This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**TECHNICAL iNFORMATION& PRODUCTSERVICE
**

D E C E M B E R 1996

**Seismic Design Practice For Eccentrically Braced Frames
**

Based On The 1994 UBC

By Roy Becker & Michael Ishler

Contributors

Mr. Michael Ishler, S.E. formed Ishler Design & Engineering Associates, Santa Monica, CA in 1993 to promote the application of the art and science of structural engineering. He has worked on the design and construction of cable and membrane structures in North America, Europe and Asia. His work currently spans a wide range of structural design projects including eccentrically braced framed buildings. Prior to establishing his own firm, he was an Associate with Ove Arup & Partners in London and Los Angeles where the original work for this guide was written.

Mr. Roy Becker, S.E. is a California registered structural engineer who has been actively engaged in the design of a large number of diversified structures since graduating from the University of Southern California in 1959. These structures have varied from high-rise office building almost 700 feet in height, to 300 foot clear span convention centers and aircraft hangars, to Titan missile launching facilities. While most of these structures are located in California, a significant number are located in such distant locations as Saudi Arabia and Diego Garcia where unique construction requirements were necessary. At the present time, Mr. Becker is a principal of the firm Becker and Pritchett Structural Engineers, Inc. which is located at Lake Forest, California. Before establishing his own firm, he was Chief Structural Engineer for VTN Consolidated Inc. He also served as Regional Engineer in Los Angeles for the American Institute of Construction, Inc. Prior to this, he was engaged with the Los Angeles engineering firm of Brandow & Johnston Associates. He has authored the following seismic design publications for steel construction: · "Practical Steel Design for Building 2-20 Stories," 1976. · "Seismic Design Practice for Steel Buildings," 1988. · "Seismic Design of Special Concentrically Braced Frames," 1995.

PREFACE

This booklet is an update and revision of the Steel Tips publication on eccentrically braced frames dated May 1993 (ref. 16).

The significant revisions to the May 1993 booklet are as follows:

·

Design criteria is based on the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Building Code.

The steel for the link beam element has a yield strength of 50 ksi. Based on current mill practices, this yield strength should be utilized for the capacity of the link beam for A36, A572 grade 50 and Dual Grade Steels.

The use of a link adjacent to a column is not "encouraged." This is due to the moment connection required at the beam to column intersection and the possible difficulty in achieving a moment connection which can accommodate large rotations of the link subject to high shear and moment without significant loss of capacity. See Ref. 11 p. 333 for additional information.

·

The beam outside the link has a strength at least 1.5 times the force corresponding to the link beam strength.

It should be noted that ASTM and the Structural Steel Shapes Producers Council are in the process of writing a proposed "Standard Specification for Steel for Structural Shapes used in Building Framing." At the present time, this single standard would require that the following be met: yield strength = 50 ksi MIN; tensile strength = 65 ksi MIN; yield to tensile ratio = 0.85 MAX. However, these requirements are still under discussion and negotiation, but hopefully this single standard will be published by ASTM in the next year or two.

.................................................................................................................................................................... .......... 27 .............................................18 3....................................................... 3 1................................................... ............................ ......................................................................... ... Link Shear Strength and Link Strength Factor Beam Compact Flange Link Length Beam and Link Axial Loads Beam Compact W eb Combined Link Loads Beam Brace Spacing Beam Analysis Link Rotation Brace Analysis Column Analysis Foundation Design Beam Stiffeners Beam Lateral Bracing ....................................................................... .................................................................................... Chevron Configuration / Beam Shear Link East-West Frame ..........................................................................................................1 1...................................4 1.............................................................12 3.... ......................................... ................... Section 2.............................................................................11 3..............................3 2................................CONTENTS Symbols and Notations ......................................................................................................................... ................................2 2............... ...........................................................................................15 3.............................14 3.............1 3.......................................................................................................................................9 3........................................................................................... Design Criteria for a 7-Story Office Building ...................... 6 6 8 8 9 Base Shear Coefficient Building Period and Coefficient C Design Base Shear and Vertical Distribution Horizontal Distribution of Seismic Forces Section 3.......................................... Brace To Beam Connection Brace to Column and Beam Connection Summary of Link and EBF Design .................................................................................... ...... ............... ........................................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................... 10 3......................................................................6 3......7 3..................................20 3...........23 3........................................................................................................3 1.........................................................22 3..........................2 1.................................21 3............................................................................................ ............................................................................................................................................... .......................3 3.............. .............................................................................................19 3..............................................................................................6 Introduction ...................................................................4 2....................... Verification of Link Shear Strength and Strength Factor ............................10 3............................................................. 3 3 3 4 5 5 Bracing Configuration Frame Proportions Link Length Link Beam Selection Link Beam Capacity ...................................................4 3.....................................................................................................................................24 References Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .................5 1..17 3..................................................................16 3.........................................................5 3.13 3................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................8 3........................................................................................................ 1 Section 1................................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................ ......... ....................................... ...............................1 2.... Introduction to Eccentric Braced Frames ......................... ......................... ...................................................5 Loads ... ............................................................................................... 10 10 11 11 13 13 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 19 21 21 22 23 24 24 Beam Gravity Loads Column Gravity Loads Elastic Analysis of Frame Deflection Check of Frame Link Size .................. 6 2........................................2 3................................ .......................................................... ............................................................................................... ....................

Flange width. in. kips Code lateral force at level x. in. in. feet 0 e Link length. ksi F' Euler stress for a prismatic member divided by a factor of safety.4 k Kip (1000 lbs. kips M Maximum moment that can be resisted in the absence of axial load. Fa Allowable compressive stress.2 Building height above rigid base h Frame height (c-c beams) h hc Clear height of column Building height to level i h. in. Moment in a beam from an elastic analysis. e = 1. I hn Building height to level n I Importance factor related to occupancy used in lateral force formula Ix Strong axis moment of inertia of a steel section.3 Ms / V s in. Applied lateral force at i. in. in. in.bf tt. in. in. in. bt Code lateral force coefficient. in.S Y M B O L SA N DN O T A T I O N S mf Area of a flange A f . kips M Moment in a column from an elastic analysis. b Stiffener plate width. in. Eccentricity between the center of mass and the center of rigidity. in. 386 in. in. ksi e Code lateral force at level i. kips I g Acceleration of gravity. kips Factored design moment in the beam outside the link. ksi fa Actual compressive stress. kips Ft Code lateral force at top of structure. a Weld size. force) klf Kips per linear foot ksi Kips per square inch L Beam length (c-c columns). eI Recommended length for shear links. in. used with other factors in base shear formula C C • Lateral force coefficient equal to V/W Cm Bending interaction coefficient q Period mode shape constant d Beam depth. Lc Beam clear length between columns LF Plastic design load factor I Weld length. ksi f. kips F Specified minimum yield stress of steel. in. in. 2 Cross sectional area of column or beam web Aw ./sec. kips m Plastic moment. 2 Aw a Beam length between a column and a link. in. ksi Allowable shear stress in a weld. a' Maximum allowable unbraced length for the flanges of a link. kips . kips cu Factored design moment in the link. in. kips ce M Factored design moment in the column.twd.

55Fydt. kips Axial load on a member due to earthquake Euler buckling load. kips Factored link axial load. Horizontal displacement at level x relative to the level below due to applied lateral forces. (story drift). klf Uniform live load applied to a beam. in. Horizontal displacement at level i relative to the base due to applied lateral forces. kips Shear to be resisted by the brace. tW V v. Fundamental (first mode) period for multiple degree of freedom systems. Pe P. kips Factored design compression in the brace. in. kips Axial compression strength of a member P Plastic axial load P -. in. kips. Radius of gyration with respect to the y-y axis. kips Lateral force at level x. kips Link shear strength V -. kips Shear from gravity loading.u Rw r Sx T t t.f). in. Web thickness. Flange thickness. kips The total seismic dead load defined by Code. in. kips Factored design compression in the column. kips Beam shear reaction corresponding to V. kips Unfactored link axial load. in.Zf(F. radians.3 Lateral displacement (at top of structure unless noted otherwise). kips Moment in a link from gravity load.7FA. in.n P M MVERT P Po. Zx A r 5 L o Link flexural capacity reduced for axial forces IV!.0.3 Strong axis plastic modulus. seconds Stiffener plate thickness. kips Strength of an axially loaded compression member. kips The uppermost level in the main portion of the structure Vertical load on column. Vrs VS VVERT V Vx W W. kips Untactored design shear force in the link. in. in. P. in. kips Axial column load due to seismic overturning.(d-tf)b•tf. I Z z. . kips Shear force in a link from gravity load. Lateral force or shear at the base of structure. in. or uniform total load applied to a beam That portion of W which is assigned to level i. Link capacity excess factor Rotation of the link relative to the brace.3 Period of vibration for single degree of freedom systems. kips Uniform dead load applied to a beam.= Z(F. kips Member flexural strength M -. kips Factored design compression outside the link. Site structure coefficient Strong axis section modulus. kips Shear capacity required to accommodate M . in. in.f) or It4. klf Seismic zone factor used in the lateral force formula Plastic modulus of the flanges Zf -. kips • c = 1.F/A. kips Numerical coefficient based on structural lateral load-resisting system Radius of gyration with respect to the x-x axis.. in.ZF.

