, the use of the load duration factor C D is not considered as an increase in allowable stress. Together with the other factors employed in establishing the allowable resistance of wood elements, it is the means of representing the extra strength of wood when subject to short duration loads and provides the allowable stress for wind or earthquake load conditions. The allowable shear values given in the Chapter 23 Tables 23IIH, 23III1, and 23II12 are based on this use of this load duration factor. Therefore, the use of the C D factor or the aforementioned table values is permitted for the wind and earthquake load combinations of 1612.3. However, both 1622.3.1 and 2316.2, Item 5, prohibit the concurrent use of a onethird increase in the normal loading allowable stress with the load duration factor C D . It is important to note that, for other than the wind or earthquake load combinations, and for other materials such as masonry where there is no load duration factor, the equivalency of the capacity requirements for 1612.3.1 and 1612.3.2 does not apply mainly because of the prohibited use of a stress increase in 1612.3.1. In this case, the minimum required allowable stress design capacity requirements are best given by the alternate basic load combinations in 1612.3.2.
1629.4.2
"
) * +" ,
$%&'*'&
The 1997 UBC introduced the concept of nearsource factors. Structures built in close proximity to an active fault are to be designed for an increased base shear over similar structures located at greater distances. This example illustrates the determination of the nearsource factors N a and N v . These are used to determine the seismic coefficients C a and C v used in 1630.2.1 to calculate design base shear.
Determine the nearsource factors Na and N v for a site near Lancaster, California.
Code Reference
First locate the City of Lancaster in the book Maps of Known Active Fault NearSource Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. This is published by the International Conference of Building Officials and is intended to be used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Lancaster is shown on map M30. Locate the site on this map (see figure), and then determine the following: The shaded area on map M30 indicates the source is a type A fault. Therefore Seismic source type: A The distance from the site to the beginning of the fault zone is 6 km. Another 2 km must be added to reach the source (discussed on page vii of the UBC Maps of Known Active Faults). Thus, the distance from the site to the source is 6 km + 2 km = 8 km. Distance from site to source: 8 km. Values of N a and N v are given in Tables 16S and 16T for distances of 2, 5, 10, and 15 km. For other distances, interpolation must be done. N a and N v have been plotted below. For this site, N a and N v can be determined by entering the figures at a distance 8 km. and using the source type A curves. From this N a = 1.08 N v = 1.36
1629.4.2
Commentary
The values of N a and N v given above are for the site irrespective of the type of structure to be built on the site. Had N a exceeded 1.1, it would have been possible to use a value of 1.1 when determining C a , provided that all of the conditions listed in 1629.4.2 were met.
2.0
Na
1.0
2.0
Nv
1.0
Site
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
Vertical irregularities are identified in Table 16L. These can be divided into two categories. The first are dynamic force distribution irregularities. These are irregularity Types 1, 2, and 3. The second category is irregularities in load path or force transfer, and these are Types 4 and 5. The five vertical irregularities are as follows: 1. Stiffness irregularitysoft story 2. Weight (mass) irregularity 3. Vertical geometric irregularity 4. Inplane discontinuity in vertical lateralforce resisting element 5. Discontinuity in capacityweak story The first category, dynamic force distribution irregularities, requires that the distribution of lateral forces be determined by combined dynamic modes of vibration. For regular structures without abrupt changes in stiffness or mass (i.e., structures without vertical structural irregularities), this shape can be assumed to be linearlyvarying or a triangular shape as represented by the code force distribution pattern. However, for irregular structures, the pattern can be significantly different and must be determined by the combined mode shapes from the dynamic analysis procedure of 1631. The designer may opt to go directly to the dynamic analysis procedure and thereby bypass the checks for vertical irregularity Types 1, 2, and 3. Regular structures are assumed to have a reasonably uniform distribution of inelastic behavior in elements throughout the lateral force resisting system. When vertical irregularity Types 4 and 5 exist, there is the possibility of having localized concentrations of excessive inelastic deformations due to the irregular load path or weak story. In this case, the code prescribes additional strengthening to correct the deficiencies.
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
A fivestory concrete special momentresisting frame is shown below. The specified lateral forces F x from Equations (3014) and (3015) have been applied and the corresponding floor level displacements x at the floor center of mass have been found and are shown below.
Ft + F5
10'
S5 = 2.02" S4 = 1.75"
Triangular shape
F4
10'
F3
10'
S3 = 1.45" S2 = 1.08"
F2
10'
F1
S1 = 0.71"
12'
Determine if a Type 1 vertical irregularitystiffness irregularitysoft story exists in the first story.
Code Reference
To determine if this is a Type 1 vertical irregularitystiffness irregularitysoft storyhere are two tests:
1. The story stiffness is less than 70 percent of that of the story above. 2. The story stiffness is less than 80 percent of the average stiffness of the three stories above. If the stiffness of the story meets at least one of the above two criteria, the structure is considered to have a soft story, and a dynamic analysis is generally required under 1629.8.4 Item 2, unless the irregular structure is not more than five stories or 65feet in height (see 1629.8.3 Item 3). The definition of soft story in the code compares values of the lateral stiffness of individual stories. Generally, it is not practical to use stiffness properties unless these can be easily determined. There are many structural configurations where the evaluation of story stiffness is complex and is often not an available output from
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
1629.5.3
computer programs. Recognizing that the basic intent of this irregularity check is to determine if the lateral force distribution will differ significantly from the linear pattern prescribed by Equation (3015), which assumes a triangular shape for the first dynamic mode of response, this type of irregularity can also be determined by comparing values of lateral story displacements or drift ratios due to the prescribed lateral forces. This deformation comparison may even be more effective than the stiffness comparison because the shape of the first mode shape is often closely approximated by the structure displacements due to the specified triangular load pattern. Floor level displacements and corresponding story drift ratios are directly available from computer programs. To compare displacements rather than stiffness, it is necessary to use the reciprocal of the limiting percentage ratios of 70 and 80 percent as they apply to story stiffness, or reverse their applicability to the story or stories above. The following example shows this equivalent use of the displacement properties. From the given displacements, story drifts and the story drift ratio values are determined. The story drift ratio is the story drift divided by the story height. These will be used for the required comparisons, since these better represent the changes in the slope of the mode shape when there are significant differences in interstory heights. (Note: story displacements can be used if the story heights are nearly equal.) In terms of the calculated story drift ratios, the soft story occurs when one of the following conditions exists: S1 h1 S1 h1 S 2 S1 h2
exceeds
exceeds
(0.71 0) = 0.00493
144
(1 . 45
1 . 08 ) = 0 . 00308 120
1629.5.3
S4 S3 h4
Commentary
Section 1630.10.1 requires that story drifts be computed using the maximum inelastic response displacements M . However, for the purpose of the story drift, or story drift ratio, comparisons needed for soft story determination, the displacement S due to the design seismic forces can be used as done in this example. In the example above, only the first story was checked for possible soft story vertical irregularity. In practice, all stories must be checked, unless a dynamic analysis is performed. It is often convenient to create a table as shown below to facilitate this exercise.
Story Displacement 2.02 in. 1.75 1.45 1.08 0.71 Story Drift Ratio 0.00225 0.00250 0.00308 0.00308 0.00493 .7x (Story Drift Ratio) 0.00158 0.00175 0.00216 0.00216 0.00345 .8x (Story Drift Ratio) 0.00180 0.00200 0.00246 0.00246 0.00394 Avg. of Story Drift Ratio of Next 3 Stories 0.00261 0.00289 Soft Story Status No No No No Yes
Level 5 4 3 2 1
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
The fivestory special moment frame office building has a heavy utility equipment installation at Level 2. This results in the floor weight distribution shown below:
Level 5
W5 = 90 k
W4 = 110 k
W3 = 110 k
W2 = 170 k
W1 = 100 k
Code Reference
A weight, or mass, vertical irregularity is considered to exist when the effective mass of any story is more than 150 percent of the effective mass of an adjacent story. However, this requirement does not apply to the roof if the roof is lighter than the floor below. Checking the effective mass of Level 2 against the effective mass of Levels 1 and 3 At Level 1 1.5 W1 = 1.5 (100 k ) = 150 k At Level 3 1.5 W3 = 1.5 (110 k ) = 165 k W2 = 170 k > 150 k Weight irregulari ty exists
Example 5
1629.5.3
Commentary
As in the case of vertical irregularity Type 1, this type of irregularity also results in a primary mode shape that can be substantially different from the triangular shape and lateral load distribution given by Equation (3015). Consequently, the appropriate load distribution must be determined by the dynamic analysis procedure of 1631, unless the irregular structure is not more than five stories or 65 feet in height (see 1629.8.3 Item 3).
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
The lateral forceresisting system of the fivestory special moment frame building shown below has a 25foot setback at the third, fourth and fifth stories.
1 2 3 4 5
Code Reference
A vertical geometric irregularity is considered to exist where the horizontal dimension of the lateral forceresisting system in any story is more than 130 percent of that in the adjacent story. Onestory penthouses are not subject to this requirement. In this example, the setback of Level 3 must be checked. The ratios of the two levels is Width of Level 2 (100') = = 1.33 Width of Level 3 (75' ) 133 percent > 130 percent Vertical geometric irregulari ty exists
1629.5.3
Commentary
The more than 130 percent change in width of the lateral forceresisting system between adjacent stories could result in a primary mode shape that is substantially different from the triangular shape assumed for Equation (3015). If the change is a decrease in width of the upper adjacent story (the usual situation), the mode shape difference can be mitigated by designing for an increased stiffness in the story with a reduced width. Similarly, if the width decrease is in the lower adjacent story (the unusual situation), the Type 1 soft story irregularity can be avoided by a proportional increase in the stiffness of the lower story. However, when the width decrease is in the lower story, there could be an overturning moment load transfer discontinuity that would require the application of 1630.8.2. When there is a large decrease in the width of the structure above the first story along with a corresponding large change in story stiffness that creates a flexible tower, then 1629.8.3, Item 4 and 1630.4.2, Item 2 may apply. Note that if the frame elements in the bay between lines 4 and 5 were not included as a part of the designated lateral force resisting system, then the vertical geometric irregularity would not exist. However, the effects of this adjoining frame would have to be considered under the adjoining rigid elements requirements of 1633.2.4.1.
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
A concrete building has the building frame system shown below. The shear wall between Lines A and B has an inplane offset from the shear wall between Lines C and D.
A B C D
3 12' 25
1 12'
Determine if there is a Type 4 vertical irregularity, inplane discontinuity in the vertical lateral forceresisting element.
Code Reference
A Type 4 vertical irregularity exists when there is an inplane offset of the lateral load resisting elements greater than the length of those elements. In this example, the left side of the upper shear wall (between lines A and B) is offset 50 feet from the left side of the lower shear wall (between lines C and D). This 50foot offset is greater than the 25foot length of the offset wall elements. In  plane discontinu ity exists
1629.5.3
Commentary
The intent of this irregularity check is to provide correction of force transfer or load path deficiencies. It should be noted that any inplane offset, even those less or equal to the length or bay width of the resisting element, can result in an overturning moment load transfer discontinuity that requires the application of 1630.8.2. When the offset exceeds the length of the resisting element, there is also a shear transfer discontinuity that requires application of 1633.2.6 for the strength of collector elements along the offset. In this example, the columns under wall AB are subject to the provisions of 1630.8.2 and 1921.4.4.5, and the collector element between Lines B and C at Level 2 is subject to the provisions of 1633.2.6.
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
A concrete bearing wall building has the typical transverse shear wall configuration shown below. All walls in this direction are identical, and the individual piers have the shear contribution given below. Vn is the nominal shear strength calculated in accordance with 1921.6.5, and Vm is the shear corresponding to the development of the nominal flexure strength calculated in accordance with 1921.6.6.
Level 3
Pier
4 1 5
Vn 20 k 30 15 80 15
Vm 30 k 40 10 120 10
1 2 3 4 5
Determine if a Type 5 vertical irregularity, discontinuity in capacity weak story, condition exists.
Code Reference
A Type 5 weak story discontinuity in capacity exists when the story strength is less than 80 percent of that in the story above. The story strength is considered to be the total strength of all seismic forceresisting elements sharing the story shear for the direction under consideration. Using the smaller values of Vn and Vm given for each pier, the story strengths are First story strength = 20 + 30 + 10 = 60 k Second story strength = 80 + 10 = 90 k Check if first story strength is less than 80 percent of that of the second story: 60k < 0.8 (90) = 72 k Weak story condition exists
1629.5.3
Commentary
This irregularity check is to detect any concentration of inelastic behavior in one supporting story that can lead to the loss of vertical load capacity. Elements subject to this check are the shear wall piers (where the shear contribution is the lower of either the shear at development of the flexural strength, or the shear strength), bracing members and their connections, and frame columns. Frame columns with weak columnstrong beam conditions have a shear contribution equal to that developed when the top and bottom of the column are at flexural capacity. Where there is a strong columnweak beam condition, the column shear resistance contribution should be the shear corresponding to the development of the adjoining beam yield hinges and the column base connection capacity. In any case, the column shear contribution shall not exceed the column shear capacity. Because a weak story is prohibited (under 1629.9.1) for structures greater than two stories or 30 feet in height, the first story piers in this example must either be strengthened by a factor of 72/60 = 1.2, or designed for o times the forces prescribed in 1630.
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
A fourstory building has a steel special moment resisting frame (SMRF). The frame consists of W24 beams and W14 columns with the following member strength properties (determined under 2213.4.2 and 2213.7.5):
A B C D
Beams at Levels 1 and 2: M b =ZF y = 250 kipft Columns on lines A, B, C, and D at both levels: M c = Z Fy f a = 200 kipft at
axial loading of 1.2 PD + 0.5 PL . Column base connections at grade: M f = 100 kipft In addition, the columns meet the exception of 2213.7.5 such that a strong beamweak column condition is permitted.
Determine if a Type 5 vertical irregularitydiscontinuity in capacityweak story condition exists in the first story:
Determine first story strength. Determine second story strength. Determine if weak story exists at first story.
Code Reference
A Type 5 weak story discontinuity in capacity exists when the story strength is less than 80 percent of that of the story above. The story strength is considered to be the total strength of all seismic forceresisting elements that share the story shear for the direction under consideration. To determine if a weak story exists in the first story, the sums of the column shears in the first and second storieswhen the member moment capacities are developed by lateral loadingmust be determined and compared. In this example, it is assumed that the beam moments at a beamcolumn joint are distributed equally to the sections of the columns directly above and below the joint. Given below is the calculations for first and second stories.
1629.5.3
Columns A and D must be checked for strong columnweak beam considerations. 2M c = 400 > M b = 250 strong columnweak beam condition exists. Next, the shear in each column must be determined.
M b 2 = 125 k  ft
M f = 100 k  ft
Checking columns B and C for strong columnweak beam considerations. 2 M c = 400 < 2 M b = 500 Strong beamweak column condition exists. Next, the shear in each column must be determined.
V
Mc = 200 kft
Mf = 100 kft
1629.5.3
Columns A and D must be checked for strong columnweak beam at Level 2. 2M c = 400 > M b = 250 strong columnweak beam condition exists.
M b 2 = 125 k  ft
M b 2 = 125 k  ft
Checking columns B and C for strong columnweak beam considerations. 2M c = 400 < 2 M b = 500 Strong beamweak column condition exists.
Mc = 200 kft
Clear height = 12 ft 2 ft = 10 ft
10
V B = VC =
Mc = 200 kft
1629.5.3
First story strength = 87.5 k Second story strength = 130.0 k 87.5 < 0.80 (130) = 104 Weak story condition in first story exists Table 16L Item 5
1629.5.3
.
.#
$%&'0'(
Plan structural irregularities are identified in Table 16M. There are five types of plan irregularities: 1. Torsional irregularityto be considered when diaphragms are not flexible 2. Reentrant corners 3. Diaphragm discontinuity 4. Outofplane offsets 5. Nonparallel systems These irregularities can be categorized as being either special response conditions or cases of irregular load path. Types 1, 2, 3, and 5 are special response conditions: Type 1. When the ratio of maximum drift to average drift exceeds the given limit, there is the potential for an unbalance in the inelastic deformation demands at the two extreme sides of a story. As a consequence, the equivalent stiffness of the side having maximum deformation will be reduced, and the eccentricity between the centers of mass and rigidity will be increased along with the corresponding torsions. An amplification factor Ax is to be applied to the accidental eccentricity to represent the effects of this unbalanced stiffness. Type 2. The opening and closing deformation response or flapping action of the projecting legs of the building plan adjacent to reentrant corners can result in concentrated forces at the corner point. Elements must be provided to transfer these forces into the diaphragms. Type 3. Excessive openings in a diaphragm can result in a flexible diaphragm response along with force concentrations and load path deficiencies at the boundaries of the openings. Elements must be provided to transfer the forces into the diaphragm and the structural system. Type 4. The Type 4 plan irregularity, outofplane offset, represents the irregular load path category. In this case, shears and overturning moments must be transferred from the level above the offset to the level below the offset, and there is a horizontal offset in the load path for the shears. Type 5. The response deformations and load patterns on a system with nonparallel lateral forceresisting elements can have significant differences from that of a regular system. Further analysis of deformation and load behavior may be necessary.
1629.5.3
4
$%&'0'(
A threestory special moment resisting frame building has rigid floor diaphragms. Under specified seismic forces, including the effects of accidental torsion, it has the following displacements at Levels 1 and 2: L ,2 = 1.30" L ,1 = 1.00" R , 2 = 1.90" R ,1 = 1.20"
R,2
Level 3
R,1 L,2
Level 2
1 Level 1
L,1
If it does:
Compute the torsional amplification factor Ax for Level 2.
Code Reference
A Type 1 torsional plan irregularity is considered to exist when the maximum story drift, including accidental torsion effects, at one end of the structure transverse to an axis is more than 1.2 times the average of the story drifts of the two ends of the structure.
Table 16M
Referring to the above figure showing the displacements due to the prescribed lateral forces, this irregularity check is defined in terms of story drift X = ( X X 1 ) at ends R (right) and L (left) of the structure. Torsional irregularity exists at level x when
1629.5.3
1.2(
R,x
L, x
= 1.2 avg
L, 2 = L , 2 L ,1 R ,2 = R ,2 R ,1 max = R , X , avg = Determining story drifts at Level 2 L, 2 = 1.30 1.00 = 0.30 in. R ,2 = 1.90 1.20 = 0.70 in. avg = 0.30 + 0.70 = 0.50 in. 2 L, X + R , X 2
Checking 1.2 criteria max R ,2 0.7 = = = 1.4 > 1.2 avg avg 0.5 Torsional irregulari ty exists
1630.7
When torsional irregularity exists at a level x , the accidental eccentricity, equal to 5 percent of the building dimension, must be increased by an amplification factor Ax . This must be done for each level, and each level may have a different Ax value. In this example, Ax is computed for Level 2. Ax = max 1.2 avg
2
(3016)
1629.5.3
Commentary
In 1630.7, there is the provision that the most severe load combination must be considered. The interpretation of this for the case of the story drift and displacements to be used for the average values avg and avg is as follows. The most severe condition is when both R, X and L, X are computed for the same accidental center of mass displacement that causes the maximum displacement max . For the condition shown in this example where R , X = max , the centers of mass at all levels should be displaced by the accidental eccentricity to the right side R, and both R, X and L, X should be evaluated for this load condition. While Table 16M calls only for 1633.2.9, Item 6 (regarding diaphragm connections) to apply if this irregularity exists, there is also 1630.7, which requires the accidental torsion amplification factor Ax given by Equation (3016). It is important to recognize that torsional irregularity is defined in terms of story drift X while the evaluation of Ax by Equation (3016) is in terms of displacements X . There can be instances where the story drift values indicate torsional irregularity and where the related displacement values produce an Ax value less than one. This result is not the intent of the provision, and the value of Ax used to determine accidental torsion should not be less than 1.0. The displacement and story drift values should be obtained by the equivalent lateral force method with the specified lateral forces. Theoretically, if the dynamic analysis procedure were to be used, the values of max and avg would have to be found for each dynamic mode, then combined by the appropriate SRSS or CQC procedures, and then scaled to the specified base shear. However, in view of the complexity of this determination and the judgmental nature of the 1.2 factor, it is reasoned that the equivalent static force method is sufficiently accurate to detect torsional irregularity and evaluate the Ax factor. If the dynamic analysis procedure is either elected or required, then 1631.3 requires the use of a threedimensional model if there are any of the plan irregularities listed in Table 16M.
1629.5.3
For cases of large eccentricity and low torsional rigidity, the static force procedure can result in a negative displacement on one side and a positive on the other. For example, this occurs if L ,3 = 0.40 and R ,3 = 1.80 . The value of avg in Equation (3016) should be calculated as the algebraic average: avg = L ,3 + R ,3 2 =
in.
When dynamic analysis is used, the algebraic average value avg should be found for each mode, and the individual modal results must be properly combined to determine the total response value for avg .
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
4 @ 25' = 100' 4
Code Reference
A Type 2 reentrant corner plan irregularity exists when the plan configuration of a structure and its lateral forceresisting system contain reentrant corners, where both projections of the structure beyond a reentrant corner are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension of the structure in the direction considered. The plan configuration of this building, and its lateral forceresisting system, have identical reentrant corner dimensions. For the sides on Lines 1 and 4, the projection beyond the reentrant corner is 100 ft 75 ft = 25 ft This is 25 or 25 percent of the 100 ft plan dimension. 100
For the sides on Lines A and E, the projection is 60 ft 40 ft = 20 ft 20 or 33.3 percent of the 60 ft plan dimension. This is 60
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
1629.5.3
Since both projections exceed 15 percent, there is a reentrant corner irregularity. Re  entrant corner irregulari ty exists
Commentary
Whenever the Type 2 reentrant corner plan irregularity exists, see the diaphragm requirements of 1633.2.9 Items 6 and 7.
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
A fivestory concrete building has a bearing wall system located around the perimeter of the building. Lateral forces are resisted by the bearing walls acting as shear walls. The floor plan of the second floor of the building is shown below. The symmetrically placed open area in the diaphragm is for an atrium, and has dimensions of 40 ft x 75 ft. All diaphragms above the second floor are without significant openings.
1 2 3 4
Code Reference
A Type 3 diaphragm discontinuity irregularity exists when diaphragms have abrupt discontinuities or variations in stiffness, including cutout or open areas greater than 50 percent of the gross enclosed area of the diaphragm, or changes in effective diaphragm stiffness of more than 50 percent from one story to the next. Gross enclosed area of the diaphragm is 80 ft 125 ft = 10,000 sq ft Area of opening is 40'75' = 3,000 sq ft 50 percent of gross area = 0.5 (10,000) = 5,000 sq ft 3,000 < 5,000 sq ft No diaphragm discontinu ity irregulari ty exists
1629.5.3
Commentary
The stiffness of the second floor diaphragm with its opening must be compared with the stiffness of the solid diaphragm at the third floor. If the change in stiffness exceeds 50 percent, then a diaphragm discontinuity irregularity exists for the structure. This comparison can be performed as follows: Find the simple beam midspan deflections 2 and 3 for the diaphragms at Levels 2 and 3, respectively, due to a common distributed load w , such as 1 klf.
w = 1 klf
Level 2
2
Deflected shape
w = 1 klf
Level 3
3
Deflected shape
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
2 10'
Elevation Line E
2 @ 25' = 50'
Determine if there is a Type 4 outofplane offset plan irregularity between the first and second stories.
Code Reference
An outofplane offset plan irregularity exists when there are discontinuities in a lateral force path, for example: outofplane offsets of vertical resisting elements such as shear walls. The first story shear wall on Line D has 25 ft outofplane offset to the shear wall on Line E at the second story and above. This constitutes an outofplane offset irregularity, and the referenced sections in Table 16M apply to the design. Offset irregulari ty exists
1629.5.3
$%&'0'(
A tenstory building has the floor plan shown below at all levels. Special moment resistingframes are located on the perimeter of the building on Lines 1, 4, A, and F.
A B C D E
F 4 @ 25' = 100'
4 3 @ 25' = 75'
Code Reference
A Type 5 nonparallel system irregularity is considered to exist when the vertical lateral load resisting elements are not parallel to or symmetric about the major orthogonal axes of the buildings lateral forceresisting system. The vertical lateral forceresisting frame elements located on Line F are not parallel to the major orthogonal axes of the building (i.e., Lines 4 and A). Therefore a nonparallel system irregularity exists, and the referenced section in Table 16M applies to the design. A nonparalle l system irregulari ty exists
1630.1.1
0
Evaluate the reliability/redundancy factor, , for the three structural systems shown below. Given information for each system includes the story shears Vi due to the design base shear V, and the corresponding element forces E h . The factor is defined as =2 20 rmax AB (303)
where rmax is the largest of the elementstory shear ratios, ri , that occurs in any of the story levels at or below the twothirds height level of the building; and AB is the ground floor area of the structure in square feet. Once has been determined, it is to be used in Equation (301) to establish the earthquake load E for each element of the lateral forceresisting system. For purposes of this example, only the frame line with maximum seismic force is shown. In actual applications, all frame lines in a story require evaluation. The E h forces given include any torsional effects. Note that the story shear Vi is the total of the shears in all of the frame lines in the direction considered.
Code Reference
16'
16'
16'
Level
1630.1.1
AB = 48 ft 100 ft = 4,800 sq ft, where 100 ft is the building width. Horizontal component in each brace is Fx = 4 Eh 5
where E h is the maximum force in a single brace element in story i. For braced frames, the value of ri is equal to the maximum horizontal force component Fx in a single brace element divided by the total story shear Vi . rmax = 0.320 =2 20 rmax AB =2
(0.320)
20 4800
= 1.10
(303)
24'
24'
24'
Level
5 5.9 k 4 15.6 k 3 21.5 k 2 28.3 k 1 38.7 k 68.6 k 71.8 k 40.2 k 51.2 k 45.7 k 56.8 k 11.4 k 27.9 k 13.1 k 30.2 k 7.5 k
1630.1.1
AB = 72'120' = 8,640 sq ft, where 120' is the building width Column shears are given above. E h = V A , V B , VC , V D in column lines A, B, C, D, respectively. Column Lines B and C are common to bays on opposite sides. For moment frames, ri is maximum of the sum of V A + 0.7 V B , or 0.7 ( V B + VC ), or 0.7VC + V D divided by the story shear Vi . Section 1630.1.1 requires that special momentresisting frames have redundancy such that the calculated value of does not exceed 1.25. The story shears and ri evaluations are:
Story i 1 2 3 4 5 Vi 388 kips 306 228 151 VA + 0.7VB 86.7 kips 64.1 49.6 35.1 0.7(VB + VC) 98.3 kips 75.6 60.1 40.7 0.7VC + VD 96.4 kips 70.5 57.6 37.5
1630.1.1
ri
0.253 0.247 0.264 0.270
rmax = r4 = 0.270 =2
(0.270)
20 8640
(303)
1630.1.1
AB = 70'120' = 8,400 sq ft., where 120' is the building width E h is the wall shear V w For shear walls, ri is the maximum of for the walls. V wi Vi 10 . The following information is given l w
Wall AB Story i 1 2 3 4 5 Vi 363 kips 288 208 105 Vwi 34.1 kips 26.9 36.3 19.7 lwi 10 ft 10 10 10
Wall CDE and CD Vwi 92.4 kips 75.2 69.3 39.8 lwi 40 ft 40 20 20
AB i VI
Vwi Vi
10 l w
Vwi Vi
10 l w
ri
0.094 0.093 0.175 0.190
1 2 3 4 5
rmax = r4 = 0.190 =2
(0.190)
20 6000
(303)
use = 1.0
1630.1.1
Commentary
A separate value of must be determined for each principal building direction. Each value of is applied to the elements of the vertical lateral forceresisting system for that direction. Note that the redundancy factor does not apply to horizontal diaphragms, except in the case of transfer diaphragms. The following code provisions require the designer to provide sufficient redundancy such that is less than or equal to specified values: 1. Section 1630.1.1 requires that the number of bays of special moment resisting frames be such that the value of is less than or equal to 1.25. 2. Section 1629.4.2 allows that the nearsource factor Na need not exceed 1.1, if along with other stated conditions, the redundancy is such that the calculated value is less than or equal to 1.00.
1630.1.1
%
5 1651 , 7
$%(4''
The 1997 UBC introduced the concept of the reliability/redundancy factor. The intent of this provision is to penalize those lateral forceresisting systems without adequate redundancy by requiring that they be more conservatively designed. The purpose of this example is to develop approximate relationships that will enable the engineer to estimate the number of lateral forceresisting elements required to qualify for given values of the redundancy factor . These relationships are particularly useful in the conceptual design phase. Note that a redundancy factor is computed for each principal direction and that these are not applied to diaphragms, with the exception of transfer diaphragms at discontinuous vertical lateral forceresisting elements. For the following structural systems, find the approximate relation for in terms of the number N of resisting elements (e.g., braces, frames, and walls).
Code Reference
Before developing the approximate relationships for the three structural systems, a brief discussion of methodology is presented. For a given story level i with story shear Vi , the approximate number of lateral forceresisting elements N required a given value of can be found as follows. The basic reliability/redundancy relationship given in 1630.1.1 is =2 20 rmax AB (303)
The term rmax is the maximum elementstory shear ratio. This is the fraction of the total seismic shear at a given floor level that is carried by the most highly loaded element. AB is the ground floor area of the structure in square feet. The value of rmax can be approximated in terms of the story shear Vi and the number of elements N in the story. This is done for each system below to provide the approximate relationship for .
1630.1.1
Braced frames.
For a braced frame system with N braces having a maximum force component H max (this is the horizontal component of the maximum brace force), assume that the maximum component is 125 percent of the average. Thus H max = (1.25) H average = (1.25) Vi N braces
rmax =
H max 1.25Vi 1.25 = = Vi N braces (Vi ) N braces 20 rmax AB , where N braces = number of braces.
=2
= 2
20 N braces 1.25 AB
Momentresisting frames.
For a momentresisting frame system with N bays having a maximum shear per bay of V bay,max , assume that the maximum component is 125 percent of the average component. Thus, V bay,max = (1.25) Vi N bays 1.25 N bays
rmax =
Vbay,max Vi
= 2
20 N bays 1.25 AB
Note that for a SMRF, shall not exceed 1.25 . Thus, the number of bays of special momentresisting frames must be increased to reduce rmax , such that is less than or 1630.1.1 equal to 1.25 .
1630.1.1
Shear walls.
Section 1630.1.1 requires that rmax be based on the number of 10foot lengths of shear wall. For a shear wall system, let N 10 = number of 10footlong wall segments V in story i, and let the maximum shear per 10foot length be 10 w . V w and l w l w max are the shear and length for a wall pier. Assuming the maximum component is 125 percent of the average. V V 10 w = (1.25) i l N 10 w max V 10 w l w max 1.25 = = Vi N 10 20 N 10 1.25 AB , where N 10 = number of 10foot long segments of shear walls.
rmax
= 2
Commentary
. This 1.25 AB approximate relationship can be used to estimate for conceptual design. Following this 20 is a plot of = 2 . This is Equation (303) and can be used for final design. rmax AB Following this page is a plot of versus N for the equation = 2 20 N
1630.1.1
AB = 1,000
40 ,0 00
60
A
,00
sq
.f
0s
80
q.
,0
00
00
t.
ft.
sq
,00
.f
0s
t.
q.
ft.
10
11
12
1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
r max
Reliability/redundancy factor for various values of rmax and AB
A ft. sq. ,000 =1
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1630.1.3
Example 17 P Effects
2
$%(4''(
In highrise building design, important secondary moments and additional story drifts can be developed in the lateral forceresisting system by P effects. P effects are the result of the axial load P in a column being moved laterally by horizontal displacements, thereby causing additional secondary column and girder moments. The purpose of this example is to illustrate the procedure that must be used to check the overall stability of the frame system for such effects. A 15story building has a steel special momentresisting frame (SMRF). The following information is given:
Zone 4 R = 8.5 At the first story, D = W = 8,643 kips L = 3,850 kips V1 = V = 0.042W = 363.0 kips h1 = 20 ft Story drift = S1 = 0.003h1 = 0.72 in.
h1 = 20'
Code Reference
1630.1.3
P effects must be considered whenever the ratio of secondary moments to primary moments exceed 10 percent. As discussed in Section C105.1.3 of the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book Commentary, this ratio is defined as a stability coefficient :
x =
Px sx V x hx
Example 17 P Effects
1630.1.3
where x = stability coefficient for story x Px = total vertical load (unfactored) on all columns in story x sx = story drift due to the design base shear V x = design shear in story x h x = height of story x P effects must be considered when > 0.10 An alternative approach is to check story drift. In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, P effects need not be considered for SMRF buildings whenever the story drifts satisfy the following criterion: s 0.02 0.02 = = .00235 h R 8.5 Therefore, when the story drift in a given story of an SMRF is less than or equal to .00235, P effects need not be considered for that story. 1630.1.3
The first story drift ratio is S 1 0.003h1 = = 0.003 h1 h1 Check drift criteria .003 > .00235 Section 1630.1.3 requires that the total vertical load P1 at the first story be considered as the total dead (D ) plus floor live (L ) and snow (S ) load above the first story. These loads are unfactored for determination of P effects. P1 = D + L + S using S = 0 for the building site P1 = 8,643 + 3,850 = 12,493 kips
1630.1.3
Example 17 P Effects
1 =
Commentary
The 1999 SEAOC Blue Book Commentary, in Section C105.1.3, provides an acceptable P analysis: for any story x where P effects must be considered, the story shear V x must be multiplied by a factor (1 + a d ) , where a d = , and the 1 structure is to be reanalyzed for the seismic force effects corresponding to the augmented story shears. Also, some computer programs include the option to include P effects. The user should verify that the particular method is consistent with the requirements of this 1630.1.3.
1630.2.1
$%(4'&'
Find the design base shear for a 5story steel special momentresisting frame building shown below, given the following information: Z = 0.4 Seismic source type = B Distance to seismic source = 5 km Soil profile type = SC I = 1.0 R = 8.5 W = 1,626 kips
60'
Determine the structure period. Determine the seismic coefficients C a and Cv . Determine base shear.
Code Reference
1630.2.2
= .035 (60 )
= .75 sec .
(308)
1628
From Table 16Q for soil profile type S C and Z = .4 C a = .40 N a From Table 16R for soil profile type S C and Z = .4 C v = .56 N v Find N a and N v from Tables 16S and 16T, respectively, knowing that the seismic source type is B and the distance 5 km. N a = 1.0
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
1630.2. 1
1630.2.1
The total base shear in a given direction is determined from: V= Cv I .672 1.0 1,626 = 171.4 kips W= 8.5 .75 RT (304)
However, the code indicates that the total design base shear need not exceed: V= 2.5C a I R W= 2.5 0.4 1.0 1,626 = 191.3 kips 8.5 (305)
Another requirement is that total design base shear cannot be less than: V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11 .40 1.0 1,626 = 71.5 kips In Zone 4, total base shear also cannot be less than: V= .8ZN v I R W= 0.8 0.4 1.2 1.0 1,626 = 73.5 kips 8.5 (307) (306)
In this example, design base shear is controlled by Equation 304. V = 171.4 kips
Commentary
The near source factor Na used to determine Ca need not exceed 1.1 if the conditions of 1629.4.2 are met.
1630.2.2

$%(4'&'&
(308)
The coefficient Ct is dependent on the type of structural system used. The code also allows use of Method B for the analytical evaluation of the fundamental period. It should be noted that the computation of the fundamental period using Equation 3010 of this method can be cumbersome and time consuming. With widespread use of personal computers and structural analysis software in practice, a computer can determine periods much more easily than through use of Equation 3010.
Steel special momentresisting frame (SMRF) structure. Concrete special momentresisting frame (SMRF) structure. Steel eccentric braced frame (EBF). Masonry shear wall building. Tiltup building.
Code Reference
1630.2.2
Height of the structure above its base is 96 feet. The additional 22foot depth of the basement is not considered in determining hn for period calculation. C t = 0.035 T = C t (hn )
3 4
Grade
96 Superstructure
= 0.035 (96)
= 1.07 sec.
22 Basement
1630.2.2
1630.2.2
Height of tallest part of the building is 33 feet, and this is used to determine period. Roof penthouses are generally not considered in determining hn , but heights of setbacks are included. However, if the setback represents more than a 130 percent change in the lateral force system dimension, then there is a vertical geometric irregularity (Table 16L). For taller structures, more than five stories or 65 feet in height, dynamic analysis is required for this type of irregularity. C t = 0.030 T = C t (hn )
3 4
Setback
33 22
= 0.030 (33)
= 0.41 sec .
1630.2.2
EBF structures use the Ct for the category all other buildings. C t = 0.030 T = C t (hn )
3 4
44'
= 0.030 (44 )
= 0.51 sec .
1630.2.2
29'
29'
10'
Typ.
10'
Typ.
60'
45'
1630.2.2
For this structure, Ct may be taken as 0.020, the value for all other buildings, or its value may be computed from the following formula: Ct = where D Ac = Ae 0.2 + e h n
2
0.1 Ac
1630.2.2
(309)
Solving for De and Ae for front and back walls, respectively, the value of Ac can be determined. Front Wall Nominal CMU wall thickness = 8 Actual CMU wall thickness = 7.625 hn = 29 ft De = 60 ft Ae = (60'4 x10') x De = 2.07 hn Back Wall De = 45 ft Ae = (45'3x10') x De = 1.55 hn Using Equation 309, the value of Ac is determined. Note that the maximum value of De /hn that can be used is 0.9. Ac = 12.7 0.2 + 0.9 2 7.63 = 9.5 sq ft 12 7.63 = 12.7 sq ft 12
[ (
1630.2.2
Ct =
0.1 22.4
3
T = C t (h n )
= 0.26 sec .
Alternately, the period can be determined using Ct = .020 for all other buildings T = C t (h n )
3 4
= 0.020 (29 )
= 0.25 sec .
Under current code provisions, either period can be used to determine base shear.
Tiltup building.
Consider a tiltup building 150 ft x 200 ft in plan that has a panelized wood roof and the typical wall elevation shown below.
20'
15' typ.
8' typ.
20' typ.
C t = 0.020 T = C t (h n )
3 4
= 0.02 (20)
= 0.19 sec .
This type of structural system has relatively rigid walls and a flexible roof diaphragm. The code formula for period does not take into consideration the fact that the real period of the building is highly dependent on the roof diaphragm construction. Thus, the period computed above is not a good estimate of the real fundamental period of this type of building. It is acceptable, however, for use in determining design base shear. It should be noted that the actual diaphragm response is approximately taken into account in the design process by increased seismic force provisions on wall anchors and by the limit of R = 4 for calculation of diaphragm loads as required under 1633.2.9.3.
1630.2.3
$%(4'&'(
Determine the design base shear and the design lateral forces for a threestory wood structural panel wall building using the simplified design base shear. The soil profile type for the site is unknown. The following information is known:
1 2 3
20' Level 3
20'
1 12'
300k
Check applicability of simplified method. Determine base shear. Determine lateral forces at each level.
Code Reference
1629.8.2
Light frame construction not more than three stories, or other buildings not more than two stories can use the simplified method. o.k.
1630.2.3
Because soil properties for the site are not known, a default/prescribed soil profile must be used. Section 1630.2.3.2 requires that a Type S D soil profile be used in seismic Zones 3 and 4. N a = 1.0
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
Table 16S
1630.2. 3
C a = 0.44 N a = 0.44 (1.0) = 0.44 V= 3.0C a 3.0 (0.44 )750 W= = (0.24)750 = 180 k 5.5 R
Fx =
3.0C a w x = 0.24 w x R
(3012)
Commentary
The following is a comparison of simplified base shear with standard design base shear. The standard method of determining the design base shear is as follows: V= 2.5C a I 2.5 (0.44 )(1.0 ) W = W = 0.2W = 0.2 (750) = 150 kips R 5.5 (3012)
(V Ft ) w x h x
wi hi
i =1
(3015)
1630.2.3
Level x 3 2 1
hx
36 ft 24 12
wx
150 kips 300 300
w x hx
5,400 kft 7,200 3,600
w x hx w i h i
0.333 0.444 0.222
Fx
50.0 kips 66.7 33.3
v = 150.0
Fx w x
0.33 0.22 0.11
w i hi = 16,200
The design base shear V and the lateral force values Fx at each level are all less than those determined by the simplified method. The principal advantage of the simplified method is that there is no need to conform to the provisions listed in 1630.2.3.4, which are otherwise applicable. Another advantage is that the value of the nearsource factor N a used to determine Ca need not exceed: 1.3 if irregularities listed in 1630.2.3.2 are not present and 1.1 if the conditions of 1629.4.2 are complied with It should be noted that Section 104.8.2 of the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book has different requirements for applicability of the simplified method: Single family two stories or less Light frame up to three stories Regular buildings up to two stories Blue Book 105.2.3 allows the near source factor N a = 1.0 for evaluation of C a . The Blue Book equation V = 0.8C aW does not contain the R factor, which eliminates the sometimes difficult problem of selecting the appropriate R value for small buildings that have complex and/or mixed lateral load resisting systems.
1630.4.2
&
" "1
! /
$%(4'*'&
In structural engineering practice, it is sometimes necessary to design buildings that have a vertical combination of different lateral forceresisting systems. For example, the bottom part of the structure may be a rigid frame and top part a braced frame or shear wall. This example illustrates use of the requirements of 1630.4.2 to determine the applicable R values for combined vertical systems. For the three systems shown below, determine the required R factor and related design base shear requirements.
Code Reference
This combined system falls under vertical combinations of 1630.4.2. Because the rigid system is above the flexible system, Item 2 of 1630.4.2 cannot be used. Therefore, under Item 1 of 1630.4.2, the entire structure must use R = 5.6 .
1630.4.2
This combined system falls under vertical combinations of 1630.4.2. Because the rigid portion is above the flexible portion, Item 2 of 1630.4.2 cannot be used. Therefore, under Item 1 of 1630.4.2, the entire structure must use R = 4.5 .
Applicable criteria. This is a vertical combination of a flexible system over a more rigid system. Under 1630.4.2, Item 2, the two stage static analysis may be used, provided the structures conform to 1629.8.3, Item 4.
Concrete SMRF R = 8.5, = 1.5 Avg. stiffness upper portion = 175 k/in. Tupper = 0.55 sec Tcombined = 0.56 sec
Shear walls
Concrete building frame system R = 5.5, = 1.0 Stiffness = 10,000 k/in. Tlower = 0.03 sec
Check requirements of 1629.8.3, Item 4: 1. Flexible upper portion supported on rigid lower portion. o.k. 2. Average story stiffness of lower portion is at least 10 times average story stiffness of upper portion. 10,000 k/in. > 10 (175) = 1,750 k/in. o.k. 3. Period of entire structure is not greater than 1.1 times period of upper portion. 0.56 sec < 1.1 (.55) = 0.61 sec o.k. Provisions of 1630.4.2, Item 2 can be used
1630.4.2
Vframe
Design the lower portion of the building frame system for the combined effects of the amplified V frame force and the lateral forces due to the base shear for the lower portion of the structure (using R = 5.5 and = 1.0 for the lower portion). V base = Amplified V frame + (V lower )
Vbase
1630.4.3
" "1
! 7# 7
$%(4'*'(
This example illustrates determination of R values for a building that has different structural systems along different axes (i.e., directions) of the building. In this example, a 3story building has concrete shear walls in one direction and concrete moment frames in the other. Floors are concrete slab, and the building is located in Zone 4. Determine the R value for each direction.
A B C D
1 Shear wall
Lines A and D are reinforced concrete bearing walls: R = 4.5 Lines 1, 2 and 3 are concrete special momentresisting frames: R = 8.5
Code Reference
In Zones 3 and 4, the provisions of 1630.4.3 require that when a structure has bearing walls in one direction, the R value used for the orthogonal direction cannot be greater than that for the bearing wall system. Use R = 4.5 in both directions.
1630.4.3
Commentary
The reason for this orthogonal system requirement is to provide sufficient strength and stiffness to limit the amount of outofplane deformation of the bearing wall system. A more direct approach would be to design the orthogonal system such that the M value is below the value that would result in the loss of bearing wall capacity. The design loads for the special momentresisting frames are calculated using R = 4.5 . However, the frame details must comply with the requirements for the R = 8.5 system.
1630.4.4
" "1
!
$%(4'*'*
Occasionally, it is necessary to have different structural systems in the same direction. This example shows how the R value is determined in such a situation. A onestory steel frame structure has the roof plan shown below. The structure is located in Zone 4. Determine the R value for the N/S direction.
1
North
Roof plan
Lines 1 and 4 are steel ordinary momentresisting frames: R = 4.5 . Lines 2 and 3 are steel ordinary braced frames: R = 5.6 .
Code Reference
In Zones 2, 3, and 4, when a combination of structural systems is used in the same direction, 1630.4.4 requires that the value of R used be not greater than the least value of the system utilized. Use R = 4.5 for entire structure.
1630.5
&*
/
,
$%(4'0
A 9story building has a moment resisting steel frame for a lateral forceresisting system. Find the vertical distribution of lateral forces Fx . The following information is given:
1 2 3
27' Level
27'
Story weight 214k 12' 405k 12' 405k 12' 405k 12' 584k 12' 422k 12' 422k 12' 440k 12' 465k 20'
9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Code Reference
1630.5
Determine Ft.
This is the concentrated force applied at the top of the structure. It is determined as follows. First, check that the Ft is not zero. T = 1.06 sec . > 0.7 sec Ft > 0 Ft = 0.07TV = 0.07 (1.06)(233.8) = 17.3 k (3014)
1630.5
(V Ft ) w x h x
wi h
i =1
(3015)
where
wi hi
hx
116 ft 104 92 80 68 56 44 32 20
wx
214 kips 405 405 405 584 422 422 440 465 =3,762
w x hx
24,824 kft 42,120 37,260 32,400 39,712 23,632 18,568 14,080 9,300 241,896
w x hx w i h i
0.103 0.174 0.154 0.134 0.164 0.098 0.077 0.058 0.038
Fx
22.3 + 17.3 = 39.6 kips 37.7 33.3 29.0 35.5 21.2 16.7 12.6 8.2 233.8
Fx w x
0.185 0.093 0.082 0.072 0.061 0.050 0.039 0.028 0.018
Commentary
Note that certain types of vertical irregularity can result in a dynamic response having a load distribution significantly different from that given in this section. If the structural system has any of the stiffness, weight, or geometric vertical irregularities of Type 1, 2, or 3 of Table 16L, then Item 2 of 1629.8.4 requires that the dynamic lateral force procedure be used unless the structure is less than five stories or 65 feet in height. The configuration and final design of this structure must be checked for these irregularities. Most structural analysis programs used in practice today perform this calculation, and it is generally not necessary to manually perform the calculations shown above. However, it is recommended that these calculations be performed to check the computer analysis and to gain insight to structural behavior.
1630.6
:
"
$%(4'%
A single story building has a rigid roof diaphragm. Lateral forces in both directions are resisted by shear walls. The mass of the roof can be considered to be uniformly distributed, and in this example, the weight of the walls is neglected. In actual practice, particularly with concrete shear walls, the weight of the walls should be included in the determination of the Center of Mass (CM). The following information is given: Design base shear: V = 100 k Wall rigidities: R A = 300 k/in. R B = 100 k/in. RC = R D = 200 k/in. Center of mass: x m = 40 ft y m = 20 ft
xR
A 40' CR
e
B
CM Roof diaphragm
yR
V = 100k
xm = 40'
ym
X C 80'
Roof plan
Eccentricity and rigidity properties. Direct shear in walls A and B. Plan irregularity requirements. Torsional shear in walls A and B. Total shear in walls A and B.
1630.6
Code Reference
1630.6
The rigidity of the structure in the direction of applied force is the sum of the rigidities of walls parallel to this force. R = R A + R B = 300 + 100 = 400 k/in. The center of rigidity (CR) along the x and y axes are xR = R B (80' ) = 20 ft. R A +R B R D (40 ) = 20 ft R D + RC
yR =
eccentricity e = x m x R = 40 20 = 20 ft Torsional rigidity about the center of rigidity is determined as J = R A (20)2 + R B (60)2 + RC (20)2 + R D (20)2 = 300 (20 )2 + 100 (60)2 + 200 (20 )2 + 200 (20)2 = 64 10 4 (k/in. ) ft 2 The seismic force V applied at the CM is equivalent to having V applied at the CR together with a counterclockwise torsion T. With the requirements for accidental eccentricity e acc , the total shear on walls A and B can be found by the addition of the direct and torsional load cases:
VD,A
D
VD,B
VT,A
VT,D
VT,B
A CR
20'
A
CR
T = V (e eacc)
VT,C
1630.6
VD, A =
RA 300 (V ) = 100 = 75.0 kips R A + RB 300 + 100 RB 100 (V ) = 100 = 25.0 kips R A + RB 300 + 100
V D,B =
The determination of torsional irregularity, Item 1 in Table 16M, requires the evaluation of the story drifts in walls A and B. This evaluation must include accidental torsion due to an eccentricity of 5 percent of the building dimension. e acc = 0.05 (80' ) = 4.0 ft The corresponding initial most severe torsional shears V ' using e acc = 4.0 ft are: V 'T ,A = V ( e e acc ) ( x R ) ( R A ) 100 ( 20 4) ( 20) (300) = = 15.0 kips J 64 10 4 V ( e + eacc ) (80 x R ) ( R B ) 100 ( 20 + 4) (60) (100) = = 22.5 kips J 64 10 4
V ' T ,B =
Note: these initial shears may need to be modified if torsional irregularity exists and the amplification factor Ax > 1.0 . The initial total shears are: V ' A = V ' D , A V ' T , A = 75.0 15.0 = 60.0 kips (Torsional shears may be subtracted if they are due to the reduced eccentricity e e acc ) V ' B = V ' D , B + V ' T , B = 25.0 + 22.5 = 47.5 kips The resulting displacements ' , which for this single story building are also the story drift values, are: ' A = V ' A 60.0 = = 0.20 in. RA 300
1630.6
' B =
avg =
max = ' B = 0.48 in. max 0.48 = = 1.41 > 1.2 avg 0.34 Torsional irregularity exists. Section 1630.7 requires the accidental torsion amplification factor, Ax = max 1.2 avg
2 0.48 = 1.2 (0.34) = 1.38 < 3.0 2
(3016)
The final most severe torsional shears are determined by calculating the new accidental eccentricity and using this to determine the torsional shears e acc = Ax (4.0) = (1.38) ( 4.0) = 5.54' VT , A = 100 (20 5.54) ( 20) (300) 64 10 4 100 ( 20 + 5.54) (60) (100) 64 10 4 = 13.6 kips
VT , B =
= 23.9 kips
Total shear in each wall is the algebraic sum of the direct and torsional shear components. V A = V D , A VT , A = 75.0 13.6 = 61.4 kips V B = V D , B + VT , B = 25.0 + 23.9 = 48.9 kips
1630.6
Commentary
Section 1630.7 requires that the most severe load combination for each element shall be considered for design. This load combination involves the direct and torsional shears, and the most severe condition is as follows: 1. For the case where the torsional shear has the same sense, and is therefore added to the direct shear, the torsional shear shall be calculated using actual eccentricity plus the accidental eccentricity so as to give the largest additive torsional shear. 2. For the case where the torsional shear has the opposite sense to that of the direct shear and is to be subtracted, the torsional shear shall be based on the actual eccentricity minus the accidental eccentricity so as to give the smallest subtractive shear.
1630.7
:
9
$%(4'2
This example illustrates how to include the effects of accidental eccentricity in the lateral force analysis of a multistory building. The structure is a fivestory reinforced concrete building frame system. A threedimensional rigid diaphragm model has been formulated per 1630.1.2 for the evaluation of element actions and deformations due to prescribed loading conditions. Shear walls resist lateral forces in both directions.
1 2 3 4 5
xc
A
CMx B
Fx
N
D
The lateral seismic forces Fx in the northsouth direction, structure dimensions, and accidental eccentricity eacc for each level x are given below:
Level x 5 4 3 2 1
Fx
110.0 kips 82.8 65.1 42.1 23.0
Lx
80.0 ft 80.0 80.0 80.0 80.0
x cx
24.2 ft 25.1 27.8 30.3 31.5
eacc = 0.05Lx
4.0 ft 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0
In addition, for the given lateral seismic forces Fx a computer analysis provides the following results for the second story. Separate values are given for the application of the forces Fx at the centers of mass and the 0.05 Lx displacements as required by 1630.6.
1630.7
Force Fx Position
x c2
Wall shear V A Wall shear VB Story drift Story drift 185.0 k 115.0 k 0.35" 0.62"
x c 2 e acc
196.0 k 104.0 k 0.37" 0.56" 0.85" 1.18"
x c 2 + eacc
174.0 k 126.0 k 0.33" 0.68" 0.75" 1.44"
A B A B
0.80" 1.31"
Maximum force in shear walls A and B. Check if torsional irregularity exists. Determine the amplification factor Ax. New accidental torsion eccentricity.
Code Reference
The maximum force in each shear wall is a result of direct shear and the contribution due to accidental torsion. From the above table, it is determined that V A = 196.0 k V B = 126.0 k
The building is Lshaped in plan. This suggests that it may have a torsion irregularity Type 1 of Table 16M. The following is a check of the story drifts. max = 0.68 in. avg = 0.68 + 0.33 = 0.51 in. 2
max 0.68 = = 1.33 > 1.2 1.2 avg 0.51 Torsional irregulari ty exists
1630.7
Because a torsional irregularity exists, 1630.7 requires that the second story accidental eccentricity be amplified by the following factor. Ax = max 1.2 avg
2
(3016)
where max = B = 1.44 in. The average story displacement is computed as avg = 1.44 + 0.75 = 1.10 in. 2
2
Since A2 (i.e., Ax for the second story) is greater than unity, a second analysis for torsion must be done using the new accidental eccentricity. e acc = (1.19) ( 4.0' ) = 4.76 ft
Commentary
Example calculations were given for the second story. In practice, each story requires an evaluation of the most severe element actions and a check for the torsional irregularity condition. If torsional irregularity exists and Ax is greater than one at any level (or levels), then a second torsional analysis must be done using the new accidental eccentricities. However, it is not necessary to find the resulting new Ax values and repeat the process a second or third time (until the Ax iterates to a constant or reaches the limit of 3.0). The results of the first analysis with the use of Ax are sufficient for design purposes. While this example involved the case of wall shear evaluation, the same procedure applies to the determination of the most severe element actions for any other lateral forceresisting system having rigid diaphragms. When the dynamic analysis method of 1631.5 is used, rather than static force procedure of 1630.2, the following equivalent static force option may be used in lieu
1630.7
of performing the two extra dynamic analyses for mass positions at x cx (0.05L x ) as per 1631.5.6: 1. Perform the dynamic analysis with masses at the center of mass, and reduce results to those corresponding to the required design base shear. 2. Determine the Fx forces for the required design base shear, and apply pure torsion couple loads Fx (0.05L x ) at each level x . Then add the absolute value of these couple load results to those of the reduced dynamic analysis.
1630.8.2
"#
"1
$%(4'3'&
A reinforced concrete building has the lateral forceresisting system shown below. Shear walls at the first floor level are discontinuous between Lines A and B and Lines C and D. The following information is given: Zone 4 Concrete shear wall building frame system: R = 5.5 and o = 2.8 Office building live load: f1 = 0.5 Axial loads on column C: D = 40 kips L = 20 kips E h = 100 kips
A B C D
Level 4 12' 3 Shear wall 12' 2 12' 1 12' Column C 24" x 24" f'c = 4000 psi
Code Reference
This example demonstrates the loading criteria and detailing required for elements supporting discontinued or offset elements of a lateral forceresisting system.
1630.8.2
Required strength.
1630.8.2.1
Because of the discontinuous configuration of the shear wall at the first story, the first story columns on Lines A and D must support the wall elements above this level. Column C on Line D is treated in this example. Because of symmetry, the column on Line A would have identical requirements. Section 1630.8.2 requires that the column strength be equal to or greater than Pu = 1.2 D + f1 L + 1.0 E m Pu = 0.9 D 1.0 E m where E m = o E h = 2.8(100) = 280 kips Substituting the values of dead, live and seismic loads Pu = 1.2 (40 ) + 0.5 (20) + 280 = 338 kips compression, and Pu = 0.9(40) 1.0(280) = 244 kips tension (302) (1217) (1218)
Detailing requirements.
1630.8.2.2
The concrete column must meet the requirements of 1921.4.4.5. This section requires transverse confinement tie reinforcement over the full column height if Pu > Ag f 'c 10
Pu = 338 > 230 kips Confinemen t is required over the full height
Commentary
To transfer the shears from walls AB and CD to the first story wall BC, collector beams AB and CD are required at Level 1. These would have to be designed according to the requirements of 1633.2.6. The load and detailing requirements of 1630.8.2, Elements Supporting Discontinuous Systems, apply to the following vertical irregularities and vertical elements:
1630.8.2
1. Discontinuous shear wall. The wall at left has a Type 4 vertical structural irregularity.
Column
Transfer girder
3. Outofplane offset. The wall on Line A at the first story is discontinuous. This structure has a Type 4 plan structural irregularity, and 1620.8.2 applies to the supporting columns. The portion of the diaphragm transferring shear (i.e., transfer diaphragm) to the offset wall must be designed for shear wall detailing requirements, and the transfer loads must use the reliability/redundancy factor for the verticallateralforceresisting system.
C B A
VE
Discontinued wall
Offset wall
It should be noted that for any of the supporting elements shown above, the load demand Em of Equation (302) need not exceed the maximum force that can be transferred to the element by the lateral forceresisting system.
1630.8.2
!
"#
"1
$%(4'3'&
This example illustrates the application of the requirements of 1630.8.2 for the allowable stress design of elements that support a discontinuous lateral forceresisting system. In this example, a lightframed wood bearing wall building with plywood shear panels has a Type 4 vertical irregularity in one of its shear walls, as shown below. The following information is given: Zone 4 R = 5.5 o = 2.8 f1 = 0.5 Axial loads on the timber column under the discontinuous portion of the shear wall are:
Timber column
Dead D = 6.0 kips Live L = 3.0 kips Seismic E h = 7.0 kips Determine the following:
Code Reference
For vertical irregularity Type 4, 1630.8.2.1 requires that the timber column have the design strength to resist the special seismic load combinations of 1612.4. This is required for both allowable stress design and strength design. These load combinations are: 1.2 D + f1 L + 1.0 E m 0.9 D 1.0 E m (1217) (1218)
1630.8.2
In this shear wall, the timber column carries only axial loads. The appropriate dead, live and seismic loads are determined as: D = 6.0 kips L = 3.0 kips E m = o E h = 2.8 (7.0 ) = 19.6 kips For the required design strength check, both Equations (1217) and (1218) must be checked. P = 1.2 D + f 1 L + E m P = 1.2 (6.0) + 0.5 (3.0) + 19.6 = 28.3 kips P = 0.9 D 1.0 E m P = 0.9 (6.0) 1.0 (19.6 ) = 25.0 kips or 14.2 kips (1218) (1217) (302)
Commentary
For allowable stress design, the timber column must be checked for a compression load of 28.3 kips and a tension load of 14.2 kips . In making this design strength check, 1630.8.2.1 permits use of an allowable stress increase of 1.7 and a resistance factor, , of 1.0 . The 1.7 increase is not to be combined with the onethird increase permitted by 1612.3.2, but may be combined with the duration of load increase C D = 1.33 given in Table 2.3.2 of Chapter 23, Division III. The resulting design strength = (1.7 )(1.0)(1.33) (allowable stress). This also applies to the mechanical holddown element required to resist the tension load. The purpose of the design strength check is to check the column for higher and, hopefully, more realistic loads that it will be required to carry because of the discontinuity in the shear wall at the first floor. This is done by increasing the normal seismic load in the column, E h , by the factor o = 2.8 .
1630.8.3
Example 29 At Foundation
$%(4'3'(
Foundation reports usually provide soil bearing pressures on an allowable stress design basis while seismic forces in the 1997 UBC, and most concrete design, are on a strength design basis. The purpose of this example is to illustrate footing design under this situation. A spread footing supports a reinforced concrete column. The soil classification at the site is sand (SW). The following information is given:
P
Zone 4 = 1.0 for structural system PD = 80 k M D = 15 k  ft PL = 30 k M L = 6 k  ft PE = 40 k V E = 30 k Snow load S = 0 Find the following:
2'
M V
4'
Grade
M E = 210 k  ft
Determine the design criteria and allowable bearing pressure. Determine footing size. Check resistance to sliding. Determine soil pressures for strength design of the footing section.
Code Reference
1630.8.3
The seismic force reactions on the footing are based on strength design. However, 1629.1 states that allowable stress design may be used for sizing the foundation using the load combinations given in 1612.3. Here it is elected to use the alternate basic load combinations of 1612.3.2. D+L+S D+L+ E 1.4
(1212) (1213)
E 1.4 Because foundation investigation reports for buildings typically specify bearing pressures on an allowable stress design basis, criteria for determining footing size are also on this basis. 0.9 D
(12161)
Example 29 At Foundation
1630.8.3
The earthquake loads to be resisted are specified in 1630.1.1 by Equation 301. E = E h + E v Since Ev = 0 for allowable stress design, Equation 301 reduces to E = E h = (1.0 ) E h Table 181A of 1805 gives the allowable foundation pressure, lateral bearing pressure, and the lateral sliding friction coefficient. These are default values to be used in lieu of sitespecific recommendations given in a foundation report for the building. They will be used in this example. For the sand (SW) class of material and footing depth of 4 feet, the allowable foundation pressure p a is p a = 1.50 + (4 ft 1 ft )(0.2 )(1.50) = 2.40 ksf Table 181A and Footnote 2 (301)
A onethird increase in pa is permitted for the load combinations that include earthquake load.
The trial design axial load and moment will be determined for load combination of Equation (1213) and then checked for the other combinations. Pa = D + L + P 40 E = PD + PL + E = 80 + 30 + = 138.6 kips 1.4 1.4 1.4 M 210 E = M D + M L + E = 15 + 6 + = 171.0 k  ft 1.4 1.4 1.4 (1213)
Ma = D + L +
(1213)
Calculated soil pressures due to axial load and moment p= Pa M a 138.6 171.0 + = + = 1.71 + 1.41 = 3.12 ksf A S 81 121.5
1630.8.3
Example 29 At Foundation
3.12 ksf < 1.33 p a = 1.33 (2.40) = 3.20 ksf , o.k. Check for the load combination of Equation (12161). Pa = 0.9 D P 40 E = 0.9 PD E = 0.9 (80) = 100.6 kips or 43.4 kips 1.4 1.4 1.4 (12161)
M a = 0.9 D
M 210 E = 0.9 M D E = 0.9 (15) = 163.5 k  ft or 136.5 k  ft 1.4 1.4 1.4 (12161) M a 163.5 k  ft 136.5 k  ft = = 1.63 ft, or = .15 ft, e = 3.15 ft governs. Pa 100.6 43.4
Since e = 3.15 > 1.5, there is partial uplift, and a triangular pressure distribution is assumed to occur.
Center line
4.5'
4.5'
For the footing freebody: p Pa = R p = (3a )B 2 R p must be colinear with Pa such that the length of the triangular pressure distribution is equal to 3a . R p = Pressure resultant
e Pa
a Rp
3a
(1210)
Example 29 At Foundation
1630.8.3
Pa = or p=
p (3a ) B 2
If p had been greater than 1.33 p a , the footing size would have to be increased. Finally, check the gravity load combination (1212) for p < p a = 3.2 ksf . Pa = D + L = PD + PL = 80 + 30 = 110 kips M a = D + L = M D + M L = 15 + 6 = 21 k  ft p= Pa M a 110 21 + = + = 1.53 ksf < 3.2 ksf, o.k. 81 121.5 A S (1212) (1212)
All applicable load combinations are satisfied, therefore a 9ft x 9ft footing is adequate.
Unless specified in the foundation report for the building, the friction coefficient and lateral bearing pressure for resistance to sliding can be determined from Table 181A. These values are: Friction coefficient = 0.25 Table 181A Table 181A
Lateral bearing resistance p L = 150 psf depth below grade Assume the footing is 2 feet thick with its base 4 feet below grade. Average 300 + 600 = 450 psf . resistance on the 2 feet deep by 9 feet wide footing face is 2 p L = 450 psf = 0.45 ksf Load combination of Equation (12161) will be used because it has the lowest value of vertical load 0.9 D = 0.9 PD ). The vertical and lateral loads to be used in the sliding resistance calculations are: P = 0.9 PD = 0.9 (80) = 72 kips
2'
1630.8.3
Example 29 At Foundation
Lateral load =
The resistance due to friction is P ( ) = 72(0.25) = 18.0 kips The resistance from lateral bearing is p L (face area) = 0.45 (2 9 ) = 8.1 kips The total resistance is then the sum of the resistance due to friction and the resistance due to lateral bearing pressure. Total resistance = 18.0 + 8.1 = 26.1 > 21.4 kips, o.k. No sliding occurs
To obtain the direct shear, punching shear, and moments for the strength design of the reinforced concrete footing section, it is necessary to compute the upward design soil pressure on the footing due to factored strength loads: 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f1 L 0.9 D 1.0 E The section design must have the capacity to resist the largest moments and forces resulting from these load combinations. (125) (126)
Soil pressure due to load combination 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L . f1 = 0.5 Pu = 1.2 PD + 1.0 PE + 0.5PL = 1.2 (80) + 1.0 (40) + 0.5 (30) = 151 kips M u = 1.2 M D + 1.0 M E + 0.5M L = 1.2 (15) + 1.0 (210) + 0.5 (6) = 231 k  ft 1612.2.1 (125) (125)
Example 29 At Foundation
1630.8.3
Eccentricity e =
L 9 e > = = 1.5 ft 6 6 Therefore partial uplift occurs. a = 4.5 e = 4.5 = 1.53 = 2.97 ft p= 2 1 2 1 Pu = (151) (2.97 )(9.0) = 3.77 ksf 3 aB 3
3a = 8.91'
p = 3.77 ksf
Soil pressure due to load combination 0.9 D 1.0 E : Pu = 0.9 PD 1.0 PE = 0.9 (80) 1.0 (40) = 112 kips or 32 kips M u = 0.9 M D 1.0M E = 0.9 (15) 1.0 (210 ) = 223.5 k  ft or 196.5 k  ft (126) (126)
Compute pressure load due to Pu = 112 kips and M u = 223.5 k  ft Eccentricity e = M u 223.5 = = 2.00 ft Pu 112
Face of column
e>
L = 1.5 ft 6
p = 3.32 ksf
therefore partial uplift occurs. a = 4.5 e = 4.5 2.0 = 2.50 ft p= 2 1 2 1 Pu = (112 ) (2.50)(9.0 ) = 3.32 ksf 3 aB 3
3a = 7.50'
The footing pressure is less than that for the combination of 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L . Therefore the 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f1 L combination governs. Note that the resulting direct shear, punching shear, and moments must be multiplied by 1.1 per Exception 1 of 1612.2.1. (Note: At the time of publication, the 1.1 factor is under consideration for change to 1.0). Note also that the value of p due to the strength design factored loads need not be less than 1.33 p a = 3.20 ksf, since it is used as a load for concrete section design rather than for determining footing size.
1630.9
Example 30 Dri
(4
A fourstory special momentresisting frame (SMRF) building has the typical floor plan as shown below. The elevation of Line D is also shown, and the following information is given:
A B C D
$%(4'
Seismic force
S
Level 4
Deflected shape
Elevation of Line D
The following are the design level response displacements S (total drift) for the frame along Line D. These values include both translational and torsional (with accidental eccentricity) effects. As permitted by 1630.10.3, S has been determined due to design forces based on the unreduced period calculated using Method B.
Level 4 3 2 1 S 1.51 in 1.03 .63 .30
Example 30 Dri
1630.9
Maximum inelastic response displacements M . Story drift in story 3 due to M . Check story 3 for story drift limit.
Code Reference
1630.9.2
These are determined using the S values and the Rfactor M = 0.7 R S = 0.7 (8.5)( S ) = 5.95 S Therefore
Level 4 3 2 1
(3017)
S
1.51 in 1.03 0.63 0.30
M
8.98 in 6.12 3.75 1.79
1630.10
Story 3 is located between Levels 2 and 3. Thus M drift = 6.12 3.75 = 2.37 in.
1630.10.2
For structures with a fundamental period less than 0.7 seconds, 1630.10.2 requires that the M story drift not exceed 0.025 times the story height. For story 3 Story drift using M = 2.37 in. Story drift limit = .025 (144) = 3.60 in > 2.37 in. Story drift is within limits
1630.10
$%(4'4
For the design of new buildings, the code places limits on story drifts. The limits are based on the maximum inelastic response displacements and not the design level response displacements determined from the design base shear of 1630.2. In the example given below, a fourstory steel special momentresisting frame (SMRF) structure has the design level response displacements S shown. These have been determined according to 1630.9.1 using a static, elastic analysis.
A Level B C D Deflected shape
S
2.44 in. 1.91 1.36 0.79
Maximum inelastic response displacements. Compare story drifts with the limit value.
Code Reference
1630.9.1
Maximum inelastic response displacements, M , are determined from the following: M = 0.7 R S M = 0.7 (8.5) S = 5.95 S (3017)
1630.10.2
Using M story displacements, the calculated story drift cannot exceed 0.025 times the story height for structures having a period less than 0.7 seconds. Check building period. T = .60 sec < .70 sec
1630.10
Therefore, limiting story drift is 0.025 story height. Determine drift limit at each level. Levels 4, 3, and 2 M drift .025h = .025 (12 ft 12 in./ft ) = 3.60 in. Level 1 M drift .025h = .025 (16 ft 12 in./ft ) = 4.80 in. For M drift = Mi Mi1 , check actual story drifts against limits:
Level i 4 3 2 1
1630.10.2
S
2.44 in. 1.91 1.36 0.79
M
14.52 in. 11.36 8.09 4.70
M drift
3.16 in. 3.27 3.39 4.70
Commentary
Whenever the dynamic analysis procedure of 1631 is used, story drift should be determined as the modal combination of the story drift for each mode. Determination of story drift from the difference of the combined mode displacements may produce erroneous results because maximum displacement at a given level may not occur simultaneously with those of the level above or below. Differences in the combined mode displacements can be less than the combined mode story drift.
1630.11
Find the vertical seismic forces on the nonprestressed cantilever beam shown below. The following information is given: Beam unit weight = 200 plf C a = 0.40 I = 1.0 Z = .4 Find the following:
10'
Code Reference
1630.11
In Seismic Zones 3 and 4, the design of horizontal cantilever beams must consider a net upward seismic force. The terminology of net upward seismic force is intended to specify that gravity load effects cannot be considered to reduce the effects of the vertical seismic forces and that the beam must have the strength to resist the actions due to this net upward force without consideration of any dead loads. This force is computed as q E = 0.7C a IW p = 0.7 (0.40)(1.0)(200 plf ) = 56 plf 1630.11
MA VA
qE
1631.2
$%('&
Code Reference
The design response spectrum can be determined, under 1631.2, using Figure 163 of the code and the coefficients C a and C v . The values of C a and C v are determined from the soil profile type, seismic source type, and distance to nearest source. In Zone 4, the values of C a and C v are dependent upon the near field factors N a and N v , respectively, as given in Tables 16Q and 16R. Determine N a and N v From Table 16S with seismic source type C and distance of 23 km. N v = 1.0 From Table 16T with seismic source type C and distance of 23 km. N v = 1.0 Determine C a and C v From Table 16Q with Soil Profile Type SD and Z = 0.4 C a = 0.44 N a = (0.44 )(1.0) = 0.44 From Table 16R with Soil Profile Type SD and Z = 0.4 C v = 0.64 N v = (0.64 )(1.0) = 0.64 Once the values of C a and C v for the site are established, the response spectrum can be constructed using Figure 163. The peak ground acceleration (PGA) is the value of spectral acceleration at the zero period of the spectrum (T = 0). In this case it is 0.44g. 1629.4.3 1629.4.2
1631.2
PGA is designated as the coefficient C a by the code. This is also called the zero period acceleration (ZPA). The peak of the response spectrum for 5 percent damping is 2.5 times C a . In this example, it is 2.5C a = (2.5)(0.44 ) = 1.1g The control periods To and T s are Ts = 0.64 Cv = = 0.58 sec 2.5C a (2.5 .44 ) Figure 163
To = 0.2Ts = (0.2 )(0.58) = 0.12 sec The long period portion of the spectrum is defined as C v 0.64 = T T From this information the elastic design response spectrum for the site can be drawn as shown below. Figure 163
1.5
Sa = 1.1
1.0
Sa = 0.64 / T
Sa (g)
0.5
0.44
To = 0.12 sec
To = 0.58 sec
1631.2
Commentary
The spectrum shown above is for 5 percent damping. If a different damping is used, the spectral accelerations of the control periods To and T s and values of C v / T must be scaled. However, the value of C a is not scaled.
1631.5.7
$%('0'2
This example illustrates the determination of design lateral forces for the two basic elements of a dual system. Section 1629.6.5 prescribes the following features for a dual system: 1. An essentially complete space frame for gravity loads. 2. Resistance to lateral load is provided primarily by shear walls or braced frames, but momentresisting frames must be provided to resist at least 25 percent of the design base shear. 3. The two systems are designed to resist the total design base shear in proportion to their relative rigidities. In present practice, the frame element design loads for a dual system are usually a result of a computer analysis of the combined frameshear wall system. In this example, a dynamic analysis using the response spectrum procedure of 1631.5 has been used to evaluate the seismic load E h at point A in the dual system of the building shown below. This is the beam moment M A . The building is classified as regular and the Eh values have been scaled to correspond to 90 percent of the design base shear determined under the requirements of 1630.2. The following information is given:
Shear wall
Moment frame
Zone 4 I = 1.0 Reduced dynamic base shear V D = 0.9V = 400 kips E h = M A = 53.0 kft T = 0.50 sec
Eh = MA = 53.0 kft
Point A
VD = 400 kips
1631.5.7
Code Reference
Design criteria.
Section 1629.6.5 Item 2 requires that the momentresisting frame be designed to independently resist at least 25 percent of the design base shear, which in this case would be 0.25VD. Section 1631.5.7 allows the use of either the static force method of 1630.5 or the response spectrum analysis of 1631.5, scaled to the 0.25VD base shear. Since the independent frame, without shear wall interaction, is an idealization that never really exists, the use of the response spectrum analysis is not particularly appropriate since the true dynamic characteristics would be those of the combined frame and wall system. The purpose of a response spectrum analysis is to better define the lateral load distribution, and this would not be achieved by an analysis of the independent frame. Therefore, the use of the static force option is judged to be more consistent with the simple requirement that the frame strength should meet or exceed 0.25VD. V D of frame = 0.25V D = 0.25 (400) = 100 kips
Design base shear on the frame due to 0.25V D = 100 kips This base shear must be distributed over the height of the structure, and the design lateral seismic forces at each level are determined from Fx = where
(V Ft ) w x h x
wi hi
(3015)
(V Ft ) = 0.25V D
= 100 kips
In this example, Ft = 0 because the building period of 0.50 seconds is less than 0.7 seconds. Fx = 100w x h x wi hi
1631.5.7
Moment at A
Apply the F x forces to the frame structure and find the resulting seismic moments, denoted M ' A . At point A, E' h = M' A = 75.2 kft > M A = 53.0 kft The seismic moment at A must be the larger of the two values. M ' A = 75.2 k ft In actual application, each frame element load E h due to V D in the dual system must be compared with the E'h value due to 0.25V D in the independent frame, and the element must be designed for the larger of E h or E'h .
Commentary
Use of a dual system has the advantage of providing the structure with an independent vertical load carrying system capable of resisting 25 percent of the design base shear while at the same time the primary system, either shear wall or braced frame, carries its proportional share of the design base shear. For this configuration, the code permits use of a larger R value for the primary system than would be permitted without the 25 percent frame system. The dual system has been in the code for many years. The widespread use of computers in structural analysis revealed that the interaction between the frame and the shear wall (or braced frame) system produced results quite different than those obtained by the often cumbersome approximate methods used with hand calculations. For example, a shear wall system in a highrise building was found to be loading the frame system at the upper stories. Consequently, a dual system should be carefully analyzed as a combined system to detect critical interaction effects.
1632.2
$%(&'&
Zone 4 I p = 1.0 C a = 0.4 Panel thickness = 8 inches Normal weight concrete (150 pcf)
fp
Tiltup panel
20'
Ground
Outofplane forces for wall panel design. Shear and moment diagrams for wall panel design. Loading, shear and moment diagrams for parapet design.
Code Reference
1632.2
Under 1632.2, design lateral seismic forces can be determined using either: a.) Equation (321), or b.) Equation (322) with the limits of Equation (323). F p = 4.0C a I pW p Fp = a p Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr Wp (321)
(322)
0.7C a I pW p F p 4.0C a I pW p Generally, it is more advantageous to use Equation (322) with the Equation (323) limits, and this will be used in this example.
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
(323)
1632.2
The wall panel is laterally supported at its base and at the roof. The value of F p to be used must represent the average of the acceleration inputs from these two attachment locations. Thus, the outofplane seismic forces on the wall panel are determined from the average of the seismic coefficients at the roof and the base. As will be shown below, the minimum force level from Equation (323) controls the seismic coefficient at the base. Using the coefficient method, a general expression for the force F p applied midway between the base and the top of the parapet is derived below. a p = 1.0 R p = 3.0 At roof level, h x = hr , and the effective seismic coefficient from Equation (322) is Table 16O Table 16O
(1.0 ) C a I p
3.0
h 1 + 3 r hr
use 1.33C a I p At base level, h x = 0 , and the effective seismic coefficient from Equation (322) is
(1.0 ) C a I p
3.0
0 1 + 3 hr
use 0.7C a I p The average coefficient over the entire height of the wall may be taken as
(1.33 + 0.70 )
2
C a I p = 1.02C a I p
The force F p is considered to be applied at the midheight (centroid) of the panel, but this must be uniformly distributed between base and top of parapet. For the given C a = 0.4 and I p = 1.0 , the wall panel seismic force is F p = 1.02 (0.4 )(1.0)W p = 0.408W p
1632.2
The weight of the panel between base and the top of the parapet is 8 W p = (150) (24) = 2,400 lbs per foot of width 12 F p = 0.408 (2,400) = 979 lbs/ft The force F p is the total force on the panel. It acts at the centroid. For design of the panel for outofplane forces, F p must be expressed as a distributed load f p : fp = 979 lbs/ft = 40.8 plf/ft 24 ft
Using the uniformly distributed load f p , the loading, shear and moment diagrams are determined for a unit width of panel. The 40.8 plf/ft uniform loading is also applied to the parapet. See step 3, below, for the parapet design load.
40.8 plf/ft 4'
RR
424
163
326
20'
1883
9.6'
RB
392
Loading
Shear (lbs/ft)
Moment lbft/ft
When the uniform load is also applied to the parapet, the total force on the panel is 40.8 plf/ft (24ft ) = 979 plf RR = 979 (12) = 587 lb/ft 20
R B = 979 587 = 392 lb/ft The shears and moments are the E h load actions for strength design. However, the reaction at the roof, R R , is not the force used for the wallroof anchorage design.
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
1632.2
This anchorage force must be determined under 1633.2.8.1 when the roof is a flexible diaphragm.
Table 16O requires a p = 2.5 , and R p = 3.0 for unbraced (cantilevered) parapets. The parapet is considered as an element with an attachment elevation at the roof level.
hx = hr
The weight of the parapet is 8 W p = (150 )(4 ) = 400 lbs per foot of width 12 The concentrated force applied at the midheight (centroid) of the parapet is determined from Equation (322). Fp = a p Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr Wp (322)
Fp =
F p = 1.33W p = 1.33 (400) = 532 lbs/ft < 4.0C a I pW p = 1.6W p The equivalent uniform seismic force is fp = 532 = 133 plf/ft for parapet design 4
4'
133 plf/ft
RR 532 1064
Shear (lbs/ft)
Moment (lbft/ft)
Loading
1632.2
$%(&'&
This example illustrates determination of outofplane seismic forces for the design of the twostory tiltup wall panel shown below. In this example, a typical solid pane (no door or window openings) is assumed. Walls span from floor to floor to roof. The typical wall panel in this building has no pilasters and the tiltup walls are bearing walls. The roof consists of 1inch, 20 gauge metal decking on open web steel joists and is considered a flexible diaphragm. The second floor consists of 1inch, 18 gauge composite decking with a 2inch lightweight concrete topping. This i considered a rigid diaphragm. The following information is given:
Roof 2'
Assumed pinned
16'
Outofplane forces for wall panel design. Outofplane forces for wall anchorage design.
Wall sectio
Code Reference
1632.2
Requirements for outofplane seismic forces are specified in 1632.2 for Zones 3 and 4. Either Equations (321) or (322) and (323) are used to determine the forces on the wall. F p = 4.0C a I p W p Fp = a p Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr Wp (321)
(322)
1632.2
To determine outofplane forces over the height of the wall, seismic coefficients at the roof, second floor, and first floor are determined. An outofplane force, Fp , is determined for each story from the average of the seismic coefficients at the support points for that story. The required coefficients are evaluated as follows. Seismic coefficient at roof: a p Ca I p 36 h 1.0 (0.4 ) (1.0) 1 + 3 x = 1 + 3 = 0.533 3.0 36 Rp hr 4.0Ca I p = 4.0 (0.4 )(1.0) = 1.60 > 0.533 use 0.533 Seismic coefficient at second floor: a p Ca I p 16 h 1.0 (0.4 ) (1.0) 1 + 3 x = 1 + 3 = 0.311 36 3.0 Rp hr Seismic coefficient at first floor: a p Ca I p 0 h 1.0 (0.4 ) (1.0) 1 + 3 x = 1 + 3 = 0.133 36 3.0 Rp hr 0.7Ca I p = 0.7 (0.4 ) (1.0) = 0.28 > 0.133 use 0.28 Using the average of the coefficient for the given story, the outofplane seismic forces are determined as follows: W p 2 = 113 (20 + 2 ) = 2,486 plf W p1 = (113) (16) = 1,808 plf Fp 2 = Fp1 =
(0.533 + 0.311)
2
(0.311 + 0.280 )
2
1632.2
Roof
acting on the centroids of the second and first level portions, respectively, of the tiltup wall panel. For design of the wall these forces must be uniformly distributed over their tributary height. Panel desi forces are given below.
2'
Fp2
20' 2 Floor 27'
nd
Fp1
16'
f p2 =
(20 + 2 )
F p1
Fp2
8'
f p1
22'
Alternatively, panel design forces can be determined using seismic coefficients as shown below. f p 2 = .422 (113) = 47.7 psf f p1 = .296 (113) = 33.4 psf
20'
R2 = 744 plf
16'
16'
Note that the 2foot high parapet must be designed for seismic forces determined from Equations (322) and (323) with R p = 3.0 and a p = 2.5 . This calculation is not shown.
R1 = 267 plf
1633.2.8.1
For design of wall anchorage, 1633.2.8.1 requires use of higher design forces than those used for panel design. Anchorage forces are determined using Equations (321), or (322) and (323), where W p is the weight of the panel tributary to each anchorage level. Values of R p and a p to be used at the second floor and roof are: R p = 3.0 and a p = 1.5 1633.2.8.1, Item 1
The building of this example has a flexible diaphragm at the roof and a rigid diaphragm at the second floor. Because the code is not clear about wall anchorage requirements for buildings with both rigid and flexible diaphragms, the requirements for flexible diaphragms will be used for determination of anchorage forces at both
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
1632.2
levels. Equation (323), with the limits of Equation (323), will be used with hx equal to the attachment height of the anchorage. Seismic anchorage force at roof: 20 W3 = (113) + 2 = 1,356 plf 2 Fp = a p Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr Wp (322)
F3 =
Check limit of Equation (323) 4.0C a I pW p = 4.0 (0.4 )(1.0 )W3 = 1.6W3 > 0.8W3 o.k. 1,085 plf > 420 plf F3 = 1,085 plf Seismic anchorage force at second floor: 20 + 16 W2 = (113) = 2,034 plf 2 F2 = 1.5 (0.4 )(1.0 ) 16 1 + 3 W2 = .467 (2,034 ) = 950 plf 3.0 36 (322) (323) 1633.2.8.1, Item 1
Seismic anchorage force at first floor: At the first floor, a p = 1.0 because there is no diaphragm. 16 W1 = (113) = 904 plf 2 F1 = 1.0 (0.4 )(1.0) 0 1 + 3 W1 = 0.133W1 3.0 36 (322)
1632.2
Check limit of Equation (323) 0.7C a I pW p = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0 )W1 = 0.28W1 controls F1 = 0.28W1 = 0.28 (904 ) = 253 plf
F3 = 1,085 plf
(323)
2'
22'
20'
Note that the 420 plf minimum anchorage force of 1633.2.8.1, Item 1 does not apply at the first floor. Wall reactions for anchorage design are shown at right.
16'
F2 = 950 plf
16'
F1 = 253 plf
Commentary
Anchorage forces have been determined on the basis of the weight tributary to each level using Equation (322), with limits of Equation (323) and 1633.2.8.1, Item 1. Panel forces, on the other hand, have been determined using seismic coefficients for each floor level. If reactions are determined from the uniform outofplane forces used for panel design, these will be different than those determined for anchorage requirements. This inconsistency is rooted in the fact that the code does not call for determination of both panel design forces and anchorage design forces from the same method. To be consistent, forces would have to first be determined at the panel centroids (between floors) and then anchorage reactions determined from statics equilibrium. In all significant California earthquakes, beginning with the 1971 San Fernando event, wallroof anchorage for flexible diaphragms has failed repeatedly. After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, when over 200 tiltup buildings in the city of Los Angeles experienced collapse or partial collapse of roofs and/or walls, wallroof anchorage forces were increased significantly in the 1996 Supplement to the 1994 UBC. The 1997 UBC requirements reflect this change. It is extremely important that bearing wall tiltup buildings maintain wallroof (and wallfloor) connections under seismic motions. This is the principal reason that anchorage forces are 50percent higher than those used for outofplane wall panel design. See 1633.2.8.1 for the special material load factors used for the design of steel and wood elements of the wall anchorage system (i.e., 1.4 for steel and 0.85 for wood).
1632.2
$%(&'&
This example illustrates determination of the design seismic force for the attachments of rigid equipment. Attachment as used in the code means those components, including anchorage, bracing, and support mountings, that attach the equipment to the structure. The threestory building structure shown below has rigid electrical equipment supported on nonductile porcelain insulators that provide anchorage to the structure. Identical equipment is located at the base and at the roof of the building.
Wp
Nonductile attachments
Wp
12'
Design criteria. Design lateral seismic force at base. Design lateral seismic force at roof.
Code Reference
1632.2
Design criteria.
Values of a p and R p are given in Table 16O. Since the equipment is rigid and has nonductile attachments a p = 1.0, R p = 1.5 Table 16O, Item 4B
1632.2
1632.2
hx = 0 Fp =
Section 1632.2 has a requirement that F p be not less than 0.7C a I p W p Check F p 0.7C a I p W p = 0.7 (0.4) (1.0) 10 = 2.8 k F p = 2.8 k
h x = h r = 36 ft Fp =
Section 1632.2 states that F p need not exceed 4C a I p W p Check F p 4C a I pW p = 4 ( 0.4) (1.0) 10 = 16 k F p = 10.7 k
Commentary
The definition of a rigid component (e.g., item of equipment) is given in 1627. Rigid equipment is equipment, including its attachments (anchorages, bracing, and support mountings), that has a period less than or equal to 0.06 seconds. The anchorage design force F p is a function of 1 R p , where R p = 1.0, 1.5, and 3.0 for nonductile, shallow, and ductile anchors, respectively. Generally, only equipment anchorage or restraints need be designed for seismic forces. This is discussed in Footnote 5 of Table 16O. Item 3.C, also in Table 16O states that this applies to Any flexible equipment laterally braced or anchored to the structural frame at a point below their center of mass. For the case where equipment, which can be either flexible or rigid, comes mounted on a supporting frame that is part of the manufactured unit, then the supporting frame must also meet the seismic design requirements of 1632.2.
1632.2
$%(&'&
This example illustrates determination of the design seismic force for the attachments of flexible equipment. Attachment as used in the code means those components, including anchorage, bracing, and support mountings, that attach the equipment to the structure. The threestory building structure shown below has flexible airhandling equipment supported by a ductile anchorage system. Anchor bolts in the floor slab meet the embedment length requirements. Identical equipment is located at the base and at the roof of the building.
Wp
Level Roof Ductile attachments
12' 2 12' 1
Wp
12'
Design criteria. Design lateral seismic force at base. Design lateral seismic force at roof.
Code Reference
1632.2
Design criteria.
1632.2
Values of a p and R p are given in Table 16O. Since the equipment is flexible and has ductile supports a p = 2.5, R p = 3.0 Table 16O, Item 3C
hx = 0
Fp =
Section 1632.2 has a requirement that F p be not less than 0.7C a I p W p Check F p 0.7C a I p W p = 0.7 (0.4) (1.0) 10 = 2.8 k F p = 3.33 k
h x = h r = 36 ft Fp =
Section 1632.2 states that F p need not exceed 4C a I p W p Check F p 4C a I pW p = 4 ( 0.4) (1.0) 10 = 16 k F p = 13.33 k
Commentary
The definition of flexible equipment is given in 1627. Flexible equipment is equipment, including its attachments (anchorages, bracing, and support mountings), that has a period greater than 0.06 seconds. It should be noted that the anchorage design force F p is a function of 1 R p , where R p = 1.0, 1.5, and 3.0 for nonductile, shallow, and ductile anchors, respectively. Generally, only equipment anchorage or restraints need be designed for seismic forces. This is discussed in Footnote 5 of Table 16O. Item 3.C of that table states that this applies to Any flexible equipment laterally braced or anchored to the
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
1632.2
structural frame at a point below their center of mass. For the case where the equipment, which can be either flexible or rigid, comes mounted on a supporting frame that is part of the manufactured unit, then the supporting frame must also meet the seismic design requirements of 1632.2.
1632.4
$%(&'*
Section 1632.4 of the UBC requires that the design of equipment attachments in buildings having occupancy categories 1 and 2 of Table 16K, essential facilities and hazardous facilities, respectively, have the effects of the relative motion of attachment points considered in the lateral force design. This example illustrates application of this requirement. A unique control panel frame is attached to the floor framing at Levels 2 and 3 of the building shown below. The following information is given. Zone 4 Occupancy Category 1, (essential facility) Story drift: S = 0.34 in. R = 8.5 Panel frame: EI = 10 10 4 k/in. 2 Determine the following:
Level 4 12' 3 12' 2 12' 1 Panel
12'
Deflected shape
Code Reference
Section 1632.4 requires that equipment attachments be designed for effects induced by M (maximum inelastic story drift). This is determined as follows: M = 0.7 R S = 0.7 (8.5) 0.34 = 2.02 in. (3017)
1632.4
M=
6 EI M H2
6 10 10 4 (2.02)
(144 ) 2
= 58.45 k  in.
V=
58.45 M = = 0.81 k (H 2 ) 72
1632.4
Commentary
The attachment details, including the body and anchorage of connectors, should follow the applicable requirements of 1632.2. For example, if the body of the attachment is ductile, then the induced forces can be reduced by R p = 3.0 . However, if the anchorage is provided by shallow anchor bolts, then R p = 1.5 . When anchorage is constructed of nonductile materials, R p = 1.0 . One example of a nonductile anchorage is the use of adhesive. Adhesive is a glued attachment (e.g., attachment of pedestal legs for a raised computer floor). It should be noted that attachment by adhesive is not the same as anchor bolts set in a drilled hole with epoxy.
1633.2.4
$%(('&'*
A twolevel concrete parking structure has the space frame shown below. The designated lateral forceresisting system consists of a two bay special momentresisting frame (SMRF) located on each side of the structure. The second level gravity load bearing system is a posttensioned flat plate slab supported on ordinary reinforced concrete columns,
A B C D E
Zone 4 S = 0.42 in. R = 8.5 Column section = 12 in. x 12 in. Column clear height = 12 ft Concrete E c = 3 10 3 ksi Find the following:
Ordinary column
SMRF
Elevation Line E
1633.2.4
Code Reference
1633.2.4
Section 1921.7 specifies requirements for frame members that are not part of the designated lateral forceresisting system. The ordinary columns located in the perimeter frames, and the interior flat plate/column system, fall under these requirements and must be checked for the moments induced by the maximum inelastic response displacement. For this example, the columns on Line E will be evaluated. M = 0.7 R S = 0.7 (8.5) 0.42 = 2.50 in. Section 1633.2.4 requires that the value of S used for this determination of M be computed by neglecting the stiffening effect of the ordinary concrete frame. The moment induced in the ordinary column due to the maximum inelastic response displacement M on Line E must be determined. For purposes of this example, a fixedfixed condition is used for simplicity. In actual applications, column moment is usually determined from a frame analysis. M col = 6E c I c M h2 (3017)
h = 12 12 = 144 in.
(12 )3 bd 3 = 12 = 1728 in. 4 12 12 The cracked section moment of inertia I c can be approximated as 50 percent of the gross section I g . Section 1633.2.4 requires that the stiffness of elements that are part
Ig = of the lateral forceresisting system shall not exceed one half of the gross section properties. This requirement also applies to elements that are not part of the lateral forceresisting system. Ic = Ig 2 = 864 in. 4 6 3 10 3 (864 )(2.5)
M col =
(144 )2
= 1875 k in.
1633.2.4
Section 1921.7 requires that frame members, such as the column, that are assumed not to be part of the lateral forceresisting system must be detailed according to 1921.7.2 or 1921.7.3, depending on the magnitude of the moments induced by M .
Commentary
In actual applications, the flat plate slab must be checked for flexure and punching shear due to gravity loads and the frame analysis actions induced by M . Section 1633.2.4 requires that the stiffening effect of those elements not part of the lateral forceresisting system shall be neglected in the structural model used for the evaluation of M . To evaluate the force induced by M in the elements not part of the lateral forceresisting system when using frame analysis, it is necessary to formulate an additional structural model that includes the stiffening effect of these elements. This model should be loaded by the same lateral forces used for the evaluation of M to obtain the corresponding element forces FM and displacement . The required element forces FM induced by M can then be found by: M M (F ) M M The values used for the displacements M and should be those corresponding to M the frame line in which the element is located. FM = Section 1633.2.4 also requires the consideration of foundation flexibility and diaphragm deflections in the evaluation of displacement. The following criteria and procedures may be used for this consideration: 1. Foundation Flexibility If the design strength capacity at the foundationsoil interface is less than the combined loads resulting from the special load combinations of 1612.4, then the lateral stiffness of the supported shear wall, braced frame, or column shall be reduced by a factor of .5. Diaphragm Deflection For a given diaphragm span between two lateral forceresisting elements, compare the midspan diaphragm deflection for a given uniform load with the average of the story drifts of the two lateral forceresisting elements due to the reactions from the diaphragm load. If the diaphragm deflection exceeds 20 percent of the average story drift, then include diaphragm deflection in M .
2.
Otherwise, for cases where the effects are critical for design, a soilspring model of the foundation and/or a finite element model of the diaphragm may be required.
1633.2.4.1
$%(('&'*'
During the 1994 Northridge earthquake in southern California, nonductile concrete and masonry elements in frame structures with ductile lateral forceresisting systems experienced failure because they lacked deformation compatibility. Deformation compatibility refers to the capacity of nonstructural elements, or structural elements not part of the lateral force system, to undergo seismic displacements without failure. It also implies that structural elements of the lateral force system will not be adversely affected by the behavior of nonstructural or nonseismic structural elements. The 1997 UBC has new requirements for deformation compatibility. These are given in 1633.2.4.1. The purpose of this example is to illustrate use of these requirements. The concrete special momentresisting frame shown below is restrained by the partial height infill wall. The infill is solid masonry and has no provision for an expansion joint at the column faces. The maximum deflection M was computed neglecting the stiffness of the nonstructural infill wall, as required by 1633.2.4. Zone 4 M = 2.5" Column properties: f ' c = 3,000 psi E c = 3 10 3 ksi Ac = 144 in. 4 I c = 854 in. 4 Determine the following:
Infill wall 12' 6' SMRF
Typical elevatio
Code Reference
1633.2.4.1
The infill wall, which is not required by the design to be part of the lateral forceresisting system, is an adjoining rigid element. Under 1633.2.4.1, it must be shown that the adjoining rigid element, in this case the masonry infill wall, must not impair the vertical or lateral loadresisting ability of the SMRF columns. Thus, the columns must be checked for ability to withstand the M displacement of 2.5 inches while being simultaneously restrained by the 6foothigh infill walls.
1633.2.4.1
Column shear will be determined from the frame inelastic displacement M . For purposes of the example, the expression for the fixedfixed condition will be used for simplicity. V col = 12 E c I c M h3 = 12 3 10 3
(72 )3
Column clear height = 72 in Because the SMRF is the primary lateral forceresisting system, M is to be determined by neglecting the stiffness of the ordinary columns and the rigid masonry infill per 1633.2.4. Vcol = 1,447 psi . This is approximately 26 f 'c Ac and would result in column shear failure. Therefore, a gap must be provided between the column faces and the infill walls. Alternately, it would be necessary to either design the column for the induced shears and moments caused by the infill wall, or demonstrate that the wall will fail before the column is damaged. Generally, it is far easier (and more reliable) to provide a gap sufficiently wide to accommodate M . The induced column shear stress is For this example, with the restraining wall height equal to one half the column height, the gap should be greater than or equal to M = 1.25 in . If this were provided, the 2 column clear height would be 144 inches, with resulting column shear 12 3 10 3 (854 )(2.5) 1 = 25.7 kips . This is of the restrained column shear V col = 3 8 (144)
of 205.9 kips .
1633.2.4.2
$%(('&'*'&
This example illustrates the determination of the design lateral seismic force, Fp , on
A fivestory moment frame building is shown below. The cladding on the exterior of the building consists of precast reinforced concrete wall panels. The following information is known:
Level 5 12' 4 Typical exterior panel
Zone 4 I p = 1.0 C a = 0.4 Panel size : 1111 x 1911 Panel thickness: 6 in. Panel weight: W p = 14.4 kips
Design criteria. Design lateral seismic force on a panel at the fourth story. Design lateral seismic force on a panel at the first story.
Code Reference
1632.2
Design criteria.
For design of exterior elements, such as the wall panels on a building, that are attached to the building at two levels, design lateral seismic forces are determined from Equation (322). The panels are attached at the two elevations h L and hU . The intent of the code is to provide a value of F p that represents the average of the acceleration inputs from the two attachment locations. This can be taken as the average of the two F p values at h x equal to h L and hU .
1633.2.4.2
Fp =
a p Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr
W p 0.7C a I pW p
(322)
a p = 1.0, R p = 3.0
Table 16O
Assuming connections are 1 foot above and below the nominal 12foot panel height hU = 47 ft h L = 37 ft h r = 60 ft F pU =
= 0.447W p
F pL =
= 0.380W p
Fp4 =
(0.447 + 0.380)
2
Wp
F p 4 = 0.414W p = (0.414 )(14.4 ) = 5.96 kips Check: F p 4 > 0.7C a I p W p = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0)W p = 0.2W p o.k. (323)
= 0.207W p
1633.2.4.2
F pU = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0 )W p = 0.28W p Also F pL < F pU < 0.28W p use F pL = F pU = 0.28W p F p1 = F pU + F pL 2
not o.k.
Commentary
The design lateral seismic force F p is to be used for the design of the panel for outofplane seismic forces. This can be represented by a distributed load equal to F p divided by the panel area. Note that the 163.2.4.2 Item 1 requirement to accommodate the relative movement of M is about twice the equivalent value of the previous code.
1633.2.4.2
$%(('&'*'&
This example illustrates the determination of the total design seismic lateral force for the design of the connections of an exterior wall panel to a building. Design of the body of the panel is often controlled by the nonseismic load conditions of the fabrication, transport, and erection. An exterior nonbearing panel is located at the fourth story of a fivestory moment frame building. The panel support system is shown below, where the pair of upper brackets must provide resistance to outofplane wind and seismic forces and inplane vertical and horizontal forces. The panel is supported vertically from these brackets. The lower pair of rod connections provide resistance to only the outofplane forces.
20'
Zone 4 C a = 0.4 I p = 1.0 Height to roof h r = 60 ft Panel weight = 14.4 k = 1.0 per 1632.2
hU = 47'
9'
9'
Bracket
hL = 37'
Wall panel
Rod
Strength design load combinations. Lateral seismic forces on connections and panel. Vertical seismic forces on panel. Combined dead and seismic forces on panel and connections. Design forces for the brackets. Design forces for the rods.
Code eference
For design of the panel connections to the building, the strength design load combinations are: 1.2 D + 1.0 E + f 1 L 0.9 D 1.0 E
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
(125) (126)
1633.2.4.2
where E = E h + E v = 1.0 E h = load due to application of Equations (322) and (323) E v = 0.5C a I p D (301) 1632.2 1630.1.1 1630.1.1
Outofplane panel seismic forces on the connections are determined from Equations (322) and (323) for the particular elevation of the connections. Forces at the upper level connections will be different than those at the lower level. Fp = a p Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr Wp (322)
0.7C a I pW p F p 4C a I pW p a p = 1.0 and R p = 3.0 W p = weight of portion of panel tributary to the connection Upper bracket connections h x = hU = 47 ft Tributary W p for the two brackets = 14.4 = 7.2 kips 2 = 0.447W p
F pU =
(322)
Check minimum force requirements of Equation (323). 0.7C a I pW p = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0)W p = 0.28W p
1633.2.4.2
Lower rod connections h x = h L = 37ft Tributary W p for the two rods = 14.4 = 7.2 kips 2 = 0.38W p > 0.28W p (322)
F pL =
Body of panel The body of the panel is also designed using a p = 1.0 and R p = 3.0 as indicated in Table 16O, Item 1.A(2). Thus, the seismic force on the body of the panel is the sum of the forces on the upper and lower levels. Alternatively, as shown below, an equivalent coefficient for the panel body can be determined by using the average of the coefficients for the upper and the lower levels. Upper coefficient = 0.447 @ hU Lower coefficient = 0.380 @ h L Average coefficient =
o.k.
1633.2.4.2
The panel seismic force is the average coefficient times the weight of the entire panel: FP = 0.413 W p = 0.413 (14.4 ) = 5.95 kips This force is applied at the panel centroid C and acts horizontally in either the outofplane or the inplane direction. For panel design for outofplane forces, this force can be made into an equivalent uniform loading: fP = 5,950 = 24.8 psf 12 20
1630.1.1
( )
The code requires consideration of vertical seismic forces when strength design is used. Vertical forces are determined from the equation E v = 0.5C a I p D D = dead load effect (or weight W p of panel) E v = 0.5 (.4 )(1)W p = 0.2W p = 0.2 (14.4 ) = 2.88 kips 1630.1.1
1630.1.1
There are two seismic load conditions to be considered: outofplane and inplane. These are shown below as concentrated forces. In this example, Equation (125) is considered the controlling load case. Because there is no live load on the panel, the term f 1 L of this equation is zero.
FpU outofplane seismic force at upper level
1633.2.4.2
Dead load and seismic outofplane and vertical forces. Panel connection reactions due to dead load, outofplane seismic forces, and vertical seismic forces are calculated as follows:
9' 9'
5'
FpU = 3.22 k
5'
FpL = 2.78 k
Each bracket connection takes the following outofplane force due to lateral loads: PB = F pU 2 = 3.22 = 1.61 kips 2
Each bracket takes the following downward inplane force due to vertical loads: VB = 1.4W p 2 = 20.16 = 10.08 kips 2
Each rod connection takes the following outofplane force due to lateral loads: PR = F pL 2 = 2.78 = 1.39 kips 2
Note that each rod, because it carries only axial forces, has no inplane seismic loading.
Dead load and seismic inplane and vertical forces: Panel connection reactions due to dead load, inplane seismic forces, and vertical seismic forces are calculated as follows:
9' 9'
5' C 5'
FP = 5.95 k
1.4Wp = 20.16 k
1633.2.4.2
Each bracket takes the following inplane horizontal force due to lateral seismic load: HB = FP 5.95 = = 2.98 kips 2 2
Each bracket takes the following upward or downward force due to lateral seismic load: FB = 5 (FP ) 5 (5.95) = = 1.65 kips 18 18
Each bracket takes the following downward force due to vertical loads: RB = 1.4W p 2 = 20.16 = 10.08 kips 2
Body of connection. Under 1633.2.4.2, Item 4, the body of the connection must be designed for a p = 1.0 and R p = 3.0 . These are the same values as used for the determination of F pU , F pL and FP . Therefore there is no need to change these forces. The bracket must be designed to resist the following sets of forces: PB = 1.61 k outofplane together with V B = 10.08 k downward shear and H B = 2.98 k horizontal shear together with FB + R B = 1.65 + 10.08 = 11.73 k downward shear
Fasteners. Under 1633.2.4.2, Item 5, fasteners must be designed for a p = 1.0 and R p = 1.0 . Thus, it is necessary to multiply the FpU , FpL and FP reactions by 3.0 since these values were based on R p = 3.0 . Fasteners must be designed to resist 3PB = 3 (1.61) = 4.83 k outofplane together with
1633.2.4.2
V B = 10.08 k downward shear and 3H B = 3 (2.98) = 8.94 k horizontal shear together with 3FB + R B = 3 (1.5) + 10.08 = 15.03 k downward shear
Body of connection. Under 1633.2.4.2, Item 4, the body of the connection must be designed to resist PR = 1.39 k outofplane
Fasteners. Under 1633.2.4, Item 5, all fasteners in the connecting system must be designed to resist a force based on R p = 1.0 : 3PR = 3 (1.39 ) = 4.17 k outofplane
1633.2.5
$%(('&'0
This example illustrates use of the beam tie requirement of 1633.2.5. This requirement derives from ATC3 and is to ensure that important parts of a structure are tied together. Find the minimum required tie capacity for the connection between the two simple beams shown in the example below. The following information is given:
Tie
D + L = 10 k/ft
Support, typ.
Beam
40'
40'
Code Reference
Requirements for ties and continuity are specified in 1633.2.5. For this particular example, it is required to determine the tie force for design of the horizontal tie interconnecting the two simply supported beams. This force is designated as E h , where E h is the horizontal earthquake load to be used in Equation (301). The minimum value of E h is 0.5C a I times the dead plus live load supported on the beam. Dead plus live load supported = (10 kpf )(40 ft ) = 400 kips E h = 0.5 (0.44 )(1.0)(400) = 88 kips
Commentary
The tie force calculated above for 1997 UBC requirements is .22 times dead plus live load. This is on a strength design basis and is about twice the load factored value given in the 1994 UBC. The 1994 UBC value is Z 5 times dead plus live load, or .112 times dead plus live load using a 1.4 load factor.
1633.2.6
Collectors collect forces and carry (i.e., drag) them to vertical shearresisting elements. Collectors are sometimes called drag struts. The purpose of this example is to show the determination of the maximum seismic force for design of collector elements. In the example below, a tiltup building with a panelized wood roof has a partial interior shear wall on Line 2. A collector is necessary to collect the diaphragm loads tributary to Line 2 and bring them to the shear wall. The following information is given:
1 100' 2 100' 50' 50' Tributary roof area for collector 50' Collector 3
Zone 4 R = 4.5 o = 2.8 I = 1.0 C a = .44 Roof dead load = 15 psf Wall height = 30 ft , no parapet Wall weight = 113 psf Base shear = V = .244W
A A
B 50'
Shear walls C A
Roof plan
50'
Collector
30'
Collector design force at tie to wall. Special seismic load of 1612.4 at tie to wall.
Code Reference
1633.2.6
The seismic force in the collector is made up of two parts: (1) the tributary outofplane wall forces, and (2) the tributary roof diaphragm force. Because the roof is considered flexible, the tributary roof area is taken as the 100ft by 50ft area shown on the roof plan above. Seismic forces for collector design are determined from Equation
1633.2.6
(331) used for diaphragm design. This equation reduces to the following for a single story structure: F px = where Froof Wroof W px
The term
F px = .275W px The tributary roof weight and outofplane wall weight is 30 W px = 15 psf (100)(50) + 113 psf (100) = 75,000 + 169,500 = 244.5 kips 2 F px = .275 (244.5) = 67.2 kips
1633.2.6
In addition to the forces specified by Equation (331), collectors must resist special seismic loads specified in 1612.4. Collector load E h = 67.2 kips Required collector strength = E m = o E h = 2.8 (67.2 ) = 188.2 kips This load is to be resisted on a strength design basis using a resistance factor of = 1.0 , and 1.7 times the allowable values for allowable stress design. The connection must have the capacity to deliver this collector load to the shear wall on Line 2. (302)
1633.2.6
Commentary
Note that the UBC in 1633.2.6 specifies that E m need not exceed the maximum force that can be delivered by the diaphragm to the collector or other elements of the lateral forceresisting system. For example, the overturning moment capacity of the shear wall can limit the required strength of the collector and its connection to the shear wall.
1633.2.8.1
$%(('&'3'
For the tiltup wall panel shown below, the seismic force required for the design of the wall anchorage to the flexible roof diaphragm will be determined. This will be done for a representative one foot width of wall. The following information is given: Zone 4 I p = 1.0 Ca = 0.4 Panel thickness = 8 in. Normal weight concrete (150 pcf)
Fanch
Top of parapet 4' Roof
Ground
Code Reference
1633.2
Design criteria.
Because of the frequent failure of wall/roof ties in past earthquakes, the code requires that the force used to design wall anchorage to flexible diaphragms be greater than that used to design the panel sections. Either Equation (321) or Equations (322) and (323) can be used to determine anchor design forces. Normally, Equations (322) and (323) are used. Fp = a pCa I p 3h 1 + x Rp hr Wp (322)
0.7C a I pW p F p 4C a I pW p The wall panel is supported at its base and at the roof level. The value of F p to be used in wall/roof anchorage design is determined from Equation (322) using h x = hr , and W p is the tributary weight.
(323)
1633.2.8.1
For design of elements of wall anchorage system: R p = 3.0, a p = 1.5 Also, the value of Fanch must not be less than 420 plf 1633.2.8.1, Item 1 1633.2.8.1, Item 1
The tributary wall weight is onehalf of the weight between the roof and base plus all of the weight above the roof. 8 W p = 150 (4 + 10)(1) = 1,400 lbs/ft 12 Since h x = h r = 20 ft R p = 3.0 a p = 1.5 The minimum force is 0.7C a I pW p = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0 )W p = 0.28W p = 0.28 (1,400 ) = 392 plf Check Equation (322) Fanch = 1.5 (0.4 )(1.0) 3 (20) 1 + W p = 0.80W p 3.0 20 (322) (323)
Fanch = 0.80W p = 0.8 (1,400) = 1,120 plf > 420 plf o.k., and < 4.0C a I pW p = 1.6W p o.k. Fanch = 1,120 plf
Commentary
Design of wall anchorage is crucial for successful earthquake performance of tiltup buildings in Zones 3 and 4. Generally, it is desirable that the connections of walls to the diaphragm develop the strength of the steel. The following code sections apply to the anchorage design: 1. Sections 1605.2.3 and 1633.2.8 call for a positive direct connection. Embedded straps must be attached to, or hooked around, the wall reinforcing steel, or otherwise effectively terminated to transfer forces.
1633.2.8.1
2. Section 1633.2.9, Item 4 states that Fanch may be carried by a subdiaphragm. 3. Section 1633.2.8.1 has the following additional anchorage requirements. Item 4: Steel elements of anchorage must be designed to take 1.4 Fanch . Item 5: Wood elements of anchorage must have strength to take 0.85Fanch , and wood elements must have minimum net thickness of 2 1 2 " (i.e., be at least 3x members). 4. Section 1633.2.8 and 1633.2.9, Item 1 require that details of anchors tolerate M of the diaphragm. 5. When allowable stress design is used, the minimum anchorage force is not 420 plf as specified in 1633.2.8.1, Item 1 but 300 plf. This is determined by substituting E = 420 plf in the load combinations of 1612.3. This gives: E 420 = = 300 plf . 1.4 1.4
1633.2.8.1
$%(('&'3'
This example illustrates use of the allowable stress design procedure for the design of steel and wood elements of the wall anchorage system in a building with a flexibl roof diaphragm. In the example below, a tiltup wall panel is shown. It is connected near its top to a flexible roof diaphragm. The anchorage force has been calculated per 1633.2.8.1 as Fanch = 1,120 plf. The wall anchorage connections to the roof are to be provided at 4 feet on center.
Fanch
Wall panel
Design force for premanufactured steel anchorage element. Design force for wood subpurlin tie element.
Code Reference
The basic task is to design the steel anchorage elements (i.e., holddowns) that connect the tiltup wall panel to the wood subpurlins of the roof diaphragm. The anchorage consists of two holddown elements, one on each side of the subpurlin. The manufacturers catalog provides allowable capacity values for earthquake loading for a given type and size of holddown element. These include the allowabl stress increase and are typically listed under a heading that indicates a 1.33 x allowable capacity. For the steel holddown elements of the anchorage system, the code requires that the anchorage force PE used in strength design be 1.4 times the force otherwise required. 1633.2.8.1, Item 4 PE = 1.4 Fanch
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
1633.2.8.1
PE = 1.4 (1,120 plf )(4 ft ) = 6,272 lbs Since PE is determined on a strength design basis, it is the earthquake load E to be used in the design load combinations. In this example, it is elected to use the alternate basic load combinations of 1612.3.2, where the applicable combinations of E Equations (1213), (1216) and (12161) permit to be resisted with a onethird 1.4 increase in allowable stress. The allowable stress design requirement for each pair of holddown elements is: 6,272 P E = E = = 4,480 lbs 1.4 1.4 1.4 From the manufacturers catalog, select a holddown element having a ( 1.33 allowable) capacity of at least 4,480 = 2,240 lbs 2 Whenever holddowns are used in pairs, as shown in the wallroof tie detail above, the throughbolts in the subpurlin must be checked for double shear bearing. Also, the paired anchorage embedment in the wall is likely to involve an overlapping pullout cone condition in the concrete: refer to 1923 for design requirements. When singlesided holddowns are used, these must comply with the requirements of Item 2 of 1633.2.8.1. Generally, double holddowns are preferred, but singlesided holddowns are often used with all eccentricities fully considered.
The strength design forces on the wood elements of the wall anchorage system can be 0.85 times the force otherwise required: PE = 0.85Fanch PE = 0.85 (1120 plf )(4 ft ) = 3,808 lbs Select the wood element such that 1.33 times the allowable capacity of the element, including dead load effects, is at least equal to PE 3,808 = = 2,720 lbs 1.4 1.4 Note that tie elements, such as the subpurlin, are required to be 3x or larger. 1633.2.8.1, Item 5
1633.2.8.1, Item 5
1633.2.9
*3
$%(('&'
A singlestory tiltup building with a panelized wood roof is shown below. This type of roof construction is generally considered to have a flexible diaphragm.
1 200' Normal wall A 6
100'
Seismic force
Given: Zone 4 I = 1.0 C a = 0.4 R = 4.5 (bearing wall system) = 1.2 Diaphragm weight = 15 psf Wall weight = 80 psf
D Normal wall
Roof plan
A Roof diaphragm
1633.2.9
Code Reference
For buildings with tiltup concrete walls, 1633.2.9, Item 3, requires that the flexible diaphragm design force be based on the design base shear and forces F px using an R value not exceeding 4, even though the tiltup wallframe system uses R = 4.5 . For a short period single story building, the diaphragm force, using R = 4 , becomes:
w px = weight of diaphragm + weight of height of normal walls = 100 (15) + 2 (10)(80) = 3,100 plf
F px = 2.5C a I 2.5 (0.4 )(1.0) (3,100) = 775 plf w px = 4 R (331)
Note that the redundancy factor of = 1.2 is not applied to the E h loads due to F px (such as chord forces and diaphragm shear loads in the diaphragm).
Commentary
1. The weight, w px , includes the weight of the diaphragm plus the tributary weight of elements normal to the diaphragm that are onehalf story height below and above the diaphragm level. Walls parallel to the direction of the seismic forces are usually not considered in the determination of the tributary roof weight because these walls do not obtain support, in the direction of the force, from the roof diaphragm. 2. The single story building version of Equation (331) is derived as follows: Ft + Fi
i= x n
F px =
i= x
wi
w px
(331)
Fi =
(V Ft ) w x h x
w i hi
i =1
(3015)
1633.2.9
wi
i =1
=W
1633.2.9
*
$%(('&'
The ninestory moment frame building shown below has the tabulated design seismic forces F x . These were determined from Equations (3014) and (3015) and the design base shear. The following information is given:
1 2 3
Zone 4 W = 3,762 k C a = 0.40 C v = 0.56 R = 8.5 = 1.2 I = 1.0 T = 1.06 sec V = 233.8 k Ft = 17.3 k
Level 9 12' 8 12' 7 12' 6 12' 5 12' 4 12' 3 12' 2 12' 1 20'
27'
27'
Story Weight 214k 405k 405k 405k 584k 422k 422k 440k 465k
Level x 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
w(k) 214 405 405 405 584 422 422 440 465 =3,762
wh 24,824 42,120 37,260 32,400 39,712 23,632 18,568 14,080 9,300 241,896
wh wh
0.103 0.174 0.154 0.134 0.164 0.098 0.077 0.058 0.038
Fx (k)
22.3 + 17.3 = 39.6 37.7 33.3 29.0 35.5 21.2 16.7 12.6 8.2 233.8
1633.2.9
Code Reference
Seismic forces on floor and roof diaphragm are specified in 1633.2.9. The following expression is used to determine the diaphragm force F px at level x: F px = Ft + Fi
i= x n
i= x
wi
w px
(331)
Section 1633.2.9 also has the following limits on F px : 0.5C a Iw px F px 1.0C a Iw px For level 7, x = 7 . Fp7 = Check limits: 0.5C a Iw px = 0.5 (0.40)(1.0) 405 = 81.0k 1.0C a Iw px = 1.0 (0.40)(1.0) 405 = 162.0k F p 7 = 81.0 kips Note that the redundancy factor, in this example = 1.2 , is not applied to the loads E h due to F px (such as chord forces and floortoframe shear connections).
[17.3 + (33.3 + 37.7 + 22.3)] (405) = (0.108)(405) = 43.7k (405 + 405 + 214)
1633.2.11
$%(('&'
Building separations are necessary to prevent or reduce the possibility of two adjacent structures impacting during an earthquake. Requirements for building separations are given in 1633.2.11. In this example, the static displacements and information about each structure are given below.
Separation Level 4
Structure 1
Structure 2
Separation within the same building. Separation from an adjacent building on the same property. Separation from an adjacent building on another property.
Code Reference
1633.2.11
Expansion joints are often used to break a large building, or an irregular building, into two or more parts above the foundation level. This effectively creates separate structures within the same building. The code requires that the structures be separated by the amount MT . where MT =
( M 1 )2 + ( M 2 )2
(332)
M 1 = maximum inelastic displacement of Structure 1 M 2 = maximum inelastic displacement of Structure 2 The required separation is determined in the following two steps.
1633.2.11
Determine inelastic displacements of each structure. To determine the minimum separation between parts of the same building that are separated by an expansion joint, the maximum inelastic floor displacements under code seismic forces must be determined for each structure. These are For Structure 1 M 1 = 0.7 R s = 0.7 8.5 1.0 = 5.95 in. For Structure 2 M 2 = 0.7 R s = 0.7 7.0 .75 = 3.68 in.
1630.9.2
(3017)
(3017)
Determine the required separation. 1633.2.11 The required separation is determined from the individual maximum inelastic displacements of each structure as follows: MT =
( ) + ( )
2 M1 M2
(5.95)2 + (3.68)2
= 7.0 in.
(332)
If Structures 1 and 2 above were adjacent, individual buildings on the same property, the solution to this problem is the same as that shown above in Step 1. The code makes no distinction between an internal separation in the same building and the separation required between two adjacent buildings on the same property. MT = 7.0 in.
1633.2.11
If Structure 1 is a building under design and Structure 2 is an existing building on another property, we would generally not have information about the seismic displacements of Structure 2. Often even basic information about the structural system of Structure 2 may not be known. In this case, separation must be based only on information about Structure 1. The maximum static displacement of Structure 1 is 1.38 inches and occurs at the roof (Level 4). The inelastic displacement is calculated as: M = 0.7 R s = 0.7 8.5 1.38 = 8.2 in. Structure 1 must be set back 8.2 inches from the property line, unless a smaller separation is justified by a rational analysis based on maximum ground motions. Such an analysis is difficult to do, and is generally not done except in very special cases. (3017)
1634.2
0
, # "
A tall cylindrical steel vessel is supported by a heavy, massive concrete foundation. The following information is given: Weight of tank and maximum normal operating contents = 150 k Occupancy Category 2 Zone 4 I = 1.25 (toxic contents per Table 16K) C a = 0.44 C v = 0.64 N v = 1.0 Determine the following:
$%(*'&
L = 150' D = 8'
Assumed base
Grade
Period of vibration. Design base shear. Vertical distribution of seismic forces. Overturning moment at base.
Code Reference
Period of vibration.
In this example, only the case with the vessel full of contents will be considered. In actual practice, other conditions may need to be considered. For calculation purposes, the base is assumed to be located at the top of the pier. The weight of the vessel is assumed to be uniformly distributed over its height. The period of the vessel must be determined by Method B. This is required by 1634.1.4. For this particular vessel, the expression for the period of a thinwalled cantilever cylinder may be used. T = 7.65 10 6 where: L wD 2 D t
2 1
1634.2
w=
wD 1000 8 = = 256,000 (0.375 / 12 ) t L 150 = = 18.75 D 8 T = 7.65 10 6 18.75 2 256,000 = 1.36 sec Because the period is greater than .06 seconds, the vessel is considered flexible. It should be noted that the value of the period T determined using Method B is not subject to the 30percent limit mentioned in 1630.2.2, Item 2. This is because Method A is intended for buildings and is not applicable to structural systems that differ from typical building configurations and characteristics. Refer to Section C109.1.4 of the SEAOC Blue Book for further discussion.
The design base shear for nonbuilding structures is calculated from the same expressions as for buildings. These are given in 1630.2.1. In addition, nonbuilding structures such as the vessel must also satisfy the requirements of 1634.5. V = Cv I W RT (304) Table 16P
R = 2.9 and o = 2.0 V= 0.64 (1.25) (150) = 30.4 kips 2.9 (1.36)
Under 1634.5 Item 1, design base shear must not be less than the following: V = 0.56C a IW = 0.56 (.44 )(1.25)150 = 46.2 kips nor in Zone 4 less than V= 1.6 ZN v I 1.6 (.4 )(1.0)(1.25) (150) = 41.4 kips W= 2.9 R (343) (342)
V = 46.2 kips
1634.2
Requirements for the vertical distribution of seismic forces are given in 1634.5 Item 2. This specifies the use of the same vertical distribution of force as for buildings, either Equation (3013) or a dynamic analysis. The following shows use of the static procedures of Equation (3013). V = Ft + Fi
i =1 n
(3013)
where T = 1.36 sec > 0.7 Ft = 0.07TV Ft = 0.07 (1.36)(46.2 ) = 4.4 k < 0.25V o.k. F = V Ft = 46.2 4.4 = 41.8 k acting at 2L/3 (centroid of triangular distribution) The vertical distribution of seismic forces on the vessel is shown below. (3014)
Ft = 4.4 k
L = 150'
F = 41.8 k
2L/3 = 100'
V = 46.2 k
M = 4.4 (150 ) + 41.8 (100 ) = 4,840 k ft (at the top of the foundation)
1634.2
, # "
$%(*'&
A nonbuilding structure with a concrete intermediate momentresisting frame (IMRF) supports some rigid aggregate storage bins. Weights W1 and W2 include the maximum normal operating weights of the storage bins and contents as well as the tributary frame weight. The following information is given: Zone 4 I = 1.0 Soil Profile Type D C a = 0.44 C v = 0.64 N v = 1.0 T = 2.0 sec Determine the following:
W2 = 200k
Level
F2 W1 = 100k F1
15'
30'
Code Reference
1634.2
Because this is a flexible structure, the general expressions for design base shear given in 1630.2.1 must be used. Note that the Exception of 1634.2 permits use of an IMRF in Zones 3 and 4, provided the height of the structure is less than 50 feet and R does not exceed 2.8. The total base shear in a given direction is determined from V= Cv I 0.64 (1.0 ) (200 + 100) = 0.114 (300) = 34.2 k W= RT 2.8 (2.0) (304)
However, the total base shear need not exceed V 2.5C a I 2.5 (0.44 )(1.0) (200 + 100) = 117.9 kips W= 2.8 R (305)
The total design base shear cannot be less than V 0.11C a IW = 0.11 (0.44 )(1.0)(200 + 100) = 14.5 kips (306)
1634.2
In Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear also cannot be less than V 0.8ZN v 0.8 (0.4 )(1.0) (200 + 100) = 34.3 kips W= 2.8 R (307)
In this example, design base shear is controlled by Equation (307). V = 34.3 kips
1634.2
The design base shear must be distributed over the height of the structure in the same manner as that for a building structure. Fx =
(V Ft ) w x h x
wi hi
i =1
(V Ft )(W x h x ) (W1 h 1 + W2 h 2 )
(3015)
Because T > 0.7 seconds, a concentrated force Ft must be applied to the top level. Ft = 0.07TV = 0.07 (2.0)(34.3) = 4.90 k F2 = 4.90 + (3014)
(3015)
F1 =
(3015)
Commentary
Section 1634.1.2 permits use of = 1.0 for load combinations for nonbuilding structures using 1634.3, 1634.3 or 1634.5 for determination of seismic forces.
1634.3
5# # "
The code has special requirements for the determination of seismic forces for design of rigid nonbuilding structures. In this example, rigid ore crushing equipment is supported by a massive concrete pedestal and seismic design forces are to be determined. The following information is given: Zone 4 C a = 0.4 I = 1.0 T = 0.02 sec WEQUIPMENT = 100 k WSUPPORT = 200 k
F2
CM
$%(*'(
F1
30' 20'
CM
Grade
Code Reference
1634.3
For rigid nonbuilding structures, Equation (341) is used to determine design base shear. V = 0.7C a IW = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0 )(200 + 100) = 84 kips (341)
1634.3
Design base shear is distributed according to the distribution of mass F1 = F2 = 200 (84 ) = 56.0 kips 300 100 (84 ) = 28.0 kips 300
Commentary
Section 1634.1.2 permits use of = 1.0 for load combinations for nonbuilding structures using 1634.3, 1634.4 or 1634.5 for determination of seismic forces.
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual
1634.4
$%(*'*
A small liquid storage tank is supported on a concrete slab. The tank does not contain toxic or explosive substances. The following information is given:
Zone 4 C a = 0.4 I p = 1.0 Weight of tank and maximum normal operating contents = 120 kips
D = 10.0'
Slab Grade
20'
1634.4
Code Reference
The tank is a nonbuilding structure, and seismic requirements for tanks with supported bottoms are given in 1634.4. This section requires that seismic forces be determined using the procedures of 1634.3* for rigid structures. Base shear is computed as V = 0.7Ca IW = 0.7 (0.4 )(1.0)(120) = 33.6 kips The design lateral seismic force is to be applied at the center of mass of the tank and its contents. *Note: There is a typographical error on page 221 in some versions of the 1997 UBC in 1634.4. Section 1632 should be Section 1634.3. (341)
Commentary
The above procedures are intended for tanks that have relatively small diameters and where the forces generated by fluid sloshing modes are small. For large diameter tanks, the effects of sloshing must be considered. Refer to American Water Works Association Standard ANSI/AWWA D10084 Welded Steel Tanks for Water Storage, or American Petroleum Institute Standard 650, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage for more detailed guidance. Also see Section C109.5.1 of the SEAOC Blue Book for a discussion of tank anchorage methods.
1807.2
$342'&
Original grade
Zone 4 I = 1.0 (standard occupancy) Pile cap size: 3'0" square x 2'0" deep Grade beam: 1'6" x 2'0" Allowable lateral bearing = 200 psf per ft. of depth below natural grade.
2'0"
Pile cap
2'0"
Pile
Pile Cap 3 10
Dead Load 46 k 58
North
4 @ 25' = 100' A A 2 @ 30' = 60' 1 6 2 3 A 7 4 5
C 8 9 10 11 12
Foundation pla
Interconnection requirements. Interconnection force between pile caps 3 and 10. Required tie restraint between pile caps 3 and 10.
1807.2
Code Reference
1807.2
Interconnection requirements.
The code requires that individual pile caps of every structure subject to seismic forces be interconnected with ties. This is specified in 1807.2. The ties must be capable of resisting in tension and compression, a minimum horizontal tie force equal to 10 percent of the larger column vertical load. The column vertical load is to be considered the dead, reduced live, and seismic loads on the pile cap. An exception to 1807.2 allows use of equivalent restraint.
Maximum loads on each pile cap under E/W seismic forces are Pile cap 3 = 46 + 16 + 0 = 62 kips Pile cap 10 = 58 + 16 + 0 = 74 kips Minimum horizontal tie force is 10 percent of largest column vertical load P = 0.10 (74 ) = 7.40 kips
The choices are to add a grade beam (i.e., tie beam) connecting pile caps 3 and 10, or to try to use passive pressure restraint on the pile cap in lieu of a grade beam. The latter is considered an equivalent restraint under the exception to 1807.2. Check passive pressure resistance. Passive pressure =
(400 + 800 ) (
2
2 ft ) = 1,200 plf
Required length =
This is greater than 3'0" pile cap width, but pile cap and a tributary length of N/S grade beam on either side of the pile cap may be designed to resist tie forces using passive pressure. This system is shown below, and if this is properly designed, no grade beam between pile caps 3 and 10 (or similar caps) is required.
1807.2
2'0"
Commentary
Normally, buildings on pile foundations are required to have interconnecting ties between pile caps. This is particularly true in the case of highrise buildings and buildings with heavy vertical loads on individual pile caps. Ties are essential in tall buildings. Ties are also necessary when the site soil conditions are poor such that lateral movements, or geotechnical hazards, such as liquefaction, are possible. Also note that while 1807.2 has the wording tension or compression, the intent is that the ties must resist the required forces in both tension and compression. In design of relatively lightweight one and twostory buildings, the exception to the interconnecting tie requirement of 1807.2 may permit a more economical foundation design. However, when interconnecting ties are omitted, a geotechnical engineer should confirm the appropriateness of this decision.
April 2000
Copyright
Copyright 2000 Structural Engineers Association of California. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
Publisher
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) 1730 I Street, Suite 240 Sacramento, California 958143017 Telephone: (916) 4471198; Fax: (916) 4438065 Email: info@seaoc.org; Web address: www.seaoc.org
The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional association of four regional member organizations (Central California, Northern California, San Diego, and Southern California). SEAOC represents the structural engineering community in California. This document is published in keeping with SEAOCs stated mission: to advance the structural engineering profession, to provide the public with structures of dependable performance through the application of stateoftheart structural engineering principles; to assist the public in obtaining professional structural engineering services; to promote natural hazard mitigation; to provide continuing education and encourage research; to provide structural engineers with the most current information and tools to improve their practice; and to maintain the honor and dignity of the profession. Editor Gail H. Shea, Albany, California Disclaimer Practice documents produced by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) and/or its member organizations are published as part of our associations educational program. While the information presented in this document is believed to be correct, neither SEAOC nor its member organizations, committees, writers, editors, or individuals who have contributed to this publication make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of, and/or reference to opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations included in this publication. The material presented in this publication should not be used for any specific application without competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability by qualified professionals. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use.
ii
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Preface
....................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... vii Suggestions for Improvement ........................................................................................ ix Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 How to Use This Document ............................................................................................ 2 Notation ....................................................................................................................... 3
References ..................................................................................................................... 10 Design Example 1 Wood Light Frame Residence................................................................................. 11 Design Example 2 Wood Light Frame ThreeStory Structure ............................................................... 87 Design Example 3 ColdFormed Steel Light Frame ThreeStory Structure ........................................ 159 Design Example 4 Masonry Shear Wall Building ................................................................................ 213 Design Example 5 TiltUp Building ...................................................................................................... 247 Design Example 6 TiltUp Wall Panel With Openings ......................................................................... 289
iii
Table of Contents
iv
Preface
Preface
This document is the second volume of the threevolume SEAOC Seismic Design Manual. The first volume, Code Application Examples, was published in April 1999. These documents have been developed by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) with funding provided by SEAOC. Their purpose is to provide guidance on the interpretation and use of the seismic requirements in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and SEAOCs 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (also called the Blue Book). The Seismic Design Manual was developed to fill a void that exists between the Commentary of the Blue Book, which explains the basis for the UBC seismic provisions, and everyday structural engineering design practice. While the Manual illustrates how the provisions of the code are used, the examples shown do not necessarily illustrate the only appropriate methods of seismic design, and the document is not intended to establish a minimum standard of care. Engineering judgment needs to be exercised when applying these examples to real projects. Volume I: Code Application Examples, provides stepbystep examples of how to use individual code provisions, such as how to compute base shear or building period. Volumes II and III: Design Examples, furnish examples of the seismic design of common types of buildings. In Volumes II and III, important aspects of whole buildings are designed to show, calculationbycalculation, how the various seismic requirements of the code are implemented in a realistic design. Volume II contains six examples. These illustrate the seismic design of the following structures: (1) a twostory wood light frame residence, (2) a threestory wood light frame building, (3) a threestory cold formed light frame building, (4) a onestory masonry building with panelized wood roof, (5) a onestory tiltup building with panelized wood roof, and (6) the design of a tiltup wall panel with large openings. Work on the final volume, Building Design Examples, Volume IIISteel, Concrete and Cladding, is nearing completion and is scheduled for release in late Spring 2000. It is SEAOCs present intention to update the Seismic Design Manual with each edition of the building code used in California. Work is currently underway on a 2000 International Building Code version. Ronald P. Gallagher Project Manager
Preface
vi
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
Authors
The Seismic Design Manual was written by a group of highly qualified structural engineers. These individuals are both California registered civil and structural engineers and SEAOC members. They were selected by a Steering Committee set up by the SEAOC Board of Directors and were chosen for their knowledge and experience with structural engineering practice and seismic design. The Consultants for Volumes I, II and III are: Ronald P. Gallagher, Project Manager Robert Clark David A. Hutchinson Jon P. Kiland John W. Lawson Joseph R. Maffei Douglas S. Thompson Theodore C. Zsutty
Volume II was written principally by Douglas S. Thompson (Examples 1, 2, and 3), Jon P. Kiland (Example 4), Ronald P. Gallagher (Example 5), and John W. Lawson (Example 6). Many useful ideas and helpful suggestions were offered by the other Consultants. Consultant work on Volume III is currently underway. Steering Committee
Overseeing the development of the Seismic Design Manual and the work of the Consultants was the Project Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was made up of senior members of SEAOC who are both practicing structural engineers and have been active in Association leadership. Members of the Steering Committee attended meetings and took an active role in shaping and reviewing the document. The Steering Committee consisted of: John G. Shipp, Chair Robert N. Chittenden Stephen K. Harris Martin W. Johnson Scott A. Stedman
vii
Acknowledgments
Reviewers
A number of SEAOC members, and other structural engineers, helped check the examples in this volume. During its development, drafts of the examples were sent to these individuals. Their help was sought in both review of code interpretations as well as detailed checking of the numerical computations. The assistance of the following individuals is gratefully acknowledged: Ricardo Arevalo Gary Austin Robert Chittenden Kelly Cobeen Michael Cochran Susan Dowty Gerald Freeman Stephen K. Harris Gary Ho John Lawson Dilip M. Khatri Harry (Hank) Martin (AISC) David McCormick Gary Mochizuki William Nelson Neil Peterson Michael Riley George Richards Alan Robinson (for CMACN) John Rose (APA) Douglas Thompson Jerry Tucker Craig Wilcox Dennis Wish
Seismology Committee
Close collaboration with the SEAOC Seismology Committee was maintained during the development of the document. The 19992000 Committee reviewed the document and provided many helpful comments and suggestions. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
19992000 Martin W. Johnson, Chair Saif Hussain, Past Chair David Bonowitz Robert N. Chittenden Tom H. Hale Stephen K. Harris Douglas C. Hohbach Y. Henry Huang Saiful Islam H. John Khadivi Jaiteeerth B. Kinhal Robert Lyons Simin Naaseh Chris V. Tokas Michael Riley, Assistant to the Chair
viii
In keeping with two of its Mission Statements: (1) to advance the structural engineering profession and (2) to provide structural engineers with the most current information and tools to improve their practice, SEAOC plans to update this document as seismic requirements change and new research and better understanding of building performance in earthquakes becomes available. Comments and suggestions for improvements are welcome and should be sent to the following: Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Attention: Executive Director 1730 I Street, Suite 240 Sacramento, California 958143017 Telephone: (916) 4471198 Fax: (916) 4438065 Email: info@seaoc.org Web address: http://www.seaoc.org
Errata Notification
SEAOC has made a substantial effort to ensure that the information in this document is accurate. In the event that corrections or clarifications are needed, these will be posted on the SEAOC web site at http://www.seaoc.org or on the ICBO website at http://ww.icbo.org. SEAOC, at its sole discretion, may or may not issue written errata.
ix
Introduction
Introduction
Seismic design of new light frame, masonry and tiltup buildings for the requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) is illustrated in this document. Six examples are shown: (1) a twostory wood frame residence, (2) a large threestory wood frame building, (3) a threestory cold formed steel light frame building, (4) a onestory masonry (concrete block) building with panelized wood roof, (5) a onestory tiltup building with panelized wood roof, and (6) the design of a tiltup wall panel with large openings. The buildings selected are for the most part representative of construction types found in Zones 3 and 4, particularly California and the Western States. Designs have been largely taken from real world buildings, although some simplifications were necessary for purposes of illustrating significant points and not presenting repetive or unnecessarily complicated aspects of a design. The examples are not complete building designs, or even complete seismic designs, but rather they are examples of the significant seismic design aspects of a particular type of building. In developing these examples, SEAOC has endeavored to illustrate correct use of the minimum provisions of the code. The document is intended to help the reader understand and correctly use the design provisions of UBC Chapters 16 (Design Requirements), 19 (Concrete), 21 (Masonry), 22 (Steel) and 23 (Wood). Design practices of an individual structural engineer or office, which may result in a more seismicresistant design than required by the minimum requirements of UBC, are not given. When appropriate, however, these considerations are discussed as alternatives. In some examples, the performance characteristics of the structural system are discussed. This typically includes a brief review of the past earthquake behavior and mention of design improvements added to recent codes. SEAOC believes it is essential that structural engineers not only know how to correctly interpret and apply the provisions of the code, but that they also understand their basis. For this reason, many examples have commentary included on past earthquake performance. While the Seismic Design Manual is based on the 1997 UBC, references are made to the provisions of SEAOCs 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Provisions and Commentary (Blue Book). When differences between the UBC and Blue Book are significant, these are brought to the attention of the reader.
Section 23.223 of Volume 3, of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC). Section E3.3 of the 1996 Edition of the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) Specification for the Design of ColdFormed Steel Structural Members. Table 5A of the 1991 National Design Specification for Wood Construction (NDS). Table 1A of Ninth Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design.
Notation
Notation
The following notations are used in this document. These are generally consistent with that used in the UBC and other codes such as ACI, AISC, AISI and NDS. Some additional notations have also been added. The reader is cautioned that the same notation may be used more than once and may carry entirely different meaning in different situations. For example, E can mean the tabulated elastic modulus under the NDS definition (wood) or it can mean the earthquake load under 1630.1 of the UBC (loads). When the same notation is used in two or more definitions, each definition is prefaced with a brief description in parentheses (e.g., wood or loads) before the definition is given.
(wood diaphragm) area of chord cross section, in square inches (wood shear wall) area of boundary element cross section, in square inches (vertical member at shear wall boundary) ground floor area of structure in square feet to include area covered by all overhangs and projections. the combined effective area, in square feet, of the shear walls in the first story of the structure. the minimum crosssectional area in any horizontal plane in the first story, in square feet of a shear wall. the effective area (in square inches) of the projection of an assumed concrete failure surface upon the surface from which the anchor protrudes. area of tension reinforcing steel equivalent area of tension reinforcing steel the torsional amplification factor at Level x. net concrete section area depth of equivalent rectangular stress block numerical coefficient specified in 1632 and set forth in Table 16O of UBC.
3
AB
Ac
Ae
Ap
As Ase Ax Aconc a ap
= = = = = =
Notation
Btn
nominal tensile strength of anchor bolt in masonry, in pounds. (concrete beam) width of compression face of member (wood diaphragm) diaphragm width, in feet (wood shear wall) wall width, in feet factored tensile force supported by anchor bolt in masonry, in pounds seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16Q of UBC. penetration depth factor load duration factor wet service factor numerical coefficient given in 1630.2.2 of UBC. seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16R of UBC. distance from neutral axis to extreme fiber (loads) dead load on a structural element. (wood) diameter the length, in feet, of a shear wall in the first story in the direction parallel to the applied forces. (wood) dimension of wood member (assembly) (concrete or masonry) distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement (loads) distance from lateral resisting element to the center of rigidity (wood) pennyweight of nail or spike deflection due to anchorage details in wood shear wall (rotation and slip at tiedown bolts), in inches
b b b btu
= = = =
Ca Cd CD CM Ct Cv c D D De
= = = = = = = = = =
d d
= =
d da
= =
Notation
E E
= =
(wood diaphragm) elastic modulus of chords, in psi (wood shear wall) elastic modulus of boundary element (vertical member at shear wall boundary), in psi modulus of elasticity of concrete, in psi modulus of elasticity of masonry, in psi (wood) tabulated and allowable modulus of elasticity, in psi diaphragm eccentricity nail deformation in inches (see Table 232K of UBC) = (loads) earthquake loads set forth in 1630.1 of UBC.
Ec Em
= =
E, E ' = e en = =
tabulated and allowable bending design value, in psi tabulated and allowable compression design value perpendicular to grain, in psi tabulated and allowable compression shear design value parallel to grain (horizontal shear), in psi design seismic force applied to Level i, n or x, respectively. design seismic force on a part of the structure. design seismic force on a diaphragm. (loads) that portion of the base shear, V, considered concentrated at the top of the structure in addition to Fn. torsional shear force direct shear force specified yield strength of structural steel. extreme fiber bending stress (wood) actual compression stress parallel to grain
Fv ' Fv ' =
Fx Fp Fpx Ft
= = = =
Ft Fv Fy fb fc
= = = = =
Notation
fc ' f c fi fm ' fp fr fy fv G
= = = = = = = = =
specified compressive strength of concrete. (wood) actual compression stress perpendicular to grain lateral force at Level i for use in Formula (3010) of UBC. specified compressive strength of masonry, in psi equivalent uniform load. (masonry) modulus of rupture, in psi specified tension yield strength of reinforcing steel. (wood) actual shear stress parallel to grain modulus of rigidity of plywood, in pounds per square inch (see Table 232J of UBC) acceleration due to gravity. (concrete) height of wall between points of support, in inches (wood shear wall) wall height, in feet = height in feet above the base to level i, n or x, respectively importance factor given in Table 16K of UBC. moment of inertia of cracked concrete or masonry section moment of inertia of gross concrete or masonry section about centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement importance factor specified in Table 16K of UBC. (wood) wall stiffness (loads) live load on a structural element, except roof live load (loads) roof live load
g h
= =
Ip k L
= = =
Lr
Notation
L L lc
= = =
(wood) span length of bending member (wood diaphragm) diaphragm length, in feet (concrete) vertical distance between wall supports, in inches level of the structure referred to by the subscript i. i = 1 designates the first level above the base. that level that is uppermost in the main portion of the structure. that level that is under design consideration. x = 1 designates the first level above the base. maximum bending moment nominal cracking moment strength in concrete or masonry nominal moment strength the maximum moment in the wall resulting from the application of the unfactored load combinations factored moment at section moisture content based on ovendry weight of wood, in percent nearsource factor used in the determination of Ca in Seismic Zone 4 related to both the proximity of the building or structure to known faults with magnitudes and slip rates as set forth in Tables 16S and 16U of UBC. nearsource factor used in the determination of Cv in Seismic Zone 4 related to both the proximity of the building or structure to known faults with magnitudes and slip rates as set forth in Tables 16T and 16U of UBC. total concentrated load or total axial load (concrete) design tensile strength of anchors, in pounds factored axial load
Level i =
Level n =
Level x =
M Mcr Mn Ms
= = = =
Mu
M.C. =
Na
Nv
P Pc Pu
= = =
Notation
numerical coefficient representative of the inherent overstrength and global ductility capacity of lateralforceresisting systems, as set forth in Table 16N or 16P of UBC. a ratio used in determining . See 1630.1 of UBC. soil profile types as set forth in Table 16J of UBC.
elastic fundamental period of vibration, in seconds, of the structure in the direction under consideration. (loads) torsional moment thickness (plywood) effective thickness of plywood for shear, in inches (see Tables 232H and 232I of UBC) thickness of main member thickness of side member (wood) shear force. (loads) the total design lateral force or shear at the base given by Formula (305), (306), (307) or (3011) of UBC. nominal shear strength of masonry (concrete or masonry) nominal shear strength (wood) fastener load, in pounds nominal shear strength of shear reinforcement (masonry) required shear strength the design story shear in Story x. (wood diaphragm) maximum shear due to design loads in the direction under consideration, plf (wood shear wall) maximum shear due to design loads at the top of the wall, in plf
T t t
= = =
tm ts V V
= = = =
Vm Vn Vn Vs Vu Vx v
= = = = = = =
Notation
W W
= =
(wood) total uniform load. (loads) the total seismic dead load defined in 1630.1.1 of UBC. that portion of W located at or assigned to Level i or x, respectively. the weight of an element or component. the weight of the diaphragm and the element tributary thereto at Level x, including applicable portions of other loads defined in 1630.1.1 of UBC. distance to centroid seismic zone factor as given in Table 16I of UBC. (wood) nominal and allowable lateral design value for a single fastener connection. (wood) the calculated deflection of wood diaphragm or shear wall, in inches. maximum inelastic response displacement, which is the total drift or total story drift that occurs when the structure is subjected to the design basis ground motion, including estimated elastic and inelastic contributions to the total deformation defined in 1630.9 of UBC. design level response displacement, which is the total drift or total story drift that occurs when the structure is subjected to the design seismic forces. deflection at M cr deflection at M n (concrete) deflection at M s deflection due to factored loads, in inches. load/slip modulus for a connection, in pounds per inch. horizontal displacement at Level i relative to the base due to applied lateral forces, f, for use in Formula (3010) of UBC.
9
wi, wx =
Wp wpx
= =
x, y
= =
Z, Z' = M
cr n s u
= = = = = =
Notation
b o
= =
strengthreduction factor (loads) redundancy/reliability factor given by Formula (303) of UBC. (concrete and masonry) ratio of area of flexural tensile reinforcement, As , to area bd. reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain conditions. seismic force amplification factor, which is required to account for structural overstrength and set forth in Table 16N of UBC. sum of individual chordsplice slip values on both sides of wood diaphragm, each multiplied by its distance to the nearest support.
= =
( c X ) =
References
The following codes and standards are referenced in this document. Other reference documents are indicated at the end of each Design Example. ACI318, 1995, American Concrete Institute, Building Code Regulations for Reinforced Concrete, Farmington Hills, Michigan AISC, American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress DesignASD, Chicago, Illinois AISI, 1996, American Iron and Steel Institute, Specification for the Design of ColdFormed Steel Structural Members, Washington, D.C NDS, 1991, American Forest & Paper Association, National Design Specification for Wood Construction, Washington, D.C. UBC 1997, International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code. Whittier, California. SEAOC Blue Book, 1999, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
10
)RUHZRUG
Small wood frame residences, such as the one in this example, have traditionally been designed using simplified design assumptions and procedures based largely on judgment and precedent. This example illustrates the strict, literal application of the 1997 UBC provisions. Two of the requirements shown, while required by the code, are considerably different than current California practice: 1. The use of wood diaphragms as part of the lateral force resisting system. Traditionally, light frame dwellings have been designed assuming that such diaphragms behave as infinitely flexible elements. This assumption simplifies the analysis and allows lateral forces to be distributed to the vertical elements of the lateral force resisting system by tributary area methods. The code has had a definition of a flexible diaphragm since the 1988 UBC (1630.6 of the 1997
UBC). UBC 1630.6 permits diaphragms to be treated as flexible, only if the maximum deflection of the diaphragm under the lateral loading is equal to or greater than twice the deflection of the vertical elements supporting the diaphragm in the story below. In this example, the diaphragm has been determined not to meet these criteria, and the design is based on the rigid diaphragm assumption. However, recognizing that the diaphragms in this structure likely behave as semirigid elements, neither fully flexible nor fully rigid, in this example an envelope approach has been used in which two analyses are performed. The first analysis uses the traditional flexible diaphragm assumptions and the second analysis is based on rigid diaphragm assumptions. The lateral resisting elements have been designed for the most severe forces produced by either assumption. Refer to the overview portion of this design example for further discussion about using the envelope approach. Although these examples are a literal application of the 1997 UBC, the SEAOC Code and Seismology committees are of the joint opinion that the use of the more traditional design approach can provide acceptable liftsafety performance for most one and twofamily dwellings. The commentary below provides more discussion of these issues: 2. The use of a system with limited ductility specifically cantilevered columns. In this example, the cantilevered columns are used to provide lateral resistance at the garage door openings. In conventional practice, these would be designed for forces calculated using the R value associated with that system (R= 2.2), with the balance of the structure designed with an R value with light framed shear walls (R=5.5). UBC 1630.4.4 requires that the R value used in each direction, may not be greater than the least value for any of the systems used in that same direction. Therefore, in this design example, because the R value for the cantilevered columns at the garage has an R value of 2.2, the entire structure in this direction has been designed using this R value.