Shear yielding is extremely ductile with a very high inelastic capacity. Once preliminary configurations and sizes are identified. The strategy proposed in this guide is to: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Establish the design criteria.1 Introduction EBFs address the desire for a laterally stiff framing system with significant energy dissipation capability to accommodate large seismic forces (ref. it is difficult to align actual members with their analytic work points. link length or link size. The eccentric connection introduces bending and shear forces in the beam adjacent to the brace.SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION TO ECCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAMES (EBFs) 1. 7). and columns. 504) For some frames. approaching the stiffness of a concentric braced frame. 1. This eccentricity is acceptable if the connection is designed to remain elastic at the factored brace load. is an iterative process. Design braces. This. The short segment of the frame where these forces are concentrated is the link. Frame Proportions Keeping the angle of the brace between 35 ° and 60°. link length and link size selection based on approximations of the design shears. like most design problems.3 Frame Proportions In EBF design. Identifying a systematic procedure to evaluate the impact of the major variables is essential to EBF design. one or two braces. braces. These include the height to width proportions of the bay and the size and location of required open areas in the framing elevation. as shown in Figure 1. There are many frame configurations which meet this criterion. There are three major variables in the design of an EBF: the bracing configuration. the connection of the brace at the opposite end from the link is easier if a small eccentricity is introduced. A typical EBF consists of a beam. is generally desirable. Select a link length. As the link becomes longer. the frame becomes stiffer. columns and other components of the frame. Most designers will make a preliminary configuration. These constraints may supersede structural optimization as design criteria. EBF lateral stiffness is primarily a function of the ratio of the link length to the beam length (ref. and the link section properties. In addition to peculiar gusset plate configurations. braces and columns can easily follow. it is anticipated that the designer will have access to an elastic analysis computer program to use in refining the analysis of the building period. combined with the benefits of stiff frames. Small angles can also result in an undesirably large axial force component in the link beams (ref 9. As the link becomes shorter. The design of an EBF is based on creating a frame which will remain essentially elastic outside a well defined link. The code provisions are intended to ensure that beams. the link length. Its configuration is similar to traditional braced frames with the exception that at least one end of each brace must be eccentrically connected to the frame. the base shear. Once these have been selected and validated the remaining aspects of the frame design can follow with minimal impact on the configuration. Choose an appropriate link section. Identify a bracing configuration. Reasonable estimates for i .10. 8.2 Bracing Configuration The selection of a bracing configuration is dependent on many factors. 1. Angles outside this range lead to awkward details at the braceto-beam and brace-to-column connections. In a major earthquake. UBC 2211. the shear distribution within the building. permanent deformation and structural damage to the link should be expected. p. columns and their connections remain elastic and that links remain stable. During extreme loading it is anticipated that the link will deform inelastically with significant ductility and energy dissipation. the elastic deflection of the structure and the distribution of forces to the frame members. 3 EBF design. 44). make short lengths generally desirable. the frame proportions are typically chosen to promote the introduction of large shear forces in the link. p. the designer may iterate through a myriad of possible combinations. the frame becomes more flexible approaching the stiffness of a moment frame. It care is not taken to understand their impact.2 requires at least one end of every brace to frame into a link. P L INDICATES DRAG CONNECTION Figure 1.

3 M$/V$ work well (ref. link lengths of approximately 1. 330. C709.6 The inelastic behavior of a link is significantly influenced by its length. preliminary link length estimates of 0. 11. or the link beam can be fabricated as a built up section from plates. cover plates may be added to the flanges to increase the flexural capacity and transform a moment link into a shear link. UBC 2211. recommended upper limit for shear links (ref. e =2. exhibiting high ductility with good stability in the hysteretic response.10. ref. Shear yielding tends to happen uniformly along the link. 1. The shorter a link length is.4 sets limits on these rotations. Close coordination between the architect and engineer is necessary to optimize the structural performance with the architectural requirements.15L for chevron configurations are reasonable. The shorter the link length. 9.4) link behavior is theoretically balanced between shear and flexural yielding e<1. Plastic deformation of the link will cause a discontinuity in the deflection curvature of the beam. 499. UBC2211.3 • Ms assures shear behavior. With this type of loading.4 Link Length Link lengths generally behave as follows: e < 1. the moment at each end is equal and in the same direction.3 (ref 11. Typical Link Loading 4 .elastic deformation is controlled by shear yielding. Shear yielding is very ductile with an inelastic capacity considerably in excess of that predicted by the web shear area.10. 8. 73).3) link post . p. the lateral deflection must be reduced or the link length increased. Keeping link lengths near the upper limit of shear governed behavior generally results in acceptable link rotation.10.S S Note: Most of the research to date has been on link lengths less than 1. p. the greater the influence of shear forces on the inelastic performance.6 MJV$. When these limits are exceeded.elastic deformation is controlled by flexural yielding. 11. (ref. C709. These links generally behave well. 46) link post .4 rotation transition. C709. provided the web is adequately braced against buckling (ref. The excellent ductility of shear yielding prompts most designers to use shear links.4 rotation transition. p. For most designs.0•. 331.10. 8.0• $ link behavior considered to be controlled by shear for UBC 2211. This allows the designer some flexibility to change member sizes and link lengths during the design process and still remain below the 1. This is likely to concentrate structural and non-structural damage around the link. UBC2211. Selection of link length is often restricted by architectural or other configuration restraints. 46). 10. In the absence of restraints. p. The deformation of the link is an S shape with a point of counterflexure at midspan.4) M e>3. When the minimum link length is restricted.Optimizing link design requires some flexibility in selecting the link length and configuration. the greater the rotation of the link will be.0 M e<2. The moment is equal to 1/2 the shear times the length of the link. p. (ref. p. Accommodating architectural features is generally easier in an EBF than in a concentrically braced frame.6 M•A/$ code cutoff for shear links. e v i I ! l ! l l j l l l l l l l l l ! l l l ! I l l l l l lvJ l SHEAR DIAGRAM M O M E N T DIAGRAM Figure 2. 331. Links usually behave as short beams subjected to equal shear loads applied in opposite directions at the link ends. p.

Consequently.4. Although the actual yield point may somewhat exceed 50 ksi.6 Link Beam Capacity Since the link portion of the beam element is the "fuse" that determines the strength of other elements. the yield strength of A36 material is approaching 50 ksi. "Elastic Analysis". not exceeding 52/•/•. Generally the design of a link beam is optimized by selecting a section with the minimum required shear capacity and the maximum available bending capacity. . and meet the flange width-thickness ratio. of the EBF frame. it is now recommended that the capacity of the link beam should be based on a yield strength of 50 ksi for A36. Shear deformation in the link usually makes a modest contribution to the elastic deformation of a frame. respectively. Elastic deflection is dominated by the bending of the beams and columns and by axial deformation of the columns and braces. The most efficient link sections are usually the deepest sections with the minimum required shear area which comply with the compact web requirements of UBC Chapter 22. Based on current mill practices. A572 Grade 50 and Dual Grade Steels.5 Link Beam Selection Link beams are typically selected to satisfy the minimum web area required to resist the shear from an eccentric brace. Thus.25 and 1. Inelastic deformation of the frame is dominated by rotation of the link caused by its shear deformation. Excess web area in the link will require oversizing other components of the frame. and it will exceed 50 ksi if it is produced as a Dual Grade Steel meeting both A36 and A572 Grade 50 requirements.1.1. such as the braces and columns. It is generally desirable to optimize the link selected to meet but not exceed the required dtw. When the depth or flange size is restricted. Table B5. as they are designed to exceed the strength of the link. The elastic contribution of shear to lateral deflection is tabulated for an example frame in Section 3. the designer may wish to select a section which complies with the shear requirements and add cover plates to increase the flexural capacity. Cover plates may also be used to increase the flexural capacity and transform a bending link into a shear link when non structural restrictions prevent reducing the link length. the link beams which appear the stiffest in an elastic analysis do not necessarily have the greatest ultimate shear capacity. its capacity should be conservatively determined based on the actual yield strength of the material. this has been accounted for in the over-strength factors of 1. 1.50 required for the columns and braces. Division IX. b/2t•. The designer may customize the section properties by selecting both the web and flange sizes and detailing the link as a built up section.

Unless there is a basement or other significant load distribution mechanism below grade. it has Chevron eccentric braced frames in the N-S direction on column lines 1 and 6. and therefore V. along column lines A and D.1 Steel framing.0 5.0 S = 1. 2) & Ref. Often overall economy is achieved by spreading the overturning to the outside columns. Floors and roof are 3" metal deck with 3-1/4" lightweight (110 pcf) concrete fill.0 44. In this example the EBFs are only one bay wide.0 15.0 13.0 psf 50. The geotechnical engineer has determined that the soil profile consists of a dense soil where the depth exceeds 200 feet.0 R w= UBC (28-2) UBC Table 16-1 UBC Table 16-K UBC Table 16-N UBC Table 16-J 10. F = 50 ksi Steel braces: ASTM A500 Grade B.25S T2/3 Z = 0. columns. While this is convenient to illustrate the impact of shear link capacity on the column design.0 8. based on 8'-0" clear ceiling height. the foundations can get very large to support a narrow frame with its correspondingly high soil reactions. The interior bay spacing has been modified to provide height to span proportions better suited for EBFs. F y= 46 ksi Steel columns: ASTM A572 Grade 50. 11 Chapter 1)." of the Structural Engineers Association of California (ref.0 psf 2. This concentrates the overturning moment in adjacent columns resulting in extreme axial compression and tension for the column and foundation design. Material specifications are: Steel beams: ASTM A572 Grade 50. .1 Total Load Curtain wall: Average weight 7. Seismic design is based on Chapter 16. The building will be designed in accordance with the 1994 Edition of the Uniform Building Code (ref.040CW 10 C. UBC 1628.0 psf 44.0 psf 20. the fundamental period of vibration.4 ] = 1. is a function of T.0)C W =0. 4 (1.0 67.2 Base Shear Coefficient v= W UBC (28-1) C= 1. This reduces the overturning axial compression and tension in the columns.0 87. 2). Typical story height is 11 '-6".0 psf 3.0 psf 3.0 85. The frame is to be structural steel. 4.1 Total Load Floor Loading: Metal deck Concrete fill Ceiling and mechanical Partitions. The building is located in Seismic Zone No. and spray-on fireproofing Dead Load Live load (reducible) UBC 1604. incl. Design of steel members and connections is based on Section 2211 & Chapter 22 of the 1994 UBC (ref.0 20. Division III essentially the same as the 1996 "Recommended Lateral Force Requirements. 11. Chevron EBFs are provided in the E-W direction.1 Loads Roof Loading: Roofing and insulation Metal deck Concrete fill Ceiling and mechanical Steel framing and fireproofing Dead Load Live load (reducible). UBC 1604. The building period must be estimated before Vcan be calculated.4 Note: The partition load could be reduced to 10 psf for lateral analysis.2 V = 0 .SECTION 2 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR A 7-STORY OFFICE BUILDING The example building has been selected to resemble the example previously used in "Seismic Design Practice for Steel Buildings" (ref. 5). UBC 1605. it may not provide the best building solution. beams. All other design parameters have been retained. girders.0 5.0 135. Fy = 50 ksi High-strength bolts: ASTM A325 W elding electrodes: AWS E70XX 2. As shown in Figure 3.