Small, light frame detached one and twofamily dwellings have traditionally been designed using flexible diaphragm assumptions, or by a hybrid approach of treating closely spaced walls as a unit (i.e., as rigidly connected) and treating the remaining diaphragm as flexible. Also, light frame detached one and twofamily dwellings have been built with the conventional construction provisions of the code without an engineering design. These light frame structures have historically performed satisfactorily from a lifesafety standpoint when subjected to strong seismic shaking. Two exceptions to light frame structures performing satisfactorilyboth of which were addressed in the 1997 UBC by more stringent requirementshave been related to problems with the heighttolength ratio of shear wall panels and the use of plaster and drywall materials to resist seismic forces.
In the Commentary of the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book (C805.3.1), it is recognized that lateral forces for many structures with wood diaphragms, mostly large buildings, may be better represented as rigid, as opposed to flexible, diaphragms. Relative to the small structure used in this example, the use of the rigid diaphragm assumptions generally will not significantly improve the seismic behavior. While the building response remains elastic, the rigid diaphragm assumptions will better reflect the initial stiffness of the building system. However, it is not practically possible to accurately calculate the stiffness of all the various elements, including the stiffness contributed by finishes and nonstructural elements and taking into account the fact that stiffness of these elements will degrade as the ground shaking intensifies. As a result, the use of the rigid diaphragm assumptions may not be significantly better than the traditional flexible diaphragm assumption for structures of this type. At the time of this publication, both the SEAOC Code and Seismology Committees agree that many one and twofamily residential structures can be safely designed using the traditional flexible diaphragm assumptions. Consequently, SEAOC recommends modification of the 1997 UBC provisions to allow use of the flexible diaphragm assumption for the design of one and twofamily dwellings. The engineer is cautioned, however, to discuss this with the building official prior to performing substantive design work.
The UBC requirement that buildings be designed using the least value R for combinations along the same axis was developed with two considerations in mind. The first is that in most structures, the buildings ability to resist seismic forces can be limited to the weakest element in the structure. The second is purely a method of discouraging the more nonductile systems. The potential for P instability of cantilevered column systems limits the columns capacity to carry large gravity loads when subjected to large building drifts. Therefore, the code has assigned a low R value to this system. However, cantilever columns used in one and twofamily dwellings are typically lightly loaded, and can not develop this P instability. Further, the literal application of 1630.44 would discourage the use of ordinary moment frames and cantilever column systems in favor for the use of slender shear walls that have been known to perform poorly. Consequently, the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book 105.4.4 (page 12) recommends the following alternative approach: Exception: For light frame buildings in occupancy groups 4 and 5 and of two stories or less in height, the lateral force resisting elements are permitted to be designed using the least value of R for the different structural systems found on each independent line of resistance. The value of R used for design of
diaphragms for a given direction of loading in such structures shall not be greater than the least value used for any of the systems in that same direction. Therefore, SEAOC recommends this alternative approach. The cantilever columns (together with any shear walls along that line of force, if present) would be designed using an R = 2.2, with the shear walls located along other lines of force designed using R = 5.5. In other words, the lateral load is factored up for the line with the cantilever column elements, but the conventional R value is used on the remainder of the structure. Consult with your local building official, however, before using this recommendation.
2YHUYLHZ
This design example illustrates the seismic design of a 2,800squarefoot single family residence. The structure, shown in Figures 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, is of wood light frame construction with wood structural panel shear walls, roof, and floor diaphragms. Roofing is clay tile. Due to the high h/w (height/width) ratios of the walls next to the garage doors, cantilevered column elements are used to provide lateral support. As shown in Figure 13, there is an outof plane offset from the cantilevered column elements on Line E to the glulam beams (GLBs) supporting the shear walls above Line D. The wood structural panel shear walls over the GLBs in the garage do not meet the required h/w ratios without the addition of straps and blocking above and below the window. The residence cannot be built using conventional construction methods for reasons shown in Part 8 of this design example. The following steps illustrate a detailed analysis for some of the important seismic requirements of the 1997 UBC that pertain to design of wood light frame buildings. As stated in the introduction of this manual, these design examples, including this one, are not complete building designs. Many aspects of building design are not included, and only selected parts of the seismic design are illustrated. As is common for Type V construction (see UBC 606), a complete wind design is also necessary, but is not given in this design example. Although the code criteria only recognize two diaphragm categories, flexible and rigid, the diaphragms in this design example are judged to be semirigid. Consequently, the analysis in this design example will use the envelope method, which considers the worst loading condition from both the flexible and rigid diaphragm analyses for vertical resisting elements. It should be noted that the envelope method, although not explicitly required by the code, will produce a more predictable performance than will use of only flexible or rigid diaphragm assumptions.
This design example will first determine the shear wall nailing and tiedown requirements obtained using the flexible diaphragm assumption to determine shear wall rigidities for the rigid diaphragm analysis. The method of determining shear wall rigidities used in this design example is by far more rigorous than normal practice, but is not the only method available to determine shear wall rigidities. The Commentary at the end of this design example illustrates two other simplified approaches that would also be appropriate.
2XWOLQH
This example will illustrate the following parts of the design process:
Design base shear and vertical distributions of seismic forces. Lateral forces on shear walls and shear wall nailing assuming flexible diaphragms. Rigidities of shear walls and cantilever columns at garage. Centers of mass and rigidity of diaphragms. Distribution of lateral forces to the shear walls with rigid diaphragms. Reliability/redundancy factor . Diaphragm deflections and whether diaphragms are flexible or rigid. Does residence meet requirements for conventional construction provisions? Design shear wall frame over garage on line D. Diaphragm shears at the low roof over garage. Detail the wall frame over the GLB on line D. Detail the anchorage of wall frame to the GLB on line D. Detail the continuous load path at the low roof above the garage doors.
*LYHQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ
Roof weights (slope 5:12): Tile roofing in. sheathing Roof framing Insulation Miscellaneous Gyp ceiling D (along slope) = D = dead load D = (horiz. proj.) = 19.5 (13/12) = 21.1 psf (the roof and ceilings are assumed to be on a 5:12 slope, vaulted) Weights of respective diaphragm levels, including exterior and interior walls:
W roof = 64,000 lb (roof and tributary walls) W floor = 39,000 lb (floor and tributary walls above and below)
W = 103,000 lb
Floor weights: Flooring 5/8" sheathing Floor framing Miscellaneous Gyp ceiling
Weights of diaphragms are typically determined by adding the tributary weights of the walls to the diaphragm, e.g., add onehalf the height of walls at the second floor to the roof and onehalf the height of second floor walls plus onehalf the height of first floor walls to second floor diaphragm. It is acceptable practice to ignore the weight of shear walls parallel to the direction of seismic forces to the upper level and add 100 percent of the parallel shear wall weight to the level below, instead of splitting the weight between floor levels. Weights of bearing partitions (not shear walls) should still be split between floors. Unlike commercial construction, the code minimum of 20 psf (vertical load) and 10 psf (lateral load) is often exceeded in residential construction. Framing lumber is Douglas FirLarch grade stamped No. 1SDry. APArated wood structural panels for shear walls will be 15/32inch thick Structural I, 32/16 span rating, 5ply with Exposure I glue, however, 4ply is also acceptable. Threeply 15/32inch sheathing has lower allowable shears and the inner ply voids can cause nailing problems. The roof is 15/32inch thick APArated sheathing (equivalent to CD sheathing in Table 23II4), 32/16 span rating with Exposure I glue. The floor is 19/32inch thick APArated SturdIfloor 16 inches o.c. rating (or APArated sheathing, 42/20 span rating) with Exposure I glue.
Boundary members for the shear walls are 4x posts. Common wire nails are to be used for diaphragms, shear walls, and straps. Sinker nails are to be used for design of the shear wall sill plate nailing at the second floor. (Note: many nailing guns use the smaller diameter box and sinker nails instead of common nails. Closer nail spacing may be required for smaller diameter nails). Seismic and site data: Z = 0.4 (Zone 4) I = 1.0 (standard occupancy) Seismic source type = B Distance to seismic source = 12 km Soil profile type = S C
S C has been determined by geotechnical investigation. Without a geotechnical investigation, S D can be used as a default value.
Figure 13. Second floor framing plan and low roof framing plan
Figures 12 through 14 depict the shear walls as dark solid lines. This has been done for clarity in this example. Actual drawings commonly use other graphic depictions. Practice varies on how framing plans are actually shown and on which level the shear walls are indicated. Actual drawings commonly do not call out shear wall lengths. However, building designers should be aware that some building departments now require shear wall lengths to be called out on plans.
This design example is based on dry lumber. Project specifications typically call for lumber to be grade stamped SDry (Surfaced Dry). Dry lumber has a moisture content (MC) less than or equal to 19 percent. Partially Seasoned or Green lumber gradestamped SGRN (surfaced green) has a MC between 19 percent and 30 percent. Wet lumber has a MC greater than 30 percent. Construction of structures using lumber with moisture contents greater than 19 percent can produce shrinkage problems in the structures. Also, many engineers and building officials are not aware of the reduction requirements, or wet service factors, related to installation of nails, screws, and bolts (fasteners) into lumber with moisture contents greater than 19 percent at time of installation. For fasteners in lumber with moisture contents greater than 19 percent at the time of installation, the wet service factor, C M = 0.75 for nails and C M = 0.67 for bolts, lags and screws (91 NDS Table 7.3.3). In other words, in lumber whose moisture content exceeds 19 percent, there is a 25 percent to 33 percent reduction in the strength of connections, diaphragms, and shear walls that is permanent. Drying of the lumber after installation of the connectors does not improve the connector capacity. The engineer should exercise good engineering judgment in determining whether it is prudent to base the structural design on dry or green lumber. Other areas of concern are geographical area and time of year the structure will be built. It is possible for green lumber (or dry lumber that has been exposed to rain) to dry out to a moisture content below 19 percent. For 2x framing, this generally takes about two to 3 weeks of exposure to dry air. Thicker lumber takes even longer. Moisture contents can easily be verified by a handheld moisture meter.
The residence structure in this design example was chosen because it contains many of the structural problem areas that are commonly present in residential construction. These include: 1. The discontinuous shear wall at the north end of the line 5. (Although this is not a code violation per se, selection of a shear wall location that is continuous to the foundation would improve performance). Lack of a lateral resisting element along line 4. (Although this is not a code violation per se, the addition of a shear wall at this location would improve performance). The reduced scope of many structural engineering service contracts, such as calculation and sketch projects where the structural engineer provides a set of calculations and sketches of important structural details and the architect produces the actual plans and specifications. This often leads to poorly coordinated drawings and missing structural information. This method also makes structural observation requirements of the building code less effective when the engineer responsible for the design is not performing the site observation. Refer to the Commentary at the end of this design example for further discussion on this subject.
2.
3.
An important factor in the design of California residences, and residences in other high seismic zones, is the level of sophistication and rigor required by the designer. In this design example, a complete, rigorous analysis has been performed. In some jurisdictions, this may not be required by the building official or may not be warranted given the specifics of the design and the overall strength of the lateral force resisting system. The designer must chose between use of the more rigorous approach of considering a rigid diaphragm with torsional resistance characteristics with the more common approach of considering flexible diaphragms with tributary mass. The former may not be necessary in some situations, while at the same time recognizing that the laws of physics must be obeyed. In all cases, the completed structure must have a continuous lateral load path to resist lateral forces. Complete detailing is necessary, even for simple structures.
Effects of box nails on wood structural panel shear walls.
This design example uses common nails for fastening wood structural panels. Based on cyclic testing of shear walls and performance in past earthquakes, the use of common nails is preferred. UBC Table 23III1 lists allowable shears for wood structural panel shear walls for common or galvanized box nails. Footnote number five of Table 23III1, states that the galvanized nails shall be hotdipped or tumbled (these nails are not gun nails). Most contractors use gun nails for diaphragm and shear wall installations. The UBC does not have a table for allowable shears for wood structural panel shear walls or diaphragms using box nails.
Box nails have a smaller diameter shank and a smaller head size. Using 10d box nails would result in a 19 percent reduction in allowable load for diaphragms and shear walls as compared to 10d common nails. Using 8d box nails would result in a 22 percent reduction in allowable load for diaphragms and shear walls as compared to 8d common nails. This is based on comparing allowable shear values listed in Tables 12.3A and 12.3B in the 1997 NDS for onehalfinch side member thickness (t s ) and Douglas FirLarch framing. In addition to the reduction of the shear wall and diaphragm capacities, when box nails are used, the walls will also drift more than when common nails are used. A contributor to the problem is that when contractors buy large quantities of nails (for nail guns), the word box or common does not appear on the carton label. Nail length and diameters are the most common listing on the labels. This is why it is extremely important to list the required nail lengths and diameters on the structural drawings for all diaphragms and shear walls. Another problem is that contractors prefer box nails because their use reduces splitting, eases driving, and they cost less. Just to illustrate a point, if an engineer designs for dry lumber (as discussed above) and common nails, and subsequently green lumber and box nails are used in the construction, the result is a compounding of the reductions. For example, for 10d nails installed into green lumber, the reduction would be 0.81 times 0.75 or a 40 percent reduction in capacity.
&RGH 5HIHUHQFH
1630.2.2
This example uses the total building weight W applied to each respective direction. The results shown will be slightly conservative since W includes the wall weights for the direction of load, which can be subtracted out. This approach is simpler than using a separated building weight W for each axis under consideration.
D
Period using Method A (see Figure 15 for section through structure):
T = Ct (hn )3 / 4 = .020(23)3 / 4 = .21sec.
(308)
where:
hn is the center of gravity (average height) of diaphragm above the first floor.
Northsouth direction: For light framed walls with wood structural panels that are both shear walls and bearing walls:
R = 5.5
Table 16N
(304)
(305)
Comparison of the above result with the simplified static method permitted under 1630.2.3 shows that it is more advantageous to use the standard method of determining the design base shear.
V= 3.0C a 3.0(.40) W= W = 0.218W > 0.182W R 5.5
(3011)
All of the tables in the UBC for wood diaphragms and shear walls are based on allowable loads.
It is desirable to keep the strength level forces throughout the design of the structure for two reasons: 1. Errors in calculations can occur and confusion on which load is being used strength or allowable stress design. This design example will use the following format:
Vbase shear F px
Fx v
= = = =
strength strength force to wall (strength) wall shear at element level (ASD) ASD
v=
Fx 1.4b
2.
This design example will not be applicable in the future, when the code will be all strength design.
E = E h + E v = 1.0 E h + 0 = 1.0 E h
(301)
where:
E v is allowed to be assumed as zero for allowable stress design, and is assumed to be 1.0. This is the case for most of Type V residential construction structures. Since the maximum element story shear is not yet known, the value for will have to be verified. This is done later in Part 6.
(129)
1612.3.1
Eastwest direction: Since there are different types of lateral resisting elements in this direction, determine the controlling R value. For light framed walls with wood structural panels that are both shear walls and bearing walls:
R = 5 .5
Table 16N
For combinations along the same axis, the UBC requires the use of least value for any of the systems utilized in that same direction, therefore the value for the cantilevered column elements must be used for the entire eastwest direction. This provision for combinations along the same axis first appeared in the 1994 UBC.
R = 2 .2
1630.4.4
(304)
(305)
A check of Equations 306 and 307 indicates that these do not control:
V E W = 0.454W
This is less than that obtained with the simplified static method:
V = 3.0C a 3.0(.40 ) W = W = 0.545W > 0.454W R 2.2
(3011)
V E W = 0.454W
VE W = 0.454(103,000 lb ) = 46,750 lb
1612.3.1
Discussion of R factors.
The UBC places a severe penalty on the use of cantilevered column elements. The design base shear for the eastwest direction is two and a half times that for the northsouth direction. Some engineers use the greater R factor for light framed walls (e.g., R = 5.5) , determine the design base shear, and then factor up the force for the respective frame element by using the ratio of the R for the shear walls over the R for the frame element (e.g., 5.5 2.2 = 2.5) . However, under a strict interpretation of the UBC, the factoring up approach does not appear to meet the intent of the UBC requirements. Another approach could be to design the residence
using a rigid diaphragm assumption with the wood shear walls taking 100 percent of the lateral force using R = 5.5 . Then design the cantilever columns using R = 2.2 and a flexible diaphragm. Usually in residential construction, cantilevered column elements are preferred over moment frames by engineers and builders because of the elimination of field welding. The 1999 Blue Book has added an exception for light frame buildings in Occupancy Groups 4 and 5 and of two stories or fewer in height. The local building department should be consulted on whether or not they will accept this exception. A higher force level could be counter productive in terms of splitting caused by added close nailing. An ordinary momentresisting frame could be used with an R value equal to 4.5. This would produce design base shear values only 22 percent higher than in the northsouth direction. Additionally, the architecture could be modified to provide shear wall lengths that meet the h/w ratio limit of 2:1. With the plate height at 90", the minimum wall length needed would be 46". Another solution would be to increase the concrete curb height at the base of the wall such that the h/w ratio limit of 2:1 is not exceeded. For illustrative purposes, this design example uses the cantilevered column elements with the higher design base shear for the entire eastwest direction. This conforms to the 1997 UBC. Premanufactured proprietary trussed wall systems and factorybuilt wood shear wall systems are also available. Special design considerations should be given when using these systems as outlined below: 1. 2. 3. Building system R values are to be based on officially adopted evaluation reports, such as ICBO reports. Premanufactured systems should not be used in the same line as fieldbuilt shear walls because of deformation compatibility uncertainties. Premanufactured systems should be limited to the first floor level only (of multistory wood frame buildings) until testing is completed for these systems that sit on wood framing and are not rigidly attached to a concrete foundation. Many of the these systems exceed not only the new aspect ratio limit of 2:1, but also exceed the old aspect ratio limit of 3: 1. Some are as narrow as 16 inches wide, leaving unanswered the question of whether this is a shear wall or a cantilever column (by comparison, if the system were a steel channel with the same width, it would be considered a cantilever column). Many building officials are requesting that the same aspect ( 2:1) ratio limit for wood structural panel shear walls be adhered to for the premanufactured systems.
4.
5.
E
F px =
(V Ft )wx hx
wi hi
i =1
(3015)
where:
h x is the average height at level i of the sheathed diaphragm in feet above the base.
Since T = 0.21 seconds < 0.7 seconds, Ft = 0 Determination of F px is shown in Table 11.
wi hi
(%) 79 21 100
w x hx
Fpx N S
Fpx N S wx
Fpx E W
Fpx E W wx
Lateral forces on shear walls and shear wall nailing assuming flexible diaphragms.
Determine the forces on shear walls. As has been customary practice in the past, this portion of the example assumes flexible diaphragms. The UBC does not require torsional effects to be considered for flexible diaphragms. The effects of torsion and wall rigidities will be considered later in Part 5 of this design example. The selected method of determining loads to shear walls is based on tributary areas with simple spans between supports. Another method of determining loads to shear walls can assume a continuous beam. A continuous beam approach may not be accurate because of shear deformations in the diaphragm. The tributary area approach works with reasonable accuracy for a continuous beam with 100 percent shear deflection and zero bending deflection. This design example uses the exact tributary area to the shear walls, an approach that is fairly comprehensive. An easier and more common method would be to use a uniform load equal to the widest portion of the diaphragm, which results in conservative loads to the shear walls.
D
w2 = w3 =
(17.07 psf )(37.0 ft ) = 632 plf (17.07 psf )(32.0 ft ) = 546 plf
o.k.
Note that Figures 16, 17, 18 and 19 are depicted as a continuous beam. From a technical standpoint, nodes should be shown at the interior supports. In actuality, with the tributary area approach, these are considered as separate simple span beams between the shear wall supports (Figure 16 has three separate single span beams).
f p floor
= =
9,800 lb 1,542 sf
= =
w4
w5
= = = = =
(6.36 psf )(20.0 ft ) (6.36 psf )(33.0 ft ) (6.36 psf )(28.0 ft ) (6.36 psf )(32.0 ft )
= = = = =
w6
w7 w8 PD
Check sum of forces: 408 + 5,655 + 3,640 + 1,470 + 1,470 + 1,233 + 1,136= 15,012 lb Subtract PD from the sum of forces:
15,012 5,198 = 9,814 lb
E
Required edge nailing for eastwest shear walls using 10d common nails.
Table 23III1
Table 12. Eastwest shear walls at roof level (second floor to roof)1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Wall (grid line) A B C D
Fabove Fx
(lb) 0 0 0 0 0 (lb) 9,542 13,154 9,044 5,198 36,938
v=
Ftot (b )1.4
(plf)
Edge Nail Spacing (in.) 2(2) (4) 3(4) 3(4) 2(2) (4)
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4. 5. 6. 7.
8.
9.
Minimum framing thickness. The 1994 and earlier editions of the UBC required 3x nominal thickness stud framing and blocking at abutting panel edges when 10d common nails were spaced 2 inches on center or when sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints. The 1997 UBC (Table 23III1 footnotes) requires 3x nominal thickness stud framing at abutting panel edges and at foundation sill plates when the allowable stress design shear values exceed 350 pounds per foot or if the sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints. Sill bolt washers. Section 1806.6.1 requires a minimum of 2inchsquare by 3/16inchthick plate washers to be used for each foundation sill bolt (regardless of allowable shear values in the wall). These changes were a result of the splitting of framing studs and sill plates observed in the Northridge earthquake and in cyclic testing of shear walls. The plate washers are intended to help resist uplift forces on shear walls. Because of vertical displacements of holdowns, these plate washers are required even if the wall has holdowns designed to take uplift forces at the wall boundaries. The washer edges shall be parallel/perpendicular to the sill plate. Errata to the First Printing of the 1997 UBC (Table 23III1 footnotes) added an exception to the 3x foundation sill plates by allowing 2x foundation sill plates when the allowable shear values are less than 600 pounds per foot, provided that sill bolts are designed for 50 percent of allowable values. Refer to Design Example 2 for discussions about fasteners for pressurepreservative treated wood and the gap at bottom of sheathing. APA Structural I rated wood structural panels may be either plywood or oriented strand board (OSB). Note forces are strength level and shear in wall is divided by 1.4 to convert to allowable stress design. It should be noted that having to use a nail spacing of 2 inches is an indication that more shear wall length should be considered. However, in this example, the close nail spacing is a direct result of R = 2.2 for the cantilever column elements. Some jurisdictions, and many engineers, as a matter of judgment, put a limit of 1,500 plf on wood shear walls. A minimum of 3inch nail spacing with sheathing on only one side is required to satisfy shear requirements. In this design example, sheathing has been provided on both sides with closer nail spacing in order to increase the stiffness of this short wall. The 1999 Blue Book recommends special inspection when the nail spacing is closer than 4inch on center.
Table 13. Eastwest shear walls at floor level (first floor to second floor)
Wall (grid line) A B C D E
Fabove Fx
(lb) 9,542 13,154 9,044 5,198 0 36,938 (lb) 1,136 2,703 5,110 0 6,063 15,012
Ftot
(lb) 10,678 15,857 14,154 0 6,063 46,752
v=
(b)1.4
(plf)
Ftot
F
Roof diaphragm:
f p roof
w1 w2
= = = =
14 ,800 lb 2 ,164 sq ft
= = = =
w3
o.k.
Floor diaphragm:
f p floor
w4 w5
= = = = = = =
3,950 lb 1,542 sq ft
= = = = = = =
2.56 psf 23.0 plf 154 plf 110 plf 97.2 plf 58.9 plf 35.8 plf
(2.56 psf ) (9.0 ft ) (2.56 psf ) (60.0 ft ) (2.56 psf ) (43.0 ft ) (2.56 psf ) (38.0 ft ) (2.56 psf ) (23.0 ft ) (2.56 psf ) (14.0 ft )
w6
w7 w8 w9
o.k.
G
Required edge nailing for northsouth shear walls using 10d common nails.
Table 23III1
Table 14. Northsouth shear walls at roof level (second floor to roof)
Wall 1 2 3 5
Fabove
(lb) 0 0 0 0 0
Fx
(lb) 1,179 1,493 6,112 6,016 14,800
Ftot
(lb) 1,179 1,493 6,112 6,016 14,800
v =
(b )1.4
(plf) 47 107 291 165
Ftot
Table15. Northsouth shear walls at floor level (first floor to second floor)
Wall 2 3 5
Fabove
(lb) 1,493 6,112 6,016 13,621
Fx
(lb) 99 1,779 2,074 3,952
Ftot
(lb) 1,592 7,891 8,090 17,573
v=
Ftot (b )1.4
(plf)
D
Determination of the rigidities of wood shear walls is often difficult and inexact, even for design loads. In addition, when walls are loaded substantially beyond their design limits, as occur under strong earthquake motions, rigidity determination becomes even more difficult. It is complicated by a number of factors that make any exact determination, in a general sense, virtually impossible short of fullscale testing. There is the wellknown expression for shear wall deflection found in UBC Standard 232. This expression, shown below, is used to estimate deflections of shear walls with fixed bases and free tops for design level forces.
= 8vh 3 vh h + + 0.75hen + d a EAb Gt b
23.223, Vol. 3
The expression above was developed from static tests of solid wood shear walls, many typically 8foot x 8foot in size. Until recently, there was very little cyclic testing of wood shear walls (to simulate actual earthquake behavior) or testing of walls with narrow aspect ratios. In modern wood frame building construction, shear walls take many forms and sizes, and these are often penetrated by ducts, windows, and door openings. Also, many walls in residences are not designed as shear walls, yet have stiffness from their finish materials (gypsum board, stucco, etc.). In multistory structures, walls are stacked on the walls of lower floors, producing indeterminate structural systems. In general, it is difficult to calculate wall rigidities with the UBC equation alone. As will be shown in subsequent paragraphs, things like shrinkage can significantly effect deflection and subsequent stiffness calculations. Further, in strong earthquake motions, shear walls may see forces and displacements several times larger than those used in design, and cyclic degradation effects can occur that significantly change the relative stiffness of shear walls at the same level. It can be argued that wall rotation of the supporting wall below needs to be considered when considering shear wall rigidities. However, considering rotation of the supporting wall below would be similar to measuring the shear wall as the cumulative height, as opposed to the accepted floortofloor clear height. Not considering rotation of the supporting wall below is appropriate for determining relative wall rigidities. At the present time, there are number of ways to estimate shear wall rigidities, particularly when only relative rigidities are desired (see Blue Book C805.3). These include: 1. 2. 3. 4. Rigidity based on estimated nail slip. Rigidity calculated from UBC Standard 232 (the four term equation given above). Rigidity incorporating both UBC Standard 232 and shrinkage. Several other procedures.
Only one of these approaches is given in this design example. By using this one approach, SEAOC does not intend to establish a standard procedure or indicate a standard of care for calculation of wood shear wall rigidities. It is merely one of the presentday methods. At present, CUREe (California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering) is conducting a large testing program to study earthquake effects on wood structures, including research on shear walls and diaphragms. It is expected that in the years ahead, new approaches will be developed and/or existing approaches reaffirmed or refined. Until then, the practicing structural engineer must use judgment in the method selected to determine wood shear wall rigidities.
It is recommended that the local building official be contacted for determination of what is acceptable in a particular jurisdiction.
E
Since the rigidity, k , of a shear wall or cantilever column is based on its displacement, , the displacements will first be computed using the Ftot forces already determined above in Tables 12 and 13. Compute values for k :
F = k
or k = F The basic equation to determine the deflection of a shear wall is the fourterm equation shown below.
= 8vh 3 vh h + + 0.75hen + d a EAb Gt b
23.223, Vol. 3
The above equation is based on a uniformly nailed, cantilever shear wall with a horizontal point load at the top, panel edges blocked, and reflects tests conducted by the American Plywood Association. The deflection is estimated from the contributions of four distinct parts. The first part of the equation accounts for cantilever beam action using the moment of inertia of the boundary elements. The second term accounts for shear deformation of the sheathing. The third term accounts for nail slippage/bending, and the fourth term accounts for tiedown assembly displacement (this also should include bolt/nail slip and shrinkage). End stud elongation due to compression or tension is not considered, nor the end rotations of the base support. The UBC references this in 2315.1. Testing on wood shear walls has indicated that the above formula is reasonably accurate for aspect ratios (h w) lower than or equal to 2:1. For higher aspect ratios, the wall drift increases significantly, and testing showed that displacements were not adequately predicted. Use of the new aspect ratio requirement of 2:1 (1997 UBC) makes this formula more accurate for determining shear wall deflection/ stiffness than it was in previous editions of the UBC, subject to the limitations mentioned above. Recent testing on wood shear walls has shown that sill plate crushing under the boundary element can increase the deflection of the shear wall by as much as 20 percent to 30 percent. For a calculation of this crushing effect, see the deflection of wall frame at line D later in Part 3c.
Volume 3 of the UBC has Table 232K for obtaining values for en . However, its use is somewhat timeconsuming, since interpolation and adjustments are necessary. Footnote 1 to Table 232K requires the values for en to be decreased 50 percent for seasoned lumber. This means that the table is based on nails being driven into green lumber and the engineer must use onehalf of these values for nails driven in dry lumber. The values in Table 232K are based on tests conducted by the APA. The 50 percent reduction for dry lumber is a conservative factor. The actual tested slip values with dry lumber were less than 50 percent of the green lumber values. It is recommended that values for en be computed based on fastener slip equations from Table B4 of APA Research Report 138. Note that this Research Report is the basis for the formulas and tables in the UBC. Both the Research Report and the UBC will produce the same values. Using the fastener slip equations from Table B4 of Research Report 138 will save time, and also enable computations to be made by a computer. For 10d common nails there are two basic equations: When the nails are driven into green lumber:
en = (Vn / 977 )1.894
where:
Vn is the fastener load in pounds per fastener.
These values are based on Structural I sheathing and must be increased by 20 percent when the sheathing is not Structural I. The language in footnote a in UBC Table B4 states Fabricated green/tested dry (seasoned) is very misleading. The values in the table are actually green values, since the lumber is fabricated when green. Dont be misled by the word seasoned. It is uncertain whether or not the d a factor is intended to include wood shrinkage and crushing due to shear wall rotation, because the code is not specific. This design example includes both shrinkage and crushing these in the d a factor. Many engineers have a concern that if the contractor installs the nails at a different spacing (too many or too few), then the rigidities will be different than those calculated. However, nominal changing of the nail spacing in a given wall does not significantly change the stiffness.
1630.9.1
For both strength and allowable stress design, the 1997 UBC requires building drifts to be determined by the load combinations of 1612.2, which covers load combinations using strength design or load and resistance factor design. Errata for the second and third printing of the UBC unexplainably referenced 1612.3 for allowable stress design. The reference to 1612.3 is incorrect and will be changed back to reference 1612.2 in the fourth and later printings. Wood design using the 1997 UBC now means that the engineer must use both strengthlevel forces and allowable stress forces. This can create some confusion, since the code requires drift checks to be strengthlevel forces. However, all of the design equations and tables in Chapter 23 are based on allowable stress design. Drift and shear wall forces will be based on strengthlevel forces. Remember that the structural system factor R is based on using strengthlevel forces.
F
To determine roof level wall rigidities, roof level displacements must first be determined. Given below are a series of calculations, done in table form, to estimate the roof level displacements s in each shear wall connecting to the roof (Table 17). Because there is a wall with openings supported by a GLB on line D, the s for this wall must also be determined. Finally, roof level wall rigidities are summarized in Table 18 and a drift check is given in Table 19.
Table 16. Determine tiedown assembly displacements for roof level shear walls1
ASD Wall A1 A2 B C 1 2 3 5a 5b Uplift/1.4(2) (lb) 5,915 5,915 5,975 7,430 0 0 830 0 0 Tiedown(3) Device Bolted Bolted Bolted Bolted Not required Not required Strap Not required Not required Uplift (lb) 8,280 8,280 8,365 10,400 0 0 1,160 0 0 Tiedown(4) Elongation (in.) 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17 0 0 0.004 0 0 Strength Design Tiedown Assembly Displacement Shrink(5) Crush(6) Slip(7) 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.19 0.02 0.04 0.19 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.02 0 0.19 0.02 0 0.19 0.02 0.002 0.19 0.02 0 0.19 0.02 0 da(8) (in.) 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
Notes:
1. 2. Tiedown assembly displacement is calculated at the second floor level. Uplift force is determined by using the net overturning force (M OT M OR ) divided by the distance between the centroid of the tiedown to the end of the shear wall. With 4x members at the ends of the wall, this equates to the length of the wall minus 1 inches for straps, or the length of wall minus 5 inches when using a bolted holdown with 2inch offset from post to anchor bolt. Using allowable stress design, tiedown devices
3. 4.
5.
need only be sized by using the ASD uplift force. The strength design uplift force is used to determine tiedown assembly displacement in order to determine strengthlevel displacements. Continuous tie rod holdown systems can also be used. See Design Example 2 for method of calculating tiedown assembly displacement. Tiedown elongation is based on actual uplift force divided by tiedown capacity times tiedown elongation at capacity (from manufacturers catalog). Example for tiedown elongation at A1: tiedown selected has a 15,000 lb allowable load for a 5inchthick (net) member. From the manufacturers ICBO Evaluation Report, the tiedown deflection at the highest allowable design load (15,000 lb) is 0.12 inches. Since there are two tiedown devices (one above and one below the floor), the total elongation is twice the tiedown deflection of one device. Therefore the total tiedown elongation is (8,280 15,000)0.12 2 = 0.13 inches. Wood shrinkage based on a change from 19 percent moisture content (MC) to 13 percent MC with 19 percent MC being assumed for SDry lumber per project specifications. The MC of 13 percent is the assumed final MC at equilibrium with ambient humidity for the project location. The final equilibrium value can be higher in coastal areas and lower in inland or desert areas. This equates to (0.002 ) (d ) (1913), where d is the dimension of the lumber (see Figure 110). Shrinkage: 2 DBL Top Plate + 2 sill plate = (0.002 ) (3 1.5 in.) (19 13) = 0.05
2 12 Floor Joist
0.14
6.
= 0.19 in. The use of premanufactured, dimensionally stable, wood I joists are considered not to shrink, and would thereby reduce the shrinkage to 0.05 inches. Per 91 NDS 4.2.6, when compression perpendicular to grain ( f c ) is less than
7.
0.73F c crushing will be approximately 0.02 inches. When f c = F c crushing is approximately 0.04 inches. The effect of sill plate crushing is the downward effect with uplift force at the opposite end of the wall and has the same rotational effect as the tiedown displacement. Short walls that have no uplift forces will still have a wood crushing effect and contribute to rotation of the wall. Per 91 NDS 7.3.6 = (270,000)(1)1.5 = 270,000 lb/in. plus 1/16" oversized hole for bolts. For nails, values for en can be used. Example for slip at tiedown at A1 (tiedown has five 1inch diameter bolts to post):
Load/bolt = 8,280 / 5 = 1,656 lb/bolt
d a is the total tiedown assembly displacement. This also could include miscuts (shortstuds) and lack of square cut ends.
Vn
(lb) 159 159 118 133 22 50 136 90 56
en (5) (in.)
0.0057 0.0057 0.0022 0.0032 8.8E6 0.0001 0.0034 0.0009 0.0002
da
(in.) 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.45 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21
S (7)
(in.) 0.93 0.93 0.39 0.68 0.06 0.22 0.23 0.18 0.23
Notes:
1. 2. 3. 4.
8vh 3 vh h + + 0.75he n + d a 23.223, Vol. 3 EAb Gt b h values are from the bottom of the sill plate to the bottom of the framing at diaphragm level (top plates). A values are for 4 6 posts for walls A1, A2, B, C, and wall 1. A values are for 4 4 posts for walls 2, 3, 5a, and 5b. G values are for Structural I sheathing. Testing of shear walls has indicated that the G values are slightly higher for oriented strand board (OSB) than plywood, but not enough to warrant the use of different values. S =
5. 6. 7.
The use of a computer spreadsheet is recommended. This will not only save time, but also eliminate possible arithmetic errors with these repetitive calculations. Deflection of walls ( S ) is based on strength level forces. The shear wall deflections must be determined using the strength design forces. The calculated deflection of a shear wall is linear up to about two times
8. 9.
the allowable stress design values. Since there are tiedown assembly displacements, and dead loads that resist overturning, the factoring up approach of ASD forces is not appropriate. When sheathing is applied to both sides of the wall, the deflection of the shear wall is determined by using onehalf the values from Table 12. Inplane shears to walls 5a and 5b are proportioned based on relative lengths (not per 23.223, Volume 3). Example for wall at line 5a: R = 162 162 + 102 = 72 percent, which is appropriate for two walls in a line, but not necessarily for three or more walls in line. Attempting to equate deflections is desirable. However, the calculations are iterative and indeterminate, and the results are very similar. For deflection of shear wall at line D, see the following Part 3c.
10.
Determine deflection of wall frame at line D (with force transfer around openings).
The deflection for the shear wall can be approximated by using an analysis similar to computing the stiffness for a concrete wall with an opening in it. The deflection for the solid wall is computed, then a deflection for a horizontal window strip is subtracted, and the deflection for the wall piers added back in. Engineering judgment may be used to simplify this approximation. However, the method shown below is one way to approximate the deflection.
First, determine deflection of the entire wall, without an opening: Deflection of solid wall:
= 8vh 3 vh h + + 0.75hen + d a EAb Gt b
23.223 Vol. 3
Sheathing is on both sides of wall with 10d common nails @ 2 inches o. c. Wall has 2 6 studs with 4 6 at ends.
V = 5,198 lb v= 5,198 lb = 260 plf (2 )10.0 ft
With a tiedown elongation of 0.05 in., wood shrinkage of 0.13 in., and wood crushing of .02, it gives a tiedown assembly displacement of 0.20 in. For crushing: from Part 9e, the strength level overturning moment M OT = 52,452 ftlb. Dividing by the distance L = 9.7 ft computes the seismic downward component of the 4 6 post:
P = 52,452 9.7 = 5,407 lb fc = P A
f c = 5,407 (3.5 5.5) = 281 psi < 0.73(625) = 456 psi crush = 0.02 in
For shrinkage of GLB fabricated to AITC specifications at 17 percent MC: 0.002(1713) 16.5= 0.13 in.
For strap:
8(260 )9.03 260(9.0 ) 9.0 (0.20 ) + + 0.75(9.0) 0.0001 + = 0.23 in. 1.7 E6(19.25) 10.0 (90,000) 0.535 10.0
Since the boundary elements are connected to continuous posts that extend above and below the opening, the value of d a equals the sheathing nail deformation value calculated above (boundary element chord elongation is neglected):
d a = 0.0001 in.
8 (260) 4.0 3 260 (4.0) 4.0 (0.0001) + + 0.75 (4.0) 0.0001 + = 0.02 in. 10.0 1.76 (19.25)10.0 (90,000) 0.535
Note that this deflection is negative because it is subtracted from the sum of the deflections, as shown later.
V=
v =
Vn = load per nail = 433(2 12 ) = 72 lb/nail e n = (72 769 )3.276 = 0.0004 in.
Since the boundary elements are connected to continuous posts that extend above and below the opening, the value of d a equals the sheathing nail deformation value calculated for the wall piers.
d a = 0.0004 in.
8 (433) 4.0 3 433 (4.0) 4.0 (0.0004 ) + + 0.75 (4.0 ) 0.0004 + = 0.04 in. 1.7 (19.25) 3.0 (90,000) 0.535 3.0
Thus the stiffness of the wall is (0.23 0.25) , or 92 percent of that of the solid wall.
tan =
V h = b h
h =
h (V ) b
ROT =
ROT =
V =
V =
h =
h ( V ) b
h =
Total deflection of shear wall including GLB rotation and tiedown assembly displacement:
h = 0.25 + 0.25 = 0.50 in.
Table 18. Wall rigidities at roof level1(walls from second floor to roof)
Wall A1 A2 B C D 1 2 3 5a 5b s(2) (in.) 0.93 0.93 0.39 0.68 0.50 0.06 0.22 0.23 0.18 0.23
Ftot (lb)
4,771 4,771 13,154 9,044 5,198 1,179 1,493 6,112 4,332 1,684
k=
Ftot (k/in.) s
5.130 5.130
k=
Ftot (k/in.) s
10.26 33.73 13.30 10.40 19.65 6.79 26.57
24.07 7.32
31.39
Notes:
1. 2. Deflections and forces are based on strength force levels.
is the design level displacement from Table 17 and calculations of wall frame.
Determination of M.
1630.9.2
Before checking drift, the maximum inelastic response displacement M must be computed. This is done as follows:
M = 0.7 R S
R R
= 5.5 for the northsouth direction = 2.2 for the eastwest direction
M = 0.7(5.5) S = 3.85 S for the northsouth direction M = 0.7(2.2 ) S = 1.54 S for the eastwest direction
1630.10.2
The calculated story drift using M shall not exceed the maximum M which is 0.025 times the story height for structures that have a fundamental period less than 0.7 seconds. The building period for this design example was calculated to be 0.21 seconds, which is less than 0.7 seconds, therefore the 0.025 drift limitation applies.
NorthSouth
EastWest
G
First floor level rigidities are determined by first calculating tiedown displacements (Table 110) and then deflections of shear walls at the second floor level (Table 111). The drift check, discussed in Part 3c, is given in Table 112, and wall rigidities calculated in Table 113.
Table 110. Tiedown assembly displacements for first floor level walls1
ASD Wall A1 A2 B C1 C2 2 3 5 Uplift/1.4 (lb) 13,450 13,450 12,675 11,335 3,890 0 825 400
(2)
LRFD Tiedown Device Bolted Bolted Bolted Bolted Bolted Not reqd Strap Strap Uplift (lb) 18,830 18,830 17,745 15,870 5,445 0 1,155 560 Tiedown(3) Elongation (in.) 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.04 0 0.05 0.03 Tiedown Assembly Displacement Shrink(4) Crush(5) Slip(6) 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.01 0.02 0 0.01 0.02 0.002 0.01 0.02 0.002 da (in.) 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.11 0.03 0.08 0.06
Notes:
1. 2. Tiedown assembly displacement is calculated at the foundation. Uplift force is determined by using the net overturning force (M OT M R ) , divided by the distance to the centroids of the boundary elements assuming 4x members at the ends of the shear wall. This equates to the length of the wall minus 3 inches for straps, or the length of wall minus 7 inches when using a bolted holdown, which includes a 2inch offset from post to tiedown bolt. Tiedown elongation is based on actual uplift force divided by tiedown capacity multiplied by the tiedown elongation at capacity from manufacturers catalog. Example of tiedown elongation at A1: Tiedown selected has a 15,000 lb allowable load for a 5inch member. From the manufacturers ICBO approval, the tiedown deflection at the highest allowable design load (15,000 lb) is 0.12 inches, giving a tiedown elongation of (18,830 15,000 0)0.12 = 0.15 inches. Since the tiedown device has an average ultimate strength of 55,000 lb, the displacement can be assumed to be linear and therefore extrapolated. Wood shrinkage is based on a change from 15 percent MC to 13 percent MC. This equates to 0.002 d (1513). Where d is 2.5 inches for a 3 sill plate. Pressuretreated lumber has a moisture content of less than 15 percent at completion of treatment. Per 91 NDS 4.2.6, when compression perpendicular to grain ( f c ) is less than 0.73F c crushing will be approximately 0.02 inches, when f c = F c crushing is approximately 0.04 inches. 6. Per 91 NDS 7.3.6 = load/slip modulus = (270,000) D1.5 plus 1/16" oversized hole for bolts. For nails, values for en can be used. Example for slip at tiedown at A1 (Tiedown has five 1inch diameter bolts to post). Load/bolt = 18,830 5 = 3,766 lb/bolt
3.
4.
5.
( )
Table 111. Deflections of the shear walls at the second floor level 1,2,3,4
Wall A1 A2 B C1(5) C2(5) 2 3 5 ASD v (plf) 763 763 404 279 251 114 256 413 Strength v (plf) 1,067 1,067 566 391 351 159 359 578 h (ft) 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.0 A (sq in.) 19.25 19.25 19.25 19.25 19.25 12.25 12.25 12.25 E (psi) 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 b (ft) 5.0 5.0 14.0 10.0 9.0 10.0 22.0 14.0 G (psi) 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 t (in.) 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535
(23.222 Vol. 3)
Vn
(lb) 178 178 141 98 88 53 120 192
en (in.)
0.0083 0.0083 0.0039 0.0012 0.0008 0.0002 0.0023 0.0106
da
(in.) 0.25 0.25 0.24 0.22 0.11 0.03 0.08 0.06
S
(in.) 0.74 0.74 0.29 0.29 0.19 0.06 0.12 0.23
Notes: 1. h values are from bottom of sill plate to bottom of framing at diaphragm level (top plates).
2. 3. 4. 5.
en values for Structural I sheathing with dry lumber = (Vn 769 )3.276 Shear distributed to walls C1 and C2 are proportioned based on relative lengths. Attempting to equate deflections is desirable, however the calculations are iterative and indeterminate, and the results are very similar. The average for walls A, B, and C at the second floor level is 0.42 inches. For deformation compatibility, it has been decided to size the cantilever column elements at line E for the deflections nearest shear wall at C, where the average is = 0.24 inches. Another approach would be to use a weighted average that includes the force in the wall. For example, if 99 percent of the load is carried by a stiff wall with = 0.10 inches and 1 percent is carried by wall with = 1.00 inches, then the weighted average approach is appropriate. = 0.10 0.99 + 1.0 0.01 = 0.11 inches, this assumes no rotation and a rigid diaphragm. If the diaphragm is flexible, then deflection compatibility is not an issue. The engineer should exercise good engineering judgment in determining deformation compatibility.
8vh 3 vh h + + 0.75hen + d a 23.223, Vol. 3 EAb Gt b G values are for Structural I sheathing. Testing of shear walls has indicated that the G values are slightly higher for OSB than plywood, but not enough to warrant different values. S =
The cantilever column is assumed to be fixed at the base. This can be accomplished by setting the column on a footing and then casting the grade beam around the column. With this type of connection, the stresses in the flange of the column caused by concrete bearing at the top of the grade beam should be checked. Another approach is to provide a specially detailed base plate with anchor bolts that are bolted to the top of the grade beam. The bolts and base plate will allow for some rotation, which should be considered in computing the column deflections. The grade beam should have a stiffness of at least 10 times greater than that of the column for the column to be considered fixed at the base. It is common for columns of this type to have drift control the size of the column rather than bending.
= PL3 3EI
It should be noted that if the steel columns were not needed to resist lateral forces (gravity columns only), and all lateral forces were resisted by the wood shear walls, then only relative rigidities of the wood shear walls would need to be calculated. From Figure 17 at line E, the force to each of the three cantilever columns:
P = (5,655 lb+408 lb)/ 3 = 2 ,021 lb/column
NorthSouth
EastWest
I req d
Use TS10 5 3 8
I x = 128 in. 4 122 TS = 0.24 = 0.23 in. 128 M = (2,021 / 1.4 ) = 12 ,992 ft  lb (allowable stress design) fb = M 12 ,992 12 = = 6,115 psi < 0.66(46,000 ) S 25.5
o.k.
Table 113. Wall rigidities at second floor level (walls from first to second floor)(1)
Wall A1 A2 B C1 C2 E 2 3 5
(2) (in.)
Ftot (lb)
5,339 5,339 15,857 7,820 6,334 6,063 1,592 7,891 8,090
k=
Ftot (k/in.) s
7.215 7.215 26.96 33.34
k=
Ftot (k/in.) s
Notes:
1. Deflections and forces are based on strength force levels.
It has been a common practice for practicing engineers to assume flexible diaphragms and distribute loads to shear walls based on tributary areas. This has been done for many years and is a wellestablished conventional design assumption. In this design example, the rigid diaphragm assumption will be used. This is not intended to imply that seismic design of residential construction in the past should have been necessarily performed in this manner. However, recent earthquakes and testing of wood panel shear walls have indicated that expected drifts are considerably higher than what was known or assumed in the past. This knowledge of the increased drifts of short wood panel shear walls has increased the need for the engineer to consider the relative rigidities of shear walls. This, and the fact that diaphragms tend to be much more rigid than the shear walls, has necessitated consideration of diaphragm rigidities. In this Part, the diaphragms are assumed to be rigid. See Part 7 for later confirmation of this assumption.
Design Example 1
4a. 4a
Using diaphragm loading from flexible diaphragm analysis for eastwest direction (Figure 16) and summing forces about line D:
= = =
= = =
51
Design Example 1
ym =
Using diaphragm loading from flexible diaphragm analysis for northsouth direction (Figure 18) and summing forces about line 1:
376 plf (32.0 ft ) = 12,032 lb 25.0 ft 274 plf (5.0 ft ) 233 plf (6.0 ft )
= =
= =
300,800 ft  lb 8,905 ft  lb
= 1,398 ft  lb
311,103 ft  lb
xm =
Using the rigidity values R from Table 18 and the distance y from line D to the shear wall:
y=
(k xx y ) k xx
or y k xx = k xx y
y (10.40 + 13.30 + 33.73 + 10.26) = 10.40(0) + 13.30(15.0) + 33.73(29.0 ) + 10.26(51.0) 1700.9 yr = = 25.1 ft @ roof 67.69 x=
(k yy x ) k yy
or x k yy = k yy x
x (19.65 + 6.79 + 26.57 + 31.39 ) = 19.65(0) + 6.79(6.0 ) + 26.57(11.0) + 31.39(39.0) 1557.2 xr = = 18.5 ft @ roof 84.40
52
Design Example 1
4b. 4b
Using diaphragm loading from flexible diaphragm analysis for eastwest direction (Figure 17) and summing forces about line E:
102 plf (17.0 ft ) 127 plf (5.0 ft ) 210 plf (14.0 ft ) 178 plf (15.0 ft ) 204 plf (9.0 ft )
= = = = =
1,734 lb 49.5 ft 635 lb 38.5 ft 2,940 lb 29.0 ft 2,670 lb 14.5 ft 1,836 lb 2.5 ft 9,815 lb
= = = = =
ym =
53
Design Example 1
Using diaphragm loading from flexible diaphragm analysis for northsouth direction (Figure 19) and summing forces about line 2:
23 plf (2.0 ft ) 154 plf (16.0 ft ) 110 plf (4.0 ft ) 97.2 plf (8.0 ft ) 58.9 plf (2.0 ft ) 35.8 plf (3.0 ft )
= = = = = =
46 lb 34.0 ft 2,464 lb 25.0 ft 440 lb 15.0 ft 778 lb 9.0 ft 118 lb 4.0 ft 107 lb 1.5 ft 3,953 lb
= = = = = =
xm =
Using the rigidity values k from Table 113 and the distance y from line E to the shear wall:
y r (26.36 + 60.30 + 54.68 + 14.43) = 26.36(0 ) + 60.30(22.0) + 54.68(36.0) + 14.43(58.0)
yr =
Using the rigidity values k from Table 113 and the distance x from line 2 to the shear wall:
x r (26.53 + 65.76 + 35.17 ) = 26.53(0.0) + 65.76(5.0) + 35.17(33.0)
xr =
54
Design Example 1
5.
1630.6
Using the rigid diaphragm assumption, the base shear was distributed to the two levels in Part 1. In this Part, the story forces are distributed to the shear walls that support each level. The code requires that the story force at the center of mass to be displaced from the calculated center of mass a distance of 5 percent of the building dimension at that level perpendicular to the direction of force. This is to account for accidental torsion. The code requires the most severe load combination to be considered and also permits the negative torsional shear to be subtracted from the direct load shear. However, lateral forces must be considered to act in each direction of the two principal axis. This design example does not consider eccentricities between the center of masses between levels. In this example, these eccentricities are small and are therefore considered insignificant. The engineer must exercise good engineering judgment in determining when these effects need to be considered.
5a.
Forces in the eastwest (x) direction: Distance to the calculated CM : y m Displaced e y = (0.05 55 ft ) New y to displace CM Distance to the calculated CR : y r = = = = =
29.9 ft or 24.5 ft
0.6
Note that displacing the center of mass by 5 percent can result in the CM being on either side of the CR and can produce added torsional shears to all walls.
55
Design Example 1
Forces in the northsouth (y) direction: Distance to the calculated CM : x m Displaced e x = (0.05 43 ft ) New x to displace CM Distance to the calculated CR : x r
= = = = = = =
21.0 ft 2.2 ft 21.0 ft 2.2 ft 18.5 ft 18.8 18.5 69,560 ft lb 4,440 ft lb = 0.3 = 23.2 ft or 18.8 ft
Few Fns Tx Tx Ty Ty
= = = = = =
36,950 lb (Table 1  1) 14,800 lb (Table 1  1) 177,360 ft  lb for walls A and B 22,170 ft  lb for walls C and D 69,560 ft  lb for wall 5 4,440 ft  lb for walls 1, 2, and 3
56
Design Example 1
5b.
Fv = F
R R
Ft = T
where:
Rd J
2 2 J = Rd x + Rd y
R = rigidity of lateral resisting element d = distance from lateral resisting element to the center of rigidity T = Fe
Table 114. Distribution of forces to shear walls below the roof level
Wall A B C D 1 2 3 5
Rx
10.26 33.73 13.30 10.40 67.69
Ry
dx
dy
25.9 3.9 10.1 25.1
Rd
265.7 131.5 134.3 261.0 363.5 84.8 199.3 643.5
Rd 2
6,883 513 1,357 6,552 15,305 6,725 1,061 1,495 13,192 22,473 37,778
Direct Force
Fv
5601 18,412 7,260 5,677 36,950 3,446 1,191 4,659 5,504 14,800
Total Force
Fv + Ft
6,848 19,029 7,339 5,828 3,404 1,181 4,635 6,689
EastWest
NorthSouth
For simplicity, many engineers will add 5 percent or 10 percent of the direct force shears to account for torsional effects. The average torsional force added to the shears walls in this design example is 11 percent of the direct force. Adding only 5 percent of the wall shears can be unconservative. Torsional forces are subtracted from direct forces for this design example as now allowed by code. This only occurs when both of the displaced center of mass is on
57
Design Example 1
the same side of the center of rigidity for a given direction. When the center of rigidity occurs between the two displaced centers of mass, then torsional forces can not be subtracted (which occurs at the roof in the eastwest direction). Many engineers still neglect these negative forces.
5c.
= = = =
= =
37,400 ft lb 243,100 ft lb
Forces in the northsouth (y) direction: Distance to the calculated CM : x m Displaced e x = (0.05 35 ft ) New x to displace CM Distance to the calculated CR : x r
= = = = = =
19.6 ft 1.7 ft 19.6 ft 1.7 ft 11.7 ft 17.9 11.7 180,000 ft lb = = 21.3 ft or 17.9 ft 6.2 ft
= T y = Fy e x = 18,750 lb (6.2 ft ) 116,250 ft lb = (36,950 + 9,800) = 46,750 lb (adding forces from roof and floor from Table 11) Few Tx 37,400 ft  lb for walls A and B = Tx 243,100 ft  lb for walls C and E = = (14,800 + 3,950) = 18,750 lb (adding forces from roof and floor from Table 11) Fns Ty 116,250 ft  lb for walls 2 and 3 = Ty 180,000 ft  lb for wall 5 =
58
Design Example 1
Table 115. Distribution of forces to shear walls below the second floor level
Wall A B C E
Rx
14.43 54.68 60.30 26.36 155.77
Ry
dx
dy
31.5 9.5 4.5 26.5
Rd
454.5 519.5 271.3 698.5 310 440 749
Rd 2
14,318 4,935 1,221 18,511 38,985 3,632 2,952 15,956 22,540 61,525
Direct Force Fv 4,331 16,410 18,097 7,910 46,750 3,903 9,674 5,173 18,750
Total Force
Fv + Ft
EastWest
2 NorthSouth 3 5
Table 116.Comparison of loads on shear walls using flexible versus rigid diaphragm analysis and recheck of nailing in walls
Wall
F flexible
(lb)
Frigid
(lb)
Rigid/ Flexible Ratio 0.72 1.44 0.81 1.12 2.89 0.79 0.76 1.11 0.43 1.05 1.35 1.76 2.08 1.12 0.91
b (ft)
v=
Fmax (b )1.4
(plf)
Sheathing 1 or 2 sides
A B C D 1 2 3 5 A B C E 2 3 5
9,542 13,154 9,044 5,198 1,179 1,493 6,112 6,016 10,678 15,857 14,154 6,063 1,592 7,891 8,090
6,848 19,029 7,339 5,828 3,404 1,181 4,635 6,689 4,607 16,726 19,169 10,670 3,318 8,843 7,364
10.0 14.0 8.5 6.0 18.0 10.0 15.0 26.0 10.0 14.0 19.0 10.0 22.0 14.0
Roof Level 682 970 760 693 135 107 292 184 Floor Level 762 853 721 237 287 413
One Two Two Two One One One One One Two Two One One One
870 1330 1330 1740 510 510 510 510 870 1330 1330 510 510 510
2 3 3 2 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 4
59
Design Example 1
Shear walls with shears that exceed 350 pounds per lineal foot will require 3x framing at abutting panel edges with staggered nails. See also notes at bottom of Table 12. Where rigid diaphragm analysis shows seismic forces to the shear walls are higher than from flexible diaphragm analysis, the wall stability and anchorage must be reevaluated. Engineering judgment should be used to determine if a rigid diaphragm analysis should be repeated due to changes in wall rigidity. If rigid diaphragm loads are used, the diaphragm shears should be rechecked for total load divided by diaphragm length along the individual wall lines.
6.
Reliability/redundancy factor .
1630.1.1
The reliability/redundancy factor penalizes lateral force resisting systems without adequate redundancy. In this example (in Part 1), the reliability/redundancy factor was assumed to be = 1.0 . This will now be checked. = 2 20 rmax AB (303)
where: rmax = the maximum elementstory shear ratio. For shear walls, the ratio for the wall with the largest shear per foot at or below twothirds the height of the building is calculated. Or in the case of a threestory building, the lower two levels. The value of rmax is computed from the total lateral load in the wall multiplied by 10 l w and divided by the story shear. l w = length of wall in feet AB = the ground floor area of the structure in square feet. ri = Vmax (10 l w ) F
AB = 1,542 sq ft
60
Design Example 1
For eastwest direction: Using strengthlevel forces for wall C: rmax = 16,726(10 14.0 ) = 0.26 46,750 20 0.26 1,542 = 0.04 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
= 2
= 1.0 Therefore, there is no increase in base shear required due to lack of reliability/redundancy. The SEAOC Seismology Committee added the sentence The value of the ratio 10 l w need not be taken as greater than 1.0 in the 1999 SEAOC Blue Bookwhich will not penalize longer walls, but in this design example has no effect. Note that the cantilevered column elements are not considered to be a moment frame and are not subject to the ri and requirements of 1630.1.
For northsouth direction: Using strengthlevel forces for wall 5: rmax = 8,090(10 14.0 ) = 0.31 18,750 20 0.31 1,542 = 0.36 < 1.0 minimum o.k.
= 2
= 1.0 Therefore, for both directions there is no increase in base shear required due to lack of reliability/redundancy.
7.
This step is shown only as a reference for how to calculate horizontal diaphragm deflections. Since the shear wall forces were determined using both flexible and rigid diaphragm assumptions, there is no requirement to verify that the diaphragm is actually rigid or flexible.
61
Design Example 1
The design seismic force in the roof and floor diaphragms using Equation 331 must first be found. The design seismic force is then divided by the diaphragm area to determine the horizontal loading in pounds per square foot (refer to Figures 113 and 114 ). The design seismic force shall not be less than 0.5C a Iw px nor greater than 1.0C a Iw px . The basic equation to determine seismic forces on a diaphragm is shown below. The following will compute the seismic forces in the northsouth direction. Ft + Fi
i= x n
F px =
i= x
wi
w px
(331)
Ft = 0 in this example because T < 0.7 seconds. Note that the forces in the eastwest direction are higher. Fp =
roof
Fp
roof
For the uppermost level, the above calculation will always produce the same force as computed in Eq. (3015). Fp Fp Fp =
floor
min
floor
In this example, the roof and floor diaphragms spanning between line A and line B will be used to illustrate the method. The basic equation to determine the deflection of a diaphragm is shown below. = 5vL3 vL + + 0.188 Len + 8 EAb 4Gt
( c X )
2b
23.222 Vol. 3
62
Design Example 1
The above equation is based on a uniformly loaded, uniformly nailed, simple span diaphragm with blocked panel edges and is based on monotonic tests conducted by the American Plywood Association (APA). The equation has four separate parts. The first part of the equation accounts for beam bending, the second accounts for shear deformation, the third accounts for nail slippage/bending, and the last part accounts for chord slippage. The UBC references this in 2315.1. For the purpose of this calculation, assume the diaphragm is a simple span supported at A and B (refer to Figures 113 and 114). In reality, with continuity at B, the actual deflection will be less.
7a.
Roof diaphragm.
Check diaphragm shear. Based on the F p roof = 17.07 psf as computed above, find roof shear to line A for the eastwest direction. 1. 2. 3. Area of roof including over hangs is 22' x 43'. Wall length is 39 ft. Diaphragm shears are converted to allowable stress design by dividing by 1.4. v=
(17.07 )43.0 (22.0) = 148 plf < 190 plf allowable 1.4 (39.0 )2
From Table 23IIH, the allowable shear of 190 plf is based on 15/32inch APArated wood structural panels with unblocked edges and 10d nails spaced at 6 inches on center at boundaries and panel edges. APArated wood structural panels may be either plywood or oriented strand board (OSB). Check diaphragm deflection. The UBC specifies that the deflection be calculated on a unit load basis. In other words, the diaphragm deflection should be based on the same load as the load used for the lateral resisting elements, not F px total force at the level considered. Since the code now requires building drifts to be determined by the load combinations of 1612.2 (see Part 3b for additional comments), determine strength loads on building diaphragm. fp = 36 ,950 lb = 17.07 psf 2,164 sq ft
roof
63
Design Example 1
v=
With nails at 6 inches on center, the load per nail is 207(6 / 12 ) = 104 lb/nail = V n = 22.0 ft L = 39.0 ft b = 90,000 psi G Table 232J Vol. 3 = 1,700,000 psi E A 24 chords = 5.25 sq in. 2 = 10.50 sq in.
Note that the area for 2 2 4 top plates (chord) has been used. All top plates are connected with metal straps. If a metal strap is not used, then use of the area for one top plate is recommended. Also note that the top plates at line 1 are 2 2 6 . The deflection calculation will conservatively use the chord area of the 2 2x4s at line 5. Fastener slip/nail deformation values (en). en = 1.20(104 769 )3.276 = 0.0017 t = 0.298 in. (for CDX or Standard Grade) Table 232H
The chordsplice of the diaphragm will be spliced with a 12 gauge metal strap using 10d nails. Assume a chord splice of the diaphragm at midspan. The slippage for both the diaphragm chords is to be included. The nail slip value from APA Research Report 138 can be used: e n = (V n 769 )3.276 = (120 769 )3.276 = 0.002 in. where: The allowable load is 120 pound per nail (from NDS Table 12.3F for a 10d nail in a 12gauge strap). Vn = 120 lb/nail in the strap. The elongation of the metal strap is assumed to be 0.03 inches. Therefore, the chord slip is: c = 0.002 + 0.03 c = 0.032 in.
64
Design Example 1
This deflection is based on a blocked diaphragm. The UBC does not have a formula for an unblocked diaphragm. The APA is currently working on a simplified formula for unblocked diaphragms. Based on diaphragm deflection test results performed by the APA, an unblocked diaphragm will deflect between 2 to 2 times more than that of a blocked diaphragm or can be proportioned to allowable shears. The roof diaphragm is also sloped at 5:12, which is believed to increase the deflection (but has not been confirmed with tests). This design example has unblocked panel edges for the floor and roof diaphragms, so a conversion factor is necessary. It is assumed that the unblocked diaphragm will deflect: = 0.06(2.5) = 0.15 in. Note that at gable ended roofs, when the chord is in the plane of the roof (pitched), the chord connection at the ridge should be carefully detailed to accommodate the uplift component of the chord.
7b.
Floor diaphragm.
line A for the eastwest direction (area of floor is 22 16 ). Diaphragm shears are converted to allowable stress design by dividing by 1.4 where: v=
Table 23IIH
Allowable shear of 190 plf is based on 15/32inch APArated sheathing with unblocked edges and 10d nails spaced at 6 inches on center at boundaries and panel edges supported on framing. APArated wood structural panels may be either plywood or oriented strand board (OSB).
65
Design Example 1
floor
v=
With nails at 6 inches on center the load per nail is 70(6 12 ) = 35 lb/nail = Vn
L = 22.0 ft b = 16.0 ft
G = 90,000 psi E = 1,700,000 psi A24 chords = 5.25 sq in. 2 = 10.50 sq in. e = 1.2(35 769 )3.276 = 4.8 E05 n t = 0.319 in
Table 232H
Using an assumed single chordsplice slip of 0.032inch at the midspan of the diaphragm: c X = (0.032 )11.0 ft (2 ) = 0.70 in. 5 (70) 22.0 3 70 (22.0) 0.70 = + + 0.188 (22.0 ) 4.8E 05 + = 0.04 in. 8 (1.7 E6 )10.50 (16.0) 4 (90,000 )0.319 2(16.0) Converting to an unblocked diaphragm: = 0.04(2.5) = 0.10 in.
7c. 7c
1630.6
The maximum diaphragm deflection is 0.15 inches, assuming a simple span for the diaphragm. The average story drift is on the order of 0.62 inches (see Part 4, Tables 19 and 112 for the computed deflections of the shear walls). For the diaphragms to be considered flexible, the maximum diaphragm deflection will have to be more than two times the average story drift, or 1.25 inches. This would be eight times the computed simple span deflections of the diaphragms. As defined by the UBC,
66
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 1
the diaphragms are considered rigid. Since some amount of diaphragm deformation will occur, the analysis is highly complex and beyond the scope of what is normally done for this type of construction. Diaphragm deflection analysis and testing to date has been performed on level/flat diaphragms. There has not been any testing of sloped (e.g. roof) and complicated diaphragms as found in the typical woodframed singlefamily residence. Consequently, some engineers perform their design based on the roof diaphragm being flexible and the floor diaphragm being rigid. In this procedure, the engineer should exercise good engineering judgment in determining if the higher load of the two methodologies is actually required. In other words, if the load to two walls by rigidity analysis is found to be 5 percent to line A, 95 percent to line B, but by flexible analysis it is found to be 50 percent to line A and 50 percent to line B, the engineer should probably design for the larger of the two loads for the individual walls. Note that the same definition of a flexible diaphragm has been in the UBC since the 1988 edition. However, it generally has not been enforced by building officials for Type V construction. The draft of the IBC 2000 has repeated this same definition in Chapter 23 (wood) definitions. For further discussion, see the Commentary at end of this example.
8.
2320
The UBC has had prescriptive provisions for Type V (light frame) construction for many years. It used to be quite common for building officials to allow developers, architects, building designers, and homeowners to build structures under these provisions without any engineering design. The size and style of current singlefamily residences now being constructedwith vaulted ceilings and large floor openings, tile roofs, and larger window sizesrequire an engineering design be done. Due to misuse of the conventional construction requirements, more stringent limitations on the usage of these provisions were placed in the 1994 UBC. Following is an analysis of the construction of the residence proposed in this design example compared with conventional construction requirements and an explanation of why an engineering design is required for both vertical and lateral loads. As engineered design code changes continue to get more restrictive, the gap between the double standard (i.e. conventional construction vs. engineered design) continues to widen. The structure must be checked against the individual requirements of 2320.1. Additionally, because this structure is in Seismic Zone 4, it must also be checked against 2320.5. Results of these checks are shown below.
2320.1
67
Design Example 1
Exterior braced wall panels at line D over the garage are horizontally offset from the bracing systems at the floor below and therefore not in one vertical plane. Floor opening exceeds 12 feet and 50 percent of the least floor dimension at line A. Floor is not laterally supported by braced wall lines on all edges. Cantilever column bracing at the garage door does not conform to prescribed methods. Stud height exceeds 10'0" without lateral support at line 1.
Braced wall lines.
2320.5.4.1
2320.5.4.4 2320.5.4.2
2320.11.3 2320.11.1
Spacing between braced wall lines 3 and 5 exceeds 25 feet maximum. Minimum individual panel length is less than 4'0" at second floor at line D. The residence cannot be designed using the conventional construction provisions of the code.
2320.5.1 2320.11.3
9.
V = 5,828 lb (from Table 116) Converting to allowable stress design for the wall frame: V = 5,828 1.4 = 4,159 lb (refer to Figures 111 and 115) Determine h w aspect ratios for the shear walls: h w = 9.0 3.0 = 3.0 Maximum h w = 2.0 for Seismic Zones 3 and 4 Therefore, the wall piers need to be designed to transfer forces around opening. New h w ratio = 4.0 3.0 = 1.33 < 2.0 o.k. Table 23IIG
Figure 23II1
68
Design Example 1
9a. 9a
Design of wall frame (perforated shear wall with force transfer around opening).
It is possible to get the misleading impression from Table 23II1 that all a designer needs to do is add some blocking and straps in order to reduce the h/w ratio. This design example has a structure with 9'0" plate heights, which makes using a wall frame feasible. However, when the plate height is 8'0", which is a more common plate height, there are chord development and panel nailing capacity problems. Most often, the wall shears above and below the opening will be higher than in the wall piers. This design example analyzes the wall frame and neglects gravity loads, although from a technically correct standpoint, some engineers will argue that vertical loads need to be considered when determining wall shears. The standard practice of neglecting gravity loads when considering wall shears is considered appropriate. Gravity loads are considered for anchorage of the wall in Part 9b. Using statistics, determine the shears and forces in each free body panel. This is a twostep procedure as follows: First: Find forces acting on upper left corner of wall frame (Figure 115). Second: Break up wall frame into freebody panel sections and balance forces for each panel starting with upper left corner forces already determined (Figure 116).
69
Design Example 1
70
Design Example 1
Many engineers will arbitrarily add tiedowns at the window jamb members (Figure 118). However, with this type of design, the tiedowns at these locations are not necessary, but shear stresses above and below the window may become higher. Adding tiedowns at the window jambs would increase the wall frame performance and help prevent sill plate uplift at the window jambs, which occurs (to some degree) when they are not provided.
9b. 9b
Design horizontal tie straps above and below windows (Figure 118).
Determine the tie force for the horizontal strap (from Figure 116). Tie force is maximum at header beam. Ftie = 1,546 lb Consult ICBO Evaluation Reports for the allowable load capacity of premanufactured straps. Check penetration depth factor: C d : for 10d nail thrustrap and " sheathing penetration = 3.0 0.060 0.5 = 2.4" Required penetration for full value = 12 D = 12 0.148 = 1.8 < 2.4" Allowable load per 10d common nail with 16 ga metal side plate = 113 lb Number of 10d nails required each end = (nailing does not control) Use a continuous 16 gauge x 1inch strap across the opening head and sill to blocking. Allowable strap load is (1.25)0.06(0.6 33)1.33 = 1,975 lb > 1,546 lb o.k. 1,546 lb = 10.3 nails 113 lb/nail 1.33 o.k.
71
Design Example 1
9c. 9c
1612.3
The basic load combinations of 1612.3.1 do not permit stress increases. However, the alternate basic load combinations of 1612.3.2 do permit stress increases. The Errata to the first printing of the UBC added 0.9 D load combinations as Eq. (12161). Since this exact same load combination is listed in the basic load combinations, the UBC is in contradiction and is confusing (to say the least). This design example uses the alternate basic load combinations with the onethird stress increase.
E to the alternate basic 1.4
9d. 9d
From Figure 116: Maximum panel shear = 773 plf 2inch edge nailing with sheathing both sides v allowable = 2 870 = 1,740 plf
o.k.
Table 23III1
Note that sheathing on both sides of this wall does not appear to be required by the code. To eliminate sheathing on one side, a complete design would recheck the force distribution with the reduced wall rigidity. An inspection of Figure 113 would indicate that the center of rigidity would shift to the north and hence add more torsional force to the wall.
9e. 9e
The former UBC provision of using 85 percent of the dead loads for consideration of uplift effects has now been replaced with the basic load combinations in UBC 1612.3.1 or 1612.3.2 From Figure 117:
wDL = 100 plf (triangle loading from hip roof) PDL = 700 lb Wall DL = 1,100 lb E = V = 5,828 lb h M OT = 5,828 lb (9.0 ft) = 52,452 ft  lb (strength level)
72
Design Example 1
Determine anchorage at A: M R = 100 plf (10.0 ft 2 )(10.0 2 3) + 1,100 (10.0 ft 2 ) + 700 lb (10.0 ft ) = 8,833 ft lb 3.5 in. = 9.7 ft With a 4 6 post at each end wall L = 10.0 12 E The critical loading condition is: 0.9 D (1210) 1.4 (52,452 1.4) (8,833 0.9) = 3,043 lb Uplift at A = 9.7 ft Determine anchorage at B: M R = 100 plf (10.0 ft 2 )(10.0 3) + 1,100 (10.0 ft 2 ) + 700 lb (10.0 ft ) = 14,167 ft lb Uplift at B =
1630.8.2
Since location A does not continue to the foundation, check special seismic load combination for elements supporting discontinuous systems. 1.2 D + f1 L + 1.0 E m 0.9 D 1.0 E m (1217) (1218)
73
Design Example 1
where: f1 = 0.0 for roof live loads (nonsnow) f1 = 0.5 for live loads Em = o Eh Determine the seismic force overstrength factor o o = 2.8 for wood structural panel wall o = 2.0 for cantilevered column building systems For eastwest axis of structure R = 2.2 for cantilevered building systems Therefore, o = 2.0 Determine anchorage force at A for special seismic load combination: E m = o E h = 2.0(5,828 lb ) = 11,656 lb M OT = 11,656 lb(9.0 ft ) = 104,904 ft  lb Therefore, uplift = 1612.4 1612.4 (302) 1630.3.1 Table 16N Table 16N
Consult ICBO Evaluation Reports for the allowable load capacity of premanufactured straps. Allowable load per 10d nail common with 14 ga metal side plate = 115 lb From Part 9b, with 3inch nails penetration factor C d = 1.0 . For allowable stress design, the allowable stress increase factor is 1.7 for steel. Number of 10d common nails required = 6,905 lb = 26.5 nails 115 lb/nail (1.7 )(1.33) 1630.8.2.1
74
Design Example 1
Note that 1630.8.2.1 allows the combination of allowable stress increase of 1.7 with the duration of load increase in Chapter 23. Note that the adequacy of the GLB to resist the overturning of the wall must be checked using the special seismic load combinations. As permitted in 1612.4 and 1630.8.2.1, an allowable stress increase of 1.7 can be used in addition to the duration of load increase of 1.33 for C D . Also, the boundary post at the wall corner must be checked for orthogonal effects with shear wall 5 (and on other locations in the structure with common corners).
1633.1
10. 10
From Table 16M, this has plan irregularity type 4. The diaphragm between lateral resisting elements C and E is required to transfer the design seismic force from shear wall D due to the offset between D and E. UBC 1633.2.9 requires the diaphragm force used in UBC Equation (331) to be used. UBC 1630.8.2 references special seismic load combinations of 1612.4 and does not allow the onethird increase permitted under 1612.3.2 From Part 7 in this design example: fp
floor
= 11.48 psf
From Table 16P: o for cantilever column type structures is 2.0. f p o = 11.48 2.0 = 22.96 psf For simplification of analysis, assume the diaphragm over the garage is a simple span between lateral resisting elements at lines C and E. Load from wall D above = 5,828 lb VE = 22.96 (28.0 ft )(22.0 2 ) + 5,828 lb (15.0 ft 22.0 ft ) = 11,045 lb v E = 11,0451 lb 1.4 (28.0) = 281 plf > 215 plf (for unblocked) n.g. Table 23IIH
Therefore, panel edges need to be blocked. Since the allowable shear values in Table 23IIH already include a increase for shortterm loading, (C D ), the duration of load increase (1612.3.1 and 1612.3.2) cannot be used concurrently with the 1.7 increase, as prohibited in 2316.2, Item 5.
75
Design Example 1
From Table 23IIH, the allowable diaphragm shear for 19/32inch APA sheathing, with 10d common wire nails spaced at 6inch centers, with blocked edges, is 320 plf. 320 plf>281 plf o.k.
11. 11
Wall frame details must be shown on the drawings. Depending on the variations, when multiple wall frames are on a project, it is necessary at times to have individual details for each condition. While the detail shown in Figure 118 is somewhat generic, it should be noted that a separate anchorage detail (keynote 10) may be necessary where the end of the GLB is connected to the supporting post.
76
Design Example 1
12. 12
Crossgrain shrinkage of the GLB may be a problem when using a connection of the type shown in Figure 119. Also, nails above the neutral axis of the GLB should be left out from the design to avoid crossgrain tension. In other words, only the nails below the neutral axis are considered effective for uplift forces. To avoid confusion in the field, all nail holes are to be filled. It should be noted that a separate anchorage detail may be necessary where the end of the GLB is connected to the supporting post (intersection of grids D and 5).
77
Design Example 1
13. 13
Detail the continuous load path at the low roof above the garage doors.
The low roof above the garage is an important part of the continuous load path. Historically, this type of detail has been misdetailed and misconstructed. This detail has two load paths: the loads from the roof can either go through the pitched roof, or down the wall to the GLB and across the horizontal diaphragm to the exterior wall. Figure 120 shows one way that the shear transfer can be made. Also note that the chord/drag tie of the top plates will be interrupted by the GLBtopost connection and will require detailing at grids D3 and D5.
Figure 120. Detail of load path for low roof over garage
78
Design Example 1
Commentary
Following are some issues and topics related to the seismic design of wood frame residences that can be used to improve design practices and/or understanding of important aspects of design.
In wood frame construction, particularly for singlefamily residences, it has been a common design practice to have an engineer provide only calculations and sketches for the architect to include on the architectural drawings. This is done to provide a cost savings to the owner. This approach has some significant problems based on reviews of how residential framing is actually being constructed, the calc and sketch only service is a practice which should be discontinued, with a few exceptions. Architects and building officials need to be encouraged to adopt the following standards: 1. Any new building (or remodel requiring the existing building to be brought into conformance with the current building code) that cannot be clearly shown to conform with building code conventional construction framing requirements should require submittal of structural drawings and calculations signed for by a licensed civil or structural engineer. Structural framing plans and details should be separate from the architectural drawings. Most new wood residential building designs are complex and beyond the scope and intent of the prescriptive conventional construction requirements of the UBC. Misuse of these conventional requirements has led to structures with incomplete lateral force systems, resulting in poor performance in earthquakes. Since the engineer generally is not asked to review the architects final drawings, the use of calculations and sketches lends itself to poorly coordinated drawings and missing structural information. The common practice of referring to details on architectural drawings as similar leads to further confusion as to the design intent. The structural observation requirements of the code, when enforced (many jurisdiction do not require structural observation for singlefamily residences), are even less effective, since the architect did not design the structural system and often can not identify what is missing or incorrect.
2.
This design example illustrates seismic design using both flexible and rigid diaphragms. It also illustrates that most one and twofamily dwellings have rigid
79
Design Example 1
diaphragms as defined by code. This being the case, a design based on flexible diaphragm assumption would not be required if the design is based on the rigid diaphragm assumption. Using the common approach of basing wall rigidities on deflections of shear walls and other vertical elements, the engineer first needs to know or assume how the shear walls will be constructed (e.g., nail size and spacing). Without performing a preliminary analysis, the procedure of just doing a design based on rigid diaphragms may be subject to a trial and error process. One method (as used in this design example) to avoid this process is to first perform an analysis based on flexible diaphragms, then use the construction required from the flexible diaphragms for determining the wall rigidities. Part 2 of this design example uses flexible diaphragms to determine shear wall construction. Parts 3, 4, and 5 of this design example use rigid diaphragms per UBC requirements. The shear wall deflections used in this design example use UBC equations. This needs to be viewed as one possible approach that is substantiated by the code. However, other approaches can also be used. Two of these are given below: 1. The rigidities of the shear walls can be based on the length of the wall times the allowable shear capacity. This method can be appropriate provided the tiedown assembly displacements are kept to a minimum. This may involve using specific types of tiedown devices that limit displacements to less than 1/8". Shear wall rigidities can be based on graphs of the fourterm shear wall code deflection equation (see Part 3b). As shown in Figure 121, a chart of these is included in this section and is also considered appropriate in determining wall rigidities.
2.
Tiedown location.
When designing shear walls, the engineer needs to consider where the tiedown posts will actually be located. The tiedown posts occur where shear walls stack from floor to floor. The lower level wall requires tiedown devices on each side of the tiedown post. However, the upper shear wall only requires a tiedown device on one side of the tiedown post. Since the posts must align between story levels, the upper level tiedown post will need to be offset inward in order to line up with the post below. Based on actual tiedown post locations, the upper level shear wall design may have to be rechecked once the lower level shear wall design is complete. The use of tiedown devices on each side of the post will improve the shear wall performance, since eccentricity in the connection, as occurs when there is only a singlesided tiedown, is avoided. Doublesided tiedowns are generally preferred over singlesided.
80
Design Example 1
Design comments.
This design example illustrates a detailed analysis for some of the important seismic requirements of the 1997 UBC. To complete this design, the engineer will have to check all the major structural elements along the various lateral load paths of the residence, including the foundations. The seismic calculations and details for this example residence are approximately 50 percent complete. Normal engineering design of this type of structure may omit many of the calculations shown in this example and rely on good engineering judgment. This design example illustrates a very comprehensive approach to the engineering calculations. This design example fills a void in the available engineering literature on the subjectmany engineers have stated that there simply are not sufficient reference documents available on this subject. In the so called big one, it is expected that actual peak earthquake forces may be 2 to 3 times greater than the equivalent static forces required by the UBC and used in this example. The use of good detailing practices with ductile elements to absorb energy, clear construction documents with adequate detailing, structural site observation, and special inspection are considered every bit as important as a comprehensive set of structural calculations.
80.0 K = stiffness = F/d = (Vb )/d 70.0 d = deflection =(8vh 3)/(EAb ) +(vh )/(Gt ) + 0.75he n + d a [A1] h = 8 ft Where: E = modulus of elasticity = 1.8x106 psi G = shear modulus = 90x103 psi h = wall height (ft) b = wall depth (ft) t = plywood thickness = 15/32 in. A = area of end post = 12.25 in.2 v = shear/foot d a = slip at hold down = 1/8 in. e n = nail deformation slip (in.) F = applied force = Vb (kips)
60.0
Stiffness K (kips/in.)
50.0
[A2] h = 10
40.0
[C2] h = 10 ft [D1] h = 8 ft [D2] h = 10 [A] [B] [C] [D] edge nail spacing at 2 o.c. edge nail spacing at 3 o.c. edge nail spacing at 4 o.c. edge nail spacing at 6 o.c. (v=870 plf, (v=665 plf, (v=510 plf, (v=340 plf, e n =0.024) e n =0.033) e n =0.033) e n =0.033)
30.0
20.0
10.0
Design Example 1
References
American Forest and Paper Association, 1996, Wood Construction Manual. American Forest and Paper Association, Washington D.C. American Plywood Association, 1997, Design/ Construction Guide Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Report 105, Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, 1997, Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, 1993, revised, Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls. Report 154, Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, 1994, Northridge, California Earthquake. Report T945. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, Performance Standards and Policies for Structural Use Panels [Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3]. Standard PRP108. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, 1988, Plywood Diaphragms, Research Report 138. American Plywood Association, Tacoma, Washington. Applied Technology Council, 1995, Cyclic Testing of Narrow Plywood Shear Walls ATC R1. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. Applied Technology Council, 1981, Guidelines for Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, ATC7. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. Applied Technology Council, 1980, Proceedings of a Workshop on Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, ATC71. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. Building Seismic Safety Council, 1997, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington D.C. Bugni, David A., 1999, A Linear Elastic Dynamic Analysis of a Timber Framed Structure. Building Standards, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California
82
Design Example 1
Cobeen, K.E., 1996, Performance Based Design of Wood Structures. Proceeding: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Coil, J., 1999, Seismic Retrofit of an Existing MultiStory Wood Frame Structure, Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Commins, A. and Gregg, R., 1996, Effect of Hold Downs and StudFrame Systems on the Cyclic Behavior of Wood Shear Walls, Simpson StrongTie Co., Pleasanton, California. Countryman, D., and Col Benson, 1954, 1954 Horizontal Plywood Diaphragm Tests. Laboratory Report 63, Douglas Fir Plywood Association, Tacoma Washington. CUREe, 1999, Proceedings of the Workshop on Seismic Testing, Analysis, and Design of Wood Frame Construction. California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering. Dolan, J.D., 1996, Experimental Results from Cyclic Racking Tests of Wood Shear Walls with Openings. Timber Engineering Report No. TE 1996001. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Dolan, J. D. and Heine, C.P., 1997a, Monotonic Tests of Wood Frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restraint Configurations. Timber Engineering Report No. TE1997001, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Dolan, J.D. and Heine, C.P., 1997b, Sequential Phased Displacement Cyclic Tests of Wood Frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restrain Configurations. Timber Engineering Report No. TE1997002, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Dolan, J.D., and Heine, C.P., 1997c, Sequential Phased Displacement Test of Wood Frame Shear Walls with Corners. Timber Engineering Report No. TE1997003, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1996, Reconnaissance Report: Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 11, Supplement C. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California. Faherty, Keith F., and Williamson, Thomas G., 1995, Wood Engineering Construction Handbook. McGraw Hill, Washington D.C.
83
Design Example 1
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C. Ficcadenti, S.K., T.A. Castle, D.A. Sandercock, and R.K. Kazanjy, 1996, Laboratory Testing to Investigate Pneumatically Driven Box Nails for the Edge Nailing of 3/8" Plywood Shear Walls, Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Foliente, Greg C., 1994, Analysis, Design and Testing of Timber Structures Under Seismic Loads. University of California Forest Products Laboratory, Richmond, California. Foliente, Greg C., 1997, Earthquake Performance and Safety of Timber Structures. Forest Products Society, Madison Wisconsin. Forest Products Laboratory, 1999, Wood Handbook Publication FPL GTR 113. Madison, Wisconsin. Goers R. and Associates, 1976, A Methodology for Seismic Design and Construction of SingleFamily Dwellings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. International Code Council, 1999, International Building Code Final Draft, 2000. International Code Council, Birmingham, Alabama. Ju, S. and Lin, M. ,1999, Comparison of Building Analysis Assuming Rigid or Flexible Floors, Journal of Structural Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C. Mendes, S., 1987, Rigid versus Flexible: Inappropriate Assumptions Can Cause Shear Wall Failures! Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Mendes, S., 1995, Lessons Learned From Four Earthquake Damaged MultiStory Type V Structures, Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. NFPA, 1991a, National Design Specification for Wood Construction. National Forest Products Association, Washington D.C. NFPA, 1997b, National Design Specification for Wood Construction. Natural Forest Products Association, Washington D.C.
84
Design Example 1
Rose, J. D., 1998, Preliminary Testing of Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls Under Cyclic (Reversed) Loading. Research Report 158, APA Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. Rose, J.D., and E.L. Keith, 1996, Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls with Gypsum Wallboard and Window [ Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3 ]. Research Report 158. APA  The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma Washington. SEAOC, 1997, Seismic Detailing Examples for Engineered Light Frame Timber Construction. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. SEAOC, 1999, Guidelines for Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. SEAOC, 1999, Plan Review Codes and Practice. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Shipp, J., 1992, Timber Design. Volumes IV and V. Professional Engineering Development Publications, Inc., Huntington Beach, California. Steinbrugge, J., 1994, Standard of Care in Structural Engineering Wood Frame Multiple Housing, Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
85
Design Example 1
86
Design Example 2
Foreword
After careful consideration and extensive discussion, SEAOC is recommending that large wood frame structures, such as the threestory building in this design example, be designed for seismic forces considering both rigid and flexible diaphragm assumptions. This method represents a significant change from current practice. At present, California practice has almost exclusively used the flexible diaphragm assumption for determining distribution of story shears to shear walls. There are two principal reasons for considering both rigid and flexible diaphragms. First, since adoption of the 1988 UBC, there has been a definition of diaphragm flexibility in the code (1630.6 of the 1997 UBC). Arguably, when introduced in 1988, this definition may not have been intended to apply to wood framed diaphragms. After considerable discussion and reevaluation, it is now the joint opinion of the SEAOC Code and Seismology Committees that this definition should be considered in wood framed diaphragms. The application of this definition in wood construction often requires the use of the rigid diaphragm assumption, and subsequent calculation of shear wall rigidities, for distribution of story shears to shear walls. In fact, this definition results in many, if not most, diaphragms in wood frame construction being considered rigid. Many engineers feel that exclusive use of the flexible diaphragm assumption results in underestimation of forces on some shear walls. For example, a rigid
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
87
Design Example 2
diaphragm analysis is judged more appropriate when the shear walls are more flexible compared to the diaphragm, particularly where one or more lines of shear walls (or other vertical resisting elements) are more flexible than the others are. Second, in some instances, the use of flexible diaphragm assumptions can actually force the engineer to provide a more favorable lateral force resisting system than would occur by only using rigid diaphragm assumptions. Flexible diaphragm assumptions encourage the placement of shear walls around the perimeter of the floor and roof area, therefore minimizing the need to have wood diaphragms to resist torsional forces. In this design example, the floor diaphragms are constructed using screw shank nails, sheathing is glued to the framing members (to reduce floor squeaks), and lightweight concrete fill is placed over the floor sheathing (for sound insulation). Additionally, gyp board is applied to the framing underside for ceiling finish. These materials in combination provide significantly stiffer diaphragms than those represented by the diaphragm deflection equation of UBC standard 232. For the part of the analysis that assumes a rigid diaphragm, the engineer must also select a method to estimate shear wall rigidities (and rigidities of other vertical resisting elements). This also requires use of judgment because at the present time there is no consensus method for estimating rigidities. In the commentary of Design Example 1, several alternatives are discussed. Prior to starting design of a wood light frame structure, users of this document should check with the local jurisdiction regarding both the level of analysis required and acceptable methodologies.
Overview
This design example illustrates the seismic design of a threestory 30unit hotel structure. The light frame structure, shown in Figures 21, 22, 23, and 24, has wood structural panel shear walls, and roof and floor diaphragms. The roofs have composite shingles and are framed with plated trusses. The floors have a 1inch lightweight concrete topping framed with engineered I joists. The primary tiedowns for the shear walls use a continuous tiedown system. This structure cannot be built using conventional construction methods for reasons shown in Part 6 of this design example. The following sections illustrate a detailed analysis for some of the important seismic requirements of the 1997 UBC. This design example is not a complete building design, and many aspects of a complete design, including wind design (see UBC 606 ), are not included. Only selected items of the seismic design are illustrated. In general, the UBC recognizes only two diaphragm categories: flexible and rigid. However, the diaphragms in this design example are considered to be semirigid.
88
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 2
Hence, the analysis will use the envelope method, which considers the worst loading condition from the flexible and rigid diaphragm analyses for each vertical shear resisting element. It should be noted that the envelope method, although not explicitly required by code, is deemed necessary and good engineering practice for this design example. Initially, the shear wall nailing and tiedown requirements are determined using the flexible diaphragm assumption. Secondly, use these shear wall forces to determine shear wall rigidities for the rigid diaphragm analysis. Finally, further iterations may be required with significant stiffness redistributions. The method of determining shear wall rigidities used in this design example is by far more rigorous than normal practice but is not the only method available to determine shear wall rigidities. The commentary following Design Example 1 illustrates two other simplified approaches that would also be appropriate for this design example.
Outline
This example will illustrate the following parts of the design process:
1. 2. Design base shear and vertical distributions of seismic forces. Lateral forces on the shear walls and required nailing assuming flexible diaphragms. Rigidities of shear walls. Distribution of lateral forces to the shear walls. Reliability/redundancy factor . Does structure meet requirements of conventional construction provisions? Diaphragm deflections to determine if the diaphragm is flexible or rigid. Tiedown forces for shear wall on line C. Tiedown connection at the third floor for the shear wall on line C. Tiedown connection at the second floor for the shear wall on line C. Anchor bolt spacing and tiedown anchor embedment for shear wall on line C. 89
3. 4. 5. 6.
7. 8. 9. 10. 10 11. 11
Design Example 2
12. 12
Detail of tiedown connection at the third floor for shear wall on line C (Figure 29). Detail of tiedown connection at the second floor for shear wall at line C. (Figure 210). Detail of wall intersection at exterior shear walls (Figure 211). Detail of tiedown connection at foundation (Figure 212). Detail of shear transfer at interior shear wall at roof (Figure 213). Detail of shear transfer at interior shear walls at floors (Figure 214). Detail of shear transfer at interior shear walls at foundation (Figure 215). Detail of sill plate at foundation edge (Figure 216). Detail of shear transfer at exterior wall at roof (Figure 217). Detail of shear transfer at exterior wall at floor (Figure 218).
13. 13
Given Information
Roof weights (slope 6:12): Roofing " sheathing Trusses Insulation Miscellaneous Gyp ceiling DL (along slope) 3.5 psf 1.5 3.5 1.5 0.7 2.8 13.5 psf Floor weights: Flooring Lt. wt. concrete 5/8" sheathing Floor framing Miscellaneous Gyp ceiling 1.0 psf 14.0 1.8 5.0 0.4 2.8 25.0 psf
DL (horiz. proj.) = 13.5 (13.41/12) = 15.1 psf Stair landings do not have lightweight concrete fill Area of floor plan is 5,288 sq ft Weights of respective diaphragm levels, including tributary exterior and interior walls: Wroof W3rd floor W2nd floor W
90
Design Example 2
Weights of diaphragms are typically determined by taking onehalf height of walls at the third floor to the roof and (with equal story heights) full height of walls for the third and second floor diaphragms. Framing lumber is Douglas FirLarch (DFL) grade stamped No. 1 SDry. (Note: The designer must recognize the increased potential for shrinkage problems when green lumber is used. The shrinkage of lumber can effect the architectural and mechanical systems as well as the structural system. The potential for wood shrinkage problems proportionally increases with the number of stories in the structure.) Foundation sill plates are pressuretreated HemFir. APArated wood structural panels for shear walls will be 15/32inchthick Structural I, 32/16 panel index span rating, 5ply with Exposure I glue is specified. However, 4ply is also acceptable. Threeply 15/32inch sheathing has lower allowable shears and the inner ply voids can cause nailing problems. The roof is 15/32inchthick APArated sheathing (equivalent to CD in Table 23II4), 32/16 span rating with Exposure I glue. The floor is 19/32inchthick APArated SturdIFloor 24" o/c rating (or APArated sheathing, 48/24 span rating) with Exposure I glue. Common wire nails are used for diaphragms, shear walls, and straps. Sinker nails will be used for design of the shear wall sill plate nailing at the second and third floor. (Note: Many nailing guns use the smaller diameter box and sinker nails instead of common nails. Closer nail spacing may be required if the smaller diameter nails are used). Seismic and site data: (Zone 4) I = 1.0 (standard occupancy) Seismic source Type = B Distance to seismic source = 12 km Soil profile type = S C S C has been determined by geotechnical investigation. Without a geotechnical investigation, S D can be used as a default value.
91
Design Example 2
Design Example 2
Note: Shear walls on lines 2 and 3 do not extend from the third floor to the roof.
93
Design Example 2
94
Design Example 2
This design example is based on dry lumber. Project specifications typically call for lumber to be gradestamped SDry (Surfaced Dry). Dry lumber has a moisture content (MC) less than or equal to 19 percent. Partially seasoned or green lumber grade stamped SGRN (surfaced green) has a MC between 19 percent and 30 percent. Wet lumber has a MC greater than 30 percent. Construction of structures using lumber with moisture contents greater than 19 percent can produce shrinkage problems. Note that UBC 2304.7 requires consideration of lumber shrinkage. Also, many engineers and building officials are not aware of the reduction requirements or wet service factors related to installation of nails, screws, and bolts (fasteners) into lumber with moisture content greater than 19 percent. For fasteners installed in lumber with moisture content greater than 19 percent, the wet service factor C M = 0.75 for nails and C M = 0.67 for bolts, lags and screws (91 NDS Table 7.3.3) are used. For construction using lumber of MC greater than 19 percent, there is a 25 percent to 33 percent reduction in the strength of connections, diaphragms, and shear walls that is permanent. The engineer needs to exercise good engineering judgment in determining whether it is prudent to base the structural design on dry or green lumber. Other areas of concern are the geographical area and the time of year the structure is built. It is possible for green lumber (or dry lumber that has been exposed to rain) to dry out to a moisture content below 19 percent on the construction site. For 2 framing, this generally takes about 2 to 3 weeks of exposure to dry air, 4 lumber takes even longer. Drying occurs when the surfaces are exposed to air on all sides, not while stacked on pallets (unless shimmed with stickers). Moisture content can easily be verified by a hand held moisture meter.
The structural design in this design example uses the premanufactured wood roof trusses. Under seismic forces, these must transfer the lateral forces from the roof diaphragm to the tops of the interior shear walls. To accomplish this, special considerations must be made in the design and detailed on the plans. In particular, any trusses that are to be used as collectors or lateral drag struts should be clearly indicated on the structural framing plan. The magnitude of the forces, the means by which the forces are applied to the trusses and transferred from the trusses to the shear walls must be shown on the plans. In addition, if the roof sheathing at the hip
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
95
Design Example 2
ends breaks above the joint between the end jack trusses and the supporting girder truss, the lateral forces to be resisted by the end jacks should be specified so that an appropriate connection can be provided to resist these forces. The drawings also must specify the load combinations and whether or not a stress increase is permitted. If ridge vents are being used, special detailing for shear transfers must be included because normal diaphragm continuity is disrupted.
Proper detailing of shear walls at building popouts.
The structure for this design example has doubledframed walls for party walls and exterior plantedon box columns (popouts). The designer should not consider these walls as shear walls unless special detailing and analysis is provided to substantiate that there is a viable lateral force path to that wall and the wall is adequately braced.
Effects of box nails on wood structural panel shear walls.
This design example uses common nails for fastening wood structural panels. Based on cyclic testing of shear walls and performance in past earthquakes, the use of common nails is preferred. UBC Table 23III1 lists allowable shears for wood structural panel shear walls for common or galvanized box nails. Footnote number five of Table 23III1, states that the galvanized nails shall be hotdipped or tumbled (these nails are not gun nails). Most contractors use gun nails for diaphragm and shear wall installations. The UBC does not have a table for allowable shears for wood structural panel shear walls or diaphragms using box nails. Box nails have a smaller diameter shank and a smaller head size. Using 10d box nails would result in a 19 percent reduction in allowable load for diaphragms and shear walls as compared to 10d common nails. Using 8d box nails would result in a 22 percent reduction in allowable load for diaphragms and shear walls as compared to 8d common nails. This is based on comparing allowable shear values listed in Tables 12.3A and 12.3B in the 1997 NDS for onehalfinch side member thickness (t s ) and Douglas FirLarch framing. In addition to the reduction of the shear wall and diaphragm capacities, when box nails are used, the walls will also drift more than when common nails are used. A contributor to the problem is that when contractors buy large quantities of nails (for nail guns), the word box or common does not appear on the carton label. Nail length and diameters are the most common listing on the labels. This is why it is extremely important to list the required nail lengths and diameters on the structural drawings for all diaphragms and shear walls. Another problem is that contractors prefer box nails because their use reduces splitting, eases driving, and they cost less. Just to illustrate a point, if an engineer designs for dry lumber (as discussed above) and common nails, and subsequently green lumber and box nails are used in the construction, the result is a compounding of the reductions. For
96
Design Example 2
example, for 10d nails installed into green lumber, the reduction would be 0.81 times 0.75 or a 40 percent reduction in capacity.
Code Reference
1. 1a. 1a
1630.2.2
Determine period using Method A (see Figure 25 for section through structure): T = Ct (hn )3 / 4 = .020(33.63)3 / 4 = 0.28 sec (308)
97
Design Example 2
With seismic source type B and distance to source = 12 km N a = 1.0 N v = 1.0 For soil profile type S C and Z = 0.4 C a = 0.40 N a = 0.40(1.0 ) = 0.40 C v = 0.56 N v = 0.56(1.0 ) = 0.56 Because the stud walls are both wood structural panel shear walls and bearing walls R = 5.5 Design base shear is: V= Cv I 0.56 (1.0 ) W = 0.364W W= 5.5 (0.28) RT (304) Table 16Q Table 16R Table 16S Table 16T
Table 16N
Note: design base shear is now on a strength design basis. but need not exceed: V= 2.5C a I 2.5 (0.40 )(1.0) W= W = 0.182W R 5.5 (305)
V = 0.058W < 0.182W All of the tables in the UBC for wood diaphragms and shear walls are based on allowable loads.
98
Design Example 2
It is desirable to use the strength level forces throughout the design of the structure for two reasons: 1. Errors in calculations can occur and which load is being usedstrength design or allowable stress designmay be confused. This design example will use the following format: Vbase shear = F px Fx v v= 2. = = = Fx = 1.4b strength strength forcetowall (strength) wall shear at element level (ASD) ASD
Future editions of the code will use only strength design. E = E h + E v = 1.0 E h + 0 = 1.0 E h (301)
where: E v is permitted to be taken as zero for allowable stress design, and will be assumed to be 1.0 (under most cases is 1.0 for Type V construction with interior shear walls). Since the maximum element story shear is not yet known, the assumed value for will have to be verified. (This will be shown in Part 5.) The basic load combination for allowable stress design for horizontal forces is: D+ E E E = 0+ = 1.4 1.4 1.4 (129)
Design Example 2
1b. 1b
The base shear must be distributed to each level. This is done as follows: F px =
(V Ft )wx hx
wi hi
i =1
(3015)
Where h x is the average height at level i of the sheathed diaphragm in feet above the base. Since T = 0.28 second < 0.7 second, Ft = 0 Determination of F px is shown in Table 21. Note: Although not shown here, designers must also check wind loading. In this example, wind loading may control the design in the eastwest direction.
1630.5
w x (k)
135.0 230.0 230.0 595.0
h x (ft)
33.6 18.9 9.4
w x h x (kft)
4,536 4,347 2,162 11,045
w x hx (%) wi hi
41.1 39.4 19.5
F px (k)
44.5 42.7 21.1 108.3
F px wx
0.330 0.186 0.092
Ftot (k)
44.5 87.2 108.3
2.
Lateral forces on the shear walls and required nailing assuming flexible diaphragms.
In this step, forces on shear walls due seismic forces will be determined. As has been customary practice in the past, this portion of the example assumes flexible diaphragms. The UBC does not require torsional effects to be considered for flexible diaphragms. The effects of torsion and wall rigidities will be considered in Part 4 of this design example. Under the flexible diaphragm assumptions, loads to shear walls are determined based on tributary areas with simple spans between supports. Another method of determining loads to shear walls can assume a continuous beam. This design example uses the total building weight W applied to each respective direction. The results shown will be slightly conservative, since the building weight W includes the wall weights for the direction of load, which can be subtracted out. This example converts the story forces into seismic forces per square foot of floor or
100
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 2
roof area. This may result in loosing a certain amount of precision, but in turn results in much simpler calculations. This approach is generally considered acceptable unless there is seen to be a concentration of dead load in a particular area (e.g., a mechanical penthouse). A detailed analysis will include the derivation of these tributary weights, which includes the tributary exterior and interior wall weights. Using forces from Table 21 and the area of the floor plan = 5,288 sf, calculate tributary weights. For roof diaphragm: Roof area = 5,288 sq ft f p roof = 44.5 1,000 = 8.415 psf 5,288
For third floor diaphragm: Floor area = 5,288 sq ft f p 3rd = 42.7 1,000 = 8.075 psf 5,288
For second floor diaphragm: Floor area = 5,288 sq ft f p 2 nd = 21.1 1,000 = 3.990 psf 5,288
101
Design Example 2
Table 22. Forces to walls and required panel nailing for eastwest direction
Wall Trib Area (sq ft)
1, 2, 3
FAbove
(lb) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,430 6,280 11,310 11,310 8,080 4,660 1,430 44,500 2,805 12,305 22,160 22,160 15,830 9,135 2,805 87,200
Fx
(lb)
Ftot (lb)
b (4) (ft)
v=
(plf)
Allowable Shear(6) (plf) 340 340 340 340 340 340 340
A B C E F G H
A B C E F G H
170 746 1,344 1,344 960 554 170 5,288 170 746 1,344 1,344 960 554 170 5,288 170 746 1,344 1,344 960 554 170 5,288
1,430 6,280 11,310 11,310 8,080 4,660 1,430 44,500 1,375 6,025 10,850 10,850 7,750 4,475 1,375 42,700 680 2,975 5,365 5,365 3,830 2,210 680 21,100
Shear Walls at Roof Level (7) 1,430 12.5 6,280 22.0 11,310 43.0 11,310 43.0 8,080 43.0 4,660 22.0 1,430 12.5 44,500 198 Shear Walls at Third Floor Level 2,805 12.5 12,305 22.0 22,160 43.0 22,160 43.0 15,830 43.0 9,135 22.0 2,805 12.5 87,200 198
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 4 4 4 4 4 6
A B C E F G H
Notes:
1.
Shear Walls at Second Floor Level 3,485 12.5 200 15,280 22.0 500 27,525 43.0 460 27,525 43.0 460 19,660 43.0 330 11,345 22.0 370 3,485 12.5 200 108,300 198
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 3 3 3 3 3 6
2.
3.
Minimum framing thickness: The 1994 and earlier editions of the UBC required 3 nominal thickness stud framing at abutting panel edges when 10d common nails were spaced 3 inches on center or closer (2" on center for 8d) or if sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints. The 1997 UBC (Table 23III1 Footnote 2 and 3) requires 3 nominal thickness stud framing at abutting panels and at foundation sill plates when the allowable shear values exceed 350 pounds per foot or if the sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints. Sill bolt washers: Section 1806.6.1 of the 1997 UBC requires that a minimum of 2inchsquare by 3/16inchthick plate washers be used for each foundation sill bolt (regardless of allowable shear values in the wall). These changes were a result of splitting of framing studs and sill plates observed in the Northridge earthquake and in cyclic testing of shear walls. The plate washers are intended to help resist uplift forces on shear walls. Because of observed vertical displacements of tiedowns, these plate washers are required even if the wall has tiedowns designed to take uplift forces at the wall boundaries. The washer edges shall be parallel/perpendicular to the sill plate. Errata to the First Printing of the 1997 UBC (Table 23III1 Footnote 3) added an exception to the 3 foundation sill plates by allowing 2 foundation sill plates when the allowable shear values are less than 600 pounds per foot, provided that sill bolts are designed for 50 percent of allowable values. The 1999 SEAOC Blue Book recommends special inspection when the nail spacing is closer than 4" on center.
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
102
Design Example 2
4. 5. 6. 7.
The shear wall length used for wall shears is the outtoout wall length. Note that forces are strength level and that shear in wall is divided by 1.4 to convert to allowable stress design. APA Structural I rated wood structural panels may be either plywood or oriented strand board (OSB). Allowable shear from UBC Table 23III1. Shear walls at lines C, E, and F extend to the bottom of the prefabricated wood trusses at the roof level. Shear transfer is obtained by framing clips from the bottom chord of the trusses to the top plates of the shear walls. Project plans call for trusses at these lines to be designed for these horizontal forces (see also comments in Part 8). Roof shear forces are also transferred to lines A, B, G, and H.
Table 23. Forces to walls and required panel nailing for northsouth direction
Wall Trib. Area (sq ft)
1, 2, 3
FAbove
(lb) 0 0 0 0 0 22,250 0 0 22,250 44,500 31,955 11,645 11,645 31,955 87,200
Fx
(lb)
Ftot (lb)
b (4) (ft)
v=
Sheathed 1 or 2 sides 1
Shear Walls at Roof Level (5) 1 2 3 4 2,644 0 0 2,644 5,288 1,202 1,442 1,442 1,202 5,288 1,202 1,442 1,442 1,202 5,288 22,250 0 0 22,250 44,500 9,705 11,645 11,645 9,705 42,700 4,795 5,755 5,755 4,795 21,100 22,250 0 0 22,250 44,500 64.5 0 0 64.5 129.0
340
1 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
Shear Walls at Third Floor Level 31,955 64.5 11,645 60.0 11,645 60.0 31,955 64.5 87,200 249.0
1 1 1 1
4 6 6 4
1. Minimum framing thickness: The 1994 and earlier editions of the UBC required 3 nominal thickness stud framing at abutting panel edges when 10d common nails were spaced 3 inches on center or closer (2" on center for 8d) or if sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints. The 1997 UBC (Table 23III1 Footnote 2 and 3) requires 3 nominal thickness stud framing at abutting panels and at foundation sill plates when the allowable shear values exceed 350 pounds per foot or if the sheathing is installed on both sides of the studs without staggered panel joints. 2. Sill bolt washers: Section 1806.6.1 of the 1997 UBC requires that a minimum of 2inchsquare by 3/16inchthick plate washers be used for each foundation sill bolt (regardless of allowable shear values in the wall). These changes were a result of splitting of framing studs and sill plates observed in the Northridge earthquake and in cyclic testing of shear walls. The plate washers are intended to help resist uplift forces on shear walls. Because of observed vertical displacements of tiedowns, these plate washers are required even if the wall has tiedowns designed to take uplift forces at the wall boundaries. The washer edges shall be parallel/perpendicular to the sill plate. Errata to the First Printing of the 1997 UBC (Table 23III1 Footnote 3) added an exception to the 3 foundation sill plates by allowing 2 foundation sill plates when the allowable shear values are less than 600 pounds per foot, provided that sill bolts are designed for 50 percent of allowable values. 3. The 1999 SEAOC Blue Book recommends special inspection when the nail spacing is closer than 4" on center. 4. Note that forces are strength level and that shear in wall is divided by 1.4 to convert to allowable stress design.
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Notes:
Shear Walls at Second Floor Level 36,750 64.5 410 17,400 60.0 210 17,400 60.0 210 36,750 64.5 410 108,300 249.0
1 1 1 1
4 6 6 4
103
Design Example 2
5. The interior shear walls at lines 2 and 3 were not used to brace the roof diaphragm. This is because installing wall sheathing (blocking panels) perpendicular to plated trusses is labor intensive. Often it is not installed correctly, and occasionally it is not even installed due to contractor error. This approach will increase the third floor diaphragm transfer (redistribution) forces. With rigid diaphragms, you must carefully follow the load paths.
3. 3a. 3a
Determination of wood shear wall rigidities is not a simple task. In practice, approximate methods are often used. The method illustrated in this example is by far the most rigorous method used in practice. There are other methods that are more simplified, and use of these other more simplified methods is often appropriate. The alternate methods are briefly discussed in the Commentary to Design Example 1. It must be emphasized, that at the present time every method is approximate, particularly for multistory structures such as in this example. Until more definite general procedures are established through further testing and research, the designer must exercise judgment in selecting an appropriate method to be used for a given structure. When in doubt, consult with the local building official regarding methods acceptable to the jurisdiction. At the time of this publication, the type of seismic design required for a project of this type varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Wall rigidities are approximate. The initial rigidity R of the structure can be significantly higher due to stucco, drywall, stiffening effects of walls not considered, and areas over doors and windows. During an earthquake, some lowstressed walls may maintain their stiffness and others degrade in stiffness. Some walls and their collectors may attract significantly more lateral load than anticipated in flexible or rigid diaphragm analysis. It must be understood that the method of analyzing a structure using rigid diaphragms takes significantly more engineering effort. However, use of the rigid diaphragm method indicates that some lateral resisting elements can attract significantly higher seismic demands than from tributary area (i.e., flexible diaphragm) analysis methods. In this example, shear wall rigidities (k) are computed using the basic stiffness equation:
F = k
or: k= F
104
Design Example 2
The basic equation to determine the shear wall deflections is shown below. This should be viewed as one possible approach that can be substantiated with code equations. There are other approaches that can also be used. = where: v = shear in the wall in pounds per lineal foot
h = height from the bottom of the sill plate to the underside of the framing at diaphragm level above (top plates)
23.223 Vol. 3
A = area of the boundary element in square inches At the third floor, the boundary elements consist of 22x4s (see Figure 29) At the second floor, the boundary elements consist of 32x4s (see Figure 210) At the ground floor, the boundary elements consist of 33x4s:
b = is the shear wall length in feet
G = shear modulus values from Table 232J, in pounds per square inch t = equivalent thickness values from Table 232I, in inches Vn = load per fastener (nail) in pounds en = nail slip values are for Structural I sheathing with dry lumber = (Vn 769 )3.276 d a = displacement of the tiedown due to anchorage details in inches The above equation is based on tests conducted by the American Plywood Association and on a uniformly nailed, cantilever shear wall with fixed base and free top, a horizontal point load at top, and panel edges blocked, and deflection is estimated from the contributions of four distinct parts. The first part of the equation accounts for cantilever beam action using the moment of inertia of the boundary elements. The second term accounts for shear deformation of the sheathing. The third term accounts for nail slippage/bending, and the fourth term accounts for tiedown assembly displacement (this also should include bolt/nail slip and shrinkage). The UBC references this equation in 2315.1.
105
Design Example 2
The engineer should be cautioned to use the units as listed in 23.223 (and as listed above). Do not attempt to change the units. Testing on wood shear walls has indicated that the above deflection formula is reasonably accurate for wall aspect ratios (h w) lower than or equal to 2:1. For higher aspect ratios, the wall drift increases significantly, and displacements were not be adequately predicted by the formula. Using the new aspect ratio requirement of 2:1 (UBC 1997) makes this formula more accurate for determining shear wall deflection/stiffness than it was in previous editions of the UBC, subject to the limitations mentioned above. Recent testing on wood shear walls has shown that sill plate crushing under the boundary element can increase the shear wall deflection by as much as 20 to 30 percent. For a calculation of this crushing effect, see the deflection of wall frame at line D later in this same Part 11c.
Volume 3 of the UBC has Table 232K for obtaining values for en . However, its use is somewhat timeconsuming since interpolation and adjustments are necessary. Footnote 1 to Table 232K requires the values for en to be decreased 50 percent for seasoned lumber. This means that the table is based on nails being driven into green lumber and the engineer must use onehalf of these values for nails driven in dry lumber. The values in Table 232K are based on tests conducted by the APA. The 50 percent reduction for dry lumber is a conservative factor. The actual tested slip values with dry lumber were less than 50 percent of the green lumber values. It is recommended that values for en be computed based on fastener slip equations from Table B4 of APA Research Report 138. This research report is the basis for the formulas and tables in the UBC. Both the research report and the UBC will produce the same values. However, using the fastener slip equations from Table B4 of Research Report 138 will save time and also enable computations to be made by a computer. For 10d common nails used in this example, there are two basic equations: When nails are driven into green lumber: en = (Vn 977 )1.894 When nails are drive into dry lumber: en = (Vn 769 )3.276 where: Vn = fastener load in pounds per fastener APA Table B4 APA Table B4
106
Design Example 2
These values from the above formulas are based on Structural I sheathing and must be increased by 20 percent when the sheathing is not Structural I. The language in Footnote A in Research Report 138, Table B4, which states Fabricated green/tested dry (seasoned) is potentially misleading. The values in the table are actually green values, since the assembly is fabricated when green. Dont be misled by the word seasoned. It is uncertain whether or not the d a factor is intended to include wood shrinkage and crushing due to shear wall rotation, because the code is not specific. This design example includes shrinkage and crushing in the d a factor. Many engineers are concerned that if the contractor installs the nails at a different spacing (too many or too few), then the rigidities will be different than those calculated. However, nominal changing of the nail spacing in a given wall does not significantly change the stiffness.
3b. 3b
In this example, shear wall rigidities are calculated using the fourterm code deflection equation in 23.223 of Volume 3. These calculations are facilitated by the use of a spreadsheet program, which eliminates possible arithmetic errors from the many repetitive computations that must be made. The first step is to calculate the displacement (i.e., vertical elongation) of the tiedown assemblies and the crushing effect of the boundary element. This is the term d a . The force considered to act on the tiedown assembly is the net uplift force determined from the flexible diaphragm analyses of Part 2. These forces are summarized in Tables 24, 29, and 213 for the roof at the third floor and second floor, respectively. After the tiedown assembly displacements are determined, the fourterm deflection equation is used to determine the deflection S of each shear wall. These are summarized in Tables 25 and 26 for the roof level, and in Tables 210 and 211 for the third floor level, and in Table 214 and 215 for the second floor level. Finally, the rigidities of the shear walls are summarized in Tables 27, 212, and 216 for the roof, third floor, and second floor, respectively. For both strength and allowable stress design, the 1997 UBC now requires building drifts to be determined by the load combinations of 1612.2, which covers load combinations using strength design or load and resistance factor design. Errata for the second and third printing of the UBC unexplainably referenced 1612.3 for allowable stress design. The reference to 1612.3 is incorrect and will be changed back to reference 1612.2 in the fourth and later printings.
107
Design Example 2
Using strength level forces for wood design using the 1997 UBC now means that the engineer will use both strengthlevel forces and allowable stress forces. This can create some confusion, since the code requires drift checks to be strengthlevel forces. However, all of the design equations and tables in Chapter 23 are based on allowable stress design. Drift and shear wall rigidities should be calculated from the strengthlevel forces. Remember that the structural system factor R is based on using strengthlevel forces.
3c. 3c
To determine roof level wall rigidities, roof level displacements must first be determined. Given below are a series of calculations, done in table form, to estimate the roof level displacements s in each shear wall. First, the shear wall tiedown assembly displacements are determined (Table 24). These, and the parameters given in Table 25, are used to arrive at the displacements s for each shear wall at the roof level (Table 25 and 26). Rigidities are estimated in Table 27 for walls in both directions. Once the s displacements are known, a drift check is performed. This is summarized in Table 28.
1
Table 24. Determine tiedown assembly displacements at roof level ASD Strength Design TIedown Assembly Displacement Wall Tiedown(3) Tiedown Uplift/1.4 (2) Uplift (lb) (lb) Device Elongation (in.) Shrink(4) Crush(5) Slip(6)
A B1 B2 C1 C2 E1 E2 F1 F2 G1 G2 H 1a, 4a 1b, 4b 1c, 4c 1d, 4d 1e, 4e 1f, 4f 0 840 840 100 100 100 100 0 0 500 500 0 120 0 0 0 0 120 Not required Strap Strap Strap Strap Strap Strap Not required Not required Strap Strap Not required Strap Not required Not required Not required Not required Strap 0 1,175 1,175 140 140 140 140 0 0 700 700 0 170 0 0 0 0 170 0 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 0 0.02 0.02 0 0.02 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 0 0 0.002 0.002 0 0.002 0 0 0 0 0.002
d a (7)
(in.) 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09
Notes:
1. 2. Tiedown assembly displacements for the roof level are calculated for the tiedowns at the third floor level. Uplift force is determined by using the net overturning moment (M OT M OR ) divided by the distance between the centroids of the boundary elements with 4x members at the ends of the shear wall. This equates to the length of the wall minus 3 inches for straps or the
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
108
Design Example 2
3.
4.
5.
Per 91 NDS 4.2.6, when compression perpendicular to grain ( f c ) is less than 0.73F ' c
length of wall minus 7 inches when using a bolted tiedown with 2inch offset from post to anchor bolt. Using allowable stress design, tiedown devices need only be sized by using the ASD uplift force. The strength design uplift force is used to determine tiedown assembly displacement in order to determine strengthlevel displacements. The continuous tiedown (rod) system selected for this structure will have a shrinkage compensating system. Most of these systems have shrinkage compensation by either pretensioning of cables or a selfratcheting hardware connector and are proprietary. The device selected in this design example has adjusting grooves at 1/10inch increments, meaning the most the system will have not compensated for in shrinkage and crushing will be 1/10inch. If the selected device does not have a shrinkage compensating device then, shrinkage of floor framing, sill plates, compression bridges, crushing of bridge support studs, and collector studs will need to be considered. See Design Example 1, Part 3c for an example calculation for a bolted connection. The tiedown rod at line B will elongate as follows: PL for 5 8" rod: = = 6,090 lb(4.5)(12 ) 0.31(29 E6 ) = 0.04 in AE Note that the rod length is 4.5 feet (Figure 212). The elongation for the portion of the rod at the level below will be considered at the level below. For level below (Table 213) rod length is 9.44 feet (Figure 212): PL for 5 8" rod: = = 12,040 lb(9.44)(12 ) 0.31(29 E6 ) = 0.15 in . AE Wood shrinkage is based on a change in moisture content (MC) from 19 percent to 15 percent, with 19 percent MC being assumed for SDry lumber per project specifications. The MC of 15 percent is the assumed final MC at equilibrium with ambient humidity for the project location. The final equilibrium value can be higher in coastal areas and lower in inland or desert areas. This equates to (0.002 )(d )(19 15) , where d is the dimension of the lumber (see Figure 211). Pressuretreated lumber has moisture content of less than 16 percent at treatment completion. Shrinkage of 2 DBL Top Plate + 2 DBL sill plate = (0.002 )(4 1.5 in )(19 15) = 0.05 in . crushing will be approximately 0.02 inches. When f c = F 'c crushing is approximately 0.04 inches. The effect of sill plate crushing is the downward effect at the opposite end of the wall with uplift force and has the same rotational effect as the tiedown displacement. Short walls that have no uplift forces will still have a crushing effect and contributes to rotation of the wall.
6. 7.
Per 91 NDS 7.3.6 load/slip modulus = (270,000) D1.5 , plus an additional 1/16" for the
( )
oversized hole for bolts. For nails, values for en can be used.
d a is the total tiedown assembly displacement. This also could include miscuts (short studs) and lack of square cut ends.
109
Design Example 2
Table 25. Deflections of shear walls at the roof level in eastwest direction
Wall A B1 B2 B C1 C2 C E1 E2 E F1 F2 F G1 G2 G H ASD v (plf) 85 205 205 190 190 190 190 135 135 155 155 85 Strength v (plf) 119 287 287 266 266 266 266 189 189 217 217 119
h (ft)
8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21
(in.2) 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5
E (psi) 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6
b (ft)
12.5 11.0 11.0 22.0 21.5 21.5 43.0 21.5 21.5 43.0 21.5 21.5 43.0 11.0 11.0 22.0 12.5
G
(psi) 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
t
(in.) 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535
Vn
(lb) 60 144 144 133 133 133 133 95 95 109 109 60
en
(in.) 0.0002 0.0041 0.0041 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0032 0.0011 0.0011 0.0017 0.0017 0.0002
da
(in.) 0.07 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.07
S
(in.) 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.07
Table 26. Deflections of shear walls at the roof level in northsouth direction
Wall 1a, 4a 1b, 4b 1c, 4c 1d, 4d 1e, 4e 1f, 4f 1, 4 ASD v (plf) 250 250 250 250 250 250 Strength v (plf) 350 350 350 350 350 350
h (ft)
8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21
A (2)
b (ft)
8.0 14.0 11.5 11.5 11.5 8.0 64.5
G
(psi) 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
t (in.)
0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535
Vn
(lb) 175 175 175 175 175 175
en
(in.) 0.0078 0.0078 0.0078 0.0078 0.0078 0.0078
da
(in.) 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09
S
(in.) 0.21 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.21
110
Design Example 2
S (2)
(in.) 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.21 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.21
F (lb)
1,430 3,140 3,140 6,280 5,655 5,655 11,310 5,655 5,655 11,310 4,040 4,040 8,080 2,330 2,330 4,660 1,430 2,760 4,830 3,965 3,970 3,965 2,760 22,250
ki =
F (k/in.) s
k total
(k/in.) 20.43
20.43 19.62 19.62 39.24 56.55 56.55 113.1 56.55 56.55 113.1 57.71 57.71 115.4 19.42 19.42 38.84 20.42 13.14 30.19 23.32 23.35 23.32 13.14 126.5
39.24
113.1
113.1
115.4
38.84 20.42
126.5
Notes:
1. 2. Deflections and forces are based on strength force levels. S are the design level displacements from Tables 25 and 26.
111
Design Example 2
3d. 3d
1630.10.2
To determine drift, the maximum inelastic response displacement M must be determined. This is defined in 1630.9.2 and computed as follows: M = 0.7 RR S R = 5.5 M = 0.7(5.5) S Under 1630.10.2, the calculated story drift using M shall not exceed 0.025 times the story height for structures having a fundamental period less than 0.7 seconds. The building period for this design example was calculated to be 0.28 seconds, which is less than 0.7 seconds, therefore the 0.025 drift limitation applies. The drift check is summarized in Table 28. (3017) Table 16N
S (in.)
0.07 0.16 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.12 0.07 0.21 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.21
Height (ft.) 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21
M (in.)
0.27 0.62 0.38 0.38 0.27 0.46 0.27 0.81 0.62 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.81
Max. M (in.) 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46 2.46
Status ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok
112
NorthSouth
EastWest
Design Example 2
3e.
Shear wall rigidities at the third floor are estimated in the same manner as those a the roof. The calculations are summarized in Tables 29, 210, 211, and 212. A drift check is not shown.
Table 29. Tiedown assembly displacements at third floor level ASD Strength Design Tiedown Tiedown AssemblyDisplacement Wall Tiedown Uplift Uplift/1.4(2) Elongation (3) (lb) Device (lb) Crush(5) Slip(6) Shrink(4) (in.) A 135 Strap 190 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 B1 4,350 Rod 6,090 0.04 0 0 0.10 B2 4,350 Rod 6,090 0.04 0 0 0.10 C1 2,000 Strap 2,800 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 C2 2,000 Strap 2,800 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 E1 2,000 Strap 2,800 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 E2 2,000 Strap 2,800 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 F1 550 Strap 770 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 F2 550 Strap 770 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 G1 2,800 Rod 3,920 0.02 0 0 0.10 G2 2,800 Rod 3,920 0.02 0 0 0.10 H 135 Strap 190 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 1a, 4a 2,275 Strap 3,185 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 1b, 4b 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 1c, 4c 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 1d, 4d 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 1e, 4e 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 1f, 4f 2,275 Strap 3,185 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.002 2a, 3a 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 2b, 3b 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.05 0.02 0 2c, 3c 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.05 0.02 0
da
(7)
(in.) 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07
Notes:
1. 2. Tiedown assembly displacements for the third floor level are calculated for the tiedowns at the second floor level. Footnotes 26, see Table 24.
113
Design Example 2
Table 210. Deflections of shear walls at third floor level in eastwest direction
Wall A B1 B2 B C1 C2 C E1 E2 E F1 F2 F G1 G2 G H ASD v (plf) 160 400 400 370 370 370 370 265 265 300 300 160 Strength v (plf) 224 560 560 518 518 518 518 371 371 420 420 224
h
(ft) 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43
A
(in.2) 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7
E (psi) 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6
b (ft)
12.5 11.0 11.0 22.0 21.5 21.5 43.0 21.5 21.5 43.0 21.5 21.5 43.0 11.0 11.0 22.0 12.5
G (psi)
90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
t (in.)
0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535
Space (in) 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6
Vn
(lb) 112 187 187 173 173 173 173 124 124 140 140 112
en (in.)
0.0018 0.0097 0.0097 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0075 0.0025 0.0025 0.0038 0.0038 0.0018
da
(in.) 0.09 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.12 0.09
S
(in.) 0.13 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.13
Table 211. Deflections of shear walls at the third floor level in northsouth direction
Wall 1a, 4a 1b, 4b 1c, 4c 1d, 4d 1e, 4e 1f, 4f 1, 4 2a, 3a 2b, 3b 2c, 3c 2, 3 ASD v (plf) 355 355 355 355 355 355 140 140 140 Strength (v) (plf) 497 497 497 497 497 497 196 196 196
h (ft)
9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43
A
(in.2) 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7 15.7
E (psi) 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6
b (ft)
8.0 14.0 11.5 11.5 11.5 8.0 64.5 18.0 24.0 18.0 60.0
G (psi)
90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
t
(in.) 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535
Space (in. 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6
Vn
(lb) 166 166 166 166 166 166 98 98 98
en (in)
0.0066 0.0066 0.0066 0.0066 0.0066 0.0066 0.0012 0.0012 0.0012
da
(in.) 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.07
S
(in.) 0.27 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.09 0.08 0.09
114
Design Example 2
S (in.) (2)
0.13 0.31 0.31 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.13 0.13 0.22 0.22 0.13 0.27 0.20 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.27 0.09 0.08 0.09
F (lb)
2,805 6,152 6,153 12,305 11,080 11,080 22,160 11,080 11,080 22,160 7,915 7,915 15,830 4,568 4,567 9,135 2,805 3,965 6,936 5,696 5,696 5,696 3,966 31,955 3,494 4,657 3,494 11,645
ki =
F (k/in.) s
k total (k/in.)
21.58
21.58 19.84 19.84 39.68 55.40 55.40 110.80 55.40 55.40 110.80 60.88 60.88 121.70 20.76 20.76 41.52 21.58 14.68 34.68 27.12 27.12 27.12 14.68 145.40 38.82 58.21 38.82 135.80
39.68
110.80
110.80
121.70
41.52 21.58
145.40
135.80
Notes:
1. 2. Deflections and forces are based on strength levels. s are the design level displacements form Tables 210 and 211.
115
Design Example 2
3f. 3f
Shear wall rigidities at the second floor level are estimated in the same manner as those for the roof and third floor. The calculations are summarized in Tables 213, 214, 215, and 216. A drift check is not shown.
Table 213. Tiedown assembly displacements at second floor level ASD Strength Design Tiedown Tiedown Assembly Displacement Wall Tiedown Uplift/1.4(2) Uplift (lb) Elongation(3) (lb) Device Crush(5) Slip(6) Shrink(4) (in.) A 1,090 Strap 1,525 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.002 B1 8,600 Rod 12,040 0.15 0 0 0.10 B2 8,600 Rod 12,040 0.15 0 0 0.10 C1 4,380 Rod 6,130 0.08 0 0 0.10 C2 4,380 Rod 6,130 0.08 0 0 0.10 E1 4,380 Rod 6,130 0.08 0 0 0.10 E2 4,380 Rod 6,130 0.08 0 0 0.10 F1 1,565 Rod 2,200 0.03 0 0 0.10 F2 1,565 Rod 2,200 0.03 0 0 0.10 G1 5,700 Rod 7,980 0.10 0 0 0.10 G2 5,700 Rod 7,980 0.10 0 0 0.10 H 1,090 Strap 1,525 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.002 1a, 4a 5,240 Rod 7,340 0.10 0 0 0.10 1b, 4b 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 1c, 4c 1,000 Strap 1,400 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.002 1d, 4d 1,000 Strap 1,400 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.002 1e, 4e 1,000 Strap 1,400 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.002 1f, 4f 5,240 Rod 7,340 0.10 0 0 0.10 2a, 3a 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 2b, 3b 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 2c, 3c 0 Not reqd 0 0 0.01 0.02 0
d a (7)
(in.) 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.03
Notes:
1. 2. Tiedown assembly displacements for the second floor level are calculated for the tiedowns at the first floor level. See Table 24 for footnotes 26.
116
Design Example 2
Table 214. Deflections of shear walls at the second floor level in eastwest direction
Wall A B1 B2 B C1 C2 C E1 E2 E F1 F2 F G1 G2 G H ASD v (plf) 200 500 500 460 460 460 460 330 330 370 370 200 Strength v (plf) 280 700 700 644 644 644 644 462 462 518 518 280
h (ft)
9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43
A
(in.2) 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2
E (psi) 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6
b (ft)
12.5 11.0 11.0 22.0 21.5 21.5 43.0 21.5 21.5 43.0 21.5 21.5 43.0 11.0 11.0 22.0 12.5
G
(psi) 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
t (in.)
0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535
Space (in.) 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6
Vn
(lb) 140 175 175 161 161 161 161 115 115 130 130 140
en (in.)
0.0038 0.0078 0.0078 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0020 0.0020 0.0030 0.0030 0.0038
da
(in.) 0.05 0.25 0.25 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.13 0.13 0.20 0.20 0.05
S
(in.) 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.12
Table 215. Deflections of shear walls at the second floor level in northsouth direction
Wall 1a, 4a 1b, 4b 1c, 4c 1d, 4d 1e, 4e 1f, 4f 1, 4 2a, 3a 2b, 3b 2c, 3c 2, 3 ASD v (plf) 410 410 410 410 410 410 210 210 210 Strength v (plf) 574 574 574 574 574 574 294 294 294
h (ft)
9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43 9.43
A
(in.2) 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2 26.2
E (psi) 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6 1.7E6
b (ft)
8.0 14.0 11.5 11.5 11.5 8.0 64.5 18.0 24.0 18.0 60.0
G (psi)
90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000
t (in.)
0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535 0.535
Space (in.) 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 6 6
Vn
(lb) 191 191 191 191 191 191 147 147 147
en
(in.) 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0104 0.0044 0.0044 0.0044
da
(in.) 0.20 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.03 0.03
S
(in.) 0.43 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.43 0.10 0.10 0.10
117
Design Example 2
S (2)
(in.) 0.12 0.42 0.42 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.16 0.30 0.30 0.12 0.43 0.21 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.43 0.10 0.10 0.10
F (lb)
3,485 7,640 7,640 15,280 13,762 13,763 27,525 13,762 13,763 27,525 9,830 9,830 19,660 5,672 5,673 11,345 3,485 4,558 7,978 6,552 6,552 6,552 4,558 36,750 5,221 6,958 5,221 17,400
ki =
F (k/in.) S
k total (k/in.)
29.04
29.04 18.19 18.19 36.38 55.05 55.05 110.1 55.05 55.05 110.1 61.44 61.44 122.8 18.91 18.91 37.82 29.04 10.60 37.99 28.48 28.48 28.48 10.60 144.6 52.21 69.58 52.21 174.0
36.38
110.1
110.1
122.8
37.82 29.04
144.6
174.0
Notes:
1. 2. Deflections and forces are based on strength force levels. s are the design level displacements from Tables 214 and 215.
4.
1630.6
The base shear was distributed to the three levels in Part 2. In this step, the story forces are distributed to the shear walls supporting each level using the rigid diaphragm assumption. See Part 7 for a later confirmation of this assumption. It has been a common engineering practice to assume flexible diaphragms and distribute loads to shear walls based on tributary areas. This has been done for many years and is a wellestablished conventional design assumption. In this design example, the rigid diaphragm assumption will be used. This is not intended to imply that seismic design of wood light frame construction in the past should
118
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 2
have been necessarily performed in this manner. However, recent earthquakes and testing of wood panel shear walls have indicated that drifts can be considerably higher than what was known or assumed in the past. This knowledge of the increased drifts of short wood panel shear walls and the fact that the diaphragms tend to be much more rigid than the shear walls has increased the need for the engineer to consider the relative rigidities of shear walls. The code requires that the story force at the center of mass to be displaced from the calculated center of mass (CM) a distance of 5 percent of the building dimension at that level perpendicular to the direction of force. This is to account for accidental torsion. The code requires the most severe load combination to be considered and also permits the negative torsional shear to be subtracted from the direct load shear. The net effect of this is to add 5 percent accidental eccentricity to the calculated eccentricity. However, lateral forces must be considered to act in each direction of the two principal axis. This design example does not consider eccentricities between the centers of mass between levels. In this design example, these eccentricities are small and are therefore considered insignificant. The engineer must exercise good engineering judgment in determining when those effects need to be considered. The direct shear force Fv is determined from: R R and the torsional shear force Ft is determined from: Fv = F Ft = T where: J = Rd x 2 + Rd y 2 R = shear wall rigidity
d = distance from the lateral resisting element (e.g., shear wall) to the center of rigidity (CR)
Rd J
119
Design Example 2
4a. 4a
yr =
k xx y k xx
or y r k xx = k xx y
Using the rigidity values k from Table 27 and the distance y from line H to the shear wall: y r (20.43 + 39.24 + 113.1 + 113.1 + 115.4 + 38.84 + 20.42 ) = 20.43(116 ) + 39.24(106) + 113.1(82.0) + 113.1(50.0 ) + 115.4(26.0) + 38.84(10.0 ) + 20.42(0) Distance to calculated CR y r = 24,847.3 = 53.9 ft 460.53
The building is symmetrical about the xaxis (Figure 26) and the center of mass is determined as: ym = 116.0 = 58.0 ft 2
The minimum 5 percent accidental eccentricity for eastwest forces, e y , is computed from the length of the structure perpendicular to the applied story force. e y = (0.05 116 ft ) = 5.8 ft The new y m to the displaced CM = 58.0 ft 5.8 ft = 63.8 ft or 52.2 ft The total eccentricity is the distance between the displaced center of mass and the center of rigidity y r = 53.9 ft e y = 63.8 53.9 = 9.9 ft or 52.2 53.9 = 1.7 f t Note that displacing the center of mass 5 percent can result in the CM being on either side of the CR and can produce added torsional shears to all walls.
120
Design Example 2
Note that the 5 percent may not be conservative. The contentstostructure weight ratio can be higher in wood framing than in heavier types of construction. Also, the location of the calculated center of rigidity is less reliable than in other structural systems. Use engineering judgment when selecting the eccentricity e .
Forces in the northsouth (y) direction: The building is symmetrical about the yaxis (Figure 26). Therefore, the distance to the CM and CR is: xm = 48.0 = 24.0 ft 2
e' x = (0.05)(48 ft ) = 2.4 ft Because, the CM and CR locations coincide, e x = e' x e x = 2.4 ft or 2.4 ft
121
Design Example 2
Figure 26. Center of rigidity and location of displaced centers of mass for second and third floor diaphragms
122
Design Example 2
4b. 4b
The total shears on the walls at the roof level are the direct shears Fv and the shears due to torsion (combined actual torsion and accidental torsion), Ft . Torsion on the roof diaphragm is computed as follows: Tx = Fe y = 44,500 lb(9.9 ft ) = 440,550 ft  lb for walls A, B, and C or Tx = 44,500 lb(1.7 ft ) = 75,650 ft  lb for walls E, F, G, and H T y = Fe x = 44,500 lb(2.4 ft ) = 106,800 ft  lb Since the building is symmetrical for forces in the northsouth direction, the torsional forces can be subtracted for those walls located on the opposite side from the displaced center of mass. The critical force will then be used for the design of these walls. Table 217 summarizes the spreadsheet for determining combined forces on the roof level walls.
4c. 4c
Determine the center of rigidity, center of mass, and eccentricities for the third and second floor diaphragms.
Since the walls stack with uniform nailing, it can be assumed that the center of rigidity for the third floor and the second floor diaphragms will coincide with the center of rigidity of the roof diaphragm. Torsion on the third floor diaphragms F = (44,500 + 42,700) = 87,200 lb Tx = Fe y = 87,200 lb(9.9 ft ) = 863,280 ft  lb for walls A, B, and C or 87,200 lb(1.7 ft ) = 148,240 ft  lb for walls E, F, G, and H T y = Fe x = 87,200 lb(2.4 ft ) = 209,280 ft  lb Results for the third floor are summarized in Table 218.
123
Design Example 2
Torsion on the second floor diaphragms: F = (44,500 + 42,700 + 21,100) = 108,300 lb Tx = Fe y = 108,300 lb(9.9 ft ) = 1,072,170 ft  lb for walls A, B, and C or 108,300 lb(1.7 ft ) = 184,110 ft  lb for walls E, F, G, and H T y = Fe x = 108,300 lb(2.4 ft ) = 259,920 ft  lb Results for the second floor are summarized in Table 219.
4d. 4d
Table 220 summarizes wall forces determined under the separate flexible and rigid diaphragm analysis. Since nailing requirements were established in the flexible diaphragm analysis of Part 2, they must be checked for results of the rigid diaphragm analysis and adjusted if necessary (also given in Table 220).
Table 217. Distribution of forces to shear walls below the roof level
Wall A B C E F G H
Rx
20.43 39.24 113.10 113.10 115.40 38.84 20.42 460.53
Ry
dx
dy
62.1 52.1 28.1 3.9 27.9 43.9 53.9
Rd
1,269 2,044 3,178 441 3,220 1,705 1,101 3,036 3,036
Rd 2
78,786 106,513 89,305 1,720 89,829 74,853 59,324 500,330 72,864 72,864 145,728 646,058
Direct Force
Torsional Force
Total Force
Fv
1,970 3,791 10,932 10,932 11,153 3,752 1,970 44,500 22,250 22,250 44,500
Ft
+865 +1394 +2167 +52 +377 +200 +129 +502 502
Fv + Ft
EastWest
NorthSouth 1 4
24.0 24.0
124
Design Example 2
Table 218. Distribution of forces to shear walls below the third floor level
Wall A B C E F G H EastWest
Rx
21.58 39.68 110.8 110.8 121.7 41.52 21.58 467.66
Ry
dx
dy
62.1 52.1 28.1 3.9 27.9 43.9 53.9
Rd
1,340 2,067 3,113 432 3,395 1,823 1,163 3,490 340 340 3,490
Rd 2
83,221 107,708 87,489 1,685 94,732 80,018 62,694 517,547 83,750 849 849 83,750 169,198 686,745
Direct Force Fv 4,024 7,399 20,660 20,660 22,692 7,741 4,024 87,200 22,544 21,056 21,056 22,544 87,200
Torsional Force
Total Force
Ft
1,685 2,559 3,914 93 733 393 251 1,064 259 259 1,064
Fv + Ft
5,709 9,998 24,574 20,693 23,425 8,134 4,275 23,608 21,315 20,797 21,480
NorthSouth 1 2 3 4
Table 219. Distribution of forces to shear walls below second floor level
Wall A B C E F G H
Rx
29.04 36.38 110.1 110.1 122.8 37.82 29.04 475.28
Ry
dx
dy
62.1 52.1 28.1 3.9 27.9 43.9 53.9
Rd
1,803 1,911 3,094 429 3,426 1,660 1,565 3470 435 435 3470
Rd 2
111,990 98,750 86,936 1,675 95,589 72,887 84,367 552,194 83,290 1,088 1,088 83,290 168,756 720,950
Direct Force Fv 6,617 8,290 25,088 25,088 27,982 8,618 6,617 108,300 24,576 29,574 29,574 24,576 108,300
Torsional Force
Total Force
Ft
2,682 2,843 4,602 109 875 424 400 1,251 157 157 1,251
Fv + Ft
9,299 11,133 29,690 25,197 28,857 9,042 7,017 25,827 29,731 29,417 23,325
EastWest
NorthSouth 1 2 3 4
125
Design Example 2
Table 220. Comparison of loads on shear walls using flexible versus rigid diaphragm analysis and recheck of nailing in walls
Wall
F flexible
(lb) 1,430 6,280 11,310 11,310 8,080 4,660 1,430 22,250 22,250 2,805 12,305 22,160 22,160 15,830 9,135 2,805 31,955 11,645 11,645 31,955 3,485 15,280 27,525 27,525 19,660 11,345 3,485 36,750 17,400 17,400 36,750
Frigid
(lb) 2,835 5,185 13,099 10,984 11,530 3,952 2,099 22,752 22,752(3) 5,709 9,998 24,574 20,693 23,425 8,134 4,275 23,608 21,315 21,315(3) 23,608(3) 9,299 11,133 29,690 25,197 28,857 9,042 7,017 25,827 29,731 29,731(3) 25,827(3)
b
(ft) Roof Level 12.5 22.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 22.0 12.5 64.5 64.5 Third Floor 12.5 22.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 22.0 12.5 64.5 60.0 60.0 64.5 Second Floor 12.5 22.0 43.0 43.0 43.0 22.0 12.5 64.5 60.0 60.0 64.5
v=
Fmax (b )1.4
(plf)
Plywood 1 or 2 sides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Allowable Shear (plf) (1)(2) 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 340 510 510 510 510 510 340 510 340 340 510 510 665 665 665 665 665 510 510 340 340 510
A B C E F G H 1 4 A B C E F G H 1 2 3 4 A B C E F G H 1 2 3 4
+98% 17% +15% 3% +43% 15% +46% +2% +2% +103% 18% +11% 7% +48% 11% +52% 26% +83% +83% 26% +167% 27% +7% 9% +47% 20% +100% 30% +70% +70% 30%
165 205 220 190 195 155 120 255 255 330 400 415 370 390 300 245 355 255 255 355 535 500 495 460 480 370 400 410 355 355 410
Notes:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Allowable shears from UBC Table 23III1 Shear walls with shears that exceeds 350 pounds per lineal foot will require 3 framing at abutting panel edges with staggered nails. See also notes at bottom of Table 13. Designates the force used was the higher force for the same wall at the opposite side of the structure. The shear of 535 plf exceeds allowable of 510 plf therefore the nail spacing will need to be decreased to 3 inch spacing. A redesign will not be necessary. The shear of 355 plf exceeds allowable of 340 plf, therefore the nail spacing will need to be decreased to 4inch spacing. A redesign will not be necessary.
126
Design Example 2
Where forces from rigid diaphragm analysis are higher than those from the flexible diaphragm analysis, wall stability and anchorage must be reevaluated. However, engineering judgment may be used to determine if a complete rigid diaphragm analysis should be repeated due to changes in wall rigidity. If rigid diaphragm loads are used, the diaphragm shears should be rechecked for total load divided by diaphragm length along the individual wall lines.
5.
1630.1.1
The reliability/redundancy factor penalizes lateral force resisting systems that do not have adequate redundancy. In Part 1 of this example, the reliability/redundancy factor was previously assumed to be = 1.0 . This will now be checked. = 2 20 rmax AB (303)
where: rmax = the maximum elementstory shear ratio. For shear walls, the ratio for the wall with the largest shear per foot at or below twothirds the height of the building is calculated. Or in the case of a threestory building, the ground level and the second level are calculated (see the SEAOC Blue Book Commentary C105.1.1.1). The total lateral load in the wall is multiplied by 10 l w and divided by the story shear. l w = length of wall in feet AB = the ground floor area of the structure in square feet ri = Vmax (10 l w ) F
AB = 5,288 sq ft
127
Design Example 2
(9,299)(10 12.5)
108,300 20 0.068 5,288
= 0.068
= 2
o.k.
For northsouth direction: Using strengthlevel forces for walls 1 and 4: Load to wall: 36,750 11.5 64.5 = 6,552 lb ri =
= 0.053
Note that this is the same as using the whole wall. rmax =
(36,750)(10 64.5)
108,300 20 0.053 5,288
= 0.053
= 2
o.k.
= 1.0 Therefore, for both directions there is no increase in base shear required due to lack of reliability/redundancy.
128
Design Example 2
= 0.065
= 2
For northsouth direction: Using strengthlevel forces for walls 1 and 4: rmax =
(31,955)(10 64.5)
87,200 20 0.057 5,288
= 0.057
= 2
o.k.
= 1.0 Therefore, there is no increase in base shear due to lack of reliability/redundancy. The SEAOC Seismology Committee added the sentence The value of the ratio of 10/lw need not be taken as greater than 1.0 in the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book which will not penalize longer walls, but in this design example has no effect.
129
Design Example 2
6.
While SEAOC is not encouraging the use of conventional construction methods, this step is included because conventional construction is allowed by the UBC (however, it is often misused) and can lead to poor performing structures. The structure must be checked against the individual requirements of 2320, and because it is in Seismic Zone 4, it must also be checked against 2320.5.2. Results of these checks are shown below.
6a. 6a
1230.5.2
The dead load weight of the floor exceeds the limit of 20 psf limit, and therefore the structure requires an engineering design for vertical and lateral forces.
6b. 6b
2320.5.2
The spacing of braced wall lines exceeds 25 feet on center, and therefore the entire lateral system requires an engineering design. Therefore, the hotel structure requires an engineering design for both vertical and lateral loads. If all walls were drywall and the floor weight was less than 20 psf, then use of conventional construction provisions would be permitted by the UBC. However, conventional construction is not recommended for this type of structure.
7.
This step is shown only as a reference for how to calculate horizontal diaphragm deflections. Since the shear wall forces were determined using both flexible and rigid diaphragm assumptions, there is no requirement to verify that the diaphragm is actually rigid or flexible. The roof diaphragm has been selected to illustrate the methodology. The design seismic force in the roof diaphragm using Eq (331) must first be determined. The design seismic force is then divided by the diaphragm area to determine the horizontal loading in pounds per square foot. These values are used for determining diaphragm shears (and also collector forces). The design seismic force shall not be less than 0.5C a IW px nor greater than 1.0C a IW px .
130
Design Example 2
7a. 7a
The roof diaphragm will be checked in two steps. First, the shear in the diaphragm will be determined and compared to allowables. Next, the diaphragm deflection will be calculated. In Part 7b, the diaphragm deflection is used to determine whether the diaphragm is flexible or rigid. Check diaphragm shear: The roof diaphragm consists of 15/32"thick sheathing with 10d @ 6" o/c and panel edges are unblocked. Loading on the segment between C and E, where: v=
Diaphragm span = 32.0 ft Diaphragm depth = 48.0 ft Diaphragm shears are converted to allowable stress design by dividing by 1.4 From Table 23IIH, the allowable shear of 190 plf is based on 15/32inch APArated wood structural panels with unblocked edges and 10d nails spaced at 6 inches on center at boundaries and supported panel edges. APArated wood structural panels may be either plywood or oriented strand board (OSB).