. 84% of the Method A base shear will be distributed in each direction. For tall structures.B. In this seven story shear link frame. the building period calculated by Method B is significantly longer than from Method A.1 • CENTER OF MASS &. The base shear calculated by Method B will probably be less than 84% of the base shear calculated by Method A. strength will probably govern the design.I : : .3. .-• 30 0 20 0 20'0 122'-6 120'-0 2 0 ' 0.8. This information can then be used to refine the design shear and corresponding frame sections if necessary. Method B requires an estimate of the lateral load distribution and the corresponding deflections. drift control typically governs the design. •IGIDITY I r JL : : I. • . For most frames.•. This lower limit does not apply to deflection governed structures per UBC 1628. see Figure 4.BRACES : : I I •r Ir r c) -- 6 6 F i g u r e 3. . With this limitation. Members will be sized for this shear.• 30'-0 ? N EDGE OF FLOOR SLAB Q.F. Consequently.: 1'-3" : : • Cxl . F r a m i n g Plan () Note: For elevation of bracing. These members will be used in an elastic computer analysis to determine: the deflection of the frames. • . Most Iow and medium height buildings with shear link EBFs are governed by strength. the relative rigidity of the E-W frames.2. INDICATES METAL DECK SPAN The UBC recognizes two methods for determining T. Method A is based on the building height and the type of lateral system.:. UBC 1628. or EBFs with moment links. the 84% of the Method A base shear lower limit often governs the strength design of frame structures. . Both strength and deflection criteria must be checked in all designs. . the base shear lower limit would be 84% of that obtained from Method A. Consequently. .rBEAM •BRACES I/%11. and the building period. Method B provides greater insight into the behavior of the building and should be used at some point during the design process.2 limits the fundamental period to 130% of that obtained from Method A. INDICATES E.

(1) Forces or shears for use in stress calculations (min V= 84% from Method A).073) =3 Note: When the sizes of the braced frame members have been determined.0 m CMET. UBC (28-5).040 (1. 1.43): TMethode Z 1.3 T M E T H O O A 1.0) • 4 = 0.25 S 0 . Allowable wind drift is usually taken = 0. 340 kips m 90 160 219 266 302 327 .2) =1. For the assumed strength criteria to be valid (CMETHOO8= 1.015) = 636+52 = 688 kips (hn) UBC (28-3) UBC 1628.5 60.k.043 .2.5)(.2. 5 4 3 2 I Z .085)+ (400xl 1.75 .825 = 1. C = 1.825 seconds Note: T > 0.2 W Ct = 0.25(1.6 kips Ft) W x hx n UBC (28-7) UBC (28-8) 10 C Note: -=> 0.4 Design Base Shear and Vertical Distribution V = 0.2.187 0.073 seconds Wx Wxhx wxhx kips xl0 2 Zwihi 571 626 526 425 324 223 123 . the period should be found using Method B.203 0.340 STRESS 83. it would be necessary to recalculate both the period and the earthquake forces based on the stiffness requirements of the frame to resist wind.71 (0.71 _ 0. For frame stress analysis use: Value of C determined from Tof Method B T= 1.0025 times the story height.5x77.2) (per Section 2.5)(. Therefore the minimum base shear obtained by Method B is 84% the base shear calculated by Method A.84CMETHODA hx Level R ft.= 83.OD6=(1.4 The total lateral force is distributed over the height of the building in accordance with UBC Formulas (28-6).5x77.43) W = 0.1 t= = 2.818 0.43 (1.3 x 0.5) (.825) Note: C < 2.079 0.0 25. Using Method B.04CW (per Section 2.-.0 48.5 37. (2) At roof. 2.0572W .3) C M E T H O DB-.0572W = 340 kips UBC 1628.2.015) = 807+69 = 876 kips = (122.075 · o.43 for stress calculations V $ • R E S S = 0.25) (1.171 R w = 6(876)+688 = 5.940 kips (total dead load) = VSTRESS 0.000 876 876 876 876 876 876 • Fx (1) Vx(1) kips 64+26( 2 ) =90 70 59 47 36 25 13 .151 0. 2.25 S (Maximum for Stress) per UBC 1628.(28-7) and (28-8).1 Zwi hi /=-1 The distribution of lateral forces over the height of the building is shown in Table 1.k.2) = 1. 7. T = Ct w.030(83. T M E T H O De = 1. = (122.222 0. Fx = (Ft + F ) It is assumed that wind loading is not critical for lateral forces in this design example.2 CMETHO06= (1.0 T= 0. o.030 for EBFs h. If wind did control the design of the frame.115 0. Ft •.073 seconds assures that the design base shear for stress will be governed by using 84% of the base shear resulting from calculating the building period using Method A. V= F t+ Fi /=-1 UBC (28-6) UBC 1628.1 .3 Building Period and Coefficient C Using Method A.067)+(400x(11 5/2+3.0))(. R w UBC 1628.5 14.3T) 2/3 = 1. 0 C= 1. 8 4 T2j3 TABLE 1 Distribution of Lateral Forces = 0.0 688 71.2.

Shear distributions in the E-W direction: All four EBFs will resist this torsion. UBC 1628.Z Ry(d)2.00 [2 Vx (Vx x 3'75) 1 . v A x .9 (31-1) (4) Maximum required diaphragm design load.9 specifies the diaphragm design loads.00) (60.w+.01 2 (2) Minimum allowed diaphragm design load. 2 + 2(1. UBC 1631.00)= 2 0 = wi Lvl R 7 6 5 4 3 2 Zwi I fi 688 17564 2.068 5.5 Horizontal Distribution of Seismic Forces Although the centers of mass and rigidity coincide.440 3.3523' 0. Assume that all the frames have the same rigidity since all are EBFs.2. eew = (0.9 (3) Diaphragm design load.05)(120) = 6.00) 2 : 1 0. 0.1 kips 206 263 263 263 263 263 263 90 160 219 266 302 327 340 . This assumption can be refined in a subsequent analysis. many designers add 5 to 10% to the design shear in each frame and proceed with the analysis. is taken as the roof or floor weight...2. I/.• J= °'036Vx TABLE 2 Frame Forces East-West North-South EBF A & D (0.536 Fx) STRESS STRESS F. =1.2.00 ft. TABLE 3 Diaphragm Design Loads = Rigidity of those frames extending in the east west direction Rigidity of a frame. the weight of the diaphragm and tributary elements.6 78.1 where e d = Torsional eccentricity Distance from frame to center of rigidity UBC 1631.75ZI R Y _ • - kips 688 876 876 876 876 876 876 5.00) (37. equal to 5% of the building dimension perpendicular to the direction of force regardless of the relative location of the centers of mass and rigidity.5 requires designing for a minimum torsional eccentricity. V•x= V6x=R• [ V• ' ' Z Z R.944 90 70 59 47 36 25 13 zfi Wpx(1)J I/•x(2) Fpx(3) Wpx(4) kips 96 123 123 123 123 123 123 kips 90.536 x [ 5 jv x6 oo)( o o)1 :10. V. 340 Z Re.05)(75) = 3.=R6=RA=Ro=I.00= 0.1 56. For this example. referenced to column line y which is a perpendicular distance d from the center of rigidity Total earthquake shear on building at story x Earthquake shear on an EBF referenced to that frame on column line y at story x = 2(1.w ZR d2 Y (1) Wp×.3 63.2.514 Fx) EBF 1 & 6 (0..9 .00)(60.0 (Vxe)(d) ] Z R(d) 2 Vox Z Ryd2 = 2(1.944 kips Ikips kips kips 688 876 876 876 876 876 876 v= x= T.5 50. numerical application of the code provisions will be followed. F.00-' 10-•2 J = °'°14Vx = 0.6 70.012 V.0 1 VA'x=V°'x=RA [ X R.0 89. These are shown in Table 3..00)2 = 10. • 46 36 30 24 19 13 7 -175 -46 82 112 136 155 168 175 -48 38 32 25 19 13 7 -182 4 1 • 86 118 143 162 175 182 R. To account for this eccentricity. LEVEL kips kips kips kips R 7 6 5 4 3 2 I . w. :1.5)2+2(1.75 ff.192 5. e.00 L2.316 4.2. ens = (0._s = 2(1. after members have been sized and an elastic deflection analysis has been completed..514v x F= Shear distribution for north-south direction: / w UBC 1631.00) = 2. UBC 1631.