Check diaphragm deflection: The code specifies that the deflection is calculated on a unit load basis. In other words, the diaphragm deflection should be based on the same load as the load used for the lateral resisting elements, not F px total force at the level considered. Since the UBC now requires building drifts to be determined by the load combinations of 1612.2 (see Step 4 for additional comments), strength loads on building diaphragm must be determined. The basic equation to determine seismic forces on a diaphragm is shown below. Ft + Ft
i= x n
F px =
i=x
wi
w px
(331)
131
Design Example 2
For the uppermost level, the above calculation will always produce the same force as computed in Eq (3015). Then divide by the area of the diaphragm to find the equivalent uniform force. f p roof = 44.5 1,000 = 8.41 psf 5,288
In this example, the roof and floor diaphragms spanning between C and E will be used to illustrate the method. The basic code equation to determine the deflection of a diaphragm is shown below. = 5vL3 vL + + 0.188 Le n + 8 EAb 4Gt
( C X )
2b
23.222, Vol. 3
The above equation is based on a uniformly nailed, simple span diaphragm with panel edges blocked and is based on monotonic tests conducted by the American Plywood Association (APA). The equation has four parts. The first part accounts for beam bending, the second accounts for shear deformation, the third accounts for nail slippage/bending, and the last part accounts for chord slippage. The UBC references this in 2315.1. For the purpose of this design example, the diaphragm is assumed to be a simple span supported at C and E (refer to Figure 24). In reality, with continuity, the actual deflection will be less. With nails at 6 inches on center the strength load per nail is 96 1.4(6 12 ) = 67 lb/nail = Vn . Other terms in the deflection equation are: L = 32.0 ft b = 48.0 ft G = 50,000 psi E = 1,700,000 psi A24 chords = 5.25 sq in 2 = 10.50 sq in. Table 232J Vol. 3
132
Design Example 2
Fastener slip/nail deformation values (en ) are obtained as follows: Volume 3 of the UBC uses Table 232K for obtaining nail slip values en , however, its use is somewhat timeconsuming, since interpolation and adjustments are necessary. Footnote 1 in Table 232K requires the nail slip values en be decreased 50 percent for seasoned lumber. This means that the table is based on nails being driven into green lumber and the engineer must use half of these values for nails driven in dry (seasoned) lumber. The values in Table 232K are based on tests conducted by the APA. The 50 percent nail slip reduction for dry lumber is a conservative factor. The actual tested slips with dry lumber were less than 50 percent of the green lumber slips. Values for en can be computed based on fastener slip equations from Table B4 of APA Research Report 138. This will save time, be more accurate, and also enable computations to be made by a computer. Using the values of en from Volume 3 of UBC requires interpolation and is very timeconsuming. For 10d common nails, there are 2 basic equations: When the nails are driven into green lumber: en = (Vn 977 )1.894 When the nails are driven into dry lumber: en = (Vn 769 )3.276 where: Vn is the fastener load in pounds per fastener These values are based on Structural I sheathing and must be increased by 20 percent when the sheathing is not Structural I. Footnote a in UBC Table B4 states Fabricated green/tested dry (seasoned) is very misleading. The values in the table are actually green values, since the lumber is fabricated when green. Again, dont be misled by the word seasoned. en = 1.20(67 769)3.276 = 0.0004 t = 0.298 in. (for CDX or Standard Grade) Assume chordsplice at the midspan of the diaphragm that will be nailed. The allowable loads for fasteners are based on limit state design. In other words, the deformation is set at a limit rather than the strength of the fastener. The deformation limit is 0.05 diameters of the fastener. For a 16d nail, a conservative slippage of 0.01 inch will be used. Table 232H APA Table B4 APA Table B4
133
Design Example 2
This deflection is based on a blocked diaphragm. The UBC does not have a formula for an unblocked diaphragm. The APA is currently working on a simplified formula for unblocked diaphragms. Based on diaphragm deflection test results (performed by the APA), an unblocked diaphragm will deflect between 2 to 2 times that of a blocked diaphragm or can be proportioned to the allowable shears of a blocked diaphragm divided by the unblocked diaphragm. The roof diaphragm is also sloped at 6:12, which is believed to increase the deflection (but this has not been confirmed with tests). This design example has unblocked panel edges for the floor and roof diaphragms, so a conversion factor is necessary. This conversion is for the roof diaphragm. The floors will similarly neglect the stiffening effects of lightweight concrete fill and gluing of sheathing. It is assumed that the unblocked diaphragm will deflect: = 0.08(2.5) = 0.20 in.
7b. 7b
1630.6
In this example, the maximum diaphragm deflection was estimated as 0.20 inches. This assumes a simple span for the diaphragm, and the actual deflection would probably be less. The average story drift is on the order of 0.10 inches at the roof (see Step 3c for the computed deflections of the shear walls). For the diaphragms to be considered flexible, the maximum diaphragm deflection will have to be more than two times the average story drift. This is right at the limit of a definition of a flexible diaphragm. The other diaphragm spans would easily qualify as rigid diaphragms. As defined by the code, the diaphragms in this design example are considered rigid. In reality, some amount of diaphragm deformation will occur, and the true analysis is highly complex and beyond the scope of what is normally done for this type of construction. Diaphragm deflection analysis and testing has been performed on level/flat diaphragms. There has not been any testing of sloped and complicated diaphragms, as found in the typical wood framed structure. Therefore, some engineers perform their design based on the roof diaphragm as flexible and the floor diaphragms as rigid. In using this procedure, the engineer should exercise good engineering judgment in determining if the higher load of the two methodologies is actually required. For example, if the load to two walls by rigidity analysis is found to be 5 percent to line
134
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 2
A and 95 percent to line B, but by flexible analysis it is found to be 50 percent to line A and 50 percent to line B, the engineer should probably design for the larger of the two loads for the individual walls. Note that though the same definition of a flexible diaphragm has been in the UBC since the 1988 edition, it has not been enforced by building officials for Type V construction. The draft of the IBC 2000 has repeated this same definition into Chapter 23 (wood) definitions.
8.
Tiedowns are required to resist the uplift tendency on shear walls caused by overturning moments. In this step, tiedown forces for the threestory shear wall on line C are determined. The design chosen uses continuous tiedowns below the third floor. At the third floor, conventional premanufactured straps are used. Not included in this design example, but it should be noted: the code has two new provisions for onehour wall assembliesFootnotes 17 and 18 of Table 7B in Volume 1. Footnote 17 requires longer fasteners for gypsum sheathing when the sheathing is applied over wood structural panels. Footnote 18 requires values for F ' c to be reduced to 78 percent of allowable in onehour walls.
8a. 8a
The continuous tiedown system is a relatively new method for resisting shear wall overturning. Similar to the many metal connectors used for wood framing connections, most are proprietary and have ICBO approvals. All of the systems have some type of rod and hardware connector system that goes from the foundation to the top of the structure. A common misconception that engineers have with these types of systems is that the elongation of the rod will produce large displacements in the shear walls. Contrary to that perception, these systems are in many instances superior to the onesided bolted tiedowns. Investigations after the Northridge earthquake as well as independent testing of the conventional onesided bolted tiedowns, have concluded that there can be large displacements associated with this type of connection. The large displacements are a result of eccentricity with the boundary element, deflection of the tiedown, wood shrinkage, wood crushing, and oversized holes for the throughbolts. Some of the proprietary systems compensate for shrinkage either by pretensioning of the rod or by a selfratcheting connector device. Shrinkagecompensating devices are desirable in multilevel wood frame construction. These devices will also compensate for other slack in the tiedown system caused by crushing of plates, seating of posts, studs, etc.
135
Design Example 2
8b. 8b
The shear wall on line C is shown on Figure 27. Forces at each story are determined as follows (from Table 220): Froof = 13,099 2 = 6,550 lb Fthird = (24,574 13,099 ) 2 = 5,738 lb Fsecond = (29,690 24,574 ) 2 = 2,558 lb
136
Design Example 2
The distance between the centroid of the boundary forces that represent the overturning moment at each level must be estimated. This is shown below. e e Use
d=
= =
the distance to the center of tiedown rod and boundary studs or collectors studs (Figure 212)
2 2.5 in. + (13 2 ) = 11.5 in. = 0.958 in.
1.0 ft
the distance between centroids of the tiedown and the boundary studs, in feet. (Note that it is also considered acceptable to use the distance from the end of the shear wall to the centroid of the tiedown.) = = 21.5 ft 2(1.0 ft ) = 19.5 ft at second floor for third level (Figure 212) 21.5 ft (2 0.125) = 21.25 ft at third floor for roof level (Figure 211)
d d
The resisting moment M R is determined from the following loads: Wroof = 13.5 psf (2.0 ft ) = 27.0 plf W floor = 25.0 psf (2.0 ft ) = 50.0 plf Wwall = 10.0 plf
M OT (ftlb)
53,775 169,774 309,920
MR (ftlb)
25,216 58,590 91,965
M R 0.9 (1)
(ftlb) 22,694 52,731 82,769
(M OT
Notes:
1. 2. The UBC no longer has the 0.85 DL provision for stability, this has been replaced with the basic load combinations of 1612.3.1. The differential is the load difference between the uplift force at level x and the level above.
137
Design Example 2
9.
Design tiedown connection at the third floor for the shear wall on line C.
Figure 211 illustrates the typical tiedown connection for the shear wall on line C at the third floor. This is the conventional premanufactured strap and is fastened to the framing with nails. The total uplift force at this level is 740 lb. P 1= 740 lb The tiedowns will be designed using allowable stress design. The basic load combinations of 1612.2.1 do not permit stress increases. The alternate basic load combinations of 1612.2.2, however, do permit stress increases. E The Errata to the first printing of the code added 09 D , Eq. (12161), to the 1.4 alternate basic load combinations. This exact same load combination is listed in the basic load combinations. This is confusing to many engineers on this topic, because the basic load combinations are based on duration factors (see 1999 SEAOC Blue Book Commentary, C101.7.3 for further explanation). This design example will use the onethird stress increase of the alternate basic load combination method. With a 16gauge 1.25 in strap and 10d common nails. Allowable load per nail is ZC D = 113(1.33) = 150 lb/nail Number of nails required = 740 150 = 4.9 use 5 With nails at 1.5 inches on center the length of strap required is 2(0.75 in. + 5 1.5 in.) + 6 in. = 22.5 in. use 24inchstrap NDS Table 12.3F 1612.3
10. 10
Design tiedown connection at the second floor for the shear wall on line C.
As previously mentioned, the second floor tiedown will be part of the continuous tiedown system used below the third level. Refer to Figure 212 for illustration of this system and the location of forces P1 , P2 , and P3 . The total uplift force at the second floor is 3,515 lb (Table 221). P1 = P2 = total uplift force from above = 740 lb
138
Design Example 2
P3 = uplift force for the collector studs = differential load/2 = 2,775 lb/2 = 1,388 lb Since the strap from above is only connected to one pair of collector studs, the total uplift force for the outside set of collectors is equal to the uplift force plus the uplift force on the second floor shear wall from the third floor. Taking a freebody diagram of the system, the tension in the tiedown rod is increased due to cantilever action between the centroids of the forces. A downward component is actually applied to the interiormost support stud (Figure 28):
Next, the tension in the tiedown rod between the second floor and the compression bridge is the differential load plus the tension load, as computed above. This will produce the total force P2 on support stud (Figure 29):
Design Example 2
Determine spacing for the flat nailing: Pmax = 2,028 lb The allowable lateral load for a 16d common nail in a 1inch side member is: ZC D = 141(1.33) = 187 lb With 2 rows of 16d nails, the number of nails per row is 2,028 lb 2 187 = 5.4 nails use 6 nails Maximum spacing = 48 in (6 + 1) = 6.8 in. Use 6inch o.c. for the flat nailing Check compression perpendicular to grain for the bridge support studs to compression bridge: Critical at P2 f c max = 2,028 lb (1.5 3.5) = 386 psi < Fc = 625 psi o.k. Check the bearing perpendicular to grain on bearing plate: F = T1 = 4,255 lb f c = 4,255 lb 3.25 5.0 = 262 psi < Fc = 625 psi o.k. NDS Supp. Table 4A NDS Table 12.3B
Check bearing perpendicular to grain on the top plate from the collector studs from below: First floor is framed with 3 4 studs Force at P3 = 1,388 lb f c = P A = 1,388 lb (2.5 3.5) = 160 psi < Fc = 625 psi o.k.
Check shear on 4 8 compression bridge (assume tiedown is at center of wall and not at party wall, see Figure 212): T1 = 4,255 lb
140
Design Example 2
Assuming compression bridge to take all shear: V = T1 4,255 = = 2,130 lb 2 2 2,130 1.5 = 126 psi 3.5 7.25
fV =
For Douglas FirLarch No. 1: FV ' = FV C D = 95 1.33 = 126 psi o.k. Check bending on 4 8 compression bridge: T1 = 4,255 lb T1 L 4,255 (10 + 1.5) = = 12,235 in.  lb 4 4 S x for 4 8 with hole for 5 8" rod = (3.5 0.69)7.25 2 6 = 24.6 in 3 M= fb = M 12,235 = = 497 psi S 24.6
For Douglas Fir Larch No. 1: Fb ' = Fb C D C F = 1,000(1.33)(1.3) = 1,729 psi o.k. Check shear on plates at floor: Tiedown connector reaction is the differential load, which is 3,595 lb. T = 3,595 lb Assuming 2 sill plates and 2 top plates to take all shear: V = T 3,595 = = 1,800 lb 2 2 1,800 1.5 = 130 psi 4(1.5 3.5)
fV =
141
Design Example 2
Since plate have no spits C H = 2.0 (plates rarely check on the edges) FV ' = FV C H C D = 95(2.0 )(1.33) = 252 psi o.k. Therefore, the tiedown connection shown on Figure 212 meets the requirements of code.
Design tiedown connection and anchor bolt spacing for shear wall on line C.
See discussion about fasteners for pressurepreservative treated wood and in Step 19. From Table 220: V = 29,690 lb v= V 29,690 lb = = 690 lb/ft L 43 ft
The 1997 UBC references the 1991 NDS, which specifies in 8.2.3 that the allowable bolt design value, Z , is equal to t m = Z ts = twice the thickness of wood member. The problem is, there arent any tables for 6x to 6x members, leaving only the Z formulas. In lieu of using the complex Z formulas, an easier method would be to use the new tables in the 1997 NDS, which are specifically for ledgers and sill plates. For a side member, thickness = 2.5 inch in HemFir wood (note that designing for HemFir will require a tighter nail and bolt spacing): Z11 = 1,350 lb/bolt Table 8.2E 97 NDS Z C (1,350)(1.33)(1.4 ) = 3.6 ft = 43 in. Required spacing = 11 D = v 690 where 1.4 is the strength conversion factor Use " diameter bolts at 32 inches on center.
142
Design Example 2
11b. 11b
In this calculation, the tiedown anchor will be assumed to occur at the center of the exterior wall. This will produce a lower capacity than if the rod were located at the doubleframed wall shown in Figure 213. From Table 221: T = 7,110 lb T y = 7,110 1.4 1.3 = 13,000 lb where 1.4 is the strength conversion factor and 1.3 is for special inspection per 1923.2. Neglecting the area of bolt head bearing surface, the effective area A p of the projected (Figure 210), assumed concrete failure surface is:
( )
(A p ) = l2e
+ 1.75(l e )2
For l e = 15 in. A p = 406 in. 2 PC = 4 A p f ' c = 0.65 1.0 4 406 3,000 = 57.8 k
PSS = 0.9 0.307 60,000 = 16,580 lb > 13,000 lb (critical) Provide an oversized hole for the tiedown rod in the foundation sill plate. The rod has no nut or washer to the sill plate, therefore, assume V = 0 lb in the rod. Tiedown bolts resist vertical loads only, anchor bolts are designed to resist the lateral loads.
11c. 11c
Assuming all compressive force for overturning will be resisted by end boundary elements, the critical load combination is: E D+ L+ 1.4 (1213)
143
Design Example 2
From Table 221, the strength level overturning moment is: M OT = 309,920 ft  lb The seismic compressive force is obtained by dividing by the distance d. Conversion to allowable stress design is obtained by dividing by 1.4. Pseismic = M OT 309,920 = = 11,350 lb d (1.4) 19.5(1.4 )
16"+8" PDL = [27.0 + 2 (50.0 ) + 10.0(27' )] = 795 lb 12" 16"+8" PLL = (40 psf 2'2 ) = 320 lb 12"
where the area of a 3 4 is 8.75 square inches. Note that if a HemFir sill plate is used the allowable compression perpendicular to grain Fc' = 405 psi . f c < 0.73Fc' = 0.73(405) = 295 psi NDS Supp. Table 4A
Therefore, the assumed crushing effect of 0.02 inches (Table 213) is correct. This crushing will be compensated by the ratcheting effect of the continuous tiedown system as discussed in the notes for Table 24.
144
Design Example 2
145
Design Example 2
12. 12
Detail of tiedown connection at the third floor for shear wall on line C.
Note that since the boundary element is a double stud and the wall panel edge nailing is nailed to the end stud, the 16d at 12 inches o.c. internailing of the two tiedown studs should have the capacity to transfer onehalf the force to the interior stud (Figure 211). These nails may be installed from either side (normally nailed from the outside). See Figure 216 for the location of the top plates and commentary about plate locations.
Figure 211. Tiedown connection at the third floor for shear wall C.
146
Design Example 2
13. 13
Detail of tiedown connection at the second floor for shear wall on line C.
This tiedown rod system (Figure 212) may also be extended to the third floor instead of using the conventional metal strap shown in Figure 211. See Figure 216 for the location of the top plates and commentary about plate locations.
147
Design Example 2
14. 14
The detail shows fullwidth studs at tiedown (Figure 213). This is desirable when sheathing is applied to both stud walls. It is also desirable for bearing perpendicular to grain because the bearing area is doubled. When fullwidth studs are used for bearing, both sill plates will need to be 3x thickness (not as shown in Figure 217). Tiedowns may be located at the center of the stud wall that is also sheathed. It is good practice to tie the wall together. In this case, there is no design requirement or minimum shear wall to shear wall connection requirement other than that required by the UBC standard nailing schedule.
148
Design Example 2
15. 15
The manufacturer of the tiedown system usually requires the engineer of record to specify the tiedown forces at each level of the structure. This can easily be done in a schedule (Figure 214).
149
Design Example 2
16. 16
Note: Edge nailing from roof sheathing to collector truss may need to be closer than the roof sheathing edge nailing due to shears being collected from each side of the truss. It is also common to use a double collector truss at these locations. The 2 4 braces at the top of the shear wall need to be designed for compression or provide tension bracing on each side of the wall (Figure 215).
150
Design Example 2
17. 17
This detail uses the double top plates at the underside of the floor sheathing (Figure 216). This is advantageous for shear transfer. Another detail that is often used is to bear the floor joists directly on the top plates. However, when the floor joist is on top of the top plates, shear transfer is required through the glue joint in the webs and heavy nailing from the joist chord to the top plate.
Note: The nailers for the drywall ceiling need to be installed after the wall sheathing and wall drywall have been installed.
151
Design Example 2
18. 18
19. 19
Sections 2304.3 and 1811.3 of the 1997 UBC added a new requirement for corrosionresistant fasteners. Although it does not appear to be the intent of the provision, a literal interpretation of the section would require hotdipped zinccoated galvanized nails and anchor bolts. The code change was proposed by the wood industry, and 2304.3 is from a report in the wood handbook by the Forest Products Lab, where fasteners were found to react with the preservative treatment when in the presence of moisture. However, it is uncertain whether a sill plate in a finished driedin building is in the presence of moisture. This can create a construction problem because hotdipped zinc coated nails have to be handdriven, requiring the framer to put down his nail gun and change nailing procedures.
152
Design Example 2
An additional caution for sill plates is the type of wood used. The most common species used on the west coast for pressure treatment is HemFir, which has lower fastener values for nails and bolts than for DouglasFirLarch. A tighter nail spacing to the sill plate is necessary, or a double stagger row can be used. Figure 218 shows two rows of edge nailing to the sill plate as a method of compensating for a HemFir sill plate.
Investigations into woodframed construction have found that plywood or oriented strand board sheathing that bear on concrete at perimeter exterior edges can wick moisture up from the concrete and cause corrosion of the fasteners and rotting in the sheathing. To help prevent this problem, the sheathing can be placed with a gap above the concrete surface. A inch gap is recommended for a 3x sill plate and an 1/8inch gap is recommended for a 2x sill plate (Figure 218).
Note: The UBC only requires a minimum edge distance of 3/8inch for nails in sheathing. Tests have shown that sheathing with greater edge distances have performed better.
153
Design Example 2
20. 20
Note: The roof truss directly above the exterior wall is also a collector truss. Roof edge nailing to this truss and the 16d nails to the blocking need to be checked for the collector load. Double top plates are also a chord and collector.
154
Design Example 2
21. 21
Note: This detail uses double top plates at the underside of the floor sheathing. Another detail that is often used is bearing the floor joists on the double top plates. See Figure 216 for additional commentary.
155
Design Example 2
References
American Forest and Paper Association, 1996, Wood Construction Manual. American Forest and Paper Association, Washington D.C. American Plywood Association, 1997, Design/ Construction Guide Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Report 105, Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, 1997, Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, 1993, revised, Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls. Report 154, Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, 1994, Northridge, California Earthquake. Report T945. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, Performance Standards and Policies for Structural Use Panels [Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3]. Standard PRP108. Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, 1988, Plywood Diaphragms, Research Report 138. American Plywood Association, Tacoma, Washington. Applied Technology Council, 1995, Cyclic Testing of Narrow Plywood Shear Walls ATC R1. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. Applied Technology Council, 1981, Guidelines for Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, ATC7. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. Applied Technology Council, 1980, Proceedings of a Workshop on Design of Horizontal Wood Diaphragms, ATC71. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. Building Seismic Safety Council, 1997, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington D.C. Bugni, David A., 1999, A Linear Elastic Dynamic Analysis of a Timber Framed Structure. Building Standards, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California
156
Design Example 2
Cobeen, K.E., 1996, Performance Based Design of Wood Structures. Proceeding: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Coil, J., 1999, Seismic Retrofit of an Existing MultiStory Wood Frame Structure, Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Commins, A. and Gregg, R., 1996, Effect of Hold Downs and StudFrame Systems on the Cyclic Behavior of Wood Shear Walls, Simpson StrongTie Co., Pleasanton, California. Countryman, D., and Col Benson, 1954, 1954 Horizontal Plywood Diaphragm Tests. Laboratory Report 63, Douglas Fir Plywood Association, Tacoma Washington. CUREe, 1999, Proceedings of the Workshop on Seismic Testing, Analysis, and Design of Wood Frame Construction. California University for Research in Earthquake Engineering. Dolan, J.D., 1996, Experimental Results from Cyclic Racking Tests of Wood Shear Walls with Openings. Timber Engineering Report No. TE 1996001. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Dolan, J. D. and Heine , C.P., 1997a, Monotonic Tests of Wood Frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restraint Configurations. Timber Engineering Report No. TE1997001, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Dolan, J.D. and Heine, C.P., 1997b, Sequential Phased Displacement Cyclic Tests of Wood Frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restrain Configurations. Timber Engineering Report No. TE1997002, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Dolan, J.D., and Heine, C.P., 1997c, Sequential Phased Displacement Test of Wood Frame Shear Walls with Corners. Timber Engineering Report No. TE1997003, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1996, Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 11, Supplement C. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California. Faherty, Keith F., and Williamson, Thomas G., 1995, Wood Engineering Construction Handbook. McGraw Hill, Washington D.C.
157
Design Example 2
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998, National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C. Ficcadenti, S.K., T.A. Castle, D.A. Sandercock, and R.K. Kazanjy, 1996, Laboratory Testing to Investigate Pneumatically Driven Box Nails for the Edge Nailing of 3/8" Plywood Shear Walls, Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Foliente, Greg C., 1994, Analysis, Design and Testing of Timber Structures Under Seismic Loads. University of California Forest Products Laboratory, Richmond, California. Foliente, Greg C., 1997, Earthquake Performance and Safety of Timber Structures. Forest Products Society, Madison Wisconsin. Forest Products Laboratory, 1999, Wood Handbook Publication FPL GTR 113. Madison, Wisconsin. Goers R. and Associates, 1976, A Methodology for Seismic Design and Construction of SingleFamily Dwellings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. International Code Council, 1999, International Building Code Final Draft, 2000. International Code Council, Birmingham, Alabama. Ju, S. and Lin, M. ,1999, Comparison of Building Analysis Assuming Rigid or Flexible Floors, Journal of Structural Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C. Mendes, S., 1987, Rigid versus Flexible: Inappropriate Assumptions Can Cause Shear Wall Failures! Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Mendes, S., 1995, Lessons Learned From Four Earthquake Damaged MultiStory Type V Structures, Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. NFPA, 1991a, National Design Specification for Wood Construction. National Forest Products Association, Washington D.C. NFPA, 1997b, National Design Specification for Wood Construction. Natural Forest Products Association, Washington D.C.
158
Design Example 2
Rose, J. D., 1998, Preliminary Testing of Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls Under Cyclic (Reversed) Loading. Research Report 158, APA Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. Rose, J. .D., and E.L. Keith, P. E., 1996, Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls with Gypsum Wallboard and Window [ Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3 ]. Research Report 158. APA  The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma Washington. SEAOC, 1997, Seismic Detailing Examples for Engineered Light Frame Timber Construction. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. SEAOC, 1999, Guidelines for Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. SEAOC, 1999, Plan Review Codes and Practice. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Shipp, J., 1992, Timber Design. Volumes IV and V. Professional Engineering Development Publications, Inc., Huntington Beach, California. Steinbrugge, J., 1994, Standard of Care in Structural Engineering Wood Frame Multiple Housing, Proceedings: Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.
159
Design Example 2
160
Design Example 3
Foreword
The building in this example has coldformed lightgauge steel framing, and shear walls and diaphragms that are sheathed with wood structural panels. This example presents a new approach to the seismic design of this type of building. This is because the past and present California design practice in seismic design of light framed structures has almost exclusively considered flexible diaphragms assumptions when determining shear distribution to shear walls. However, since the 1988 UBC, there has been a definition in the code (1630.6 of the 1997 UBC) that defines diaphragm flexibility. The application of this definition often requires the use of the rigid diaphragm assumption, and calculation of shear wall rigidities for distribution to shear walls. While the latter is rigorous and complies with the letter of the code, it does not reflect presentday practice. In actual practice, for reasons of simplicity and precedence, many structural engineers routinely use the flexible diaphragm assumption.
161
Design Example 3
A rigid diaphragm analysis is recommended where the shear walls can be judged by observation to be flexible compared to the diaphragm, and particularly where one or more lines of either shear walls, moment frames, or cantilever columns are more flexible than the rest of the shear walls. This design example has floor diaphragms with lightweight concrete fill over the floor sheathing (for sound insulation), making the diaphragms significantly stiffer than that determined using the standard UBC diaphragm deflection equations. Before beginning design, users of this Manual should check with the local jurisdiction regarding the level of analysis required for coldformed light framed structures.
Overview
This design example illustrates the seismic design of a threestory coldformed (i.e., lightgauge) steel structure. The structure is shown in Figures 32, 33 and 34. The building in this example is the same as in Design Example 2, with the exception that lightgauge metal framing is used in lieu of wood. The structure has wood structural panel shear walls, and roof and floor diaphragms. The roofs have composite shingles over the wood panel sheathing that is supported by lightgauge metal trusses. The floors have 1 inches of lightweight concrete fill and are framed with metal joists. The following steps illustrate a detailed analysis of some of the important seismic requirements of the 1997 UBC. As stated in the introduction of the manual, this example is not a complete building design. Many aspects have not been included, and only selected steps of the seismic design have been illustrated. As is common for Type V construction (see UBC 606), a complete wind design is also necessary, but is not given here. Although code requirements recognize only two diaphragm categories, flexible and rigid, the diaphragms in this example are judged to be semirigid due to the fact that the diaphragms do deflect. The code also requires only one type of analysis, flexible or rigid. The analysis in this design example will use the envelope method. The envelope method considers the worst loading condition from both flexible and rigid diaphragm analyses to determine the design load on each shearresisting element. It should be noted that the envelope method is not a code requirement, but is deemed appropriate for this design example, because neither flexible nor rigid diaphragm analysis may accurately model the structure.
162
Design Example 3
Outline
This example will illustrate the following parts of the design process.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 10 11. 11 12. 12 Design base shear and vertical distributions of seismic forces. Rigidities of shear walls. Distribution of lateral forces to the shear walls. Reliability/redundancy factor . Tiedown forces for shear wall on line C. Allowable shear and nominal strength of No. 10 screws. Tiedown connection at third floor for wall on line C. Tiedown connection at the second floor for shear wall on line C. Boundary studs for first floor wall on line C. Shear transfer at second floor on line C. Shear transfer at foundation for walls on line C. Shear transfer at roof at line C.
Given Information
Roof weights ( slope 6:12 ): Roofing 3.5 psf " sheathing 1.5 Trusses 3.5 Insulation 1.5 Miscellaneous 0.7 Gyp ceiling 2.8 DL (along slope ) 13.5 psf Floor weights: Flooring Lt. wt. concrete 5/8" sheathing Floor Framing Miscellaneous Gyp ceiling 1.0 psf 14.0 1.8 5.0 0.4 2.8 25.0 psf
DL (horiz. proj.) = 13.5 (3.41/12) = 15.1 psf Stair landings do not have lightweight concrete fill Area of floor plan is 5,288 sq ft
163
Design Example 3
Weights of respective diaphragm levels, including tributary exterior and interior walls: Wroof = 135,000 lb W3rd floor = 230,000 lb W2 nd floor = 230,000 lb = 595,000 lb The same roof, floor, and wall weights used in Design Example 2 are also used in this example. This has been done to better illustrate a sidebyside comparison of coldformed lightgauge steel construction with the more traditional wood frame construction used in Design Example 2. This sidebyside comparison has been done so that the engineer can have a better feel for the similarities and differences between structures with wood studs and structures with coldformed metal studs. It should be noted that roof, floor, and wall weights for lightgauge steel framed structures are typically lighter than similar structures constructed of wood framing. Because of lightgauge steel framed structures being lighter, a more accurate estimate of building weight for this structure would be about 560 kips instead of the 595 kips used in this example. Consequently, wall shears and overturning forces would be reduced accordingly. Weights of diaphragms are typically determined by taking onehalf height of walls at the third floor to the roof and full height of walls for the third and second floors diaphragms. Wall framing is ASTM A653, grade 33'4" 18gauge metal studs at 16 inches on center. These have a 15/8inch flange with a 3/8inch return lip. The ratio of tensile strength to yield point is at least 1.08. Studs are painted with primer. ASTM A653 steel is one of three ASTM steel specifications used in light frame steel construction. The others are A792 and A875. The difference between the specifications are primarily the coatings which are galvanized, 55 percent aluminumzinc (A792), and zinc5 percent aluminum (A875) respectively. The recommended minimum coating classifications are G60, AZ50 and GF60 respectively. It should be noted that the studs do not require painting with primer. It should be noted that the changing stud sizes or thickness of studs at various story heights is common (as is done in wood construction). The thickness of studs and tracks should be identified by visible means such as coloring or metal stamping of gauges/sizes on studs and tracks. APArated wood structural panels for shear walls will be 15/32inchthick Structural I, 32/16span rating, 5ply with Exposure I glue is specified, however 4ply is also acceptable.
164
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 3
Framing screws are No. 8 by 5/8inch wafer head selfdrilling with a minimum head diameter of 0.292inch, as required by footnote 2 of Table 22VIIIC of the UBC. The roof is 15/32inch thick APArated sheathing, 32/16span rating with Exposure I glue. The floor is 19/32inch thick APArated SturdIFloor 24" o/c rating (or APArated sheathing, 48/24span rating) with Exposure I glue. Seismic and site data: Z = 0.4 (Zone 4) I = 1.0 (standard occupancy) Seismic source type = B Distance to seismic source = 12 km Soil profile type = S C S C has been determined by geotechnical investigation. Without a geotechnical investigation, S D can be used as a default value.
165
Design Example 3
166
Design Example 3
Note: Shear walls on lines 2 and 3 do not extend from the third floor to the roof.
167
Design Example 3
168
Design Example 3
Stud thickness.
Section 2220.3 of Division VIII states that the uncoated base metal thickness for the studs used with wood structural panels shall not be greater than 0.043inch. Since an 18gauge stud has 0.0451inch thickness, this implies that the heaviest gauge studs that can be used are 20gauge studs, which can not support a significant bearing or outofplane loading. At the time the code change proposal by AISI was submitted to ICBO for inclusion in the 1997 UBC, testing had been performed on only 33 mil (0.033inch) studs. The SEAOC Seismology Committee felt, and AISI agreed, that there should be a cap on the maximum thickness permitted until testing could be performed on thicker studs. It was felt at the time that limiting the system to 20 and 18gauge studs would be acceptable for attaching sheathing with #8 screws. Since the UBC is no longer referencing gauge, the 0.043inch thickness was intended to be a nominal thickness. Subsequent to the code change proposal, AISI has modified this limitation by taking the average thickness between the old 18 and 16gauges and placed a limitation of 0.043inch in the AISI code. The 0.043inch thickness represents 95 percent of the design thickness and is the minimum acceptable thickness delivered to the job site for 18gauge material based on Section A3.4 of the 1996 AISI Code. Thus, 18gauge studs can be used, and are used in this example (Table 31). The industry has gone away from the use of the gauge designation and is, for the purposes of framing applications, switching to a mil (thousandths of an inch)
169
Design Example 3
designation. In the future, studs, joists, and track will have their thickness expressed in mils.
Table 31. Stud thicknesses Mils Min. Delivered Thickness 33 0.033 inch 43 0.043 inch 54 0.054 inch
Gauge Reference 20 18 16
The reason for the limitation on maximum stud thickness of 43 mils (18gauge) is for ductility. At the time of this publication (March 2000), the cyclic tests to date of wood structural panels fastened to 16 and 14gauge studs with screws have shown nonductile (brittle) failures with the screws shearing off at the face of the stud flange. Cyclic tests for the 20 and 18gauge studs resulted in ductile behavior with the screw fasteners rocking (tilting) about the plane of the stud flange. Tests are still being conducted by AISI and other organizations on wall systems using the thicker 16 and 14gauge studs in an attempt to come up with a fastening system that will be ductile. The failure mode of the tests with 33mil studs for screw spacings of 3 inches and 2 inches on center was end stud compression failure. Subsequent to the code change proposal included in the 1997 UBC, the assemblies have been retested using 43 mil end studs, and higher capacities have been proposed for such assemblies. The values in Table 22VIIIC are for seismic forces and are nominal shear values. Values are to be modified for both allowable stress design (ASD) and load and resistance factor design (LRFD or strength design). For ASD, the allowable shear values are determined by dividing the nominal shear values by a factor of safety () of 2.5. For LRFD the design shear values are determined by multiplying the nominal shear values by a resistance factor () of 0.55. Comparing the difference to the two designs: 2.5(0.55)=1.375. In other words, design shears for LRFD (or strength design) are 1.375 times higher than shears for ASD or working stress design. This is consistent with the ASD conversion factor of 1.4 in 1612.3. The values in Table 22VIIIC for 15/32inch Structural I sheathing using No. 8 screws are almost identical to the values for the same sheathing applied to Douglas Fir with 8d common nails at the same spacing.
Screw type.
Footnote 2 of UBC Table 22VIIIC requires the framing screws to be selfdrilling. The reason for the selfdrilling screws (or drill point screws) is to be able to penetrate 43mil steel and thicker steel. Selfpiercing screws can also be used in
170
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 3
33mil steel, but with some difficulty. Both selfdrilling and selfpiercing screws have performed equally well in the shear tests. There is a significant concern in screw installation when there is a gap between the stud flange and the sheathing after installation (e.g., jacking). When jacking occurs, the stiffness of the shear wall is significantly reduced. The drill point alone will not prevent jacking. Jacking occurs when the drill point spins for a rotation or two before the drill point pierces the metal. Only a blank shaft (i.e. smooth with no threads) for the depth of the sheathing will remove the jacking created by the drill point spin prior to piercing. A detailed drawing or explicit specifications should be included in the design drawings and should specify that the distance from the screw head to the beginning of the thread portion be equal to or less than the thickness of the plywood or OSB (oriented strand board). The unused portion of the screw protruding from the connection of sheathing and metal stud can be used as a simple inspection gauge to see if jacking has occurred.
Material strength.
Common practice is for material 16gauge and heavier to have a yield strength of 50,000 psi; for 18gauge and lighter, 33,000 psi. This practice holds true for studs and track, but not for manufactured hardware (straps, clips and tiedown devices).
The structural design in this design example utilizes premanufactured roof trusses to transfer the lateral forces from the roof diaphragm to the tops of the interior shear walls. Special considerations need to be included in the design and detailed on the plans for this including: 1. 2. Provision that any trusses used as collectors (i.e., drag struts) should be clearly indicated on the structural framing plan. The magnitude of the forces, the means by which the forces are applied to the trusses, and how the forces are transferred from the trusses to the shear walls should be shown. If the roof sheathing at the hip ends breaks above the joint between the end jack trusses and the supporting girder truss, the lateral forces to be resisted by the end jacks should be specified so that an appropriate connection can be provided to resist these forces. The drawings should also specify the load combinations and whether or not a stress increase is permitted. If ridge vents are being used, special detailing for shear transfers need to be indicated in the details.
3.
4. 5.
171
Design Example 3
The structure for this design example has double framed walls for party walls, exterior plantedon box columns (popouts). The designer should not consider these walls as shear walls unless special detailing and analysis is provided to substantiate that there is a viable lateral force path to that wall and the wall is adequately braced.
The code uses the 1986 version of AISC Specification for Design of ColdFormed Steel Structural Members as an adopted Standard by reference (UBC 2217). Section 2218 amends the 1986 manual. These for the most part are from the 1996 version of the manual. Some sections of the 1996 sections have been used for the solution of this design example.
Code Reference
1. 1a. 1a
1630.2.2
Period using Method A (See Figure 35 for section through structure): T = Ct (hn )3 / 4 = .020(33.63)3 / 4 = 0.28 sec With seismic source type B and distance to source = 12 km N a = 1.0 N v = 1.0 Table 16S Table 16T (308)
172
Design Example 3
For soil profile type S C and Z = 0.4 C a = 0.40 N a = 0.40(1.0 ) = 0.40 C v = 0.56 N v = 0.56(1.0 ) = 0.56 Since the stud walls are both wood structural panel shear walls and bearing walls: R = 5.5 Design base shear is: V = Cv I 0.56(1.0 ) W = 0.364W W = 5.5(0.28) RT (304) Table 16N Table 16Q Table 16R
173
Design Example 3
Note that design base shear is now on a strength design basis, but need not exceed: V= 2.5C a I 2.5 (0.40 )(1.0) W= W = 0.182W R 5.5 (305)
V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11 (0.40 )(1.0)W = 0.044W < 0.182W Check Equation 307: V= 0.8ZN v I 0.8 0.4 1.0 1.0 W= W = 0.058W < 0.182W R 5.5
V = 0.182W V = 0.182 (595,000 lbs ) = 108,290 lb In this Design Example, the designer may choose either allowable stress design or strength design. In Design Example 2, however, allowable strength design must be used. It is desirable to use the strength level forces throughout the design of the structure for two reasons: 1. Errors in calculations can occur and confusion on which load is being used, strength or allowable stress design. This Design Example uses the following format: Vbase shear = strength F px = strength Fx = forcetowall strength v = wall shear at element level  ASD F v = x = ASD 1.4b 2. This design example is not paving the way for the future, when the code will be all strength design. E = E h + E v = 1.0 E h + 0 = 1.0 E h
1612.3.1
(301)
174
Design Example 3
where: E v is permitted to be taken as zero for allowable stress design and initially will be assumed to be 1.0, and in most cases = 1.0 for Type V construction with interior shear walls. Since the maximum element story shear is not yet known, the assumed value for will have to be verified. This is done later in Part 4. The basic load combination for allowable stress design for horizontal forces is: D+ E E E = 0+ = 1.4 1.4 1.4 (129)
1b. 1b
(V Ft )wx hx
wi hi
i =1
(3015)
Where h x is the average height at level i of the sheathed diaphragm in feet above the base. Since T = 0.28 seconds < 0.7 seconds, Ft = 0 Determination of F px is shown in Table 32.
175
Design Example 3
w x (k)
135 230 230 595
h x (ft)
33.6 18.9 9.4
wx hx
(kft) 4,536 4,347 2,162 11,045
w x hx (%) wi hi
41.1 39.4 19.5
F px (k)
44.5 42.7 21.1 108.3
F px wx
0.330 0.186 0.092
Ftot
(k) 44.5 87.2 108.3
Note: Although not shown here, designers must also check wind loading. In this example, wind load may control the design in the eastwest direction.
2. 2a. 2a
At the time of this publication, there is not a UBC formula, nor any accepted guideline, for determining the deflection for a diaphragm or shear wall framed with metal studs and structural wood panels. This does not mean that the deflections, drifts, and shear wall rigidities need not be considered (though some engineers may argue otherwise). The formula in UBC Standard 23.223, Vol. 3, can be used with somewhat reasonable results. Given below is a comparison of results from shear panel tests conducted by the Lightgauge Steel Research Group and those determined using the UBC formula. For an 8 ft 8 ft test panel with 15/32inch APArated sheathing and #8 screw fasteners at 6inch spacing to 3inch x 20gauge studs and 485 pounds per foot shear, the measured deflection was 0.5 inch. In this Design Example 3, 4inch 18gauge studs are used. Tests have indicated that measured deflections are partially dependent on the stiffness of the studs used. The shear panel test results should not be compared to the nominal shear values from UBC Table 22VIIIC. Using this table would give an allowable shear of 780 2.5 = 312 plf . This panel test is used only to show the relationship of the measured deflection with results using the UBC formula. Deflection using the formula of UBC standard 23.223, Vol. 3 is shown below: = 8vh 3 vh h + + 0.75hen + d a = 0.40 in. 0.50 in. as tested EAb Gt b 23.223, Vol. 3
176
Design Example 3
where: v = 485 plf h = 8 ft E = 29 10 6 psi A = 0.250 in.2 for 3 1 2  inch 20 gauge stud G = 90,000 psi t = 0 . 298 in. Vn = load per screw = (485)6 12 = 242 lb/screw en = 1.2(242 769 )3.276 = 0.0272 in. b = 8 ft d a = 0.0625 in (assumed at 1 16 in.) Table 232J, Vol. 3 Table 232H, Vol. 3
2b. 2b
In this Design Example 3, shear wall rigidities (k) are computed using the basic stiffness equation.
F = k
or k= F
To simplify the calculations compared to the more rigorous approach used in Design Example 2, this example uses wall rigidities based on the chart in Figure 36. This chart is based on the shear wall deflection equation given in UBC Standard 23.223. It should be noted that Design Example 2 considered wood shrinkage and tiedown displacements. With metal framing, shrinkage is zero. This Design Example also assumes a fixed base and pinned top for all shear walls. The chart in Figure 36 uses a tiedown displacement (e.g., elongation) of 1/8 inch, which is based on judgment and considered appropriate for this structure. Actual determinations of shear wall rigidities at the roof, third floor, and second floor are shown in Figures 33, 34, and 35, respectively.
177
Design Example 3
80.0 K = stiffness = F/d = (Vb )/d 70.0 d = deflection =(8vh 3)/(EAb ) +(vh )/(Gt ) + 0.75he n + d a [A1] h = 8 ft Where: E = modulus of elasticity = 1.8x106 psi G = shear modulus = 90x103 psi h = wall height (ft) b = wall depth (ft) t = plywood thickness = 15/32 in. A = area of end post = 12.25 in.2 v = shear/foot d a = slip at hold down = 1/8 in. e n = nail deformation slip (in.) F = applied force = Vb (kips)
60.0
Stiffness K (kips/in.)
50.0
[A2] h = 10
40.0
[C2] h = 10 ft [D1] h = 8 ft [D2] h = 10 [A] [B] [C] [D] edge nail spacing at 2 o.c. edge nail spacing at 3 o.c. edge nail spacing at 4 o.c. edge nail spacing at 6 o.c. (v=870 plf, (v=665 plf, (v=510 plf, (v=340 plf, e n =0.024) e n =0.033) e n =0.033) e n =0.033)
30.0
20.0
10.0
178
Design Example 3
Table 33. Shear wall rigidities at roof level Wall Depth Edge Fastener k (From Fig. 3 Wall Spacing (in.) b (ft) 6) (k/in.)
A B1 B2 B C1 C2 C E1 E2 E F1 F2 F G1 G2 G H 1a, 4a 1b, 4b 1c, 4c 1d, 4d 1e, 4e 1f, 4f 1, 4 12.5 11.0 11.0 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 21.5 11.0 11.0 12.5 8.0 14.0 11.5 11.5 11.5 8.0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 8.0 7.5 7.5 15.0 15.0 15.0 30.0 15.0 15.0 30.0 15.0 15.0 30.0 7.5 7.5 15.0 8.0 6.0 10.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 6.0 46.0
k total
(k/in.) 8.0 15.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 8.0 46.0
179
Design Example 3
b (ft)
k total (k/in.)
8.0 20.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 20.0 8.0 56.0 39.0
180
Design Example 3
k total (k/in.)
8.0 22.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 22.0 8.0 56.0 39.0
2c. 2c
1630.9.1
For both strength and allowable stress design, the UBC now requires building drifts to be determined by the load combinations of 1612.2, these being the load combinations that use strength design, or LRFD. An errata for the second and third printing of the UBC unexplainably referenced 1612.3 for allowable stress design. The reference to 1612.3 (Allowable Stress Design) is incorrect and will be changed back to reference 1612.2 (Strength Design) in the fourth and later printings. Shear wall displacements for a structures of this type (generally) are well below the maximum allowed by code and the computation of these displacements is
181
Design Example 3
considered not necessary. Refer to Design Example 2 for an illustration of this procedure.
3.
1630.6
In this part, story shears are distributed to shear walls with the diaphragms assumed to be rigid. (Refer to Design Example 2 for a code confirmation of the applicability of this assumption). It has been common practice for engineers to assume flexible diaphragms and distribute loads to shear walls based upon tributary areas. The procedures used in this Design Example 3 are not intended to imply that seismic design of light frame construction in the past should have been performed in this manner. Recent earthquakes and testing of wood panel shear walls have indicated that drifts can be considerably higher than what was known or assumed in the past. Knowledge of the increased drifts of short wood panel shear walls has increased the need for the engineer to consider relative rigidities of shear walls. Section 1630.6 requires the center of mass (CM) to be displaced from the calculated center of mass a distance of 5 percent of the building dimension at that level perpendicular to the direction of force. Section 1630.7 requires the most severe load combination to be considered and also permits the negative torsional shear to be subtracted from the direct load shear. The net effect of this is to add 5 percent accidental eccentricity to the actual eccentricity. The direct shear force Fvi in wall i is determined from: Fvi = F R R
and the torsional shear force Fti in wall i is determined from: Fti = T Ri d i J
where: i = wall number J = Rd x 2 + Rd y 2 R = shear wall rigidity d = distance from the lateral resisting element (e.g., shear wall) to the center of rigidity (CR). T = Fe F = story shear e = eccentricity
182
Design Example 3
3a. 3a
k xx y k xx
or
y r = k xx = k xx y
Using the rigidity values k from Table 33 and the distance y from line H to the shear wall: y (8.0 + 15.0 + 30.0 + 30.0 + 30.0 + 15.0 + 8.0 ) = 8.0 (116) + 15.0 (106) + 30.0 (82.0) + 30.0 (50.0) + 30.0 (26.0 ) + 15.0 (10.0 ) + 8.0 (0 ) yr = 7,408 = 54.5 ft 136.0
The building is symmetrical about the xaxis and the center of mass is determined as: ym = 116.0 = 58.0 ft 2
The minimum 5 percent accidental eccentricity for eastwest forces, e' y , is computed from the length of the structure perpendicular to the applied story force. e' y = (0.05)(116 ft ) = 5.8 ft The y m to the displaced CM = 58.0 ft 5.8 ft = 63.8 ft or 52.2 ft The total eccentricity is the distance between the displaced center of mass and the center of rigidity y r = 54.5 ft e y = 63.8 54.5 = 9.3 ft or 52.2 54.5 = 2.3 ft
Note that the distance is slightly different than in Design Example 2. Note that in this Design Example, displacing the center of mass 5 percent can result in the CM being on either side of the CR and can produce added torsional shears to all walls.
183
Design Example 3
Note that the 5 percent may not be conservative. The contentstostructure weight ratio can be higher in light framed structures than in heavier types of construction. Also, the location of the calculated center of rigidity is less reliable for light framed structures than for other structural systems. Use engineering judgment when selecting the eccentricity e .
Forces in the northsouth (y) direction: The building is symmetrical about the yaxis. Therefore, the distance to the CM and CR is xm = 48.0 = 24.0 ft 2
min. e' x = (0.05)(48 ft ) = 2.4 ft Because the CM and CR locations coincide, e x = e x e x = 2.4 ft or 2.4 ft
184
Design Example 3
Figure 37. Center of rigidity and location of displaced centers of mass for diaphragms
185
Design Example 3
3b. 3b
The total shears on the walls at the roof level are the direct shears Fv and the shears due to torsion (combined actual and accidental torsion) Fti . Torsion on the roof diaphragm is computed as follows: T x = Fe y = 44,500 lb (9.3 ft ) = 413,850 ft  lb for walls A, B, and C or T x = 44,500 lb (2.3 ft ) = 102,350 ft  lb for walls E, F, G, and H T y = Fe x = 44,500 lb (2.4 ft ) = 106,800 ft  lb Since the building is symmetrical for forces in the northsouth direction, the torsional forces can be subtracted for those walls located on the opposite side from the displaced center of mass. However, when the forces are reversed then the torsional forces will be additive. As required by the UBC, the larger values are used in this Design Example. The critical force is then used for the design of these walls. Table 36 summarizes the spreadsheet for determining combined forces on the roof level walls.
Table 36. Distribution of forces to shear walls below the roof level Direct Force 2 Ry dy Rx dx Wall Rd Rd
Fv
Torsional Force Ft +908 +1,426 +1,523 +62 +390 +305 +199 +526 526
Total Force
Fv + Ft
3,525 6,336 11,338 9,877 10,205 5,215 2,817 22,776 21,724
A B C E F G H
NorthSouth 1 4
8.0 15.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 8.0 136.0 46.0 46.0 92.0 24.0 24.0
30,258 39,784 22,688 608 24,368 29,704 23,762 171,172 26,496 26,496 52,992 224,164
2,617 4,910 9,815 9,815 9,815 4,910 2,618 44,500 22,250 22,250 44,500
EastWest
186
Design Example 3
3c. 3c
Determine center of rigidity, center of mass, and eccentricities for the third floor diaphragm.
Since the walls stack with uniform fasteners, it can be assumed that the center of rigidity for the third floor and the second floor diaphragms will coincide with the center of rigidity of the roof diaphragm. Torsion on the third floor diaphragm is: F = (44,500 + 42,700) = 87,200 lb T x = Fe y = 87,200 lb (9.3 ft ) = 810,960 ft  lb for walls A, B, and C or 87,200 lb (2.3 ft ) = 200,560 ft  lb for walls E, F, G, and H T y = Fe x = 87,200 lb (2.4 ft ) = 209,280 ft  lb Results for the third floor are summarized in Table 37.
Table 37. Distribution of forces to shear walls below the third floor level Direct Ry dy Rx dx Wall Rd Rd 2 Force F v
A B C E F G H 8.0 20.0 38.0 38.0 38.0 20.0 8.0 170.0 56.0 39.0 39.0 56.0 190.0 24 2.5 2.5 24 61.5 51.5 27.5 4.5 28.5 44.5 54.5 492 1030 1045 171 1083 890 436 1,344 97.5 97.5 1,344 30,258 53,045 28,738 770 30,865 39,605 23,762 207,043 32,256 244 244 32,256 65,000 272,043 4,104 10,258 19,492 19,492 19,492 10,258 4,104 87,200 25,700 17,900 17,900 25,700 87,200
Torsional Force Ft +1,467 +3,071 +3,116 +126 +798 +656 +329 +1,034 +76 76 1,034
Total Force
Fv + Ft
5,571 13,329 22,608 19,618 20,290 10,914 4,433 26,734 17,976 17,824 24,666
EastWest NorthSouth
1 2 3 4
187
Design Example 3
3d. 3d
Determine center of rigidity, center of mass, and eccentricities for the second floor diaphragm.
Torsion on the second floor diaphragm is. F = (44,500 + 42,700 + 21,100) = 108,300 lb T x = Fe y = 108,300 lb (9.3 ft ) = 1,007,190 ft  lb for walls A, B, and C or 108,300 lb (2.3 ft ) = 249,090 ft  lb for walls E, F, G, and H T y = Fe x = 108,300 lb (2.4 ft ) = 259,920 ft  lb Results for the second floor are summarized in Table 38.
Table 38. Distribution of forces to shear walls below second floor level Torsional Total Force Direct Ry dy dx Wall R x Rd Rd 2 Force Fv Force Ft Fv + Ft A 8 61.5 492 30,258 4,444 +1,695 6,139 B 22 51.5 1,133 58,350 12,218 +3,901 16,119 C 45 27.5 1,238 34,031 24,992 +4,263 29,255 E 45 4.5 203 911 24,992 +172 25,164 F 45 28.5 1,283 36,551 24,992 +1,093 26,085 G 22 44.5 979 43,565 12,218 +834 13,052 H 8 54.5 436 23,762 4,444 +371 4,815 195 227,428 108,300 1 56.0 +24.0 1,344 32,256 31,920 +1,195 33,115 2 39.0 +2.5 97.5 244 22,230 +87 22,317 3 39.0 2.5 97.5 244 22,230 87 22,143 4 56.0 24.0 1,344 32,256 31,920 1,195 30,725 190.0 65,000 108,300 292,428
NorthSouth EastWest
188
Design Example 3
3e. 3e
Table 39 summarizes wall forces determined under the separate flexible and rigid diaphragm analysis. Fastener requirements were established in Part 2 in Design Example 2. These determinations should be checked for results of the rigid diaphragm analysis and adjusted if necessary (also shown in Table 39).
Table 39. Comparison of loads on shear walls using flexible versus rigid diaphragm results and recheck of wall fastening
Wall
F flexible
(lbs)
(3)
Frigid
(lbs)
Rigid/ Flexible ratio +147% +1% 0% 13% +26% +11% +97% +2% 2% +99% +8% +2% 11% +28% +19% +58% 16% +54% +54% 16% +77% +5% +6% 9% +33% +15% +38% 10% +28% +28% 10%
b (ft)
v=
Fmax (b )1.4
A B C E F G H 1 4 A B C E F G H 1 2 3 4 A B C E F G H 1 2 3 4
1,430 6,280 11,310 11,310 8,080 4,660 1,430 22,250 22,250 2,805 12,305 22,160 22,160 15,830 9,135 2,805 31,955 11,645 11,645 31,955 3,485 15,280 27,525 27,525 19,660 11,345 3,485 36,750 17,400 17,400 36,750
3,525 6,336 11,338 9,877 10,205 5,215 2,817 22,776 22,776(4) 5,571 13,329 22,608 19,618 20,290 10,914 4,433 26,734 17,976 17,976(4) 26,734(4) 6,139 16,119 29,255 25,164 26,085 13,052 4,815 33,115 22,317 22,317(4) 33,115(4)
(plf) Roof Level 12.5 205 22.0 205 43.0 190 43.0 190 43.0 170 22.0 170 12.5 165 64.5 255 64.5 255 Third Floor 12.5 320 22.0 435 43.0 375 43.0 370 43.0 340 22.0 355 12.5 255 64.5 355 60.0 215 60.0 215 64.5 355 Second Floor 12.5 350 22.0 525 43.0 485 43.0 460 43.0 435 22.0 425 12.5 275 64.5 410 60.0 265 60.0 265 64.5 410
Plywood 1 or 2 sides 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Allowable Shear(1) (plf) 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 400 400 400 400 400 310 400 310 310 400 310 585 585 585 585 585 310 400 310 310 400
Notes:
189
Design Example 3
1.
Allowable shears are determined from UBC Table 22VIIIC for 15/32inch Structural I sheathing using nominal shear values divided by factor of safety ( ) of 2.5. Sheathing may by either plywood or oriented stand board (OSB). 2. Screw spacing needs to be decreased from that required for Design Example 2 forces. See also discussion about building weight for the two example problems. 3. Forces taken from Design Example 2. 4. Designates the force used was the higher force for the same wall at the opposite side of the structure.
Comment: Wall rigidities used in this analysis are approximate. The initial rigidity R can be significantly higher than estimated due to the stiffening effects of stucco, drywall walls not considered, and areas over doors and windows. During an earthquake, some low stressed walls may maintain their stiffness and others may degrade in stiffness. Some walls and their collectors may attract significantly more lateral load than anticipated in either a flexible or rigid diaphragm analysis. It must be understood that the method of analyzing a structure using rigid diaphragms takes significantly more engineering effort. This rigid diaphragm analysis method indicates that some lateral resisting elements can attract significantly higher seismic demands than those determined under tributary area analysis methods.
4.
Reliability/redundancy factor . The reliability/redundancy factor penalizes lateral force resisting systems without adequate redundancy. In this Design Example, Part 1, the reliability/redundancy factor was previously assumed to be = 1.0. This will now be checked: = 2 20 rmax AB (303)
where: rmax = the maximum elementstory shear ratio. For shear walls, the wall with the largest shear per foot at or below twothirds the height of the building; or in the case of a threestory building, the ground level and the second level. See the SEAOC Blue Book Commentary C105.1.1.1. The total lateral load in the wall is multiplied by 10 l w and divided by the story shear. l w = length of wall in feet AB is the ground floor area of the structure. ri = Vmax (10 l w ) F
AB = 5,288 sq ft
190
Design Example 3
For eastwest direction: Using strength level forces for wall B: Vmax = 16,119 lb applied to 2 walls. ri =
= 0.068
= 2
o.k.
= 1.0 Therefore, there is no increase in base shear due to lack of reliability/redundancy. For northsouth direction: Using strength level forces for walls 1 and 4: Load to wall: 36,750 11.5 64.5 = 6,550 lbs ri =
(6,550)(10 11.5)
108,300
= 0.053
(36,750)(10 64.5)
108,300 20 0.053 5,288
= 0.053
= 2
= 1.0
191
Design Example 3
= 0.069
= 2
For northsouth direction: Using strengthlevel forces for walls 1 and 4: rmax =
(31,955)(10 64.5)
87,200 20 0.057 5,288
= 0.057
= 2
o.k.
= 1.0 Therefore, for both directions, there is no increase in base shear required due to lack of reliability/redundancy. The SEAOC Seismology Committee added the sentence The value of the ratio of 10 l w need not be taken as greater than 1.0 in the 1999 Blue Bookwhich will not penalize longer walls, but in this Design Example has no effect.
192
Design Example 3
5. 5a. 5a
2220.2
Tiedowns are required to resist the uplift tendency of shear walls caused by overturning moments. In this step, tiedown forces for the threestory shear wall on line C (Figure 38) are determined. Since there are two identical shear walls on line C, forces from Table 37 must be divided by two. Computation of story forces for one of the two walls is shown below. Note that forces are on strength design basis. Froof = 11,338 2 = 5,669 lb/wall (two walls on line C) Fthird = (22,608 11,338) 2 = 5,635 lb Fsec ond = (29,255 22,608) 2 = 3,324 lb o = 2.8 bearing wall system Table 16N
193
Design Example 3
The distance between the centroid of the boundary forces that represent the overturning moment at each level must be estimated. This is shown below. e = the distance to the center of tiedown and boundary studs or collectors studs (Figure 310) e = 3 in. = 0.25 ft
d = the distance between centroids of the tiedowns and the boundary studs. Note that it is also considered acceptable to use the distance from the end of the shear wall to the centroid of the tiedown.
d = 21.5 ft 2(0.25 ft ) = 21.0 ft The resisting moment M R is determined from the following dead loads: wroof = 13.5 psf (1.33 ft ) = 18.0 plf w floor = 25.0 psf (1.33 ft ) = 33.0 plf wwall = 10.0 plf Overturning resisting moments are determined from simple statics. Calculations are facilitated by use of a spreadsheet. Table 310 summarizes the tiedown (i.e., uplift) forces for the shear walls on line C.
Level
M OT
(ftlb) 46,545 153,255 291,340
o M OT M (ftlb) R
(ftlb) 130,330 429,115 815,755 23,135 52,580 82,025
Strength Uplift
ASD Uplift
d
(lbs) 5,275 18,315 35,525
o M OT 0.85M R d (1.4 )
(lbs) 3,770 13,080 25,375
Notes:
1. The 0.85 dead load factor of 2213.5.1 is different from the 0.9 factor of 1612.4.
194
Design Example 3
5b. 5b
The UBC has two special sections for shear walls with light framing in Seismic Zones 3 and 4. For metal framing, 2220 is used, and for wood framing, Section 2315.5.1. Section 2220.2 specifies requirements for steel stud wall boundary members and anchorage and refers to 2213.5.1 for load combinations. Section 2315.5.1 deals with wood stud walls and does not have any such special requirements. In the case of identical building types (as in Design Example 2 and Design Example 3 of this manual) this would give an apparent advantage to wood framing. The basic load combinations of 1612.3.1 do not permit stress increases. The alternate basic load combinations if 1612.3.2 permit stress increases. Errata to the First Printing added Equation (12161): 0.9 D E to the alternate basic load combinations 1.4 (12161)
Since this exact same load combination is listed in the basic load combinations the code is in contradiction and confusing (to say at least). This Design Example will use onethird stress increase of 1612.3.2.
6.
Tiedown connections for the line C shear wall will utilized 12gauge straps at the third floor. This part shows determination of the shear strength of the No. 10 screws that will be used to connect the tiedown straps to the 18gauge boundary studs. There are two basic ways of determining the shear strength of the screws. The first is to use the values established in an ICBO Evaluation Report with appropriate conversion to strength design. The second is to compute the shear strength of a screw using the 96 AISI specification. Both methods are shown below.
195
Design Example 3
6a. 6a
The Metal Stud Manufacturers Association provides ICBO ER No. 4943. Shear values on an ASD basis are provided for various gauge studs having a minimum yield strength of 33 ksi and a minimum ultimate strength of 45 ksi. For No. 10 screws in an 18gauge stud, the allowable shear is given as 258 lbs per screw. This must be increased as shown below to convert to the strength design basis used in this example. Pns = Pas where: Pns = nominal shear strength per screw Pas = allowable shear strength per screw = 3.0 Pns = 3.0(258 lb ) = 774 lb per screw Note that ER No. 4943 also specifies a minimum edge distance and a minimum on center spacing of 9/16 inch for No. 10 screws. 96AISI E4
6b. 6b
The nominal shear strength is the screw capacity without the appropriate reduction factors for allowable stress design () or load and resistance factor design (). d = 0.190 in. Fu1 = 45,000 psi Note: some connector straps and hardware have an Fu = 65,000 psi , which will give higher screw capacities. Fu 2 = 45,000 psi
196
Design Example 3
Case I: Strap applied to stud flange (Figure 39). Assume 12gauge galvanized strap: t1 = 0.1017 in. With 18gauge studs: t 2 = 0.0451in. t 2 t1 = 0.0451 0.1017 = 0.44 < 1.0 Pns = 4.2 t 2 3 d
12
Fu 2 = 789 lb
Pns = 2.7t1dFu1 = 2,348 lb Pns = 2.7t 2 dFu 2 = 1,041 lb Using the smallest value of Pns : Pns = 789 lb per screw
Note how this value is almost equal to the 774 lb determined from Part 6a, above.
Case 2: Strap applied to double stud webs (Figure 310). Assume 10gauge galvanized strap: t1 = 0.138 in. With 18gauge studs: Since there are two stud webs, thickness t 2 is doubled. t 2 = 0.0451 2 = 0.0902 in. t 2 t1 = 0.0902 0.138 = 0.65 < 1.0 Pns = 4.2 t 2 3 d
12
Fu 2 = 2,232 lb
Design Example 3
6c. 6c
Case I: Strap applied to stud flange (Figure 39): From Part 6b, above: Pns = 789 lb Pas = Pns = 789 3.0 = 263 lb per screw
Case II: Strap applied to double stud webs (Figure 310): From Part 6b, above: Pns = 2,082 lb Pas = Pns = 2,082 3.0 = 694 lb per screw
7.
Shown below is the strength design of the tiedown strap to be used for the shear walls on line C at the third floor. The configuration at the tiedown is shown on Figure 39. Uplift = 3,770 lb Try a 12gauge 3 inch strap and No. 10 screws: Pns = 789 lb per screw LRFD design strength = Pns 96 AISI (3.1)
198
Design Example 3
where: = 0.50 Pns = 0.5(789) = 395 lb Number of screws required: 3,770 395 = 9.5 Use 12 minimum With 2 rows of #10 screws @ 3 inches on center the length of strap required: Strap is premanufactured, use half spacing for end distance or 1 inch. Net spacing is screws is 1.75 inches on center. Need to add in thickness of 1 inch lightweight concrete and inch sheathing, plus the 12inch depth for the floor joist:
If the strap does not have an ICBO rated capacity, the manufacturer should be contacted to determine the strength of the steel used. It is probable that the steel used in the strap will have strengths that differ from the steel used in the studs. Generally, strengths differ from manufacturer to manufacturer. Checking capacity of strap: Tn = An F y b = 3.0 in. (strap width) t = 0.1046 in. (strap thickness) d = 0.171in. (diameter of holes) 96 AISI (C21)
199
Design Example 3
An = 0.2987 in.2 (net area of strap) F y = 45,000 psi (yield strength of particular manufacturer) Tn = 0.2987(45,000 ) = 13,443 lb (nominal strength of strap)
For ASD: Tie force = 3,770 lb (Table 310) Tn 13,443 = 8,050 lb > 3,770 lb = allowable tension = 1.67 t o.k.
For LRFD: Tie force = 5,275 lb (Table 310) Tn = tension strength = 0.95(13,443) = 12,770 lb => 5,275 lb o.k.
Use 12gauge 3 in. 72 in. strap with 12 #10 screws @ 3 inches o.c. each end.
Figure 39. Typical tiedown connection at the third floor on line C. 200
Design Example 3
8.
Design of the premanufactured tiedowns for the second floor shear walls on line C is shown below. Figure 310 shows the configuration of the tiedown. Uplift = 13,080 lb from Table 310 The connector is an ICBO approved, premanufactured holdown device. The rated capacity including the 33 percent increase for wind or seismic loading is 9,900 lb. Using two holdowns, one on each boundary stud, the capacity is: 2 9,900 = 19,800 lb > 13,080 lb o.k.
In general, when using premanufactured tiedowns, consult with ICBO Evaluation Service or the manufacturer for the necessary approvals for hardware selection.
201
Design Example 3
9.
The studs at each end of the shear walls on line C must be designed to resist overturning forces. In this example, double studs as shown in Figure 310 will be used at each end. The critical aspect of design is checking the studs for axial compression. This is shown below.
Note that 2220.2 of Division VII (Lateral Resistance of Steel Stud Wall Systems) requires use of the requirements of 2315.5.1. This includes use of the seismic force amplification factor o to account for structural overstrength. This requirement does not apply for boundary elements of wood stud shear walls.
202
Design Example 3
For axial compression, the load combination to be used is: 1.0 PDL + 0.7 PLL + o PE PLL = [40 psf + (16 12 )(16 12 ) ]2 = 145 lb PDL = [13.5 psf + (25.0)2](16 12 ) + [10 psf (8 ft )(16 12 )(3) ] = 405 lb From Table 310: o M OT = 815,696 ft  lb o PE = 815,755 ft  lb (21.0 ft )(1.4 ) = 27,745 lb Thus, the design load to boundary studs using the equation of 2213.5.1 is: 1.0 (405) + 0.7 (145) + 27,745 = 28,250 lb With a computer program using 1996 AISI Specifications, the allowable axial load for a 4" 18gauge stud with 2inch flanges is 4,042 lb with the flanges braced at midheight. No. of studs required = where: 1.7 is the allowable stress increase Therefore, use 5 studs at ends of wall as follows: Use two backtoback studs, plus two backtoback studs with additional stud (Figure 310). 28,250 = 4.1 4,042 1.7 2213.5.1
203
Design Example 3
10. 10
Shear forces in the second floor diaphragm are transferred to the shear walls below as shown in Figure 311. From Table 39, the ASD shears in the wall are: v = 485 lb/ft Try using #8 screws, 18gauge metal side plates and Douglas Fir plywood: Z = 119 lb/screws C D = 1.33 Maximum spacing = ZC D 119(1.33) 12 = = 3.9 in. v 485 91NDS Table II.3B 1612.3.2
Use # 8 screws at 3 inches on center. Capacity of the #8 screws in the 18gauge tracks and runner channels are O.K. by inspection.
Figure 311. Typical detail for shear transfer through floor on line C
204
Design Example 3
11. 11
Shown below is the design of the connection to transfer the shear force in the walls on line C to the foundation. This detail is shown in Figure 312. From Table 39: v = 485 lb/ft Allowable load based on bolt bearing on track: For 5/8" bolts and 18gauge track: Pn = 2.22 Fu d where: Pn = nominal resistance Fu = 45 ksi (minimum value) d = 0.625 in. t = 0.0451in. Pn = 2.22 (45)(0.625)(0.0451) = 282 k bolt 96 AISI, Table E3.32 96 AISI (E3.3)
205
Design Example 3
Allowable service load on embedded bolts in concrete is determined as follows. For 5/8" bolts and 3000 psi concrete: Allowable shear = 2,750 lb bolt Table 19D
Therefore the bolt in concrete governs the required spacing: Maximum spacing 2,750 = 5.67 ft o.c. 485
206
Design Example 3
12. 12
Shear forces in the roof diaphragm are transferred to the shear walls below as shown in Figure 313. From Table 39 are the ASD shears in the wall. v = 190 lb/ft From manufacturers catalog, allowable load for the 63/8inchlong framing clip is 915 pounds. With framing clips at 4.0 ft centers, the design ASD force is:
o.k.
Note that double studs are used for sound control, but that only one stud is considered in shear wall calculations.
207
Design Example 3
Commentary
The code does not have conventional construction provisions for coldformed steel similar to the conventional light frame construction provisions for wood. The 2000 International Residential Code (IRC) has included prescriptive provisions for coldformed steel for one and twofamily dwellings. It should be noted that the structure shown in example could not use the IRC prescriptive provisions. Inasmuch as there is no one standard for the manufacturing of the studs, the process to design gravity load members is a tedious method and should not be done by prescriptive means. The AISI Specification for Design of ColdFormed Steel Structural Members has complex equations and is considered by most engineers too difficult to be readily used in design. Due to the complex nature of the equations, in the AISI code it is recommended that engineers designing in coldformed steel utilize computer software for design.
References
American Iron and Steel Institute, 1996. Cold Formed Steel Design Manual, 1996 Edition. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C. American Iron and Steel Institute, 1986. Cold Formed Steel Design Manual, 1986 Edition. American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C. American Plywood Association, 1997. Design/Construction Guide Diaphragms and Shear Walls. Report 105, Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. American Plywood Association, 1993. Revised. Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls. Report 154, Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. Applied Technology Council, 1995. Cyclic Testing of Narrow Plywood Shear Walls, ATC R1. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. BSSC, 1997. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, 1997. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
208
Design Example 3
Building Seismic Safety Council, 1997. National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program, Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington D.C. Cobeen, K.E., 1996. Performance Based Design of Wood Structures, Proceedings, Annual SEAOC Convention. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Countryman, D., and Col Benson, 1954. 1954 Horizontal Plywood Diaphragm Tests. Laboratory Report 63, Douglas Fir Plywood Association, Tacoma, Washington. Dolan, J.D., 1996. Experimental Results from Cyclic Racking Tests of Wood Shear Walls with Openings. Timber Engineering Report No. TE 1996001. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Dolan, J. D. and Heine , C.P., 1997a. Monotonic Tests of Woodframe Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restraint Configurations. Timber Engineering Report No. TE1997001. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Dolan, J.D. and Heine, C.P., 1997b. Sequential Phased Displacement Cyclic Tests of Wood frame Shear Walls with Various Openings and Base Restrain Configurations. Timber Engineering Report No. TE1997001. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Dolan, J.D., and Heine, C.P., 1997c, Sequential Phased Displacement Test of Woodframe Shear Walls with Corners. Timber Engineering Report No. TE1997003. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1996. Northridge Earthquake of January 17, 1994, Reconnaissance Report, Earthquake Spectra. Vol. 11, Supplement C. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California. Foliente, Greg C., 1994. Analysis, Design and Testing of Timber Structures Under Seismic Loads. University of California Forest Products Laboratory, Richmond, California. Foliente, Greg C., 1997. Earthquake Performance and Safety of Timber Structures. Forest Products Society, Madison Wisconsin. Forest Products Lab, 1999. Wood Handbook Publication FPL GTR 113. Madison, Wisconsin.
209
Design Example 3
Goers R. and Associates, 1976. A Methodology for Seismic Design and Construction of SingleFamily Dwellings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California. International Code Council, International Building Code Final Draft, 2000. International Code Council, Birmingham, Alabama. Ju, S., and Lin M., 1999. Comparison of Building Analysis Assuming Rigid or Flexible Floors, Journal of Structural Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington D.C. Lightgauge Steel Engineers Association, Tech Note 558b1. Lateral Load Resisting Elements: Diaphragm Design Values. Lightgauge Steel Engineers Association., 2400 Crestmoor Road, Nashville, Tennessee 37215. Lightgauge Steel Engineers Association, Tech Note 556a6, Vertical Lateral Force Resisting System Boundary Elements. Lightgauge Steel Engineers Association, 2400 Crestmoor Road, Nashville, Tennessee 37215. Lightgauge Steel Engineers Association, Tech Note 556a4. Shear Transfer at Top Plate: Drag Strut Design. Lightgauge Steel Engineers Association, 2400 Crestmoor Road, Nashville, Tennessee 37215. Lightgauge Steel Engineers Association, Tech Note 565c. Screw Fastener Selection for Lightgauge Steel Frame Construction. Lightgauge Steel Engineers Association. 2400 Crestmoor Road, Nashville, Tennessee 37215, February 1997. Metal Stud Manufacturers Association, 1993. ICBO Evaluation Report No. 4943. Metal Stud Manufacturers Association, P.O. Box 1211, Corvallis, Oregon97339, revised December 1993. National Forest Products Association, 1991. National Design Specification for Wood Construction. National Forest Products Association, Washington D.C. Performance Standards and Policies for StructuralUse Panels [Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3]. APA Standard PRP108. APAThe Engineered Wood Association. Tacoma, Washington 98411. Rose, J.D., 1998, Preliminary Testing of Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls Under Cyclic (Reversed) Loading. Research Report 158. APA The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, Washington. Rose, J.D., and E.L. Keith, 1996. Wood Structural Panel Shear Walls with Gypsum Wallboard and Window [ Sheathing Standard, Sec. 2.3.3].Research Report 158. APA  The Engineered Association, Tacoma Washington.
210
Design Example 3
Structural Engineers Association of California, 1999. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Serrette, R. 1996. Final Report: Shear Wall Values for Lightweight Steel Framing. Santa Clara University Engineering Center, Santa Clara, California 95053. Yu, Weiwen, 1991. ColdFormed Steel Design, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, New York.
211
Design Example 3
212
Design Example 4
Overview
Reinforced concrete block masonry is frequently used in onestory and lowrise construction, particularly for residential, retail, light commercial, and institutional buildings. This type of construction has generally had a good earthquake performance record. However, during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, some onestory buildings with concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls and panelized wood roofs experienced wallroof separations similar to that experienced by many tiltup buildings. This building in this Design Example 4 is typical of onestory masonry buildings with wood framed roofs. The building is characterized as a heavy wall and flexible roof diaphragm box building. The masonry building for this example is shown schematically in Figure 41. Floor and roof plans are given in Figure 42 and 43, respectively. The building is a onestory bearing wall building with CMU shear walls. Roof construction consists of a plywood diaphragm over wood framing. An
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
213
Design Example 4
elevation of the building on line A is shown in Figure 44. A CMU wall section is shown in Figure 45, and a plan view of an 8'0" CMU wall/pier is shown in Figure 46. The design example illustrates the strength design approach to CMU wall design for both inplane and outofplane seismic forces.
Outline
This example will illustrate the following parts of the design process.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 10 Design base shear coefficient. Base shear in the transverse direction. Shear in wall on line A. Design 8'0" shear wall on line A for outofplane seismic forces. Design 8'0" shear wall on line A for inplane seismic forces. Design 8'0" shear wall on line A for axial and inplane bending forces. Deflection of shear wall on line A. Requirements for shear wall boundary elements. Wallroof outofplane anchorage for lines 1 and 3. Chord design.
214
Design Example 4
Given Information
Roof weights: Roofing+ one reroof " plywood Roof framing Mech./elec. Insulation Total dead load Roof live load 7.5 psf 1.5 4.5 1.5 1.5 17.0 psf 20.0 psf Exterior 8inch CMU walls: 75 psf (fully grouted, lightweight masonry) f ' m = 2,500 psi f y = 60,000 psi
Seismic and site data: Z = 0.4 (Seismic Zone 4) I = 1.0 (standard occupancy) Seismic source type = A Distance to seismic source = 5 km Soil profile type = S D
215
Design Example 4
216
Design Example 4
217
Design Example 4
Code Reference
1.
1630.2.2
Period using Method A (see Figure 45 for section through structure): T = C t (h n )3 / 4 = .020 (16 ft )3 / 4 = 0.16 sec Near source factors for seismic source type A and distance to source = 5 km N a = 1.2 N v = 1.6 Seismic coefficients for Zone 4 and soil profile type S D are: C a = 0.44 N a = 0.53 C v = 0.6 4 N v = 1.02 The R coefficient for a masonry bearing wall building with masonry shear walls is: R = 4.5 Calculation of design base shear: V= Cv I 1.02 (1.0 ) W = 1.417W W= RT 4.5 (0.16 ) (304) Table 16N Table 16Q Table 16R Table 16S Table 16T (308)
but need not exceed: V= 2.5C a I 2.5 (0.53)(1.0 ) W= W = 0.294W R 4.5 (305)
The total design shear shall not be less than: V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11 (0.53)(1.0 )W = 0.058 (306)
218
Design Example 4
In addition, for Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear shall also not be less than: V= 0.8ZN v I 0.8 (0.4 )(1.60)(1.0 ) W= W = 0.114W R 4.5 (307)
Therefore, Equation (305) controls the base shear calculation and the seismic coefficient is thus: V = 0.294W
2.
This building has a flexible roof diaphragm and heavy CMU walls (see Figure 43). The diaphragm spans as a simple beam between resisting perimeter walls in both directions and will transfer 50 percent of the diaphragm shear to each resisting wall. However, in a building that is not symmetric or does not have symmetric wall layouts, the wall lines could have slightly different wall shears on opposing wall lines 1 and 3 and also on A and D. The building weight (mass) calculation is separated into three portions: the roof, longitudinal walls, and transverse walls for ease of application at a later stage in the calculations. The reason to separate the CMU wall masses is because masonry walls that resist ground motions parallel to their inplane directions resist their own seismic inertia without transferring seismic forces into the roof diaphragm. This concept will be demonstrated in this example for the transverse (northsouth) direction. For the transverse direction, the roof diaphragm resists seismic inertia forces originating from the roof diaphragm and the longitudinal masonry walls (outofplane walls oriented eastwest) on lines 1 and 3, which are oriented perpendicular to the direction of seismic ground motion. The roof diaphragm then transfers its seismic forces to the transverse masonry walls (inplane walls oriented northsouth) located on lines A and D. The transverse walls resist seismic forces transferred from the roof diaphragm and seismic forces generated from their own weight. Thus, seismic forces are generated from three sources: the roof diaphragm; inplane walls at lines 1 and 3; and outofplane walls at lines A and D. The design in the orthogonal direction is similar and the base shear is the same. However, the proportion of diaphragm and inplane seismic forces is different. The orthogonal analysis is similar in concept, and thus is not shown in this example. Roof weight: Wroof = 17 psf (5,400 sf ) = 92 kips
219
Design Example 4
For longitudinal wall weight (outofplane walls), note that the upper half of the wall weight is tributary to the roof diaphragm. This example neglects openings in the top half of the walls.
(19 ft )2 19 ft 1 = 75 psf (180 ft ) W walls, long = 75 psf (2 walls)(90 ft )(19 ) = 152 kips 2(16 ft ) 2 16 ft
For forces in the transverse direction, seismic inertial forces from the transverse walls (lines A and D) do not transfer through the roof diaphragm. Therefore, the effective diaphragm weight in the northsouth direction is: Wtrans. diaph = Wroof + W walls, long = 92 k + 152 k = 244 kips The transverse seismic inertial force (shear force), which is generated in the roof diaphragm is calculated as follows: Vtrans. diaph = 0.294Wtrans. diaph = 0.294(244 kips ) = 72 kips The seismic inertial force (shear force) generated in the transverse walls (inplane walls) is calculated using the full weight (and height) of the walls (with openings ignored for simplicity). Vtrans. walls = 0.294 (75 psf )(19 ft )(60 ft )(2 walls) = 50 kips The design base shear in the transverse direction is the sum of the shears from the roof diaphragm shear and the masonry walls inplane shear forces. Vtrans. = Vtrans. diaph + Vtrans. walls = 72 k + 50 k = 122 kips
3.
The seismic shear tributary to the wall on line A comes from the roof diaphragm (transferred at the top of the wall) and the inplane wall inertia force: VA = Vtrans. diaph 2 + Vtrans. walls 2 = 72 kips 50 kips + = 61 kips 2 2
4.
In this part, the 8'0" shear wall on line A (Figure 44) will be designed for outofplane seismic forces. This wall is a bearing wall and must support gravity loads. It must be capable of supporting both gravity and outofplane seismic forces, and gravity plus inplane seismic forces at different instants in time
220
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 4
depending on the direction of seismic ground motion. In this Part, the first of these two analyses will be performed. The analysis will be done using the slender wall design provisions of 2108.2.4. The analysis incorporates static plus P deflections caused by combined gravity loads and outofplane seismic forces and calculates an axial plus bending capacity for the wall under the defined loading.
4a. 4a
Vertical loads.
Gravity loads from roof framing tributary to the 8'0" shear wall at line A: 60 ft 30 ft PDL = (17 psf ) = 7,650 lb 2 2 Live load reduction for gravity loads: R = r ( A 150) 40 percent A = (30 ft )(15 ft ) = 450 sq ft R = 0.8 (450 sq ft 150 sq ft ) = 24 percent DL 17 Rmax = 23.11 + = 23.11 + = 42.7 percent LL 20 R = 24 percent The reduced live load is: 60 ft 30 ft PRLL = (20 psf ) (100 percent 24 percent ) = 6,840 lb 2 2 Under 2106.2.7, the glulam beam reaction load may be supported by the bearing width plus four times the nominal wall thickness. Assuming a 12inch bearing width from a beam hanger, the vertical load is assumed to be carried by a width of wall 12 in. + 4 (8 in.) = 44 in. PbeamD +L = 1607.5
PbeamD =
Design Example 4
Wall load on 8foot wall (at wall midheight): 16 ft Pwall DL = (75 psf )(8 ft ) + 3 ft = 6,600 lb 2 6,600 lb w wall DL = = 825 plf 8 ft Dead load from wall lintels: 20 ft PL intel D = (75 psf )(9 ft ) = 6,750 lb 2 l = (96 in. 44 in.) 2 = 26 in. w L int elD = 6,750 lb = 3,115 plf 26 in. 12 in.
Since the lintel loads are heavier than the beam load, and since dead load combinations will control, the loads over the wall/pier length will be averaged. The gravity loads on the 8'0" wall from the weight of the wall, the roof beam, and two lintels are:
Seismic forces.
Outofplane seismic forces are calculated as the average of the wall element seismic coefficients at the base of the wall and the top of the wall. The coefficients are determined under the provisions of 1632.2 using Equation (322) and the limits of Equation (323). Fp = a p Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr W p (322)
0.7C a I pW p F p 4.0C a I pW p
(323)
222
Design Example 4
(1.0)C a I p
Rp
0 ft 1 + 3 W p 16 ft
= 0.133C a I pW p 0.7C a I pW p
Use 0.7C a I pW p
(1.0)C a I p
Rp
0' 1 + 3 W p 16'
= 1.33C a I pW p 4.0C a I pW p
Use 1.33C a I pW p
F p = 1.33(.53)(1.0 )W p = 0.37W p
Thus, use the average value of F p = (1 2 )(27.8 psf + 52.5 psf ) = 40.2 psf Calculation of wall moments due to outofplane forces is done using the standard beam formula for a propped cantilever. See Figure 47 for wall outofplane loading diagram and Figure 48 for tributary widths of wall used to determine the loading diagram.
223
Design Example 4
R2 W1
3'
16'
W2 R1
10'
W1 9'0"
W2
10'0"
10'0"
8'0"
10'0"
Figure 48. Tributary width of wall for outofplane seismic inertial force calculations
224
Design Example 4
W1 = (10 ft + 8 ft + 10 ft )(40.2 psf ) = 1,125 plf W2 = 8 ft (40.2 psf ) = 322 plf Using simple beam theory to calculate moment M oop for outofplane forces, the location of maximum moment is at h = 9.8 feet: M oop = 15,530 lb  ft = 186,360 lb  in. Comparison of seismic outofplane forces with wind (approximately 25 psf) indicate that seismic forces control the design.
4c. 4c
1612.2.1
The wall section shown in Figure 46 will be designed. The controlling load combinations for masonry are: 1.2 D + 1.6 Lr 1.1(1.2 D + 1.0 E ) = 1.32 D + 1.1( E h + E v ) 1.1E v = 1.1(0.5)C a ID = 0.55(0.53)(1.0) D = 0.30 D Note: Exception 2 of 1612.2.1 requires that a 1.1 factor be applied to the load combinations for strength design of masonry elements including seismic forces. The SEAOC Seismology Committee has recommended that this factor be deleted. However; this example shows use of the factor because it is a present requirement of the code, thus: PD + RLL = 1.2 (27 ,750 lb ) + 1.6 (6840 lb ) = 44 ,244 lb Pu = PD + L + E = PD + 1.1E v = 1.32(27 ,750 lb ) + (0.30 )(27 ,750 lb ) = 44 ,955 lb The controlling load case by examination is Equation (125) for gravity plus seismic outofplane forces.
' Slender wall design of masonry walls with an axial load of 0.04 f m or less are designed under the requirements of 2108.2.4.4.
(123) (125)
(123)
(125)
225
Design Example 4
Pw + Pf Ag
0.04 f m
27,750 lb = 38 psi 0.04 (2500 psi ) = 100 psi (7.625 ft )(8 ft )(12 in.)
o.k.
(824)
2
(Pu + As f y )
.85 f ' m b a = 0.86 in. .85
44 ,955 lb + 1.86 in. 2 (60 ,000 psi ) = 0.77 in. .85 (2500 psi )(96 in.)
(825)
c=
n=
2106.2.12.1
I cr =
96 in.(0.90 in.)3 + (15.46) 2.62 in. 2 (3.81 in. 0.90 in )2 = 365.0 in. 4 3
Calculate M cr using the value for f r from 2108.2.4.6, Equation (831): 96 in.(7.625 in.)2 M cr = S g f r = 6 (4.0 )(2,500 )1 2 = 186,050 lb  in.
(830)
226
Design Example 4
Calculate M u based on Equation (820) of 2108.2.4.4: First iteration for moment and deflection (note that eccentric moment at midheight of wall is onehalf of the maximum moment): M u = M out of plane + M eccentric = 1.1E + 1.1(1.2 D ) + 1.1(1.6)(L = 0 ) M u = M out of plane + M eccentric = 1.1 (186,360 lb  in.)
(820)
(828)
u =
) )
= 0.11 in. + 0.28 in. = 0.38 in.
Note: The deflection equation used is for uniform lateral loading, maximum moment at midheight, and pinnedpinned boundary conditions. For other support and fixity conditions, moments and deflections should be calculated using established principals of mechanics. Beam deflection equations can be found in the AITC or AISC manuals or accurate methods can be derived. Second iteration for moment and deflection: M u = 235,290 lb  in. + 44,955 lb (0.38 in.) = 252,540 lb  in. u = 0.11 in. + 5(252,540 lb  in. 186,050 lb  in.)(192 in.)2 48 (1,875,000 psi ) 365.0 in. 4
227
Design Example 4
Third iteration for moment and deflection: M u = 235,290 lb  in. + 44,955 lb  in.(0.48 in.) = 256,891 lb  in. u = 0.11 in. + 5 (256,891 lb  in. 186,050 lb  in.)(192 in.)2 48 (1,875,000 psi ) 365.0 in. 4
= 0.11 in. + 0.40 in. = 0.51 in. Final moment (successive iterations are producing moments within 3 percent, therefore convergence can be determined): M u = 235,290 lb  in. + 44,955 lb (0.51 in.) = 258,217 lb  in. Calculation of wall outofplane strength: a M u = Ase f y d 2 0.73 in. = 0.80 2.47 in. 2 (60,000 psi ) 3.81 in. 2 = 408,439 lb  in. 258,217 lb  in. Since the wall strength is greater than the demand, the wall section shown in Figure 44 is okay. Note that outofplane deflections need to be checked using same iteration process, but with service loads per 2108.2.4.6, (i.e., PD = 27,750 lbs). Since ultimate deflections are within allowable, there is no need to check service deflections in this example. The limiting deflection is 0.007 h per 2108.2.4.6 is 0.007(16'12") = 1.34". The deflection from this analysis is 0.50 inches. Thus the deflection is within allowable limits. Check that the wall reinforcement is less than 50 percent of balanced reinforcement per 2108.2.4.2: b = .851 f ' m 87,000 + = 0.0178 fy 87,000 + f y
o.k.
Design Example 4
Table 160
= 1.76W p = 1.76 (75 psf ) = 132.5 psf M u (132.5 psf )(3 ft )2 8 = 596 lb  ft = 7,155 lb  in. 408,439 lb  in. Wall section is okay at parapet.
5. 5a. 5a
The shear force on line A must be distributed to three shear wall piers (6', 8', and 6' in width, respectively) in proportion to their relative rigidities. This can be accomplished by assuming that the walls are fixed at the tops by the 9footdeep lintel. Reference deflection equations are given below for CMU or concrete walls with boundary conditions fixed top or pinned top. For this Design Example, the fixed/fixed equations are used because the deep lintel at the wall/pier tops will act to fix the tops of wall piers. i = Vi h 3 1.2Vi h + for walls/piers fixed top and bottom AG 12 E m I Vi h 3 1.2Vi h + for walls/piers pinned top and fixed at bottom AG 3E m I (66)
i =
G = 0.4 E m for concrete masonry under 2106.2.12.13 1 where is the deflection under load Vi . Using the fixed/fixed equation, the percentage shears to each wall are shown in Table 41. Relative rigidity is thus
229
Design Example 4
Table 41. Distribution of line A shear to three shear walls. Wall Moment Shear Deflection Total Deflection Distribution to Rigidity (1/in.) Wall Shear (k) Length (ft) Deflection (in.) (in.) (in.) Piers (%) 6 1.17E05 3.50E07 1.20E05 83,28 26.6% 16.2
8 6 Totals 6.56E06 1.17E05 2.62E07 3.50E07 6.82E06 1.20E05 146,635 83,28 313,200 46.8% 26.6% 100% 28.6 16.2 61.0
The seismic shear force E h to the 8foot pier is (0.468)61 k = 28.6 k. Calculation of reliability/redundancy factor is shown below. For shear walls the maximum element story shear ratio ri is determined as: ri8 = (28.6 k )(10 ) / 8 ft / 122 k = 0.29 for 8 ft segment ri 6 = (16.2 k )(10) / 6 ft / 122 k = 0.22 for 6 ft segment rmax = 0.29 =2 20 rmax AB =2 20 (303)
1630.1.1
(0.29 )
5,400 ft
= 1.06 The strength design shear for the 8'0" wall is: V8' wall = 1.06(28.6 k ) = 30.3 k
5b. 5b
The inplane shear strength of the wall must be determined and compared to demand. The strength of the wall is determined as follows. Vertical reinforcement is #5@16 inches o.c. Try #4@16 inches o.c. horizontally. Note that concrete masonry cells are spaced at 8inch centers, thus reinforcement arrangements must have spacings in increments of 8 inches (such as 8 inches, 16 inches, 24 inches, 32 inches, 40 inches, and 48 inches). Typical reinforcement spacings are 16 inches and 24 inches for horizontal and vertical reinforcement.
230
Design Example 4
Calculate M Vd : 151.5 k  ft M = = 0.625 V d (30.3 k )(8 ft ) From Table 21K and by iteration, the nominal shear strength coefficient C d = 1.8 Vn = Vm + V s Vm = C d Amv Vs = Amv n f y for = 0.80, with #4 @16" o.c. horizontally: 0.20 in. 2 V s = Amv n f y = (0.80)(7.625 in.)(96 in.) (60,000 psi ) = 57.6 k (7.625 in.)(16 in.) for = 0.60, with #4 @16" o.c. horizontally: 0.20 in. 2 V s = Amv n f y = (0.60)(7.625 in.)(96 in.) (60,000 psi ) = 43.2 k (7.625 in.)(16 in.) Thus, conservatively, using = 0.60 V n = 0.6 (65.9 k ) + 43.2 k = 82.7 k The designer should check the failure mode. If failure mode is in bending, = 0.80. If failure mode is in shear, = 0.60. For this example, we will conservatively use = 0.60. The method of checking the failure mode is to check how much moment M u is generated when the shear force is equal to shear strength Vn with = 1.0. Then that moment is compared with the wall Pn and M n with a = 1.0. If there is reserve moment capacity, there will be a shear failure. If not, there will be a bending failure. Later in the example this will be checked. The reason the failure mode should be checked is to understand whether a brittle shear failure will occur or a ductile bending failure. Since the bending failure is more desirable and safer, the factor is allowed to be higher. Vu = 1.1(30.3 k ) = 33.3 k Vn = 82.7 k , for 0.60, o.k. Use #4 @16" horizontal reinforcement in the wall/pier. f m = (1.80)(7.625 in.)(96 in.) 2,500 psi = 65.9 k (836) (837) (838)
231
Design Example 4
6.
Design 8'0" shear wall on line A for combined axial and inplane bending actions.
Part 5 illustrated the design of the wall for shear strength. This Part illustrates design for wall overturning moments combined with gravity loads. A free body diagram of the wall/pier is needed to understand the imposed forces on the wall. The load combinations to be considered are specified in 1612.2.1. These are as follows (with the 1.1 factor of Exception 2 applied): 1.1(1.2 D + 0.5 L + 1.0 E ) (floor live load, L = 0) 1.1 (0.9 D 1.0 E ) E = E h + E v E v = 0.5C a ID = 0.5 (0.53)(1.0) D = 0.27 D The resulting Equation (125) is: 1.1(1.2 D + 0.27 D + 1.0 E h ) = 1.61D 1.1E h The resulting Equation (126) is: 1.1 (0.9 D + 0.27 D + 1.0 E h ) = 0.63D 1.1E h E h = V8' 0" wall = 1.1 (30.3 k ) = 33.3 k Axial loads Pu are calculated as Pu1 and Pu 2 for load combinations of Equations (125) and (126): Pu1 = 1.61(27,750 lb ) = 44.7 kips Pu 2 = 0.63(27,750 lb ) = 17.5 kips (125) (126) (301) 1630.1.1
232
Design Example 4
By performing a sum of moments about the bottom corner at point A (Figure 49):
Pu
Mu, top
Vu
10'0"
A Vu
Mu,bottom
8'0"
M A = 0 = 2 M u Vu (10 ft )
M u , top M u , bottom =
(33.3 k )(10 ft )
2
= 166.5 k  ft
The reader is referred to an excellent book for the strength design of masonry Design of Reinforced Masonry Structures, by Brandow, Hart, Verdee, published by Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada, Sacramento, CA, Second Edition, 1997. This book describes the calculation of masonry wall/pier strength design in detail. The axial load vs. bending moment capacity (PM) diagram for the wall must be calculated. For this, the designer must understand the controlling strain levels that define yielding and ultimate strength. At yield moment, the steel strain is the yielding strain (0.00207 in./in. strain) and the masonry strain must be below 0.002 in./in. (for underreinforced sections). At ultimate strength, the masonry has reached maximum permissible strain (0.003 in./in.) and the steel strain is considered to have gone beyond yield strain level (see2108.2.1.2 for a list of design assumptions). See Figure 410 for concrete masonry stressstrain behavior. A representation of these strain states is shown in Figures 411 and 412 (the pier width is defined as h ).
233
Design Example 4
Compressive stress
fm
(psi)
0.002 Strain,
0.003
em
Figure 411. Strain diagram at yield moment; steel strain =0.00207 in./in.; masonry strain is less than yield for underreinforced sections
m 0.002
s2 s1 = 0.00207
s3
c
Figure 412. Strain diagram at ultimate moment; masonry strain =0.003 in./in.; steel strain has exceeded 0.00207 in./in.; the Whitney stress block analysis procedure can s1 0.00207 be used to simplify calculations 234
m 0.003
s2
s3
c
Design Example 4
Note that masonry strain may continue to increase with a decrease in stress beyond strains of 0.002 in./in. at which time stresses are at f ' m . At strains of 0.003, masonry stresses are 0.5 f ' m . With boundary element confinement, masonry strains can be as large as 0.006 in./in. By performing a summation of axial forces F , the axial load in the pier is calculated as:
F = P = C1 = T1 = T2 = T3
The corresponding yield moment is calculated as follows: h h h h c M y = T1 d 1 + T2 d 2 + T3 d 3 + C 2 2 2 2 3 The ultimate moment is calculated as: h h h h a M u = T1 d 1 + T2 d 2 + T3 d 3 + C 2 2 2 2 2 Strength reduction factors, , for inplane flexure are determined by Equation (81) of 2108.1.4.1.1 = 0.80 Pu , 0.6 0.8 (Ae f ' m ) (81)
Strength reduction factors for axial load, = 0.65. For axial loads, Pn , less than 0.10 f ' m Ae , the value of may be increased linearly to 0.85 as axial load, Pn , decreases to zero. The balanced axial load, Pb , is determined by Equations (82) and (83). Pb = 0.85 f ' m ba b em a b = 0.85d f em + y Es (82)
(83)
235
Design Example 4
Pb = 0.85 (2,500)(7.625 in.)(0.85)(92 in.)(0.003 0.00507 ) = 750 kips Pb = 0.65(750 kips ) = 487 kips A PM diagram can thus be developed. The PM diagrams were calculated and plotted using a spreadsheet program. By observation, the design values Pu and M u (Pu = 43 k, M u = 167 k  ft ) are within the nominal strength limits of Pn , M n values shown in Figure 413. Plots for Pn vs. M n can be seen in Figure 413 and for Pn vs. M n in Figure 414.
Pn (kips)
1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Mn (kft)
Figure 413. The PnMn nominal strength curve with masonry strain at 0.003 in./in.
236
Design Example 4
Pn (kips)
1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
Mn (kft)
Figure 414. The PnMn design strength curve with masonry strain at 0.003 in./in.
Check for type of wall failure by calculating wall moment at shear Vn : 82.7 k (10') Vn (10') 0.60 Mu = = 689 k  ft = 2 2 Pu = 43.7 k By looking at the Pn M n curve, this Pu M u load is just outside the Pn , M n curve. The shear wall failure will likely be a bending failure. However, the designer might still consider a = 0.60 for shear design to be conservative.
7.
1630.10
In this part, the deflection of the shear wall on line A will be determined. This is done to check actual deflections against the drift limits of 1630.10. Deflections based on gross properties are computed as: s = Vi h 3 1.2Vi h + for wall/piers fixed top and bottom AG 12 E m I
237
Design Example 4
(28.6 k )(120 in.)3 1.2 (28.6 k )(120 in.) = + = 0.011 in. 3 12 (1,875 ksi ) (562,176 in ) (732 in 2 ) (750 ksi )
(28.6 k )(120 in.)3 1.2 (28.6 k )(120 in.) + = 0.021 in. 3 12 (1,875 ksi ) ( ,652 in ) ( 732 in 2 ) (750 ksi ) 168
(3017)
m = 0.7 R s = 0.7 (4.5)(0.021 in.) = 0.066 in. Thus, deflections are less than 0.025h = 3.0 in.
o.k.
8.
2108.2.5.6
Section 2108.2.5.6 requires boundary elements for CMU shear walls with strains exceeding 0.0015 in./in. from a wall analysis with R = 1.5 . The intent of masonry boundary elements is to help the masonry achieve greater compressive strains (up to 0.006 in./in.) without experiencing a crushing failure. The axial load and moment associated with this case is: Pu = 44.7 kips Mu = 4.5 (166.5 k  ft ) = = 619 k  ft 1.1 1.1
This PM point is not within the PM curve using a limiting masonry strain of 0.0015 in./in. (see Figure 415). From an analysis it can be determined that the maximum c distance to the neutral axis is approximately 22 inches. For this example, boundary ties are required. Note that narrow shear wall performance is greatly increased with the use of boundary ties. The code requires boundary elements to have a minimum dimension of 3 wall thickness, which is 24 inches due to yield moments. After yield moment capacity is exceeded, the c distance is reduced. Thus, if boundary element ties are provided at each end of the wall/pier extending 24 inches inward, the regions experiencing strain greater than 0.0015 in./in. are confined. Space boundary ties at 8inch centers. The purpose of masonry boundary ties is not to confine the masonry for compression, but to support the reinforcement in compression to prevent buckling. Tests have been performed to show that masonry walls can achieve 0.006 in./in. compressive strains when boundary ties are present.
238
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 4
1,500
2,000
Figure 415. PM curve for boundary element requirements; masonry strain is limited to 0.0015 in./in.
The PM curve shown in Figure 415 is derived by setting masonry strain at the compression edge at 0.0015 in./in. and by increasing the steel tension strain at the opposite wall reinforcement bars. Moments are calculated about the center of the wall pier and axial forces are calculated about the crosssection. PM points located at the outside of the denoted PM boundary element curve will have masonry strains exceeding the allowable, and thus will require boundary element reinforcement or devices. It can be seen that boundary reinforcement is required for the point (Pu = 45 k, M u = 619 k ) . Boundary element confinement ties may consist of #3 or #4 closed reinforcement in 10inch and 12inch CMU walls. At 8inch CMU walls prefabricated products such as the masonry comb are the best choice for boundary reinforcement because these walls are too narrow for reinforcement ties (even #3 and #4 bars). The boundary reinforcement should extend around three vertical #4 bars at the ends of the wall.
239
Design Example 4
9.
CMU walls should be adequately connected to the roof diaphragm around the perimeter of the building. In earthquakes, including the 1994 Northridge event, a common failure mode has been separation of heavy walls and roofs leading to partial collapse of roofs. A recommended spacing is 80" maximum. However, 6'0" or 4'0" might be more appropriate and should be considered for many buildings. This anchorage should also be provided on lines A and D, which will require similar but different details at the roof framing perpendicular to wall tie condition. UBC 1633.2.9 requires that diaphragm struts or ties crossing the building from chord to chord be provided that transfer the outofplane anchorage forces through the roof diaphragm. Diaphragm design is presented in Design Example 5, and is not presented in this example. Per 1633.2.8.1, elements of the wall outofplane anchorage system shall be designed for the forces specified in 1632 where R p = 3.0 and a p = 1.5 . Fp = a p Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr W p
(322)
Fp = or:
f p = 1.06w p , where w p is the panel weight of 75 psf (see Figure 416) loading.
qroof
fp
h
240
Design Example 4
= 897 plf
Section 1633.2.8.1 requires a minimum wallroof anchorage of q roof = 420 plf q roof = 897 plf 420 plf use q roof = 897 plf The design anchorage reaction at different anchor spacings is thus: at 4'0" centers, q roof = 3,588 lb at 6'0" centers, q roof = 5,382 lb at 8'0" centers, q roof = 7,175 lb Therefore, choose wallroof anchors that will develop the required force at the chosen spacing. The roof diaphragm must also be designed to resist the required force with the use of subdiaphragms (or other means). The subject of diaphragm design is discussed in Design Example 5. For this example, a double holdown connection spaced at 8'0" centers will be used (see Figure 419). This type of connection must be secured into a solid roof framing member capable of developing the anchorage force. First check anchor capacity in concrete block of Tables 21E1 and 21E2 of Chapter 21. Alternately, the strength provisions of 2108.1.5.2 can be used. The required tension, T, for bolt embedment is T = E 1.4 = 7,175 lbs 1.4 = 5,125 lb . For inch diameter bolts embedded 6 inches, T = 2,830 lb per Table 21E1 and 3,180 lb per Table 21E2. These values are for use with allowable stress design (ASD).
241
Design Example 4
The anchor bolts are spaced at 65/8 inches center to center (considering purlin and hardware dimensions) and have 12inch diameter pullout failure cones. Thus, the failure surfaces will overlap (Figure 417). In accordance with 2108.1.5.2, the maximum tension of this bolt group may be determined as follows: Calculate Bt n per bolt using the strength provisions of Equation (85): Btn = 1.04 A p f ' m = 1.04 113 in. 2 (50 psi ) = 5,876 lb
(85)
Calculate onehalf the area of intersection of failure surfaces from two circles with radius 6 inches and centers (21/16" + 2" + 21/16") 6 5/8" apart. A p = 37.8 in.2 from Equations (87) and (88). Thus the bolt group tension can be calculated as:
By choosing a pair of prefabricated holdown brackets with adequate capacity for a double shear connection into a 2inch gluedlaminated framing member, the brackets are good for 2 3,685 lb = 7 ,307 lb (ASD) > 7,175 lb 1.4 steel element factor/1.4 ASD factor = 7,175 lb. Thus, the brackets are okay.
242
Design Example 4
Also check bolt adequacy in the double shear holdown connection with metal side plates (2inch main member, 7/8inch bolts) per NDS Table 8.3B. T = 2 3,060 lb 1.33 = 8,140 lb > 7 ,175 lb, if the failure is yielding of bolt (Mode IIIs or IV failure). If the failure is in crushing of wood (Mode I m failure), the required force is 0.85 5,125 lb = 4 ,356 lb. Therefore, the double shear bolts and prefabricated holdown brackets can be used. Thus, use two holdown brackets on each side of a solid framing member connecting the masonry wall to the framing member with connections spaced at 8'0" centers. Verify that the CMU wall can span laterally 8'0" between anchors. Assume a beam width of 6'0" (3' high parapet plus an additional three feet of wall below roof) spanning horizontally between wallroof ties. w = q roof = 897 plf Mu =
2 wl 2 (897 plf )(8 ft ) = = 7,176 lb  ft 8 8
The wall typically has #4@16inch horizontal reinforcement, therefore a minimum 4#4 bars in 6'0" wall section. 4 .20 in. 2 (60,000 psi ) = 0.314 in. .85 (2,500 psi )(72 in.)
a=
As f y .85 f ' m b
a M n = As f y d 2 .314 in. 1 = 11,689 lb  ft 7,176 lb  ft M n = 0.8 (4 ) .20 in. 2 (60,000 psi ) 3.81 in. 2 12 in.
o.k.
Per 1633.2.8.1, item 5, the wallroof connections must be made with 2inch minimum net width roof framing members (2inch GLB members or similar) and developed into the roof diaphragm with diaphragm nailing and subdiaphragm design.
243
Design Example 4
Anchor bolt embedment and edge distances are controlled by 2106.2.14.1 and 2106.2.14.2. Section 2106.2.14.1 requires that the shell of the masonry unit wall next to the wood ledger have a hole cored or drilled that allows for 1inch grout all around the anchor bolt. Thus, for a 7/8inch diameter anchor bolt, the core hole is 27/8inch in diameter at the inside face masonry unit wall. Section 2106.2.14.2 requires that the anchor bolt end must have 1 inches clearance to the outside face of masonry. The face shell thickness for 8inch masonry is 1 inches, thus the anchor bolt end distance to the inside face of the exterior shell is 75/8"1"6" = 3/8". It is recommended that the minimum clear dimension is inch if fine grout is used and inch if coarse pea gravel grout is used (Figure 418).
244
Design Example 4
10. 10
Chord design.
Analysis of transverse roof diaphragm chords is determined by calculation of the diaphragm simple span moment wl 2 8 divided by the diaphragm depth.
wdiaph, trans. =
Modify w for R = 4.0 by factor (4.5/4.0) = 1.125 M diaph. = wl 2 8 = 1.125 (1,356 plf )(90 ft )2 8 = 1,545 k  ft Tu = C u = 1,545 k  ft 60 ft = 25.7 kips Using reinforcement in the CMU wall for chord forces: As , required = Tu 25.7 k = = 0.54 in. 2 f y (0.80 )(60 ksi )
Thus 2#5 chord bars As = 0.62 in.2 are adequate to resist the chord forces. Place chord bars close to the roof diaphragm level. Since roof framing often is sloped to drainage, the chord placement is a matter of judgment.
Design Example 4
References
ACI 53099 / ASCE 699 / TMS 40299, 1999, Building Code Requirements for Masonry Structures. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, The Masonry Society, Boulder, Colorado. Amrhein, J.E., 1996, Reinforced Masonry Engineering Handbook, 5th Edition. Masonry Institute of America, Los Angeles, California. Brandow, G E., Hart, G., and Virdee, A., 1997, Design of Reinforced Masonry Structures. Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada (CMACH), Sacramento, California. MIA, 1998, Reinforced Concrete Masonry Construction Inspectors Handbook: Conforming to the 1997 UBC. Masonry Institute of America, 2550 Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90057. Paulay, T. and Priestly, M.J.N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Robinson, A. and Uzarski, J., 1999, CMD97, Concrete Masonry Design to the 1997 UBC. Computer Aided Design of Reinforced Concrete and Clay Masonry Elements in Accordance with the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Concrete Masonry Association of California and Nevada (CMACH), Sacramento, California.
246
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Overview
In this example, the seismic design of major components of a tiltup building are presented. Many tiltup buildings have suffered severe structural damage in earthquakes, particularly during the 1971 San Fernando and 1994 Northridge events. The most common problem is wallroof separation, with subsequent partial collapse of the roof. In the 1997 UBC, substantial improvements, including higher wallroof anchorage forces, have been added to help prevent the problems that appeared in tiltup buildings built to codes as recent as the 1994 UBC. The example building is the warehouse shown in Figure 51. This building has tiltup concrete walls and a panelized plywood roof system. The buildings roof framing plan is shown in Figure 52, and a typical section through the building is given in Figure 53. The emphasis in this Design Example 5 is the seismic design of the roof diaphragm, wallroof anchorage, and a major collector.
247
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Outline
This example will illustrate the following parts of the design process:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 10 Design base shear coefficient. Design the roof diaphragm. Design typical northsouth subdiaphragm. Design wallroof ties for northsouth subdiaphragm. Design continuity ties for northsouth direction. Design of collector along line 3 between lines B and C. Required diaphragm chord for eastwest seismic forces. Required wall panel reinforcing for outofplane forces. Deflection of eastwest diaphragm. Design shear force for eastwest panel on line 1.
Given Information
The following information is given: Roof: dead load = 14.0 psf Walls: thickness = 7.25" height = 23' normal weight concrete = 150 pcf f ' c = 4,000 psi A615, Grade 60 rebar f y = 60 ksi Seismic and site data: Z = 0.4 (Zone 4) I = 1.0 (Standard occupancy) seismic source type = B distance to seismic source = 13km soil profile type = S D N/S = 1.0 E/W = 1.5 (due to short wall on line 3)
248
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
249
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Code Reference
1.
1630.2.2
= .20 sec
(308)
Comment: The buildings lateral forceresisting system has relatively rigid walls and a flexible roof diaphragm. The code formula for period does not take into consideration that the real period of the building is highly dependent on the roof diaphragm construction. Consequently, the period computed above using Equation (308) is not a good estimate of the real fundamental period of the building, however it is acceptable for determining design base shear. With seismic source type B and distance to source = 13 km N a = 1.0 N v = 1.0 For soil profile type SD and Z = .4 C a = .44 N a = .44(1.0 ) = .44 C v = .64 N v = .64(1.0 ) = .64 Since tiltup concrete walls are both shear walls and bearing walls: R = 4.5 Design base shear is calculated from: V = Cv I .64(1.0 ) W = W = .677W RT 4.5(.21) (304) Table 16N Table 16Q Table 16R Table 16S Table 16T
but base shear need not exceed: V = 2.5C a I 2.5(.44 )(1.0 ) W = .244W W = 4.5 R (305)
250
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
A check of Equations (306) and (307) indicate these do not control, therefore the base shear in both directions is V = .244W Note that the base shear is greater than that required under the 1994 UBC. The principal reason for this is that base shear under the 1997 UBC is determined on a strength design basis. If allowable stress design (ASD) is used, the base shear is divided by 1.4 according to 1612.3.
2. 2a. 2a
Seismic forces for the roof are computed from the weight of the roof and the tributary weights of the walls oriented perpendicular to the direction of the seismic forces. This calculation is shown below: roof area = 110 ft (64 ft ) + 140.67 ft (224 ft ) = 38,550 sq ft roof weight = 38,550 sq ft (14 psf ) = 539.7 kips wall weight = 7.25 150 = 90.6 psf 12
northsouth walls = 90.6 psf (2 ft + 10.5 ft )(140.67 ft )(2 ) = 318.6 kips eastwest walls = 90.6 psf (2 ft + 10.5 ft )(288 ft )(2 ) = 652.3 kips In this example, the effect of any wall openings has been neglected. This is considered an acceptable simplification because the openings usually occur in the bottom half of the wall.
2b. 2b
The roof diaphragm must be designed to resist seismic forces in both directions. The following formula is used to determine the total seismic force, Fpx , on the diaphragm at a given level of a building. In general, separate forces are computed for each direction.
251
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
F px =
Ft + Fi
i= x
i= x
Wi
W px
(331)
Base shear for this building is V = .244W . This was determined using R = 4.5 as shown in Part 1 above. For diaphragm design, however, 1633.2.9 requires that R not exceed 4. Since this is a onestory building with Ft = 0 , and using R = 4 , Equation (331) becomes the following: F px = 4.5 V 4.5 (.244) W px = 0.275W px W px = 4 W 4 1633.2.9 1633.2.9
Fpx need not exceed 1.0C a IW px = 1.0 (.44 )(1.0 )W px = .44W px but cannot be less than 0.5C a IW px = 0.5 (.44 )(1.0 )W px = .22W px Therefore, for diaphragm design use F px = .275W px Note: The reliability/redundancy factor is not applied to horizontal diaphragms, except transfer diaphragms. (Refer to Examples 15 and 16 in Volume I of the Seismic Design Manual for a discussion of the factor.) Northsouth direction: W px = 539.7 k + 318.6 k = 858.3 kips F px = .275 (858.3) = 236.0 kips The equivalent uniform load on the diaphragm can be computed as: w= 236.0 kips = 1,678 plf 140.67'
In this calculation, an approximation has been made that the uniform load between lines A and B is the same as that between B and E. The actual load on the AB segment is less, and the load on the BE segment is slightly greater than that shown. This has been done to simplify the computations. Because the panelized wood roof diaphragm in this building is considered flexible (see 1630.6 for definition of flexible diaphragm), lines A, B and E are considered lines of resistance for the northsouth seismic forces. A collector is needed along line B to drag the tributary northsouth diaphragm forces into the shear wall on line B. The shear diagram is shown below.
252
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
25.7 k 92.3 k
E Loading
92.3 k Shear
Figure 54. Seismic loading and shear diagram for northsouth diaphragm
3 64'0" 224'0"
10
Diaphragm shear at line A and on the east side of line B is: 25,700lbs = 115 plf 224' Diaphragm shear at the west side of line B and at line E is: 92,300 lb = 320 plf 288 ft
Eastwest direction: Diaphragm forces for the eastwest direction are computed using the same procedure and assumptions as the northsouth direction. The actual load on segment 13 is less than that shown, and the load on 310 slightly greater.
36.4 k
127.5 k
36.4 k
W px = 539.7 k + 652.3 k = 1,192. 0 kips F px = .275 (1,192.0 k ) = 327.8 kips Equiv. w = 327.8 k = 1,138 plf 288 ft
127.5 k Shear
Figure 55. Seismic loading and shear diagram for eastwest diaphragm
253
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Diaphragm shear at line 1 and the north side of line 3 is: 36,400 lb = 331 plf 110 ft Diaphragm shear at the south side of line 3 and at line 10 is: 127,500 lb = 906 plf 140.67 ft
2c. 2c
The eastwest diaphragm has been selected to illustrate the design of a plywood roof diaphragm. Allowable stress design (ASD) will be used. The basic earthquake loading combination is given by Equation (301). When ASD is used, vertical effects need not be considered, and in this example of the diaphragm design, they would not come into use even if strength design was being used. As discussed earlier, the reliability/redundancy factor does not apply to the diaphragm, and =1 in Equation (301). E = E h + E v = 1.0 E h + 0 = 1.0 E h For ASD, the basic load combination to be used to combine earthquake and dead load is Equation (129). This simplifies to the following: D+ E = 0+ E = E 1.4 1.4 1.4 Assume the diaphragm is to be constructed with inch Structural I plywood with all edges supported. Refer to use UBC Table 23IIH for nailing requirements. Sheathing arrangement (shown in Figure 52) for eastwest seismic forces is Case 4. Diaphragm shear forces must be divided by 1.4 to convert to ASD. Because open web truss purlins with double 2x4 chords are used in this direction, the framing width in the eastwest direction is 3 inches. However, in the northsouth direction, the framing consists of 2 subpurlins, and strength is therefore limited by the 2inch nominal width. Required nailing for panel edges for various zones of the roof (for eastwest seismic only) is given in Table 51 below. Minimum field nailing is 10d @ 12 inches. A similar calculation (not shown) must be done for northsouth seismic forces. (129) (301)
254
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Table 51. Diaphragm nailing for eastwest seismic forces Boundary and EastWest Edge NorthSouth Zone Edge Nailing (2) Allowable Shear Nailing (1) A 10d @ 2" 4" 640 plf
B C 10d @ 4" 10d @ 6" 6" 6" 425 plf 320 plf
ASD Shear 906/1.4 = 647 plf 583/1.4 = 416 plf 331/1.4 = 236 plf
Notes:
1. 2. The eastwest running sheet edges are the continuous panel edges parallel to load mentioned in Table 23IIH. The northsouth sheet edges are the other panel edges in Table 23IIH. Note that the nailing for northsouth running diaphragm boundaries is 10d @ 2 inches.
The demarcation between nailing zones A and B is determined as follows. It was decided to use 10d at 2inch spacing in A and 4inch spacing in B. The limiting shear for 10d at 4 inches (from Table 23IIH) is 425 plf. Shear reduces from a maximum of 906 plf at lines 3 and 10 to 595 plf (i.e., 425 plf 1.4 = 595 plf) at 38.4 feet from lines 3 and 10. Rounding to the nearest 8foot increment because purlins are spaced at 8 feet o.c., zone A extends a distance of 40 feet from lines 3 and 10 as shown below.
1 64'0"
3 40'0" 144'0"
10 40'0"
A C
The above illustrates design of the eastwest diaphragm for shear. Design of the chord for the eastwest diaphragm is shown in Part 7 of this example. Design of ledger bolts, required to transfer the diaphragm shear to the wall panels, is not shown.
255
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
3.
Subdiaphragms are used to transfer outofplane seismic forces from the tiltup wall panels to the main diaphragm. Consequently, subdiaphragms are considered to be part of the wall anchorage system as defined in 1627. In the example below, design of a typical subdiaphragm for northsouth seismic forces is shown. Design of subdiaphragm for eastwest seismic forces is similar but not shown.
3a. 3a
Maximum allowable subdiaphragm ratio is 2.5 to 1 From Figure 52, the maximum northsouth subdiaphragm span = 36.67 ft = 14.67 ft 2.5 110 ft = 36.67 ft 3
1633.2.9
Typical roof purlin spacing = 8 0 Minimum subdiaphragm depth = 16 0 Must use subdiaphragm at least = 16 0 deep
3b. 3b
Forces on subdiaphragm.
Because subdiaphragms are part of the outofplane wall anchorage system, they are designed under the requirements of 1633.2.8.1. Seismic forces on a typical northsouth subdiaphragm are determined from Equation (322) with R p = 3.0 and a p = 1.5. w p = 90.6 psf Fp = a p Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr W p (322)
The value of F p to be used in wallroof anchorage design is determined from Equation (322) using h x = hr , and W p is the tributary weight. The tributary wall weight is onehalf of the weight between the roof and base plus all of the weight above the roof.
256
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
W p = 90.6 psf (2 ft + 10.5 ft )(1 ft ) = 1,133 lb/ft Fp = 1.5 (.44 )1.0 21 1 + 3 W p = .88W p 3.0 21
Solving for the uniform force per foot, q , at the roof level q = .88W p = .88 (1,133)= 997 plf
10'6"
Check minimum wallroof anchorage force 997 plf > 420 plf q = 997 plf o.k. 1633.2.8.1(1)
3c. 3c
Assume a 32foot deep subdiaphragm as shown below. This is done for two reasons. First, the GLB along Line 9 can be used as a chord. Second, the deeper than required subdiaphragm depth (32 feet vs. 16 feet) makes the subdiaphragm displacement more compatible with that of the main northsouth diaphragm.
257
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Shear reaction to glulam beams along lines C and D: R= 997 plf (36.67 ft ) = 18,280 lb 2 18,280 lb = 571 plf 32
Maximum shear =
From Table 51, the minimum nailing in Zone A (Figure 56) is 10d @ 4 in. along northsouth edges, except at boundaries. Load on an ASD basis with the 0.85 load factor of 1633.2.8.1(5) applied is 0.85
Check 10d @ 4 in. for Case 2, capacity = 640 plf > 347 plf o.k. Use of Zone A nailing for subdiaphragm okay
258
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
3d. 3d
Glulam beams (GLB) along lines 2 and 9, and the continuous horizontal reinforcement in panels along lines 1 and 10, act as chords for the subdiaphragms. Check to see if the GLB can carry additional seismic force within incremental onethird allowable tension increase using ASD. Note that 0.85 load factor of 1633.2.8.1(5) is applied to the chord force when checking the tension stress in the GLB. Chord force = 997 plf (36.67 )2 = 5,237 lb 8(32 )
Assume GLB 6 3 4 24 with 24FV4 DF/DF A = 162 in.2 Ft = 1,150 psi ft = 0.85 (5,237 lb) 1.4 162 in.
2
Table 5A, 91 NDS = 20 psi < 1 1,150 psi = 383 psi o.k. 3
Comment: In reality, the GLB along line 9 may not act in tension as a subdiaphragm chord as shown above. It will be loaded in tension only when compressive wall anchorage forces act on the diaphragm. Under this loading, the seismic forces probably do not follow only the subdiaphragm path shown above but are also transmitted through the wood framing to other parts of the diaphragm. Even if subdiaphragm action does occur, the subdiaphragm may effectively be much deeper than shown. However, because it is necessary to demonstrate that there is a system to resist the outofplane forces on the diaphragm edge, the subdiaphragm system shown above is provided.
3e. 3e
This Design Example 5 assumes that there is continuous horizontal reinforcement in the walls at the roof level that acts as a chord for both the main diaphragm and the subdiaphragms. The 1.4 load factor of 1633.2.8.1(4) must be applied to the reinforcement. Subdiaphragm chord force = P = 5,237 lb As = 1.4 (5,237 ) P = = 0.14 in.2 f y 0.9 (60,000 )
259
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
This is a relatively small amount of reinforcement. Generally, the main diaphragm chord reinforcement exceeds this amount. In present California practice, the subdiaphragm chord steel requirement is not added to the chord steel requirement for the main diaphragm. Determination of the main chord reinforcement is shown in Part 7.
4.
1633.2.8.1
The key elements in the wall anchorage system, defined in 1627, are the wallroof ties. Wallroof ties are used to transfer outofplane seismic forces on the tiltup wall panels to the subdiaphragms. Requirements for connection of outofplane wall anchorages to flexible diaphragms are specified in 1633.2.8.1.
4a. 4a
Seismic forces are determined using Equations (321) or (322). Values of R p and a p are: R p = 3.0 a p = 1.5 1633.2.8.1(1)
Forces on the anchorage were computed above in Part 3, using the same values of R p and a p , and are q = 997 plf .
4b. 4b
Minimum required thickness of a subpurlin used as wallroof tie = 2 inches Try ties at 8 ft0 in. spacing, and determine F p F p = 8 ft 997 plf = 7,976 lb Comment: When tie spacing exceeds 4 feet, the SEAOC Blue Book (108.2.6) recommends that walls be designed to resist bending between anchors.
1633.2.8.1(5)
Try prefabricated metal holdowns with two inch bolts in subpurlin and two inch bolts connecting the subpurlin to the wall panel. This connection (Figure 59) is designed to take both tension and compression as recommended by the SEAOSC/COLA Northridge Tiltup Building Task Force and the SEAOC Blue Book (C108.2.8.1). Design of the holdown hardware not shown. Consult ICBO Evaluation Reports for allowable load capacity of premanufactured holdowns. Note that if a onesided holdown is used, eccentricities in the subpurlin must be considered, as specified in 1633.2.8.1(2). Generally, onesided wallroof anchorage is not recommended.
260
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
6"
plywood sheathing
7"
Check capacity of the two inch bolts in DFL subpurlin using ASD:
o.k.
Note that the .85 load factor of 1633.2.8.1(5) is used to reduce the seismic force. This applies to forces on nails and bolts connecting brackets or strips to the wood framing because these are considered wood elements under the code (see SEAOC Blue Book C108.2.8.1). Comment: The Blue Book (C108.2.8.1) makes a recommendation for the minimum length to diameter ratio of the throughbolts connecting the holdowns to the subpurlin. In this case, the l/d ratio is 2.5/0.75 = 3.3. The minimum recommended value is 4.5. This ratio is necessary to maintain a ductile failure mode (e.g., bending of the throughbolts). To satisfy the Blue Book recommendation, a 4x subpurlin would be required in this situation. Minimum required end distance = 7 D = 7 (.75) = 5.25 in. Table 8.5.4, 91 NDS
A distance of 6 inches from the throughbolt in the holdown to the ledger will be used. Often, there is a gap of 1/8inch or more between the end of the subpurlin and the side of the ledger due to panelized roof erection methods, and the use of a 6inch edge distance will ensure compliance with the 7D requirement. A larger
261
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
distance can be used to ensure that throughbolt tear out does not occur in the 3 subpurlin. Check tension capacity of two inch A307 anchor bolts using ASD: Ft = 20.0 ksi P = Ft AB (2 bolts)(1.33) P = (20.0 ksi ) 0.4418 in. 2 Table 1A, AISCASD
o.k.
As specified in 1633.2.8.1(4), the 1.4 steel factor has been used to increase the seismic force. Check compression capacity of two inch A307 anchor bolts using ASD: Radius of gyration of inch rod = 0.75inch/4 = 0.1875inch Assume L = 4inch L 4.5" = = 24, r 0.1875" Fa = 20.35 ksi Table C36, AISCASD
o.k.
Check tension capacity of anchor bolts in wall panel for concrete strength: The tiltup panels are exterior wall elements, but the requirements of 1633.2.4.2 do not apply. This is because the tiltup panels are both bearing walls and shear walls. The requirements of 1633.2.8 are the appropriate design rules in this situation. This section requires that wall anchorage using straps be attached or hooked so as to transfer the forces to the reinforcing steel. In this case, we are using castinplace bolts instead of straps, and the bolts are not required to be hooked around the wall reinforcement. In fact, headed anchor bolts have been shown to be more effective than Lbolts in resisting pullout forces [Shipp and Haninger, 1982]. Try anchor bolts with a 5inch embedment. Although this embedment is considered shallow anchorage under 1632.2, Rp is 3.0 regardless of whether the anchorage has shallow embedment because 1633.2.8.1 is applicable. The material specific load factors of 1633.2.8.1 (1.4 for steel and 0.85 for wood) are intended to provide the nominal overstrength necessary to resist brittle failure of the wall anchorage system when subjected to the maximum anticipated roof accelerations of flexible diaphragms. Section 1633.2.8.1 is intended as a standalone section, and
262
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
the more restrictive requirements on R p of 1632.2 do not apply (see Blue Book C108.2.8.1). F p = 7,976 lb Actual bolt spacing is: 2 in. (width of 3 subpurlin) +4 in. (2 times bolt edge distance of holdown flange) 6 in. From Table 19D, required spacing for full capacity is 9 inches. Minimum spacing is 50 percent of this, or 4 in. Interpolation for 6 in. spacing is shown below with f 'c = 4,000 psi and assuming Special Inspection. Alternately, using strength design, the requirements of 1923.2 could be used with computation for overlapping pullout cones. If 1923.2 is used, a load multiplier of 1.3 and a strength reduction factor of 0.65 would be used: Tension Capacity (w/Special Inspection) 6,400 lb/bolt 4,800 3,200 Fp 2 = 7 ,976 = 3,988 lb/bolt 2 3,988 = 2,849 1.4 o.k. Bolt Spacing 9 in. 6 in. 4 in.
Comment: The code in 1633.2.8.1 requires that materialspecific load factors be applied in the design of elements of the wall anchorage system. These factors are 1.4 for steel, 1.0 for concrete, and 0.85 for wood. They are applied to the anchorage force determined from Equation (322). A background discussion on this is given in the Blue Book Commentary C108.2.8.1, where the load factors are shown to provide a connection having nominal overstrength of approximately 2.0. This is required to meet the maximum expected roof acceleration of four times the peak ground acceleration. The latter is also discussed in C108.2.8.1 and is shown to be equivalent to doubling the design anchorage force F p . Thus, an anchorage connection designed under 1633.2.8.1 should have the overstrength that just meets the maximum expected demand of 2 F p . This overstrength approach was selected, in lieu of a ductility approach, after wall anchorage failures were observed in steel strap connectors with limited yield and deformation range. Because anchor bolt pullout is a critical and brittle failure mode, it must be prevented by having sufficient embedment strength. The nominal factor of two
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
263
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
overstrength for concrete anchorage just meets the expected maximum demand. This is based on dividing the 1.3 load factor by a factor of 0.65 as discussed in C108.2.8.1 of the Blue Book. Shown below is the calculation of the strength of the anchorage shown in Figure 59 using the method of 1923.3.2 (an alternate method is given in Cook, 1999). In this calculation, a factor of 0.65 is used to provide an additional margin of safety beyond the code minimum. If the overstrength desired was only 2.0, then =1.0 would be used. Note that the capacity Pc is greater than 2 F p . Pc = 4 A p f c' 1923.3.2
For in. bolts with hex heads, the width across the flats is 1 18 in. , and A p is computed as follows. A p = 0.785 (10 + 1.125)2 + 6.75(10 + 1.125) = 172 in. 2 < 2(0.785)(11.125)2 = 194 in. 2 = 0.65 =1.0 Pc = (0.65)(1.0)4 172 in.2 1923.3.2 1923.3.2
) 4,000
o.k.
Therefore, the anchorage in Figure 59 is strong enough to resist the expected pullout forces for codelevel ground motions. In general, it is recommended that the concrete pullout strength exceed the bolt yield strength. If this is not possible, it is recommended that the concrete pullout strength exceed the code minimum by a substantial margin (as shown above). An alternate wallroof tie connection is in Figure 510. However, this connection, which utilizes a heavygauge strap, does not offer the same compression resistance as the bolt scheme (Figure 59). Compression forces in the subpurlin generally must be carried by the strap and/or plywood sheathing because subpurlins are typically not installed snugly against the ledgers. Often there is a 1/8inch to 1/4inch gap at each end. Providing both tension and compression capability in wallroof ties protects the diaphragm edge nailing under the reversible seismic forces. In this case, the strap is hooked around a reinforcing bar to meet the requirements of 1633.2.8. The code requires that different loads be applied to the various materials involved in the wall anchorage system. However, most hardware manufacturers catalogs provide only a single allowable stress capacity for the component, which often includes concrete, steel, and wood elements. To properly apply code requirements, the design engineer must compute the capacity of each element separately.
264
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
plywood sheathing
#5 bar
3x subpurlin 4"
7"
ledger
4c. 4c
Design connection to transfer seismic force across first roof truss purlin.
Under 1627, continuity ties in the subdiaphragms are considered part of the wall anchorage system. Consequently, the forces used to design the wallroof ties must also be used to design the continuity ties within the subdiaphragm. F p = wallroof tie load = 7,976 lb If the subdiaphragm is 32foot deep and roof truss purlins are spaced at 8 feet, then the connection at the first roof truss purlin must carry threequarters of the wallroof tie force. Comment: Some engineers use the full, unreduced force, but this is not required by rational analysis.
(32 8) F
32
3 7 ,976 = 5,982 lb 4
At the second and third roof truss purlins, the force to be transferred is onehalf and onefourth, respectively, of the wallroof tie force. 1 7 ,976 = 3,988 lb 2
265
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
1 7 ,976 = 1,994 lb 4 Try 12gauge metal strap with 10d common nails. Design of strap not shown. Consult ICBO Evaluation Reports for allowable load capacity of premanufactured straps. Note that the 1.4 load factor of 1633.2.8.1(4) applies to the strap design and that the 0.85 load factor of 1633.2.8.1(5) applies to the nails. Tension on the gross and net areas of the strap must be checked separately. The tensile capacity of the strap, which is generally not indicated in the ICBO Evaluation Report, is usually controlled by the nails. Consult with the strap manufacturer for appropriate values of F y and Fu . The following calculation shows determination of the number of 10d common nails required at the first connection: 0.85 (5,982 lb ) = 22.8 120 lb (1.4 )(1.33) Use 12gauge metal strap with 2410d nails each side Table 23IIIC2 Table 123F, 91 ND
266
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Note that both subpurlins in Figure 511 would be 3 members because of the heavy strap nailing. Design of the second and third connections is similar to that shown above.
5.
In a tiltup building, continuity ties have two functions. The first is to transmit the subdiaphragm reactions (from outofplane seismic forces on the wall panels) and distribute these into the main roof diaphragm. The second function is that of tying the interior portions of the roof together. In this example, the continuity ties on lines C and D will be designed.
5a. 5a
Force in the continuity tie at line 10 is the wallroof tie force: P10 = (997 plf )(8 ft ) = 7 ,976 lb Force in continuity tie at the glulam beam splice north of line 9 is the sum of both subdiaphragm reactions. P9 = 997 plf (36.67 ft ) (2 subdiaph.) = 36,560 lb 2
The splice near line 9 must also be checked for the minimum horizontal tie force of 1633.2.5. Assume the splice is at fifth point of span as shown on the roof plan of Figure 52. This requirement imposes a minimum tie force on the GLB connections and is based only on the dead and live loads carried by the beams. F p = 0.5C a IWD + L W DL = 14 psf , W LL = 12 psf 32 ft 32 ft W D + L = (14 psf + 12 psf )(36.67 ft ) 32 ft = 18,306 lb 5 5 F p = 0.5 (.44)(1.0 )(18,306 lb ) = 4 ,027 lb < 36,560 lb Subdiaphragm reaction controls 1633.2.5
267
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
5b. 5b
In this example, walls are bearing walls, and pilasters are not used to vertically support the GLBs. Consequently, the kind of detail shown in Figure 512 must be used. This detail provides both vertical support for the GLB and the necessary wallroof tie force capacity. The tie force is the same as that for wallroof tie of Part 5a (P10 = 7,976 lb ) . The detail has the capacity to take both tension and compression forces. Details of the design are not given. The horizontal force design is similar to that shown in Part 4.
P
Stud (typical)
bracket
GLB
5"
7"
It should be noted that the alternate wallroof tie of Figure 510 is not acceptable in this situation because the strap cannot resist compression. Comment: Although not required by code, some designers design the wallGLB tie to take all of the tributary wallroof forces (assuming the subpurlin wall ties carry none) and carry this force all across the building as the design force in the continuity ties. In this example, this force is P9 = 36,560 lb . This provides for a much stronger tie between the wall and the GLB for buildings without pilasters (the usual practice today) to help prevent loss of support for the GLB and subsequent local collapse of the roof under severe seismic motions.
268
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
5c. 5c
P9 = 36,560 lb at splice near line 9 The ASD design force for the continuity tie is computed below. Note that the 0.85 wood load factor of 1633.2.8.1(5) is used for bolts in wood (see discussion in Blue Book C108.2.8.1). P= 0.85 (36 ,560 lb ) = 22,197 lb 1.4
22.2 k
22.2 k
hinge connector
Try four 7/8inch bolts in vertical slotted holes at center of hinge connector. Design of hinge connector hardware not shown. Consult ICBO Evaluation Reports for allowable load capacity of premanufactured hinge connectors. Note that the bolt capacity is based on the species of the inner laminations (in this case DFL). 4 (4 ,260 lb )(1.33) = 22 ,663 lb > 22 ,197 lb o.k. Table 8.3D, 91 NDS
5d. 5d
The glulam beams along lines C and D must be checked for the continuity tie axial force. See Part 6 for an example of this calculation. Note that use of the amplified force check of 1633.2.6 is not required for continuity ties that are not collectors.
269
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
6.
The collector and shear wall ledger along line 3 carry onehalf of the eastwest roof diaphragm seismic force. The force in the collector is collected from the tributary area between lines B and E and transmitted to the shear wall on line 3.
6a. 6a
From diaphragm shear diagram for eastwest seismic forces, the maximum collector load on at line 3 is: 110.0 ft R = 36.4 k + 140.67 ft 127.5 k = 136.1 kips tension or compresion Uniform axial load in collector can be approximated as the total collector load on line 3 divided by the length of the collector (110'0") in this direction. q= R 136,100 lb = = 1,237 plf L 110.00 ft
6b. 6b
Assume the collector is a GLB 6 3 4 21 with 24FV4 DF/DF and it is adequate to support dead and live loads. A = 141.8 in.2 , S = 496 in.2 , and w = 34.5 plf. Calculate seismic force at midspan. Tributary length for collecting axial forces is l = 110.00 ft 36.67 ft = 91.67 ft 2
6c. 6c
Check GLB for combined dead and seismic load as required by 1612.3.2.
D+L+S +
E 1.4
(1216)
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
P=
113.4 = 81.0 kips tension or compression on ASD basis 1.4 Table 5A, 91 NDS Table 5A, 91 NDS
Because there is a reentrant corner at the intersection of lines B and 3, a check for Type 2 plan irregularity must be made. Requirements for irregular structures are given in 1629.5.3. Northsouth direction check: .15 (288) = 43.2 ft < 64 0 Eastwest direction check: .15 (110.0 + 30.67 ) = 21.1' < 30'8" Since both projections are greater than 15 percent of the plan dimension in the direction considered, a Type 2 plan irregularity exists. The requirements of Item 6 of 1633.2.9 apply, and the onethird allowable stress increase cannot be used. Checking combined bending and axial tension using Equation (3.91) of NDS: fb f + t 1.00 Fb * Ft ' 598 571 + = 0.29 + 0.50 = 0.79 < 1.00 o.k. 2,088 1,150 Equation (3.92) of NDS o.k. by inspection. 3.9.1, 91 NDS Table 16M Table 16M
271
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Checking combined bending and axial compression using Equation (3.93) of NDS and considering the weak axis of the GLB laterally braced by the roof: fb fc + f Fc Fb 1 c FcE
2
1.0
3.92, 91 NDS
Find Fc ' by first calculating the column stability factor C p . l e = k e l = 1.0 (36.67) = 36.67 ft FcE = K cE E'
2
3.7.1.2, 91 NDS = 1,523 psi 3.7.1.5, 91 NDS Table 5A, 91 NDS Supplement
2
(le /d )
0.418(1,600,000 )
(36.67 12 / 21)2
Fc = Fc C p = 1,650 (0.73) = 1,205 psi 598 571 = 0.22 + 0.46 = 0.68 < 1.0 1,205 + 571 2,0881 1,523
2
( )
o.k .
6d. 6d
The GLB must also be checked for the special collector requirements of 1633.2.6. Using ASD, an allowable stress increase of 1.7 may be used for this check. The relevant equations are: 1.2 D + f1 L + 1.0 Em 0.9 D 1.0 E m Em = o Eh
272
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Em is an estimate of the maximum force transmitted by the collector elements in the seismic event. Unless a more refined analysis is done and the maximum force that the diaphragm, or the shear wall, can transmit to the collector determined, the seismic force Eh is scaled by the amplification factor o for estimating Em . o = 2.8 E h = 113.4 kips from Part 6b, above E m = 2.8 (113.4 ) = 317.5 kips tension or compression in beam Comment: The axial force E m = 317.5 kips in the above calculations is 1.4 times greater than that which would be obtained using the 3R w / 8 factor applied to collector forces obtained under the 1994 UBC provisions. This is because forces in the 1997 UBC are strength based and were established to be 1.4 times greater than those of the 1994 UBC. Unfortunately, the 1997 UBC does not first reduce the forces by the 1.4 ASD factor when increasing the axial force by the o = 2.8 factor. This appears to result in an unnecessarily conservative design for elements like the GLB collector in this example. Under both 1612.2.1 and 1612.4, roof live load is not included in the seismic design load combinations. Generally, Equation (1217) controls over Equation (1218). Because the 6 3 4 21 GLB will not work, a 6 3 4 27 beam will be tried. A = 182 in. 2 , S = 820 in. 3 , and w = 44.3 plf . Dead load bending stress at midspan is (neglecting small increase in beam weight): M DL = 24.7 kip ft fb = 24,700 lb ft (12) = 361 psi 820 Table 5A, 91 NDS Table 16N
Check combined dead plus tension and compression seismic stresses using Equation (1217). The load factors are 1.2 on dead load and 1.0 on seismic forces, and the allowable stress increase is 1.7. Check tension using NDS Equation (3.91):
273
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
1.2 f b 1.0 f t 1.7 F * + 1.7 F ' 1.0 b t 1.2 (361) 1,745 1.7 (2 ,040 ) + 1.7 (1,150) = 0.12 + 0.89 = 1.01 1.0 NDS Equation (3.92) is o.k. by inspection. Check compression using NDS Equation (3.93) as modified below: 1.0 f c + ' 1.7 Fc
2
say o.k.
1.0
FcE =
(le /d )
K cE E'
2
(36.67 12 / 27 )2
= 2,518 psi
3.7.1.5, 91 NDS
C p = 0.88 Fc' = Fc C p = 1,650 (0.88) = 1,452 psi 1.2 (361) = 0.50 + 0.41 = 0.91 < 1.0 1,745 1.7 (2 ,040)1 2 ,518 Use GLB 6 3 4 27 1,745 + 1.7 (1,452 )
2
( )
o.k.
Note that the special collector requirement of 1633.2.6 has necessitated that the size of the GLB be increased from 6 3 4 21 to 6 3 4 27 .
6e. 6e
The design of the connection of the GLB to the shear wall on line 3 is not given. This is an important connection because it transfers the large collected seismic force into the shear wall. The connection must be designed to carry the same seismic forces as the beam, including the amplified collector force of 1633.2.6. Because there is also a collector along line B, there is similarly an important connection of the GLB between lines 3 and 4 to the shear wall on line B. Having to carry two large tension (or compression) forces through the intersection of lines B and 3 (but not simultaneously) requires careful design consideration.
274
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
7.
Chords are required to carry the tension and compression forces developed by the moments in the diaphragm. In this building, the chords are continuous reinforcement located in the wall panels at the roof level as shown in Figure 514. (These must be properly spliced between panels.)
A E
plywood sheathing
ledger
chord reinforcement
The eastwest diaphragm spans between lines 1 and 3 and lines 3 and 10. The plywood diaphragm is considered flexible, and the moments in segments 13 and 310 can be computed independently assuming a simple span for each segment. In this example, the chord reinforcement between lines 3 and 10 will be determined. This reinforcement is for the panels on lines A and E. Equiv. w = 1,138 plf from Part 2 wl 2 1.14 klf (224 ) M= = = 7,150 kip ft 8 8
2
275
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
The chord forces are computed from T =C= 7,150 k ft = 50.8 kips 140.67 ft
The chord will be designed using strength design with Grade 60 reinforcement. The load factor of Equations (125) and (126) is 1.0 for seismic forces. As = 50.8 k T = = 0.94 in.2 f y 0.9 (60 ksi )
Use minimum 2#7 bars, As = 1.20 in 2 > 0.94 o.k. Comment: The chord shown above consists of two #7 bars. These must be spliced at the joint between adjacent panels, typically using details that are highly dependent on the accuracy in placing the bars and the quality of the field welding. Alternately, chords can also be combined with the ledger such as when steel channels or bent steel plates are used, and good quality splices can be easier to make.
8.
In this part, design of a typical solid panel (no door or window openings) is shown. The panel selected is for lines 1 and 10, and includes the reaction from a large GLB. The wall spans from floor to roof, and has no pilaster under the GLB. There are no recesses or reveals in the wall.
8a. 8a
Requirements for outofplane seismic forces are specified in 1632.2. Equation (322) is used to determine forces on the wall. Fp = a p Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr W p (322) (323) (323)
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
F p can be determined by calculating the equivalent seismic coefficient at the ground and roof levels. The average of the two values is used to determine the uniform outofplane seismic force applied over the height of the wall. At the ground level, hx = 0, and the effective seismic coefficient from Equation (322) is: aa Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr 1.0 (.44)(1.0 ) 0 = 1 + 3 = 0.147 3.0 21
Check minimum value from Equation (323): 0.7C a I p = 0.7 (.44 )(1.0 ) = 0.308 > 0.147
Use 0.308
At the roof level, hx = hr , and the effective seismic coefficient from Equation (322) is: aa Ca I p h 1 + 3 x Rp hr 1.0 (.44)(1.0 ) 21 = 1 + 3 = 0.587 3.0 21
Check maximum value from Equation (323): 4.0C a I p = 4.0 (.44 )(1.0) = 1.76 > 0.587
Use 0.587
The average force over the height of the wall is: F p = 1 (0.308 + 0.587 )W p = 0.448W p 2 Design of the wall for moments from outofplane seismic forces is done by assuming the force Fp to be uniformly distributed over the height of the wall as shown in Figure 515. Solving for the uniform force per foot f p : f p = .448 (90.6 psf ) = 40.6 psf
277
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
2'0"
21'0"
fp = 40.6 psf
8b. 8b
The panel to be designed is shown in Figure 516. The section at midheight carries the maximum moment from outofplane seismic forces. At the same time, this section also carries axial load, from the weight of the panel and the GLB, as well as bending moments due to the eccentricity of the GLB reaction on the wall and P effects. The tributary width of wall for support of the vertical loads of the GLB was determined as follows. The GLB is supported on the wall as shown in Figure 512. The vertical reaction on the wall is assumed to be at the bottom of the GLB, and the wall is assumed to span from finished floor to roof in resisting outofplane forces. These are conservative assumptions made for the convenience of the analysis. Other assumptions can be made. For example, the center of the stud group (see Figure 512) can be assumed to be the location of the GLB reaction on the wall. This assumption would result in a wider effective width of wall to carry vertical loads. The middepth of the beam could be assumed to be the point to which the wall spans for outofplane forces. This assumption would result in a lower moment in the wall due to the outofplane forces. Assume 6 3 4 25 1 2 GLB bearing on wall 6.75 21.0 25.5 Tributary width = t GLB + H 2 d GLB = + = 8.94 ft 12 2 12 1914.8.2(4)
278
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
2.13 ft
GLB roof
8.37 ft
2 H = 21.0 ft H/2 1 A B
H/2
Figure 516. Typical panel supporting a GLB; line AB denotes the tributary width of wall to be checked for the vertical load of the GLB and the moment due to outofplane seismic forces
Generally, it is advantageous to use the alternate design slender wall criteria of 1914.8. This will be shown below. As a first step, check the limitations on the use of this criteria. These are indicated in 1914.8.2. 1. Check that vertical service load is less than 0.04 f c ' Ag : Proof = 14 psf (36.7 )(32 / 2 ) = 0.92 kip / ft 8.94 1914.8.2(1)
21.0 Pwall = 90.6 psf + 2.0 = 1.13 kip / ft 2 P = Proof + Pwall = 0.92 + 1.13 = 2.05 kip / ft 0.04 f ' Ag = 0.04 (4 ,000 )(12 )(7.25) = 13.9 kip / ft > 2.05 kip / ft
279
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
2.
Check that the reinforcement does not exceed 0.6 b . Assume vertical #4 @ 12 inches o.c. in center panel: = As 0.20 = = 0.00459 bd (12 )(3.63) 0.851 f c ' 87,000 87,000 + f y fy
1914.8.2(2)
b =
(81)
b =
1914.8.2(3)
1630.1.1
1612.2.1
1910.3.2
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Calculate M n for the given axial load of 2.05 kip / ft . Note that values of Ase and a are taken from Part 8c below. 0.372 a M n = Ase f y d = 0 .253 (60) 3.63 = 52.3 kip in. 2 2 M n = 0.882 (52.3) = 46.1 kip in. Calculate the cracking moment M cr . bh 3 12 (7.25) Ig = = = 381in.4 12 12
3
M cr =
5 f c I g yt
( )
1914.0
M cr < M n o.k. 4. A 2:1 slope may be used for the distribution of the concentrated load throughout the height of the panel (Figure 516).
1914.8.2(4)
281
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
8c. 8c
Combine factored moment due to outofplane seismic forces with moment due to roof vertical load eccentricity and the moment due to P effects. Calculate P moment using the maximum potential deflection, n . E c = 57,000 f c ' = 3,605 ksi E s = 29,000 ksi n= E s 29,000 = = 8.04 Ec 3,605 Pu + As f y Fy Ase f y 0.85 f ' c b = = 3.20 + 0.20 (60 ) = 0.253 in. 60 1914.8.4 1908.5.1 1908.5.2
Ase =
a=
c=
1914.8.4
Assuming the GLB reaction is 2 in. from the face of wall e = 2.0 + t wall 7.25 = 2.0 + = 5.63 in. 2 2
282
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Pu, wall = 1.56 Pwall = 1.56 (1.13) = 1.76 kip / ft Required factored moment at midheight of the wall is: Mu =
2 f p lc
Pu,roof (e ) 2
+ Pu n
Mu =
M u = 2.24 + 0.34 + 1.21 M u = 3.79 kip  ft = 45.5 kip in. M n = 46.1 kip in. > M u Required factored shear is: Vu f p lc 2 + Pu,roof (e ) h = 40.6 (21.0 ) 1.44 (5.63) + = 0.458 kip / ft 2 (1,000) 12 (21.0 ) o.k. 1914.8.3
V c = 0.85 (2.0)
o.k.