015) = 0. lO .• .SECTION 3 CHEVRON CONFIGURATION / BEAM SHEAR LINK.0k.25) (0. To simplify the analysis the beam is assumed to have pinned ends.5. "Link Size".• W14 4 9.2 Beam Gravity Loads The beam does not need to be designed to support gravity loads presuming that the bracing does not exist.1 Introduction • w =.• k " - o.• •f As indicated in Figure 4. To illustrate a design procedure which accounts for the influence of gravity load on the lateral system.• 18. R 23.• L W12 CD 6 15.. (o • 3. the example will proceed by analyzing the suitability of these members at the first story.• X 12.5k • /_ W14 3 6.-• /- W14 x 68 • 2 e=36" T Y P o I I INDICATES DRAG CONNECTION Wd = (2-•+1. W12 X 50 . In Figure 5 the second level floor beam between grids 3 and 4 on grid line A or D is modeled.•• co 7 18. the frame geometry and the lateral loads from Table 2 are sufficient to begin sizing the EBF members.425 tributary floor = 0. The section properties and link length shown in Figure 4 are used.0k. It is not necessary to include the effect of gravity loads on beams and columns or to perform an elastic analysis before a reasonable estimate of the member sizes can be made.. and begin by sizing the top link in the frame and proceed down to the foundation.866 klf (total load) (1) 0.0. the designer may wish to combine stress from these loads with the shear and bending stress resulting from the application of lateral load to the frame..192 tributary cladding 0.14'0)(0. 20"0 .. Occasionally.• ? _ • 6.6. The frame member sizes shown in Figure 4 are the result of several design iterations using computer analysis.085) (1) + (11'5. the influence of gravity load on the beam selection is usually not significant.616 klf = 0...0.5k • . 15. For the second floor beam: 9.250 Figure 4 EBF Elevation and Lateral Loads W= 0.085 psf includes the estimated weight of girders and columns and is slightly conservative. including second floor link beam. 23. as indicated in Figure 4.• r y ' co 3-5k . as required for chevron bracing in a concentric braced frame.0k•. In EBFs which do not have transverse purlins framing into the beams. EAST-WEST FRAME 3. The designer may proceed directly to Section 3._/ W14 '"• o +•/ x 6 8 • !5 12'0..5k.0k.

5) Roof live load does not need to be combined with seismic load.5 5o (6) psf t2.8 12.5 113.5'118.5 3.0 in. 11 . The analysis must account for deflection caused by fiexural rotation of the frame and by axial deformation of the columns and braces. For gravity loading.25) 15 psf x 20 (3 + 11.0 ED kips (8) EL E(D+L' kips kips Level slllh SHEAR DIAGRAM 64.5 167.6 inchkips 4.5 55.9 167. 250 1. live.92 250 500 0.5 68.2 21.5 3. 4 (6) (7) (8) 3.866 klf ( • L [ l l L L L L L L L L iA L l l L LA l i i l L l l l l l i l l [ l l l l l l l·l L l-' 'qs'- o/ / o/ I.000 0. The gravity load tributary to each column can be tabulated for use in the column design.5 37.5 + 14.8 DL kips (4) 2.2 21.5 142.2 21. sq.0 138. Elastic shear deformation of the beams and links should also be included. wind and seismic forces.401 250 1.72 250 1.8 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Reduction factor equal to 1.4 Elastic Analysis of Frame MOMENT DIAGRAM W14 x 68 e = 36 inches Figure 5 Beam Gravity Loads An elastic analysis of the EBFs' lateral deflection is necessary to check for conformance with drift limits. Most designers use a 2-D elastic plane frame computer analysis.3.40 1.5 19.40 85 psf 21.4 0.1 12.2 12.0 19.250 0.0)/2 Floor live load not reduced 64. ( • · w=0.9 62.2 (5) 3.0 86.5 3.1 inch kips W A ] = = 20.750 0.2 21.0 12. (3) Ftoo? d Clad ing (1) %R DL kips 67 psf 16.52.500 0. assume cladding is vertically supported at each level. link beam rotation limits and to estimate the building period by Method B.9 (7) 3.0 minus (R/100) where R is defined by UBC 1606 Live load reduced by %R 20 ( +1.2 21. UBC 1631.2 723.6 12.31 kips R 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 250 250 250 0.5/2) 15 psf x 20 (11.9 75. See Table 4A for effect of shear deformation in this example which has member sizes as shown in Figure 4.92 250 750 0.• TABLE4 Gravity Column Loads for EBFs on A and D Trib.5 3. The effect of shear deformation on the frame displacement depends on the size and the length of beams and links. Table 4 summarizes the gravity loads associated with the vertical frame members for EBFs on grids A & D as shown on Figure 4.1 15 psf x 20(11. However the column forces due to seismic loads will depend on the strength of the EBF link and cannot be identified until a specific link length and section are chosen.0 197.0in. ft.4 12.5 93.3 Column Gravity Loads Frame columns must be designed to support the critical combination of dead. ft.8 25. Area Area sq.2 50. Trib.6 LL kips 20 psf 5.5 44.

337 0.238 0.82 0. If deflection (drift) governs the design. 0.0 120.7 3. 8i 6x .94 0.3 87.016 539 226 64 8.309 0.978 1. * 477.7 28.271 Story 5x in..881/(386.636 0.238 0.399 0. & inches 12 x 50 e=36 12 x 50 e= 36 12 x 50 e= 36 14 x 68 e = 36 14 x68 e = 36 14 x68 e = 36 14 x68 e = 36 Level R 7 6 5 4 i .301 0.3 1.281 0.509 0.38 seconds.3 1.8.With Shear Deformation Without Shear Deformation: Total Story in.785 0.89 0. i Vx kips 46 82 112 136 .5 477.259 0. the lateral load shown in Figure 4 was equally applied to both sides of the frame.196 0. k i p s kips m .195 0. Link reactions due to applied vertical load.509 0.894 0. The beam gravity shear. Ps•M.713 1.7 83.415 1.271 h•/ 178.724 1.38 seconds Note T> 1.931 70 59 47 36 25 13 340 1.271 1. (1) (2) (3) (4) PUNK= 0 when equal lateral loads are applied on both sides of the frame.078 0.9 69.3 12. For this example.978 I . TABLE 6 Values Used To Determine The Building P e r i o d i i i Table 5 summarizes the results of a 2-D elastic plane frame from computer analysis for the configuration shown in Figure 4.4 The results of the elastic analysis can be used to estimate the building period using Method B. kips kips kips in.237 0.426 1. MvEmr VvERTand Level R 7 kips 68 7 kips 90 ' 1.309 0.238 0.978 1. The tabulated axial load in the link.724 1. Axial load due to applied lateral load.073 seconds which confirm the assumption that TMETHO De = 1. of 1.5 50./ft.415 1.276 0. .1 28 47 62 79 88 98 122 496 846 1.271 (1) (2). bending moment.293 0.9 78.3 1. Pu~Kand the tabulated axial load in the beam.276 0..91 0. Link reactions due to applied lateral load.768 2. UBC 1628. 6x' in.75 TABLE 4A E f f e c t of Shear Deformation F r a m e Displacement On TABLE 5 Elastic A n a l y s i s S u m m a r y SIZE&e lb.7 90.476 1.293 0. kil3s T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24.196 0.415 1.203 0.3 1.6 42.509 0. 12 .785 0.8 1.3 41 64 64 64 64 64 64 155 168 175 . 3 2 .078 0.3 55. Total 5/ in. are included in the table although they were not included in the deflection analysis. See Table 6.122 1.586 1.86 0. I•L3)K IIJ:L3)K J'U4)K IIJL4)K PI.785 0.724 1.337 0.881 6 5 4 3 2 874 874 874 874 874 874 5.4) = 1.271 0.8 x' m..078 0.3 allows the base shear to be reduced by using the building period determined above where T = 1. T :2 /42 UBC(28-5) T=2•/8.254 0.3 1. 2r688 2r598 lr750 1.88 0.254 0. 1. Total Story Ratio 6x' to 8x Level R 7 6 5 4 3 2 in. INK PeEA.203 0. reflect this distribution.3 T M E T H O DA was valid for the stress design of this frame.

it can be shows that: 14 Vi: Fx <-•--1 +VvER-r= (7 +84+84)[•01+ = 123.2 Zf = 96.5). "Column Analysis". r = 2.0in.12.3in2 ? . > 0.2 limits the elastic story drift under design lateral loads. 3. The gravity shear is shown in Figure 5 and is included in this example.003h<0.8 s The requirement that the link beam web shear not exceed . "Brace to Beam Connection".01 in.0ki LEVEL 2 d Notes: 1) The provided dtw is only 5% greater than the minimum required in this example. "Beam Lateral Buckling".83 in. 3.5 UBC 2211.03h = 0.8 kips This corresponds very closely to the elastic analysis per Table 5. "Combined Link Loads" and 3.80Vs = 0. 3.23 in. the link design shear from lateral load can be determined independently of the link length.55)(50) UBC 1628. [ Figure 7.504 in.8.03h =0 03 (14)(12) = 0.21.0 in. For buildings having a period over 0.0 in.03 (11..k. = 20. > 0. 3.271 in. section properties or the elastic analysis shown in Table 5.2 1.17.10. 3. Link Shear From Lateral Load The unfactored seismic design loads for the EBF on Grid A at the 2nd level are shown in Figure 7. Is the deepest possible while complying with the compact web criteria (max _d) 2) t 3) P--Fx(h/l. and 3.15. "Beam Analysis.414 in. "Brace to Column and Beam Connection".3 Ms) Figure 6.22. 11.3 Checking the deflection for the second floor relative to the first floor: • < O.004h x Rw The link design shear from gravity load is usually not significant.03 h = 0.7 seconds: 5 < 0. UBC 2211. "Beam Analysis".I. p.2 = 5.3 Z x= 115.2 Sx = 103.) IP=-Fx(h/l. "Brace Analysis".337 in.6 Link Size As shown in Figure 6.18. 1 . bracing configuration. Rw 10 Thus. .3. V • < 0.15.4.46 in. 3. 3.55)Fdt Fy = 50 ksi 123.) '"'PCohJmn Above r L ! :!:Pc41umn *lxwe Has compact flanges with sufficient bending capacity to ensure shear failure of the section under ultimate load (recommended e max = 1.10.63 in? The most efficient link section usually: 1) Optimizes the required shear area (min dtw). Thus. 332 C709. per Table 5 all floors are o. it is a very efficient design. v TryW 14x68 r = 6.80 of the shear strength is a conversion to an allowable stress approach for the design of link (ref.035in. Rw ' 10 Checking the deflection for the upper stories: • x < 0. "Combined Link Loads".5 Deflection Check of Frame UBC 1628.8. ·Unfactored Seismic Design Loads 13 2) The adverse consequences of any excess shear capacity are shown in Sections 3. as well as the requirements for compact web and flanges.80(0.8 d t w m • " = 0.80(0.5)(12) = 0. UBC 2211. "Foundation Design".12.3 d t = 5." are also satisfied. The section was chosen in order that the axial and flexural requirements discussed in Sections 3.5 limits the web shear to 0.2 bf = 10. Taking moments about Point A of Figure 7. Af = 7.23.19.

7 Link Shear Strength and Link Strength Factor In order to assure that the link is the only inelastic mechanism in an EBF. 335 C709.035 2 Y 52 6. ) • = _ _ 123.750 in.55(50)(5.36 UBC 2211. the author recommends that the strength capacity of drag struts. Thus. In Figure 8. This design load shall be used for determining strength requirements for other elements of the EBF V 160.97 <F v • • . the strength of all other parts of the EBF must also be increased. it sometimes may be prudent to use a section built up from plate elements in order to prevent local buckling.83) UBC 2211. To assure shear ductility. the axial force may reduce the flexural link capacity. AWl4 X 68 with e = 0.83) = 160.15 (20x 12) = 36" per Section 1.55(50)(5. F / =fi+ i=•r+l JIG/2 + Fx/2 Figure 8 Beam Axial L o a d s 14 3. kips Ms ('5750• e = 1. T 3rF.17 & C709.3M . 3.80 = 1.8 =1.19. Fx is the lateral force from the story being considered.4.• = 1. • F • is the sum of the lateral forces above the frame being considered.8 Beam Compact Flange Check compact flange criterion: 10. SEAOC recommends that collectors directly connecting to the EBF be designed to provide sufficient strength to deliver the forces corresponding to link beam yield (ref .4. For strength checks all prescribed code loads will be increased by •.2 = 160. the link length will be limited to 1. This combination could produce flange yielding before web shear yielding. The UBC does not require drag struts.The web compactness criterion is dependent on the axial stress in the section which is unknown until a trial selection is made. the link strength factor.15L-. Excess caoacitv in the link can be c0stlv as other elements of the frame are sized to ensure that the link is the weakest Dorti0n of the frame.3 kips Ms = Z F= 115 (50) = 5.3 •. In a symmetrical chevron configuration EBF centered on the building grid.25. symmetric drag struts would typically collect the lateral loads as shown in Figure 8. Most computer programs which use rigid diaphragm assumptions do not model the axial force distribution in the beams. p.11. 3.4 will be a shear link unless the axial force in the link is very large.5. diaphragms and other lateral components exceed the yield strength of the link.3 V = 0. = 7. Recognizing that the lateral system has been selected and analyzed on the presumption that yielding of the link will be the method of energy dissipation.9 Link Length The influence of link length on the behavior of EBFs is discussed in the introduction./2 • [Fi/2 Fx/2 : T Fx/2 _ / V 3. Section 1. all components outside the link are designed to have a strength greater than the link. •u/~ = 1/0.3 kips.10.3 . diaphragms or other lateral components beyond the EBF to be designed for loads in excess of those attributed to these components in the lateral analysis.10. The link should be checked for the effect of axial forces combined with bending forces.10 Beam and Link Axial Loads In an EBF link. If excess link capacity is provided. The arrangement of braces and the direction from which lateral loads are applied can modify the axial force distribution in the link beams. the selection of the W14x68 is a very efficient design.16--6•! = 46.55Fydtw = 0.55Fydt w = 0. into the beam and into the braces. Vs = 0. To account for axial load in a link beam requires an understanding of how the lateral forces travel through the diaphragm. IIIIlllllll}lliill T _ .29 From UBC 2211.0.6 in. Built-up sections can be fabricated to optimize the link beam section properties.2 [ F i / 2 + Fx/2 To meet this requirement. Caution should be used when taking these forces from a computer model.

8)36 _ 2.0 + 30.16 5O.3 = 29. This simplifies the analysis of the link.k. -w Al= b/f = (10. Vs. For the second level W14 x 68: d 14." The shear in the link when the section has reached flexural capacity may be less then the shear strength of the section.04-0.7.72) = 96.0 640 [1-3. kips As shown in Figure 8B. k. the flexural and axial capacities within the link shall be calculated using the beam flanges only. f _ •F.10. Division ]Z.8 o.5.74 ksi fa FY 5. 3.11 Beam Compact Web 2 W14 x 68 2 Fy = 50.12 Combined Link Loads The design of a shear link is based on having sufficient flexural strength to ensure shear failure under ultimate 15 Returning to the UBC.9 ksi < o. was determined in Section 3. P = Pi.04= 33.29(123. load. 3. 3. UBC 2211.035)(0.23 in? Zf= (d.1 0. If this is true. The web should be compact along the full length of the beam. the link needs to be checked for the possibility of the axial force reducing the moment capacity and shifting the first yield from shear to flexure.3 > 33. This example will assume that the drag struts occur on both sides of the frame and that the lateral force is applied to both sides of a symmetrically braced frame as shown in Figure 8.5 kips 2 EBFs per story Use 30. In this case the diaphragm design forces shown in Table 3 are greater than the distributed lateral forces. 12) have webs for all combinations of axial stress when strength is less than the tabulated values.tf)bft. Fx/2 represents the minimum diaphragm drag force. Axial force in a link reduces the moment capacity of the section.74 (0..11)] = 53. •TF•=168 kips and Fx = 7 kips per the lateral load distribution shown in Table 2. "Link Shear Strength and Link Strength Factor. . the section should be checked using allowable stress design UBC Chapter 22. Consequently.035)(0.8 kips The second level link section will be checked using this criteria. UBC 2211.0 . If a beam section is chosen that does not have a compact web for all axial loads.74 .875 in.5 does not allow doubler plates to reduce d w requirements for a link beam. M p.. For the 2nd floor beam. the strength of the link is used to establish the minimum strength required of elements outside the link.29(0) = 0 kips M = Mtu= •V/e _ 1. noted FY '" in the AISC manual (ref.72) = 7. Fx = 123/2 = 61.0 ksi The maximum d ratio permitted for compact beam sections Sections compact the yield is dependent on the axial load in the beam.0 in 2 This provision of the UBC dedicates the web to shear loads and the flanges to axial and flexural loads.3) identities links with e < 2.0 Vs as being s governed by shear and subject to this requirement.23• + 96--•.1 0.. The intent of this provision is to ensure adequate flexural strength at full shear yielding of the link.3 requires that "where link beam strength is governed by shear.1.The EBFs on grids A and D are located in the center of the building. Failure to meet this criteria would indicate that flexural yielding could occur before shear yielding and that an alternate section with greater flexural capacity should be selected to provide a shear link. Fx will be governed by the minimum allowable diaphragm design load per Table 3. = • ) Fl= 1.8 kips > 3.3 requires that the flexural capacity of the section reduced for axial stress be considered as a possible upper limit of the link capacity when the link beam strength is governed by shear. 330 C709./2 + Fx/2 = 84.13 Verification of Link Shear Strength and Strength Factor = (14. 1 1 <0. the flexure capacity of the section will limit the shear capacity of the link.3 in? P M 0 2875 2A• + Z-f = 2(7.8 tw 0." The SEAOC commentary (ref.0 . 11. Table B5.8 A 20. the axial load in the link=0.415 A = 20. UBC 2211. The link shear strength.72)(10.5 kips Fx/2 = 30.

I:J Although not significant in this example.1.750 in.7FA = 1.. For W14 x 68: Zx(F.5•Mbe where Mbe is from an elastic analysis.10.14 Beam Brace Spacing Fe'x = 517 ksi Pr = 1.0 .4 kips V C O N T R O L L I N GC A P A C I T Y= min ( Vs.4.3 kl_ 102 _ . 16 . o.k.f) = z F.245 kips Py = FyA = 50 (20)= 1.8) = 222 kips M• .7(25.3.5 Fay = 25. 365.4) = 160.5 times the combined axial and flexural loads corresponding to the link beam strength per UBC 2211. ref. as shown in Figure 5. Check to see if braces are required outside the link.750 UBC (N4-2) - •UNBRACEDMAX: 76b-•-L .29 per Section 3. it should be located to optimize the reduction in axial buckling length of the beam.64 = 0.18(5. To estimate the EBFs' deformation during a major seismic event.8 The shear capacity of this section is governed by the shear strength of the web.01 Fax = 28.'. see Section 3.0+30.18 P + M Py 1 .61 ksi = min (160.k. may be included in Mm. 2).3)(36) = 4.750) . UBC 2211. = 319. particularly in elevator cores or other locations where a slab or other bracing is restricted. No additional bracing is required. the beam gravity moment. kips UBC 2211.. c : 0. UBC 2211.18 requires braces to top and bottom flanges at the ends of the link beams. kips 2 2 2 The beam design moment beyond the link may be determined from an elastic analysis of the frame. The beam typically carries large axial load.108 in. For axial load is the beam for code seismic loads.10. Braces may be required beyond the link.15 Beam Analysis 222 4.k.7 kips P = 1• F • A :1• (84.3. Ductile behavior of an EBF requires inelastic deformation of the link. If additional bracing is required. Division IX.M _ 22__2 0.0.10. Chapter N.328) 5. It is not governed by the shear which can be developed by the section reduced for the axial load in the link acting in flexure over the length of the link.85 P + C.5 • ) (ZFJ2 + Fx/2) = 1.65 ksi 102 = 17 rx 6. V•) Fe'v = 84.750 in.55)(20. 3. o. (Additional bracing is required for W12 x 50 beams at the 6th.55Fydtw = 160. 319. (s nce =o) = 115(50) = 5. If this is done: Mbu = 1.94 < 1.3 kips UBC 2211. Pbu: 1.55 ksi M. the beam must have sufficient capacity to resist 1.13.16 Link Rotation Beyond the link.1.5(160.46.) 3.29)(84.22 +0. The length of the beam outside the link is 102 inches. Conservative design of the beam.2. V s= 2M. This deformation causes the link to rotate. UBC (N4-3) W14x68 o.2 Check the 102 inch unbraced beam segment outside of the link using the plastic design criteria (UBC Chapter 22.10.5(1. 3.85(4.00• + 1..86 < 1.4 imposes upper bounds on the link rotation to limit the ductility demand on the frame.'. is advised.5Vse 1.000 kips M = Mp= F Z = (50)(115)= 5.0)= 3. Thus the link strength factor • ) has been verified to be = 1.65)(20.0)= 868. 7th and roof levels.328 in.1.0 .Vs = 0. The presence of a concrete slab provides a significant stabilizing contribution to the beam. kips UBC 2211.29 V/ 123.750/.5 fi)V/e_1. 1 8 • = 0.10. • m _ _ • .3 kips Link strength factor • = Vs _ 160. the elastic deflections resulting from the applied code lateral loads are factored up by .7.328 .•e = 2(.• may limit the shear capacity of the link.41.10. This tends to buckle the beam in a non-ductile manner.