8d. 8d
1914.8.4
The midheight deflection under service lateral and vertical loads cannot exceed the following: s = lc 21.0 (12) = = 1.68 in. 150 150 (143)
The service level moment M s is determined as follows: 40.6 (21.0 )2 0.92 (5.63) 2.05 (1.68) Ms = + + P s = + + (1.4)(8)(1,000) 2 (12) (1.4)8 2 12 M s = 2.10 kip ft = 25.2 kip in.
2 f p lc
Proof (e )
Note M s < M cr
283
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
s =
8e. 8e
Additional comments.
1. The parapet must be checked as a separate structural element for seismic forces determined from Equation (322) with R p = 3.0 and a p = 2.5. This check is not shown. 2. Attention must be given to the location of panel joints and wall openings. These can change the tributary width of wall available to resist combined axial loads and moments. 3. An iterative approach to the calculation of M u and M s may allow for a less conservative analysis. 4. The effective depth of the wall must be modified for architectural reveals, if these are used.
9.
Diaphragm deflections are estimated primarily to determine the displacements imposed on attached structural and nonstructural elements. Columns and walls connected to the diaphragm must satisfy the deformation compatibility requirements of 1633.2.4. An acceptable method of determining the horizontal deflection of a plywood diaphragm under lateral forces is given in 23.222 of 1997 UBC Standard 232. The following equation is used: = ( c X ) 5vL3 vL + + 0.188 Len + 8 EAb 4Gt 2b
The deflection of the diaphragm spanning between lines 3 and 10 will be computed. Values for each of the parameters in the above equation are given below: v= wl (1,138 plf )(224 ft ) = = 906 plf 2b 2 (140.67 ft )
L = 224'0"
284
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
E = 29 10 6 psi A = 2 #7 bars = 2 .60 = 1.20 in.2 b = 140.67 ft G = 90,000 psi Table 232J Table 232I Table 232K
t = 0.54
en
.042 .044
Substituting the above parameters into the deflection equation, the deflection (in inches) at midspan of the diaphragm is determined. =
(906)(224 ) + 0.188 (80)(0.042 ) + 0.188 (144 )(0.044 ) + 0 8 (29 10 6 ) (1.20 )(140.67 ) 4 (90,000)(0.54 )
+
5 (906)(224 )3
= 1.30 + 1.04 + 0.63 + 1.19 = 4.16 in. Under 1633.2.4, all structural framing elements and their connections that are part of the lateral forceresisting system and are connected to the roof must be capable of resisting the expected horizontal displacements. The expected displacements are amplified displacements taken as the greater of M or a story drift of 0.0025 times the story height. In this example, the expected displacement is: M = 0.7 R S = 0.7 (4 )(4.16 in ) = 11.6 in. Note that the R value used above is R = 4 . This is the R value used to determine the shear in the diaphragm in Part 2b under the requirements of 1633.2.9(3). (3017)
285
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
Comment: The diaphragm deflection calculation shown above is based on strength design seismic forces. Under the 1994 UBC, seismic forces are based on ASD loads, and a smaller deflection would be calculated.
10. 10
In this part, determination of the inplane shear force on a typical wall panel on line 1 is shown. There are a total of five panels on line 1 (Figure 51). The panel with the large opening is assumed not effective in resisting inplane forces, and four panels are assumed to carry the total shear. From Part 2, the total shear on line 1 is 36.4 kips . This force is on a strength basis and was determined using R = 4 for the diaphragm. Except for the diaphragm, the building is designed for R = 4.5 , and an adjustment should be made to determine inplane wall forces. Earthquake loads on the shear walls must also be modified by the reliability/redundancy factor . This factor varies between a minimum of 1.0 and a maximum of 1.5. Because the shear wall on line 3 (not shown) has large openings for a truck dock, the maximum elementstory shear ratio, rmax of 1630.1.1, is large and the resulting reliability/redundancy factor for the eastwest direction is the maximum value of 1.5. This requires that shear forces in individual eastwest panels, determined from the analysis shown in Part 2, be increased by a factor of 1.5 as shown below. Finally, seismic forces due to panel weight must also be included. These are determined using the base shear coefficient (.244) from Part 1. The panel seismic force is determined as follows: Panel weight: width = 110 ft = 22 ft 5
7.25 W p = 0.15 (23 ft )(22 ft ) = 45.9 kips 12 Seismic force due to panel weight: F p = 0.244W p = 0.244 (45.9 k ) = 11.2 kips
286
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
The total seismic force on the panel, E , is the horizontal shear transferred from the diaphragm and the horizontal seismic force due to the panel weight, both adjusted for the reliability/redundancy factor. This calculation is shown below: E = E h + E v 1 4 Eh = (36.4 k ) + (11.2 k ) = 19.3 kips 4 4.5 Ev = 0 V panel = E h + E v = 1.5 (19.3) + (0 ) = 29.0 kips per panel Comment: The 1997 UBC introduced the concept of the reliability/redundancy factor. The intent of this provision is to penalize those lateral force resisting systems without adequate redundancy by requiring that they be more conservatively designed. A redundancy factor is computed for each principal direction. In general, they are not applied to diaphragms, except transfer diaphragms. (301)
References
ACI, 1996. Practitioners Guide to TiltUp Construction. American Concrete Institute, P.O. Box 9094, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48333. Breyer, D.E., Fridley, K.J., and Cobeen, K.E., 1999. Design of Wood Structures Allowable Stress Design, Fourth edition. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York. Brooks, Hugh, 1997. The Tiltup Design and Construction Manual, Fourth edition. HBA Publications, 2027 Vista Caudal, Newport Beach, California 92660. City of Los Angeles Division 91. Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Tiltup Concrete Wall Buildings, Los Angeles Dept. of Building and Safety, 200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012. Cook, R.A., 1999. Strength Design of Anchorage to Concrete, Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois. Hamburger, R., and McCormick, D., 1994. Implications of the January 17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake on Tiltup and Masonry Buildings with Wood Roofs,
287
Design Example 5
TiltUp Building
1994 Fall Seminar Notes. Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC), 74 New Montgomery Street, Suite 230, San Francisco, California 941053411. SEAOSC/COLA, 1994. 1994 Northridge Earthquake (Structural Engineers Association of Southern California/City of Los Angeles) Special Investigation Task Force, Tiltup Subcommittee. Final report dated September 25, 1994. Shipp, J.G., and Haninger, E.R., 1982. Design of Headed Anchor Bolts, Proceedings of 51st Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association of California, September 30October 2, 1982.
288
Design Example 6
32'0"
3'0"
12'0"
4'0"
3'0"
Overview
Walls designed under the alternative slender wall method of UBC 1914.8, are typically tiltup concrete panels that are sitecast, cured, and tilted into place. They are designed to withstand outofplane forces and carry vertical loads at the same time. These slender walls differ from concrete walls designed under the empirical design method (UBC 1914.5) in that there are greater restrictions on axial loads and reinforcement ratios. In addition, secondary effects of eccentricities and pdelta moments play an important role in analysis and design of these slender tiltup panels.
In this example, the outofplane lateral design forces for a onestory tiltup concrete slender wall panel with openings are determined, and the adequacy of a proposed reinforced concrete section is checked. The example is a singlestory tiltup concrete wall panel with two openings, sitecast, and tilted up into place. The pier between the two openings is analyzed using the slender
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
289
Design Example 6
wall design method (UBC 1914.8). Analysis of the wall panel for lifting stresses or other erection loads is not a part of this example. Outline
This example will illustrate the following parts of the design process:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Outofplane lateral design forces. Basic moment from the outofplane forces. Vertical design forces acting on the pier. Nominal moment strength Mn. Factored moment including eccentricity and pdelta effects. Service load outofplane deflection. Special horizontal reinforcing.
Given Information
Wall material: fc = 3000 psi normal weight concrete Reinforcing steel material: fy = 60,000 psi Wall thickness = 9 inches with periodic inch narrow reveals. Reinforcing steel area = 7 #5 each face at wall section between openings. Reinforcing depth based on 1inch minimum cover per UBC 1907.7.1 item 4. Loading data: Roof loading to wall = uniform loading; 40foot span of 12 psf dead load; no snow load. Roof loading eccentricity = 4 inches from interior face of panel. Seismic Zone = Zone 4 Nearsource influence = more than 10 km to any significant seismic source (Na = 1). Soil profile = SD Seismic importance factor = 1.0 Wind does not govern this wall panel design.
290
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 6
291
Design Example 6
Code Reference
1.
The wall panel is subdivided into a design strip. Typically, a solid panel is subdivided into onefootwide design strips for outofplane design. However, where wall openings are involved, the entire pier width between openings is generally used as the design strip for simplicity. The distributed loading accounts for the strips selfweight, as well as the tributary loading from above each opening.
W3
W1
W3
W2 W1 roof
parapet
design strip
4'0"
floor
4'0"
292
Design Example 6
1a.
The wall panel is considered an element of a structure, thus 1632.2 applies in determining the lateral seismic force. UBC Equations 322 and 323 are used to determine forces for design. Fp = ap Ca Ip hx 1 + 3 Wp Rp hr (322) (323) Table 16O Table 16O Table 16Q Table 16K
Except : FP is limited by 0.7CaIpWp Fp 4CaIpWp ap = 1.0 Rp = 3.0 Ca = 0.44 Ip = 1.0 Therefore, the limits on Fp are: 0.308Wp Fp 1.76Wp hx is defined as the attachment height above grade level. Since the wall panel is connected at two different heights, an equivalent lateral force will be obtained using the average of the roof Fp and the atgrade Fp [ref. 1999 SEAOC Blue Book Commentary C107.2.3]. Fp roof = (1.0)(0.44)(1.0) hr 1 + 3 Wp = 0.587Wp 3.0 hr
(1.0)(0.44)(1.0) 0 1 + 3 Wp = 0.147Wp , 3.0 hr but Fp min = 0.308Wp governs. Fp grade = Fp wall = Fp grade + Fp roof 2 = 0.587 + 0.308 = 0.448Wp 2
Note: The seismic coefficient 0.448 is virtually the same as the 1994 UBC coefficient 0.30 when adjusted for strength design and the different seismic zone coefficient Ca defaults: Fp (1994 UBC equivalent) = 0.448Wp 0.40 = 0.291 0.30 1.4 0.44
293
Design Example 6
1b. 1b
For this example, the use of load combination (125) of 1612.2.1 is applicable, and governs for concrete strength design under seismic loading. 1.2D + 1.0E + (f1L + f2S) where: D = self weight of wall and dead load of roof L = 0 (floor live load) S = 0 (snow load) E = Eh + Ev where = 1.0 (1632.2) and Ev = 0.5CaID Load combination (125) reduces to: (1.2 + 0.5CaI)D + 1.0Eh or (1.2 + 0.22)D + 1.0Eh or 1.42D + 1.0Eh Note: Exception 2 under 1612.2.1, which multiplies strength design load combinations by 1.1, has been determined to be inappropriate by SEAOC and others, and has not been included in the 1999 SEAOC Blue Book, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. For the purposes of this example, the 1.1 multiplier has been included in order to conform to the 1997 UBC as originally published. For additional information, see Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings under the 1997 UBC, by S.K. Ghosh, published in Building Standards, MayJune 1998, ICBO. Load combination (125) increases to: 1.1(1.42D + 1.0Eh) = 1.56D + 1.1Eh (125)
(301)
1c. 1c
The lateral wall forces Eh are determined by multiplying the walls tributary weight by the lateral force coefficient. Three different distributed loads are determined due to the presence of two door openings of differing heights. See Figure 62. Wall weight = 9.25 150 pcf = 116 lb/ft2 12
Fp wall = 0.448 116 lb/ft 2 = 52lb/ft 2 W1 = 52 lbs/ft2 x 4 ft = 208 plf W2 = 52 lbs/ft2 x 3/2 ft = 78 plf W3 = 52 lbs/ft2 x 12/2 ft = 312 plf
294
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 6
2.
W3 W2 W1
7,212 lbs
W 3=312 plf
14'
x
maximum moment
W 2=78 plf
7'
W 1=208 plf
7'
4,618 lbs
Loading
Shear
Moment
Locate the point of zero shear for maximum moment. Ignore the parapets negative moment benefits in reducing the positive moment for simplicity of analysis. If the designer decides to use the parapets negative moment to reduce the positive moment, special care should be taken to use the shortest occurring parapet height. For this analysis, the seismic coefficient for the parapet shall be the same as that for the wall below (ap = 1.0, not 2.5). The parapet should be checked separately later, but is not a part of this example. This example conservatively assumes the maximum moment occurs at a critical section width of 4'0". In cases where the maximum moment occurs well above the doors, a more comprehensive analysis could consider several critical design sections, which would account for a wider design section at the location of maximum moment and for a narrower design section with reduced moments near the top of the doors.
295
Design Example 6
2a. 2a
Rgrade = shear reaction at grade level for design strip Rroof = shear reaction at roof level for design strip (28)2 + 78 (21)2 + 312 (14)2 1 = 4,618 lbs Rgrade = 208 2 2 2 28 Rroof = [208( 28) + 78( 21) + 312(14)] 4618 = 7,212 lbs Determine the distance of the maximum moment from the roof elevation downward (Figure 63): X = 7212 =12.1 feet to point of zero shear (maximum moment) (208 + 78 + 312)
2b. 2b
Determine Mu basic
This is the primary strength design moment, excluding pdelta effects and vertical load eccentricity effects, but including the 1.1 load factor (see the earlier discussion of this load factor in Step 1b, above): (12.1)2 = 47,837 lbft Mu basic = 1.17212(12.1) (208 + 78 + 312 ) 2 Mu basic = 47.8 kft
3.
The piers vertical loads are comprised of a roof component Proof and a wall component Pwall. The applicable portion of the wall component is the top portion Pwall top above the design section. Proof = gravity loads from the roof acting on the design strip The appropriate load combinations using strength or allowable stress design do not include roof live load in combination with seismic loads. However, strength designs considering wind loads must include a portion of roof live loads per 1612.2.1.
296
Design Example 6
Proof = (roof dead load) x (tributary width of pier) x (tributary width of roof) 3 12 40 Proof = (12 psf ) 4 + + = 2,760 lb 2 2 2 Note: When concentrated gravity loads, such as from a girder, are applied to slender walls, the loads are assumed to be distributed over an increasing width at a slope of 2 vertical to 1 horizontal down to the flexural design section height (1914.8.2.4). Pwall top = the portion of the walls self weight above the flexural design section. It is acceptable to assume the design section is located midway between the floor and roof levels 3 12 28 Pwall top = (116 psf ) 4 + + + 4 = 24,012 lbs 2 2 2 Ptotal = Proof + Pwall top = 2760 + 24012 = 26,772 lbs Check the vertical service load stress for applicability of the slender wall design method (UBC 1914.8.2 item 1). Use the net concrete section considering the reveal depth: stress = Ptotal 26772 = = 66 psi < 0.04 f c = 0.04(3000) = 120 psi Aconc 48 (9.25 0.75) o.k.
The compressive stress is low enough to use the alternative slender wall method; otherwise a different method, such as the empirical design method (1914.5), would be required along with its restrictions on wall height.
4.
The nominal moment strength Mn is given by the following equation: a Mn = Asefy d 2 where: 0.2 (1.56) ( 26772) 0.2 Pu = 0.9 = 0.9 = 0.83 0.10 ( 3000) ( 48) (9.25 0.75) 0.10 f c Aconc Ase = Pu + Asfy 1.56 ( 26772) + 7 (0.31) (60000) = = 2.87 in. 2 fy 60000
1909.3.2.2
a=
Pu + Asfy 1.56 ( 26772) + 7 (0.31) (60000) = = 1.40 in. 0.85 f cb 0.85 (3000) ( 48)
297
Design Example 6
Reinforcing depth is based on new tiltup cover provision 1907.7.1 item 4. d = thickness reveal cover tie diameter 1 2 bar diameter d = 9 1 4 3 4 1 3 8 (1 2 )(5 8 ) = 6.8 in.
3/4" reveal
#3 ties
9 1/4" thick
d = depth
Thus:
1.40 Mn = 2.87 (60000) 6.8 = 1050 k in = 87.5 k ft 2 Mn = 0.83 (87.5) = 72.6 k ft
Verify that Mcr < Mn to determine the applicability of the slender wall design method (UBC 1914.8.2 item 3). Mcr is defined uniquely for slender walls in UBC 1914.0.
5 3000 ( 48) 9.25 2 (9.25) 3 12 = 187,458 lb in. = 15.6 k ft
M cr = 5 f c
Ig yt
1914.0
o.k.
Sufficient reinforcing is provided to use the alternative slender wall method, otherwise the empirical design method of UBC 1914.5 would be necessary. Note: For the purposes of 1914.8.2 item 3, Ig and yt are conservatively based on the gross thickness without consideration for reveal depth. This approach creates a worstcase comparison of Mcr to Mn. In addition, the exclusion of the reveal depth in the Mcr calculation produces more accurate deflection values when reveals are narrow.
298
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. II (1997 UBC)
Design Example 6
Verify the reinforcement ratio 0 .6 b to determine the applicability of the slender wall design method (1914.8.2 item 2):
0.6 b = 0.6 0.851 f c 87000 0.85(0.85)3000 87000 = 0.6 = 0.0128 fy 87000 + f y 60000 (87000 + 60000)
(81)
5.
Determine the design moment including the effects from the vertical load eccentricity and pdelta (P): Mu = Mu basic + Mu eccentricity + Mu P Use the figures below to determine Mu eccentricity and Mu P:
lc 2
Pwall top
lc
deflected shape
Pwall
bottom
2 n 3
n 3
299
Design Example 6
5a. 5a
From Figure 65, assuming a parabolic deflected shape: ( Pwall top + Pwall bottom ) lc 2 n Proof e 3
H=
Since the panels openings are not positioned symmetrically with the panels midheight, Pwall bottom will be less than Pwall top. For ease of calculation, conservatively assume Pwall bottom = Pwall top, as is similar to panels without openings. H = 4 Pwall top n 3l c Proof e lc
5b. 5b
Determine moment component M from statics using Figure 66 to account for eccentricity and P effects:
n l +H c 3 2
5c. 5c
2 5M n l c n = 48E c I cr
1914.8.4
where: Mn is from Step 4. E c = 57 f c = 3122 ksi I cr = nAse ( d c ) 2 + I cr 1.40 a = = 1.65 in. 0.85 0.85 29,000 48(1.65) 3 = 2.87(6.8 1.65) 2 + = 779 in. 4 3,122 3 where c = bc 3 ; 3 1908.5.1
300
Design Example 6
n =
Section 1914.8.3 requires the maximum potential deflection n be assumed in the calculation of the P moment, unless a more comprehensive analysis is used. An iterative approach or use of a moment magnifier are examples of acceptable more comprehensive analyses, but are beyond the scope of this example.
5d. 5d
Mu = Mu basic + Mu eccentricity + Mu P e Mu = 47.8 + Pu roof + Pu wall top + Pu roof n 2 1 9.25 0.75 1 1 Mu = 47.8 + 1.56( 2.76) 4 + + 1.56( 24.0 + 2.76)(5.1) 2 2 12 12 Mu = 47.8 + 1.5 + 17.7
Mu =
(142)
6. 6a. 6a
The service load moment Ms is determined with the following formula where the denominators are load factors to convert from load combination (125) to load combination (1213): Ms = M u basic M u eccentricity + + M s P 1.1 (1.4) 1.56 lc : 150 (143)
M s P = Pwall + Proof s = (24.0 + 2.76 ) 2.24 = 59.9 k in. = 5.00 k ft Ms = M u basic M u eccentricity + + M s P 1.1(1.4) 1.56
301
Design Example 6
Ms =
M cr = 15.6k ft < M s Therefore, section is cracked and Equation (144) is applicable for determining s. If the section is uncracked, Equation (145) is applicable.
6b. 6b
cr =
1914.8.4
Ig is based on gross thickness, without consideration for the architectural reveal depth, since this produces more accurate results when the reveals are narrow.
6c. 6c
M M cr s = cr + s M M cr n
( n cr )
(144)
37.0 15.6 s = 0.22 + (5.1 0.22 ) = 1.67 in. 87.5 15.6 s = 1.67 in. < lc = 2.24 in. o.k. 150 1914.8.4
Therefore, the proposed slender wall section is acceptable using the alternative slender wall method.
302
Design Example 6
7. 7a. 7a
Determine the horizontal reinforcing required above the largest wall opening for outofplane loads.
The portion of wall above the twelvefootwide door opening spans horizontally to the vertical design strips on each side of the opening. This wall portion will be designed as a onefoot unit horizontal design strip and subject to the outofplane loads computed in this example earlier. Fp wall = 0.448(116 lbs/ft2) = 52 lb/ft2 The moment is based on a simply supported horizontal beam with the 1.1 multiplier per Exception 2 under 1612.2.1: (opening width )2 M u = 1.1 F p 8 = 1030 lb ft = 1.03 k ft
2 = 1.1 52 12 8
Try using #5 bars at 18inch spacing to match the same bar size as being used vertically at the maximum allowed spacing for wall reinforcing. a Mn = Asfy d 2 where: 12 = 0.9 and As = 0.31 = 0.21 in. 2 18 a= (0.21) ( 60000) Asfy = = 0.41 in. 0.85 f cb 0.85 (3000) (12)
Assume the reinforcing above the opening is a single curtain with the vertical steel located at the center of the walls net section. The horizontal reinforcing in concrete tiltup construction is typically place over the vertical reinforcing when assembled on the ground. d= d=
1 2
(9 1 4 3 4 ) 5 8 = 3.63 in.
303
Design Example 6
0.41 Mn = 0.9 (.21) (60) 3.63 = 38.8 k in. 2 = 3.24 k ft 1.03 k ft Mn M u o.k. o.k.
7b. 7b
Two #5 bars are required around all window and door openings per 1914.3.7. The vertical reinforcing on each face between the openings provides two bars along each jamb of the openings, and thus satisfies this requirement along vertical edges. Horizontally, two bars above and below the openings are required to be provided. In addition, it is common to add diagonal bars at the opening corners to assist in limiting the cracking that often occurs due to shrinkage stresses (Figure 67).
7c. 7c
The style and quantity of horizontal (transverse) reinforcing between the wall openings is dependent on several factors relating to the inplane shear wall design of 1921.6. Sections conforming to wall piers, as defined in 1921.1, shall be reinforced per 1921.6.13. Wall pier reinforcing has special spacing limitations and is often provided in the form of closed ties. In narrow piers, these ties are often preferred so as to assist in supporting both layers of reinforcing during construction, even if not required by the special wall pier analysis (Figure 67). Configurations not defined as wall piers, but which have high inplane shears, also have special transverse reinforcing requirements per 1921.6.2.2. In these situations, the transverse reinforcing is required to be terminated with a hook or U stirrup.
304
Design Example 6
typical horizontal reinforcing #5 at 18" o.c. vertical reinforcing (7) #5 each face reinforcing around openings (2) #5
transverse reinforcing
Commentary The UBC section on the alternative slender wall method made its debut in the 1988 edition. It is largely based on the equations, concepts, and fullscale testing developed by the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California and published in the Report of the Task Committee on Slender Walls in 1982. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) has incorporated similar provisions for slender wall design in their publication ACI 31899. Tiltup wall construction has become very popular due to its versatility and its erection speed. However, wall anchorage failures at the roofline have occurred during past earthquakes. In response to these failures, the 1997 UBC anchorage design forces and detailing requirements are significantly more stringent than they have been under past codes (see Design Example 5).
305
Design Example 6
References
Recommended Tiltup Wall Design, Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, 1979. 5360 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601 (562) 9086131. Report of the Task Committee on Slender Walls, Southern California Chapter American Concrete Institute and the Structural Engineers Association of Southern California, 1982. Brooks, Hugh, The Tiltup Design and Construction Manual, HBA Publications, Fourth Edition, 1990. 2027 Vista Caudal, Newport Beach, CA 92660. TiltUp Concrete Structures Reported by ACI Committee 551, American Concrete Institute, 1997. P.O. Box 9094, Farmington Hills, MI 48333 (248) 8483700. Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings under the 1997 UBC, Building Standards. S.K. Ghosh, ICBO, MayJune 1998. 5360 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601
306
Design Example 6
307
1629.4.2
1629.4.2
The 1997 UBC introduced the concept of nearsource factors. Structures built within close proximity to an active fault are to be designed for an increased base shear over similar structures located at greater distances. This example illustrates the determination of the nearsource factors N a and N v . These are used to determine the seismic coefficients Ca and Cv used in 1630.2.1 to calculate design base shear.
1. Determine the nearsource factors N a and N v for a site near Lancaster, California.
Code Reference
First locate the City of Lancaster in the book Maps of Known Active Fault NearSource Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. This is published by the International Conference of Building Officials and is intended to be used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code. Lancaster is shown on map M30. Locate the site on this map (see figure), and then determine the following: The shaded area on map M30 indicates the source is a type A fault. Therefore Seismic source type: A The distance from the site to the beginning of the fault zone is 6 km. Another 2 km must be added to reach the source (this is discussed on page vii of the UBC fault book). Thus, the distance from the site to the source is 6 km + 2 km = 8 km. Distance from site to fault zone: 8 km. Values of N a and N v are given in Tables 16S and 16T for distances of 2, 5, 10, and 15 km. For other distances, interpolation must be done. N a and N v have been plotted below. For this site, N a and N v can be determined by entering the figures at a distance 8 km. and using the source type A curves. From this N a = 1.08 N v = 1.36
1629.4.2
Example 1
Commentary
The values of N a and N v given above are for the site irrespective of the type of structure to be built on the site. Had N a exceeded 1.1, it would have been possible to use a value of 1.1 when determining Ca , provided that all of the conditions listed in 1629.4.2 were met.
1629.4.2
2.0
2.0
N 1.0
1629.4.2
Example 1
1629.5.3
Example 2
1629.5.3
For example: A fivestory concrete special momentresisting frame is shown below. The specified lateral forces Fx from Equations (3014) and (3015) have been applied and the corresponding floor level displacements x at the floor center of mass have been found and are shown below.
F t + F5 10' F4 10' F3 10' 10' F2 F1 S1 = 0.71" 12' Triangula r shape S4 = 1.75" S3 = 1.45" S2 = 1.08" S5 = 2.02"
1.
To determine if this is a Type 1 vertical irregularity, stiffness irregularitysoft story, there are two tests:
1. The story stiffness is less than 70percent of that of the story above. 2. The story stiffness is less than 80percent of the average stiffness of the three stories above. If the stiffness of the story meets at least one of these two criteria, the structure is considered to have a soft story, and a dynamic analysis is generally required under 1629.8.4 Item 2, unless the irregular structure is not more than five stories or 65feet in height (see 1629.8.3 Item 3). The definition of soft story in the code compares values of the lateral stiffness of individual stories. Generally, it is not practical to use stiffness properties unless these can be easily determined. There are many structural configurations where the evaluation of story stiffness is complex and is often not an available output from computer programs. Recognizing that the basic intent of this irregularity check is to determine if the lateral force distribution will differ significantly from the linear pattern prescribed by Equation (3015), which assumes a triangular shape for the
6
1629.5.3
first dynamic mode of response, this type of irregularity can also be determined by comparing values of lateral story displacements or drift ratios due to the prescribed lateral forces. This deformation comparison may even be more effective than the stiffness comparison because the shape of the first mode shape is often closely approximated by the structure displacements due to the specified triangular load pattern. Floor level displacements and corresponding story drift ratios are directly available from the computer programs. To compare displacements rather than stiffness, it is necessary to use the reciprocal of the limiting percentage ratios of 70 and 80 percent as they apply to story stiffness or reverse their applicability to the story or stories above. The following example shows this equivalent use of the displacement properties. From the given displacements, story drifts and the story drift ratio values are determined. The story drift ratio is the story drift divided by the story height. These will be used for the required comparisons since these better represent the changes in the slope of the mode shape when there are significant differences in interstory heights. (Note: story displacements can be used if the story heights are nearly equal.) In terms of the calculated story drift ratios, the soft story occurs when one of the following conditions exists:
1. When 70 percent of
S 1 S 1 exceeds S 2 ., or h1 h2 S 1 exceeds h1
2. When 80 percent of
(1 . 45 1 . 08 ) = 0 . 00308 S 3 S 2 = 120 h3
S 4 S 3 (1 .75 1 .45 ) = 0 .00250 = 120 h4
1629.5.3
Example 2
Commentary
Section 1630.10.1 requires that story drifts be computed using the maximum inelastic response displacements M . However, for the purpose of the story drift, or story drift ratio, comparisons needed for soft story determination, the displacements S due to the design seismic forces can be used as done in this example. In the example above, only the first story was checked for possible soft story vertical irregularity. In practice, all stories must be checked, unless a dynamic analysis is performed. It is often convenient to create a table as shown below to facilitate this exercise.
Level 5 4 3 2 1
1629.5.3
1629.5.3
The fivestory special moment frame office building has a heavy utility equipment installation at Level 2. This results in the floor weight distribution shown below:
5 4 3 2 1 W 5 = 90k W 4 = 110k W 3 = 110k W 2 = 170k W 1 = 100k
Code Reference
A weight, or mass, vertical irregularity is considered to exist when the effective mass of any story is more than 150 percent of the effective mass of an adjacent story. However, this requirement does not apply to the roof if the roof is lighter than the floor below. Checking the effective mass of Level 2 against the effective mass of Levels 1 and 3 At Level 1 1.5 W1 = 1.5(100k ) = 150k At Level 3 1.5 W3 = 1.5(110k ) = 165k W2 = 170k > 150k Weight irregularity exists
Commentary
As in the case of irregularity Type 1, this type of irregularity also results in a primary mode shape that can be substantially different from the triangular shape and lateral load distribution given by Equation (3015). Consequently, the appropriate load distribution must be determined by the dynamic analysis
1629.5.3
Example 3
procedure of 1631, unless the irregular structure is not more than five stories or 65feet in height (see 1629.8.3 Item 3)
10
1629.5.3
1629.5.3
Code Reference
A weight, or mass, vertical irregularity is considered to exist when the effective mass of any story is more than 150 percent of the effective mass of an adjacent story. However, this requirement does not apply to the roof if the roof is lighter than the floor below. Checking the effective mass of Level 2 against the effective mass of Levels 1 and 3 At Level 1 1.5 W1 = 1.5(100k ) = 150k At Level 3 1.5 W3 = 1.5(110k ) = 165k W2 = 170k > 150k Weight irregularity exists
Commentary
As in the case of irregularity Type 1, this type of irregularity also results in a primary mode shape that can be substantially different from the triangular shape and lateral load distribution given by Equation (3015). Consequently, the appropriate load distribution must be determined by the dynamic analysis procedure of 1631, unless the irregular structure is not more than five stories or 65feet in height (see 1629.8.3 Item 3). The lateral forceresisting system of the fivestory special moment frame building shown below has a 25 foot setback at the third, fourth and fifth stories.
11
1629.5.3
Example 4
4 @ 25' = 5
1.
Code Reference
A vertical geometric irregularity is considered to exist where the horizontal dimension of the lateral forceresisting system in any story is more than 130 percent of that in the adjacent story. Onestory penthouses are not subject to this requirement. In this example, the setback of Level 3 must be checked. The ratios of the two levels is Width of Level 2 (100') = = 1.33 Width of Level 3 (75') 133 percent > 130 percent Vertical geometric irregularity exists
Commentary
The more than 130percent change in width of the lateral forceresisting system between adjacent stories could result in a primary mode shape that is substantially different from the triangular shape assumed for Equation (3015). If the change is a decrease in width of the upper adjacent story (the usual situation), the mode shape
12
1629.5.3
difference can be mitigated by designing for an increased stiffness in the story with a reduced width. Similarly, if the width decrease is in the lower adjacent story (the unusual situation), the Type 1 soft story irregularity can be avoided by a proportional increase in the stiffness of the lower story. However, when the width decrease is in the lower story, there could be an overturning moment load transfer discontinuity that would require the application of 1630.8.2. When there is a large decrease in the width of the structure above the first story along with a corresponding large change in story stiffness that creates a flexible tower, then 1629.8.3, Item 4 and 1630.4.2, Item 2 may apply. Note that if the frame elements in the bay between lines 4 and 5 were not included as a part of the designated lateral force resisting system, then the vertical geometric irregularity would not exist. However, the effects of this adjoining frame would have to be considered under the adjoining rigid elements requirements of 1633.2.4.1.
13
1629.5.3
A concrete building has the building frame system shown below. The shear wall between Lines A and B has an inplane offset from the shear wall between Lines C and D.
1. Determine if there is a Type 4 vertical irregularity, inplane discontinuity in the vertical lateral forceresisting element.
A B C D
3 @ 25' = 75 5 12' Shear wall 4 12' 3 12' 2 12' 1 12' 50' Shear wall 25'
Code Reference
A Type 4 vertical irregularity exists when there is an inplane offset of the lateral load resisting elements greater than the length of those elements. In this example, the left side of the upper shear wall (between lines A and B) is offset 50feet from the left side of the lower shear wall (between lines C and D). This 50foot offset is greater than the 25foot length of the offset wall elements. Inplane discontinuity exists
Commentary
The intent of this irregularity check is to provide correction of force transfer or load path deficiencies. It should be noted that any inplane offset, even those less or equal to the length or bay width of the resisting element, can result in an overturning moment load transfer discontinuity that requires the application of 1630.8.2. When the offset exceeds the length of the resisting element, there is also a shear transfer discontinuity that requires application of 1633.2.6 for the strength
14
1629.5.3
of collector elements along the offset. In this example, the columns under wall AB are subject to the provisions of 1630.8.2 and 1921.4.4.5, and the collector element between Lines B and C at Level 2 is subject to the provisions of 1633.2.6.
15
November 2000
Copyright
Copyright 2000 Structural Engineers Association of California. All rights reserved. This publication or any part thereof must not be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
Publisher
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) 1730 I Street, Suite 240 Sacramento, California 958143017 Telephone: (916) 4471198; Fax: (916) 4438065 Email: info@seaoc.org; Web address: http://www.seaoc.org/ The Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) is a professional association of four regional member organizations (Central California, Northern California, San Diego, and Southern California). SEAOC represents the structural engineering community in California. This document is published in keeping with SEAOCs stated mission: to advance the structural engineering profession, to provide the public with structures of dependable performance through the application of stateoftheart structural engineering principles; to assist the public in obtaining professional structural engineering services; to promote natural hazard mitigation; to provide continuing education and encourage research; to provide structural engineers with the most current information and tools to improve their practice; and to maintain the honor and dignity of the profession. Editor: Gail Hynes Shea, Albany, California. Cover photos, clockwise from upper right: 900 E. Hamilton Ave. Office Complex, Campbell, Calif.Joe Maffei, Rutherford & Chekene; Clark Pacific; SCBF connectionBuehler & Buehler; UBC; RBS Dog Bone connectionBuehler & Buehler.
Disclaimer
Practice documents produced by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), and all narrative texts, drawings, calculations, and other information herein, are published as part of SEAOCs educational program. The material presented in this publication is intended for educational purposes only; it should not be used or relied on for any specific application without the competent examination and verification of its accuracy, suitability, and applicability to a specific project by a qualified structural engineer. While the information presented in this publication is believed to be correct, neither SEAOC nor its member organizations, committees, writers, editors, individuals, or entities which have in any way contributed to it make any warranty, express or implied, or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the use, application of and/or reference to the text, drawings, calculations, samples, references, opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations included in this publication. Users of this publication and its contents assume all liability arising from such use.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Preface ............................................................................................................................... v Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................vi Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 How to Use This Document ................................................................................................ 3 Notation ............................................................................................................................... 4 Design Example 1 1A Special Concentric Braced Frame ....................................................................... 19 1B Ordinary Concentric Braced Frame ..................................................................... 67 1C Chevron Braced Frame........................................................................................ 77 Design Example 2 Eccentric Braced Frame ............................................................................................. 89 Design Example 3 3A Steel Special Moment Resisting Frame............................................................. 143 3B Steel Ordinary Moment Resisting Frame........................................................... 189 Design Example 4 Reinforced Concrete Wall......................................................................................... 209 Design Example 5 Reinforced Concrete Wall with Coupling Beams...................................................... 237 Design Example 6 Concrete Special Moment Resisting Frame............................................................. 271 Design Example 7 Precast Concrete Cladding....................................................................................... 313
iii
iv
Preface
Preface
This document is the third volume of the threevolume SEAOC Seismic Design Manual. The first volume, Code Application Examples, was published in April 1999. The second volume, Building Design Examples: Light Frame, Masonry and Tiltup was published in April 2000. These documents have been developed by the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) with funding provided by SEAOC. Their purpose is to provide guidance on the interpretation and use of the seismic requirements in the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC), published by the International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), and in SEAOCs 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (also called the Blue Book). The Seismic Design Manual was developed to fill a void that exists between the Commentary of the Blue Book, which explains the basis for the UBC seismic provisions, and everyday structural engineering design practice. While the Seismic Design Manual illustrates how the provisions of the code are used, the examples shown do not necessarily illustrate the only appropriate methods of seismic design, and the document is not intended to establish a minimum standard of care. Engineering judgment must be exercised when applying these Design Examples to real projects. Volume I: Code Application Examples, provides stepbystep examples of how to use individual code provisions, such as how to compute base shear or building period. Volumes II and III: Design Examples furnish examples of the seismic design of common types of buildings. In Volumes II and III, important aspects of whole buildings are designed to show, calculationbycalculation, how the various seismic requirements of the code are implemented in a realistic design. Volume III contains ten examples. These illustrate the seismic design of the following structures: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Three steel braced frames (special, ordinary, and chevron) Eccentric braced frame Two steel momentresisting frames (special and ordinary) Concrete shear wall Concrete shear wall with coupling beams Concrete special momentresisting frame Precast concrete cladding
It is SEAOCs present intention to update the Seismic Design Manual with each edition of the building code used in California. Work is presently underway on an 2000 International Building Code version. Ronald P. Gallagher Project Manager
v
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
Authors
The Seismic Design Manual was written by a group of highly qualified structural engineers. These individuals are California registered civil and structural engineers and SEAOC members. They were selected by a Steering Committee set up by the SEAOC Board of Directors and were chosen for their knowledge and experience with structural engineering practice and seismic design. The Consultants for Volumes I, II and III are: Ronald P. Gallagher, Project Manager Robert Clark David A. Hutchinson Jon P. Kiland John W. Lawson Joseph R. Maffei Douglas S. Thompson Theodore C. Zsutty Volume III was written principally by David A. Hutchinson (Design Examples 1A, 1B and 1C, and 3A and 3B), Jon P. Kiland (Design Examples 2 and 6), Joseph R. Maffei (Design Examples 4 and 5), and Robert Clark (Design Example 7). Many useful ideas and helpful suggestions were offered by the other consultants.
Steering Committee
Overseeing the development of the Seismic Design Manual and the work of the Consultants was the Project Steering Committee. The Steering Committee was made up of senior members of SEAOC who are both practicing structural engineers and have been active in Association leadership. Members of the Steering Committee attended meetings and took an active role in shaping and reviewing the document. The Steering Committee consisted of: John G. Shipp, Chair Robert N. Chittenden Stephen K. Harris Martin W. Johnson Scott A. Stedman
vi
Reviewers
Reviewers
A number of SEAOC members, and other structural engineers, helped check the examples in Volume III. During its development, drafts of the examples were sent to these individuals. Their help was sought in both review of code interpretations as well as detailed checking of the numerical computations. The assistance of the following individuals is gratefully acknowledged: Vin Balachandran Raymond Bligh Dirk Bondy David Bonowitz Robert Chittenden Michael Cochran Anthony Court Juan Carlos Esquival Brent Forslin S. K. Ghosh Jeff Guh Ronald Hamburger Douglas Hohbach Dominic Kelly Edward Knowles Kenneth Lutrell Robert Lyons Peter Maranian Harry (Hank) Martin, (AISC) James ODonnell Richard Phillips Paul Pina Mehran Pourzanjani Rafael Sabelli C. Mark Saunders David Sheppard Constantine Shuhaibar
Seismology Committee
Close collaboration with the SEAOC Seismology Committee was maintained during the development of the document. The 19992000 Committee reviewed the document and provided many helpful comments and suggestions. Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.
19992000
Martin W. Johnson, Chair Saif Hussain, Past Chair David Bonowitz Robert N. Chittenden Tom H. Hale Stephen K. Harris Douglas C. Hohbach Y. Henry Huang Saiful Islam
H. John Khadivi Jaiteeerth B. Kinhal Robert Lyons Simin Naaseh Chris V. Tokas Michael Riley, Assistant to the Chair
vii
Errata Notification
SEAOC has made a substantial effort to ensure that the information in this document is accurate. In the event that corrections or clarifications are needed, these will be posted on the SEAOC web site at http://www.seaoc.org or on the ICBO website at http://ww.icbo.org. SEAOC, at its sole discretion, may or may not issue written errata.
viii
Introduction
Introduction
Seismic design of new steel and concrete buildings, and precast cladding, for the requirements of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) is illustrated in this document. Ten examples are shown: 1A 1B 1C 2 3A 3B 4 5 6 7 Steel special concentric braced frame Steel ordinary concentric braced frame Steel chevron braced frame Eccentric braced frame Steel special momentresisting frame Steel ordinary momentresisting frame Concrete shear wall Concrete shear wall with coupling beams Concrete special momentresisting frame Precast concrete cladding
The buildings selected are for the most part representative of construction types found in Zones 3 and 4, particularly California and the western states. Designs have been largely taken from real world buildings, although some simplifications were necessary for purposes of illustrating significant points and not presenting repetitive or unnecessarily complicated aspects of a design. The Design Examples are not complete building designs, or even complete seismic designs, but rather they are examples of the significant seismic design aspects of a particular type of building. In developing these Design Examples, SEAOC has endeavored to illustrate correct use of the minimum provisions of the code. The document is intended to help the reader understand and correctly use the design provisions of UBC Chapter 16 (Design Requirements), Chapter 19 (Concrete), and Chapter 22 (Steel). Design practices of an individual structural engineer or office, which may result in a more seismicresistant design than required by the minimum requirements of UBC, are not given. When appropriate, however, these considerations are discussed as alternatives. In some examples, the performance characteristics of the structural system are discussed. This typically includes a brief review of the past earthquake behavior and mention of design improvements added to recent codes. SEAOC believes it is essential that structural engineers not only know how to correctly interpret and
Introduction
apply the provisions of the code, but that they also understand their basis. For this reason, many examples have commentary included on past earthquake performance. While the Seismic Design Manual is based on the 1997 UBC, references are made to the provisions of SEAOCs 1999 Recommended Lateral Force Provisions and Commentary (Blue Book). When differences between the UBC and Blue Book are significant, these are brought to the attention of the reader.
Table 1A of Ninth Edition, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design, 1989. Section 15.3b of the American Institute of Steel Construction, Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, Chicago, Illinois, 1997. Section C402.8 of Commentary of SEAOC Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (Blue Book), 1999.
3
AISCSeismic 15.3b
SEAOC C402.8
Notation
Notation
The following notations are used in this document. These are generally consistent with that used in the UBC and other codes such as ACI and AISC. Some additional notations have also been added. The reader is cautioned that the same notation may be used more than once and may carry entirely different meaning in different situations. For example, E can mean the tabulated elastic modulus under the AISC definition (steel) or it can mean the earthquake load under 1630.1 of the UBC (loads). When the same notation is used in two or more definitions, each definition is prefaced with a brief description in parentheses (e.g., steel or loads) before the definition is given. AB = ground floor area of structure in square feet to include area covered by all overhangs and projections crosssectional area of the base material area of anchor, in square inches the combined effective area, in square feet, of the shear walls in the first story of the structure crosssectional area of a structural member measured outtoout of transverse reinforcement net area of concrete section bounded by web thickness and length of section in the direction of shear force considered the minimum crosssectional area in any horizontal plane in the first story of a shear wall, in square feet flange area gross area of section the effective area of the projection of an assumed concrete failure surface upon the surface from which the anchor protrudes, in square inches area of nonprestressed tension reinforcement
ABM Ab Ac
= = =
Ach
Acv
Ae
Af Ag Ap
= = =
As
Notation
Ash
total crosssectional area of transverse reinforcement (including crossties) within spacing s and perpendicular to dimension hc area of skin reinforcement per unit height on one side face minimum amount of flexural reinforcement area of link stiffener area of shear reinforcement within a distance s, or area of shear reinforcement perpendicular to flexural tension reinforcement within a distance s for deep flexural members total area of reinforcement in each group of diagonal bars in a diagonally reinforced coupling beam area of shearfriction reinforcement (web) link web area (weld) effective crosssectional area of the weld the torsional amplification factor at Level x (concrete) depth of equivalent rectangular stress block (concrete spandrel) shear span, distance between concentrated load and face of supports coefficient defining the relative contribution of concrete strength to wall strength instructure component amplification factor, given in 1632 and Table 16O of UBC (concrete) width of compression face of member flange width web width member widththickness ratio seismic coefficient, as set forth in Table 16Q of UBC
= = = =
Avd
Avf Aw Aw Ax a a
= = = = = =
ac
ap
b bf bw b/t Ca
= = = = =
Notation
Ce
combined height, exposure, and gust factor coefficient as given in Table 16G of UBC pressure coefficient for the structure or portion of structure under consideration as given in Table 16H numerical coefficient as given in 1630.2.2 seismic coefficient as set forth in Table 16R coefficient defined in Section H1 of AISCASD distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis dead load on a structural element length, in feet, of a shear wall in the first story in the direction parallel to the applied forces effective depth of section (distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of tension reinforcement) (anchor bolt) anchor shank diameter (concrete) bar diameter column panel zone depth (steel) modulus of elasticity flexural stiffness of compression member (loads) earthquake loads set forth in 1630.1
Cq
Ct Cv Cm c D De
= = = = = =
db db dz E EI
= = = = =
modulus of elasticity of concrete, in psi (concrete) modulus of elasticity of reinforcement EBF link length axial compressive stress that would be permitted if axial force alone existed bending stress that would be permitted if bending moment alone existed nominal strength of the base material to be welded
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
Fb
FBM
6
Notation
FEXX
classification number of weld metal (minimum specified strength) design seismic force on a part of the structure specified minimum tensile strength, ksi (steel LRFD) nominal strength of the weld electrode material (steel ASD) allowable weld stress specified yield strength of structural steel Fy of a beam Fy of a column expected yield strength of steel to be used Fy of column flange (steel) specified minimum yield strength of transverse reinforcement Fy of the panelzone steel computed axial stress bending stress in frame member specified compressive strength of concrete average splitting tensile strength of lightweight aggregate concrete minimum specified tensile strength of the anchor 12 2 E
= = = = = = = = = =
= = = = =
fut F' e
= = = = =
23(Kb / rb )2 lateral force at Level i for use in Formula (3010) specified compressive strength of masonry equivalent uniform load
7
fi fm' fp
Notation
fr Ftt fy
= = =
modulus of rupture of concrete throughthickness weld stresses at the beamcolumn interface (concrete) specified yield strength of reinforcing steel (steel) weld stresses at connection interface acceleration due to gravity overall dimensions of member in direction of action considered (concrete) crosssectional dimension of column core, or shear wall boundary zone, measured center to center of confining reinforcement (steel) assumed web depth for stability assumed web depth for stability height in feet above the base to Level i, n, or x, respectively height in feet of the roof above the base height of entire wall or of the segment of wall considered (loads) importance factor given in Table 16K (concrete) moment of inertia of section resisting externally applied factored loads moment of inertia of cracked section transformed to concrete (concrete, neglecting reinforcement) moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement (concrete, transformed section) moment of inertia of cracked section transformed to concrete. importance factor specified in Table 16K moment of inertia of reinforcement about centroidal axis of member cross section
f x, f y, f r = g h = =
hc
hc he
= =
hi, hn,hx = hr hw I I = = = =
Icr Ig
= =
Ig
Ip Ise
= =
Notation
It
moment of inertia of structural steel shape, pipe or tubing about centroidal axis of composite member cross section importance factor as set forth in Table 16K of UBC (steel) effective length factor for prismatic member effective length factor for compression member (loads) live load due to occupancy and moveable equipment, or related internal moments and forces (steel) unbraced beam length for determining allowable bending stress limiting laterally unbraced length for full plastic flexural strength, uniform moment case (steel RBS) length of radius cut in beam flange for reduced beam section (RBS) design length of a compression member in a frame, measured from center to center of the joints in the frame distance from column centerline to centerline of hinge for reduced bending strength (RBS) connection design clear span measured face to face of supports unsupported length of compression member length of entire wall, or of segment of wall considered, in direction of shear force. level of the structure referred to by the subscript i; i = 1 designates the first level above the base the level that is uppermost in the main portion of the structure the level that is under design consideration; x = 1 designates the first level above the base (steel) maximum factored moment factored moment to be used for design of compression member
Iw K k L
= = = =
Lp
lc
lc
lh
ln lu lw
= = =
Level i =
Level n = Level x =
M Mc
= =
Notation
Mcl Mcr
= =
moment at centerline of column moment causing flexural cracking at section due to externally applied loads (see 1911.4.2.1)
MDL, MLL, Mseis = unfactored moment in frame member Mf Mm Mm = = = moment at face of column (concrete) modified moment (steel) maximum moment that can be resisted by the member in the absence of axial load nominal moment strength at section (concrete) required plastic moment strength of shearhead crosssection (steel) nominal plastic flexural strength, Fy Z nominal plastic flexural strength modified by axial load nominal plastic flexural strength using expected yield strength of steel (concrete) probable moment strength determined using a tensile strength in the longitudinal bars of at least 1.25 fy and a strength reduction factor of 1.0 (steel RBS) probable plastic moment at the reduced beam section (RBS) (concrete) moment due to loads causing appreciable sway (steel) flexural strength; member bending strength at plastic capacity ZFy (concrete) factored moment at section (steel) required flexural strength on a member or joint moment corresponding to onset of yielding at the extreme fiber from an elastic stress distribution
Mn Mp
= =
Mp Mpa Mpe
= = =
Mpr
Mpr
Ms Ms
= =
Mu Mu My
= = =
10
Notation
M1
smaller factored end moment on a compression member, positive if member is bent in single curvature, negative if bent in double curvature larger factored end moment on compression member, always positive nearsource factor used in the determination of Ca in Seismic Zone 4 related to both the proximity of the building or structure to known faults with magnitudes and slip rates as set forth in Tables 16S and 16U nearsource factor used in the determination of Cv in Seismic Zone 4 related to both the proximity of the building or structure to known faults with magnitudes and to slip rates as set forth in Tables 16T and 16U (steel) factored axial load (wind) design wind pressure = unfactored axial load in frame member nominal axial load strength at balanced strain conditions (see 1910.3.2) connection force for design of column continuity plates (concrete) critical load (concrete anchorage) design tensile strength (23/12)F'e A, where F'e is as defined in Section H1 of AISCASD nominal axial load strength at given eccentricity, or nominal axial strength of a column nominal axial load strength at zero eccentricity 1.7 Fa A strength level axial number force for connection design or axial strength check (see 2213.5) Fy A
M2
Na
Nv
P P
= =
Pbf Pc Pc Pe
= = = =
Pn
Po Psc
= =
Psc,Pst = =
Psi
11
Notation
Pu
(concrete) factored axial load, or factored axial load at given eccentricity (steel) nominal axial strength of a column, or required axial strength on a column or a link (concrete anchorage) required tensile strength from loads nominal axial yield strength of a member, which is equal to Fy Ag axial dead load axial load on member due to earthquake axial live load wind stagnation pressure at the standard height of 33 feet, as set forth in Table 16F numerical coefficient representative of the inherent overstrength and global ductility capacity of lateral force resisting systems, as set forth in Table 16N or 16P nominal strength nominal weld strength component response modification factor, given in 1632.2 and Table 160 required strength ratio of expected yield strength Fye to the minimum specified yield strength Fy (loads) a ratio used in determining (see 1630.1) (steel) radius of gyration of cross section of a compression member radius of gyration about y axis spacing of shear or torsion reinforcement in direction parallel to longitudinal reinforcement, or spacing of transverse reinforcement measured along the longitudinal axis
Pu
Pu Py
= =
PDL PE PLL qs
= = = =
Rn Rnw Rp
= = =
Ru Ry
= =
r r
= =
ry s
= =
12
Notation
SA, SB, SC, SD, SE, S F = soil profile types as set forth in Table 16J SRBS T = = section modulus at the reduced beam section (RBS) elastic fundamental period of vibration, in seconds, of the structure in the direction under consideration thickness of flange thickness of web column panel zone thickness required strength to resist factored loads or related internal moments and forces the total design lateral force or shear at the base given by Formula (305), (306), (307) or (3011) (concrete) nominal shear strength provided by concrete (concrete anchorage) design shear strength
tf tw tz U
= = = =
Vc Vc
= =
VDL, VLL, Vseis = unfactored shear in frame member Vn Vn Vp Vpa = = = = (concrete) nominal shear strength at section (steel) nominal shear strength of a member (steel) shear strength of an active link nominal shear strength of an active link modified by the axial load magnitude (concrete) nominal shear strength provided by shear reinforcement (steel) shear strength of member, 0.55 Fy dt (concrete anchorage) required shear strength from factored loads (concrete) factored shear force at section, including shear magnification factors for overstrength and inelastic dynamic effects (loads) factored horizontal shear in a story
13
Vs
Vs Vu
= =
Vu
Vu
Notation
Vu Vu *
= =
(steel) required shear strength on a member factored shear force at section, including shear magnification factors for overstrength and inelastic dynamic effects the design story shear in story x (seismic) the total seismic dead load defined in 1620.1.1 (wind) load due to wind pressure the weight of an element of component weights of concrete, in pcf that portion of W located at or assigned to Level i or x, respectively the weight of the diaphragm and the element tributary thereto at Level x, including applicable portions of other loads defined in 1630.1.1 column panel zone width (loads) seismic zone factor as given in Table 16I (steel) plastic section modulus plastic section modulus at the reduced beam section (RBS) design story drift maximum inelastic response displacement, which is the total drift or total story drift that occurs when the structure is subjected to the design basis ground motion, including estimated elastic and inelastic contributions to the total deformation, as defined in 1630.9 relative lateral deflection between the top and bottom of a story due to Vu, computed using a firstorder elastic frame analysis and stiffness values satisfying 1910.11.1 design level response displacement, which is the total drift or total story drift that occurs when the structure is subjected to the design seismic forces
Vx W W Wp wc
= = = = =
wi, wx = =
wpx
wz Z Z ZRBS M
= = = = = =
14
Notation
b c v
horizontal displacement at Level i relative to the base due to applied lateral forces, f, for use in Formula (3010) (concrete) capacity reduction or strength reduction factor (see 1909.3) (steel) resistance factor for flexure (steel) resistance factor for compression resistance factor for shear strength of panel zone of beamtocolumn connections (concrete) angle between the diagonal reinforcement and the longitudinal axis of a diagonally reinforced coupling beam (steel) centroid locations of gusset connection for braced frame diagonal coefficient defining the relative contribution of concrete strength to wall strength ratio of long side to short side of concentrated load or reaction area factor defined in 1910.2.7.3 (loads) redundancy/reliability factor given by Formula (303) (concrete) ratio of nonprestressed tension reinforcement (As/bd) reinforcement ratio producing balanced strain conditions (see 1910.3.2) ratio of area of distributed reinforcement parallel to the plane of Acv to gross concrete area perpendicular to that reinforcement. ratio of volume of spiral reinforcement to total volume of core (outtoout of spirals) of a spirally reinforced compression member ratio of area of distributed reinforcement perpendicular to the plane of Acv to gross concrete area Acv lightweight aggregate concrete factor; 1.0 for normal weight concrete, 0.75 for all lightweight concrete, and 0.85 for sandlightweight concrete
15
= = =
= =
c c 1 b n s v
= = = =
Notation
p la
= =
limiting slenderness parameter for compact element length of radius cut in beam flange for reduced beam section (RBS) connection design distance from column centerline to centerline of hinge for RBS connection design clear span measured face to face of supports unsupported length of compression member length of entire wall or of segment of wall considered in direction of shear force (loads) seismic force amplification factor, which is required to account for structural overstrength and set forth in Table 16N (steel) horizontal seismic overstrength factor coefficient of friction
lh
ln lu lw o o
= = =
= =
16
References
References
ACI318, 1995. American Concrete Institute, Building Code Regulations for Reinforced Concrete, Farmington Hills, Michigan. AISCASD, 1989. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design, Chicago, Illinois, 9th Edition. AISCLRFD, 1994. American Institute of Steel Construction, Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design, Chicago, Illinois, 2nd Edition. AISCSeismic. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois, April 15, 1997 and Supplement No. 1, February 15, 1999. SEAOC Blue Book, 1999. Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. UBC, 1997. International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, Whittier, California.
17
18
Design Example 1A
Figure 1A1. Fourstory steel frame office building with special concentric braced frames (SCBF)
Foreword
Design Examples 1A, 1B and 1C show the seismic design of essentially the same fourstory steel frame building using three different concentric bracing systems.
Design Example 1A illustrates a special concentric braced frame (SCBF). Design Example 1B illustrates an ordinary concentric braced frame (OCBF). Design Example 1C illustrates a chevron braced frame design.
These Design Examples have been selected to aid the reader in understanding design of different types of concentric braced frame systems. Design of eccentric braced frames (EBFs) is illustrated in Design Example 2.
19
Design Example 1A
Overview
The 4story steel frame office structure shown in Figure 1A1 is to have special concentric bracing as its lateral force resisting system. The typical floor plan is shown on Figure 1A2, and a building section is shown in Figure 1A3. Figure 1A4 depicts a twostory xbrace configuration and elevations. Design of the major lateral force resisting structural steel elements and connections uses AISC Allowable Stress Design (ASD). The 1997 UBC design provisions for special concentric braced frames (SCBFs) are attributed to research performed at the University of Michigan. The basis for SCBF bracing is the proportioning of members such that the compression diagonals buckle in a well behaved manner, without local buckling or kinking that would result in a permanent plastic deformation of the brace. Research performed has demonstrated that systems with this ductile buckling behavior perform well under cyclic loading. Several references are listed at the end of this Design Example.
20
Design Example 1A
Elevation A
Elevation B
21
Design Example 1A
Outline
This Design Example illustrates the following parts of the design process:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Design base shear. Distribution of lateral forces. Interstory drifts. Typical diaphragm design. Braced frame member design. Bracing connection design.
Given Information
Roof weights: Roofing Insulation Concrete fill on metal deck Ceiling Mechanical/electrical Steel framing 4.0 psf 3.0 44.0 3.0 5.0 7.0 66.0 psf 20.0 psf Floor weights: Flooring Concrete fill on metal deck Ceiling Mechanical/electrical Steel framing Partitions 1.0 psf 44.0 3.0 5.0 9.0 10.0 72.0 psf 80.0 psf
Live load:
Live load:
Exterior wall system weight: steel studs, gypsum board, metal panels Structural materials: Wide flange shapes Tube sections Weld electrodes Bolts Shear Plates Gusset plates
15 psf
ASTM A36 (Fy = 36 ksi) ASTM A500 grade B (Fy = 46 ksi) E70XX ASTM A490 SC ASTM A572 grade 50 (Fy = 50 ksi) ASTM A36 (Fy = 36 ksi)
22
Design Example 1A
Site seismic and geotechnical data: Occupancy category: Standard Occupancy Structure Seismic Importance Factor: I=1.0 Soil Profile Type Stiff Soil: Type S D (default profile) Seismic zone: Zone 4, Z = 0.4 Seismic Zone 4 nearsource factors: Seismic source type: Type B Distance to seismic source: 8 km Near source factors: N a = 1.0, N v = 1.08
1629.2 Table 16K 1629.3, Table 16J 1629.4.1, Table 16I 1629.4.2 Table 16U Tables 16S, 16T
The geotechnical report for the project site should include the seismologic criteria noted above. If no geotechnical report is forthcoming, ICBO has published Maps of Known Active Fault NearSource Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada [ICBO, 1998]. These maps (prepared by the California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, in cooperation with the Structural Engineers Association of California) provide a means for easily determining the seismic source type and distance to the seismic source.
Shown in Figure 1A5 are various types of concentric braced frames permitted by the code. Each of these can be design as either an ordinary concentric braced frame (OCBF) or a special concentric braced frame (SCBF). It should be noted that the only difference between an SCBF and an OCBF is the connection detailing and some prescriptive code requirements.
23
Design Example 1A
a. Zipper
b. 2storyX
c. Xbracing
e. Vbracing
All of the frames shown in Figure 1A5 are essentialy variations on the chevron brace, except for the onestory Xbrace (Figure 1A5c). Single diagonal braced frames are also permissible by the code, but these are heavily penalized since they must take 100 percent of the force in compression unless multiple single diagonal braces are provided along the same brace frame line.
Grades of steel used in SCBFs.
SCBF members are typical wide flange sections (ASTM A36, Fy = 36 ksi, or A572, grade 50, Fy = 50 ksi), tube sections (ASTM A500, grade B, Fy = 46 ksi), or pipes (ASTM A53, grade B, Fy = 35 ksi). When designing brace connections, the actual yield strength of the steel needs to be considered. The AISCSeismic provisions address this overstrength issue using the R y factor, which is not addressed by the UBC or considered in this
Design Example. The gusset plate material used in SCBF connections should be of equal yield strength to the brace member. Since the actual expected yield strength of most structural sections used as brace members is in excess of 50 ksi, the strength of the gusset plate material should be at least 50 ksi. High strength steel is required in order to keep the gusset plate thickness and dimensions to a minimum. Use of A36 material (as shown in this Design Example) will generally result in larger connections.
Brace behavior.
Concentric braced frames are classified by the UBC as either ordinary or special. The title special is given to braced frames meeting certain detailing and design parameters that enable them to respond to seismic forces with greater ductility. The Blue Book Commentary is an excellent reference for comparison and discussion of these two systems.
24
Design Example 1A
Both inverted Vframes and Vframes have shown poor performance during past earthquakes due to buckling of the brace and flexure of the beam at the midspan connection instead of truss action, therefore the zipper, 2storyX and Xbracing schemes are the preferred configurations.
Figure 1A6. Chevron brace postbuckling stage and potential hinging of columns
The SEAOC Blue Book (in Section C704) has gone as far to recommend that chevron bracing should not be used unless it is in the Zipper or 2 story x configuration in high seismic zones. The reader is referred to the SEAOC Blue Book for a further discussion on chevron braces. Generally, the preferred behavior of bracing is inplane buckling when fixity is developed at the end connections and three hinges are required to form prior to failure of the brace. The problem is that it is difficult to develop this type of fixity when you are using gusset plate connections which tend to lend themselves to outofplane buckling of the brace and behave more like a pin connection.
There are limited structural shapes availble that can be oriented such that the brace will buckle inplane. The following is a list of such shapes:
1. Hollow structural sections about their weak axis, for example, a TS 6x3x1/2 arranged as shown in Figure 1A7a (Note: there can be a problem with shear lag in HSS sections). 2. Double angles with short legs back to back (Figure 1A7b). 3. Wide flange shapes buckling about their weak axis (Figure 1A7c).
25
Design Example 1A
When designing a brace to buckle inplane, it is recommended that the ratio of rx ry not exceed 0.65 to ensure that the brace will buckle inplane.
Two architectural restrictions typically occur that inhibit inplane buckling. First, the architect may not want to reduce the floor space by putting the brace in the flat position, and second, often there are infill steel studs above and below the brace, which may prevent the brace from buckling inplane and force it to buckle outofplane. Both AISC and UBC steel provisions provide an exception that when met, allow for the brace to buckle outofplane. With the predominate use of gusset plates, this exception is probably used 95 percent of the time in brace design. The brace connection using a vertical gusset plate has a tendancy to buckle outofplane due to the lack of stiffness in this direction.
As can be seen in the Figure 1A8, the gusset plate has significantly less stiffness in the outofplane direction. If the brace is symmetrical, you have a 5050 chance as to whether it will buckle inplane or outofplane, and the end connections then have a great influence as to how the brace will actually buckle. Since there is significantly less stiffness in the outofplane direction, the brace will buckle outofplane. When a brace buckles outofplane relative to the gusset plate, it attempts to form a hinge line in the gusset plate. In order for the brace to rotate and yield about this hinge line (act as a pin connection), the yield lines at each end of the brace must be parallel. This is illustrated in Figure 1A9 and Figure 1A10.
26
Design Example 1A
buckling perpendicular to gusset plate (least resistance) y x yield line (hinge) x y gusset plate x x
Figure 1A8. Inplane vs outofplane buckling of braces; gusset plate stiffness can influence brace buckling direction
Plan view
force
yield line
Isometric view
Figure 1A9. Outofplane buckling of the brace; gusset plates resist axial loads without buckling, but can rotate about the yield line to accommodate the brace buckling
27
Design Example 1A
Figure 1A10. Yield line in gusset plate must be perpendicular to the brace axis
To ensure that rotation can occur at each end of the brace without creating restraint, the axis of the yield line must be perpendicular to the axis of the brace. Another requirement to allow for rotation about the yield line to occur, is a minimum offset from the end of the brace to the yield line, as shown in Figure 1A11. If this distance is too short, there physically is insufficent distance to accomodate yielding of the gusset plate without fracture. Figure 1A11 depicts the minimum offset requirement of the building codes. Due to erection tolerances and other variables, it is recommended that this design offset not be less than three times the gusset plate thickness (3t).
brace
Beam
Figure 1A11. Yield line offset requirements; in practice 3t is often used to allow for erection tolerances
28
Design Example 1A
There has been a misconception in some previous interpetations of the yield line offset, that all that was necessary was shape the end of the brace relative to the yield line so that they both were parallel to each other. Inherently, what happens is that the yield lines at the opposite ends of the brace are not parallel (see Figure 1A10 for parallel yield line illustration) to each other and restraint builds up in the gusset plate as it attempts to buckle outofplane. The only way to relieve the stress is for the gusset plate to tear at one end of the brace, until the yield lines at each end of the brace are again parallel to each other.
possible yield line 90 degrees to axis of brace 2t offset (from brace tip)
brace
gusset plate theoretical curved yield line as gusset attempts to bend around tip
Beam
Figure 1A12 (not recommended) depicts what happens when you try to shape the end of the brace to match the yield line slope. Due to the offset in the end of the brace, the yield line will attempt to bend around corner of the brace. This creates several problems, in that it is impossible to bend the plate about a longer curved line, since the curve creates more stiffness than a shorter straight line between two points that wants to be the hinge. The end tip of the brace along the upper edge is generally not stiff enough to cause a straight yield line to bend perpendicular to the brace axis about the tip end of the brace since there is only one side wall at this location to apply force to the gusset plate.
29
Design Example 1A
Detailing considerations.
Floor slabs, typically metal deck and concrete topping slab in steel frame buildings, can cause additional restraint to buckling outofplane and must be taken into account during design. If the yield line crosses the edge of the gusset plate below the concrete surface, more restraint occurs, the gusset plate will likely tear along the top of the concrete surface. The SCBF connections design details in Design Example 1A have been simplified, but need to consider the potential restraint that occurs due to the floor deck since it will impact the gusset plate design. To keep the gusset plate size as small as possible, the gusset plate should be isolated from the concrete slab so the yield line can extend below the concrete surface. Figure 1A13 shows how the gusset plate could be isolated from restraint caused by the slab. Note that the entire gusset plate does not have to be isolated, just that area where the yield line occurs. The compressible material which can be used would be a fire caulk that has the same required fire rating as the floor system.
compressible material gusset plate 2t (min) 4t (max) offset Plan 1"
brace gusset plate yield line 90 degrees to slope of brace concrete slab
2" min
Beam
Figure 1A13. For the yield line to develop in the gusset plate, the gusset plate must be isolated from the slab
30
Design Example 1A
A recent development in the design of gusset plate connections is the need to consider the length of the unstiffened edge of the gusset plate and the possibility of a premature buckling. For additional information about this subject, as well as additonal gusset plate design and sizing criteria such as the Critical Angle Concept and other practical design information, the reader is referred to the recent SEAONC (May, 2000) and SEAOSC (November, 1999) seminar notes on the design and detailing of SCBF steel connections.
Field inspection of SCBFs.
Because of the critical importance of the connections, the actual field erection of SCBFs must be carefully inspected. Shop drawings often show erection aids such as clip angles and erection bolts. These are used to properly center the brace on the gusset plate. In the case of tube bracing, it is very common to have an erection bolt hole placed at each end of the brace. Occasionally, erector crews ignore these erection aids while placing the bracing over the gusset plates and making the weldments without verifying that the required 2t to 4t offset from the yield line has been maintained. The design engineer needs to remember that structural steel is erected using the shop drawings and that the structural drawings are often not checked, even though it is common practice to provide some form of general note that states shop drawings are an erection aid, and structural drawings shall take precedent over the shop drawings. The following is a list of items that should be included in the checklist given to the Special Inspector: 1. Verify that the 2t minimum, 4t maximum offset from the yield line to brace end is maintained at each end of the brace. 2. Verify that the 1inch minimum offset from the brace to the edge of the gusset plate is maintained and that the gusset plate edge slopes are the same slopes as shown on shop drawings and structural drawings. 3. Verify that the gusset plate yield line has been isolated from the concrete slab and that is is away from an edge stiffener plates.
31
Design Example 1A
Code Reference
1630.1
1. 1a.
The structure is Lshaped in plan and must be checked for vertical and horizontal irregularities. Vertical irregularities. Review Table 16L. By observation, the structure has no vertical irregularities; the bracing is consistent in all stories with no discontinuities or offsets, and the mass is similar at all floor levels. Plan irregularities. Review Table 16M. 1633.2.9, Table 16M, Items 6 & 7
The building plan has a reentrant corner with both projections exceeding 15 percent of the plan dimension, and therefore is designated as having Plan Irregularity Type 2. Given the shape of the floor plan, the structure is likely to have Torsional Irregularity Type 1. This condition will be investigated with the computer model used for structural analysis later in this Design Example. Plan Irregularity Type 2 triggers special consideration for diaphragm and collector design, as delineated in 1633.2.9, Items 6 and 7.
1b.
1629.6
The structure is a building frame system with lateral resistance provided by special concentrically braced frames (SCBFs) (System Type 2.5.a per Table 16N). The seismic factors are: R = 6.4 o = 2.2 hmax = 240 ft 1630.3, Table 16N
32
Design Example 1A
1c.
1629.8
The static lateral force procedure is permitted for irregular structures not more than five stories or 65 feet in height (1629.8.3). Although the structure has a plan irregularity, it is less than 65 feet in height. A dynamic analysis is not required, so static lateral procedures will be used.
1d.
1629.4.3
For Zone 4 and Soil Profile Type S D : C a = 0.44(N a ) = 0.44(1.0 ) = 0.44 C v = 0.64(N v ) = 0.64(1.08) = 0.69 Table 16Q Table 16R
1e.
1630.2.2
(308)
= 0.44 sec
From threedimensional computer model, the periods are: Northsouth direction: TB = 0.66 sec Eastwest direction: TB = 0.66 sec Maximum value for TB = 1.3 T A = 1.3(0.44) = 0.57 sec Therefore, upper bound on period governs use T = 0.57 sec 1630.2.2
33
Design Example 1A
1f.
The total design base shear for a given direction is determined from Equation (304). Since the period is the same for both directions, the design base shear for either direction is: V = Cv I 0.69(1.0 ) W = W = 0.189W RT 6.4(0.57 ) (304)
Base shear need not exceed: V = 2.5Ca I 2.5(0.44)(1.0 ) W = = 0.172W R 6.4 (305)
For Zone 4, base shear shall not be less than: V = 0.8ZN v I 0.8(0.4 )(1.08)(1.0) W = = 0.054W R 6.4 (307)
1g.
1630.1
Section 1630.1.1 specifies earthquake loads. These are E and E m as set forth in Equations (301) and (302). E = E H + E v Em = o E H The normal earthquake design load is E . The load E m is the estimated maximum earthquake force that can be developed in the structure. It is used only when specifically required, as will be shown later in this Design Example. Before determining the earthquake forces for design, the reliability/redundancy factor must be determined. Reliability/redundancy factor = 2 20 rmax Ab (303) (301) (302)
34
Design Example 1A
Ab = (180)2 + 180(132 + 192 ) = 90,720 ft 2 To estimate an initial value for , for purposes of preliminary design, an assumption for the value of rmax is made. For rmax , assume that the highest force in any brace member is 10 percent greater than average for the 18 total braces. rmax = and: = 2 and: 1.0 1.5 Use = 1.0 The value for should be confirmed upon completion of the computer analysis for the brace forces. For load combinations of 1612, E and E m are as follows: E = E h + E v = 1.0(V ) ( E v = 0 since allowable stress design is used in this Design Example) Em = o Eh = 2.2(V ) Note that seismic forces may be assumed to act nonconcurrently in each principal direction of the structure, except as per 1633.1. (302) (301) 20 0.061(90,720 )1 / 2 = 0.91 1.10 = 0.061 18 1630.1.1
2. 2a.
Calculated building weights and centers of gravity at each level are given in Table 1A1. Included is an additional 450 kips (5.0 psf) at the roof level for mechanical equipment. Building mass properties are summarized in Table 1A2. Braced frame locations are noted in Figure 1A14 below.
35
Design Example 1A
( )
W Ycg
( )
X cg = 1,077,468 6,687 = 161.1 ; Ycg = 1,209,885 6,687 = 180.9 X cg (ft) 90 90 276 168 Ycg (ft) 66 222 222 175 W X cg (lbs) 153,965 209,952 686,776 51,710 1,102,404
4th, 3rd, & 2nd Floor Weights (2) Mark2 I II III Walls Totals w DL (psf) 72 72 72 15 Area (sf) 23,760 32,400 34,560 20,520 Wi (kips) 1,711 2,333 2,488 308 6,840
( )
W Ycg
( )
Note: 1. Roof weight: wDL = 66.0 + 5.0add'l mech = 71.0 psf ; exterior walls: wwall = 15 psf ; wall area = (7.5 + 4.5)(1,368 ft ) = 16,416 ft 2 2. wDL = 72.0 psf ; exterior walls: wwall = 15 psf ; wall area = (15)(1,368 ft ) = 20,520 ft 2
36
Design Example 1A
(1)
Notes: 1. Mass (M) and mass moment of inertia (MMI) are used in analysis for determination of fundamental period (T). 2. M = (W 3.86.4 )(kip sec in.) 3. MMI = (M A) I x + I y kip sec 2 in
)(
2b.
As noted above, Equation (305) governs, and design base shear is: V = 0.172W = 0.172(27207) = 4,680 kips
2c.
1630.5
For the static lateral force procedure, vertical distribution of force to each level is applied as follows: V = Ft + Fi where: Ft = 0.07T (V ) Except Ft = 0 where T 0.7 sec For this structure Ft = 0 , and the force at each level is Fx = (3014) (3013)
(V Ft )W x hx Wi hi
W h =V x x W h i i
(3015)
37
Design Example 1A
The vertical distribution of force to each level is given in Table 1A3 below.