5(28. 3Rw (5= '-§-•x (sx = elastic deformation due to the seismic design load.1 The maximum allowable link rotation can also be used to determine the minimum allowable link length. longer links will result in increased drift under lateral load. (5 + 2a h2 ( 5L • R w •. Consequently. 3.13 requires "each brace to have a compressive strength of at least 1. UBC 2211. or V•s. As noted in the introduction.10.• / 3(10)(0.3(36) = 2.x ) = (8) (14) (0.36)/2 1.. (5x= 0. The brace design force can be determined knowing V • and the frame geometry as shown in Figure 10: Vb.5 times the axial force corresponding to the controlling link beam strength.k.271 from the elastic analysis of this frame (Table 5).•l = 1. .[ $• .17 Brace Analysis To ensure that the strength of the brace exceeds the link strength. kips 2 B Figure 9 Link Rotation 17 - Ms = 2.885 . However. = e.060) / I.a1 e2-(5 ( 5 2= 82a2 For the second level frame: (5 = design drift for the EBF.060 radians . o.885 in. e..3 kips (L .271) = 1. I: 1 \ 1.3) = 283 kips . In this frame V.et•.10. 8 & +( 5 a • + (5a2 =• '• • h 2e e=•+.3+ 160.271) (20) =24.lrL eM/~=h. Consider the general chevron configuration EBF shown in Figure 9A. includes a component from both the link and from the beam outside the link as shown in Figure 11." The link beam strength is determined from V.. The link rotation can be determined from the lateral deflection and the frame geometry. longer links will reduce damage to the floor structure. is smaller and governs the brace design as shown in Section 3.016 I1 14(12) + 36 J s For the symmetric chevron configuration shown in Figure 9B: a1 = a2 h • = e = 0.Under this extreme load. the EBF may be modeled as a rigid body with pivot points at the link and an imposed deformation.4.13.3 kips Vse M•! 2 - 160.2in.. where e = rotation of the link realtive to the rest of the beam.5(v + Vs) V = 160.28. (5 = 3(101 (8)' (0.016 in. c ! Plastic hinges A • / / 1 1 X.0403 < 8•4x = 0. . I I \'.• L .e)/2 (240. (5. UBC 2211. the beam shear force to be resisted by the brace. plastic hinges are assumed to have formed in the link. h Jl.

This could be contrary to the design strategy of concentrating the critical stresses in the link. "L ( t . .6 kips The UBC does not require a moment connection between the brace and the beam. If a computer analysis is used to model the frame. Vg = shear from beam gravity loading (see Figure 5). it is included in this example. the most critical bending moment to unbraced length combination may occur outside the link. 5 = 339.61 L • J 1.5 2 I .• r l L m = 283 L 1 . V • == b (L_e)/2 Ma BRACE VERTICAL COMPONENTS F i g u r e 11 Brace Vertical Force Components 18 . the connection between the brace and the link is typically capable of transferring moment from the beam to the brace (ref.142 = 16. In practice. Division Section N1 f BEAM B E N D I N G DIAGRAM Lbr = • 't' h2 = •8. 500). If an analysis of the frame is done assuming that this is a pinned connection which includes gravity loads.3 = 331. 9. This capacity is advantageous in keeping the critical stress location within the link. For preliminary sizing it is reasonable to assume that the brace is pinned and increase the design axial load 15-20% to account for the bending effects. Although the gravity load is a small portion of the brace design load.Vbr I vbr b!llilil]!illl!llll L (L-e)/2 ]. LF = 1. et.e ) / 2 ! iiiiiiiiiIiIiiiiiiVb 1 F i g u r e 10 ' BEAM SHEAR DIAGRAM Brace Shear Force The braces support part of the beam gravity load.1 + 8.V g [ . · r (L-e)/2 VD BEAM BENDING DIAGRAM = Vbrl---•'-l-{. this connection should be assumed fixed. p.38 feet (L-e)/2 .• J 5.3 = plastic design load factor UBC Chapter 22.

It also accounts for the fixity between the beam and the brace.k. the link strength factor.4 in? Z= 64.25 times their strength.6 ksi F. kips • 19 2 V2 = 0.55Fydt• 5 V5 = 0.k.972) - UBC (N4-2) - - [ - _ =0.6)= 2. kips' 2196 in. P = 1..7FA = 1.The moment distribution resulting from an elastic computer analysis of the frame in this example is shown in Figure 12. The factored compression in the brace.54)MELaSTtC = 1.5(1.55Fydtw Figure 13 Shear Capacity of the Links c m=0. m Figure 12. . Each link beam strength. kips .85 . kips w 14 x•68 256 in. The elastic computer analysis includes the effect of fixity between the beam and the column.6 in.4) = 326 kips M= 1.3 Y 4 V4 = 0.13.972 in. o.0 .10. r = 3.6)(18.0 . to keep the brace design consistent with capacity sizing.18 Column Analysis UBC 2211. P Py M 1.55Fydtw F = 22. kips Check the TSlOxlOxl/2 (Use plastic design criteria) kl = 16.29)(168.75 < 1. .k.5(1..55Fydtw Moment Distribution Between the Beam and Brace For this example the elastic computer analysis compression and moment on the brace will be used and scaled by q).9 ksi P = 1.4)= 707 kips = 2.55Fydt• F = 46 ksi A = 18.38(12) = 51 r 3.14 requires columns to remain elastic with all of the EBF links in a bay at 1. = 0.4)= 846 kips =M p= FvZ= 46(64..18Mp 326 861 846 + 1. I / v. by the hand analysis is 331 kips.042) . Brace in.29)(445) = 861 in.042 kips P = FyA = 46(18. (Could be reduced) UBC (N4-3) 3. = 57. due to lateral load. R VR = 0. should be determined from Vs or V• as appropriate.85(861) 2. . This compares very well with the factored compression brace load of 326 kips from the computer analysis..55Fydt. kips 1751 in.84 in. The elastic computer analysis did not include the gravity loading. In this example. TS 10x10xl/2 o.O P C m M 326 0. 7 V7 = 0..5•)PELAST/C = 1. Vs governs as shown in Section 3.55Fydt• Vs = 0.63<1. o.18(2. xl V3 = 0.7(22.84 v.

51 4.350) UBC (N4-2) = 0. Vrs) = 1.2 4.012 i=2 Table 7 Table 4 Table 4 F • = 84. (Could be reduced) Mcu = 1.0 .83 5.00 in.68 < 1. kips The column is oriented for strong axis bending of the EBF.00 Fydtw Pcu = 1. M _ _ 1.19.3(Pu/+P. o. a. Columns may be designed for a maximum compression or the lesser of: 2 0 .51 4. The intention of UBC 2211.83 Vs(1 ) kids 124 124 124 160 160 160 160 Zy = ry = kl = 1.3(198) = 1. The moment in the column will be included in this example. TABLE 7 Controlling Link Strengths Level R 7 6 5 4 3 2 (') vs = 0.55 Fy = ZVs kids 124 248 372 532 692 852 1 •012 A = 50 ksi 46.7)= 2.0(14)(12) =42 ry 4.522 UBC (N4-2) = = = ultimate design moment in the column link strength factor moment in the column from an elastic analysis of the design seismic forces P P + = 0.'. Check the Wl 4xl 59 Use plastic design criteria per UBC Chapter 22.335 kips M m= M p= FyZ= 50(287) = 14.The controlling link strengths for the column design are shown in Table 7.7FAA: 1.7(25. Link Size = W12x50 Wl 2x50 W12x50 Wl 4x68 W14x68 W14x68 W14x68 dtw in. 2 287 in. = 50(46.65 ksi ZD Z (D+L) = 168 kips = 198 kips Pc. V•)] + 1.29 x 256) = 413 in.18(14.k.028 + 0.83 5. from girders or other asymmetric loads.85(413) 1.522 kips In this frame the beam to column and brace to column connections could be designed as pins per UBC 2211. k= 1. o.7 in.25 • M • e Mc.k. q) M• 1.85 P Cr.522 2. it a link is designed with more capacity than required..51 5.028 kips Pcu = 1. As shown in Figure 12.) For the first level column: R Note: k = 1.1 provides an upper limit to the column strength requirement.5.18% - 1. all of the columns below the link will need to have a corresponding excess capacity.. the minor axis bending must be included in the combined compression and bending interaction checks. UBC 2211. Although the stiffness of a shear link EBF is slightly less than a CBF.M •+ 1 P M c u= 1. Division Chapter N. kips C m=0.350 in.522 2.: 1.10. the elastic column moments should be scaled up and included in the column design.0 is a reasonable assumption for most EBF frames.3 4.25(1. they were modeled as fixed.83 5.0 is conservative for columns braced against translation with some degree of rotational restraint provided by the foundation anchorage and the second floor beams.14 is to ensure that the columns do not fail prior to the full utilization of the energy dissipation capacity of the link.k.78 < 1.55)(46.577 kips Py = Fy.0 .012) + 1.335 + 413 1.1 0. F = 25. If the column is subjected to minor axis bending.25 (1. Minor axis bending has been omitted in this example. W14x159 o.55 ksi Zmin (Vt. Consequently. If they are designed as fixed.7) = 2.25 [iZ=nxmin (Vt. = 7.

7 min(Vs.OPd. it is probable that the reactions from the columns into the foundation will be significantly less than the column capacities.. L8J 3.8 requires intermediate full depth web stiffeners when the beam strength is controlled by V • or when the shear from M. UBC 2211.03 radians..10. 3.20 Beam Stiffeners Beam stiffeners are used to prevent buckling of the web and ensure a ductile shear yielding of the web.. INTERMEDIATE STIFFENERS =rORwlP .PMAX = I . If the links do not yield..415) = 0. the capacity of the connection between the column and the foundation should exceed the actual foundation capacity.0. I. The allowable soil capacities with a one-third increase should also be checked against the code applied lateral forces per UBC 1809.7 2b > 10.2 and 1925.2(0.7 requires full depth web stiffeners on both sides of the beam web at the brace end of the link beam.3 (Pdt+ Ptt) and for a maximum uplift of the lesser of: PMt~ = 1.o.75(0.• exceeds 0.25 or / / i Figure 14. Link Stiffeners x. In this approach the design objective is to ensure that any failure of structural components occurs in the ductile frame." ' •/ •/ UBC 2211. and for a maximum uplift of the lesser of: P M • ~ = t. Min. Concrete elements of the foundation may be designed using the above as ultimate loads with no additional load factors. Vt.2tw UBC 2211. UBC 1809. V• + 1.7P.9.%.25 or min(V. This behavior is inconsistent with the assumed Rw. UBC 2211. combined width > bf . Stiffeners are required at each end of the link and at regular intervals within the link.10.2. live load.2 in. Use 43/4'' x 3/8" stiffeners each side.45Fydtw. If this approach is followed.j . + 1. in this approach the foundation must be designed for a maximum compression of the lesser of: P M A X= 1.3 (Pdt+ P//) PMAX =I-. The foundation design forces should consider the capacity of the superstructure to transmit force. For link beams with 21 UBC 2211.035 .415) -. Embedding the column in the foundation may be the most practical way to do this for large loads.d.31 in.85Pdt =I_3RwlPEo. seismic overturning and seismic sliding forces. exceeds the maximum combined axial and shear loads.85 .r •.19 Foundation Design The design of the foundation requires a review of the structural objective of the foundation. For the W14 x 68: Min. If the foundation design is based on less force than the column design.10. intermediate stiffeners are required for this link. the designer must realize that the links may not yield prior to the foundation reaching its design strength.85 .85Pd• If this approach is used.-•wlPE + I . the frame will behave like a concentrically braced frame. . the maximum spacing is 56tw. A qualified geotechnical engineer should be encouraged to provide ultimate soil capacity design values for use with the above. base plates and anchor bolts should be sized such that their strength as defined by UBC 2211. t > 0. respectively. Brittle foundation systems should be designed to higher loads than ductile or flexible foundations.10.•.of Symmetry e (Unk. When this approach is followed.10.75tw or 3/8 in.9 identifies the spacing limits as a function of the link rotation. Designers should consider the ductility of the foundation in relation to the ductility of the superstructure. The foundations must be capable of transmitting the factored column capacity design loads to the soil.2. V r • . 25 or min(Vs. Two approaches to the foundation design will be presented The first and most prevalent approach is to design the foundations for the code required dead load. For rotations of less than 0. Anchor bolts should be embedded sufficiently to develop their combined shear and tensile strength. thickness 0.25 or rain(V.0. This will ensure that a frame overload would occur in the soil structure interface and not within the confines of the structure. Therefore.4.lLengt•.3 requires the connection of the superstructure elements to the foundation be capable of transmitting the forces for which the elements were designed. + 0. The second approach (although not required by the UBC) is to design the foundation to exceed the capacity of the superstructure. ( • .

MI~ AstFy/4 F ( b . two intermediate stiffeners are required as shown in Figure 14.11 requires welds connecting the stiffener to the web to develop Asr Fy.06 radians.k•) 1." if the full available length of the web is used.10 = = 0. a•/~ = 1/4 in.415 = 4.78(50) 25.4" 14. "a.rotation angle of 0.375) = 1.10.10 = 0.4 Use 43/4'' X 3/8"stiffener on one side.2 3.707) = 25.d/5.16) Maximum Spacing = 13 + 2 0 . The link end and intermediate stiffeners are the same size in this example.23 in. Min. UBC 2211.78(50)/4 25.18 requires the top and bottom flanges to be braced at the ends of link beams and at specific intervals.5" For a 36" link.03 radians Maximum Spacing = 56tw . tw =0.2(4.d = 38 x (0.21 Beam Lateral Bracing UBC 2211.10.7 Allowable Use E70 electrodes.0% of the beam flange strength at the ends of link beam. Check.04 5 A•tFy w in.415 in. intermediate stiffeners are required on only one side of the web. aWEB.30)(70)(0. F w = 1.4 Use 3/8" full height fillet weld to beam web. 4 .0103) 0.0. UBC Table J2.9 kips UBC 2211.060(50) (10.060 Fy b. Grade 50 base metal.5)) 14.6 in.7(0. UBC 2211. 1.2(1. UBC 2211.t.06 radians Maximum Spacing = 38tw . UBC Table J2. Thus. the spacing shall not exceed 38 tw .04 5 e = 0. the minimum weld for the base metal thickness. Weld to Flanges: _ aFLA~•E. aM/N =3/16 in.72) = 21.Mi N 20.72 in. wol UBC Chapter 22. A•t= 4. SMA fillet welds.06 radians.5 0.10.tw b > 10. kl . Use 1/4" fillet weld to beam flange.415) =13" e = 0.03 = 15. The UBC requires the bracing to resist 6. tf = 0.2 ksi 't.2 = 8.13 (0. for a W14x68 beam: PBRACE = AstFy = 1.78 in.4.03 and 0. 4 22 .d 56 x (0.035/2 .15/16) UBC 2211.10 notes that for beams less than 24 inches in depth. e < 0.10. This requirement is independent of the EBF configuration.78(50) Weld capacity = 1..75(0. and welds connecting the stiffener to the flanges to develop AstFy/4.7 kips A • Figure 15 Stiffener Weld Forces A. Division Table J2. tt= 0. width > (b/2) . Interpolation may be used for rotation angles between 0.2(14.32 in. Check the minimum weld size for the base metal thickness.F.75 .035) (0.. Min.415) = = Weld to Web: Find the minimum weld size. thickness = 3/8 in.04 .0403 radians (See Section 3.10.

l I i • J/ · z 'q L d IK A T E r N :D B Figure 16. particular care should be used if this is done.0% of the beam flange force at the brace point corresponding to 1. 3.6). 3 . Extending the gusset plate or other connection components into the link could significantly alter the carefully selected section properties of the link. The center line axes of the brace and the beam typically intersect at the end of the link.22 Brace to Beam Connection L N I KB • • • UBC 2211.5 allows a one-third increase in the connection design capacity for the seismically induced brace load.6 requires the connection to develop the compressive strength of the brace and transmit this force into the beam web. In Figure 16B a pair of angles are used to transfer the bracing load directly to the top flange of an adjacent parallel beam. Beam bracing is required to prevent the length of 76bf unbraced portions of an EBF beam from exceeding • . Connection 17B is modified to minimize the distance from the end of the brace to the bottom of the beam. The link should be designed for the forces occurring within the relevant length of the analytic model. However. A check for this condition was made. p. however.design force may be reduced. Therefore. . the gusset of the beam to brace connection significantly increases the shear and bending capacity of the beam immediately adjacent to the link. The gusset plate and the beam to gusset weld should be checked for stress increases when the axis of the brace force and the centroid of the weld do not coincide. Figure 16 illustrates several options for bracing the lower flange. Some designers prefer to continue the gusset stiffener at the edge of the link along the diagonal edge of the gusset plate parallel to the brace. Moving this work point inside the link. the eccentric moment of the brace load between the lower beam flange and the purlin bolt group and the vertical shear from the gravity load on the purlin. The stress at the fillet of the beam web should be checked to see if a stiffener is required on the beam side of the brace to beam connection.7. In Figure 16A the web stiffener is used to brace the lower flange.18 requires lateral bracing resist 1. is acceptable (ref.5 times the link beam strength. Locating the work point outside the link as shown in Figure 17D tends to increase the bending in the link and may shift the location of the maximum combined bending and shear stress outside the link. p. 9. as shown in Figure 17C. to identify the weak axis unbraced length of the beam. Any movement of the work point from the edge of the shear link should be accounted for in the analysis of the frame. In this example. beam bracing was not required outside the link for the W14 x 68 beams.10. 508). beam bracing is required for the W12 x 50 beams. Flange Bracing Options The top flange is continuously braced by the metal deck. Similar details are typically used to brace the bottom flange of SMRFs per UBC 2211. However. prior to the Vt-y investigation of the influence of axial forces on the beam.8. The connection of the purlin to the web stiffener must be designed to transmit the horizontal shear of the brace load. The stiffener transfers the brace load to the transverse purlin. Their design is the same as for the link end bracing except that the bracing 23 In this example. Tests have shown that this detail is susceptible to failure by severe buckling of the gusset plate (ref. tube sections were used for the compression struts.10. 332 C709. Conservative design of braces is recommended. UBC 2211. 11. Figure 17A illustrates a common link to brace detail. Therefore. UBC 1603. no part of the connection is permitted to extend into the link length. small movement of the work point outside the link may be acceptable. This is not strictly necessary and may be difficult to achieve for various member size and intersection angle combinations. An analytic model of the frame should be consistent with the work points.