Table 1A3. Distribution of base shear
Level Roof 4th 3rd 2nd Total wx (kips) 6,687 6,840 6,840 6,840 27,207 hx (ft) 62 47 32 17 w x hx (kft) 414,594 321,480 218,880 116,280 1,071,234 w x hx w x hx 0.39 0.30 0.20 0.11 1.00 Fx (kips) 1,811.3 1,404.5 956.2 508.0 4,680.0 (kips) 1,811.3 3,215.8 4,172.0 4,680.0
V
2d.
1630.6
Structures with concrete fill floor decks are generally assumed to have rigid diaphragms. Forces are distributed to the braced frames per their relative rigidities. In this Design Example, a threedimensional computer model is used to determine the distribution of seismic forces to each frame. For rigid diaphragms, an accidental torsion must be applied (in addition to any natural torsional moment), as specified in 1630.6. The accidental torsion is equal to that caused by displacing the center of mass 5 percent of the building dimension perpendicular to the direction of the applied lateral force. For our structural computer model, this can be achieved by combining the direct seismic force applied at the center of mass at each level with the accidental torsional moment (M z ) at that level. Northsouth seismic: M t = 0.05(372 ft )Fx = (18.6)Fx Eastwest seismic: M t = 0.05(312 ft )Fx = (15.6 )Fx Using the direct seismic forces and accidental torsional moments given in Table 1A4, the distribution of forces to the frames is generated by computer analysis. (For the computer model, member sizes are initially proportioned by preliminary hand calculations and then optimized by subsequent iterations.)
38
Design Example 1A
From the computer analysis, forces in each bracing member are totaled to obtain the seismic force resisted by each frame. The frame forces are then summed and compare to the seismic base shear for a global equilibrium check. Forces at the base of each frame are summarized in Table 1A5 below:
Note that the torsional seismic component is always additive to the direct seismic force. Sections 1630.6 and 1630.7 require that the 5 percent centerofmass displacement be taken from the calculated centerofmass, and that the most severe combination be used for design.
2e.
NorthSouth Direction
1630.7
As shown above, the accidental torsional moment has been accounted for as required by 1630.6. However, we must check for a torsional irregularity (per Table 16M, Type 1) to determine if a torsional amplification factor (Ax ) is required under the provisions of 1630.7.
39
Design Example 1A
Torsional irregularity exists when the drift at one end of the structure exceeds 1.2 times the average drifts at both ends, considering both direct seismic forces plus accidental torsion. For this evaluation, total seismic displacements at the roof level are compared. The displacements in Table 1A6 below are taken from the computer model for points at the extreme corners of the structure.
Because the maximum drift is less than 1.2 times the average drift, no torsional irregularity exists. The relative displacements at the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floors are similar to those at the roof; no torsional irregularities were found to exist at those levels.
3. 3a.
1630.9
The design level response displacement ( S ) is obtained from a static elastic analysis using the seismic forces derived from the design base shear. When determining displacements, 1630.10.3 eliminates the upper limit on TB , allowing for a reduction in seismic forces calculated using Equation (304). For this example, the base shear could be reduced about 5 percent using TB with Equation (304), with a proportional reduction in calculated drifts. The maximum inelastic response displacement ( M ) includes both elastic and estimated inelastic drifts resulting from the design basis ground motion: M = 0.7(R ) S = 0.7(6.4 ) S = 4.48 S The greatest calculated values for S and M are to be used, including torsional effects. For determination of M , P effects must be included. Story drift ratios are calculated from lateral displacements at each level for both the northsouth and eastwest directions (as generated by the computer analysis), and are presented in the Table 1A7. (3017)
40
Design Example 1A
Notes: 1. Interstory drift ratio = M /story height. 2. Maximum drift occurs at Line N for northsouth direction and Line 11 for eastwest direction.
3b.
1630.10
Story drift limits are based on the maximum inelastic response displacements, M . For structures with T < 0.7 the maximum allowable drift is 0.025 times the story height. A review of drift ratios tabulated in Table 1A7 shows that all interstory drift ratios are less than 0.025 using the period of Equation (30.4). (Note: Using the full value for TB would result in a lower base shear and smaller story displacement.)
4.
The building has rigid diaphragms at all levels, including the roof. In this Part, seismic forces on each diaphragm will be determined, and the roof level diaphragm designed. The roof was selected because it is the most heavily loaded diaphragm.
4a.
1633.2.9
In multistory buildings, diaphragm forces are determined by the following formula: F px = where: 0.5C a IW px < F px 1.0C a IW px 1633.2.9 Item 2 Ft + Fi
wi
(w px )
(331)
41
Design Example 1A
The diaphragm forces at each level, with the upper and lower limits, are calculated as shown in Table 1A8.
Table 1A8. Diaphragm forces (kips)
Level Roof 4th 3rd 2nd Fi 1,811.3 1,404.5 956.2 508.0 Fi 1,811.3 3,215.8 4,172.0 4,680.0 wx 6,687 6,840 6,840 6,840 w i 6,687 13,527 20,367 27,207 Fpx 1,811.3 1,626.1 1,401.1 1,176.6 0.5Ca Iw px 1,471.1 1,504.8 1,504.8 1,504.8 1.0Ca Iw px 2,942.3 3,009.6 3,009.6 3,009.6
4b.
The maximum diaphragm design force occurs at the roof level. To facilitate diaphragm and collector design, this force is divided by the plan area to obtain an average horizontal seismic force distribution, q roof . q roof = 1,811 = 0.020 kips/ft 2 90,720
The maximum diaphragm span occurs between Lines A and N, so the northsouth direction will control. Both loading and shear for the roof diaphragm under northsouth seismic forces are shown in Figure 1A15.
42
Design Example 1A
The computer model assumes rigid diaphragms or load distribution to the frames. In lieu of an exact analysis, which considers the relative stiffness of the diaphragm and braced frames, we envelop the solution by next considering the diaphragms flexible. Shears at each line of resistance are derived assuming the diaphragms span as simple beam elements under a uniform load.
w1 = q roof (312 ft ) = 0.020(312) = 6.24 kips/ft
Diaphragm shears: 180 V A = VGA = 6.24 = 562 k 2 192 VGN = V N = 3.6 = 346 k 2 To fully envelop the solution, we compare the flexible diaphragm shear at Line N with the force resisted by Frame A8 (Figure 1A14) assuming a rigid diaphragm. From the computer model, we find at Frame A8: Froof = 440 k . The force from the rigid analysis (440 k) is greater than the force from the flexible analysis (346 k), so the greater force is used to obtain the maximum diaphragm shear at Line N: q N = 440 180 = 2.44 k/ft at Line N Using allowable stress design and the alternate load combinations of 1612.3.2, the (1213) basic load combination is: E 1.4 Maximum design shear: 2.44 qN = = 1.74 kips/ft 1.4 With 31/4 inch lightweight concrete over 3"20 gauge deck, using 4 puddle welds per sheet, the allowable deck shear per the manufacturers ICBO evaluation report is: Vallow = 1.75 > 1.74 kips/ft o.k. (1213) 1612.3.2
43
Design Example 1A
Other deck welds (e.g., parallel supports, seam welds) must also be designed for this loading. At seismic collectors, it is good practice to place additional welded studs in every low flute of the deck for shear transfer.
4c.
Using a flexible analysis and assuming diaphragm zone III acts as a simple beam between Lines G and N (Figure 1A16), for northsouth seismic loads the maximum chord force on lines 1 and 7 is: wl 2 3.6(192) 2 CF = = = 92.2 kips 8d 8(180) 1633.2.9 Items 6 and 7
Note that this value must be compared to the collector force at Lines 1 and 7, and the largest value used for design.
For structures with plan irregularity type 2, the code disallows the onethird stress increase for allowable stress design for collector design (1633.2.9, Item 6). This code section also requires chords and collectors be designed considering independent movement of the projecting wings, for motion of the wings in both the same and opposing directions. There are two ways to achieve this:
44
Design Example 1A
1.
Use a three dimensional computer model with membrane or thinshell diaphragm elements to capture the relative stiffness between the floor and braces. Make a simplifying assumption that gives reasonable values for collector forces at the reentrant corner.
2.
For this example, the second option is chosen. If each wing is assumed to be flexible relative to the central diaphragm (Zone II), the wings can be considered as fixedpinned beams. The maximum moment at Line G is: M fixed w2l 2 3.6(192)2 = = = 16,589 kipsft 8 8
The maximum tie force (TG ) along Lines 1 and 7 at the intersections with Line G is: TG = 16,589 180 = 92.2 kips With allowable diaphragm shear of 75 k/ft, this tie force must be developed back into diaphragm zone II over a length of at least: 92.2 kips = 37.6 ft (1.4)1.75 kips/ft Next, the collector forces for eastwest seismic loads are determined. For Zone III between Lines 1 and 7, the equivalent uniform lateral load is: w3 = q (depth ) = 0.020(372 ) = 7.44 k/ft The collector force at Line 1 is: R1 = 7.44(180 2) = 670 kips From the computer model, at the roof level the frames on Line 1 (Frames A1 and A2) resist loads of 405 kips and 425 kips, respectively. R1 = 405 A1 + 425 A2 = 830 kips > 670 kips
45
Design Example 1A
Therefore, the rigid diaphragm analysis governs, and the shear flow along Line 1 (q1 ) , is: q1 = 830 372 = 2.23 kips/ft As shown in Figure 1A17, collector forces at points a, b, c, and d are: Fa = 2.23(30 ) = 67 kips Fb = 2.23(90 ) + 405 = 204 kips Fc = 2.23(244 ) + 405 = 140 kips Fd = 2.23(64 ) = 143 kips The maximum collector force as shown in Figure 1A17 is T = 204 kips .
The collector forces for eastwest seismic loads exceed the chord forces calculated for northsouth seismic, and therefore govern the collector design at Line 1. Use maximum T1 = 204 kips and minimum T1 = 140 kips . The collector element can be implemented using either the wide flange spandrel beams and connections or by adding supplemental slab reinforcing. In this example, supplemental slab reinforcing is used. Under 1633.2.6, using the strength design method, collectors must be designed for the special seismic load combinations of 1612.4. E m = Tm = oT = (2.2)T 1633.2.6
46
Design Example 1A
Using the factored loads of 1612.4: Tmu = (1.0 )E m = (1.0 )(2.2 )T Maximum Tmu = 2.2(204) = 449 kips Minimum Tmu = 2.2(140) = 308 kips Maximum As = Tmu f y = 449 0.9 (60) = 8.3 in.2
Use 11#8 As = 8.69 in.2
1612.4 (302)
(1218)
Minimum As = 308 0.9 (60 ) = 5.7 in. 2 Use 8#8 (As = 6.32 in.2) On Line 1, place 8#8 bars continuous from Lines A to N, and additional 3#8 (for a total of 11) along frame A1 to Line G. With slab reinforcing, the collected load must be transferred from the slab to the frame. This can be done with " diameter headed studs, again using the special seismic load combination of 1612.4. At Frame A1: F 1.0 (2.2 ) 405 vu = 1.0 o A1 = = 14.9 kips/ft L 60 A1 The shear strength of " diameter headed studs as governed in this case by the concrete strength ( f ' c = 3,000 psi ) is derived from 1923.3.3: Vc = 800 Ab f 'c = 0.65 (800)(0.44 )(0.75) 3,000 1,000 = 9.4 kips/stud The required number of studs per foot (n ) is: n= 14.9 kips/ft = 1.59 studs/ft 9.4 kips/stud 1923.3.3
47
Design Example 1A
5.
2212
In this part, the design of a typical bay of bracing is demonstrated. The design bay, taken from Elevation A, Figure 1A4, is shown in Figure 1A18. Member axial forces and moments are given for dead, live, and seismic loads as output from the computer model. All steel framing will be designed per Chapter 22, Division V, Allowable Stress Design. Requirements for special concentrically braced frames are given in 2213.9 of Chapter 22.
Design Example 1A
5a.
rd
1612.3.1
The basic ASD load combinations of 1612.3.1 with no onethird increase are used. D+ 348 E : 1 = 24 + = 273 k (compression) 1.4 1.4 348 E : 2 = 0.9(24 ) = 227 kips (tension) 1.4 1.4 (129)
0.9 D
(1210)
348 E D + 0.75 L + = 219 kips (compression) : 3 = 24 + 0.7511 + 1.4 1.4 The compressive axial load of Equation (129) controls. The clear unbraced length (l ) of the TS brace is 18.5 feet, measured from the face of the beam or column. Assuming k = 1.0 for pinned end, kl = 1.0(18.5) = 18.5 ft Maximum slenderness ratio: kl 1,000 r Fy
(1211)
2213.9.2.1
49
Design Example 1A
1,000 46
= 147.4
Minimum r =
2213.9.2.4
b 110 = 16.2 Maximum widththickness ratio Fy t Try TS 8 8 5 8 : r = 2.96 > 1.51 in. o.k o.k. o.k. AISCASD, pp. 341
For kl = 19 ft, Pallow = 324 kips > 273 kips Use TS8 8 5 8
5b.
rd
The girder will be designed using the basic load combinations of 1612.3.1 as noted above. The loads are: D + L : M D +L = 1,600 + 1,193 = 2,793 kipin. D E : 1.4 Pseis = 72 = 51.4 kips 1.4 (128) (129)
M DL = 1,600 kipin. E 72 D + 0.75 L + : Pseis = 0.75 = 38.6 kips 1.4 1.4 M D + L+ seis = 1,600 + 0.75(1,193) = 2,495 kipin. (1211)
50
Design Example 1A
For the girder, use ASTM A36 steel with F y = 36 ksi . Assume that the bottom beam flange is braced at third points ly = 30 = 10.0 ft 3
As a starting point for design, assume a beam with a crosssection area of area of 20 in.2 Find the required beam section modulus. fa = 51.4 = 2.6 ksi , and maximum Fa = 0.6(36 ) = 21.6 ksi then, 20
fa 2.6 = = 0.12 Fa 21.6 For an allowable bending stress, use: f b = (1 0.12 )(0.60)(36 ) = 19.0 ksi S req'd 2,793 = 147 in.3 19.0
Try W 24 68 beam S = 154 in.3 A = 20.1 in.2 rx = 9.55 in. ry = 1.87 in. 12(30 ) kl = 37.7 = 9.55 r x 12 (10.0 ) kl = 64.2 = 1.87 r y Fa = 17.02 ksi (compression governs) AISCASD, pp. 316
51
Design Example 1A
Maximum f a =
For combined stresses, use AISC Equation H13. Check load combination of Equation (128). fb 2,793 = = 0.84 < 1.0 Fb 154(21.6 ) o.k.
Check load combination of Equation (129). fa f 2.55 1,600 + b = + = 0.15 + 0.48 = 0.63 < 1.0 Fa Fb 17.02 154(21.6 ) Check load combination of Equation (1211). fa f 38.6 2,495 + b = + = 0.11 + 0.75 = 0.86 < 1.0 Fa Fb 20.1(17.02 ) 154(21.6 ) Use W 24 68 girder Note that 2213.9.1 requires the girders to be continuous through brace connections between adjacent columns. For chevron bracing configurations, several additional requirements are placed on the girder design. Those requirements are addressed in Design Example 1C. The Xbracing configuration shown in this Example ensures the desired postbuckling capacity of the braced frame without inducing the large unbalanced seismic loading on the girder that occurs in a chevron brace configuration. o.k. o.k.
5c.
rd
The frame columns will also be designed using the basic load combinations of 1612.3.1 with no onethird increase. D + L : P0 = 67 + 30 = 97 kips (compression) D+ E 114 = 148.4 kips (compression) : P1 = 67 + 1.4 1.4 (128) (129)
52
Design Example 1A
0.9 D
(1210)
114 E D + 0.75 L + = 150.6 kips (compression) : P3 = 67 + 0.75 30 + 1.4 1.4 Per the requirements of 2213.9.5, the columns must have the strength to resist the special column strength requirements of 2213.5.1: DL + 0.7 LL + o E : Pcomp = 67 + 0.7(30 ) + 2.2(114 ) = 339 kips (compression) 0.85DL o E : tens. = 0.85(67 ) 2.2(114 ) = 194 kips (tension) For the columns, ASTM A36 steel with F y = 36 ksi will be used. The unbraced column height (floor height less beam depth) is: h = 15 1 = 14 ft
Try a W 10 49 column with kl = 14 ft
(1211)
2213.9.5, Item 1
2213.5.1, Item 2
o.k.
Check the column for the special column strength requirements of 2213.5 using member strength per 2213.4.2: Psc = 1.7 Pallow Psc = 1.7(242 ) = 411 > 339 kips (compression) Pst = F y A = 36(14.4) = 518.4 > 194 kips (tension) o.k. o.k. 2213.4.2
Note that 2213.5.2 places special requirements on column splices. To ensure the column splice can meet the ductility demand from the maximum earthquake force (E m ) , fullpenetration welds at splices are recommended. The splice must occur within the middle onethird of the column clear height, not less than 4 feet above the beam flange. Finally, 2213.9.5 requires that the columns meet the widththickness ratio limits of 2213.7.3:
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
53
Design Example 1A
bf 2t f
2213.7.3
no good
o.k.
Thus, the column design is governed by the local buckling compactness criterion. Use W10 x 54
6.
In this part, the connection of the TS8 8 brace to the W 10 column and W 24 girder will be designed. Connection of the braces to the midspan of the girder is similar, and is shown in Example 1C.
6a.
2213.9.2
Section 2213.9.3.1 requires that bracing connections have the strength to resist the lesser of: 3. The strength of the brace in axial tension, Pst . 4. o times the design seismic forces, plus gravity loads. 5. The maximum force that can be transferred to the brace by the system. For the TS8 8 5 8 brace used in the design bay, the connection force is taken as the lesser of: Pst = Fy A = 46(17.4 ) = 800.4 kips controls
54
Design Example 1A
or: Pm = PD + PL + o PE = (24 + 11) + 2.2 (348) = 800.6 kips Use 800.4 kips for design
6b.
Based on research by AISC [Thornton, 1991], the Uniform Force Method (UFM) has been presented as an efficient, reliable procedure for design of bracing connections. The basis for the UFM is to configure the gusset dimensions so that there are no moments at the connection interfaces: gussettobeam; gussettocolumn; and beamtocolumn. [For more information on the UFM, refer to AISC 1994 LRFD, Volume II, Connections.] Figure 1A19 illustrates the gusset configuration and connection interface forces for the UFM. Note that the distances to the centroids of the gusset connection, and , are coincident with the brace centerline. To achieve the condition of no moments at the interfaces, the following relationship must be satisfied: tan = eb tan ec The connection forces are then given by these equations: r=
( + ec )2 + ( + eb )2
H b = r e Vb = b r Vc = r e H c = c r If the connection centroids do not occur at and , moments are induced on the connection interface. The UFM can also be applied to this condition (see the LRFD Connections manual for the Special Case No. 2 example). In some cases, it may be beneficial to first select proportions for the gusset, then design the welds using unbalanced moments computed per the UFM Special Case No. 2.
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
55
Design Example 1A
6c.
Application of the UFM essentially involves selecting of gusset dimensions, then analyzing plate and connection stresses and capacities at the interfaces. It is inherently a trial and error solution, and can readily be formatted for a spreadsheet solution. For this example, welded connections are used from gussettobeam and gussettocolumn. The beamtocolumn connection will be made with highstrength bolts. A suggested starting point for determining the length of weld between gusset and column (2 ) is to assume half the total length of weld to the brace. Note that per the AISC reference, these welds should be designed for the larger of the peak stress or 140 percent of the average stress. The 40 percent increase is intended to enhance ductility in the weld group, where gusset plates are welded directly to the beam or column. For this example brace connection, these parameters are fixed: = 45 ec = eb = 10.0 = 5.0" (W 10 54) 2 23.7 = 11.9" (W 24 68) 2
tan = eb tan ec (1.0) = 11.9(1.0 ) 5.0 = 6.9 + After a few trials, the following are selected: = 15.9" and = 9.0" Using the axial strength of the brace, Pst = 800.4 kips , the connection interface forces are as follows: r=
= 29.56"
Gussettobeam: 15.9 11.9 H b = 800.4 = 431 kips , Vb = 800.4 = 322 kips 29.56 29.56
56
Design Example 1A
Gussettocolumn: 9.0 5.0 Vc = 800.4 = 244 kips , H c = 800.4 = 135 kips 29.56 29.56 From review of the computer output for the braced frame at the third floor, the collector force (Ab ) to the beam connection is: Ab = 41 kips
6d.
Bracetogusset design.
Bracing connections must have the strength to develop brace member forces per 2213.9.3.1. The capacities of the connection plates, welds and bolts are determined under 2213.4.2. Determine TS brace weldtogusset. For 5/8in. tube, minimum fillet weld is in. Try in. fillet weld using E70 electrodes. Per inch, weld capacity = 1.7(8)(0.928) = 12.62 kipsin. lreq = 800.4 = 15.9" @ 4 locations 12.62 ( 2)(2) AISCASD Table J2.5
Use 18inches of in. fillet each side, each face Check minimum gusset thickness for block shear: RBS = (1.7 ) 0.30 Av Fu + 0.50 A t Fu Fu = 58 ksi (A36 plate) where: Av = net shear area At = net tension area For TS 8 8 with Lweld = 18 in. Av = 2(18)t , At = (8)t
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
57
Design Example 1A
RBS = (1.7 )[0.3(36 ) + 0.5(8)](58)(tmin ) = 1,361kips tmin = 0.93 in. Use 1in. plate gusset minimum, ASTM A36, F y = 36 ksi Check gusset plate compression capacity. Section 2213.9.3.3 requires the gusset plate to have flexural strength exceeding that of the brace, unless the outofplane buckling strength is less than the inplane buckling strength and a setback of 2t is provided as shown in Figure 1A19. The gusset plate must also be designed to provide the required compressive capacity without buckling. The 2t setback is a minimum requirement. A setback of 3t provides for construction tolerance for brace fitup, and should be considered during design. From Figure 1A19, the gusset plate provides much greater inplane fixity for the tube. The effective length factor (k ) for outofplane buckling is by observation greater than the inplane factor (k ) , so the outofplane buckling strength will be less than the inplane buckling strength. The setback of 2t promotes enhanced postbuckling behavior of the brace by allowing for hinging in the gusset instead of the brace. The gusset plate must be designed to carry the compressive strength of the brace without buckling. Using the Whitmores Method (see AISC LRFD Manual Vol. II), the effective plate width at Line AA of Figure 1A19a is: b = tube width + 2 ( w ) tan 30 = 8 + 2 (18) tan 30 = 28.8 in. The unsupported plate length Lu is taken as the centerline length from the end of the brace to the edge of beam or column. From Figure 119a, this length measures 20 in. As recommended by AstanehAsl [1998], a value of k = 1.2 will be used. Maximum l u = 20 in. r= t 1.0 = = 0.289 in. 12 3.464 Fa = 15.0 ksi AISCASD, Table C36 2213.9.3.3
kl 1.2 (20 ) = = 83.0 for F y = 36 ksi, r 0.289 Gusset capacity: Pplate = 1.7(1.0)(28.8)(15.0 ) = 734 kips
58
2213.4.2
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
Design Example 1A
TS 8 8 brace compression capacity: Pbrace = 1.7(324 ) = 551 < 734 kips o.k.
Comment: Where tube sections are slotted for gusset plates, as shown in Figure 1A19, recent testing has shown that overcut slots are of concern. Net section fracture at the end of the slot should be checked considering shear lag at the connection. If required, it is recommended that the tube section be reinforced with a cover plate at the end of the slot.
Figure 1A19. Connection design using the uniform force method (UFM) 59
Design Example 1A
6e.
Gussettobeam design.
In this section, the connection of the 1inchthick plate gusset to the W24 beam will be designed. The weld length from gusset to beam is the plate length less the 1inch clear distance between the beam and column. l w = 2(15.9 1.0 clr ) = 29.8" Per inch of effective throat area, weld stresses are: fx = Hb 431 = = 7.23 ksi (xcomponent) 2(l w ) 2(29.8) Vb 322 = = 5.40 ksi (ycomponent) 2(l w ) 2(29.8)
fy =
fr =
(7.23)2 + (5.40)
For E70 electrodes, the allowable weld strength is: Fw = 1.7(0.3)(70 ksi ) = 35.7 ksi The required weld size is: t weld = 9.0 = 0.36 in. 35.7(0.707 )
Under AISC specifications (Table J2.4), the minimum weld for a 1inch gusset plate is 5/16in., but as noted in Part 6c, we increase the weld size by a factor of 1.4 for ductility. t weld = 0.36(1.4 ) = 0.50 in. use in. fillet weld Comparing the doublesided fillet to the allowable plate shear stress, the minimum plate thickness is: t pl = 2 (0.707 )(21)(0.50 ) = 1.0 in. 0.4 (36.0 ) o.k.
1inch plate
60
Design Example 1A
N = lw = 29.8 in. R = Vb = 322 kips R 1.33(0.66 )F y t w (N + 2.5 k ) 322 kips = 23.3 ksi 1.33 (0.66 )(36 ksi ) = 31.6 ksi (0.415)(29.8 + 2.5 (1.375)) AISCASD, K1.3
o.k.
6f.
Gussettocolumn design.
The gusset plate connection to the column is designed using the same procedure as the gussetbeam connection. The weld length to the column is: lw = 2(9 ) = 18 in. Per inch of effective throat area, weld stresses are: fx = Hc 135 = = 3.75 ksi (xcomponent) 2(l w ) 2(18) Vc 244 = = 6.77 ksi (ycomponent) 2(l w ) 2(18)
fy =
fr =
(3.75)2 + (6.77 )2
Determine the required weld size, with the 1.4 factor to enhance ductility of the weld. 7.75 ksi t weld = 1.4 = 0.42 in. 35.7(0.707 )
o.k.
61
Design Example 1A
Check compressive stress in the web toe of the W 10 54 column: R 135 = = 17.3 ksi t (N + 2.5k ) (0.37 )(18 + 2.5(1.25)) 1.33(0.66 )(36 ksi ) = 31.6 ksi > 17.3 ksi o.k. AISCASD K1.3
6g.
Beamtocolumn connection.
The connection of the W 24 beam to the W 10 column must carry the dead and live loads on the beam as well as the vertical and horizontal components of the brace force transferred from the gusset plates to the top and bottom of the beam. From the diagonal brace above the beam (see Figure 1A19d), the connection forces to the beam are: Ab + H c = 41 + 135 = 176 kips Rb = V DL + V LL = 14.1 + 10.3 = 24.4 kips Rb + Vb = 24.4 + 322 = 346 kips The diagonal brace below the beam also contributes to the beamtocolumn connection forces. The horizontal component from the brace below (H c ) acts opposite to the brace above, while the vertical component (Vb ) adds to that from the brace above. The connection forces above are based on the tensile capacity of the brace, so it is reasonable to use the compressive strength of the brace below. Assuming a TS8 8 5 8 in. brace below: Psc = 1.7(324 ) = 551 kips Vb = 322(551 800 ) = 222 kips H c = 135(551 800) = 93 kips The net beamtocolumn connection forces (as shown in Figure 1A19b) are: Ab + H c = 176 93 = 83 kips Rb + Vb = 346 + 222 = 568 kips
62
Design Example 1A
Using an eccentricity of 3 inches: M ecc = (3)(568) = 1,704 kipin. Try a single shear plate (A572 grade 50) with 2 rows of 71inch diameter A490 SC bolts (14 bolts total) and a complete penetration weld from the shear tab to the column. Slip critical bolts are required for connections subject to load reversal per AISC. Check the plate and weld stresses with capacities per 2213.4.2. Assuming a plate thickness of 1inch, stresses are: Shear tab length = 6(3") + 3" = 21 in. fx = 83 = 3.95 ksi (xcomponent) (21)(1) 568 = 27.0 ksi (ycomponent) (21)(1)
fy =
Z plastic = f xx = fr =
(21)2
4
= 110.3
Required minimum plate thickness F y = 50 ksi : t PL = f r (1) 33.2 = = 0.66 in. Fy 50 2213.4.2
Try in. shear tab with complete penetration weld to column. Check shear capacity of plate. Vs = 0.55 F y dt = 0.55 (50 )(21)(0.75) = 433 kips < 568 kips Try 1inch plate. 1.0 Allowable Vc = 433 = 577 kips > 568 kips 0.75
Use 1in. plate shear tab
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
no good
o.k.
63
Design Example 1A
Check shear plate net area for tension. Ae 1.2F * Ag Fu where: F* = 83 = 3.95 ksi (1.0)(21)
1.2F * 1.2(1.0 )3.95 = = 0.073 Fu 65 Ae = 21(1.0) 7 (1.375)(1.0) = 11.38 in. Ae 11.38 = = 0.54 > 0.073 Ag 21.0 o.k.
Check bolt capacity for combined shear and tension. Per bolt: Fx = Fy = FR = 83 = 5.9 kips 14 568 = 40.6 kips 14
(5.9)2 + (40.6)2
= 41.0 kips
For 11/4in. diameter A490SC bolts, the allowable shear bolt is: Vbolt = 1.7(25.8) = 43.9 kips > 41.0 kips
Use 1inch A90SC bolts
o.k.
64
Design Example 1A
Commentary
As shown on the frame elevations (Figure 1A4), a horizontal steel strut has been provided between the columns at the foundation. Welded shear studs are installed on this strut with the capacity to transfer the horizontal seismic force resisted by the frame onto the foundations, through grade beams or the slabongrade. This technique provides redundancy in the transfer of seismic shear to the base, and is recommended as an alternate to transferring the frame shear force solely through the anchor bolts.
References
AISCASD, 1989. Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois. 9th Edition. AISC/LRFD, 1994. Manual of Steel Construction, Load and Resistance Factor Design. Volumes I and II. American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois. 2nd Edition. AstanehAsl, A., 1998. Seismic Behavior and Design of Gusset Plates, SteelTips. Structural Steel Educational Council. Cochran, Michael, 2000. Design and Detailing of Steel SCBF Connections, SEAONC Seminar Series. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California. Hassan, O. and Goel, S., 1991. Seismic Behavior and Design of Concentrically Braced Steel Structures. Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan. ICBO, 1998. Maps of Known Active Fault NearSource Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada. International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California. Lee, S. and Goel, S., 1987. Seismic Behavior of Hollow and Concrete Filled Square Tubular Bracing Members. Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Michigan. Sabelli, R., and Hohbach, D., 1999. Design of CrossBraced Frames for Predictable Buckling Behavior, Journal of Structural Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.125, no.2, February 1999. Thornton, W., 1991. On the Analysis and Design of Bracing Connections, National Steel Conference Proceedings. American Institute of Steel Construction, pp. 26.126.33 Chicago, Illinois.
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
65
Design Example 1A
66
Design Example 1B
Figure 1B1. Fourstory steel frame office building with ordinary concentric braced frames (OCBF)
Overview
This Design Example illustrates the differences in design requirements for an ordinary concentric braced frame (OCBF) and a special concentric braced frame (SCBF) (illustrated in Design Example 1A). The same fourstory steel frame structure from Example 1A is used in this Design Example (Figure 1B1). Building weights, dimensions, and site seismicity are the same as Example 1A. Coefficients for seismic base shear are revised as required for the OCBF. The typical design bay is revised for the OCBF, and the results compared to those for the SCBF structure. It is recommended that the reader first review Design Example 1A before reading this Design Example. Refer to Example 1A for plans and elevations of the structure (Figures 1A1 through 1A4).
67
Design Example 1B
In the Blue Book Commentary (C704.12), OCBFs are not recommended for areas of high seismicity or for essential facilities and special occupancy structures. SCBFs are preferred for those types of structures, since SCBFs are expected to perform better in a large earthquake due to their ductile design and detailing. OCBFs are considered more appropriate for use in onestory lightframed construction, nonbuilding structures and in areas of low seismicity.
Outline
This Design Example illustrates the following parts of the design process:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Design base shear. Distribution of lateral forces. Interstory drifts. Braced frame member design. Bracing connection design.
Code Reference
1. 1a.
1629.6
The structure is a building frame system with lateral resistance provided by ordinary braced frames (System Type 2.4.a of Table 16N). The seismic factors are: R = 5.6 = 2.2 hmax = 160 ft Table 16N
68
Design Example 1B
1b.
1629.8.3
The static lateral force procedure will be used, as permitted for irregular structures not more than five stories or 65 feet in height.
1c.
1629.4.3
For Zone 4 and Soil Profile Type SD: C a = 0.44(N a ) = 0.44(1.0 ) = 0.44 C v = 0.64(N v ) = 0.64(1.08) = 0.69 Table 16Q Table 16R
1d.
1e.
1630.2.1
V =
(304)
V =
2 .5C a I 2 . 5 ( 0 . 44 ) (1 . 0 ) W = = 0 . 196 W R 5 .6
(305)
For Zone 4, base shear shall not be less than: V = 0.8ZN v I 0.8(0.4)(1.08)(1.0) W = = 0.062W R 5.6 (307)
69
Design Example 1B
1f.
1630.1
Reliability/redundancy factor = 2
20 rmax Ab
(303)
From Design Example 1A, use = 1.0 . For the load combinations of 1630.1: E = E h + E v = 1.0(V ) E m = E h = 2.2(V ) (301) (302)
2. 2a.
The weight and mass distribution for the building is shown in Table 1B1. These values are taken from Design Example 1A.
Table 1B1. Mass properties summary
Level Roof 4th 3rd 2nd Total W (kips) 6,687 6,840 6,840 6,840 27,207 X cg (ft) 161.1 161.1 161.1 161.1 Ycg (ft) 1,80.9 1,80.9 1,80.9 1,80.9 M (kip sec2/in.) 17.3 17.7 17.7 17.7 70.4
MMI
2b.
As noted above, Equation (30.5) governs, and V = 0.196W = 0.196(27207) = 5,333 kips (305)
70
Design Example 1B
2c.
1630.5
For the Static lateral force procedure, vertical distribution of force to each level is applied as follows: Fx = W h (V Ft )W x h x =V x x W h Wi hi i i (3015)
3. 3a.
Determine M.
The maximum inelastic response displacement, M , is determined per 1630.9.2 as: M = 0.7(R ) S = 0.7(5.6 ) S = 3.92 S (3017)
3b.
The maximum interstory drift (obtained from a computer analysis and summarized in Table 1A7 of Design Example 1A) occurs in the northsouth direction at the second story, and is 0.36 inches with R = 5.6 . This value must be adjusted for the R = 6.2 used for OCBF systems. 6.2 S drift = (0.36") = 0.40 in. 5.6 M drift = 0.40(3.92 ) = 1.57 in. Drift ratio = 1.57 = 0.009 < 0.025 180 o.k. 1630.10.2
71
Design Example 1B
Comment: The elastic story displacement is greater for the SCBF than the OCBF, but the maximum inelastic displacement ( M ) is equivalent to the SCBF. Drift limitations rarely, if ever, govern braced frame designs. And, as a design consideration, there is essentially no difference in the calculated maximum drifts for OCBFs and SCBFs.
4.
Braced frame member design will be done using the same typical design bay as shown in Example 1A. SCBF member seismic forces are increased proportionally for the OCBF using a ratio of the R values. Member axial forces and moments for dead load and seismic loads are shown below (Figure 1B2). All steel framing is designed per Chapter 22, Division V, Allowable Stress Design. Requirements for braced frames, except SCBF and EBF, are given in 2213.8.
DL = 24 kips
LL = 11 kips E = 400 kips
72
Design Example 1B
WF beam @ 3rd floor: M DL = 1600 kipin. M LL = 1193 kipin. V DL = 14.1 kips V LL = 10.3 kips E = 83 kips WF column @ 3rd story: DL = 67 kips LL = 30 kips E = 130 kips ME 0
4a.
rd
The basic ASD load combinations of 1612.3.1 with no onethird increase will be used. D+ 400 E : P = 24 + = 310 kips (compression) 1 1.4 1.4 400 E : P2 = 0.9(24 ) = 264 kips (tension) 1.4 1.4 (129)
0.9 D
(1210)
400 E D + 0.75 L + = 246 kips (compression) : P3 = 24 + 0.7511 + 1.4 1.4 The compressive axial load of Equation (129) controls. The unbraced length, lw, of the TS brace is 18.5 feet. The effective length kl = 1.0(18.5) = 18.5 feet .
(1211)
73
Design Example 1B
Maximum slenderness ratio: kl 720 r Fy For a tube section: Fy = 46 ksi 720 = 106 46 12(18.5) kl = = 2.09 in. 106 106 2213.8.2.5 2213.8.2.1
Minimum r =
b 110 = 16.2 Maximum widththickness ratio Fy t Try TS 10 10 5 8 . r = 3.78 > 2.09" o.k. o.k.
For an OCBF, the capacity of bracing members in compression must be reduced by the stress reduction factor B per 2213.8.2: Fas = BFa B = 1 /{ + [(K l r ) / (2C c )]} 1 where: Cc = 2 2 E Fy 1.0(12)(18.5) = 58.7 3.78 (134) (135)
AISCASD E2
( Kl ) / r =
B=
74
Design Example 1B
For kl = 18.5 ft Pallow = 482 kips Pas = (0.79)(482) = 380 > 310 kips o.k. AISCASD, pp. 341
Use TS 10 10 5 8
4b.
rd
From a review of Design Example 1A, the vertical load moment governs the girder design. With only a nominal increase in axial force from seismic loading, the girder is okay by inspection.
4c.
rd
The columns will be designed using the basic ASD load combinations with no onethird increase. D + L : 1 = 67 + 30 = 97 kips (compression) D+ 130 E : 1 = 67 + = 160 kips (compression) 1.4 1.4 130 E : 2 = 0.9(67 ) = 33 kips (tension) 1.4 1.4 (128) (129)
0.9 D
(1210)
130 E D + 0.75 L + = 159 kips (compression) : 3 = 67 + 0.7530 + 1.4 1.4 For the columns, ASTM A36 steel with F y = 36 ksi . The unbraced column height is: h = 15 1 = 14 ft Per AISCASD manual, p. 330, select a W 10 49 column with kl = 14 ft . Pallow = 242 > 160 kips o.k.
(1211)
Use W 10 49 column
75
Design Example 1B
Note that without the local buckling compactness requirement of 2213.9.2.4, the W 10 49 works in the OCBF, where a W 10 54 is required for the SCBF of Example 1A. Also note that the special column strength requirements of 2213.5.1 do not apply to the OCBF. The relaxation of ductility requirements for the OCBF reflects lesser inelastic displacement capacity than the SCBF, hence the greater seismic design forces for the OCBF.
5.
2213.8.3
The design provisions for OCBF connections are nearly identical to those for SCBF connections, with one significant difference. The SCBF requirements for gusset plates do not apply to OCBF connections. Therefore, the minimum 2t setback, as shown in Figure 1A19(a) of Design Example 1A for the SCBF, may be eliminated. This allows the end of the tube brace to extend closer to the beamcolumn intersection, thereby reducing the size of the gusset plate. Under the requirements of 2213.8.3.1, the OCBF connections must be designed for the lesser of: 1. PST = F y A = 46( 22.4) = 1030 kips 2213.8.3.1
2. PM = PD + PL + M PE = ( 24 + 11) + 2.2( 400) = 915 kips 3. Maximum force that can be transferred to brace by the system.
The remainder of the connection design follows the same procedure as for Design Example 1A, with all components designed for the 915 kip force derived above.
76
Design Example 1C
Figure 1C1. Fourstory steel frame office building with chevron braced frames
Overview
This Example illustrates the additional design requirements for chevron bracing designed as either an Ordinary Concentric Braced Frame (OCBF) or a Special Concentric Braced Frame (SCBF). The typical design bay from Design Example 1A is modified for use in this example. For comparison, the member forces are assumed to be the same as for Design Examples 1A and 1B. It is recommended that the reader first review Design Examples 1A and 1B before reading this example. Refer to Design Example 1A for plans and elevations of the structure (Figures 1A1 through 1A4).
77
Design Example 1C
Outline
This Design Example illustrates the following parts of the design process:
1. 2. 3. 4. Bracing configuration. Chevron bracing design under OCBF requirements. Chevron bracing design under SCBF requirements. Brace to beam connection design.
Code Reference
1.
Bracing configuration.
2213.2, 2213.8
Section 2213.2 defines chevron bracing as that form of bracing where a pair of braces located either above or below a beam terminates at a single point within the clear beam span. It also defines Vbracing and inverted Vbracing as chevron bracing occurring above or below the beam (Figure 1C2).
Chevron Vbracing
As discussed in the Blue Book Commentary C704.9, the seismic performance of chevron braces can degrade under large cyclic displacements if the diagonals have poor postbuckling behavior. For this reason, the design force for chevron bracing in OCBF systems is increased so that the bracing members remain elastic during moderate earthquakes. Chevron bracing in SCBF systems has demonstrated enhanced postbuckling behavior, due to the additional design parameters placed
78
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
Design Example 1C
on SCBF members and connections. Chevron braces designed to SCBF requirements are therefore not subject to the load amplification factor (2213.8.4.1, Item 1) imposed on chevron braces in OCBF systems. Recognizing that the buckling capacity of the compression diagonals is critical to all forms of braced frame performance, 2213.8.2.3 requires that no more than 70 percent of the diagonals act in compression along any line of bracing. By providing some balance in the distribution of tension and compression diagonals, ultimate inelastic story drifts are compatible for both directions. The typical design bay from Design Example 1A is reconfigured for chevron inverted Vbracing, as shown below in Figure 1C3.
2.
For comparison, assume the forces to the diagonal bracing members are the same as for Example 1B: TS brace @ 3rd story: PDL = 24 kips PLL = 11 kips PE = 400 kips
79
Design Example 1C
For OCBF chevron bracing, 2213.8.4.1 requires that the seismic force be increased by a factor of 1.5: PE = 1.5(400 ) = 600 kips Also note that the same section requires the beam to be continuous between columns, and that the beam be capable of supporting gravity loads without support from the diagonal braces. From Design Example 1A, the W 24 68 girder satisfies these conditions. For the diagonal brace at the third story, we have the following basic ASD load combinations with no onethird increase: D+ 600 E : P = 24 + = 453 kips (compression) 1 1.4 1.4 600 E : P2 = 0.9(24 ) = 407 kips (tension) 1.4 1.4 (129) 2213.8.4
0.9 D
(1210)
600 E D + 0.75 L + = 354 kips (compression) : P3 = 24 + 0.75 11 + 1.4 1.4 The compressive axial load of Equation (129) controls. From Design Example 1B, the capacity of a TS 10 10 5 8 tube section, adjusted by the stress reduction factor (B ) of 2213.8.2.2 is: Pas = 342 kips < 453 kips n.g.
(1211)
2213.8.2.5
The TS 10 10 5 8 is the largest section that satisfies the widththickness ratio for tubes as required by 2213.8.2.5. A wide flange section using A572 grade. 50 steel F y = 50 ksi will be required in lieu of a tube section.
Effective length @ centerline: kl = 1.0 (18.5) = 18.5 ft Maximum slenderness ratio: kl 720 r Fy
2213.8.2.1
For F y = 50 ksi;
720 50
= 102
80
Design Example 1C
Minimum r =
bf Maximum widththickness ratio 2t Try W 12 120 brace: ry = 3.13 > 2.18 in. bf 2t = 5.6 < 9.2 o.k.
Stress reduction factor: Pas = BPa B = 1 /{1 + [(kl / r ) / 2C c ]} kl / ry = B= 1.0(12)(18.5) = 70.9 3.13
For kl = 18.5 Pa = 733 kips Pas = (0.75)(733) = 550 > 453 kips
Use W 12 120 brace member
3.
2213.9.4.1
For SCBF chevron bracing, 2213.9.4.1 does not require the seismic force to be increased by a factor of 1.5 as is required for OCBF chevron braces. This provision is waived for SCBF chevron bracing due to an additional requirement for beam design. As for OCBF braces, 2213.9.4.1 also requires the beam to be continuous between columns, and that the beam be capable of supporting gravity loads without support from the diagonal braces. Additionally, for special chevron bracing, the beam intersected by chevron braces is to have sufficient strength to resist gravity loads combined with unbalanced brace forces. This requirement
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
81
Design Example 1C
provides for overall frame stability, and enhanced postbuckling behavior, with reduced contribution from the buckled compression bracing members. For comparison, assume the member forces remain the same as for Design Example 1A. TS brace @ 3rd story: PDL = 24 kips PLL = 11 kips PE = 348 kips WF beam @ 3rd story: M DL = 1,600 kipin. M LL = 1,193 kipin. V DL = 14.1 kips V LL = 72 kips PE = 72 kips
3a.
The diagonal brace design for the SCBF chevron brace remains the same as that of the twostory Xbrace presented in Design Example 1A.
3b.
rd
As demonstrated in Design Example 1A, the W 24 68 beam satisfies the basic load combinations of 1612.3.1. However, the unbalanced brace force specified in 2213.9.4.1 imposes a severe midspan point load to the beam. Using a TS 8 8 5 8 section, the brace forces are as follows: Pst = A F y = 17.4(46 ) = 800.4 kips Psc = 1.7 Pallow = 1.7(324 ) = 551 kips
82
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
( )
Design Example 1C
The maximum unbalanced brace force Pb is taken as the net difference of the vertical components of Pst and 0.3Psc as show in Figure 1C4.
2213.9.4.1
P st
0.3P sc
Pb = 0.707[800.4 0.3(551)] = 449 kips M b = Pb L 4 = 449(12)(30 ) 4 = 40,410 kipin. The beam must have the strength to resist load combinations similar to the Special Seismic Combinations of 1612.4: 1.2 D + 0.5L + Pb M max = 1.2(1,600 ) + 0.5(,1193) + 40,410 = 42,927 kipin. 0.9 D Pb M min = 0.9(1600) 40410 = 38970 kip in. Neglecting consideration of composite beam action, and using the flexural strength, the minimum required plastic modulus Z is solved below (using A572 grade 50 steel). M s = Z F y > M max Z reqd 42927 50 = 859 in.3 Try W 36 232 Z = 936 in.3 > 859 in.3
Use W 36 232 beam
2213.9.4.1, Item 3
( )
o.k.
83
Design Example 1C
To complete the beam design, the beamtocolumn connection should be checked for the reaction from vertical load plus (Pb 2) . Comment: From the foregoing examples in Parts 2 and 3, it is apparent that compared to Xbracing, chevron bracing will require a substantial increase in member sizes. For the OCBF chevronbraced system, the brace size will increase, possibly resulting in larger demands at the connections. For the SCBF chevron bracing, the beam size increases to provide the capacity to meet the strength demand imposed by the unbalanced, postbuckling brace forces. Given their superior cyclic performance, it is recommended that SCBF chevron bracing be used in regions of moderate to high seismicity.
4.
2213.9.3.1
The brace to beam connection is shown in Figure 1C5 below. This Example uses the SCBF bracing and forces. The design for the OCBF connection is similar, without the 2t setback between the end of the brace and the line of restraint for the gusset plate, as required for SCBF systems.
84
Design Example 1C
4a.
From Design Example 1A, the TS 8 8 5 8 brace strength is used for connection design. The bracetogusset design is as given in Part 6d of Design Example 1A: Connection force: Pst = A F y = 800.4 kips Brace weld to gusset: 18" of
1 2"
( )
Gusset plate thickness: 1" plate gusset minimum The gusset plate is also checked for shear and bending at the interface with the beam. From Figure 1C5 we determine the plate length to be 86 inches. Check plate shear stress: V Plate = 2(800.4) 2 = 1,132 kips
fv =
From Figure 14, use an assumed moment couple length as distance between intersections of brace centerlines with beam flange. M plate = 2(18)(800.4 ) 2 = 20,375 kipin.
Z=
fb =
Design Example 1C
The allowable compressive bending stress is governed by the unsupported plate length perpendicular to the beam. From Figure 1C5: l 2 = 10" and assume k = 1.2 kl 1.2(10 ) = = 41.4 r 0.29(1.0 ) Fa = 19.08 ksi Allowable Fsc = 1.7(Fa ) = 1.7(19.08) = 32.4 ksi > 11.0 ksi
Use 1inch plate gusset
o.k.
4b.
Length of weld to beam is l w = 86 inches. Minimum fillet weld for 1inch plate is 5/16inch. Per inch of effective throat area, weld stresses are: fx = V 1,132 = = 6.58 ksi (xaxis) 2(l w ) 2(86) 20,375(6 ) M = = 8.26 ksi (yaxis) Sw 2(86 )2
fy =
fr =
(6.58)2 + (8.26)2
Allow Fw = 1.7(0.3)70 = 35.7 ksi Required weld size: t w = 10.56 = 0.41in. 0.707(35.7 )
86
Design Example 1C
Commentary
The Blue Book Commentary warns that even with the strongbeam SCBF chevron, configurations may be susceptible to large inelastic displacements and Pdelta effects. To mitigate these effects, chevron configurations that use twostory Xbracing or zipper columns are recommended. These bracing configurations are presented in the section Factors That Influence Design at the beginning of Design Example 1A.
87
Design Example 1C
88
Design Example 2
Overview
Use of eccentric braced frames (EBFs) in steel frame buildings in high seismic regions is a fairly recent development. This system was introduced in the 1988 UBC. While the concept has been thoroughly tested in laboratories, it has not yet been extensively tested in actual earthquakes. Many structural engineers, however, feel that it offers superior earthquake resistance. Following the problems with steel moment frame connections in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, many buildings that previously would have been designed as SMRF structures are now being designed with EBF systems. Eccentric braced frames may be configured with several geometric patterns, including centrally located links (as chosen in this problem) or with links located adjacent to columns. When links are located adjacent to columns, a seismic SMRF connection is required at the link beam/column intersection. Several papers and many practitioners recommend that configurations using centrally located links be chosen to avoid the use of link beam/column SMRF connections, which increase the risk of brittle failure. Braces may be oriented to slope up to central link beams (inverted V braces) or down (V braces) to central link beams. Also, a twostory frame section can be designed with upper and lower braces meeting at a common link beam located between the two levels.
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
89
Design Example 2
It is also desirable to prevent singlestory yield mechanisms. Some options for this include using inverted braces at two levels with common link beams, which ensures two story yield mechanisms, or zipper columns at either side of link beams, extending from the second level to the roof, which ensures multistory mechanisms. In this Design Example, the fivestory steel frame building shown schematically in Figure 21 is to have eccentric braced frames for its lateral force resisting system. The floor and roof diaphragms consist of lightweight concrete fill over steel decking. A typical floor/roof plan for the building is shown in Figure 22. A typical EBF frame elevation is shown in Figure 23. The typical frame is designed in both allowable stress design (ASD) and load and resistance factor design (LRFD) because the code allows a designer the choice of either design method. The LRFD method is from the 1997 AISCSeismic, which is considered by SEAOC to be the most current EBF design method. The ASD method has been in the UBC for several cycles and is considered to be older, not updated, code methodology.
Outline
This Design Example illustrates the following parts of the design process.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Design base shear coefficient. Reliability/redundancy factor. Design base shear and vertical distribution of shear. Horizontal distribution of shear. EBF member design using allowable stress design (ASD). EBF member design using load and resistance factor design (LRFD). Typical EBF details.
Note: Many calculations in this Design Example were performed using a spreadsheet program. Spreadsheet programs carry numbers and calculations to ten significant figures of accuracy, and thus will have round off errors when compared to hand calculations with two or three significant figures. The round off errors are usually within a percent or two. The reader should keep this in mind when comparing tables and calculations performed by hand.
90
Design Example 2
Given Information
Roof weights: Roofing Insulation Steel deck and fill Roof framing Partition walls (10 psf) Ceiling Mechanical/electrical Total Live load: Exterior curtain wall, steel studs, gypsum board, EIFS skin, weight: Structural materials: Wide flange shapes and plates Weld electrodes Light weight concrete fill Floor weights: Floor covering Steel deck and fill Framing (beams and columns) Partition walls Ceiling Mechanical/electrical Total Live load: 20.0 psf
6.0 psf 3.0 47.0 8.0 5.0 seismic 3.0 2.0 74.0 psf
1.0 psf 47.0 13.0 10.0 3.0 2.0 76.0 psf 50.0 psf
20.0 psf ASTM A572, Grade 50 F y = 50 ksi E70XX f c ' = 3,000 psi
Seismic and site data: Z = 0.4 (Seismic Zone 4) I = 1.0 (standard occupancy) Seismic Source Type = A Distance to seismic source = 5 km Soil profile type = S D
91
Design Example 2
92
Design Example 2
Code Reference
1.
1630.2
The static force procedure will be used and the building period is calculated using Method A. T = Ct (hn )3 4 = .030(62 )3 4 = .66 sec Near source factors for seismic source type A and distance to source of 5 km are: N a = 1.2 N v = 1.6 Seismic coefficients for Zone 4 and soil profile type S D are: C a = 0.44 N a = 0.44(1.2 ) = 0.53 Cv = 0.64 N v = 0.64(1.6 ) = 1.02 R coefficient for a steel frame building with eccentric braced frames: R = 7.0 , height limit is 240 feet Calculation of design base shear: V = Cv I 1.02(1.0 ) W = W = 0.22W RT 7(0.66 )
1630.2.2 (308)
The total design shear shall not be less than: V = 0.11C a IW = 0.11(.53)(1.0)W = 0.058W (306)
93
Design Example 2
In addition, for Seismic Zone 4, the total base shear shall also not be less than: V = 0.8ZN v I 0.8(0.4)(1.6)(1.0) W = W = 0.073W R 7 (307)
2.
Reliability/redundancy factor.
1630.1.1
The reliability/redundancy factor must be estimated. The factor was added to the code to penalize nonredundant systems. It varies from a minimum of 1.0 to a maximum of 1.5. It is determined for each principal direction. Since the building in this Design Example has four frames in the eastwest direction, is determined based on eight braces (two per frame) and a maximum torsional contribution of 2 percent (thus 1.02). The assumption is that all frames will be identical and that the horizontal component carried by each brace is equal. This assumption can be checked after final analysis. However, in this analysis it is determined without a structural analysis. = 2 20 rmax AB (303)
AB = 212 15 = 32,224 ft 2 rmax = 1 = 0.128 (8 braces, 2 percent from torsion) 8(1.02) 1630.1.1 = 1.13 (303)
1.0 1.5
= 2 20 .128 32,224
94
Design Example 2
3.
1630.5
The floor area at each level is 32,224 square feet. The perimeter of the exterior curtain wall is 728 feet. The roof parapet height is 4 feet. Assume that the curtain wall weights distribute to each floor by tributary height. The building mass calculation is shown in Table 21.
3a.
1630.2.1
Using the design base shear coefficient from Part 1, the base shear for the eastwest direction is V = 1.13 0.189W = 1.13 0.189(12900 ) = 2,789 k
3b.
1630.5
The total lateral force (i.e., design base shear) is distributed over the height of the building in accordance with 1630.5. The following equations apply: V = Ft + Fi
i =1 n
(3013) (3014)
Ft = 0.07TV 0.25V Ft = 0 for T 0.7 sec , T = 0.66 sec for this Design Example Fx =
(V Ft )w x hx wx hx
(3015)
95
Design Example 2
Using the building mass tabulated in Table 21 above, the vertical distribution of shear is determined as shown in Table 22 below.
2,530 2,530 2,624 5,154 2,624 7,778 2,624 10,401 2,660 13,062 13,062
4.
1630.6
Although the centers of mass and rigidity coincide, 1630.6 requires designing for an additional torsional eccentricity, e , equal to 5 percent of the building dimension perpendicular to the direction of force regardless of the relative location of the centers of mass and rigidity. eew = (0.05)(150 ) = 7.5 ft for eastwest direction ens = (0.05)(210) = 10.5 ft for northsouth direction Assume that all frames have the same rigidity, since all are similar EBFs. This assumption can be refined in a subsequent analysis, after members have been sized and an elastic deflection analysis has been completed. Many designers estimate the torsional contribution for a symmetric building by adding 5 percent to 10 percent to the element forces. However, in this Design Example the numerical application of the code provisions will be shown. Assume R1 = R2 = ...R14 = 1.0 , where Ri is the rigidity of each EBF frame. The calculation of direct shear plus torsion for a given frame is based on the following formula: V ec V i Vi = Ri i Ri R R xy c 2
96
Design Example 2
Table 23 gives the distribution of direct shear and torsional shear components as percentages of shear force (based on geometry).
Table 23. Calculation of direct shear plus torsion as percentage of story shear
Frame X(ft) (1) Y(ft) (1) ID Longitudinal 1 2 3 4 Transverse 5 110 6 110 7 10 8 10 9 100 10 100 Totals 75 75 75 75
Ri XRi YRi
1 1 1 1 1 110 1 110 1 10 1 10 1 100 1 100 75 75 75 75
X 2Ri
J= Rd
2
Sum Vi Vy Sum Ty (%) (3) V Vi / Vy (2) Tx (%) (3) V (%) (2) i I (%) 25% 25% 25% 25% 0.84% 0.84% 0.84% 0.84% 1.23% 1.23% 0.11% 0.11% 1.12% 1.12% 25.00% 25.00% 25.84% 25.84% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 1.18% 1.18% 1.18% 1.18% 1.73% 1.73% 0.16% 0.16% 1.57% 1.57% 16.7% 16.7% 16.9% 16.9% 18.3% 18.3%
0% 100% 0% Notes: 1. X and Y are distances from the center of mass (i.e., the center of the building) to frames in the X and Y directions, respectively. 2. Vx and Vy are direct shears on frames in the X and Y directions, respectively. 3. Tx and Ty are shear forces on frames that resist torsional moments on the building. These shear forces are either in the X or Y directions and can be additive or subtractive with direct shear forces.
4.
Rd 2 = x Ri + y 2 Ri
Based on the direct and torsional shear values tabulated in Table 23, and on the vertical distribution of shear tabulated in Table 22, the story forces to be used for design of the typical eccentric braced frame (EBF4) are as follows:
97
Design Example 2
5.
In the 1997 UBC, a designer has a choice of whether to design using allowable stress design (ASD) methods or whether to use load and resistance factor design (LRFD) methods. In part 5, the ASD method is illustrated. In part 6, the LRFD method is illustrated. The results are slightly different, depending on the method chosen.
5a.
2213.10
Seismic forces on a typical EBF, in this case EBF4 on line 6, will be determined. The forces E , applied to EBF4 are calculated first by determining the seismic load along line 6. The unit shear load along line 6, vi 6 , is thus Vi 6 210 feet. Frame EBF4 has a tributary collector length of 210 feet / 2 = 105 feet, and tributary lengths on the west side of the frame of 60 feet and on the east side of the frame of 45 feet. The frame forces are thus F4iL = vi 6 (60 feet) and F4iR = vi 6 (45 feet). The compression force in the link is equal to half the story shear tributary to the frame, minus the frame force at the right side (F4iL + F4iR ) 2 F4iR . Table 25 summarizes the forces at each level of frame EBF4.
5b.
Link length.
The inelastic behavior of a link is influenced by its length, e . The shorter the link length, the greater the influence of shear forces on the inelastic performance. Shear yielding tends to occur uniformly along the link length. Shear yielding of short links is very ductile with an inelastic capacity in excess of that predicted by calculations. The following is a summary of link behavior as a function of the link length e . MS is the flexural strength of the link and VS is the shear strength. Both are defined in 2213.4.2.
98
SEAOC Seismic Design Manual, Vol. III (1997 UBC)
Design Example 2
1.0
M MS e 1.3 S VS VS MS VS MS VS MS VS
Ensures shear behavior and is the recommended upper limit for shear links. Links less than 1.0 M s Vs the link may not yield as expected. Elastic behavior is controlled by shear behavior, however, region is transition between shear governed behavior and bending governed behavior. Link behavior is theoretically balanced between shear and flexural yielding.
e 1.6
e > 2.0
e 3.0
The shorter the link length, the stiffer the EBF frame will be; however, the greater the link rotation. The code sets limits on link plastic rotation of 0.090 radians (ASD) and 0.080 radians (LRFD) due to m deflections. For most designs, link lengths of 1.0 to 1.3 M s Vs work well.
5c.
Preliminary sizes of the EBF frame beams are determined by calculating the required shear area (dt w ) due to the story forces and frame geometry. The load combinations for allowable stress design procedures are given in Equations (127) through (1211) or (1212) through (1216) in 1612.3. These load combinations use load values of E 1.4 to account for allowable stress design.
14'
99
Design Example 2
For initial sizing, shear forces in the links may be approximated as follows: Vi ,link = Vi ( h) Vi / 2( h) = l l/2
V2,link
721 kips (14' ) = 240.2 kips = 1.4 30' 666 kips (12' ) = 190.4 kips = 1.4 30' 567 kips (12' ) = 161.9 kips = 1.4 30' 421 kips (12' ) = 120.3 kips = 1.4 30' 229 kips (12' ) = 65.5 kips = 1.4 30'
V3,link
V4,link
V5,link
V R ,link
The values for dt w , VS and M S are calculated as follows: Minimum dt w = V s = .55 F y dt w M s= Zx F y Preliminary beam sizes are determined as shown in Table 26 (forces are E 1.4 ). V i ,link 0.80 0.55 F y 2213.10.5
100
Design Example 2
Table 26. Preliminary link analysis and sizing for frame EBF4
Vi ,link min. Fi Story Vi req. dtw Level h 2 2 (ft) (kips) (kips) link (in.2) shear
R 5 4 3 2 12 12 12 12 14 81.9 81.9 65.5 2.98 5.47 7.36 8.65 150.3 68.5 120.3 202.4 52.0 161.9 238.0 35.6 190.4
d (in.)
tw (in.)
dtw (in.2)
7.52 8.83 9.95 9.95
1.3
1.6 M s Vs
(in.)
58.1 61.3 61.7 61.7 68.3
The most efficient link sections usually: 1. Optimize the required shear area, i.e., minimize dt w . 2. Are the deepest section possible while complying with the compact web criteria , i.e., maximize dt w . 3. Have compact flanges with sufficient bending capacity to ensure shear failure of the section under ultimate load. 4. The frames must meet the deflection and link rotation limitations and thus be sized for stiffness. The recommended [Engelhardt and Popov, 1989] link length is emax = 1.3 MS VS
A computer model has been created for EBF4. The results of the computer analysis, including forces and displacements, have been determined. The computer model was analyzed with moment resisting connections, which more closely estimates the real behavior of the frame with end moments much less than M p . For the first story, the EBF member design will be based on use of a W 21 132 link beam at Level 2.
5d.
Link rotation.
The frame displacement at the second level, S 2 , was determined from a separate computer analysis (not shown) using the design base shear (not divided by 1.4) and not increased by because frame distortion limits are based on calculations using applied strength level seismic forces not increased by the redundancy factor. S 2 = 0.48 in.
101
Design Example 2
The corresponding maximum inelastic response displacement at the second level, M 2 is estimated as follows: M = .7 R s = .7 (7 )0.48" = 2.40 in. The link rotation is computed as a function of the frame story drift and frame geometry. For a frame of story height h , bay width l , link length e , and (l e) , the link rotation may be calculated by the following dimensions a = 2 formula [Becker and Ishler, 1996]. Link rotations, , must be limited to 0.090 radians per 2213.10.4. = M 2 a 1.37" 2(157 ") l + = l + = 0.060 radians 0.090 e 180" h 46" (3017)
o.k. Note that the frame height, h , in the first story is 180 inches, or 15 ft0 in. because the base plate is anchored 12 inches below the slab.
5e.
2213.10.5
The purpose of EBF design is to ensure that any inelastic behavior in the structure under seismic motions occurs in the links. To achieve this, all elements other than the links are designed to have strengths greater than the forces that will be induced in them when the links experience yielding. Therefore, if the links have excess capacity, all other elements in the frame (braces, columns, link beams outside the link lengths) will also have corresponding excess capacity. Section 2213.10.5 requires than the link shear does not exceed 0.8Vs under design seismic forces. Thus links have a minimum overstrength factor min = (1.0 0.8) = 1.25 which provides a safety factor on shear capacity. Depending on the actual link beam chosen for design, the link overstrength factor, , may be greater than 1.25. Thus, for the W 21 132 link beam with applied shear Vi ,link = 240.2 kips (see Table 26): V s = .55 F y dt w = .55 (50 ksi )(21.83")(.650") = 390.2 kips = 390.2 k Vs = = 1.62 1.25 V i,link 240.2 k 2213.4.2
o.k . The link beam in this Design Example is sized for stiffness to thus limit deflections and link rotations under code loads. It therefore has greater strength than required
102
Design Example 2
5f.
2213.10.2
Check to assure that the beam flanges are compact to prevent flange buckling. 12.44" 52 bf = = 6.0 = 2t f 2 (1.035") Fy o.k. 52 = 7.36 50 ksi
5g.
Link length.
The length of the link will determine whether the link yields in shear or in bending. To ensure shear yielding behavior, the link beams have been limited to lengths less than 3 M s Vs . V s = .55 F y dtw = 390.2 kips e 1.3 M s = 55.5 in. Vs
3 M s = Z x F y = (333 in. ) (50 ksi) = 16,650 kipin.
2213.4.2
For frame stiffness, drift, and rotation control purposes at the second level, use e = 46 in. Thus: eVs (46" ) (390.2 kips) = = 1.08 Ms 16,650 kip in. o.k.
5h.
The summation of story forces down to level 3, Fi = V3 in Table 24, (the sum of level shears from the roof to level 3) is 666k (476k on an ASD basis). The ASD frame forces in level 2 at the left connection and right connection are F2 L = 31.1 k 1.4 = 22.2 k and F2 L = 23.3 k 1.4 = 16.7 k . The link beam outside the link must be checked for combined bending, plus axial loads. The link must be checked for bending plus axial loads using the flanges only (because the web is assumed to have yielded in shear and not capable of carrying axial load).
103
Design Example 2
Therefore, the axial force in the link on an ASD basis is: C link = T link =
The axial force can be factored up to account for actual link design overstrength, . For this link, = 1.62 and the link axial force can be factored to be 4.5 kips.
5i.
The maximum d/tw ratio permitted for compact beam sections is dependent on the axial load in the beam. Wide flange sections listed in the AISC W shapes tables (AISCASD) have compact webs for all combinations of axial stress when the yield strength is less than the tabulated values of F y . If a beam section is chosen that does not have a compact web for all axial loads, the section should be checked using allowable stress design of UBC Chapter 22, Division V, Table B5.1 of (AISCASD). The web should be compact along the full length of the beam. The UBC does not allow doubler plates to reduce d/tw requirements for a link beam (see 2213.10.5). For the W 21 132 beam at the second level of EBF4: dt w = 33.6 A = 38.8 in.2 Maximum axial force in link beam outside the link: V 3 666 kips + 31.1 kips + F 2L 2 2 = = 260 kips P 2L = 1.4 1.4 fa= fa Fy P 2L = 260 k = 6.7 ksi A 38.8 in.2 6.7 ksi = 0.13 0.16 50 ksi AISCASD, Table B5.1
104
Design Example 2
For f a 0.16 F y , the allowable d/tw to prevent local buckling is determined from the equation below. d tw = f 640 l 3.74 a = Fy Fy 6.7 ksi 640 l 3.74 = 45.1in.3 50 ksi 50 ksi AISCASD, Table B5.1
5j.
This calculation is made to check the combined bending plus axial strength of the link (using loads anticipated to yield the link with the link design overstrength factor, = 1.62 ). P2,link = 2.8 k (1.62) = 4.5 kips M 2,link = VS , 2
A f = b f t f = (12.440") (1.035") = 12.875 in.2 Z f = d t f b f t f = (21.83"1.035") 12.875 in.2 = 267.7 in.3 P2,link 2 Af + M 2,link Zf = 4.5 k 8,975 ksi + = 33.7 ksi 50 ksi 2 2 12.875 in. 267.7 in.3
)(
5k.
2213.10.3
The strength of the link is used to establish the minimum strength required of elements outside the link. The link shear strength Vs was determined using the web area d/tw, of the beam. When a beam has reached flexural capacity, shear in the link may be less than the shear strength of the section. If this is the case, the flexural capacity of the section will limit the shear capacity of the link. Section 2213.10.3 requires that the flexural capacity of the section, reduced for axial stress, be considered as a possible upper limit of the link capacity. This will be checked below.
105
Design Example 2
2213.10.3
Z x = 333 in.4 M rs = 333 in.3 (50.0 ksi 0.17 ksi ) = 16,593 kipin. Vrs = 2 M rs 2 (16,593 kip in.) = = 721 kips e (46")
The controlling shear capacity is the least of Vs or Vrs . In this case, Vs = 390 kips and Vrs = 721 kips . Therefore the controlling shear capacity is 390 kips. Thus, the controlling mode of yielding is shear in the link, because the shear required to yield the beam in bending will not be developed.
5l.
2313.10.18
Section 2213.10.18 requires lateral braces for the top and bottom flanges at the ends of the link beams. The maximum interval l u ,max is determined below. l u ,max = 76 bf Fy = 76
2313.10.18
Therefore the beam bracing at 10 ft 0 in. is adequate. (Note: the composite steel deck and lightweight concrete fill is not considered effective in bracing the top flange.)
5m.
2213.10.13
The beam outside the link is required to resist 130 percent of the bending, plus axial forces generated in the link beam. The combined beam bending plus axial interaction equations are referenced from AISCASD, Section N. Note that the ASD version of capacity design is being used because the beam is being checked under forces generated with a yielding link element in shear. Forces are from a hand evaluation of EBF frame behavior and from computer model analysis:
106
Design Example 2
Axial force in beam outside link: PE = 260 kips From computer model: PD = 11 kips Increased axial load on beam outside the link: P = 1.3P2,link + 1.3PDL = (1.3 1.62 260 k ) + (1.3 11 kips ) = 564 kips From EBF frame analysis: M E = 8,974 kin. From computer analysis: M D = 188.4 kin. Increased moment on beam outside the link: M = 1.3 V link e + 1.3M DL = 1.3 (8,974 kin.) + 1.3 (188.4 kin.) = 11,912 kin. 2
(1.0)(120") = 41.0
2.93"
(1.0)(150") = 16.4
9.12"
Allowable axial stress based on beam slenderness and bracing: ( kl / ry ) 2 ( 41.0) 2 1 Fy 50 ksi 1 2 2C c 2 2(107) = = = 25.7 ksi 3 5 3 ( 41.0) (41.0) 3 5 3 ( kl / ry ) (kl / ry ) + + 3 8 (107) 8 (107) 3 3 8C c 8C c 3
Fay
AISCASD E2
107
Design Example 2
12 2 E 23 kl / ry
)2
AISCASD E2
Beam slenderness parameter: Cc = 12 (3.14 )2 (29,000 ksi ) 12 2 E = = 107 Fy (60 ksi ) AISCASD E2
ASD axial capacity: Pcr = 1.7 Fa A = 1.7 (25.69 ksi )(38.8 sq in.) = 1,695 kips Euler buckling capacity: 23 23 Pe = Fe' A = (88.8 ksi ) 38.8 in.2 = 6,603 kips 12 12 ASD axial yielding load: Py = F y A = (50 ksi ) 38.8 in.2 = 1,940 kips AISCASD N4,
AISCASD N4
AISCASD N4
Maximum moment that can be resisted by the member in the absence of axial load: M m = M p = F y Z x = (50 ksi ) 333 in.3 = 16,650 kin. Coefficient for sidesway: C m = 0.85 Check AISC Equations (N42) and (N43): P Pcr + 564 kips 0.85 (11,912 k in.) Cm M + = 1,695 kips Pbu 564 kips 1 M m 1 6,603 kips 16,650 k in. Pe AISCASD (N42)
AISCASD N4
108
Design Example 2
P Py
564 kips 11,912 k in. M = + 1.18 M p 1,940 kips 1.18 (16,650 k in.)
AISCASD (N43)
5n.
Beam stiffeners.
2213.10.7
There are two types of stiffeners required in links: link stiffeners at ends at brace connections and intermediate stiffeners (Figures 27 and 211).
Link end stiffeners.
Full depth web stiffeners are required on both sides of the link beam at the brace connections. The stiffeners are used to prevent web buckling and to ensure ductile shear yielding of the web. The stiffeners shall have a combined width not less than bf  2tw and a thickness not less than 0.75t w or 3/8 inch. For the W 21 132 beam B f 2t w = 12.440"2 (.650") = 11.14" use 2 5.625" The minimum thickness of the stiffener is t stiff 0.75t w = 0.75 .650" = 0.49" use in. stiffeners. Therefore, use 55/8 in. in. link beam stiffeners at link ends at each side of web (total 4).
Intermediate link stiffeners.
2213.10.10
Section 2310.10.8 requires intermediate full depth web stiffeners (see Part 7, Figure 27) for either of the following conditions: 1. 2. Where link beam strength is controlled by Vs . Where link beam strength is controlled by flexure and the shear determined by applying the reduced flexural strength, M rs exceeds 0.45F y dt w .
Therefore, intermediate web stiffeners are required for this Design Example.
109
Design Example 2
The spacing limits are a function of the link rotation per 2310.10.9. For a link rotation 0.09 radians, the maximum allowed, the spacing shall not exceed 38t w d w 5 . For link rotation of 0.03 radians, the spacing shall not exceed 56t w d w 5 . Linear interpolation may be used between link rotations of 0.03 and 0.09 radians. Thus, 38t w dw 21.83" = 38 (.650") = 20.33 in. 5 5 dw 21.83" = 56 (.650") = 32.03 in. 5 5 2213.10.9
56tw
2213.10.9
Since the link rotation is 0.088 radians for the beam, interpolation must be used to determine the maximum spacing of intermediate stiffeners. This is shown below. 0.090 rad 0.088 rad (32.03"20.33") + 20.33" = 20.72 in. 0.090 rad 0.030 rad Since the link length is 46 inches, use three equal spacings of 46/3 =15.33 inches. The web stiffener location is determined in accordance with 2313.10.10. Since the link beam is a W21, one sided stiffeners are required of thickness 3/8inch. The width shall not be less than:
Fillet welds connecting the web stiffener to the web shall develop a stiffener force of: Ast F y = (5.625" .375")(50 ksi ) = 105.5 kips The minimum size of fillet weld, per AISC Table J2.4, is inch to the link web and 5/16 in. to the link flange. Using E70XX electrodes and 5/16inch fillet welds each side, the weld capacity is 1.7 allowable. The required weld length is 1required = 105.5 kips (70 ksi )(1.7 )(2 5 16")(.707 ) = 6.7 in. .3
Therefore, 5/16 in. fillet welds, both sides of the stiffener, at the flanges and the web are adequate.
110
Design Example 2
Fillet welds connecting the web stiffener to the flanges shall develop a stiffener force of Ast F y / 4 = (5.625".375")(50 ksi ) / 4 = 26.4 kips 1, required = 26.4 kips (70 ksi )(1.7 )(2 5 16")(.707 ) = 1.7 in. .3
Therefore, 5/16inch fillet welds, both sides of the stiffener, at the flanges are adequate.
5o.
Tables 27a through 27g presents tabular calculations that show the results from procedures from Parts 5a through 5s applied to all beams in the frame EBF4. The link beam design for all levels is as shown below in tabular form following the equations given above (each link beam at each level of the frame has a row calculation which extends through the full table):
111
Design Example 2