Horizontal stiffeners are used at the top. middle and bottom of the shear tab to prevent outof plane twisting of the shear tab (ref. 26) illustrates some of the options available. flexural and shear stress are considered. the connection of the brace to the column should develop the compressive strength of the brace. and it efficiently limits building drift. "Seismic Design Practice for Steel Buildings. A typical detail is shown in Figure 18A. 3. If the brace to beam connection work point shifts from the column centerline. This type of beam to column connection should be analyzed with moment capacity.23 Brace to Column and Beam Connection To remain consistent in the design. Both are equally significant. The design of an EBF is usually based on both stress and drift control including rotation angle. 3. The beam to column connections shown in Figure 18 provide significant torsional restraint for the beam." (ref. 25. This is unlike the design of a moment frame where usually drift controls the design. The use of a large gusset plate welded in line with the beam and column webs will make this a moment connection. It may be a very cost effective bracing system. UBC 24 . pp. or a concentrically braced frame where stress controls the design.10. 5. as indicated. Stiffener plates have been used at the beam flange to column connection.The designer must take care to ensure that the location of maximum stress is inside the link and that the appropriate combinations of axial. The detailing considerations for this connection are essentially the same as for a concentric brace.19 specifies the minimal torsional capacity for this connection. 8. a link must provide for the following: · Compact flanges and web · Adequate shear capacity · Adequate flexural and axial load capacity · Limited rotation relative to the rest of the beam · Limit drift of the EBF. Figure 18B illustrates a bolted option for the brace to column connection.24 Summary of Link and EBF Design The design of the link portion of the beam is the most critical element of an EBF As illustrated in the previous example. 52). p. 2211. An EBF generally possesses excellent ductility. the moment produced by this offset must be included in the column design.

df'' O Figure 17 Brace to Beam Connection 25 .P.nCXN£SS B • ' t W.g• 2 1 • GUSSIL"T PL&T[ Tt.[SS TI.A F'FTNE:RS AS •R'E.•//. TO OF-add IdN[CTIC• DOd X TO BE: i.D FOR •C:E.

F. F.P.'K' OF PLATE 'T'=BEAM WEB THICKNESS + 1/4' TS MAKE DIM'S x AND Y TO MINIMIZE GUSSET A F.P.P. F.P. 'K' OF GIRl)El PLATE '1"=8• -f- THICKNESS MAKE: DIM'S x TO MINIMIZE ( B Figure 18 Brace to Column and Beam Connections 26 .

"Eccentrically Braced Steel Frames for Earthquakes. August 1989." Roy Becker. February 1987. Manual of Steel Construction.Load and Resistance Factor Design. Michael D. American Society of Civil Engineers." Edward J. Engelhardt. AISC National Engineering Conference Proceedings. Allowable Stress Design. Steel Committee of California." Charles W. Seismic Design." Roy Becker. Number 3. Number 3. Roeder and Egor R Popov. ASCE Structural Congress 1991. "Improved Earthquake Performance" Modern Steel Construction." Kazuhiko Kasai. Number 1. 1996. Practice. 1988. 9th edition. Copies will be sent upon request. Journal of Structural Engineering. 1989. American Institute of Steel Construction. and Egor R Popov. Steel Committee of California. and Egor P. July-August 1990. Popov. 1994 Uniform Building Code. February 1986. Farzad Naeim and Edward Teal. Engelhardt. Teal. Whittier. Ricles. Number r 2. Volume 5. "General Behavior of WF Steel Shear Link Beams. 1987. 1989." Egor P. Earthquake Spectra. · · · · · · · · · · · Seismic Design of Special Concentrically Braced Frames Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment Resisting Frames Structural details to Increase Ductility of Connections Slotted Bolted Connection Energy Dissipaters Use of Steel in the Seismic Retrofit of Historic Oakland City Hall Heavy Structural Shapes in Tension Economical Use of Cambered Steel Beams Value Engineering & Steel Economy What Design Engineers Can Do to Reduce Fabrication Costs Charts for Strong Column Weak Girder Design of Steel Frames Seismic Strengthening with Steel Slotted Bolt Connections 27 . "Advances in Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames. Structural Engineers Association of California. Journal of Structural Engineering. Volume 3. "Seismic Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames. California. "Seismic Design Practice for Steel Buildings. March 1978. American Institute of Steel Con-struction." Seismology Committee. American Institute of Steel Construction." Michael Ishler." Mark Saunders.S. Popov. May 1993.1987. 1994. Engelhardt and James M. "Eccentrically Braced Frames: U. Kazuhiko Kasai. California. Engineering Journal. New Code Provision. "EBFs with PR Flexible Link-Column Connection. "Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary. "On Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames. Volume 104." Michael D. and Michael D. 2nd Quarter. 1992. Some are in very limited quantity. American Society of Civil Engineers. "Practical Steel Design for Buildings." Egor R Popov." Kazuhiko Kasai and Egor R Popov. 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 14) 15) 16) Index of Steel Tips Publications The following is a list of available Steel Tips. "Seismic Design Practice for Eccentrically Braced Frames. Earthquake Spectra. "Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings . April 29. 1976. Steel Tips. International Conference of Building Officials. Volume 112.REFERENCES 1) 2) "Design of Eccentric Braced Frames." American Institute of Steel Construction.

H. Southland Iron Works Stockton Steel Verco Manufacturing. fabrication details and delivery schedules. Vulcraft Sales Corp. Martin Iron Works. Buchen Corporation Butler Manufacturing Co. MidWest Steel Erection Nelson Stud Welding Co. Our assistance can range from budget prices and estimated tonnage to cost comparisons. Reno Iron Works H.S T R U C T U R A L STEEL EDUCATIONAL COUNCIL 470 Fernwood Drive Moraga. Inc. G. Funding for this publication provided by the California Iron Workers Administrative Trust. Inc. Inc. Oregon Steel Mills PDM Strocal. Bannister Steel. Inc. Bethlehem Steel Corporation C. Iron Works Co. CA 94556 (510) 631-9570 Q SPONSORS Adams & Smith Allied Steel Co. The Herrick Corporation Hoertig Iron Works Hogan Mfg.M. .. Baresel Corp. Lee & Daniel McLean Steel. Inc. Robertson Co. Inc. The local structural steel industry (above sponsors) stands ready to assist you in determining the most economical solution for your products. Inc. Junior Steel Co..A.

- Lazcano_S-2009_ Comportamiento_sismico_suelo_Guadalajara_(CICEJ).pdf
- SSEC 1995 Seismic Design of Bolted Steel Moment-Resisting Frames 87p.pdf
- capitulo 11 metodos_integracion_numerica_analisis_vibracion.pdf
- capitulo 10 medicion_vibracion_aplicaciones.pdf
- capitulo 9 sistemas_continuos.pdf
- apendices.pdf
- capitulo 12 metodo_elementos_finitos.pdf
- Guide to Stability Design Criteria for Metal Structures-6ed Zeiman 2010 1117p
- Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures Edward l Wilson 2002 423p
- Hollow-Sections in Structural Aplication J Wardenieredn 2010 240p Ok
- Design of Seismic Resistant Steel Building Structures 107p
- Matrix Analysis of Welded Tubular Joint B L Mehrotra168p
- comentarios y ejemplos de las normas tecnicas complementarias para diseño por sismo DDF ES-7
- A Computer Aided System for the Analysis Design and Checking of Concrete Structures R K Kinra S J Fenves 225p
- Computer Analysis and Reiforced Concrete Beam Fady R S Rostom 129p
- 4 Connection Qualification
- 3 General Requirements
- 2 Introduction
- 1 Cover
- 8 Bibliography
- Computer Analysis and Reiforced Concrete Beam Fady R S Rostom 129p
- Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis-Bathe 375p
- Finite Element for Solids and Structures Linear Analysis Bathe 194p
- Soils an Foundation Handbook State of Florida 2012 204p
- An Introduction to Solving Engineering Problems With Matlab 73p

Sign up to vote on this title

UsefulNot useful by cgingenieros

0.0 (0)

- AISC Seismic Design-Module4-Eccentrically Braced Frames
- AISC_Seismic_Design-Module5-Buckling_Restrained_Braced_Frames.ppt
- Steel Tips
- BRBtips
- SteelTips_GussetPlatedesignManual
- Presentaion-AISC Seismic Design-Module2-Moment Resisting Frames
- AISC Seismic Design-Module5-Buckling Restrained Braced Frames-1
- AISC Seismic Design-Module3-Concentrically Braced Frames
- [POPOV] Advances in Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames
- Behaviour of Seismic Resistant Eccentrically Braced Frames
- Astaneh-Composite-ShearWall-Steel-TIPS-Final.pdf
- AISC_Seismic_Design-Module1-Introduction.pdf
- Seismic Design of Concentrically Braced Frames
- Steel Tips-Slotted Bolted Connection Energy Dissipaters-Grigorian
- Seismic Design of Concentrically Braced Frames
- Design Criteria_indistrial Buildings
- Steel Tips C - Large Seismic Steel Beam to Column Connections
- AISC Seismic Design-Module3-Concentrically Braced Frames
- Seismic design
- Seismic Detailing of Gusset Plates for Special Concentrically Braced Frames
- Steel Tips
- Seismic Brace Design
- Steel Tips 1
- Gusset Plate Design
- AISC Seismic Design
- Ductile Design of Steel Structures, 2nd Edition
- Design of Seismic Isolated Structures From Theory to Practice
- AISC
- Structural Engineering Design Practice Examples) -Roger Westbrook - Part 2
- Seismic Design Practice for Eccentrically Braced Frames Based on the 1994 UBC
- Seismic Design of Eccentrically Braced Frames